Could DSMI v2.2 fix this?

[Steven]

@RTBoss,

That is a very good point! There is also self-trust. I can't tell you how many times I've heard women talk about a man they like and say to their friends "I just don't trust myself with him."

But yes, trust is a good one. That may be one of the missing elements.

[Shannon]

@RTBoss,

That is a very good point! There is also self-trust. I can't tell you how many times I've heard women talk about a man they like and say to their friends "I just don't trust myself with him."

But yes, trust is a good one. That may be one of the missing elements.

The issue - if it is trust - would be self trust on her part, which is based in fear of something. Most of the time, it is fear of the social or religious consequences of her desired course of actions. E.g., "acting like a slut in public".

[RTBoss]

@RTBoss,

That is a very good point! There is also self-trust. I can't tell you how many times I've heard women talk about a man they like and say to their friends "I just don't trust myself with him."

But yes, trust is a good one. That may be one of the missing elements.

The issue - if it is trust - would be self trust on her part, which is based in fear of something. Most of the time, it is fear of the social or religious consequences of her desired course of actions. E.g., "acting like a ***** in public".

She would also need to trust, then, that the person she chooses to sleep with will not go blabbing that she's a whore, or that he is indeed so high value it would be worth it.

My wife's sister (married) has talked down about cheaters in the past. Then one day she's over at my house watching the CMAs. Luke Bryan was singing. My sister-in-law says, right in front of her husband (then boyfriend), "If I ever did cheat, he could get me to do it." He just nodded in agreement, as if he acknowledged he understood that would be okay.

[Shannon]

@RTBoss,

That is a very good point! There is also self-trust. I can't tell you how many times I've heard women talk about a man they like and say to their friends "I just don't trust myself with him."

But yes, trust is a good one. That may be one of the missing elements.

The issue - if it is trust - would be self trust on her part, which is based in fear of something. Most of the time, it is fear of the social or religious consequences of her desired course of actions. E.g., "acting like a ***** in public".

She would also need to trust, then, that the person she chooses to sleep with will not go blabbing that she's a *****, or that he is indeed so high value it would be worth it.

My wife's sister (married) has talked down about cheaters in the past. Then one day she's over at my house watching the CMAs. Luke Bryan was singing. My sister-in-law says, right in front of her husband (then boyfriend), "If I ever did cheat, he could get me to do it." He just nodded in agreement, as if he acknowledged he understood that would be okay.

The idea is that he believes that either it will never happen, or that it's justified somehow (maybe he would do the same thing for Drew Barrymore, for example).

My girlfriend does the same thing, "Oh, Luke Bryan! Swoon, take me! Oh, but baby, I would never cheat on you, he's never going to see me, and he's married."

Well she knows the rules, and she knows I don't care if it's Luke Bryan or the garbage man.

[Shawn]

Well she knows the rules, and she knows I don't care if it's Luke Bryan or the garbage man.

Just get this right. You achieved with your girlfriend that you can sleep with other women and she wouldn't sleep with anyone else?

[Shannon]

Well she knows the rules, and she knows I don't care if it's Luke Bryan or the garbage man.

Just get this right. You achieved with your girlfriend that you can sleep with other women and she wouldn't sleep with anyone else?

Yes. And if she isn't happy with those rules, she is always free to go her own way. She follows these rules of her own free will because I and what I bring to the table are more than worth it for her.

[RTBoss]

Well she knows the rules, and she knows I don't care if it's Luke Bryan or the garbage man.

Just get this right. You achieved with your girlfriend that you can sleep with other women and she wouldn't sleep with anyone else?

Yes. And if she isn't happy with those rules, she is always free to go her own way. She follows these rules of her own free will because I and what I bring to the table are more than worth it for her.

If you came across a woman with higher-value, goals, abilities, etc. than you - would you be able to enter into a relationship with her if her rules mirrored yours? Also, how does having children change the rules?

[maxx55]

Well she knows the rules, and she knows I don't care if it's Luke Bryan or the garbage man.

Just get this right. You achieved with your girlfriend that you can sleep with other women and she wouldn't sleep with anyone else?

Yes. And if she isn't happy with those rules, she is always free to go her own way. She follows these rules of her own free will because I and what I bring to the table are more than worth it for her.

Even though it's not a goal listed for the program, would DMSI be conducive for creating a relationship like this given that the circumstances support it?

[Shannon]

Well she knows the rules, and she knows I don't care if it's Luke Bryan or the garbage man.

Just get this right. You achieved with your girlfriend that you can sleep with other women and she wouldn't sleep with anyone else?

Yes. And if she isn't happy with those rules, she is always free to go her own way. She follows these rules of her own free will because I and what I bring to the table are more than worth it for her.

If you came across a woman with higher-value, goals, abilities, etc. than you - would you be able to enter into a relationship with her if her rules mirrored yours? Also, how does having children change the rules?

Be able to? Sure. Be willing to? No.

