mASF post by "OceanEyes"
posted on: alt.seduction.relationships, May 5, 2005This is long, with 4 responses to a previous thread
combined and my replies added inline. The comments
were overall really good. I will be employing some
of the advice.
Esk's reply annotated:
On 4/28/05 5:38:00 PM, esk6969 wrote:
>On 4/28/05 12:40:00 AM, OceanEyes wrote:
>>
>>Ok, this is the relationships
>>part of mASF,
>>and sooner or later in every
>>relationship
>>with a woman, the word L-O-V-E
>>rears its
>>precious little head.
>>
>
>Uh oh, sounds like it's getting
>serious....
>
>snip
>
>
>>Since she has already
>>established the frame
>>that "love is conditional,"
>>(her words) my
>>best guess is that I should go
>>with that frame.
>
>BTW, *I* love your LTR, just for saying
>this. I've seen you comment on it
>before, and I think it's awesome -
>because, she is coming at things from a
>standpoint of pure intellectual honesty,
She prides herself on being the more
"intellectual" among her friends and colleagues.
That being said, I try hard to pay more attention
to her body language and emotional states than
to her exact words.
>if she believes this. So rare for a
>woman. Often, when I am busting my
She thinks she believes it... certainly when it
is working to her advantage.
>wife's balls about this or that, she'll
>shit test me with "I only love her if
>she does this or that". Like most shit
>tests, I usually plow over it, but if
>she pushes the point, I tell her that
>the ONLY instance of unconditional love
>I've ever seen is the love of Jesus
>Christ.
Parents/Children are probably close, not a
parent, can't comment. She is a Catholic
Girl (love 'em!), so I can't really pull out
John 3:16 like I could with a Baptist/Charismatic
chick.
>
>Now, I will not engage in a discussion
>of religion on ASF - I only mention
>this, because it works. And it works,
>because it is completely internally and
>externally congruent - in other words, I
>believe it, as surely as I believe the
>sky is blue. So, while I would never
>use my faith as a bargaining chip in a
>relationship, when a button gets pushed
>that goes to a core issue OF my faith,
>I'll let it "slip out" like this. Also,
>just like on ASF, I won't harp on the
>point, which seems to lend to it's
>credibility.
Not harping is a key point.
>
>But anyway, apart from
>God/Jesus/whatever your religious view
>is, your GF is absolutely correct - all
>other love is conditional.
Having been in a "death do us part" where my
wife split, I have absolutely no problem with
conditional love. Besides, backslid as I am,
I'm still washed in the blood. =) So having
a wife unconditionally love me is not at all
important to me. We have excellent rapport,
and I plan on keeping continuous high attraction,
so the whole point is probably moot anyway.
>
>>
>>What I want:
>>* Overall, to maintain the
>>excellent friendship
>>we currently have even if we
>>end up splitting
>>either now or later. She is
>>fun to be around
>>and has fun, well-balanced
>>friends.
>>* A relationship, possibly
>>marriage, that could
>>survive limited "excursions"
>>outside the bounds
>>of conventional monogamy,
>>under previously
>>agreed upon and strictly
>>defined rules.
>
>You know you're talking about swinging
>right? Even if you DON'T already know
>it, you're backing into it, whether you
>mean to be or not. Because the above
>paragraph, basically IS a description of
>swinging. There is quite a bit of
>information and resources out there on
>"the lifestyle", as swingers refer to
>it. Check out www.nasca.com as a good
>starting point, and to find clubs in
>your area.
Thanks. I am not familiar with the scene.
Will check out the link. Safety and security
are a Big Deal with both of us. I don't want
her finding some strange disease, she doesn't want
me falling in love with some random hottie. So
we are intellectually open, but both of us are
emotionally reticent. The point may be moot
anyway, because our sex drives are well-matched.
>
>>
>>
>>Tools, her words:
>>* Her frame of
>>"conditionality."
>>* She has stated that "What
>>happens in
>>Mexico stays in Mexico."
>>* Also, "Everyone gets a movie
>>star, once."
>>* "Variety is the spice of
>>life." This was
>>in a sexual context.
>>
>>There are a couple of ways of
>>looking at
>>these kinds of comments:
>>1. She is supplicating,
>>telling me what I
>>want to hear,
>>2. She is telling me that she
>>really doesn't
>>want to know what I am up to
>>in Mexico,
>>as long as she is queen bee
>>here,
>>3. She is playing me hard and
>>is planning
>>on fucking around when she
>>goes to Mexico.
>
>HAHAHA!! I like this girl. What makes
>you think it isn't actually all 3 at the
>same time - after all, "I can have it
>all the same, but different", is the
Yes! It is, I am sure.
>classic core of chick-logic. I can
>nearly guarantee you, the 3 aren't
>mutually exclusive in her mind, so they
Absolutely not mutually exclusive, I agree.
I am probably passing a lot of shit tests
like these by simply not replying to them.
