Shannon's DMSI V2.2 Journal

[Steven]

Shannon,

I was reading some of your posts about reproduction and wondering if these additions to DMSI might help...

1) all of the following would be triggered at a level below consciousness and maybe even below the subconscious, and maybe even below the level of instinct:
2) responders have it triggered in them that the user would provide them with the best DNA for their offspring
3) responders have it triggered in them that the user would provide them with the best chance for ongoing long term survival for them
4) responders have it triggered in them that the user would provide them with the best chance of ongoing long term survival for their offspring
5) responders have it triggered in them that the user would provide them with the best DNA for ongoing long term survival of their offspring
6) responders have it triggered in them that the user and the user's DNA is unique (one and only)
7) responders have it triggered in them that all their potential competition would want the user and the user's DNA, to the point of wanting to monopolize the user and the user's DNA
8) responders have it triggered in them that access and availability to the user and the user's DNA is very limited in amount of time they could spend with the user in each moment and the number of moments that the user would be available over all (limit by frequency of availability and duration of time spent with the user during that availability)
9) responders have it triggered in them that they need to do everything they can to make sure they gain the favor and priority of the user
10) responders have it triggered in them that the user is the most fit in all ways possible and will therefore provide the most fit offspring in all ways possible
11) responders have it triggered in them that there will only be positive outcomes for them as a result of having sex with the user
12) responders have it triggered in them that all their potential competition would have all of the above triggered in them as well
Maybe your model might indicate some modifications to keep them benevolent.

[Steven]

Shannon,

I just saw your post about you updating DMSI. Thank you for doing so because over the past week or so I've felt kind of stuck about DMSI. It's like although I've become and am still becoming more attractive, the attractiveness is not translating into concrete results such as dates, etc.

The healing module has been great but I think I'm coming out of the healing part because I'm getting very antsy for dates, etc. Whereas before I didn't feel stuck, I just didn't care about dates, and going out, etc. I just wanted to be by myself as much as possible and let the healing process continue. I think your 2 to 6 week healing prediction was accurate because we are about at that 6 week mark now... Now, I'm ready for the goals of the program to be fulfilled... repeatedly

Thanks!

[Shannon]

Hey shannon,
I have a real weird experience happening. I have not used the sub yet. All I did was asking questions and trying to figure out which women sub to use. However today at the park,two girls next to me were giggling way too much, I didn't say a word, they kept saying sorry and then doing it all over again one girl was pushing her friend to my body while waiting in the lane. She did it more than 4 times and I can tell 100% that something was affecting them. Then 1 hr later another girl run up to me acted like it was a mistake and gave me real booby hug. I was like ok what's going on. Then another girl showed interest. This is unusual. Can this be happening because of me just thinking about the sub and the results?

Not to my knowledge.

[Steven]

Shannon,

I just had a thought if there is resistance about some aspects of what is possible with the current goal phrasing... what about an "all is possible" module?

[Shannon]

Shannon,

I was reading some of your posts about reproduction and wondering if these additions to DMSI might help...

1) all of the following would be triggered at a level below consciousness and maybe even below the subconscious, and maybe even below the level of instinct:
2) responders have it triggered in them that the user would provide them with the best DNA for their offspring

That gets us into the slippery slope of she's trying to get pregnant/he's trying to get her pregnant when that is undesired in the user...

3) responders have it triggered in them that the user would provide them with the best chance for ongoing long term survival for them

I don't think this would connect the right way for the result we are aiming for. I have done experiments with this sort of thing in the past.

4) responders have it triggered in them that the user would provide them with the best chance of ongoing long term survival for their offspring

this is likely to produce the issue of #2 and introduce a chance of "she's looking for a father for her existing child".

5) responders have it triggered in them that the user would provide them with the best DNA for ongoing long term survival of their offspring

See #2.

6) responders have it triggered in them that the user and the user's DNA is unique (one and only)

That the user is unique is useful but the DNA being unique is likely to lead us back to the issues of #2.

7) responders have it triggered in them that all their potential competition would want the user and the user's DNA, to the point of wanting to monopolize the user and the user's DNA

Back to #2...

8) responders have it triggered in them that access and availability to the user and the user's DNA is very limited in amount of time they could spend with the user in each moment and the number of moments that the user would be available over all (limit by frequency of availability and duration of time spent with the user during that availability)

Scarcity of access could be used to enhance motivation, but I'm avoiding the DNA thing.

