myth's Belated DMSI 3.1 Journal

[myth]

So let's improve the program from all angles. None of us should be speaking in absolutes, like we're the foremost expert.

Funnily enough, that's why I chose the moniker. Popular absolute opinions often make me feel like I'm not supposed to exist.

There's always someone better, always someone who's more "in-the-know."

And always more to learn, no matter how much you know. Which I find pretty awesome, myself. In both dictionary and colloquial connotations.

That being said, I vibe with Myth. Dude knows what he's talking about - in my opinion.

I'm flattered. The vibe's mutual, which is usually how vibes work, so that's not really a surprise. And I do hope that DMSI, whatever the version, gets some of that ice to thaw again for you (when you're done with your MHS run?).

[SargeMaximus]

MONSTER POST AHEAD!!!


Seriously, just skip the parts that aren't relevant to you (the reader).

Now we got two guys without experience piping up about how women behave.

Guys, leave the theorizing to the people with experience. Other than that, obviously report on what you feel is holding you back from experiencing what others are. But don't lean back and act like you know what it actually takes. Leave that to the guys who do.

I'm not trying to be insulting. I just draw the line at statements being made as fact when you have no idea what you're talking about, for real.

Perhaps we have a different definition of initiate.

I've been approached by women my whole life (mostly while on DMSI, thanks Shannon! But also before then) so yeah, they make the first move BUT (and this is a big but) does that lead to sex? No.

What I meant was, the girl won't ask you out, won't take her clothes off for you, won't drag you into her bedroom.

Now, if you're saying that has happened to you, then great! Guess I was wrong. Still waiting for that to happen for me however.

The question then becomes: how does that happen? What's different between RTBoss's experience and Sarge's experience? What is Sarge missing? What could DMSI bring to the table for guys like Sarge to get results like RT?

It's about improving the program.

Sarge, I'm going to quickly chime in here and say that during my 3.1 run, I was seduced quite a few times. I won't go into the number of women I slept with while on 3.1, what I will say is this concept of having to be good with women to see success with DMSI is somewhat baseless.

If you want to be seduced, it's an easy answer. You need to be sexually comfortable in your own skin. That's it. If you stop thinking about sex as this elusive thing that stands outside of your reality, and begin to embrace your own sexual energy, women will respond to that.

Picking up women isn't that hard. It's actually quite easy. Don't get caught up in your own head, don't get desperate for an interaction or a result, enjoy being in your own skin and embrace your own sexual energy.

Women and sex are just byproducts. I can't tell you how easy it's been for me to get a woman into bed. Most of the time because I just didn't give a shit. I let myself experience my own sexuality. I embrace that. I don't hide behind it. A woman will either respond to me or she won't. Women that appreciate a sexual man will respond. Women who do not, will not. There is no one woman ever.

And I don't try to make small talk or keep a conversation going. Most of the time I'm pretty aloof. Usually it just falls into my lap and I let things go where they may.

It's a mindset more than anything else. It has nothing to do with being good or bad. Change your mindset, and everything else changes with it.

Thanks, but this doesn't change anything for me. It's too vague, and I can't possibly glean anything from it except "don't try".

Cool.

Did that for 24 years, no sex.

Now we got two guys without experience piping up about how women behave.

Guys, leave the theorizing to the people with experience. Other than that, obviously report on what you feel is holding you back from experiencing what others are. But don't lean back and act like you know what it actually takes. Leave that to the guys who do.

I'm not trying to be insulting. I just draw the line at statements being made as fact when you have no idea what you're talking about, for real.

Perhaps we have a different definition of initiate.

I've been approached by women my whole life (mostly while on DMSI, thanks Shannon! But also before then) so yeah, they make the first move BUT (and this is a big but) does that lead to sex? No.

What I meant was, the girl won't ask you out, won't take her clothes off for you, won't drag you into her bedroom.

Now, if you're saying that has happened to you, then great! Guess I was wrong. Still waiting for that to happen for me however.

The question then becomes: how does that happen? What's different between RTBoss's experience and Sarge's experience? What is Sarge missing? What could DMSI bring to the table for guys like Sarge to get results like RT?

It's about improving the program.

Cool - I understand where you're coming from. All I'm asking is for you to say, "In my experience, this has never happened to me. I think it's because...X,Y,Z...or perhaps it would happen if...A,B,C..." But speaking in absolutes and drawing conclusion as if they apply to everyone else? That's the issue I'm taking up, here.

Fair enough.

