mASF post by "spirit"
posted on: mASF forum: General Discussion newsgroup, October 10, 2002<gunwitch> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On 10/2/02 7:17:43 AM, spirit wrote:
> > wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]
> >.com...
> >
> >> Whatever you do dont start doing
> >this for rapport.
> >
> >I disagree - especially as it`s an easy
> >part of pacing, and pacing helps
> >build rapport and can be used in
> >different, useful ways...
>
> I don't do pacing, so?
So carry on doing what you do....
> >> Being opposite verbally or
> >> at a topical level is negative.
> >
> >Re: opposite at a topical level: My
> >experience is that this is one of those
> >things that depends on context...
>
> I just "me too" and if i have a thought on it say it back to her, they
seem to
> like it.
Different ways to the same end =0)
> >> But to be disimilar to a woman in
> >other ways is
> >> called being a man. Something you
> >want her to feel not think you are 100%.
> >
> >I couldn`t care less if she thinks or
> >feels I`m a `man` - I want her to
> >think/feel ATTRACTED to me and SEXUAL
> >about me... the rest of `the man`
> >stuff falls into place from there.
>
> Women are generally attracted to men.
People are generally attracted to attractive ( not only looks ) people...
> >> Mimiking her ways of speech,
> >feminine traits, irrational emotional
> >states
> >> (crying over bullshit), and overall
> >"ways" is no good.
> >
> >I agree about total mimicking but
> >matching and pacing her style at that
> >moment is good as is leading her
> >thoughts & feelings somewhere else a
> >moment
> >later...
>
> A quick state match can be good for rapport right at the start, but going
any
> further is to much analysis and isnt aggressive or straight forward enough
for
> my tastes.
I think we both realise that we both differ somewhat in the practical
application of various techniques... no worries... =0)
> >> Women say "i hate how men cant
> >communicate", " i hate how all men care
> >about
> >> is sex", "i hate when men act
> >macho", yet their boyfreinds cant
> >comunicate, act
> >> macho and want to fuck her all the
> >time,
>
> >Yeah... but then they dump their BF
> >for someone better as soon as I come
> >along...
>
> You arent "better" because you are more what they say they want.
I didn`t say anything about them SAYING what they want...
> You, be you
> personallity wise except with a 3 inch penis and only the ability to fuck
for 5
> minuites, and youll only do that once a week, then we'll see whos "better"
to a
> girl youve worked your mojo on, you the way you are or just about any guy
who
> could satisfy her in the sack?
Well that situation is never gonna happen is it - mental masterbation....
> "Better" to me means a whole package filled,
> ranked in order of importance to her real desires, not ONE societal
condition
> for a "good boyfriend".
...and how do YOU find out her real desires G? you`ve said yourself your
not great at (M)LTRs? ( not intended in a nasty way - just wondered how it
fits into your style/method )
> LAST in importance fom what ive found with women, upon
> meeing you is ability to communicate
I beg to differ - communication comes in all shapes and sizes - I believe
you yourself are rather good at communicating what you want and expect from
a woman in the initial meeting/approach...
> as they know if THEY open up after sex and
> into LTR ANY guy can communicate well
I disagree - just look at how many programs are out there like Oprah and
books about communicating between partners about how `my man don`t know how
to talk..`
> yet its FIRST out of their mouth when
> asked.
Because of the way a guy who can communicate well both physically and
verbally can make them feel... I mean this with respect to both styles.
> >Plus, wanting to fuck her all
> >the time isn`t the same thing as
> >getting to fuck her all the time...
>
> Then he goes and gets something else
...and how many AFCs do this?
> you seem to suggest that masculine guys
> or guys who cant communicate are lonely or something.
I didn`t suggest that at all...
> Thats not really the
> arguement here, i dont care if you are PUA, AFC, masculine, feminine or
what,
> thats a personal treatment descision. ME? An LTR "has a headache" ONCE i
wal
> out the door, with her full knowledge that its because she isnt atracted
to me
> anymore, isn't interestedin sharing sexual gratification and so im going
to go
> find someone who is right then.
