mASF post by "The Dating Wizard»"
posted on: alt.seduction.relationships, September 9, 2004On 9/13/04 2:13:02 PM, Rails wrote:
>So, am I summarizing your post
>correctly by saying:?
Absolutely not.
>You and presumably others have
>a need that you feel is not
>being met.
Actually, it is not a need.
In fact, getting rid of this whole
"need" and in fact any need aside
from survival, and possibly that
as well, is PARAMOUNT to peace of
mind.
There are no enemies in this
world, only fears. And fear comes
from a sense of loss, which can
only come from NEED.
The more content two people are,
the less validation they will need.
In fact, someone who is completely
fulfilled and fully validated can
NOT have their buttons pressed in
this way, which is what much of
these techniques are, they are
validation techniques. One who
already is validated and fulfilled
is immune to this.
>That need is the need for a
>LTR where you don't have to
>flip switches or
>pass tests.
No "need" for anything.
I repeat this, this is crucial
for a healthy attitude.
However, a LTR involving a minimum
of acting is, in my opinion, for
myself, far more fulfilling than
a LTR involving endless games
and tactics.
>Rather you would prefer a
>relationship where you both
>mutually agree that
>you will each be responsible
>for your own emotions, that
>you will pursue
>long range goals as well as
>intstant gratification, and
>generally you will
>both avoid places where these
>values are not embraced such
>as clubs. (But
>you can't reach this agreement
>with a current LTR if she
>wasn't already kind
>of leaning that way.)
This sounds good to me!
Of course, being "THE MAN" at all
times is STILL CRUCIAL. I have
been advocating that since day
one. Being Alpha is critical.
So is the ability to create
strong connections, and lots
of other stuff.
At the same time, I don't advocate
LTR's that require constant gaming,
because it simply does not feel
as "good" as LTR's that DON'T
require constant acting and gaming.
Simple as that.
>Once having reached this
>agreement a TRUE and EXCLUSIVE
>and PERMANENT
>relationship could then be
>reached.
Possibly, not necessarily.
Nuthin' certain in this world.
However, the odds are increased
this way.
>At that time it would be safe
>to dispense with the switch
>flipping and other
>nonsense and safely reveal
>your true self.
This is the kind of thing where
I really wonder if you honestly
thought I advocated the complete
abandonment of a solid understanding
of basic psychology.
I don't and never did recommend
abandoning an understanding of
using certain principles.
In fact, sometimes the principles
don't have to be a secret. For
example, sometimes couples spend
a bit of time apart and it renews
chemistry. No secret there, yet not
a "game" either.
See?
It's not a question of never using
a sound tactic, it's a question of
how the relationship FEELS. If it
FEELS like I have to press buttons
all the time, I personally don't
feel that (asf labelled) hellish
evil stupid inane devilish
emotion called "love".
That's just moi, of course.
I know everybody else on this
board has no emotions of course.
Only cool guys like TD, Mystery,
you know, dumb guys like that.
I think that EVERYTHING is about
degree and what is REASONABLE.
I'm talking about a girl who requires
constant gaming for LTR. That simply
doesn't appeal to me nearly as much
as a girl who doesn't require constant
games, plain and simple.
>The type of person described
>is admittedly kind of hard to
>find however and
>often has other beliefs not
>necessarily representative of
>reality in your
>opinion.
Not sure what you mean by the
reality thing, but the hard
to find is true in my opinion.
Which isn't surprising, because
any type of person who does not
follow the mainstream will be
harder to find.
>>And some other stuff about
>instant gratification society
>programming etc.,
>etc., but mostly lamenting
Let's all smile here for a second.
;)
Actually make it bigger :)
Ahhh, there.
No negative energy anymore.
I sensed a bit of negative energy
when I read the post so I'm SMILING
it away.
No dude, there was no lamenting.
Not even one kleenex.
Honest!
>I have always been
>annoyed by that lurking
>backdrop of an AFC idea that
>ASF skills are used to
>land or get or even marry your
>LTR
Whoa, whoa.
There's no question that some
asf "skills" are nothing less
than just the way a guy with
HIGH SELF ESTEEM AND CONFIDENCE
should act ALREADY.
Like not getting all emotional
for a girl's tantrum, like not
supplicating, etc.
These are not so much tactics
as just REGAINING SELF-CONFIDENCE,
belief in your own value, etc.
These "asf" qualities ARE
critical to any relationship.
>then you get to go back to
>being the
>quake playing, comic reading,
>fatass, boring, lamo you were
>before you heard
>about the elvis opener.
Seriously dude!!!!