In my defense, I thought that went without saying.

Plus, I often DO say "in my oipiunion" or "in my experience".

I have an authoritative "know it all" tone that serves me well in sales, perhaps that's it.

And a lot of my conclusions are drawn from sales experience and recent failed approaches (approaches from the woman that ended up fizzling out).

I want you to feel like you can contribute, and you should. No reason to sit on the sidelines - but honor where you are. There are guys on this forum that have experiences that make my head spin. They make getting laid seem like an everyday occurrence. I don't know how that's done, and I have no problems saying so.

Yeah I get you. I'm not trying to say I have more experience with women. I do think I have a psychological know-how however. Mostly from my sales experience, but people are people, and women are people too.

But yes, it has happened to me. I have had a beautiful woman look me in the eye and say, "I'm so fuckin' horny - 'someone' is going to have to take me home to their bed tonight. And if 'he' doesn't, I'll have to find someone else who will." So I did, because I was attracted and she made it super-easy for me. She had the biggest titties of any girl I've slept with! It was fun. I banged her two more times before she pulled the relationship card and that's when I said, "No thanks, I was just having fun and was hoping that's all you were looking for, too..."

So let's improve the program from all angles. None of us should be speaking in absolutes, like we're the foremost expert. There's always someone better, always someone who's more "in-the-know." Hopefully we can all just share opinions - and agree or disagree - and get DMSI to where it needs to be so 90+% of us can land new sexual partners (for however long we'll have them) week-in-and-week-out.

Totally agree.

That being said, I vibe with Myth. Dude knows what he's talking about - in my opinion. EDIT: And, of course, my buddy Duke - always has somethin' good to say!

I get you.

There is a difference between playing and coaching, however.

Wayne Gretzky was the greatest player in the NHL, but he can't coach.

Just sayin'.

So... both sides wait indefinitely for the other to start?

Yes, this is a problem many of us are experiencing on DMSI.

Which is why I advocate picking the right role for the situation. If she doesn't want you, you have to start. If you start, she isn't the one starting. Conversely, she'll start if she wants to and if you let her. If she doesn't or you insist on acting like she can't start, you have to be the one to start. And I'm beginning to talk in circles now.

Kind of, lol.

Yes I can agree with that.

DMSI should allow us to do both.

There is some concern that DMSI only caters to women who already want you based on whatever limited information they have at the present time.

Of course, but when? It seems to me you think a girl who doesn't want the guy will NEVER want the guy and vice versa. Am I right in that assumption?

Not exactly. You're trying to rewrite the scene midway through because you're thinking about making the sale, so you're resetting the scene and roles at each step -- which you can't expect others to do along with you. Yes, you can potentially convince a woman who doesn't want you to change her mind about you. That's called seducing. At which point, you've already laid the groundwork and the set tone as seducer, and, even if you've reset the roles in your head because she seems more interested, she's probably going to go with momentum and stick with her original role to allow you to make your first move as seducer. She's expecting you to continue what you're doing, not to pass the baton to her. Otherwise, to reference my post from yesterday, you're expecting Chewbacca to put on a dress in the middle of the movie and start reading Leia's lines. Or, to put it another way, when you convince your potential customer that your product is a wise investment, you don't suddenly turn into a customer and start buying the product from them. You're still the salesman who started the pitch, and they're still the customer. They're not going to expect to trade jobs in the middle.

I disagree.

If you provide the right information, people go from disinterested person, to raving customer chasing you down the street after you've left their house (true story/field tested).

Give someone the reason to buy, then stop pushing the product, they WILL do the rest.

Why not? Knowing you want her could empower her to make the first move because she knows she won't be rejected and be embarrassed.

Because not being rejected isn't an enticement to want what you don't want. If a woman that you found completely unattractive came up to you and said "I won't reject you"... would you suddenly want her?

No... got me there.

Sure you do, because women don't initiate, so even if you know the girl wants you, you still have to ask her out.

Women initiate. I've had some do so quite forcefully. But they tend not to initiate if you're communicating to them that women shouldn't initiate, women aren't welcome to initiate, men must initiate, you're too nervous for them to initiate, etc. Women can initiate, but they probably aren't going to fight against you in order to seduce you. It's a little counter-intuitive. Don't decide for them that they can't, and that difference can come across.

Now, I find it hard to believe you actually think that if a girl doesn't want you NOW she will never want you.

I also find it hard to believe that you could possibly think that finding out new information about a guy has NO bearing on her future decisions regarding sex with that guy.

