| fast seduction 101 promotion section |
 If you haven’t already visited the
 ASF forum or Player
Guide web board, now would be a good time to do
so… Don’t forget to this site! Fast Seduction 101
now has a 
product review section. |
I better stick around and see what he can offer
8/8/01 2:17:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Ok, this list is starting to get unwieldy. It seems that no sooner that I
send one out, that I have enough material to send out another one. The
sending is not really the problem, it's the time to edit it all that is
taking the time. Also the individual management - responding to emails for
administrative chores. It has been suggested by Sisonpyh and others that
one solution might be to set up clickthroughs and links where I would get a
few pennies for each link that is clicked, and a commission on any sales
that result. This money would be used to hire someone to do all the dirty
work that I currently do (I pretty much do this list while at work, so I am
taking time from making money to get this out to you). My concern is that
this might compromise the integrity of this list -- so far it has been
completely non-commercial. It is free, there are no ads, there is nothing
here that is for sale by me, etc. I would like to hear comments from you
letting me know what you think of the idea.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Cramias:
Just wanted to let you know that I HAVE been receiving your emails, but
they end up in my "junk mail/bulk mail" folder in hotmail. I've tried a
number of ways to correct this problem, including sending a email to MSN,
but I've been unable to fix it, so I have to open my bulk mail folder every
few days to check if one of your newsletters is in it. So I'm thinking
maybe the reason some people aren't receiving their newsletters is because
they are sent out in bulk, and the bots interpret this as spam and block
them. As opposed to size limitations as you mention above.
My Comment: I am certain that there are people who are not getting these
emails who are on my list, and as I have no other way to contact them, if
any of you hear of people who are not getting my emails, please let them
know that they are still coming out and that they need to get in touch with me.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Hugh:
I have been receiving everything as sent, but my question is,
where are the discussions that these e-mails come from? I would like to be
on this discussion list.
My Comment: It seems there are those of you who don't understand how these
emails work. Basically, you just hit return, delete the comments and
material you are not commenting on, and then comment on what you want to
comment on. Then just send the email to me. Or you can send an email to
me with whatever you want to post. Nothing complicated. There is no other
discussion list, only people commenting on comments from previous emails I
had sent out.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Magic Juan:
>>As for those concerned about going to another country when they
>>come to Canada, it would be best if you had your passport up to
>>date but as far as I know you don't need any special visas to come
>>here -- in fact, in theory you could probably get across the border
>>with just some good photo i.d. like a driver's license (but it
>>would be best to have a valid passport).
B4 going to Major Mark's and Steve's seminar I was told by friends
(with accompanying horror story) I would need a birth certificate to
re-enter the US. What actually happened is I was asked for no ID
going into Canada, for a license and registration returning to US.
I have no idea if different people receive different treatment.
Magic Juan:
>>Here's a thought that has come into my mind that I wanted to throw
>>out to those reading this. What do you think of the idea of
>>holding a seminar here in Montreal next summer based on this email
>>list?
As long as we can have it in English ; )
My Comment: Don't lose any sleep worrying about that one.
>>My thoughts ar that an array of the guys who have great ideas that
>>you have read about here would each get up and talk for 1-3 hours
>>and give some of their best seduction tips.
I must be in favor of that since I've proposed it before : )
In the computer world, we hold these users' conferences where users
will volunteer to give talks on clever ways they have found to use
whatever technology or software product is the topic of the
conferences. Such a forum often has a theme or focus that each
workshop is supposed to honor.
The inherent problem in the seduction world is that the "products"
being discussed are information-based. It is nearly impossible to
discuss how to better use Speed Seduction» without giving away
Speed Seduction» itself; whereas you could talk about how to better
use a software product without handing all the participants a free
copy.
>>the cost of attending would be based on covering the expenses and
>>not on making money.
Yes.
>>Imagine a seminar where Ross, Mystery, GameMaster, Major Mark,
>>Steve Piccus, Mark B., Sisonpyh, Rick, Craig, Dr. Dennis Neder,
>>Arte from New Sex, Oscar Bruce, Maniac High, David, NightLight9,
>>Peta, Jobet, David Shade, Nathan, Dan Scorpio, and numerous others
While I would be thrilled to have all those people speak, I would just
as easily picture a forum primarily comprised of seminars given by
students of those people.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Eric H.:
I know this response is a bit delayed but here goes...
> Tristan
> Gentlemen, in this as well as the following post I want to tell you about
> a new technique I have been using that has greatly reduced flaking by
> increasing rapport very early on. Those of you on ASF will be
> familiar with it but you'll now see my particular way of using it to sarge
> these lovely young ladies.
>
> The book I learned this from is "Secrets of the Cube" by Annie Gottlieb
> and Slobodan D. Pesic. Check it out on Amazon.com and at this website
> http://hometown.aol.com/eap0425tbc/Whatitallmeans.html
There's another thing besides the Cube (which *IS* wonderful BTW...if you
cube a chyck and her horse is a mare...do some background work) that
works well. You ask a chyck her favorite color and then you have a
good idea of what's going on inside her head...
I can only attribute this to Reggie Chan and have no idea where I got it
because all the headers that were attached to it were lost so if it's
NOT his, for gawds sake, someone let me know who it belongs to and I'll
give 'em credit.
Anyway have the person pick their favorite color from the list and then
look it up on the key...
Begin quoted message
*******************************************************
Red
Yellow
Pink
Purple
Black
Green
Orange
Brown
Gray
Blue
White
Red
People who like red tend to be tigers in the sack. They are easily
aroused and enjoy sex in every way imaginable. Once the sexual spark is
ignited, it may take hours to extinguish. When two reds get together,
the ensuing erotica could make Lady Chatterly blush. Lovers of red tend
to be aggressors and weaker colors should be aware.
Yellow
If you tend to favor yellow, your sexual drives are complex and turn
toward the adaptable. The favorite color of homosexuals is yellow. But
don't panic - not everyone who wears yellow is queer. In most cases the person
will consent to the stronger partner's desires in a passive manner.You
will never enjoy sex to the fullest, but you will never turn down an
invitation from somebody you enjoy or admire.
Pink
Persons who like pink show a reluctance to mature in sexual matters
women tend to tease, to promise more than they intend to deliver. In
some cases they flaunt their femininity - but because they secretly hate men.
A great percentage of prostitutes boast entire wardrobes in pink. Men
who like pink are the philanderers and flirts. They are the type who
will make three dates for the same evening and not keep one, preferring
to pick up a dish in some bar instead. Women whose husbands like pink
should keep a secret nest egg.
Purple
Lovers of purple frequently consider themselves to be too sophisticated
for a fun romp in the sack. Women sometimes are the type who hate to
mess their hair. Men are business-like in their approach to lovemaking. In
both sexes purple partners are more concerned with their fulfillment
than anyone else's gratification.
Black
Black color preferences point to black sex (not necessarily meaning
black partners). These people are the misfits of the sex world and seek
out each other in kinship. They tend to prefer perverted sex and are usually
masochistic or sadistic in nature. They are moody people and often
perform at their peak when under stress or during unhappy times. Police
psychiatrists claim that sex offenders prefer the color black. And it is
no coincidence that the uniform of monsters and teenage gangs is black
attire.