I know you don't REALLY THINK
that I was POSSIBLY advocating
becoming LAMO????????????????
The end of endless game playing
does not equal becoming LAMO.
I feel strange even having to
write this.
(p.s. comic reading doesn't
necessarily turn chicks off lol-
I remember a girl who got so
competitive with a FEMALE
CHARACTER I liked in "Alpha Flight"
(that's a Canadian superhero
team used to be published
by Marvel) and also Elektra
from Daredevil, who I said she
reminded me of, that she actually
went out to find more of those comics
because she was so upset the
character had huge boobs
and hers were normal lol.
Of course ALL COMIC BOOK
FEMALE SUPERHEROES are
ridiculous-level busty.
And she kept on comparing
her boobs with the character.
Okay, that was off on a tangent..)
It increased her interest in me,
because of the challenge I guess.
>In my experience you always
>have to be the man to your
>woman.
Agreed, absolutely.
I think this goes without saying,
the thing is, in my opinion, you
ALSO need to be damn careful in
the FIND aspect for a LTR.
>You always have to flip the switches,
>manage the emotions, etc.
I believe that not all girls
are like this. Not all girls
require you to ALWAYS be flipping
switches and managing them.
>(And in a zen-like
>paradox sometimes you flip the
>switches by not flipping them,
>or by not
>doing anything at all - its
>not some 24 hour a day
>manipulation)
Yes, and some women require
less flipping switches than
others, for very specific
reasons of attraction,
self-esteem, and
ltr "relationship intelligence".
>Part of the fun of the LTR is that you
>get better at flipping her
>switches than
>anyone else.
Hmm. If an LTR requires incessant
switch-flipping, then after a while
I would imagine that I would not
give a damn WHO flipped her switch.
It would be like, thank god, someone
else wants to do this. God bless them!
I think a lot of guys stay with
a ltr who requires endless gaming because
they are afraid someone else might
pull her switches so they keep on
staying in the LTR.
Of course the fear itself screws
them up and ruins the ltr.
In fact, THEY are the ones who
feel the NEED for her as an ltr.
They are the needy ones.
>But IME you don't ever get to
>be the broken little boy who
>needs to be
>loved, or mothered, or at
>least not for long.
Abso-fucking-lutely.
I never ever ever argued with this,
in fact most people have argued with
me that I am TOO big of a proponent
of the Alpha thing, which is again
a misunderstanding of me based on
people reading partial chats,
part of this and part of that.
>And lets
>be honest isn't
>CHERISHING and HONORING and
>FINER EMOTIONS usually just a
>form of payment in
>an attempt to get the same
>back.
Hmmmmmm.
Ultimately EVERYTHING we do is selfish.
The question is, which is the BEST
way to get the MOST PLEASURE.
Most people THINK the more you
have of something, the better,
but I disagree. I believe moderation
and balance is the key.
Regarding emotions like cherishing
someone, it actually feels good,
so it's a two way street of benefit
that way. It also keeps the relationship
thriving.
So yes, absolutely, it's selfish.
It's also selfish to give to charity
or do anything good if you feel good
about it, or if you think it will help
you, or whatever. So what? As long
as you feel it is a good strategy
for long term happiness, go for it.
>Actually, you can do
>and have all these
>emotions as long as you don't
>express them all the time.
I see we agree on something
here! Cool.
>And maybe its that
>the expression is an attempt
>to gain reciprocation that
>screws it all up.
I think that cherishing, for
example, is not a concsious
attempt for reciprocation,
instead it just feels good.
For some people, this takes
practice lol.
>And even in the best of
>circumstances, shit does
>happen, PUA's do happen,
>and to pretend someone can
>agree that they will not ever
>cheat, or to
>pretend that forever is a fact
>and not an intention would
>seem to be denying
>reality.
I think there is a bit of a
strange negative energy sometimes
on asf. The reason I say this is
because the FOCUS is so tunnel
vision, that the mere suggestion
of a strategy for ltr success
must always, always, always
inevitably bring some post
that says "but don't forget,
there is no guarantee it might
work!!! It might not work!!!
Shit does happen!!"
I mean, like if this was the
attitude toward pickup, then
every pickup post should have
a disclaimer that says:
Of course you know, this might
not work, in fact, it probably
will FAIL till you do at least
1000 approaches, and even then,
the best guys in this game fuckup
all the time in fact. In fact,
the best guys will tell you that
a decent batting average is like
30%.
But NOOOOOOOOOOO.
You don't see that.
However, any suggestion about
exclusive ltr's brings about
the doomsday advisors as if
everyone might possibly think
that REALLY relationships are
EASY AS HELL and are GUARANTEED
TO WORK.