My new default response to tests I don't
understand is to simply ignore them and
change the subject.
>probably shouldn't be in yours, either.
>Paying lip service, while fucking
>around, and also fully knowing that HE'S
>fucking around - well that's...
>that's... that's an episode of
>"Desperate Housewives", is what that is.
>And as we all know, it's the "hottest
>show on TV" right now. Probably because
>it strikes a core of emotional truth
>with all of it's "desperate" viewers.
I plan on watching the entire series on
DVD when it comes out.
>
>>Without going into details of
>>our intimacy,
>>I do know that she is
>>intellectually open
>>to at least one kind of
>>non-traditional
>>arrangement
>
>further argument for swinging....
>
>
>>And back to the point... I
>>could see myself
>>telling this woman I love her
>>sometime in
>>the next 6 months if she keeps
>>doing everything
>>right. But how to do this in
>>a non-AFC way
>
>I have been in love exactly 5 times in
>my life. 5 times. I know the exact
>number, because each time, there was no
>question of it in my mind. I have often
>said that knowing whether you are in
>love, is much the same as knowing if you
>are having an orgasm or not - in other
>words, if you're having to ask (about
>either one).... you're not. And if you
>are - you'll know it. Beyond question.
>
>>3. Some women are sweetness
>>and light until
>>you plow enough emotional
>>commitment into
>>her and say "I love you." Now
>>they assume
>>massive commitment, that they
>>have you by the
>>balls, and revert to bitches.
>>How to screen
>>this up front? Is it
>>possible?
>
>Some? I thinking the screening is a
>moot point - they ALL escalate the shit
>tests upon escalation. You know that -
>you were MARRIED! Actually, this
>reminds me of a great line I saw on a
>Simpsons rerun the other night -
>"Marriage is a lifelong commitment - but
>it's also a constant battle for moral
>superiority". Only those who are, or
>have been married, can understand how
>true that statement really is, and what
>makes it so funny.
>
I didn't know about shit tests when I got
married. All I knew was the the girl
that walked up the aisle wasn't the
woman that walked back down the aisle.
And I couldn't believe it happened to me,
as careful as I was to screen her.
>So, I think rather than screening for
>it, you should just ASSUME it, and react
>accordingly. How to account for it?
>Same as always, stay strong, stay Alpha,
>don't let her steal your frame, and no
>matter what, don't let her betaise you,
>because, as soon as they do, they lose
>respect, and then - IT'S CHEATIN' TIME!
>(for them.) Best to avoid that whole
>drama, by never allowing your leadership
>to be questioned. I did for a couple
>years, after the arrival of kids. That
>threw me for a loop, but I'm getting
>back on track now.
Assuming her attitude will instantaneously
change when she knows "I love her" is probably
a really good idea. It's funny how this works.
Such a tender moment of emotion for the man,
and the Triumph of Victory for the woman!
I will take the frame that I am man enough to
grant her this wonderful emotion of victory
I allow her to feel.
>
>> What's a good
>>non-AFC way to
>>escalate gradually?
>
>In chick world, all long-term roads lead
>to marriage. So, if that's not even a
Not necessarily true. She has stated that
there are other arrangements than marriage.
Haven't pressed here yet.
>remote possibility for you, then you owe
>it to yourself, to the girl, and to each
>other, to be honest regarding that.
>OTOH, if *is* a possibility, even a
>remote one, then I think you are taking
>the right steps - namely, to
Yep. It's a possibility, remote as it is
right now.
>pre-determine your set level of criteria
>that it will take for you to do that,
>and simply refuse not to, until those
>criteria are met, whatever they may be.
Good idea.
>
>One criteria you may want to consider is
>a pre-nup - the ultimate reverse
An easy one for me, she has more assets
and higher earning power than I do at the
moment. Not much more, but more.
>shit-test. The convo always goes like
>"Well, if I sign this, it's like I'm
>saying we're going to fail", and the
>reply, "no, by signing it, it's like
>saying we're not going to fail, because
>we're never going to need it. It only
>applies if we break up, and since we're
>never going to do that, it's never going
>to matter anyway, right?" This puts her
>in the position of either having to
>admit to the possibility of failure
>(which validates the agreement), or of
>having to agree to it's irrelevance.
>"If done properly, no can defense".
>
>
>
>"Get your validation from your life, not
>your women." - L&C
=================================================
QSB's reply:
On 4/28/05 6:58:00 PM, quitesomebody wrote:
>On 4/28/05 12:40:00 AM, OceanEyes wrote:
>>In my case, the gf has
>>informed me of the
>>defectiveness of former LTR in
>>his ability to
>>state L-word after such and
>>such a time
>>in the relationship. I regard
>>this as a
>>shit test,
>
>safe assumption.
I really am learning...
>sounds like you have a logical and
>intellectual girl here though. if i
Much, much more so than my ex-wife and
all the other women I dated since divorce.