9) responders have it triggered in them that they need to do everything they can to make sure they gain the favor and priority of the user

This is definitely useful.

10) responders have it triggered in them that the user is the most fit in all ways possible and will therefore provide the most fit offspring in all ways possible

Back to trying to get reproduced, Steven? We want sex, not reproduction.

11) responders have it triggered in them that there will only be positive outcomes for them as a result of having sex with the user

This gets into some dangerous waters if/when it's not true... making people feel betrayed and lied to, even subconsciously, isn't a good idea.

12) responders have it triggered in them that all their potential competition would have all of the above triggered in them as well

The reiterative approach. Interesting.

Maybe your model might indicate some modifications to keep them benevolent.

I'll have to consider this for 2.4+, because 2.3 is going to be an attempt to fix 2.2 and I want to keep it simple. But there are a couple good ideas there for sure.

[Steven]

Shannon,

Thanks for your input, and it makes sense from the perspective of that it might attract women who actually want to get pregnant rather than triggering that instinct for reproduction in the context of recreational sex.

[Shannon]

For a last run of DMSI 2.2, I ran one loop and went to my favorite sushi restaurant.

There were three female servers there tonight: Y, D and one I don't know the name of. All three are exotic beauties, but not all beautiful in the same way or for the same reason. I know Y is married.

My server tonight was D, who is the one I talked about before who is exceptionally beautiful, with flawless dusky skin and who is very intelligent. Very high value self respecting female.

I started off by talking about my girlfriend, so that all present would know about her right off the bat and we could see what happened.

The new girl who I don't know the name of started off my standing way too close to me while serving the people next to me. They and I were sitting at the bar, and there was one seat between us. She could have stood on the other side of them, or between them, but no; she stood with her butt literally in my face, and so close that I accidentally (or was it? hmmm) brushed against it with my elbow while eating. Nice butt. Not used to in-your-face butt presentations.

D seemed happy to see me, haven't seen her there in a month. When I pulled out a fragrance sample for her to smell, she immediately started raving about it and shared it with all the other servers. They all liked it. I invited her to come back to the office and I would guide her through creating her own fragrance. At first, she was enthusiastic about doing that. Then she seemed hesitant, and finally she said, "We'll see if I take you up on that." The way she did this, it was crystal clear that she did not trust herself around me alone. As in, she was more worried what she would do with me, than what I would do with her. How amusing.

Over the course of dinner, she started calling me intimate pet names. Dear, love, etc. Then she started touching me gently and lovingly on the arm, back, shoulder... and serving me, she was standing much closer than necessary.

I have never seen her do any of those three things. This is the first time she has experienced the AOSI since V1, if memory serves.

When after she called me by an intimate pet name for the third time, I said, "Thank you, love," she seemed so flustered with happiness that she didn't know what to do with herself for a moment before regaining her composure. I of course did that to communicate to her that I had noticed her efforts to be closer to me, and I like her too.

As I was leaving, she struck up a conversation with me about the fragrance. It was like, "Please don't go yet," but I had to. I talked with her for a few minutes, and then left.

I strongly got the impression from her that she was starting to/in the process of falling in love with me. If that is the case, it must be that for her, sex has to have love as a pre-requisite. I certainly would not mind having a relationship with her, she is a great catch.

The girl who gave me the butt presentation stood just out of arms reach to my right most of the time I was there, facing me, smiling happily. I tried not to look at her because it seemed awkward. I'm really curious how things will go with her in the future too.

Absolutely fascinated how D responded to me, even after me talking to her about my girlfriend.

I'm really looking forward to seeing what the aura from 2.3 does.

[Steven]

Shannon,

I was reading your post about your restaurant visit and it sounds familiar along the same themes as I experience. Lots of attraction, but then there's the hesitations from the women when it comes to following up with actions related to the attraction that might lead to something sexual. Like such high attraction also brings up a lot of inner conflicts for them. They're so attracted and drawn, and then they slam the brakes on when it comes time for them to follow through with real actions congruent with those feelings.

[Shannon]

Shannon,

I was reading your post about your restaurant visit and it sounds familiar along the same themes as I experience. Lots of attraction, but then there's the hesitations from the women when it comes to following up with actions related to the attraction that might lead to something sexual. Like such high attraction also brings up a lot of inner conflicts for them. They're so attracted and drawn, and then they slam the brakes on when it comes time for them to follow through with real actions congruent with those feelings.