See that?
Anyway, I mean you no harm,
honestly, it's just a pattern
I have noticed since day one
and the reason I don't post
much anymore, since I don't
post for my own vanity.
However, I do know that there
are some folks here who still
think the idea of an exclusive
ltr is kinda cool. Oh yeah,
and they're not afc's. But you
know what, I'm starting to realize
something. Some of the best pick
up artists in the world love
having a great girlfriend and
would love to know if there was
a way of making it work with
less games while keeping the spice
long term. I guess they're just
afc's in disguise as cool people,
those sneaky bastards!
>That said I generally really
>like your posts and
>contributions,
Thanks.
>but I don't like this idea,
>or rather
>don't believe this idea of
>perfect
Whooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa,
duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude!
PERFECT?
See, again, this whole exaggeration
thing.
If perfect means never having to
deal with things, never having
to exert effort, then I don't
believe in perfect either.
In fact, I think all the work
involved is what makes something
"perfect". Kind of like how
all the work involved in a workout
helps you long term, that doesn't
make working out a "less perfect"
activity because it involves
sweat, grunting, groaning,
hey is that sex or working out?
See, work can be fun, even
hard work that makes you grunt
and groan lol.
>and forever
>relationships is useful or
>represents reality.
I think there are limitless realities,
and it is up to each person to seek
the reality they want to create and
do their best to create it as close
as possible.
>And this reply isn't meant
>as an attack on you. But the
>idea. Because I think
>"happliy ever after" is
>kind of a fairy tale that gets
>in the way of any real
>relationship
>discussions.
"Happily ever after" in the sense of
turning your brain and effort OFF
will never exist, but "happily ever
after" in the sense of USING THE
INFINITE POWER OF THE MIND to
CREATE the reality you DESIRE?
Well, I sure as hell ain't gonna
underestimate the power of the mind
and will and creativity and pure
raw sweat and effort and patience.
>And the idea gets tossed around
>enough in society and religion
To be honest, I think society
and religion do NOT toss around
the best concepts of relationships.
So actually I wouldn't look too
much to at least the institutionalized
forms of relgion or pop culture
for guidance, that's for sure.
>that it just kind of sticks
>and turns into one more quest
>for attainment to
>be held out as "success" or
>"possession"
everyone should do what really
works best for them, and no one
should blindly follow anyone's
idea of success unless it makes
sense to them. most people however,
have been so brainwashed, that they
don't even question if there is a
better way than what they are
currently doing.
>I don't know what the key to
>an LTR is, but I am pretty
>sure that the
>logical contract discussion
>method
not sure what you are getting
at, but in terms of what
was talkign about, there is
no real need for contracts
since the contract is
ALREADY UNDERSTOOD. I mean,
if you met a girl and got
into a ltr and then found
out after a couple of months
that she was a psycho and a
crack addict, and lets say
you decide you want out, and she is
surprised by it, you might
be thinking "well baby,
I didn't know what I was
getting into here".
So some kind of contract is
always present in any ltr.
even if that contract is
that you can both do whatever
the fuck you want and have
ten thousand partners.
contracts are just making
things clear.
>followed by the
>revelation of your true
>and finer feelings does not
>work.
I think healthy relationships
with emotionally stable and
high self esteem people
can not only handle some
"finer emotions" but will
be ENHANCED by them.
>Admittedly there is a
>lot of programming
>which would lead one to think
>so, but it doesn't seem to
>work that way.
I propose that it doesn't work
for most people because so little
relevant insight is available on
the subject.
In fact, I would go so far as to
argue that the PROGRAMMING is not
so much making us believe that it
WOULD work, but that relationships
would NOT work.
Attitudes toward ltr are very negative
in our culture. The attitude is basically
"start em, they're fun, but don't think
about anything because it's all supposed
to happen BY ITSELF or it wasn't meant to be"
hahaha
isn't that the big lesson we learned
about ATTRACTION and seduction?
That it will NOT happen by itself,
by sitting on our asses.
If we want something to happen, we
have to learn how to make it happen.
we learned to NOT accept the bullshit
of "if you don't get what you want,
then it wasn't meant to be" this kind
of logic led nice guys to NEVER get
any women , since they sat on their
ass and thus believed the reason
nothing happened was because it was
"never meant to be".
So this culture is a VERY bad source
of info for relationships.
I believe a sum-sum world is possible.
The reason is because there is MORE
than enough of everything for everyone.
The real issue is not whether all
relationships must be about control,
it is whether you have two people
who understand there is no need
for it.
Let's keep up the positive vibe.
DW
|