>were you, i would inform her right back
>that you think the L word shouldn't be
>taken in vain, or whatever. basically,
>that it's not something you're EVER
>going to say on command or because you
>feel some kind of moral obligation.
Two very good points. If she brings it up again,
I will inform her that she has brought the topic
up 3 times now, which is 2 times too many, and lay
the above on her.
>
>those kinds of iloveyous suck anyway.
>they ain't worth shit. the true
>professions of love are the ones that
>come spontaneously and against your
>better judgement.
I agree. I can say the words easy enough,
and may just do so to bust her if she gets
persistent about it. The fact is I really
like her a lot, for a lot of reasons, and
she can feel this emotion in me. But she
is trying to "make me say it."
>
>there IS a possibility, if this girl has
>never told you the L word either, that
>she is testing YOU to see if it's safe
>for HER to say the word without you
>freaking out, thinking that she's
Very good point, thanks.
>thinking marriage and picket fence and
>2.3 kids plus family pet. (oh and eck -
>it is NOT true that all long term roads
>lead to marriage in chick-land. girls
Right, she has stated as much in so many words.
>stand just as much to lose by tying the
>knot as men do, if not more. after all,
>we have a lifetime of being someone's
>live-in maid to look forward to. wee,
>fucking fun.) men have a tendency to
>run when the m word comes up.
This is true. I don't have a problem with
it myself. My issue is inexperience managing
relationships.
>
>and here you are, really THINKING the m
>word. interesting for you.
Yep. I liked being married. Just didn't
like being married to my ex-wife.
>
>>Since she has already
>>established the frame
>>that "love is conditional,"
>
>good. but be careful. she probably
>actually means this. do you mean this
I certainly hope so. Had she stated the
opposite as bluntly, I would not have kept
on seeing her.
>too? are you emotionally equipped to be
>in an ltr where there she does not love
>YOU unconditionally? where her devotion
Yep. Would be a welcome change in some
respects. Although, I had a little epiphany
below. From history, literature and current
events, unconditional love tends to flow one
way, and that way won't be flowing from me
to her. If I am sufficiently attractive to
her that she yeilds to her desire to love
me "unconditionally," I can only treat such
emotion with the respect and responsibility
it deserves.
>to you is always mediated by rational
>concerns and a weighing of pros and
>cons?
Uhh... no. I don't believe a woman weighs the
pros and cons of a marriage rationally. If this
were the case, I would be happily married to my
ex-wife. Because let me tell you and everyone
else here, from a logical and rational point of
view, she had it made in the shade being married
to me.
>
>>There are a couple of ways of
>>looking at
>>these kinds of comments:
>>1. She is supplicating,
>>telling me what I
>>want to hear,
>>2. She is telling me that she
>>really doesn't
>>want to know what I am up to
>>in Mexico,
>>as long as she is queen bee
>>here,
>>3. She is playing me hard and
>>is planning
>>on fucking around when she
>>goes to Mexico.
>
>how about 4. she's telling you what she
>actually thinks and 5. what is good for
>the goose is also good for the gander.
>
>you have an interesting and rather
>troubling frame. you claim that you
>want a relationship that will survive
>limited excursions outside the bounds of
>monogamy, but then when you bring up the
>idea that SHE might make that kind of
>limited excursions, you call it 'playing
>you' and 'fucking around'. if you want
>an open relationship, you can't expect
>her to be monogamous. particularly not
>a woman who's this aware of the world
>view behind swinging and polyamory.
>
>seriously. think about this. if you
>can't handle her stepping out on you,
>then why are you stepping out on her?
I am not stepping out on her. As far as I
know, we have a sexually exclusive relationship.
That is to say, I haven't acted on opportunities
to fuck around, and she knows I have had them.
So in this context, "fucking around" and
"playing" are the appropriate choice of words.
If she is fucking around, I am being played,
no question. Her remarks indirectly tell
me she could be led into a more open
relationship. Whether I am man enough to do
such a thing is another question entirely.
>
>>right. But how to do this in
>>a non-AFC way
>>such that she knows that 1.
>>it's genuine
>>(because it will be), and 2. I
>>am saying it
>>because she earned it, and
>>that if she keeps
>>on earning it, I will keep on
>>saying it.
>
>love is not earned in the sense that it
>is given only when we deserve it. love
>is, per definition, tenderness and
>understanding which is given to us
>whether we deserve it or not. love
>grows, love happens. "i love you" is
>not some fucking dog treat and if you
>use it as such, it will lose its truth
>and become just another kneejerk thing
>you say.
I won't love a woman who doesn't deserve
my love. Been there, done that, never again.
Just to be clear on this, love is an emotion
I can have and choose not to act on. Even if I
am in love and don't want to be in love,
I can still choose not to act on this emotion.
Equating "earn" with "doggy treat" is not
what I meant, but I take that as my failure
to communicate.
>
>so tell her you love her when you feel
>you NEED to say it, not because she
>needs to or deserves to hear it but
>because YOU need to express it.
