mASF post by "san***m@at***.com[ ? ]"
posted on: mASF forum: Advanced Discussion, June 6, 2005On 5/29/05 9:47:00 PM, Chaco wrote:
>
>
>My question is this: do
>natural or direct game guys do
>anything to consciously create
>the moods/mind states they
>want a girl to feel, or do
>they present themselves with a
>strong frame that assumes
>attraction and let the
>interaction develop naturally?
I can answer in a different way:
At first, when you apply new tools, it does not seem "natural"; meaning you
have to consciously keep track of what you are doing.
As you get better with more practice, even "routines" feel natural as they
flow more easily.
Here is a piece I think you are missing:
Calibration.
Calibrate to the unique person in front of you. Then, it is the person who
calls forth the right tools, rather than you trying to throw lots of tools at
the person.
Also, for many guys, I think a large part of what they call "natural" is
conveying a relaxed, at ease, "comfortable in your skin" vibe.
That IS a matter of practice and you can use some self-change disciplines to
speed up how fast you can get to that.
You need field experience too, but the mental rehearsal stuff works well too.
Make sense?
RJ
http://www.seduction.com
Still your BEST source for seduction mastery!
>
>Let me explain further.
>
>From the beginning of this
>community, all the way back in
>the days of Speed Seduction,
>there has been a belief that
>the man could, and should,
>actively and consciously
>create the mind state needed
>for that particular stage of
>the interaction. If
>attraction was needed, run an
>attract pattern. If
>connection was needed, run a
>connection pattern. For
>sexual feelings, run a sexual
>metaphor pattern (“discovery
>channel”). The idea was that
>the man should actively
>install these states in the
>woman’s mind.
>
>Later models, such as Mystery
>Method and RSD take the same
>approach, though used
>different tactics. Rather
>than hypnotic/NLP based
>patterns, “routines” were
>used. But the overall
>strategy was essentially the
>same – to create attraction,
>run an attraction routine (a
>DHV, tease, neg, push-pull,
>c&f etc). To create rapport,
>run a rapport routine, such as
>Mystery’s “grounding”). To
>physically escalate, use
>escalation routines, such as
>Mystery’s “you look like you
>want to kiss me” or Style’s
>“evolution phase shift”.
>
>Even Gunwitch Method, perhaps
>a lesser degree, but still to
>a degree, calls for conscious
>tactics to create mind-states
>in a woman that lead the
>seduction to sex. To create
>attraction/horiness, go into a
>sexual state. To create
>rapport, assume verbal rapport
>and focus on neutral topics.
>
>But now we have natural game»,
>something promoted by
>Woodhaven, Razorjack, Player
>Supreme, Shark, The One, and
>others. The general idea as
>put forward by these PUAs is
>that inner game» comes first
>and from a strong frame of
>assuming attraction, the right
>behaviors flow naturally
>without having to consciously
>keep track of various tactical
>considerations. I recall
>Razorjack posting that by
>having the proper inner
>beliefs, his body language and
>tonality fall into place
>without having to keep a
>mental checklist of TD’s
>famous 25 points.
>
>So, I have been trying to
>shift my game to a more
>natural, direct style. But I
>want to ask those who run this
>type of game the degree to
>which they consciously
>consider tactics through out
>the course of the sarge. And
>I mean though out the entire
>sarge. We tend to focus so
>much on the opening around
>here, but I am curious about
>the development of rapport and
>physical escalation.
>
>I think it may help to explain
>why I am posting about this.
>I had a day2 today, I went to
>the park and had tea with a
>woman. It went generally
>well, I was relaxed, I asked
>some screening/get-to-know-you
>questions, she asked some of
>me. The convo flowed well. I
>stayed away from routines
>other than The Cube. But this
>girl was very factual and
>logical (she is a lawyer), so
>she kept talking about factual
>matters when I would screen
>and try to probe for more
>feelings.
>
>In the end, though I think it
>was solid overall, I felt I
>didn’t create much intimacy.
>There was a spark missing.
>And me being the analytical
>type, I starting wondering
>what I could have done to
>create that feelin...and then
>I realized I was running
>natural game» and wondered if I
>SHOULD be trying to actively
>create that feeling in the
>first place? Or should I just
>be presenting myself in a
>relaxed way, with a confident
>frame and letting the
>interaction unfold naturally,
>assured that the proper
>feelings will come in time?
>
>I have a wing who thinks that
>I used to sabotage my sarges
>by having too much of an
>agenda in my head. Like I
>would go to a day2 thinking “I
>must get her to sit next to
>me, I must kino, I must run
>The Cube, I must kiss close, I
>must try to isolate"...Rather
>than letting things unfold on
>their own, knowing that a girl
>will naturally present
>opportunities for things in
>the presence of a high status
>man, the timing based on her
>temperament.
>
>So, direct guys, how much of
>what you do is all
>“belief-based” vs. active
>tactics? Do you really just
>interact with strong inner
>game, assuming attraction, and
>let things take their course
>naturally? Or do you
>consciously try to create
>mind-states in women who you
>are sarging? If you felt a
>day2 was not intimate enough,
>would you use a tactic or
>would you kick back and let it
>happen patiently? If you
>wanted to get her feeling
>sexual, do you use some tactic
>to create a sexual state in
>her, or would you make your
>move as you saw her sexual
>state develop naturally? I am
>confused about the extent to
>which this natural game» style
>is about beliefs and letting
>the sarge run on auto-pilot
>vs. employing tactics to make
>things happen.
>
>I think this would help
>clarify direct game/natural
>game for a lot of us who were
>so used to indirect game.
>
>Thanks for your help.
>
>- Chaco
Get Laid NOW!
Ask me HOW!
THE Original seduction site:
www.seduction.com»
|
