mASF post by "OceanEyes"
posted on: alt.seduction.relationships, July 7, 2005On 7/14/05 11:04:00 AM, esk6969 wrote:
>On 7/13/05 11:19:00 PM, OceanEyes wrote:
>>On 7/13/05 8:40:00 PM, esk6969 wrote:
>>>On 7/12/05 5:02:00 PM, OceanEyes wrote:
>
>>>If you DO decide to FB her, ...call less, fuck less, etc.
>>>When she asks what's going on, tell her
>>>you want to "cool it" for a while.
>>>
>>>Panic!
>>
>>She has already decided we need some
>>"space,"
>>which I am more than happy to provide.
>
>Oooh, that doesn't sound good. Sounds
>like SHE'S calling the shots here. This
In some respects, she is calling the shots.
We meet more at her convenience than mine,
both timewise and locationwise. However,
this is the most important part, she has
very limited control over my emotions.
Given several days together, she can influence
them, but once we are apart, I am back to
equilibrium really fast. This is confusing
her.
For example, she decides we need "space."
I agree, good idea. Within 2 days she
starts phone tag, which I only go tit for
tat on. And this morning she broke down
and called when she knew she could get me.
>goes right back to my Sun Tzu thing, and
>how it's ALWAYS better to have the other
>side reacting to you, rather than you
>reacting to them. Sounds like you are
>in a reactive mode with the "space"
>thing. That means you won't be able to
>manipulate the "sugar daddy/withdrawal"
>effect. Rather, she has become the
>sugar momma. And when momma's not
>happy.... no one's happy.
Wrong. OE's happiness doesn't depend on
ANYONE. This is where she is stumbling.
She hasn't ever dealt with this before.
>
>>>love" literally have the same brain-MRI
>>>patterns as drug addicts. Including,
>>>the same syptoms accompanying
>>>"withdrawal" of the drug. If you really
>>
>>I make myself go through withdrawal
>>symptoms
>>at least twice a month to acclimate
>>myself
>>to the emotion. This is letting me keep
>>my sanity about me. I think she may be
>>doing this herself.
>
>Forgive my saying so, but this sounds to
>me like a description of two people who
>are not willing to commit to one
>another. Yet, in a previous post, you
That's the case. And there is nothing wrong
with that either.
>mentioned how one advantage to an LTR is
>that your other will help you out in a
>bind - which I agree with. Is that the
>case here? If she were in trouble,
No.
>like, long-term trouble, would you be
>there for her? Would she be there for
Probably not.
>you? At some point, to have an ltr BE
Probably not.
>and ltr, two people have to commit to
>one another, either formally (marriage),
>or informally (merely and "agreement in
No, they don't.
>principle"). It sounds like this is
>more of a marriage of convenience,
Of course.
>rather than a marriage of commitment
>(figuratively speaking).
>
>>, see yourself as a
>>>pusher, and, like all good pushers, draw
>>>the line out a little bit. Make her
>>>miss it. And then, when you give it to
>>>her, give the good stuff. And back, and
>>>forth, and so it goes. BAM!
>>
>>I think she is doing this to me also.
>
>Sounds like more of proactive/reactive.
>SHE should be reacting to YOU.
>Otherwise, how to keep her off balance
>(and thus, maintain the excitement of
>attraction?) As from DeAngelo, "Never
>let the line go slack".
We are very equally matched in capability.
This doesn't bother me because any relationship
where I am learning boatloads and having fun
beats having a dominant frame all by my ownself.
That would be delusional.
[]
>What does this chick want? To be in
She everything the same, but different.
Which is exactly what I am providing
for her.
>LTR, or to be single? To have an Alpha
>male who fucks her good, or an AFC who
>she can betaise? I know that for us to
Both, of course.
>sit here and say that, her wanting
>contradictory things is textbook chick
>logic, is obvious. But, the difference,
>I thought with her was, she was the
>classic "execu-femme" type who got her
>power jollies at work, and then let the
>hair down at home?
Theory. In practice, I don't have enough
social status to enforce a fully feminine
frame at her flat. At my flat...
[]
>Her wanting this, yet still to be in
>charge, in simply inconsistent, there is
I don't have a problem with this. Women
are inconsistent by nature, and I am
learning to enjoy that fact.
>no other way to put it. I know that
>there has been the thrill of the chase,
>the ongoing excitement/attraction, "Will
>OE submit to me, like all the others, or
>will he maintain his frame, and prove to
>me he is a REAL MAN."
>
>But now that you seem to have passed
>this "test", her reaction is, "If a man
>accepts betaisation, I will next him.
>If he does not, and I cannot have
>control, I will next him." At some
>point, she is going to have to submit.
It really doesn't matter to me. As
long I maintain my self-respect, whatever
she decides to do is irrelevant to me.
And I think she is figuring this out.
Her whole freakout after I told her I loved
her is that I did NOT act like what she thought
men in love were supposed to act like. Instead,
I just keep on being exactly who I was before,
namely, her bad boy lover who has women hitting
on him all the time by younger, hotter women.
The more I dig into what works, the more I see
that for me, simply being charge of my own
emotions is enough. Whatever chicks decide to
do or not do is fine by me, they are welcome
to have me along or not. My happiness doesn't
depend on a chick's state of mind.
Keep in mind that we are both having a lot
of fun together overall, and that neither
one of us are willing to nuke it even though
our end games are slightly different.
[]
-OE
----------------------------
OE's First Law: Any sufficiently long thread on mASF devolves into a flame war
about SS.
|