Green
Those who prefer green are fresh and innocent in their approach to sex.
Women who love green will always make love like virgins all their life.
And a man may always be a trifle clumsy and awkward but in a charming
and endearing sort of way. Green lovers are gentle, but not passionate. If
chosen as a mate, one
will never need worry about infidelity.
Orange
Lovers of the color orange lean toward sexual fantasies. The sex act is
regarded as a dramatic one-act play in which they are the star. Foreplay
is as important as the act of love. They whisper sweet nothings,
meaningless dialogue; they feel it is their image. Orange people often
do not experience orgasm - but they put on a darn good act.
Men tend to pull their partner's hair, and women leave red welts on the
sex partner's back.
Brown
If you love brown, you're a real treasure for the right mate. Brown
lovers tend to be warm and deep, sensitive to the needs and desires of
their partners. Sex is a 24 hour a day thing. Where you can't say "I love you"
often enough. Snuggling by the fire, walking in the rain or catching
snowflakes on their tongue is a turn-on to a lover of brown.
They need lots of time and privacy to make love. But their emotions are
such that one harsh word could end the affair.
Gray
The color gray a preferred by people who are indecisive. They can't get
excited about anything - including color - so they choose a noncommittal
shade. Men who prefer gray look at sex as a way of relieving tension - but
nothing more, nothing less. It's wham, bam, thank you ma'am. Women don't
make love, they have intercourse. And for one of two reasons only to
accommodate their mate, or to become pregnant.
They count the cracks in the bedroom plaster until the sex act is over
with and done. But when teamed with another color, the gray spouse
considers the other's infidelity a blessing. When gray marries another
gray, the marriage is made in heaven.
Blue
Lovers of blue are wonderful sex partners. They are sinners,
affectionate and sensitive to their partner's need. They consider love
making a fine art and their approach is elegant. Men who love blue are
like concert pianists, delicately ravaging their partner like they would
play a baby grand. Women in the blue category enjoy sex to the fullest.
They are exciting partners but their passion may be compared to a tidal
wave rather than fiery aggression. Both women and men enjoy foreplay
and the aftermath of lovemaking, as much as the sex act itself. In
marriage a blue person is a wonderful mate - never seeking outside
interests.
White
If a person is infatuated with white, sex often seems filthy. These
people are puritanical in nature. French kissing is obscene and to make
love in the daylight is unheard of. Women who love white will undress
beneath the covers. Men will shower before and after the sex act. These
people still use pet names for their genitals.
To try is to risk failure. To not try is to guarantee it.
People are so focused on what they want that they haven't figured out
that you have to give as much too. If you want the romantic ideal,
you have to be one yourself too.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Mark:
To Ethereal for his last post.
You and I are totally different. As you find women who take initiative
attractive, I do not. I would rather have a woman be responsive to my
overtures rather than make them herself. In this respect, I do not feel
that a woman has to earn her right to fuck me by taking initiative. She has
earned her right by being responsive to giving me her number, accepting a
date and being receptive to touching, kissing, etc. In fact, I find the
thought of a woman coming onto me sexually repulsive and a turnoff. It
makes me feel feminine when a woman initiates sex, or asks for a number or
whatever and I rarely if ever take the invitation. I have been on first
dates where the women blatantly asked me to fuck them and I refused. In
fact, every women I have ever slept with and about 90% I ever went out with
I was the one to initiate the sex and the date. With the ones that did ask
me out most of the sexual attraction dissipated no matter how beautiful
they were. Why? When I was a kid I had long blond hair with full pouty lips
along with blue eyes. My mother took me around the city where I was born
(Waldenburg, Poland) on a stroller. I had many people approach me and say
"My gosh, what a cute/beautiful little girl." Needless to say those
comments caused a lot of confusion not so much whether I am a man or a
woman but how people perceive me. As a result, I have resolved to
masculinize myself as much as possible through weight training and other
means. As a consequence, when a woman approaches me and makes a sexual
remark or overture I perceive her as thinking of me as feminine and
something I am not and I lose attraction to her even though she may be
attractive. I feel feminine when they act this way due to the way people
came up to me and my mother when I was child and made comments on the
feminine way I looked.
In addition, you are I are different in the sense that with me a woman
receives a large amount of points within a short time and it's up to them
to fuck things up. Imagine a scale where 100 represents some total where
all female qualities lead up to the perfect women. Within a short time
(about 10 minutes of conversation), a woman that I find attractive earns
about 70 - 90 points. Then all she needs to do is maintain her initial
impression to maintain her score and her attractiveness to me. It's up to
her to lower herself in my eyes later in the process my complaining,
whining, lying, playing games, being disrespectful, non sexual among others.
As far as having women fall through the cracks I do not have that type of
patience. I rather enjoy the thrill of the hunt - spotting the prey,
creating a strategy, going for the kill and then savouring the meal. I
would rather be the one that selects rather than the one that gets
selected. When I go out with my friends to bars or clubs, we typically
conduct a survey of the women. Most of my friends claim they would easily
fuck, say 70% of the women at the establishment. Me, only about 1 or 2 of
them at the most. Consequently if I used your approach I would end up with
a lot of women to whom I had little or no attraction.
On the topic of verbal appreciation. I realized that to my detriment I have
not been making enough eye contact with women. In order to compensate for
the non verbal appreciating that eye contact provides I would resort to
telling women I find them beautiful and attractive. In the last month I
started to pay more attention to making more frequent and direct eye
contact. The results have significantly improved as women smile more, talk
more and generally seem happier and more responsive to my advances. As a
result I have slightly toned down my verbal appreciation but because it has
worked so well for me in the past I continue to use it. For me there is
nothing better that saying "You look so hot I would like to spend a night
filled with hot steamy passion with you." It gets their juices and their
imaginations going.
MARK There seems to be a common theme among many
of the contributors to this list. It's one where any techniques or success
stories get shut down as ineffective even in the face of real life
experience and success. It seems that some guys seek more to
disprove the methodologies of others rather than provide real advice. They
seek to show that theirs and only their methods are the right ones without
considering that another approach may work. The greater success story the
greater the criticism why it could not work. I get the impression that these
writers exhibit a lot of jealousy toward those that achieve real life
success and would rather prove their way rather than encourage what seems to
work for others. This sort of criticism stifles progress and development. A
frank, open and non critical and non judgmental discussion offers a greater
platform for discussion and progress.
Ross, if I were you I would consider the effectives of other approaches
rather than simply dismissing them as ineffective.
Response to Ross:
>Ross Commenting on " "That is fine but I would like to have a passionate
>love affair with you behind your husband's back."")
>It's a mistake to make her EXPLICITLY have to choose between her primary
>relationship and a fling with you. The whole thing about "behind your
>husband's back"...geez.
MARK I am not making her choose. Obviously if I want to sleep with her then
she will naturally think that it's behind his back. How else? Saying that it
will be behind his back means that she gets to indulge with me but gets to
keep her marriage safe and secure. I said it this way because I do not want
her to leave her husband for me, just an affair. I wanted to set the
parameters that I wanted.
