mASF post by "Paraiso"
posted on: mASF forum: Advanced Discussion, July 7, 2005On 7/21/05 2:31:00 PM, TheDatingWizard wrote:
>On 7/20/05 1:26:00 AM, Paraiso wrote:
>
>"You get all the way where you fuck her
>and
>you don't even know her name."
>
>I'm soooo proud of you. Personally, I
>enjoy
>the process of getting to know a bit
>about the girl in front of me.
>But I guess that means I have ISSUES
>according to you.
>But let me get to the REAL point:
>See, even though you haven't explicitly
>SAID
>that you MEAN that this is a great
>METHOD,
>the fact is by drawing attention to this
>"no talking" tactic, you distort
>reality.
>This is the kind of thing where you
>screw up
>guys who start to REALLY think that the
>"no talking" kind of thing might
>be "solid game" if they just were at
>a high enough "level".
>
>BULLSHIT.
>
>As opposed to what it REALLY is, the "no
>talking",
>"tactic" is something that can happen
>ONLY in
>specific circumstances, or with SPECIFIC
>girls.
>Don't pretend otherwise.
What I said was in response to what you said about relying on what you say
rather than how you say it.
Where the fuck did I say that you must have issues if you get to know a woman
better?
If I didn't say that the no talking tactic was a good method was because I
didn't say so. Also, I don't believe in the gaps between what some think is
higher level and lower level. What I read in your post is what's commonly
alluded to on this board. A lot of people think that you have to be on some
higher level to be able to get the women you really want.
Talking to women is not that hard.
>Just caveman her and punch her lights
>out
>and slug her over your shoulder back to
>your
>bedroom, that's the ALPHA way, right????
WTF?
>Also, for most guys that I know,
>they actually ENJOY knowing a bit about
>the
>girl in front of them, so that takes
>a bit of TALKING.
>
>Ooops, I said "enjoying talking to a
>girl".
>I guess that means they have ISSUES as
>well.
This is thick coming from someone advocating the use of routines. You have no
idea about direct. Why would you respond to a thread on direct as if you knew
what it's all about? If by creating some sort of confusion by suggesting that
I think that getting to know a woman means you have issues, then read what I
said more carefully. I never suggested this.
>And if you are going to say that the "no
>talking"
>method is just an EXTREME example, well
>then you are
>doing the same thing by trying to make
>out the "indirect"
>guys as some kind of "excusers".
No I'm calling you an excuser. You're the one that said that you have to be
good looking to be good at direct and that direct doesn't work in certain
situations. Part of what Shark is famous for is his emphasis on breaking down
these barriers (excuses). You are the one that's confusing people by
suggesting that they have to be good looking or that they have to avoid doing
something because of the situation. Try doing direct in any situation and
under any circumstance, even if you're ugly, and then you'll begin to
understand what the direct game Shark is talking about. Until then, your
skepticism about the style will be exposed as excuses. I'm not trying to insult
you. I want you to experience how liberating it is to do whatever the hell you
want to do when ever you want to do it. You'll liberate yourself from the
constant task of figuring out what it is women will respond to best. I'm not
saying what you may be doing is not good, but understand what you're talking
about before you respond to someone's post.
That
>is an obscene distortion of the truth,
>it's not even exaggeration,
>it's just pure bullshit.
>The reality is that indirect and direct
>don't actually differ, it's more in
>terms
>of slightly different METHODS of
>LEARNING.
You're wrong. There is one fundamental difference that makes Shark's direct
game very different than indirect. The way Shark's direct method differs from
indirect is in the way in which the mindsets that you develop by braking down
all of the myths that have been commonly associated to talking to women have
an effect on how you see the world.
The fundamental difference between direct and indirect is that indirect
presupposes that you have to find a way to get an in with a woman. While with
direct you are no longer concerned with this. By practicing direct you get to
a point where you see yourself as having value versus trying to appear as you
do so. Since you mentioned students and learning let me state something. If
you were learning this stuff wouldn't you want to develop what is really useful
first instead of learning what to say and then figure out that what is really
useful is how you see yourself? The argument about direct and indirect is not
about what you say but more about how quickly you get to the point where you
actually believe you can get the women you want.
Direct guys argue that direct as a style is useful because you're coming from a
place where you believe that women want a man that knows what he wants and
knows how to get it. Indirect guys argue this because they come from a place
where they want to be in with women. Each style has it's merits and for all
practical purposes people will choose whatever is right for them to get the
desired results. What I object to is people saying that indirect is better
than direct without actually trying it out or actually understanding it.
>And not all folks learn best in the same
>way.
>The bottom line is that in MOST
>situations
>you WILL have to talk and you WILL have
>to be in
>the right states of mind and you will
>have
>to escalate. And you will have to know
>how to handle shit tests, etc.
Shit tests? Sorry don't encounter too many of those when I'm leading a woman.
Paraiso
|