Probably because I don't think that at all. But responding positively to your seduction is not that same as expecting you to stop seducing so that she can, for no reason at all, change what she's doing to try to get the guy who already wants her... to do what he's already doing.

If I'm driving along and my car suddenly stops running, my first reaction isn't to think, "Oh, it must be my turn to carry the car." You established a role. If you stop moving forward in that role, she may be likely to think that you lost interest.

Like I said, it's a sales tactic. Works quite often and very effectively for me.

I don't want to reveal the ins and outs for obvious reasons.

Yeah that ssounds like the opposite of what I want.

To me, seducer is a guy who picks a girl (like me and my hairdresser) and can use his skills to get HER.

Firstly, one woman is the first step in any numbers game (over time). Don't confuse a numbers game (more women mean more possibilities that she'll say yes) with being about empty "Can I get your number?" approaches.

Or, if you're referring to seducing one woman independent of constant rejection, that woman may not take kindly to you never honoring her rejection.

I'm hoping that you'd meant the first one.

Ok. Well, I meant that you can get a single woman regardless of the rejections.

In sales I learned "no" simply means "I don't have enough information yet". That includes information about other products (in this case, other men she'd say yes to).

But the theory is: if you are the kind of guy she wants and you haven't shown her that, she will reject you until she finds out.

PUA Skills (as I'd like to learn) are how to show her what she wants.

You can't know she'd love your frown until you frown around her and notice she suddenly moves closer, for example.

It's all microbehaviors but the theory is, if you could calibrate well enough, you could only show her the parts of yourself she likes (without being fake. So like, only talk about stuff she likes to talk about) and stop showing her the parts she doesn't like.

In sales they are called "hot buttons"

I had an instance a whiole ago, was making my pitch but the woman seemed hesitant. She went silent.

Thinking fast I just guessed that maybe she didn't think our company was reputable. So I said "by the way, we do have an A+ rating in such and such"

Immediately she changed her whole demeanor and not only set the appointment but invited me into her house, and we were chatting and joking in no time.

I didn't have to lie, but I did have to show her what she wanted to see.

Same in pick up I THEORIZE.

He's NOT a seducer until he can seduce the WOMAN (singular) of his choosing.

And that sounds like where the definition is falling apart. On two counts. Firstly, he is choosing. If you try to seduce a woman for two hours on day #1, that's one chosen, seduced woman. If you try to seduce a woman for four hours on day #2, that's two. Do that a bazillion times, and it's a bazillion approaches and a numbers game. The "numbers" in "numbers game" isn't phone numbers, it's how many you try until one says yes. The same way that a lotto being a numbers game isn't about phone numbers or the numbers on the lotto balls. It's about statistical odds. I'm not talking about PUA "Can I get your number?" stuff and never was. It's as if you think that no conversation is ever involved in any seduction other than the ones that you do.

And my second concern is about you defining seducer after a seduction's success rather than during the seduction. Granted, he's not a successful seducer (with that woman) until he seduces the woman, but he's a seducer (neither successful nor unsuccessful) as soon as he begins the seduction process, starting with approaching a girl and continuing through trying to convince her. Once he's started, he's assumed the role. If you've put on a Fedex uniform, don't be surprised if people start treating you like the delivery guy, even if you're not succeeding at delivering any packages.

Fair enough.

IMHO, this is no better than your first paragraph because you are still at the mercy of "fate" or "luck".

Like it or not, you're just "getting lucky" and that is NOT the way of the seducer.

Firstly, that wasn't the seducer paragraph, that was the seduced paragraph. And it very much isn't the way of the seducer -- which has been my whole point.

Secondly, no. It's not luck to: play up my best qualities, go to a receptive location, position myself near attractive women without seeming like an approach, be open, have conversations, make them convince me, etc. That's calculated effort. The difference is: I don't insist on seducing a woman before she can seduce me. And seduce me is not walking up to me and saying, "Wanna take me home?" Well, except when they do that. But I still make them convince me, if I even agree to do so. Her approaching and initiating is a start, but, usually, there's a lot more to the seduced's script than saying yes/no and heading to the nearest bedroom. Because it's pretty much the same script that the girl's following when you approach her.

Interesting. And now you got me thinking we're talking about the same thing, because this sounds exactly like what I'd like DMSI to train users to be able to do.

The difference is:

Have you done that and saw a girl you wanted and gotten HER? And have you been able to do this repeatedly with predictable outcomes?

