mASF post by "Dreem"
posted on: mASF forum: Advanced Discussion, May 5, 2005The question really is what is natural to you...
If it's more natural for you to sit back and make logical convo then that is
what you're gonna default to.
If it's more natural for you to make funny, playful, teasing convo (that
make no sense) then that is what you're gonna default to.
Women have been saying for a long time what they want from men. They want
confident guys who can make them laugh. Nearly all women say this in one
form or another.
By 'confident' they mean you have no fear of loss. If you don't care you'll
behave in a certain dominant way and you'll be congruent with it. Women can
sense it. Also, they simply like guys who make them laugh. This aspect has
been played down in this forum. Polite, logical convo cannot create much
laugher. It's like walking up to a chick and saying something like, "I
think you're sooo beautiful, I would like to get to know you". Depending on
HOW you say that, it could either lead to a polite "thanks but no", or a
giggle that leads to a longer playful conversation.
Regarding having an "agenda" like you mentioned, you're indeed fucking
things up because women can see everything you're doing as if through
magnified lenses. They'll notice you moving closer and touching when it is
not appropriate i.e. the vibe is not right. If this is just who you are and
you communicate that at all levels, verbal and non-verbal, then it's ok. But
if it looks like you're deliberately doing it because of some agenda then it
backfires.
I would say if it is natural for you to default to logical and polite convo,
then you need to experiment on DAY2 with random, illogical, teasing, but
FUNNY convo. If you have to prepare a cheat sheet for that then do it until
it becomes more natural to you.
<Chaco> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> This post in intended to foster some discussion about "natural game»" or
> direct
> game, the current game style in vogue on ASF. I am not posting any
> revelations, I am seeking guidance and clarification, but the discussion
> is
> pretty advanced in my view, so I feel justified in posting on the advanced
> board.
>
> 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?
>
> 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
>
>
|