>You set up a nasty bind for her, and her flaky behaviour, one step forward
>and two steps back, reflects it. Dude, there were other ways to finesse her
>into it...
MARK Did you read the part where she offered to come over to my house and
cook for me? Do you really think that she only thought of coming over to
only cook a meal? To finesse someone into something
in my mind implies some form of manipulation or trickery. My directness
induced her to suggest coming over to my place to "cook" as well as her
incessant calls and begging for forgiveness after I refused to return her
calls and e-mails. How do you explain that?
>Ross Commenting on "It's obvious that you've tried to manipulate me and
>the situation to
>achieve maximum attention from me without having to reciprocate to my
>interests in you. Unfortunately, I won't play this game.")
>I think maybe she was genuinely conflicted between wanting to get with you
>AND staying loyal and true to her marriage. The way you framed it made it
>HARDER for her, not easier!
MARK Of course she was conflicted. Wouldn't any married woman
be conflicted no matter how you phrase your intent? By telling her I wanted
an affair she knew where I stood with her. By telling her that it would be
behind her husband's back she becomes fully aware of all the risks of the
encounter. People are much more likely to take risks when they are aware of
the worst case scenario and in this case she became aware of what that would
be. Besides why get lost in the fine detail of the conversation. It's my
intent and how I said it that really matters, not the semantics. Also by
making it harder I become a greater challenge where I will not out up with
her flaky behaviour. I show her that I want it my way and this to her makes
me look like a more of a man.
>Ross Commenting on ("It's funny how a married women can be driven to this
>level of
>desperation and passions simply by telling her "I want you and I would like
>to have a passionate love affair with you behind your husband's back." I
>wonder how powerful this can be when used on single women or ones with
>boyfriends. I can't wait to test it out on other unsuspecting victims. Any
>comments?")
>I think you did a fucked up thing....you could have framed it as an
>indulgence in a special place where the ordinary rules and roles don't
>apply, so she could have done it and still been ok with her marriage.
MARK I did tell her it would be passionate, special, secret and taboo.
Especially in this case where an affair is the wrong thing to do it makes it
more exciting and enticing. If I made it seem that is was acceptable to her
marriage to indulge the thrill of the affair would have lost its luster. My
making it forbidden and taboo makes it more appealing and exciting. I have
slept with a few women with boyfriends and when I asked them why they did it
and how they feel about it they all say that it feels thrilling and taboo
but that makes it more exciting and inviting. After all, why would you have
an affair that is just as boring and mundane as your marriage.
>YOU fucked this one up.
MARK She keeps calling despite everything and wants to see me for
"something more." I think you need to work a little bit more on your
analysis of extra marital affairs.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Joseph:
Commenting on: "More on the idea of a Cliff's Private List seminar next
summer in Montreal
that was mentioned in the last email I sent out So far, all comments have
been positive except that a couple of people think it should be held in the
U.S. The reasons for it being here are as follows (and I could be
convinced otherwise)
1) The women in Montreal are worth the trip.
2) U.S. money is worth a lot more here (you are talking like over $1.50
Canadian for $1 U.S.) so even if the flights are more expensive, once you
are here you should find it cheap. And you can fly cheap (see
www.jetblue.com) into Burlington, Vermont and drive (or catch a bus) 1.5
hours to get up here.
3) My previous discussions with others who hold seminars in the US that it
is difficult to find a hotel at a reasonable price where you have all the
facilities you want that is available when you want it -- not to mention
that it is even more difficult to get a hotel that meets that description
which is located in the heart of the action in the city. This is easily
available here - eg. at Major Mark's seminar, the hotel was two blocks away
from one of the two main trendy streets in town so going out at night was
just walking distance away.
4) I can arrange and do things here that I can't in another city (and I
have some ideas that would a lot of fun).
As for those concerned about going to another country when they come to
Canada, it would be best if you had your passport up to date but as far as
I know you don't need any special visas to come here -- in fact, in theory
you could probably get across the border with just some good photo i.d.
like a driver's license (but it would be best to have a valid passport).
There has been a lot of press lately about reducing the restrictions
between the borders of Canada and the U.S., and this may be much more
advanced or even in place a year from now.
I am very interested to hear comments from anyone who finds this of interest."
Montreal is definitely the place. Us Yankees need to learn that there is a
world outside of our borders. Nowhere in the US will you find exotic ladies
like in the quantity and quality of Montreal. AND, Montreal is the closest
you can get to Europe without crossing the Atlantic. St. Catherine's Street
is one of the most awesome strips in the world. Can we have it during The
Jazz Festival?
Joseph Commenting on:
Sisonpyh from doubleyourdating.com:»
Every time I would tell this guy about some idea that I was learning
Finally, I met a guy that might be the most unreal of all of them (a friend
of Rick's of course). This guy is like a cartoon or something. The first
time I met him he's saying things like "I have to fuck a lot of women. I
need two, three, four at a time... I walk up to women and say "Hi, you're
hot, I'm taking you home with me and my girlfriend..." I know this sounds
out there, but it's 100% true. I've personally seen this guy in action on
MANY MANY occasions and he just blows my mind every time. One night he and
I and Rick were standing on the side of the road and he was literally
waving carloads of women over He
would up getting us a ride home with two teenage chicks (one of which I
later had over for an evening of fun, but she was a virgin and wanted me to
be the first and I said "No thanks... I don't need a stalker...") I digress.
Anyways, you get the idea. This guy is a monster.
Isn't this the same guy that was at one of Ross's seminars and says that
he's one of Ross's students? The guy who fucks Houston? Isn't Rick one of
the guys that contributed to Methods and Masters (Speed Seduction»?) I bet
they don't call there own work "faggot shit."
My Comment: Yes, that is the same Rick.
Joseph (Commenting on the following from Sisonpyh):
"(I'm about to make some broad, sweeping generalizations that require you to
insert "in most cases" and "usually" and "I'm a grownup and I know that I
have to go try this for myself" and such. So for all you who like to take
snippets out of context, here's some good material for you...)
1. I think that there is a big difference between what women 'want' and
what causes them to feel ATTRACTED to a man at a gut level. And I don't
think that women are consciously in control of this automatic, visceral
attraction mechanism.
2. I think that most men could not tell you what triggers this automatic
mechanism.
3. I think this female turn-on mechanism is HARD WIRED into the brain and
nervous system, and reacts to certain things instantly and automatically.
These things can be looks, smells, voice, behavior, a combination, or
whatever."
Whatever? Maybe pattern speech, stories, performances, admirable ethics,
authority, money, weakness which triggers maternal instincts, a shared
traumatic experience, etc.
It was a popular saying not long ago that women are most likely to fall in
love with a man while watching him do what he does best.
And yet, I played in front of 10,000 people last month and didn't get laid.
I have, however "performed/seduced" for an audience of 1 and gotten laid.
Seems out of 10,000 people one would have been attracted. Seducing one
person, however, was more effective.