I like this way of thinking about it,
although I am rapidly getting out of the
habit of doing things because I NEED to
do them. More like I will say it when
I WANT to say it.
>
>kind of like sex, really. sex is an
>expression of your desires which is met
>by desire in another. women who give
>their ltr's sex as a fucking doggie
>treat are sexually frustrated as hell,
>and it's their own damn fault. don't
>you start doing the same stupid thing
>with the l word.
Ok, some of the above rubs me the wrong way,
but this sets it right. The frame is coming
clearer now. If I love her and say so, this
doesn't reduce my power as a man unless I
allow her to reduce my power. The only real
issue is handling the frequency and magnitude
of the upcoming shit tests when I tell her I
love her... score! I like this.
>
>>3. Some women are sweetness
>>and light until
>>you plow enough emotional
>>commitment into
>>her and say "I love you." Now
>>they assume
>>massive commitment, that they
>>have you by the
>>balls, and revert to bitches.
>>How to screen
>>this up front? Is it
>>possible?
>
>yep. if they're too sweet and too light
>to be true - IT PROBABLY IS. as
>witnessed by most the guys i know who
>married 'sweet, submissive' asian women.
>only to find out that the second that
>woman had a ring on her finger and a
>greencard in her hand, the balance of
>power shifted...
Ask a chinese man about marrying a tiger.
>
>>Even better, I would like to
>>move this forward
>>on my schedule, not hers,
>>because she is used to
>>having to take the emotional
>>lead in previous
>>relationships. What's a good
>>non-AFC way to
>>escalate gradually?
>
>why escalate gradually? you've been
>talking about love in the theoretical
>sense. the stage has been set. and
>here you are, orchestrating "the perfect
>i love you". you're worried about when
>to say the l word based on what she
>would think and how she would react -
>and that's letting HER lead in the first
>place.
>
>say the word when YOU want to.
That's just plain good advice for most anything.
>
>-quitesomebody-
>
>*Everybody's playing the game, but
>nobody's rules are the same.*
===============================================
Franco's reply:
On 4/29/05 12:38:00 AM, zarathustra_fi wrote:
>On 4/28/05 12:40:00 AM, OceanEyes wrote:
>
>OceanEyes,
>as man you will for sure appreciate
>straightness and real opinions from me.
Yep.
>
>First of all don´t take the bullshit
>when a chick tells you that she is
>"intellectual","rational","wise" and so
>on. Some post-modern ladies have learned
>to assume this FAKE identity on work
>places and business life. ASSUME always
>that they are driven by INSTINCTS and
>EMOTIONS and you will NEVER be wrong.
Yes, I already figured this out. The
intellectual and rational components
don't drive, they ride. Sometimes,
they can steer, which is how I intend
on implementing her rational and logical
comments.
>
>
>>Ok, this is the relationships
>>part of mASF,
>>and sooner or later in every
>>relationship
>>with a woman, the word L-O-V-E
>>rears its
>>precious little head.
>
>I have been reading what you have been
>writing about her and waiting that I
>have a picture of what is happening. Now
>I think I have it.
>
>>In my case, the gf has
>>informed me of the
>>defectiveness of former LTR in
>>his ability to
>>state L-word after such and
>>such a time
>>in the relationship. I regard
>>this as a
>>shit test,
>
>It is a shit test yes but something even
>more EVIL than that in my opinion. My
>wife has informed me of ALL the
>defectivenesses her former LTRs had. My
>reaction was very simple:"I don´t give a
>shit Honey" and I did and do what I
>want.
Excellent! Superb! This will be congruent
with my actual behavior as well. It's so
cool to see her attraction grow as I implement
ASF principles into my personality and behavior.
>
>I can´t even remember how many times
>when I called her on her BS she told
>me:"My former lover was so sweet to me.
>He CALMED ME DOWN perfectly". Now she
>was the one to DUMP her former lover
>EXACTLY because he was a malegirlfriend
>to her.. And then she keeps telling me
>how sweet he was!
>
>
>Don´t underestimate MANIPULATION and
>NATURAL SELFISHNESS in women! What she
>is doing here is to inform you on how
>you should behave to please her.
Yes, absolutely. I deal with her as a
women first and foremost, as my girlfriend
second, and as the person named lastly.
My rule of thumb is that anything that
she wants for pleasing her, if it will
please most other women in general, I have
no problem saying "What a great idea!
I will do this thing." I own the malegirlfriend
frame anyway (explained in a different post),
so that's no longer an issue.
>
>When my actual wife tried this too many
>times my reaction was very
>simple:"Honey. I love you but keep in
>mind one thing: I am not going to kiss
>your ass. I don´t give a shit about how
>your former LTRs behaved." And a couple
>of time in return I told her a few
>things which my former LTRs did good
>which she did not. And I also showed her
>the pics of some of my former
>primaries..
