The Top Pickup Artist Forum On The Internet: Fast Seduction 101

Home | 

FB Conversion

mASF post by OceanEyes

<< Home ... < Relevance Matches ... "patterns"

FB Conversion
You can search for more articles and discussions like this on the rest of this web site.

Acronyms used in this article can be looked up on the acronyms page.  To get involved in discussions like this, you can join the mASF discussion forum at [posts in this section may be edited, but only for spelling corrections and readability]

mASF post by "OceanEyes"
posted on: alt.seduction.relationships, July 7, 2005

On 7/13/05 8:40:00 PM, esk6969 wrote:
>On 7/12/05 5:02:00 PM, OceanEyes wrote:


>>Ok, so at some point, and I am
>>not sure
>>exactly where, she has started
>>to perceive
>>me as weak.
>Or rather, that's your perception, of
>her perception. May be accurate, may
>not. Remember, you're looking at this
>through the ASF lens, so anything less
>than 100% male domination in the
>relationship will be viewed as "weak".

Probably because it's a great default
position to start in.

>Which, of course, isn't realistic, nor
>attainable - more of a process than an
>outcome regardless.

Of course.

>Moving from the general, to the
>One of the things I have always done in
>my LTR with my wife, even before
>marriage, IIRC, is I have said "You're
>allowed to tell me WHAT to do, or HOW to
>do it, but not both." This accomplishes
>several things:

I like this technique ALOT, and I think
it has great application in all relationships.
Fortunately, we don't tell each other what
to do very often.


>3. It breaks down a meaning, i.e.,
>permits two general scenarios to exist
>in her mind, both of which are favorable
>to me (hey, is this like, the reverse of
>a double-bind, LOL)

I especially like this.


>Now, having said all that, of course the
>scenarios don't play out that literally;
>this is for purpose of example.
>However, there absolutely WILL be times
>when I will utter the statement above,
>and then, later on, I will encounter
>some similar version of the above
>scenarios... It's not like we hand each
>other task lists or something, but it IS
>like there is very much a "give and
>take", or to ASF it up, a "push and
>pull" sort of mentality going on.

Of course. An HSE woman won't stay powerless
in a relationship, by definition.

>Get used to this, if you want LTR.
>Negotiations are ongoing, and constant.

Of course.

>About the only time this is
>unacceptable, to me, is around sex.
>Recently, thanks to ASF, I have come to
>realize that ALL women use sex as a
>weapon in relationship, if you let them.
>My approach to this has been pretty
>direct, as in, she will say "if you do
>X, you might get a special treat",
>half-kidding, to which I will
>immediately now reply "We will not use
>sex as a weapon in our relationship.

I go further here. Sex is a favor I grant
her. I know what she likes, how she likes it,
and if she isn't more or less supplicating
for it, I don't put out. This works because
our drives are well matched, and I spend
my energy increasing attraction rather than


>was talking about. To me, LMR is
>something that happens PRE-ltr, yet, I
>have come to realize that many women
>employ a sub-version of this tactic in
>LTR, and along with it, the accompanying

This is not news to me, nor news to anyone
I know. Once married, on average, good
sex goes away.

>realization that this is totally
>unacceptable, and probably a large
>reason for the massive beta-isation of
>men in western society. It is also
>hugely ironic, since women typically
>employ it as a device to get something
>they want, in the short term, but almost
>invariably, wind up creating what they
>DON'T want, in the long term (a

Yep. I see this happening all the time.

>betaised, feminized man who grovels for
>"permission" for sex, and negotiates and
>trades for it with honey-do's, or even
>outright material purchases, tantamount
>to inter-marital prostitution).

"intra" is the prefix here, but you are correct.

>>The obvious thing to do is
>>next her. What are
>>the conditions under which she
>>will propose
>>an FB scheme? I am pretty
>>sure she won't
>>accept that scheme from me at
>>the moment.
>If you DO decide to FB her, probably the
>only way it's going to happen is through
>non-verbal communication. You still
>have separate pads, so thank stars for
>that. Simply call less, fuck less, etc.
>When she asks what's going on, tell her
>you want to "cool it" for a while.

She has already decided we need some "space,"
which I am more than happy to provide.

>Love, or the feeling of being in love,
>is literally a drug. Just the
>difference is that, the chemicals come
>from within. See the book "why we love"
>for a detailed explanation of the
>physiological processes. People "in

I will look this up.

>love" literally have the same brain-MRI
>patterns as drug addicts. Including,
>the same syptoms accompanying
>"withdrawal" of the drug. If you really

I make myself go through withdrawal symptoms
at least twice a month to acclimate myself
to the emotion. This is letting me keep
my sanity about me. I think she may be
doing this herself.

>wanna FB her (and thus, destroy the
>long-term stuff), see yourself as a
>pusher, and, like all good pushers, draw
>the line out a little bit. Make her
>miss it. And then, when you give it to
>her, give the good stuff. And back, and
>forth, and so it goes. BAM!

I think she is doing this to me also.
She told me once that I am the first
guy she has met that didn't "weird out"
on her. She isn't really totally LSE,
but with respect to relationships, she
has a track record of picking "project"
type guys. My guess is that she prefers
to be in control of the relationship, but
ends up losing attraction to these guys
pretty fast. Unfortunately, at age 41,
even project AFCs her age are losing

>Insta-fuckbuddy. Of course, she will
>soon figure it out, and go apeshit, but

Maybe, maybe not. Women can be amazingly
flexible, and have no vested interest in
keeping their word about anything. If
the idea were presented in such a way that
it was the most emotionally reasonable way
to proceed, she would insist on it.

>then, as I have stated many times, I
>never could figure out how to strech out
>a FB. Really, I only ever had FB's for
>a matter of weeks, was never able to
>fully convert into a bona-fied MLTR. I
>give props to the guys who can string
>them along for years, I don't know how
>they do it.

I think this is an age thing. Women in
their 40s, faced with decreasing prospects
all around, may very well be satisfied to
have a piece of something that is damn
good, rather than having 100% of something
really shitty. 1/3 of a player can give
a women much more emotional and sexual
validation than the average whole hubby.
Thus the basis of PlayerSupreme's whole
game, and harem of 35-45 yo hotties.

The difference is this: back a couple of
months ago when I was a "lover" she would
joke around about "sharing" me with her
hottie girlfriends. Now, if I bring this
up as a joke, she gets very upset. She
brought it up first! In hindsight, I
now know this was a test. I think I said
something like "social circle is off-limits."


>"Get your validation from your life, not
>your women." - L&C
>"Girls network" is like the Mafia with
>the difference that they use the tongue
>instead of Beretta. - Franco



OE's First Law: Any sufficiently long thread on mASF devolves into a flame war
about SS.

Unless otherwise noted, this article is Copyright©2005 by "OceanEyes" with implicit permission provided to for reproduction. Any other use is prohibited without the explicit permission of the original author.


 Learn The Skills StoreStore