mASF post by "spirit"
posted on: mASF forum: General Discussion newsgroup, February 2, 2002Well after 40hours awake and 15 asleep, I think I`m just about ready to
reply to this =o)
Comments below,
Spirit
--
"The best man in the world and a good enough man for any world" - R.Chandler
<toecutter> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Spirit, this is good. You are a man along my lines of thinking. Let me add
> some input:
>
> <spirit> wrote in message
> > 1 Opening / Approaching / Fluffing
> >
> > What is the intention behind this part of a PU? Whatever method I use
to
> > do this, for me it is getting my `foot in the door` I intend to do /
say
> > something which will allow me to continue seducing a HB - or, if you
prefer,
> > something that will enable me to spend more time with this HB.
>
> Agreed. However I hate the term "fluff". The openening section is too
> important to be relying on "fluff". You need interesting routines for
this. I
> will re-post something from Mysterys lounge shortly on my thoughts about
SS
> vs. NLP that goes into this interesting routines thing.
Agreed - and I also I hate the term fluff. It was just grouped in with the
others as it`s something alot of people refer to in or around this stage of
a PU.
Whilst I appreciate the importance of having a `routine` to fall back on
it`s just not my preferred way of working.
> > 2. Eliciting Values
>
> I know this is controversial, but consider DROPPING eliciting values from
your
> game. What do they do for you?
Personally I find that EVing someone helps me alter my PU to make it more
attractive to them.
> Here is where I am going to go against the
> common wisdom:
>
> Drop rapport!
> Drop eliciting values!
> Drop submodalities!
>
> These are all BORING CONVERSATIONS. Like that "What qualities do you find
> imporant about a man?" routine. It is so bad. Then when you go "And what
does
> a guy with a good sense of humour give you?". Man this is really bad. And
she
> is going "I dont know" and you are going "But if you did know" and she is
> going "what do you want from me?" How is this interesting to her? Why is
she
> speaking back to you? How have you captured her attention and made her
> intregued? See I dont even understand what you would then do with the
> information gleaned, because then trying to demonstrate each of those
> charicteristics or making sure she feels each of the criterea is a SELLING
> MODEL based on LOGIC. As if she is going to realise through logic that
these
> are my criterea and this BORING FUCKING GUY asking BORING FUCKING
QUESTIONS is
> actually my perfect man. I have asked every SSer I have ever met how to
get
> this an entertaining routine, and some of them tell me that you should
elicit
> qualities about sex, but it doesn't work for me. I put it to you that this
> routine SUCKS. I put it to you that chasing rapport is supplicating. Not
an
> alpha trait. We need to question conventional wisdom here. I find these
> unworkable routines. Certainly no good for groups and definately highly
> questionable for one on one also.
Agreed - on their own they are all boring conversations. Except that I
don`t use any of these tools in isolation or for any set length of time or
necessarily use them and so on. If we assume that it is a selling model
based on logic it doesn`t follow that it has to be presented to the HB as a
logic based model or routine.
I don`t PU according to any fixed model or set of stages to go through in my
mind - I`m aware of all the tools I have a my disposal (EV, Weasel phrase,
Submodalities, Humour etc ) and will use these as appropriate - assuming
that I did use all the options avaiable to me then they would be woven into
the PU.
I don`t EV her as a stage - but every single thing she says will be
`processed` , analysed for value staements etc and then fed back either
there and then or later on - the important thing is that I have the info
stored away to use whenever I want, for whatever reasn I want.
I agree CHASING rapport sucks and is supplicating.
Having said that rapport is a very useful thing to have. If we are in
rapport with someone they`re more likely to do things we want them to - but
we don`t have to chase rapport. We can `help` them to see that they`re more
like us and we won`t lose any `alphaness` by saying "hey! I dunk biscuits in
my coffee too" You can be strong and still have similarities with other
people.
> NLP is an analytical tool designed for therapy. The value in NLP terms of
a
> value elicitation is clear. But NLP has limitations. And those limitations
are
> that it is not particularly interesting.
Who cares what it was designed for? I only care about using parts of it for
my own ends. NLP in a text book may be uninteresting or NLP as a therapy
tool taken straight onto the street with no changes in it`s delivery may be
uninteresting... but we don`t do that ( do we? lol )
> In fact, the point is to be
> uninteresting to the conscious mind so that we can communicate with the
> unconsious.
Depending on how NLP is used i.e. in therapy then I agree.
In a PU however we wrap aspects of NLP up in an interesting / entertaining
package and this is why I used the dual process model to help in my
explanation. Ideally we want her thinking in a heuristic mode - we don`t
want her systematically processing the situation at hand - we want her to be
glossing over the majority of it, getting carried away if you will... If
she`s not paying full attention to everything then we can sneak past her
conscious and get to the subconscious.