This is good. My ex-wife was the dessert queen...
I will mull over all the cool things my other
LTRs did for me.
>
>And here we are: she can´t keep her
>hands off me.
Heh... I know this feeling.
>
>Last shit test came a few weeks ago. She
>is religious, catholic and anyway shit
>tests like the hot manipulative wild
>animal she is.
I know this woman!
I love Catholic girls. Baptist and Methodist
girls are great fun too. Post-modern, feminist,
secular humanist eco chicks are boring, shrill
and frigid. Just my personal experience.
>
>This is from a conversation at a bar. We
>are going to get married also in church
>next July.
>
>Wife:"So there is the Independece day
>the 4th of July. Maybe INDEPENDENCE day
>is not a good day to get married"
>Franco: (fast reframe) "Why? I just
>adore independence. Wonderful travels,
>lovers everywhere, writing my books in
>bars around the world, dancing at night,
>what better than it?"
>Wife (was almost dropping from the
>chair) "Forget it! You will be chained
>by your left leg!" (thus making of me
>the PRIZE)
>Franco:"Okay, okay, calm down.."
>
>Throughfare and Michael do you remember
>our posts about clubs being not a good
>place for a committed couple? Well as a
>result of my reframes she is being the
>one to want us away from those
>places..:) I did not even need to talk
>about it with her.
Heh... "Why don't we ever go dancing?"
Chicks really ought to be more careful for
what they wish for. Such things fall under
the category of making me more attractive
for all women.
>
>
>She became very nervous as a result of
>this conversation. She started to tell
>me that:"We should think more about the
>house. We cannot sit in bars all the
>time. Maybe you think I am for fun.."
>and so on..
My LTR knows I study attraction and male/female
relationships. I use Cosmo as an analog for
the male attraction skills I am learning.
She also knows I am learning some of this
stuff from the internet, and some of it from
people active in the local pickup scene:
"playboys" and "pickup artists" were the words
I used. She hasn't had too much problem
with this as her attraction is increasing,
and she has told me that she appreciates the
time I spend learning how to "please" women.
The "please" is her word, I please myself, which
she finds very attractive. =)
However, last weekend I started a running
commentary in a bar on a guy/girl interaction
that totally freaked her out. I commented on
his body language (leaning in), told her that he made a
mistake when he ordered that beer cause
her drink was half finished and she wasn't
touching it, told her he should have moved
the girl out of the bar instead, anywhere, and she
wouldn't care about her friends, then we watched
him get blown out by 3 amogs. It finally
clicked in her when the guy was hanging outside
the circle, obviously blown out, obviously
completely clueless as to what happened.
This induced a panic attack: "I shouldn't
assume so much..." etc. Which I completely
dismissed by saying I will assume whatever
I want because 1. it's true, 2. it's fun.
She decided we shouldn't talk about such things
right now. Which made me laugh because her
response was so predictable, which I told her
when she asked why I was laughing.
>
>which for the
>>moment I am
>>refusing to take by rendering
>>no opinion
>>on his behavior and changing
>>the subject.
>>I am sure she has totally
>>dissected this
>>by now, and will start fishing
>>for more
>>information shortly.
>
>She will. Love is not a rational thing
>and she is using it Secret Society style
>to set HERSELF as the PRIZE ("My former
>LTR and the word love") You have to
>REFRAME it.
What is so intensely frustrating to her is
that I obviously care a lot about her,
she is intensely attracted to me, but she
can feel that I will walk away from this
in a heartbeat if it gets shitty.
>
>I would tell her:"Honey, love is a such
>passionate thing.. absolutely not under
>the control of your mind.. you never
>know when you feel it and how strong.."
>(subcommunicate to her like
>Quitesomebody told you that she is not
>going to tell you what you feel and how.
>Also if she is "intellectual" and
>"rational" as she says you highly
>challenge her by talking about love in
>such an EMOTIONAL way)
Excellent idea. She tells me she hasn't met
any men as comfortable with their emotions as
I am.
>
>>Now in principle, I don't have
>>anything
>>personal against the word
>>"love," or telling
>>a woman I love her. In
>>practice, the last
>>time I did that resulted in
>>disaster (marriage
>>followed by divorce), so I am
>>little more
>>circumspect this trip around
>>the block.
>
>You are using male logic here. You both
>have former relationships where you got
>burnt. So what? Who does not have
>nowdays? She is starting a power
>struggle with you: just show her that
>you are stronger.
Good point. She is a strong woman.
Being stronger than her is a good thing.
>
>>Since she has already
>>established the frame
>>that "love is conditional,"
>>(her words) my
>>best guess is that I should go
>>with that frame.
>
>When I told you that I appreciate those
>words of her I was taking into account
>the fact that your relationship is not
>committed yet. You need FROM THERE to
>set YOURSELF as a challenge. You let
>that phrase she say to influence you too
>much. What she is doing is to SET A
>POWER FRAME ON YOU. What you have to do
>is to set a STRONGER POWER FRAME ON HER
>AND YOURSELF AS THE PRIZE.