In the case of D and her co-worker H (who gave me her number and asked me to call) we have to consider two factors. First, H is married... so can't really expect much there. Second, H and D are both doing this in front of their boss and coworkers, who all know I have a girlfriend. So she can't be too eager, even if she wants to.

But that's okay, because I'm going to get D to initiate anyway. It's H initiating that worries me, her being married and all...

[Steven]

Shannon,

What you said is understandable. I've noticed certainly that women are more likely to be inhibited when there are other people around, especially perceived authority figures. However, the fact remains that this pattern continues to happen to me, and I am glad and relieved that you are preparing the program in such a way to account for this phenomenon.

[Steven]

Shannon,

1) A number of years ago I was having lunch with a friend who was telling me about a man she was dating. This is what she said, “I don't want to have kids. But if this guy I'm dating right now wanted me to have his babies, I'd do it for him.” (This seemed to me a crossroads of reproductive sex and recreational sex. Perhaps in other words, willing to engage in reproductive sex, but truly desiring recreational sex. In this case, the reproductive sex would only occur when the user wanted it to. Almost like she'd be willing to make sacrifices for him. Important note: she was pursuing him, which is congruent with the goals of DMSI.)

2) About disinhibition:
a) responders know and feel the user is more than “worth the risk” to the point they happily take effective action to repeatedly fulfill the goals of the program with the user (over ride fears of judgment, or going against society or religion)

b) responders experience a fear of losing the user to their peers to the point they happily take effective action to repeatedly fulfill the goals of the program with the user (sense of urgency)

3) As analoguos to “giving them permission”:
a) responders know and feel that people they look up to, people they admire, and people they want to emulate want to repeatedly have physical sex with the user, too

b) responders know and feel that their peers want to have physical sex with the user, too

[Steven]

@kenpachi

Thank you for posting the r/K mating videos. VERY informative!

[Shannon]

Shannon,

1) A number of years ago I was having lunch with a friend who was telling me about a man she was dating. This is what she said, “I don't want to have kids. But if this guy I'm dating right now wanted me to have his babies, I'd do it for him.” (This seemed to me a crossroads of reproductive sex and recreational sex. Perhaps in other words, willing to engage in reproductive sex, but truly desiring recreational sex. In this case, the reproductive sex would only occur when the user wanted it to. Almost like she'd be willing to make sacrifices for him. Important note: she was pursuing him, which is congruent with the goals of DMSI.)

I have had multiple women I have dated tell me the same thing. "I don't want to have kids, but I will do it for you." It comes from a woman being so deeply in love with a man, and trusting him so much, that she will do nearly anything to show him how much she loves him.

The issue is that it requires love, and I'm not sure that's a good direction to be going in with this... making people fall in love with the user, I mean. Otherwise, it would be a good strategy.

2) About disinhibition:
a) responders know and feel the user is more than “worth the risk” to the point they happily take effective action to repeatedly fulfill the goals of the program with the user (over ride fears of judgment, or going against society or religion)

This is something I actually have planned for V3 already. Very good idea.

b) responders experience a fear of losing the user to their peers to the point they happily take effective action to repeatedly fulfill the goals of the program with the user (sense of urgency)

Fear is a negative emotion, and I am against inducing guilt, shame fear or any other negative emotion intentionally. That said, I am planning to include something in V3 that makes them well aware of the fact that this person is extremely valuable and rare, and so much so that she couldn't afford to risk not acting on this, which may be her only opportunity to act.

3) As analoguos to “giving them permission”:
a) responders know and feel that people they look up to, people they admire, and people they want to emulate want to repeatedly have physical sex with the user, too

This is a very good one also, and I had not gotten around to writing this one down in the list for V3, but it had crossed my mind a few times. I'll add it.

b) responders know and feel that their peers want to have physical sex with the user, too

Basically what I had in mind was, cause them to perceive this person as being someone who everyone they look up to and admire would want to and be willing to have repeated sex with, and this of course gets the "peer approved" effect which encourages action because it will be "rewarded" by approval from said peers and by the pleasure of having sex.

[Steven]

Shannon said, "I am planning to include something in V3 that makes them well aware of the fact that this person is extremely valuable and rare, and so much so that she couldn't afford to risk not acting on this, which may be her only opportunity to act."

I propose "extremely valuable and rare" be replaced with "unique, one and only, coveted, sought after, popular, and would make all people important to the responders envious and jealous, and boost the responders status just because the responders repeatedly have sex with the user".