mASF post by "Bryen193"
posted on: USENet: alt.seduction.fast newsgroup, August 8, 2002amo***n@ao***.com[ ? ] (A Modern Caveman):
>The goal isn't to turn her on...at first. It's to create the ultimate
>negative
>association with players in her head
So the woman is just a piece in your "chess match" against players? Just as I
thought...
>>I think what's in order in a seduction (online or not) is to show affection,
>
>Fucking them and leaving them isn't very affectionate.
False assumption. Where'd that come from?
>>confidence and empathy and a no-apologies sexual attitude (without
>>seeming lecherous).
>
>But it IS lecherous.
Not exactly. I meant a no-apologies sexual attitude in general. Not
necessarily focused on her. Too much sexual focus on her, her looks, etc. too
soon after meeting her would be lecherous.
>Worse yet, if she goes along with it, she is the exact
>type of SLUT she doesn't want to be seen as.
Dude. You defined a slut recently. Nowhere in that defintion was "generally
receptive to male sexuality" or "likes sex in general".
>Players seem to think they're the only men who can please women.
>and again why do you think YOU are the only one who
>can provide this for her?
Perhaps you misunderstand where I am coming from. The player or seductionist
does not necessarily have more given value than any other guy. Some are better
at seduction than others 'cos they are better at determining what qualities the
woman values, and displaying what value they (the man) have in her area of
desire. I am not arguing against anti-player from the perspective of a
"player", just from the perspective of someone interested in seduction and who
has used certain seduction tips (like what to say in certain situations to
display value) found here to great success. I am not a player at all. Not
everyone who has an interest in seduction falls into your extremely narrow
definition of "player". You are creating an archetype, a bogeyman.
Understandably so, since this should be useful in your "anti-player" rap.
>Where is this great "value" the players have? They speak of pleasing the
>woman, but they are the ones getting the no-strings sex while the women are
>left holding the bag.
Oh the poor, poor women.... Your view of sexuality is so antiquated as to be
obsolete. Have you ever heard the term "fuck buddy"? That's a term woman use
(in a positive connotation) more than men.
>The "good feelings" you talk about are strictly a short-term experience.
Wrong assumption. Bogeyman of your own creation to help you get laid. Can't
blame you though, since you seem to need to build the other guy into a
philandering deceitful monster first, in order to offer up yourself as a viable
alternative.
> Even when it doesn't "work,"
>the
>anti-player method saves time and makes it more difficult for rival males.
For what reason are you so very interested in cockblocking other males as part
of you seduction technique? This is a concept that comes up over and over with
you. If it didn't "work", it failed! Is "making it more difficult for rival
males" defined as a success, and if so...why? Sam knows:
"Other narcissists "choose" to destroy the object that gives them so much grief
by provoking in them feelings of inadequacy and frustration. They display
obsessive, blind animosity and engage in a compulsive acts of rivalry often at
the cost of self-destruction and self-isolation. " - Sam Vaknin
>I look at it as Karpov-Kasparov. Players are strong, and anti-players are
>strong. The only real chess teacher I ever had once said of the two chess
>titans: "The only time they look weak is when they play each other."
I think that a woman would view this ridiculous competition with good humour,
shake her head, then move on to someone who views her as more than a chess
piece in your male on male battle.
"All of our music is electronically manipulated, as doing this purveys the
possibility of not having to associate with musicians..." - Tomas, Ordo
Rosarius Equilibrio
++++ http://www.angelfire.com/80s/ashenthorn/index.html ++++
|