Joseph (Commenting on Sisonpyh):
" 5. I think that when Marlon Brando was beating his wife and furrowing his
brow in "A Streetcar Name Desire" that women were creaming themselves in
their seats in the theaters. (I had to throw in a shocker example.)"
Yes, but Marlon can make them cream all he wants. If he doesn't do anything
to cajole them to the bedroom they may decide to go home and take all that
lust out on their borefriends.
Joseph (Commenting on Sisonpyh):
"I think that by acting more 'masculine' and by doing a few things, you can
keep increasing the attraction level... until you ultimately get what you want.
Remember before when I mentioned that some of the 'seduction' methods I
used originally seemed a little out of place in many situations? Well, when
you're doing the cocky and funny bit, and acting more macho studly manly
(in a certain way, of course), it comes off more REAL in most situations."
I'm an ex-boxer and bodybuilder, weigh 210 lbs. and stand 6'3". Whether it
works or not, I'm not going to act like a cocky Neanderthal because they
have always repelled me. I can almost always kick these guys asses, so it's
laughable to see them strut. In my case, at least, being a seducer is much
more real to me than being a stud. I can't stand those swarmy jock type PUA's.
Joseph (Commenting on Sisonpyh):
"When you're talking to an old buddy, you are totally un-self-conscious.
You're cool and laid back. You could give a damn what he's thinking about you.
Now, add a dash of "I'm skeptical about you" to this mix, and you have a
pretty good start for what I'm talking about."
This is a good technique. It's also similar to what is taught as the basics
of SS.
It's not totally necessary to fuck a woman, but it won't hurt if you do it
right and is THE Approach to some of the club type chicks.
Joseph (Commenting on Sisonpyh):
"I personally like to practice on EVERY WOMAN I MEET. I work waitresses,
checkers, homeless chicks, whatever. I'm always trying to find new ways to
get a woman to say "Damn, that guy is cool and funny...." and most
importantly to have that INSTANT SPARK OF ATTRACTION."
Yes that compelling click...right there.....like you're instantly drawn.
Did you know you could use embedded commands and accurate descriptions to
install this in a woman?
Joseph (Commenting on Sisonpyh):
"By the way, I used to be self-conscious about making sexual innuendoes and
making jokes by sexually misinterpreting what a woman says... but I've
found that if it's done in a sarcastic, funny way it is MAGIC. Women love
to make jokes and talk about sex, and if you can take what they're saying
and use it to ACCUSE THEM OF TRYING TO PICK YOU UP OR GET YOU INTO BED it
is so damn funny and attractive..."
Excellent advice this is so true.
Joseph (Commenting on Sisonpyh):
"Postum Scriptum I just let Bisexual Babe Banging Rick read this whole thing
(he's my roommate, by the way...) and he had a response that I thought was
pretty damn insightful. He said Seduction is stepping into a woman's world,
then leading her into your world (and hopefully getting laid in the
process) and the model that I present here of "Attraction" is in effect
saying "I'm a man, you're attracted to me, and you're going to come into my
world" (which, if done right, often creates instant attraction)."
To all women? All of the time? I think that it's great to do this if it
works for you. But I also think that it's not pro-active enough and that
only a certain type of woman will bite. With seduction, you can change
strategy to nab the particular desired fish. Like with a spear gun.
Attraction is more like sitting on a dock with a fishing pole waiting for a
nibble. If you're bottom fishing, you're only going to catch bottom
dwellers, and not necessarily the type of trout or catfish you want. I like
hunting better than fishing.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Halbster:
> "Hi do you have the time?"
>
> "Sure, do you have a dollar?"
Do you have the energy? : )
A few years ago I attended a fascinating seminar with Tim Hallbom. Although
I don't think he has much to offer the SS community, I think as someone who
enjoys thinking & NLP he is fascinating, and although he doesn't speak much
about it, I think he knows a lot about psychic stuff.
He did a very cool exercise to conclude one day. He had us close our eyes,
relax and smile. He then had us reach up physically with our hands, grab our
smile, gently stretch it, and then visualize lifting it and holding it
straight out in front of us. Then we allowed our smiles to grow and expand.
Eventually we held giant smiles that we could quickly physically pull/swish
over our bodies, or step into.
However, THE HIGHLIGHT of his seminar for me was his focus on intent. Before
beginning any exercise we first established our intent. He told us the story
of when he modeled a shaman. He asked the shaman at what point during a
healing ceremony a healing was completed. The shaman replied "The moment I
clearly established my intent. The rest was just ritual."
I'd like to toss the following questions out to the list
1) What role does intent play in seduction?
2) How do you use intent?
3) How does a person develop intent?
4) How do you establish your intent?
4) How do you become clear on your intent?
Intent is also an interesting thing to model
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
NightLight9:
NightLight9 comments on
> Ronnie
> I have noticed other people using this style as well with
> success, and it does not seem to be dependent on how good looking you are
> or how much cash you have, women just respect you when show them your
true
> passions about them and deliver it with a smile (similar to the grand
> master style that you see posted on the Maniac site - see
> http://www.pickupguide.com).
Who is using GM style besides Nathan? I don't know of anyone posting to
this list. I'd like to meet them. GM style is beyond forward, it's rude and
crude. I'm not against it in any way, that's just what it is (how it
works). I think what you describe might be better termed, non language
pattern based PUA tactics.
> My question is this, when should a person choose the direct
> nonNLP route or when should they choose the SS type route? [snip] I like
the
> SS model because it offers incredible potential and creativity in the
> seduction process and is very different from the macho, hard drinking
> "alpha" model that many think is the path to PUAdom.
That is something you need to experiment with. Most of us use a little of
both.
> However, the process
> of SS is not
> natural for men, it takes a lot of time to learn the materials for some
and
> on first sight is more complex and intricate; it is definitely the
thinking
> man's seduction.
It can become natural. Walking wasn't natural at first either...
> In fact, I knew of one PUA who used the BJ pattern and
> instead of using chocolate as a metaphor he used the word penis. He got
no
> complaints from the woman. On the other hand, the direct model is nice
> because it is so simple, in other words it is short and sweet. It just
> seems a lot easier to tell a women that she is pretty and that you want to
> give the most passionate experience of her life to her.
It easier, but it doesn't always work. Every woman and every interaction is
different. That needs to be accounted for.
> At any rate, I am at somewhat of a crossroads on what direction to take.
>I have made direct sexual remarks before to women and not gotten any
> flack. Is it that women are changing and becoming more open where NLP is
> not as necessary as it once was? Or is it that some individuals are more
> suited to one style over the other? I am not looking for debate, just
some
> concrete advice.
If you have access to a PUA who uses non-SS tactics well, model them while
you have the opportunity. If on the other hand you are on your own, go
with SS as there a is a lot of documentation on the net for it and it takes
time to get good at. As time progresses, you will want to learn both.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Peta:
> 1. I think that there is a big difference between what women 'want' and
> what causes them to feel ATTRACTED to a man at a gut level. And I don't
> think that women are consciously in control of this automatic, visceral
> attraction mechanism.
PETA I agree, I certainly have what I call a 'template'. It's a physical
[looks body structure] thing and it's an energy thing. A lot of women may
have this but not realize it. I only did once I started doing this work.