...and that`s YOUR personal treatment decision. If you walk because a girl
doesn`t want sex when you want it then that`s up to you....
>
> >> and these women dont turn gay?
> >
> >Is that more to do with social
> >conditioning or simply that most of them
> >meet
> >the same uncommunicative, macho, sex
> >hungry men all the time and so think
> >that`s what all men are like and
> >therefore settle for that?
>
> I think feminism and culture tell them to SAY they settle for that, when
in
> truth they like it, else they wouldnt like me i guess.
I actually don`t think you`re the same as the `kind` of people I`m talking
about... I honestly believe that if if you were put next to the kinda guy
I`m on about who fits the above description as I see it - you`d come out
tops as the better choice...
> >> SOOOO I
> >> act accordingly and bag my share of
> >the tail.
> >
> >Probably the girls with lame BFs...
>
> Why get rude?
It wasn`t meant to be rude - I was saying you were better than the guys
they were fucking!
> I didnt attack you.
I didn`t feel that I was attacking you
> Besides that if they are really trying to
> escape the "lameness" of guys like me, why would they be fucking me?
Once again because I don`t think you fit into the same category that I`m
putting those other guys in...
> Wouldnt
> they go find a don juan styled, sensitive communicator of a guy?
That relates to my point above - for many HBs all men are the same in their
minds. Depending on their social circle, where they live etc then, from my
experience, they rarely get to meet a guy that will shatter their
preconceived ideas about men. Therefore in their minds there`s no point
looking for a Don Juan because he only exists in films or `somewhere`
else...
...and I didn`t say anything about being solely a sensitive communicator of
a guy - language and communication can be just as aggressive as physical
aggression. I just use what gets me results...
> Or even an AFC
> who let her call all the shots?
I think many relationships are already like that...
> Hey, you're mr don juan, connection based guy
Now who`s being rude? ;o>
> i can go the same route, then i
> get 1 in 4 rather than 9 in 10 with a sexually aggressive macho style, if
i
> remember correct you do as well with don juan syled methods.
My method is not totally Don Juan !!! lol I just crack out that shit
where appropriate as part of my `toolbox`
> I thought we kinda agreed that wed always disagree based on that?
True... I was mainly commenting on your post for the other guy - i didn`t
think it would be perceived as an attack on you of any kind
> You and I
> both KNOW what works for us, id say just post our own suggestions and then
let
> others decide whats gonna help THEM in their style, rather than argue
about 2
> points that are right, but quite different.
It wasn`t intended to be argumentative, I like talking round the whole
subject...
> None the less, as ive said theres only really these 2 styles that are
gonna
> get you anywhere so PICK ONE, experiment for which is best for you (do
mine
> first as its quicker to learn) or combine the two if you can.
I completely agree with that! Personally I combine the two styles - I love
the whole language thing tho as you know... I still feel that how you use
language can affect your success in PUing HBs using your method, it may not
be `fancy` but what you say counts...
> I wont argue Spirits posts about PU cause i used to get 1 in 4 with
similar
> methods so im sure some people could get 9 of 10 or even better with it.
I agree... but my method is NOT pure Don Juan language style.
> I dont
> think my posts were any different from Spirits 2 years ago, couldve
matched em
> up to the letter. Bascially though i can say that ive tried just about
every
> other method and gotten 1 in 20 results, RECENTLY now that i can apply
just
> about anything well, probably 1 in 50 if you are in first year and using
those
> methods.
Like you I`ve tried every method going too, my results improved from
building upon a game that was originally much like yours.
> I say try mine,
I second that!
> it doesnt work or you hit a sticking point of 1 in 5 women or
> such? Then you learn to theme/pattern on the fly well and gain rapport
through
> mental tactics and try that, that also gets you a sticking point, tweak
the 2
> into combos. That fails get the tumor cut off your face an stop PUing
celebrity
> women as any non-mutant can do at least 1 in 3 if he gets his shit
together.
I completely agree - whatever way you go, whatever methods/technques you end
up using, try them ALL at some point but build from a solid core of
confidence and sexuality, from something that WILL get you results. ( and
yes I do mean try G`s method first! lol )
Spirit
|