If so, then that is seduction to me.

It works for YOU, which is great, but for many of us (*cough* me *cough*) such a thing isn't possible. Either by lack of awareness or social skills.

Then improve them. Here's an exercise to try. Spend a day with your brother or a friend or whomever, with both of you completely silent, and practice communicating while not talking. Don't rely on Charades. Just stick with the simplest of body language. Practice and improve. Or: Watch TV with the sound off. Practice reading the situation with no words to guide you.

Or ignore me because I'm just lucky and passive. Up to you.

Lol, I'm not trying to discredit you dude. If I'm coming across that way it's a testament to my poor social skills. :/

I'm simply saying that DMSI could have modules to help in that area.

I already read tons of books (more than 10), had a social skills coach, work in sales, all in an effort to improve those skills.

I'm not being passive...

My hopes for DMSI is further and more advanced than a "luck" approach.

Hey, I'll take luck if I can get it. I don't look a gift horse in the mouth. But I'd be screwed if i relied on luck. My back-up plans have back-up plans.

I hear you. I'd take luck if I was getting it too. I just prefer both.

Nah, it makes sense.

I'm not so sure. Because I kinda feel like I'm repeating myself between posts. A lot.

Which suggests that either I'm unclear or you're inferring what you want me to be saying. And I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

To be honest I'm lost at this point. I think we're not communicating as well as we could be. :/

I guess what I'm looking for DMSI to do is a hybrid of the two.

... which would be great if there weren't someone else in the room with you that you should hopefully be trying not to confuse. I've never gotten a girl to initiate by confusing her.

(Oddly, I have gotten them to do so by being confused, but that's neither here nor there.)

Like I said: I've done it in sales. And unless ypou're suggesting that people change their psychology during a sales call, the same principles should (IMO/in theory) work for both.

1. Know what the woman you want, wants

2. DISPLAY that effectively

3. Don't mess things up

1. In under a few seconds, that's wanting to be psychic (or close enough). Not entirely impossible.

Refer to the post above about the woman and how I handled the situation.

2. And that's wanting to be capable of being everything possible.

No, it's about displaying what you HAVE that she may want but that you may not be displaying for a variety of reasons (like your mood or state).

3. And that's wanting to be infallible.

It's wanting to do the best you can. Obviously you can't be perfect, but you CAN aspire to perfection. Learn from your mistakes, and be better for next time.

Personally, I'll take omniscience, flight, and... x-ray vision? I don't know. I'll have to get back to you on that.

There's no point to staying stuck in the "me" that I prefer if another "me" can be just as attractive to women.

I hope that makes sense.

I mean, I can smile or frown. One of those will turn a woman on, the other will not. You can do this for EVERYTHING.

Why get hung up on "Dude, I'm just a frowny guy! It's her loss if she doesn't like me"

I call bullsh!t on that. Give the customer what they want.

For the length of a sales pitch, sure. For the length of a relationship? Let us know how that works out for you. I've tried it before. 24/7/365 pretending was not my thing.

Not talking about pretending yo.

Lol, now I'M repeating myself.

And, before you say that you don't have to stay that way longer that the sales pitch, you're the product, not just the salesman. If the product fails to perform to agreed-upon specifications after purchase, is the customer going to keep it?

Of course not. That's why you show aspects of your product that are REAL aspects of the product. No pretending, remember? No lying, no manipulation.

But some people value what colors a product comes in more than they value where it's manufactured (for example. True story actually, I won't go into it however).

But hey! just being myself! She should take it or leave it, right?

Go for it. Be someone that you're not for sex/love.

Sometimes, I wonder if that one's like chicken pox.

I'm not saying that. I'm not saying pretend, I'm not saying lie, I'm not saying manipulate.

I'm saying:

If you like water skiing and playing video games, but the girl you want likes water skiing only, don't take her out and play video games. Go water skiing.

OR, should I leave my boring convo topics for people who like talking about them?

Does that make me fake? No. It just makes the interaction more beneficial to both.

Just keep an eye out for where the bending stops and the breaking begins.

I agree.

Yeah I see your point, hopefully you got mine.

As much as I can. Still not convinced that mine's reached you. Anyhow, a very important woman has been waiting for my input all day, so please forgive me for reaching my limit here.

It's all good bro.

I hope I clarified more, I definitely see how you were misinterpreting things I was saying, and so I understand more where you were coming from. Hopefully this whole discussion helps DMSI in some way.