I'm not sure where the template came from, but I suspect [women's intuition]
it was formed early in childhood. At age 10, I was IN LOVE with Elvis
Presley. Over the years there were guys, in the street, on the TV that I'd
look at and sense an attraction - physical stuff. I discovered they all
had the same look.
That said, most of the guys I've had long term relationships didn't fit this
looks wise. A few were blond, one was bald [great energy] but they all had
some kind of excitement. Either they had done some kind of wild stuff, were
still wild [as I got older this got less attractive and replaced by
adventurous!], but they all had self confidence and a very definite masculine
thing about them.
> 2. I think that most men could not tell you what triggers this automatic
> mechanism.
Probably true, but perhaps skillful use of NLP could create an overriding
trigger... I wonder if that's possible? Not that I'd like to have my
mechanisms tinkered with, and saying that, I realize no amount of hypnosis or
NLP will change against my will what I want to keep.
> 4. I think that 'seduction' techniques are an indirect way to get at this
> mechanism, meaning they WORK, but they are not the most effective way in
> general. At best, most 'seduction' techniques are still slower than what
> I'm calling 'attraction techniques'.
> 5. I think that when Marlon Brando was beating his wife and furrowing his
> brow in "A Streetcar Name Desire" that women were creaming themselves in
> their seats in the theaters. (I had to throw in a shocker example.)
>6. I think that there is a way to project this masculine ATTRACTION quality
> without being abusive, mean, fucked up, violent, or otherwise ridiculous.
> 7. I think that adding humor can increase your success with this concept
> dramatically.
PETA I'm interested in these ideas. As I read on, something inside said,
here's some cool ideas. I'm talking from my subjective experience as well
as my second hand experience gleaned from other women.
Here's my take. Women have become more independent, able to take care of
themselves. BUT, the evolutionary psychologist's take is that we hard wired
with certain desires that are remnants of very important biological drivers.
In primitive times, our only purpose was to gather nuts, bear children and
ensure they were safe. Men played this role. Our drivers primed us to seek
men who could protect us from predators, animals, cold and provide enough
sustenance to keep us and the children alive.
We were primed to recognize the signs of a good man. Over the ages, these
signs have evolved. We used to look for a man who could hunt the biggest and
the most animals, and win the most fights. Those drivers are still driving.
If we look for a man who has money/a future/possibilities to generate
good income, it is because that is the evolved symbol of being able to
provide. If we look for a man who has symmetrical looks and a strong body,
it is because that is the evolved symbol of being able to protect us.
BUT our brain has evolved too. And we have adapted the requisites of a
partner to meet the way things are. We look for men that are going to
commit. With each new man we encounter, our biological driver is not to
spread our seed, [one male fucks many females in the animal kingdom] but to
find that protector.
We'll always have that in mind, whether we are up for some fun or not.
Unconsciously in many of us, we are sorting men in our own way. Men who
are cruel, vicious, etc. are demonstrating excessive signs of
'maleness'...women can be attracted to this maleness. Those women who are
well balanced quickly put aside this attraction and evaluate these men as
rejects. Others aren't clear enough in their thinking or don't have enough
self esteem or are just plain dumb and they continue the attraction. Often
they have a belief that if any man shows an interest in them they should be
grateful and take whatever he dishes out.
I believe that we are attracted to a maleness and that men who learn to
harness and emit this in a way that is without malice will be very, very
attractive to women.
Lots of men step through my door for coaching. I can always recognize those
that don't have it. I sense their sexual energy is repressed. It's in the
way they hold their body, their movements, their voice, their breathing.
They all have a similar story. They try not to think about sex or give women
admiring glances because they are afraid the women will think they are just
after sex and won't be interested. They want to come across as nice guys.
Problem is when they do this they emit less testosterone. And that's what
women react to. I work with guys to restore this maleness. My methods
might be seen by those who haven't seen Bandler in action, as outrageous, but
they work.
There are all sorts of ways women can benefit from encouraging men to be men.
For example, if women don't like football, there's this scenario of the man
watching the game and her getting pissed off because he's not spending time
with
her. I suggested we sit with men and watch the game, don't ask questions
at inappropriate times, get into the energy, and above all notice the
changing energy of our man. Guys who get all worked up when they watch the
game are emitting more testosterone. It's a great time for women to anchor
themselves to this and to be ready after the game to take advantage of their
heightened hormonal state!
> When you're talking to an old buddy, you are totally un-self-conscious.
>You're cool and laid back. You could give a damn what he's thinking about
you.
PETA Exactly. You are being yourself and being someone you like. If you
spend any time wondering what a woman will think about you, you are going to
spend even more time answering your own question. And unless you've got your
state sorted, you'll come up with enough reasons to stop. Meanwhile you are
emitting different chemicals and then physical signals as you go through the
process. She will pick up on them. The old buddy idea means be
yourself... and all your natural humour, etc. will flow more freely. You'll
unconsciously come up with lines that are natural,
tailored to the moment, and independently YOURS!
>Now, add a dash of "I'm skeptical about you" to this mix, and you have a
>pretty good start for what I'm talking about.
PETA Right on so far. This is flirting in some way. Saying I'm
interested, cause I'm talking to you, but I'm not sure you are right. It
gives
you power and says it's not just you who are checking me out, it's ME checking
you out too - i.e. I'm not a desperate man chasing after anything.
>Most of the guys that I know who are starting out have a lot of unconscious
>behaviors that they need to get under control before they try to act like
>Mr. Man.
>If you have a habit of looking away from a woman in a shy way every time
>you see one, you have to deal with that first. If you cry when you get
>scared, you might want to work on that...
PETA As I said earlier, a lot of my male coaching clients suffer from what
I call the 'nice guy' syndrome. Being Mr. Man doesn't mean you have to be Mr.
Bad. And you can be Mr. Man and Mr. Nice without being a wimp!
>Perhaps I'll test a girl, decide she fails (not
>intelligent enough, not confident enough, not sexual enough, etc.), or
>decide that even if she does qualify, I don't have enough time, don't
>feel like it tonight, feel like just hanging out with my friends, or am
>not in the proper context for a sexual relationship (i.e. work). So I
>have lots of female friends this way, and often enough one of them will
>jump out and decide she wants to take things to the next step.
PETA It's proper and useful that we should all put each other through
these tests. It's important for us to find someone that's a match for us,
whether it's for a one night stand or a long term relationship. Simple stuff.
Women shouldn't think men have to do all the initiating and once a man has
made a move and shown gestures of interest, it's fine for us to show we're
interested in sex if that's what we want. Go for it I say! I do!
WHAT MEN/WOMEN WANT
Enough, there's so much more that I like in this theory. It's not new, but
it's not been promoted much either. I suspect that we are all changing our
ideas constantly, creating new paths or adapting old ways. This list is a
great thinking arena and a sharing of ideas. Women can learn as much from it
as men can from each other. And it seems when women do contribute here, it's
a bonus...just another way of looking at it.