It`s not that it is uninteresting to the conscious mind that NLP works, it`s
the fact that it`s alot easier to be uninteresting with people in general
than it is to be interesting. Uninteresting in therapy is just an easier way
of diverting the subjects conscious mind.
Being interesting, or engaging whatever in a PU is just another way of
diverting the HB`s conscious / systematic mind.
> That is what confusion induction is all about. All well and good
> in therapy. But the PU Arts are largely in entertainment. In this case it
is
> important to be interesting. Now, I can use NLP and still be interesting.
I
> can be telling a story and say "So there she was and she knew the guy was
> looking at her, and you know how it feels when you have a foreign guy
looking
> at you from afar. And he lets his eyes wander, and you know he is eyes are
> exploring your face (as you explore her face with your eyes) and wander
down
> to your neck (as look at her neck), and you are enjoying it, and down to
your
> body (as you move your eyes back to her eyes) as he is undressing you with
his
> eyes. And you feel your heart starting to race as you realise you are
becoming
> aroused. So that is what was going through this chicks mind as she sat
there
> ...." See what I mean about interesting vs. not interesting, and how you
can
> use NLP as a tool and spark her interest and attention, and you can use
NLP as
> a tool and ask difficult questions that she is not interested in
answering.
> I've run that routine maybe 100 times and then threw it away because it is
> garbage. See the re-post I am about to post.
>
> >
> > OK, during this part of a PU my primary intention is not to lay the
chick.
> > My primary intention (i.e. the one displayed more prominently or
somewhat
> > easier to perceive) is to find stuff out about her... This `stage`
(like
> > all the others!) relies on control of the conversation on your part, in
that
> > however ( H or S ) she is thinking we want it to be about something (
> > anything!) other than the real reason we are still talking to her.
>
> I think you can not ask any questions that are too personal at this stage
as
> it begs the question "who the fuck are you with your 20 questions?
As I said earlier I don`t think in stages during a PU. If I think I can get
away with it I`ll ask anything I want with the proviso that it`ll be woven
into the conversation.
Your hypothetical statement above shows exactly the wrong way to EV someone
if you`re asking 20 questions then your PU method sucks for a couple of
reasons:
"who the fuck are you with your 20 questions?"
This would suggest that:
You have just asked one too many questions in succession
Furthermore these questions were not really part of the conversation.
You have allowed her to SYSTEMATICALY think about the fact you have just
asked a bundle of questions
Your questions were `wrong` they didn`t engage her fully.
and so on...
>What are
> you trying to sell me here?
> What is this, am I a contestant on Jeopardy and
> this is the intro where they say "and Karen is into Pressing Flowers ...
how
> many pressed flowers do you have, Karen? And how do pressed flowers make
you
> feel?"
The above examples show the mental processes of someone who is thinking
systematically about something.
> If you have seen your first IOI (ie. she has asked you your name, consider
> SHARING something about yourself at this point ... "I have just come home
from
> North America where I spent more than 5 years ..." HER: "Oh, really, that
is
> interesting ..." YOU: "Yeah ... (insert interesting routine where you are
> letting her into your feelings and displaying a little weakness ...). Now
ask
> a personal questions of her and drill down to feelings. But not the "what
do
> you look for in a man" conversation as it is awful.
Agreed
> > Once again if she has enough time to stop and think systematically about
the
> > real reason you`re there - you`re doing something wrong!
>
> I think it is okay if she is up with why you are there. I mean it is
> ambiguous, but when you opened, did you really want the opinion of the
guys in
> her group as to whether if you got your tongue pierced it would be cool?
Like
> she kind of knows why you are there, but you want it to be completely
> ambiguous. That is how you can tease her. With out the ambiguity there is
no
> flirting, only propositioning.
Agreed, but if she thinks systematically about why you are there then that
is bad. If she *kinda* knows why you`re there then that Heuristic thinking -
which is what we want in the main.
> > All her thoughts,
> > all her mental energy should be directed towards thinking about things
(her)
> > to provide you with answers to the questions you`re asking
>
> Yeah, but dont push this too hard. The EV thing can make her think TOO
hard.
It isn`t a question of pushing too hard - it`s about asking the `right`
questions in the `right` way. If you`re having to PUSH then it`s the wrong
time for whatever you`re up to.
> Let my point you to an old post by BookGuy that I really enjoyed at the
time
> on not making her think at all (whom I suspect changed his handle and is
still
> well and truely with us today ... I recognise him in one of the regulars,
but
> I may be wrong).