@RT: At the end of the day, some women are just too inhibited to do the first move. That's where Sarge has a point by saying that actualy seducing, instead of waiting for women to fall on your lap, maximises chances.
Some other women may gather all the courage they can to show small interests, then bail out at the first slightest mistake. So yeah, being "good" too matters. Having basic social/seduction skills to say the rights words and do the right things at the right moments. That's where I agree with Sarge again.

This is especially true if you do not have the physique of a greek god or if you're average.

Word up.

Apparently, I've lied. I've missed so much while replying to your other post that I have to catch up on more.

So what we have is a sub that will cater to those already good with women.

Nope:

1. We have people who have had some success trying to share information with those who might consider it useful. If you'd rather that I not prioritize my replies to you, there is someone very important to me who actually wants to hear them who's been waiting while I take the time here.

That reply of mine was to RT. I'm not trying to downplay your responses. That being said, I certainly don't want to keep you away from more important matters.

2. We also have a sub (hopefully? theoretically?) designed to educate us in areas other than those that you've studied or experienced so far. An apple is food, but not all foods are apples.

This is my hope for DMSI as well. Growth.

[DarkPlouf]

Thanks, but this doesn't change anything for me. It's too vague, and I can't possibly glean anything from it except "don't try".
Cool.
Did that for 24 years, no sex.

That's exactly what I thought.
Didn't see the point at all .

I think some people just can't understand that what is common/given/easy for some, can be an issue for others. Some have to work to achieve what others get without lifting a finger. There's nothing wrong with that.

So by all means, if we want to have a good success rate with DMSI, let's help the user to do not fuck up, and to be good enough to get what he wants.
If DMSI isn't designed for beginners, then we shall say so in the product page, just like how the FAQ suggests WM over SM for beginners.

[myth]

Sanity would be for me to get back to posting journal entries, but, since I'm obviously feeling a little insane...

Seriously, just skip the parts that aren't relevant to you (the reader).

Planning on it.

Kind of, lol.

Yes I can agree with that.

DMSI should allow us to do both.

Maybe, maybe not. Ok, two new analogies. They may help you to see what I've been saying. Seducers and seduced are like two different-but-complementary puzzle pieces (shape 1 and shape 2) that fit together well with each other, but are pieces that fit awkwardly when you have two "1" pieces (which dissolves the need for a puzzle) or two "2" pieces (that can never seem to touch each other). When the situation calls for you to be 1 to fit better (and she's expecting you to be 1), it's good to know how to be 1. When the situation calls for you to be 2 to fit better (and she's expecting you to be 2), it's good to know how to be 2. (Like how it's good to study English for English class and Latin for Latin class without mixing them up.) Similar goals, but different, self-contained ways of achieving them.

I find that studying both separately works well; you get really good at learning how to be shape 1 (English) and really good at learning to be shape 2 (Latin). When you learn these contrasting shapes together in a muddled mess (English and Latin in the same class, with no distinction over which is which), you end up becoming shape 3, a messy mixture of both shapes 1 and 2 (Latinglish?), which as far as I can tell, confuses anyone who expects only 1 or 2 (only English or only Latin). And creates unnecessary stalemate and communication problems for both of you, as well as causing confusion for you because you don't know where one shape/language ends or begins. When a seducer woman (shape 1) appears, shape 3 doesn't fit (you were expected to be shape 2). When a seduced woman (shape 2) appears, shape 3 doesn't fit (you were expected to be shape 1). So, because you insisted on learning to be shape 3 (both shape 1 and shape 2 merged), instead of learning to be shape 1 really well and learning to be shape 2 really well, you don't know how to be only 1 or only 2, just shape 3.

I totally understand that you want an all-in-one sub and why you might wish that one sub could do everything. But between all-in-one and better results, I'd opt for better results. If it were actually an idea that stood a chance of working, then, yes, I'd see the advantage. I'm just saying that I think, based on my understanding of it (which may be wrong, as I'm not a Latinglish teacher), that it will produce sub-par results to try to learn two separate and opposing techniques merged into one self-cancelling mess instead of focused separately. Otherwise, to recall my boat/plane example from two days ago, I may start looking for wings on my boat and also be annoyed that I'm not getting her into the air.

I'm advocating "study both, separately" as opposed to "study both, muddled so that you can't tell which is which."

There is some concern that DMSI only caters to women who already want you based on whatever limited information they have at the present time.