I'm thinking of starting classes for men and women, separately, on what men
want and what women want. Wild and fun stuff planned. Along with it will
go a book based on personal interviews with a lot of people about what men
and women want. If any of you guys would be prepared to fill in a
questionnaire, quite a long and delving one, get in touch and I'll mail you
one. Word 2000 format - text available too.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
David Johnson (http://mindiscovery.itgo.com - NLP & SS):
And as for everyone's response to this
> Mark
> Comments on
> "Billy 5 minutes after he sits down, she puts her
hand on
> his leg. All he says is "I'm gonna get out of here
for a
> bit, you wanna come?". Her response "Only if you
take me
> somewhere and fuck me." If looks aren't all that
important,
> then why do I see this guy, in particular, get laid
only on
> the basis of his looks??"
There is a lot missing from the picture here. It's
interesting that everyone defaults to the "looks" explanation. So
that's what was said, but it's not all that happened. I'm sure there was a
ton of non-verbal communication going on there (perhaps a sly glance on
the woman's part, another on the man's part, then a powerfully locked
gaze on both's part - full of desire and intrigue, then a leading look to
the exit on the man's part, etc.) that you wrongfully distilled out by
assuming the seduction was based on verbal communication alone.
That seduction could have had absolutely nothing to do
with looks, even if nothing was said.
I have also discussed this with others on the ASF
usenet about Eliciting 'Attitudinal' Values thru body
language». This guy might be great looking, BUT he is
giving off a vibe as well. When he approaches girls,
he is not coming from a stand-point of 'maybe' - it is
a 'certainty' that he feels and conveys in his attitude.
In a way, he is eliciting HER values of a MAN. She
wants someone confident, a challenge, someone with
intrigue. Without saying anything, he has shown all
three of these values just in his body language».
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Ross:
>I think that the road is ATTRACTION, not seduction.
I think this is actually a good distinction; I have told guys over and over
and over and over that the goal of SS is to create an attraction, that
allows THEM to choose what is going to happen.
>But here's the other side At the same time, it was VERY hit and miss. It
felt kind of weird telling
>women about their future or personalities, or telling stories in the
middle of a coffee shop when I'd
>just met them five minutes before.... there were too many times that it
all just seemed out of place
>for me.
I believe what Sis is saying is an accurate reflection of his experience,
and indeed, it CAN feel weird if you don't first have rapport and establish
a framework that makes it all ok and even desirable to be talking about
this kind of thing.
I want to say this as well; the canned language patterns are only EXAMPLES.
Anyone who has been to an SS seminar in the past 2 years will tell you we
are doing our best to encourage students to stimulate a woman's imagination
and then use what she brings up so it all seems alot more natural.
But Sis has made a point well taken in an overall VERY good post...
>In fact, they kept saying things like "I give her the opportunity to suck
my dick, and if she's good,
>she can come back for more..." and "If they start any drama I kick them
out on their ass..." and
>such.
>Four hours worth. Straight.
I know both these guys and respect them both. I think the attitude is a
pretty good one, if the attitude is that you remember YOU have something of
great value. Eric is also a very good looking guy; hell, he bounces in
strip-joints part time, so he's got lots of exposure too. I don't know if I
could pull things off without his looks.
Steve is VERY powerful, but bear in mind that Steve also uses lots of what
Sis might call "Faggot Shit" including things like Celtic Soul Gazing, etc.
etc. etc. He's very into psychic stuff and other "bait" in his approach and
he combines being powerful along WITH the "faggot shit". Hell, he's a
hypnotist for Christ's sakes.
>Then, I started hanging around with the famous bisexual banging guy
"Rick", who you've all heard
>from many times... and Rick would say all these things to me like "No
good deed goes
>unpunished" and "Be a bitch to women..." and such.
I think Rick is a natural at demonstrating authority in a woman's world,
and thus demonstrating he can take her somewhere she really wants to go,
but never perhaps realized before. That's one of the eight spokes of the
eight-spoked seduction wheel I've been teaching. It works....
>1. I think that there is a big difference between what women 'want' and
what causes them to feel
>ATTRACTED to a man at a gut level. And I don't think that women are
consciously in control of
>this automatic, visceral attraction mechanism.
I agree.
>2. I think that most men could not tell you what triggers this automatic
mechanism.
I agree again.
>3. I think this female turn-on mechanism is HARD WIRED into the brain and
nervous system, and
>reacts to certain things instantly and automatically. These things can be
looks, smells, voice,
>behavior, a combination, or whatever. Again, I think that this mechanism
comes as standard
>equipment on most women from birth. This means that they didn't choose
it... also, most have
>never learned how to control it, and they don't know how to turn it on or
off.
Hmmm.....well...hmmm.....let's agree for the purpose of discussion.
>4. I think that 'seduction' techniques are an indirect way to get at this
mechanism, meaning they
>WORK, but they are not the most effective way in general. At best, most
'seduction' techniques
>are still slower than what I'm calling 'attraction techniques'.
Attraction techniques, as you define them, seem to include displaying
attitude and a certain outlook/angle on what makes women tick.
That will get you in the door, versus perhaps getting you automatically
eliminated. But if you also don't have the looks she likes, then getting in
the door won't get you in the VIP section to use a metaphor.
Giving off those right signals, initially, may get the envelope opened, to
use Sis' analogy, but that doesn't mean she's going to read the sales
letter unless there is something in there of interest. If you aren't her
"type" or don't have the looks going, you need SS or something like it.
Attitude, ball busting, teasing, etc. work because they are "insider"
signals, but they aren't going to be enough if you aren't packing the looks.
>I act like this new woman is a friend I haven't seen in awhile, and I'm
going to bust his balls like a
>good old friend should.
See my comments above.
>You know how you talk to your old high school buddies that you haven't
seen in three years?
>"What's up/ Hey, what the hell happened to you? You grew an extra chin
and shit... KIDS? Damn,
>I thought they outlawed kids for people with IQ's of under 50...?"
>When you're talking to an old buddy, you are totally un-self-conscious.
You're cool and laid back.
>You could give a damn what he's thinking about you.
>Now, add a dash of "I'm skeptical about you" to this mix, and you have a
pretty good start for what
>I'm talking about.
Again, a good angle to take.
>Postum Scriptum I just let Bisexual Babe Banging Rick read this whole
thing (he's my roommate, >by the way...) and he had a response that I
thought was pretty damn insightful. He said Seduction >is stepping into a
woman's world, then leading her into your world (and hopefully getting laid
in the >process) and the model that I present here of "Attraction" is in
effect saying "I'm a man, you're
>attracted to me, and you're going to come into my world" (which, if done
right, often creates
>instant attraction).
Note that part about stepping into a woman's world; a HUGE part of Rick's
skill is demonstrating authority; demonstrating he UNDERSTANDS her world,
as a prelude to bringing them into HIS world.
Rick also uses metaphors, stories, and one of his favorite "kills" is my
blow-job pattern! So Rick uses SS, in bits and pieces, combined with the
"attraction" filter stuff.
Doesn't have to be either/or.
Good, insightful post by Sis...