That is, turn it back on her. Of course.
I can do this easily. This conditional thing
is not a challenge for me to handle. I mentioned
it because I am curious how others might *use*
it. As far as I am concerned, she was just giving
me large caliber ammo which I will use in an extreme
situation. Another analogy: in my world, she gave
me the trump card.
>
>>What I want:
>>* Overall, to maintain the
>>excellent friendship
>>we currently have even if we
>>end up splitting
>>either now or later. She is
>>fun to be around
>>and has fun, well-balanced
>>friends.
>>* A relationship, possibly
>>marriage, that could
>>survive limited "excursions"
>>outside the bounds
>>of conventional monogamy,
>>under previously
>>agreed upon and strictly
>>defined rules.
>
>Sorry to say this. A combination
>committed LTR + other "adventures" on
>the side is possible only to Gods and
>David Shade. All the other common
Not true for everyone. You are a passionate
man Franco, in this area perhaps you are
a little blind.
>mortals can fall in love in the process.
Yes, this is true. She knows I have a
little crush on one of her friend's
wife. Having this emotion and
acting on this emotion are two different
things. I don't act on it.
Attraction isn't a choice, but we
can choose to act on it or not.
I believe these kinds of things
are common if not normal, and should be
dealt with as something perfectly natural
if it becomes an issue. In an appropriately
committed relationship, dealing with such
issues will strengthen the relationship.
>And then WHAT? One of my LTRs ended
>because I felt in love in the course of
>a 3some. Okay one could speculate that
>the former LTR was not solid enough,
>okay! BUT IF YOU WANT FROM A LTR PEACE
>AND STABILITY then realize that if both
>of you have adventures on the side there
>is one day the risk one of you falls in
>love which would put an end to the
>couple relationship. (with all those
>nasty arrangments you know from your
>former marriage)
Yes, I completely agree with these remarks.
Peace and stability have to come from within.
I have no expectations
of having a peaceful LTR, and stability is
not a problem to be solved, it is a process
to be enjoyed. I'll get plenty of stability
when I am dead. Frankly, my marriage was peaceful,
stable, and dead.
>
>>Tools, her words:
>>* Her frame of
>>"conditionality."
>>* She has stated that "What
>>happens in
>>Mexico stays in Mexico."
>>* Also, "Everyone gets a movie
>>star, once."
>>* "Variety is the spice of
>>life." This was
>>in a sexual context.
>
>She is giving you Secret Society
>bullshit. Committed couple relationship
>and Secret Society do not fit together.
>It is only either one or the other.
Limiting belief. It won't work for you,
it might not work for me (ok probably
not for me either), but I am sure
it works for some people. Take for
example the Handy Man article in a
recent Playboy magazine.
>
>>There are a couple of ways of
>>looking at
>>these kinds of comments:
>>1. She is supplicating,
>>telling me what I
>>want to hear,
>>2. She is telling me that she
>>really doesn't
>>want to know what I am up to
>>in Mexico,
>>as long as she is queen bee
>>here,
>>3. She is playing me hard and
>>is planning
>>on fucking around when she
>>goes to Mexico.
>>
>>My best guess is that it is
>>something between
>>1 and 2, except that if she
>>ran into Brad Pitt
>>(say) in Mexico, she could use
>>#3
>>and worry about it
>
>With her frames she is slowly in an
>exquisite feminine way setting herself
I love these words: "exquisitely feminine way."
>as the PRIZE because your mind starts to
>wonder WHAT SHE DOES basing on the
>FRAMES she is setting =
>1. "Love is conditional"
>2. "My former LTR had problems with the
>word love"
>
>MAN THOSE ARE BETAISING FRAMES! She is
>in the process of forcing you into the
>Provider frame. It is AN INSTINCT and
>you need to reframe it!
Except that I can capitalize on the love
is conditional frame because it is what I
believe and it is how I act! She may be
trying to betaize, but when I first heard
this, I couldn't believe how much power she
handed me. For the second case, remarks
above for how I will deal with that.
Also, for reasons I detail below, it may soon
dawn on her that I just might be able to pull
movie star ass. I certainly have the looks
for it. So I don't see that as a betaizing
frame, I see it as a point of agreement. =)
>
>only if I
>>ever found out.
>>Without going into details of
>>our intimacy,
>>I do know that she is
>>intellectually open
>>to at least one kind of
>>non-traditional
>>arrangement (haven't pressed
>>for details yet),
>>and is reasonably open to
>>sexual experimentation
>>as long as it's not "dark,"
>>which really
>>covers a lot of ground.
>
>Man we are not GODS. The dark side can
>enter our life when we would expect it
>less!
True, true... but as long as we aren't
actively seeking it out, no big deal.