Generally, people approach for more info, not less. As far as I can tell, DMSI instructs us to encourage (with openness and approachability, not heat-seeking missiles) those-who-could-want-the-user to consider wanting the user and those-who-do-want-the-user to act on it.

If there isn't any compatibility, shoving someone at the user who finds the user repulsive isn't destined for a great result. For example: I once courted a woman into a relationship, a woman who actively hated me from the start. She wanted the relationship to last forever, but she also never stopped hating me for the entire relationship. That's like having an enemy who wants to be attached at the hip. The salesman in me saw success, while the product in me got abused. Ignoring everything-but-the-sale to make a sale works out better when you're not also the product being sold.

I disagree.

If you provide the right information, people go from disinterested person, to raving customer chasing you down the street after you've left their house (true story/field tested).

Give someone the reason to buy, then stop pushing the product, they WILL do the rest.

I'm seeing the confusion, I think. Two points:

1. Humans tend to be less interchangeable and ubiquitous than products. From what I can tell, you seem to believe that, if the product (you) is well-suited for one woman, it's well-suited for all women, if only they knew what that first woman knew. But that's not how attraction or taste works. Example: I find woman A to be a 10. You find woman A to be a 3. By your "not enough info" principle, woman A can convince you that she's a 10 because I've proven that she's a 10 to me, so you must just not have enough info. But I find her to be a 10 because my needs and values differ from yours, not solely because I know more about her than you do. If what sells me on her is your deal-breaker, more info isn't going to help and may even repel you more.

2. You seem to be framing "a woman making a physical move" as "a response to [your] sales pitch", but, from what I've seen, she's more likely to consider a "first physical move" as a seller's move, not a buyer's move. Unless you're selling her into the idea of selling to you (equate that to you selling your D2D customer into selling you their sofa when they have no interest in getting rid of it -- NOT her being a rabidly-interested buyer), she's less likely to classify a first move as appropriate. Because she's not the salesman there, and, to her, the first move is a seller's move, and the second move (rabid as it may be) is a buyer's move. Yes, I've seen people break character before, but rarely. She's more likely to expect you to continue leading the dance that you've been leading than to grab your arm, twirl you around, and dip you. But she'll usually take it as read that she should twirl and dip you if she's leading. Otherwise, it's like you asking, "I'm leading, so why aren't you dipping me?"

Ok. Well, I meant that you can get a single woman regardless of the rejections.

In sales I learned "no" simply means "I don't have enough information yet". That includes information about other products (in this case, other men she'd say yes to).

But the theory is: if you are the kind of guy she wants and you haven't shown her that, she will reject you until she finds out.

And if you're the not kind of guy that she wants, but keep ignoring her rejections anyway? Or if you've backslid and shown her that, where you once seemed like the kind of guy that she wants, you have since revealed yourself not to be the kind of guy that she wants? People can permanently lose interest at any stage in a relationship.

There's usually a point when people eventually accept no as an answer. Hitting a customer's doorstep daily for a month or a year could be considered harassment, even before you consider any sexual analogues.

Interesting. And now you got me thinking we're talking about the same thing, because this sounds exactly like what I'd like DMSI to train users to be able to do.

It actually sounds more to me like you're trying to borrow a refrigerator to see if you can turn it into a freezer. But I could be wrong.

The difference is:

Have you done that and saw a girl you wanted and gotten HER?

Have I been within visual range of a woman that I'd found attractive and experienced her coming up to me? Yes. Because that's true of every attractive (and unattractive) woman who comes up to me. She tends not to approach me if she can't see me. Happens even when I haven't noticed that she's in the room. Happens even when I don't want her. And it also doesn't happen too.

And have you been able to do this repeatedly with predictable outcomes?

You seem to be looking for 100% solutions again. And predictable strangers and controlled outcomes. I can't even predict if there will be one woman that I find attractive in the room/building (no matter who does the approaching), let alone if she'll want me.

Dropping a fishing line in the water does not guarantee a fish will bite it, no matter how many worms or lures you use. But people still fish. And catch absolutely delicious ones. And throw back what they don't want. Whereas you seem to want a fishing rod that, when calibrated to Moby Dick, will cause Moby Dick and only Moby Dick, even if Moby Dick isn't in the lake, to swim to you, commit suicide, and cook itself. That's an intriguing goal, but, no, that's not what I'm doing. Partly because I don't (yet?) know of any logistical process that will culminate in that result.

(And I'd have chosen an edible famous fish, rather than a whale, if I could've come up with one. Really slim pickings on that one.)