I think alot of this is about giving off the cues that say to a hot woman
"insider" without it also saying "player, user, not-trustworthy." If you
show you are comfortable and not in "worship" mode then, what you are
really conveying is that you are used to this, she's going to be ok with
you, you know what you are doing, the ride is going to be just fine, you
can handle things.
Ross Commenting on Mark:
>So I ran a couple of
>very basic connection patterns on them, and a variation of the
>blowjob pattern, mixed in with a little teasing and ball-busting.
>Now, one woman was "happily married" and the other had a boyfriend
>that she lived with.
>They threw themselves at me. I rest my case.
Good point about what works in the real world; use SS plus some of the
ball-busting and teasing. I DO ball-bust and tease, but I have NEVER
gotten laid from that alone; I've ALWAYS had to go to languaging and some
other SS related stuff; anchoring, rapport, future pacing, etc.
I really do think there is room and even a need for both angles, but
seriously, you guys who are not great looking had better have something
BESIDES ball-busting and teasing. The ball-busting/teasing will temporarily
get a hot woman's attention because you are giving off the same signals as
a guy who is used to success at this level, but you better follow it up
with more if you don't have the looks/money to back it up.
Guys who ONLY do the ball-busting/teasing AND get laid will almost always
turn out to also be very good looking.
So...do both...give off the signals with the ball-busting/teasing that say
you are comfortable with them and they can be comfortable with you..that
you can "get inside the velvet rope" and "into the club"..but then do
something with SS once you are in to make sure you get into the VIP section.
>I do not see a woman and then instantly decide
>that I want to take things forward with her, I simply note her outward
>attractiveness and if I feel like it then test her as to whether or not
>I'd wish to proceed any further inward. I want more from a woman than
such a brief encounter, as
>Mark describes, would be able to tell me.
Good point; he is screening them for more!
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Doc:
How do you find out if a woman can be potentially a long term partner, one
whom you can
marry? With the many chicks I've been with, it's been quite superficial
until this girl I'm dating now, who I really feel a great connection with.
I am still young and have alot of time, and I am sure that LTR's could mean
moving ahead, but I am sure alot are shaking their heads saying that it's
moving backwards considering the potential of many other opportunities.
I am not the kind of guy who settles for something easily, and I keep
looking for better deals (think it was the ambition I had since a year ago
when I was still a virgin and told myself I'm going to get some!). Since
then it's been 18 hot girls, about 10 strippers, and I don't know, I just
feel like something is missing.
I guess I just want to know if there are any tests or what is the philosophy
behind all this to find out about a good LTR candidate? A friend who has
been with more than a hundred women told me once that getting into an
argument with them works. I don't know if this is true as I haven't seen him
in an LTR either. Any opinions?
My Comment: I don't want anyone reading these emails to get the wrong
impression, that I am in any way opposed to long term relationships. I
think that I am primarily opposed to is someone else deciding what you
should have in any particular situation. You meet a woman, you are
attracted and want to have sex with her. She may want to also but if she
doesn't or if she is playing a game, usually what she wants (or seems to
want) will be what happens. I am also not advocating making anyone do
anything that they don't want to do, especially women -- I need to be 100%
clear about that. However, if you can either present yourself in an
attractive enough manner, or turn the situation around so that she changes
her mind (without doing anything unethical or immoral to her), and that the
end result is that what you wanted will be what happpens, that is what I
think is the goal. Now, certainly, not every woman you meet is someone who
has the potential to turn into a serious relationship and when you find one
that is that special and that will make you happy, I think you must pursue
that or you risk losing out on truly being happy in your life (because I
know those special women are very rare and you may never find another one
like the one you may have found currently). But, in the absence of that
special connection, why should what she wants decide the situation? One of
you will get what you want (or say you want) -- why shouldn't it be you?
As far as how to find a LTR -- you might look into Major Mark's Build a
Better Girlfriend series (www.trucor.com).
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Stephane:
Someone asked me recently, "Steph, how do you manage to just walk up to
girls and talk to them without being nervous and shy?" So I taught him
this piece. Then I thought, "Maybe some of the guys on Clifford's list
could benefit from this, too!" So here it is...Steph's "Shyness
Destroyer"!!! I'm assuming everyone knows about sliding anchors,
amplification, submodalities, etc.
1- Pick 5 memories of when you felt the most
a) Seductive
b) Passionate
c) Ferocious
d) Cocky
e) Centered
(Just take whatever states you want to have when you sarge. But at least
keep Cocky and Centered. They are just too important!)
2- Amplify the hell out of each experience, and build 5 sliding anchors,
one experience per finger, so that when you slide your fingers up your leg,
the response intensifies more and more.
3- Build a submodality grid
Take an oval picture in the middle, and put fireworks around the outside.
Make the surface of it shimmer, so it shines with quivering, soft light.
Put Dolby surround-sound speakers on each side.
4- Now, to build an automatic response, start by putting a picture in the
oval part of any woman you want to sarge. Just pop her picture in and fire
off all 5 anchors at the same time, and hear the sound of 500 pit bulls
barking and growling. And, as that's happening, hear one strong, sexy
voice that says Puhlllleeeeeeaaase! (please).
5- Repeat step 4 with at least 5 different girls and let your brain
generalize it.
Of course, this is nothing new in NLP, but I thought someone here may
benefit from this little pattern. If you're already in a relationship, you
can use this grid and put your wife or lover in there before you
do.....things with her : )
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Anatole:
Re: Sisonyph's idea of attraction versus seduction. I think the direct
approach can work in that case because the subject is already "sold" on the
idea of being with the other person, or is on the fence. They are attracted
and so a direct suggestion acts like a take away - if they refuse, they
risk losing out on what they find attractive, so to be congruent to their
attraction, they must say yes to what is being offered. I think the level
of their inherent attraction affects how much they will be willing to say
yes to before they decide that what is being asked of them is outside of
their character and is a greater congruence then their attraction.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Sentinel:
I believe in the K.I.S.S. principle of keeping everything simple and after
reading Sisonpyh's rather complex Attraction Theory, it seems to me that the
only common denominator between the players Sisonpyh describes is basically
Super Confidence. It doesn't matter how intelligent a person is or what
techniques and strategies a person uses as long as the person is supremely
confident. I mean, take, for example, you have eye contact with a woman, you
walk straight up to her while maintaining eye contact, you grab her by the
hand and pull her towards you and then kiss her passionately. You can do
that without the slightest resistance and without even uttering a single
word, providing you are displaying super confidence. I know, I have done it
and it works.
To quote Sisonpyh's post ""I'm a man, you're attracted to me, and you're
going to come into my world" (which, if done right, often creates instant
attraction)." - i.e. Super Confidence.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
GoneSavage (Commenting on Ethereal):
>My response to the above starting at the ---> notation I follow you
>completely re a woman's sizing up a man up to the point where you note
>"it is at that point that the man needs to take action... If he does
>not tell her of his attraction for her, then she will think he is not
>interested and feel rejected." I have found this, in my own experience,
>is not the case at all. It is my belief that women love to chase men,
>despite the man's lack of affirmation of his attraction to her.