Me having children is reserved for those who I know I can trust fully. Raising kids is no joke, and I need to know that the mother and I agree on how to raise kids, and that we have a steady long term relationship in place and ample means to provide them with a safe, stable upbringing before I have kids. I also need to know that we can communicate with one another openly and honestly and resolve conflicts effectively. Furthermore, I need to know that she will not use the laws that favor women to her advantage to try to take my kids from me, or something unreasonable like that. I believe strongly that a child needs both parents to grow up as healthy as possible mentally and emotionally, and the parents need to be mature and healthy mentally, emotionally and physically themselves. Therefore, the couple must have a healthy relationship and be able to stay together for the entire time the kids are growing up, at the least.

I only know one woman right now who fits those criteria. That's almost 43 years of looking to find one such woman. So I seriously doubt that it's going to be an issue with multiple women wanting to have my kid until I'm rich and famous, and at that point, we know they won't be interested for the right reasons, and they'll be dropping like flies on the disquals.

But if I were to find a woman who met all my criteria, I would consider having kids with her after she made it with me for at least 3 years. And if I did that, all of the women I am involved with would know about it up front, and they would have agreed to that possibility from day 1.

The fact is, when you're fully honest with women, and they know they can trust you, and you decide that you're going to do things your way and if they don't agree they're welcome to be just friends or whatever, you get a lot more access than you might think. People are going to do what they're going to do. I'm just being honest about what I want and need to be genuinely happy. I don't have time to waste with lies and BS in either direction.

I'm very particular. And the women I choose don't always have the attributes you might expect because what I value is trustworthiness and genuineness, not looks. Looks is temporary and generally, from my experience, correlates to people who have difficulty with being honest. For me the biggest key is trustworthiness, so that doesn't fly in my book. I'll take plain looking and trustworthy over super hot and untrustworthy any day of the week.

Give her all the accurate information she needs to decide for herself what she wants to do, and then do your own thing. If she wants to be with you, she'll do what it takes. If not, you can just be friends or go your separate ways... and nobody got hurt because nobody got lied to.

[Shannon]

Well she knows the rules, and she knows I don't care if it's Luke Bryan or the garbage man.

Just get this right. You achieved with your girlfriend that you can sleep with other women and she wouldn't sleep with anyone else?

Yes. And if she isn't happy with those rules, she is always free to go her own way. She follows these rules of her own free will because I and what I bring to the table are more than worth it for her.

Even though it's not a goal listed for the program, would DMSI be conducive for creating a relationship like this given that the circumstances support it?

DMSI is very useful for creating a relationship if it is used the right way. But the relationship that results will depend on what the parties involved agree to up front.

Most people just assume the rules at the beginning of a relationship. You have to know what you want beforehand, and state that up front when you start a relationship. Hammer out what you are both willing to accept in terms of the rules. Openly. Overtly. Honestly.

You can have any kind of relationship you want, as long as you know what you want, stick to your guns and you're open and honest about it up front. Whatever your rules are, not everyone will be willing to play by your rules, but some will. You just have to be honest with yourself and those you seek a relationship with.

[chaosvrgn]

@RTBoss,

Exactly! That is a much better and more succinct way of putting it!

I was watching a body language video on YouTube from a channel that 4Kingdoms pointed out in one of his posts:

"Let's Get Physical"

They point out the necessity of attraction + trust for physical intimacy. Attraction is clearly present, perhaps it's the trust that's missing.

I remember the first time I had sex with my wife, before we were married. I asked, "Is this ok?" and she replied, "I trust you."

This is a good point. The chick I hooked up with last week, she was putting up so much last minute resistance until I assured her that I didn't think she was a "slut" for putting out on the second date. I told her that we're two grown consenting adults engaging in a natural process. And then she slid out of her clothes, smiling the entire time.

That's when I slapped her and said GOTCHA, CHICK! YOU A HO!!!

Nah, jk. I'm kidding. I'm kidding.

[DarthXedonias]

Hey Steven

To follow up with what I said in Shannons DMSI testing thread I did a little more research on the "emotionality" component I was talking about. You might want to read this:

http://www.medicaldaily.com/study-womens...ens-354226

Apparently as you might have read from the study not only women and men's brains wired differently when it comes to rationality/being emotional, but there seems to be a link between testosterone and estrogen concerning this phenonmon

More Testosterone= tending towards more logical response
More Estrogen = Tending towards more of a emotional response

I also found something interesting a commentor wrote on a blog that I had saved a while back"

"[T]he male brain experiences an acid flush about three months into gestation damaging the corpus callosum, or intermediary between the two hemispheres. This makes women more prone to bounce around between hemispheres, and men more prone to focus cognitive energy to areas of the brain consistently. Furthermore, the caudate nucleus, ventral tegmental area (VTA), limbic system, are shown to be up to three times larger and far more active in the female brain than in the male brain. The combined over influence from irrational, emotional centers of the brain together with the propensity to bounce around frenetically between hemispheres, leads to a less rational, more emotional product.

And why would nature build women in such a manner? Because, in accordance with CH axioms, nature has designed women to be more emotionally prone for the (main) purpose of child rearing. Furthermore, the rapid oscillation between hemispheres allows them to parallelize household tasks in the home, i.e. taking care of children, cooking, cleaning, negotiating with other units in the tribe, etc. Males on the other hand, have more inherent ability to focus. That combined with a heightened depth perception made us more adept for the hunter gatherer role. It goes without saying thus far, we are in complete agreement with CH maxims."

I found this very interesting and thought this further proves my idea that there should be a emotional component to the aura effect wise.