If so, then that is seduction to me.

I seduced a woman by being visible in public? Lots of people see me when I'm in public. That's sort of the definition of being in public.

I guess what I'm looking for DMSI to do is a hybrid of the two.

... which would be great if there weren't someone else in the room with you that you should hopefully be trying not to confuse. I've never gotten a girl to initiate by confusing her.

(Oddly, I have gotten them to do so by being confused, but that's neither here nor there.)

Like I said: I've done it in sales. And unless ypou're suggesting that people change their psychology during a sales call, the same principles should (IMO/in theory) work for both.

If the person that you're calling tries to sell you their product in the middle of your own sales pitch, I'm guessing that the psychology says that they wanted to sell you something because you're a person and because they're selling something to everyone.

An eager buyer and an eager seller are two different things. As I'd said earlier, from what I've observed, people generally see "the first move" as a seller's move, not a buyer's move. If you've been trying to sell them you, they're usually more inclined to let you finish your sales pitch than to interrupt and start selling themselves (a product other than what you're selling!) to you. They're not unable to do this, but it appears to be uncommon for them to do so. From what I've observed.

[SargeMaximus]

Sanity would be for me to get back to posting journal entries, but, since I'm obviously feeling a little insane...

Seriously, just skip the parts that aren't relevant to you (the reader).

Planning on it.

Kind of, lol.

Yes I can agree with that.

DMSI should allow us to do both.

Maybe, maybe not. Ok, two new analogies. They may help you to see what I've been saying. Seducers and seduced are like two different-but-complementary puzzle pieces (shape 1 and shape 2) that fit together well with each other, but are pieces that fit awkwardly when you have two "1" pieces (which dissolves the need for a puzzle) or two "2" pieces (that can never seem to touch each other). When the situation calls for you to be 1 to fit better (and she's expecting you to be 1), it's good to know how to be 1. When the situation calls for you to be 2 to fit better (and she's expecting you to be 2), it's good to know how to be 2. (Like how it's good to study English for English class and Latin for Latin class without mixing them up.) Similar goals, but different, self-contained ways of achieving them.

I find that studying both separately works well; you get really good at learning how to be shape 1 (English) and really good at learning to be shape 2 (Latin). When you learn these contrasting shapes together in a muddled mess (English and Latin in the same class, with no distinction over which is which), you end up becoming shape 3, a messy mixture of both shapes 1 and 2 (Latinglish?), which as far as I can tell, confuses anyone who expects only 1 or 2 (only English or only Latin). And creates unnecessary stalemate and communication problems for both of you, as well as causing confusion for you because you don't know where one shape/language ends or begins. When a seducer woman (shape 1) appears, shape 3 doesn't fit (you were expected to be shape 2). When a seduced woman (shape 2) appears, shape 3 doesn't fit (you were expected to be shape 1). So, because you insisted on learning to be shape 3 (both shape 1 and shape 2 merged), instead of learning to be shape 1 really well and learning to be shape 2 really well, you don't know how to be only 1 or only 2, just shape 3.

I totally understand that you want an all-in-one sub and why you might wish that one sub could do everything. But between all-in-one and better results, I'd opt for better results. If it were actually an idea that stood a chance of working, then, yes, I'd see the advantage. I'm just saying that I think, based on my understanding of it (which may be wrong, as I'm not a Latinglish teacher), that it will produce sub-par results to try to learn two separate and opposing techniques merged into one self-cancelling mess instead of focused separately. Otherwise, to recall my boat/plane example from two days ago, I may start looking for wings on my boat and also be annoyed that I'm not getting her into the air.

I'm advocating "study both, separately" as opposed to "study both, muddled so that you can't tell which is which."

Ahhhhh :idea: I see.

Yes ok, this makes sense. And I would be all for a sub that gets the user to seduce, if those are the only 2 options, and if it really works that way.

There is some concern that DMSI only caters to women who already want you based on whatever limited information they have at the present time.

Generally, people approach for more info, not less. As far as I can tell, DMSI instructs us to encourage (with openness and approachability, not heat-seeking missiles) those-who-could-want-the-user to consider wanting the user and those-who-do-want-the-user to act on it.

If there isn't any compatibility, shoving someone at the user who finds the user repulsive isn't destined for a great result. For example: I once courted a woman into a relationship, a woman who actively hated me from the start. She wanted the relationship to last forever, but she also never stopped hating me for the entire relationship. That's like having an enemy who wants to be attached at the hip. The salesman in me saw success, while the product in me got abused. Ignoring everything-but-the-sale to make a sale works out better when you're not also the product being sold.