I think a lot is to be said to recognize and disclose your attraction for
her, but set yourself up as a CHALLENGE. Sort of a "I like you...I'm
interested in you...BUT." I make the BUT loud and clear. This hasn't been
emphasized lately. Imply that you recognize her as a sexually appealing
woman. Presuppose that she is attracted to you. But let her know
implicitly or explicitly that it will take more than that to get YOU. You
can pride yourself in being direct, and you now know that she knows you
are interested. But does she have all you need to make something happen 1
on 1? If her interest is strong, you still get the chase effect.
>When a girl says to me, having just met, "...only if you take me
>somewhere and fuck me" I'll more often than not respond "why don't you
>fuck off instead." My apathy can be scary at times, but I run with it
>anyway It helped me realize that most of the time, I need to know more
>than a mere glance would provide before I decide a woman should have the
>opportunity to pursue sexual relations with me.
Even if we are males that would jump at such an invitation, and even if
we don't have endowments that would have us approached in such a way, it
is possible and beneficial, in my experience, to CONVEY that we have such
magnetism. I don't have women throwing themselves at me, but I've had
success getting a targeted woman to THINK that I do. I do it humorously
and not in a conceited way. It keeps her on her toes, "is this guy for
real?" For example, I jokingly talk about my stint as a model or a gigolo
or whatever. It could elevate her evaluation of "looks." I point at a
girl and say, "Oh no, it's her...that girl asked me to go home with her...I
looked at her and said 'I dunno, will two people fit under a rock?'" "See
that girl, she said, 'I want to take you home and give you the gift of my
body,' I said, 'sorry, I don't accept cheap gifts.'" Get it? Either this
guy is very cocky and witty or this guy is IN DEMAND, I better stick
around and see what he can offer.
>So for me, in that situation, there would be no congruence in my
>approaching a woman and declaring my attraction to her, and wishing to
>continue things in a 1-on-1 context. I don't even know her!
Exactly! Convey that you have this indifference to meeting her. Just
another pretty face. This is where even after I have made an approach,
given her my statement of interest, I play like she is the one picking me
up. The approach and everything was her idea. But wait, I don't even know
you! Takeaway. What else do you have going for you?
>Most of my encounters with women involve their initiating the sexual or
>"interest" contact, not my own. That's for them to earn, not for me to
>dish out. I do initiate our meeting, but not sexual overtures. If I have
>to hold her hand through everything, spell everything out, then she's not
>the kind of woman I want. When I do know her adequately (qualify her),
>such a declaration of sentiment is her job, not mine - I already initiated
>things. (I don't care if she does it verbally either.) So basically, most
>of the time, just about all to be honest, I do not state my attraction to
>a woman..
What you've done for US is spell out what must happen for you to become
sexual with a woman. This is the kind of thing that I state verbally for
HER to realize and internalize and act upon for me to want to be sexual
with HER, knowing that she is a woman I find attractive. When I say
something similar to what you have written, she knows what she must do
to have what I can offer. She knows my standards are high, just like
yours. Either she pursues me or drops out. I further state how it amuses
me when women "drop out of the running" because I know how much they are
missing. I emphasize what could be theirs romantically and intimately.
Play "exclusively" hard to get. The theory is this: We want what comes
easy to us but seems to NOT come easy to anyone else. If someone seems
hard to get to everyone, then it is too much work. If it is easy for
everyone, it is cheap. You know this first hand because the women who
approach you come off as cheap...if they are willing to fuck you at the
drop of a hat, how many other "hot guys" would they do the same with?
For the rest of us, you have to imply to her that you are hard to get,
but she MIGHT have what you are looking for, she SEEMS like she has x, y,
and z. Leave it up to her to pursue you and prove it. She's thinking,
"Wow this guy has standards, he has a lot going for him that a lot of
people want, but for whatever magic, fatalistic reason, he IS attracted to
me, maybe I have a chance...."
I also love the Economic Transaction Theory, "In which you're only
entitled to that which you already have, that you're supposed to find some
sort of female clone of yourself, and doing any "better" is "getting
ahead" or some sort of injustice when examined the other way (i.e. - fat
guy with hot woman)." Excellent reframe! I keep reading what you wrote
intending to reframe the concept of the guys on this list, and I'm
thinking about how this can be VERBALLY STATED to reframe the idea of
seduction, attraction, or sex with the women we meet. Nice.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
| cliff’s list advertisment section |
| Cliff’s Comment: For those of you who are
just reading about this for the first time, I decided a couple of emails ago to add links
to these emails. The idea would be to get enough money in to hire someone to take
over the administrative work (and also to buy things which would improve this list, such
as proper mailing list software) for this list. If you were going to buy the product
anyway, just use the link that appears below and you are helping to keep this list going
at no extra cost to anyone. NON SEDUCTION-RELATED:
RECOMMENDED:
NOT REVIEWED YET:
|
| cliff’s free plugs section |
Cliff’s Comment: The following are all
recommended but clicking on the links and buying from them doesn’t send any money back
here (it is also recommended that the sponsors of these sites consider setting this up —
from the little experience I have had since I started the commercial section a couple of
weeks ago, I think you are missing a lot of business by not doing this):
|
INFORMATION ABOUT THIS NEWSLETTER ARCHIVE:
This is an archive of a free e-mail list relating to seduction,
maintained by "Clifford". Your comments are requested, encouraged, and
greatly appreciated (note that comments from different people are separated by
IIIIIIII’s). If you know anyone who would like to be added to the list, or if you
would like to be removed from the list, send an e-mail asking to be added or removed to cli***f@cl***.com[ ? ]
and it will be done. If you would like to be added to the free joke list, just
ask. For those of you unfamiliar with the references to Speed Seduction»Â®, Clifford
highly recommends your visiting http://www.seduction.com/. For those interested in seeing
the previous e-mails that were sent out ("the archives"), they are available on
request to Clifford or, preferably, can be browsed and searched at the archive at http://www.fastseduction.com/cliff/.
By your accessing this archive, you understand that the information contained in within is an expression of opinions, and they should be used for personal entertainment purposes only. You are responsible for your own behavior, and none of anything you read herein is to be considered legal or personal advice. You also understand and agree that any products you may order as a result of your reading about them in this archive are produced and sold independently from us and that any complaints, disputes or other issues which you may have with the sponsors of these products are to be dealt with directly with said sponsors and we are not responsible in any way whatsoever for any issues which you may have with them. If you are not in agreement with any of this, please leave his site now.
DISCLAIMERS:
This newsletter and the newsletter archive in general is reproduced here
with Clifford’s permission. Visual enhancements and search features have been added
by the fastseduction.com webmaster to facilitate the reading and researching of the
content. The raw text as it appears here is exactly as it appeared in the original
e-mail newsletter. Products, services, or external web sites mentioned or linked to
in this archive does not denote endorsement of those items. The contents reprinted
here are the opinion of the original writer(s) and are not necessarily the opinion of, nor
endorsed by, the owner(s) or operator(s) of fastseduction.com. The archive
enhancements are generated automatically and there may be occasions where the visual cues
don’t correlate exactly with the textual context; most of the time, though, the
enhancements are pretty accurate. The archive is updated as regularly as possible,
whenever new newsletters are sent out.
