mASF post by "razorjack"
posted on: mASF forum: Advanced Discussion, July 7, 2004
On 7/21/04 4:34:00 PM, secondarysight wrote:
...
>Heh, I have always done things my way. I
>can't understand why
>some guys think they have to please
>others with the way they PU!
Well I wouldn't say that they're trying to please others, it's more that they
don't know themselves that they're PUing in a very restrictive way.
>Good stuff, Razorjack.
Thanks dude!
>I agree. There is no substitute for your
>own judgment.
>
Exactly.
.....
>Here is an analogy:
>
>When you start out on violin, you put
>thin strips of tape on the
>fingerboard so you know where to put
>your fingers. Otherwise, you
>would be horribly out of tune. However,
>once you get better at
>placing your fingers, you take off the
>strips of tape, because they
>look dorky.
>
>Basically, we learn any art through some
>kind of structure that lets
>us develop technique. Unfortunately, a
>structure is a left-brained
>methodology when art is right-brained,
>so too much structure will
>just hold you back once you have
>developed technique. Picasso
>had a full training in academic realist
>painting before he went into
>cubism and broke every rule in the book.
>
>Someone who follows all the rules is a
>pickup technician. You
>have to break, or at least bend the
>rules to be a pickup artistThat's
>the only way you can find out which
>rules are sensible in what
>situations, and which rules are just
>arbitrary training wheels.
>
Excellent analogy! Being a musician myself, this really hits home.
....
>Yes, well there is just as much pressure
>and conditioning on ASF
>as in mainstream culture. Perhaps more.
>In any human
>organization, there are always trends,
>fads, and people trying to
>set rules.
>
Yes, what's funny is that alot of people aren't even aware of it.
....
>Especially because you are
>complimenting, *and* in a way that
>isn't AFC.
>
Yes and because you don't make excuses for your desires as a man!
>The validation/invalidation model
>describes a lot of dynamics
>accurately, but it isn't the whole
>story. The main issue is that most
>guys don't know how to make a chick feel
>good in a way that isn't
>supplication. So that leads guys to
>believe that all positive
>treatment whatsoever = validation =
>supplication. Wrong. It is all
>about context. In fact, most things with
>chicks tend to be all about
>context. They don't interpret your
>statements and actions in a
>logical fashion, but rather by looking
>at the emotional context
>behind what you do (i.e. the vibe and
>subcommunication).
>Gunwitch discussed this basic idea
>recently in a post in general
>that is also on thundercat's site. To a
>chick, everything you do is a
>statement of where she stands with you,
>where you stand with her,
>and how you feel about her. Thus, it is
>possible to give chicks
>positive treatment in a way that isn't
>supplication, though for most
>guys and girls, this is easier said than
>done. It's a shame we don't
>have more stuff on this board about
>figuring how to pull it off,
>though I suppose that is because it
>wouldn't work so well on LSE
>girls.
>
Well this is also a way to screen chicks for me. I mean if a chicks is too LSE
to accept positive treatment from me, then there's no way in hell I would want
to be with her.
....
>
>Yeah, a positive interaction involves
>both people making each
>other feel good. This is pretty much my
>only rule.
Nice rule, dude! :)
-Razorjack
"Why do we chase women instead of settling for one - like most of the other
guys in the world? No clue. We are a unique class of guys. Maybe we got cut off
too early from our mother's milk - so we spend the rest of our lives looking
for that same titty again." - Zan
|
