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 fastseduction.com/discussion.
[posts in this section may be edited, but only for spelling corrections and readability]
mASF post by "zarathustra_fi"
posted on: mASF forum: Advanced Discussion, March 3, 2004On 3/30/04 3:12:00 AM, broiledbrain wrote:
>In
>fact we can observe that the
>provider has the ultimate
>takeaway: withdrawal of his
>support.
I don´t disagree with you. As a matter of fact I have been thinking exactly the
same things.
Do you realize that if she does the slightest mistake in the direction of
trying too hard to change him into beta he WILL have to use the ultimate
takeaway.
At that point he will have to face also the ultimate pain: the killing of the
feelings for her inside HIS HEAD.
As a man I am able to do that so perfectly that my environment around would not
even notice the pain from my non verbal.
But my question is: is it possible to avoid that ultimate pain? The inside
killing of the feelings for her. I have a good friend who is going through this
right now. One of the most Alpha guys I ever met. Still with his wife he is now
in the situation he has to use the ultimate takeaway. She left him no choice.
Franco
http://www.franco-seduction.com
Online Seduction School for Single Men, Husbands & Players
"Sarge Est Necesse, Vivere Necesse Non Est " Gnaeus Pompeius, revised
>Definitely every woman is
>genetically hardwired to
>betaize any alpha that she
>gets -- but why does that
>preclude the possibility of an
>alpha provider?
>
>It seems to me not impossible
>for there to exist a guy who
>is alpha and does not
>supplicate, who at the same
>time has the resources to
>provide for his LTR(s). In
>fact I would say there are
>many examples of this. Hugh
>Hefner, Donald Trump come to
>mind but I think there are
>quite a few more than that.
>There are many
>multi-millionares for whom the
>lavish support of mistresses
>would not be an appreciable
>cost in their net worth.
>
>Being an alpha and a provider
>doesn't necessarily mean that
>the alpha has to be in an
>exclusive relationship with
>the chick. Even if it is an
>exclusive relationship it
>doesn't have to mean that the
>provider HAS to supplicate.
>
>If you disagree, please tell
>me why.
|
Unless otherwise noted, this article is Copyright©2004 by
"zarathustra_fi" with implicit permission provided to FastSeduction.com for
reproduction. Any other use is prohibited without the explicit permission of the
original author.
