mASF post by "Paraiso"
posted on: mASF forum: Advanced Discussion, May 5, 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?
Yes and No. I use direct in such a way where I don't do any routines or any
back turns or anything like that. I just come in with a stronger frame and a
mind-set where I know that I can get any woman any time. This in and of itself
is what I use to create attraction so you can basically call it a tactic. No I
don't let the interaction just flow where it wants to. I'm laid back because
I'm comfortable knowing that I will have this woman, but this assumption and a
dominant frame, where I know she's mine regardless of anything, is the overall
vibe. My behaviors and what I say flow from this. It could be tricky at the
beginning to let go for someone who has been doing routines and stuff like
that, but once you see the way your sarges go after doing this you'll
understand more about it.
>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.
I use speed seduction while doing direct. I use it after I've got more rapport
than at the beginning, but it blends in great with what I do. Do I use it to
create attraction? No. What I use for attraction is the way I deliver my
opener and my overall vibe, which is dominant and masculine. I state from the
beginning what my interests are and this sets the mood for the remainder of the
seduction. Since I've gone in direct I'm not sending any mixed signals so I
can take the seduction anywhere I want it to go.
>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”.
I don't understand what you're implying with this because in order to use any
type of style including RSD, Mystery, Gunwitch or even SS you have to have good
inner game». None of these styles will work if you don't at least have
something attractive about you. The reason why direct is different than these
is because you're flat out stating your interest and your intentions with what
you say, with how you carry yourself and by what the overall vibe you put out.
>
>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 that overall you need to have attraction and rapport to be able to
seduce a woman. This is a universal truth that you must adhere to regardless
of the style you use. You have to be of value to the other person for them to
be attracted to you. Simple. The thing is that some have broken this down to
such a small degree that it looks as if you have to do more than just this to
seduce a woman. Now this is not bad, but it isn't the way I do things. I like
most of the people who I have seen use direct prefer to keep things simple. To
say that people that use direct don't use tactics may be a little misleading
though. We do use tactics but more as an overall concept rather than braking
things down into components.
The beginning of a seduction, using direct, is important to the desired outcome
and that's why so much importance is given to the opener. This is so simply
because if you want to talk to the girl you must say something. If for example
you seduce a woman without saying a word then the way you carry yourself and
your vibe is what is used as an opener.
The overall message you are sending is that you're attracted to her and you
want her to know it. This is what is meant when people say they use direct.
It's not just an opener. So you see attraction begins early on in the
interaction.
Ok. Once you have opened well then you have a good level of attraction. I'm
not saying that you just do the opener and drop everything. It means that from
the opener you deepen the attraction by remaining laid back and keeping your
vibe going forward. From here you can go several directions. You can go towrds
rapport right away or you can continue flirting with her or do whatever you
want. That's it. Once you have attraction you move to rapport and hopefully
you will or have already started to get closer to her via kino or moving into
her personal space. Since you have had such an impact on the woman from the
beginning rapport is usually very easy to flow in to. Then after rapport you
isolate and from there you go home and get her naked. Of course there are
things that you have to take into account like escalation and things like that,
but if you believe that the woman will be yours this is simple. Since you
attracted her early on this becomes a lot simpler than having to do phase
shifts and things like that. Tactics like fighting LMR and things like that
have been non existent since I've been using direct so if this is what you mean
by "active tactics" then no I don't keep track of any of that.
>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?
Man you have to inject a little bit of excitement into your sarges. Did you
kino her? Did you talk about her body? Part of being natural or direct is
that you know that women are sexual beings and that you must treat her like a
man that wants a woman will treat her. Eventhough you were getting to know her
the underlying understanding between man and woman is that they will eventually
end up in bed together. If you were to steer your interaction towards this
point what would you do differently next time? Would you be a little more
agressive? Would you show her that you desire her as a woman? When you use
natural/direct this is what it means to be direct. You demonstrate that she
turns you on and you steer the whole interaction towards that.
>
>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.
Regardless of any style you use you don't let things naturally happen. You
have to avctively create what you want when you're with a woman. The thing
that distinguishes direct from other styles is the blatant desire for the woman
which is demonstrated from the beginning. That's it. Do direct guys use more
tactics? No. Why? Because they know what a woman wants and that is to be
treated like a woman by a man who is not fooled into thinking that he has to
hide his interest or not express his desires as a man clearly and out right.
They know women want the real deal and give it to them. Now you tell me. If
you were to think this way don't you think that you're brain will give you the
adequate help to get you where you want to go?
Paraiso
|