Things can get pretty dark even when
actively avioding it. She trusts me
to keep her emotionally
(and physically) safe and secure. As
long as I take a strong lead, she will
be open.
>
>And
>>as long as her
>>emotional needs are met,
>>specifically
>>emotional safety.
>
>Yes, and the strong unconscious desire
>she has to get pregnant to you right
>now!
There is always that...
>
>Be careful: with "emotional safety" many
>women mean often extreme SELFISHNESS =
>"I am not gonna do anything unless I
>feel like it right now" (Credit Ross
>Jeffries)
When her emotional safety requirements
cut into my surfing too much,
I just go surfing and let her heart grow
fonder in my absence.
>
>>And back to the point... I
>>could see myself
>>telling this woman I love her
>>sometime in
>>the next 6 months if she keeps
>>doing everything
>>right.
>
>So the first thing you need to do is to
>reframe her betaising attempts which
>have already started.
Mostly covered.
>
>But how to do this in
>>a non-AFC way
>>such that she knows that 1.
>>it's genuine
>>(because it will be), and 2. I
>>am saying it
>>because she earned it, and
>>that if she keeps
>>on earning it, I will keep on
>>saying it.
>>3. Some women are sweetness
>>and light until
>>you plow enough emotional
>>commitment into
>>her and say "I love you." Now
>>they assume
>>massive commitment, that they
>>have you by the
>>balls, and revert to bitches.
>>How to screen
>>this up front? Is it
>>possible?
>
>
>You can do this in a DIPLOMATIC WAY yes
>but NOT IN A NICE WAY. It will not be
>NICE to do this with her.
Diplomatic is fine. I have been much less
nice to her than any of my previous
relationships, and she says I am much
"nicer" than any of her previous relationships.
Props to ASF for that little bit of work.
>>
>>Even better, I would like to
>>move this forward
>>on my schedule, not hers,
>>because she is used to
>>having to take the emotional
>>lead in previous
>>relationships. What's a good
>>non-AFC way to
>>escalate gradually?
>>
>
>Simple: you have to take the EMOTIONAL LEAD
>in the relationship. Otherwise she will.
>In a group of two or more persons there is
>only ONE LEADER and that better be you.
Agreed. Easier said than done due to
social conditioning where men are supposed to
be emotional morons. But I am making really
fast progress here. Otherwise she would be
gone already.
>>
>>[edit] Tough one, eh? :)
>>More information: she is a bit
>>stubborn,
>>won't be pushed but seems to
>>be willing to
>>follow a strong lead.
>
>She is waiting for you to manipulate her
>back (manipulation for women = Social
>Power ) and to show her gently that you
She knows I am actively learning "game,"
which puts an interesting spin on our
relationship. I have taught her about
the difference between "attraction" and
"rapport," and we have discussed her feelings
about the guy that has a bad case of "oneitis"
(another new word for her) over her. It seems
to keep the attraction increasing. I have told
her that the things I am learning operate on
women much like her tight ass jeans operate
on me. She wears tight ass jeans, I want to
fuck her. She knows this when she puts them
on. I know this when she puts them on. And
she is getting used to the idea that I can
*learn* how to dress/act/respond in such a
way that she wants to fuck me, even when her
intellect is aware of exactly what I am doing.
I realize this violates one tenet of seduction,
which is to never expose the machinery. But that
violation is trumped by my intellectual value,
which is way higher than hers (her words). In some
sense (before I knew better), I allowed her to set
an intellectual frame. Now she has to live with it.
In other words, I don't give a shit if she approves
of what I am doing or not, an attitude which allows
me to get away with exposing some of the technology
of attraction.
A recent shit test: "I should go on the internet
and learn all this stuff about men like you are
learning about women." My response: "That is
an excellent idea, I would be delighted if you
took the time to really understand men."
Reading over QSBs reply above I should add that I
have taught her about "push" and "pull." The topic
originally came up when we discussed why she is
not having "thinkoffs" anymore. Turns out I
was "pushing," which emotionally blocked her desire.
This led to a discussion of push and pull. I can
use this as a callback if when she brings up her
previous LTR and L-word again: her "pushing"
is blocking me, and she should figure out how
to pull instead. (But I am not going to tell her
how to pull, because that sets a "doggy treat"
frame explicitly).
>don´t give a shit what happened in her
>former LTRs and that if LOVE IS
>CONDITIONAL THAT MEANS THAT YOU OCEAN
>EYES CAN LEAVE FROM THE RELATIONSHIP IF
>SHE GIVES YOU TOO MUCH BULLSHIT.
Already covered. She feels this. She told
me a while back that other bfs got so nervous when she
gives them "so much rope in the relationship."
From her description, they got needy and desperate.
I told her "There is no rope."
>
>The job of the woman is to fight for
>control. The job of the man is to never
>give control to her.
>
>
>And ALL the HD hot women who are fun to
>be around and great in bed are like your
>LTR and my wife: wild animals, whose
>secret desire is to be TAMED by the man.