>
http://www.fastseduction.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?action=retrieve&grp=1&mn=976
04
> 005579084
>
>
> > 3. Creating/Changing a state / Patterning
> >
> > So we decide to run a pattern.... What is the primary intention here?
To
> > fuck her? Nope, to change her state.
> >
> > Once again we are directing her thoughts, her mental energy towards
> > something more important than us - her and her feelings. We may be
anchoring
> > these feelings to ourselves whatever, but if she`s involved in the
pattern
> > she won`t have the time to think about anything else - hence the DDB
look we
> > often see.
> > During this why would she even care what your `real` intention is?
You`re
> > just some guy `helping` her experience some great emotions...
>
> Exactly and getting carried away in some great emotions yourself. The two
of
> you are there both FEELING REALLY GOOD. And you are comforable together.
And
> you are talking about sex. But not about you and her having sex. Just
about
> sex as a topic. Like jokes. And stories. And attitudes. And that sort of
> thing.
Agreed - and if you`re both doing this then you`re in RAPPORT
> > 4. Rapport / being Alpha / Body language
>
> Consider seperating these concepts as they are not linked, moving this way
up,
> and-or dropping some elements completely.
Like I said - these points are in no particular order and just grouped for
initail convenience
> Rapport is overemphasised by SS.
>
> > The Close
> >
> > Earlier I said "before WE close" I chose that for one specific reason -
if
> > a PU is done `well` then your true intention should not be "I want
something
> > from you" whether that want is a number, a kiss or a fuck...
> >
> > The intention of a PUA here should be *I intend to accept something from
> > you* Whilst this may seem at odds with some of the other views within
the
> > ASF community I believe that if a PU is done correctly then she will be
the
> > one intending to get something from you.
>
> Absolutely, but not always going to happen. It is role playing. It is not
her
> JOB to initiate. It is yours. Do not shy away from this. Ask for the
order.
The point I was making here was that it doesn`t matter who `asks`. If a PU
is done well then you`ll both be thinking the same thing - lets fuck!
You have (hopefully ) initiated this by either controlling the
convo/emotions to the point where she asks or you ask but at this point *she
will be intending to get something from you* either way your intentions are
the same - i.e. I intend to accept
The asking, whoever does it, is only the audible part of what you should
both be thinking
> This is about PHASE SHIFT. You can give away your intents at this stage to
the
> level of close that you require.
You don`t need to give your intentions away
> I think that you can push the pretext too
> far. I have been watching a guy work recently who will be speaking to a
girl
> for a really short period of time since his conversational game is weak,
then
> tell her the (cool) nightshot he is going to later, ask her if she wants
to
> come, then swap mobile phone numbers with her as they both pull out their
$800
> mobile phones in an act of being really pretensious (I am in an incredibly
> pretensios city). Point is, he considers it a number close. I dont. She
gave
> over her number as an OPTION of following him LATER THAT NIGHT as opposed
to
> saying "fuck off budy". The intent for which you need the phone number
needs
> to be clearer than that IMO. I once was doing a lot of recruitment of
> employees, and went to a recruitment fair. There were plenty of really
good
> looking girls there looking for work. Now I tried to PU there, but I found
the
> CONTEXT fucked with me. Like she was speaking back and trying to impress
me
> because it was a JOB INTERVIEW style conversation even though it was
casual.
> THen in getting her phone number, it was written on their resumes. These
were
> numbers as resumes, and the INTENT of getting to know her socially or
> romantically was not there, so it was no good. They were not numbers I
could
> use. The same is my point with letting her know why you are closing at
this
> stage (obviously a kiss close is different, as is an extraction close
AFTER
> you have kissed her). It is a tricky dance this intent thing.
By getting her number you are intending to carry on your PU at a later
date - i.e carry on these good feelings have fun etc the LAST thing she
wants to know now is that you only want to fuck her. Unless you figured out
she`s happy with that! lol
Just to tag a little bit more onto this - even when you`re fucking your
intention shouldn`t be "I`m trying to fuck this chick" or "I`m fucking this
chick" It should be something along the lines of " I`m enjoying this with
you" I`ll try to explain this by an example:
A couple/few years ago I was seeing a girl regularly for a short while. This
girl was a definite 10! ...yet I managed to fuck things up with her by
saying 6 words! just 6 words! what did I say? I made the mistake of
saying
" I can do better than that "
I knew as soon as I said it I shouldn`t have, in fact I knew before - but
afterwards lying on the bed next to her it just `came out`. As soon as I
said it she knew that I was *trying to fuck her* I was trying to impress her
with my prowess lol Basically I sent myself straight back to the `land of
the other guys` that I was now exactly the same as in her mind.
>
>
|