She told me a few days ago, after I
exercised a lot of physical and emotional
power to trigger in her many powerful orgasms,
that I "broke her like a wild horse." She
seems to require being "broken" about
once per cycle. =)
>
>
>Franco
>http://www.franco-seduction.com
>Online Seduction School for Single Men,
>Husbands & Players
>
>"Sarge Est Necesse, Vivere Necesse Non
>Est " Gnaeus Pompeius, revised
========================================
Improv's reply:
On 5/1/05 10:28:00 PM, ImprovClub wrote:
>QuiteSomebody says:
>"love is not earned in the
>sense that it is given only
>when we deserve it. love
>
>is, per definition, tenderness
>and understanding which is
>given to us whether
>
>we deserve it or not. love
>grows, love happens. "i love
>you" is not some
>fucking dog treat and if you
>use it as such, it will lose
>its truth and become
>
>just another kneejerk thing
>you say.
>
>so tell her you love her when
>you feel you NEED to say it,
>not because she
>
>needs to or deserves to hear
>it but because YOU need to
>express it."
>
>I agree.
>
>You should NOT see love as a
>bargaining chip.
Why not?
If I am going to surrender my
life to such a powerful emotion,
then I am going to damn well be
sure it serves my interest.
Women do this, why shouldn't I?
Come on man, conditional love is the
whole point of the provider frame.
Women are genetically programmed
to supply or withhold love conditionally
on a man's performance in this frame.
I claim more: a woman is incapable
of "unconditionally" loving a provider,
only an alpha male can trigger this
emotion in a women.
Franco will have something to say here
I am sure.
As usual with every other tenet of
ASF philosophy, men employing such
notions as conditional love are
socially suspicious. Even here on ASF!
Like we can do whatever we want with women
as long as we don't "love" them, then
it's right back into the same old, same old.
Tori Amos said it best: No, I don't think so.
>
>-In a good STR/LTR, you feel
>like giving and sharing
>affection freely.
This is really great in theory,
but hasn't worked for me in practice
in the past. Part of her attraction to
me is that I don't get "weird" (her word)
when she does nice things for me. But there
are limits, and passing those limits for
your own gratification is really an
imposition on the other person.
>
>-In a FB/ONS, it's about
>playing and just having fun
>together.
>
>
>With FB's or open
>relationships, I avoid love
>words. Instead, you can
>give understanding and
>tenderness without the
>heaviness of "love".
>
>What does that mean? Like
>DeAngelo recommends, it is
>giving women
>
>romantic *experiences* vs.
>words/letters/gifts. After
>she does something
>
>great, surprise her with a
>massage or trip instead of a
>hardcore love
I do this already. She wants more.
She wants to hear it and read it.
Just to be sure. ;)
My ex-wife was the same way. Never mind
how much physical and emotional sacrifice
I made *demonstrating* my love, if I didn't
say it, I didn't really love her.
>
>poem :-P
>
>
>It is much easier to do 101
>with massages as a reward,
>than it is to try to
>
>corrupt love. Love is not a
In my experience, the uncorruptible,
unconditional love didn't work.
>tool or treat you can play
>with, and in the
>long-term that never works.
Why not? Is this a limiting belief?
Can you prove your claim using science
or support your claim with anecdotal evidence?
Or is dismantling the true structure of
love the next frontier of ASF?
I really enjoy the feeling of being
in love, and knowing how I feel it and
why I feel it doesn't reduce my enjoyment.
But knowing how and why may reduce further
damage to my retirement savings.
>In any case, natural, real
>attraction needs to be
>
>there. You two should really
>desire each other!
Desire and love are not the same.
We can't keep our hands off each orher.
In many respects I already love her.
What she wants, as I am sure Franco would
concur, is for me to be IN LOVE with her.
A state in which my professions of
love would flow naturally and regularly
from my mouth. A state in which I
abrogate responsibility for my own
emotions to her control. A state in
which the sexual power in the relationship
becomes exclusively hers. And a state in
which I am very careful not to let her
enter on my behalf, which I am sure
also frustrates her. It would be easier
for her (short term) if I made/let her fall
in move with me. That way she has no
responsibility for her actions.
I have more self-respect than that.
>
>
>"Be more playful. Mean people
>have angry sex.
>Silly people have fun in bed."
====================================
Thanks again to everybody who answered.
All of the replies have given me a lot
of food for thought, and I will definitely
be using some of the advice. As a typical
hot chick dating an rAFC, she has something
like 30-50 times the "dating" experience
that I have. But I am catching up fast.
Lastly, this really is one cool lady.
I could write pages more on how cool she is,
but that's not nearly as interesting as the drama.
I am definitely in very deep like. Actually,
I'm about half-crazy about her. I talk
alot about attraction, but we also have
very good rapport. If we split up, it will
be really painful, but it's a risk I am
willing to take.
-OE
----------------------------
I get the WOMEN. --- Design
|