I agree with the bold.

As for the rest, it sounds awesome! (not the abused part, but I'm hoping you mean metaphorically abused and not physically or emotionally)

I argue that DMSI should not strip the user of that kind of experience or ability. Why? Because you learned a valuable lesson.

I disagree.

If you provide the right information, people go from disinterested person, to raving customer chasing you down the street after you've left their house (true story/field tested).

Give someone the reason to buy, then stop pushing the product, they WILL do the rest.

I'm seeing the confusion, I think. Two points:

1. Humans tend to be less interchangeable and ubiquitous than products. From what I can tell, you seem to believe that, if the product (you) is well-suited for one woman, it's well-suited for all women, if only they knew what that first woman knew. But that's not how attraction or taste works. Example: I find woman A to be a 10. You find woman A to be a 3. By your "not enough info" principle, woman A can convince you that she's a 10 because I've proven that she's a 10 to me, so you must just not have enough info. But I find her to be a 10 because my needs and values differ from yours, not solely because I know more about her than you do. If what sells me on her is your deal-breaker, more info isn't going to help and may even repel you more.

Aha! And I see some erroneous thinking on your part:

- Attraction doesn't work the same for women as it does for men. While men are primarily visual, women are more "character" or "inner game" based.

I had a girl crushing on me a while ago (years ago, back when I was doing AM 6) and she wore glasses, but sometimes she didn't.

I told her one day, in passing, that I thought she looked better without the glasses.

She never wore them around me again.

In much the same way, we men can withhold things we know turns a girl off. That's all I'm saying.

You seem to believe that you are who you are and you can't change that. I strongly disagree with this. I've changed much in my life (for the better, I hope) so I do not believe that the human is a static product that does not change, but can and does change.

I'm not saying we should change for one girl, but I am saying we should be able to not shoot ourselves in the foot.

If talking about our careers drives women away, why insist on talking about our careers when you can just as easily (and without personal compromise) talk about things she actually enjoys talking with you about?

2. You seem to be framing "a woman making a physical move" as "a response to [your] sales pitch", but, from what I've seen, she's more likely to consider a "first physical move" as a seller's move, not a buyer's move. Unless you're selling her into the idea of selling to you (equate that to you selling your D2D customer into selling you their sofa when they have no interest in getting rid of it -- NOT her being a rabidly-interested buyer), she's less likely to classify a first move as appropriate. Because she's not the salesman there, and, to her, the first move is a seller's move, and the second move (rabid as it may be) is a buyer's move. Yes, I've seen people break character before, but rarely. She's more likely to expect you to continue leading the dance that you've been leading than to grab your arm, twirl you around, and dip you. But she'll usually take it as read that she should twirl and dip you if she's leading. Otherwise, it's like you asking, "I'm leading, so why aren't you dipping me?"

Eh, I see where you're coming from but it's not that simple.

Selling can be an idea as much as a product. Who sells the idea to buy the product? The salesman? Maybe. But what if the customer finds something out about the product from a friend and then decides to buy the product? Now who "sold" it to them? The customer sold it to themselves!

In the book "Influence" Robert Cialdini talks about how ideas can become self-perpetuated and part of a persons identity even after another person has suggested it to them. Inception kind of shit.

Since that can (and does) happen, I think it's more complicated than you've laid out here.

Ok. Well, I meant that you can get a single woman regardless of the rejections.

In sales I learned "no" simply means "I don't have enough information yet". That includes information about other products (in this case, other men she'd say yes to).

But the theory is: if you are the kind of guy she wants and you haven't shown her that, she will reject you until she finds out.

And if you're the not kind of guy that she wants, but keep ignoring her rejections anyway? Or if you've backslid and shown her that, where you once seemed like the kind of guy that she wants, you have since revealed yourself not to be the kind of guy that she wants? People can permanently lose interest at any stage in a relationship.

Yeah they can.

Example:

Gold digger babe.

Finds out your poor. And you'll never amount to anything because you have no rich friends or family. No training, no nothing. NMio ambitions either.

Then you win the lottery.

Gold digger babe wants you again.

Same thing can happen with anything.

Humanitarian babe:

Really wants a guy who supports the local homeless shelter. You don't, so you're out.

Then one day you have a change of heart, your friend becomes homeless (or you do) so you end up supporting the homeless shelter.

Bing bang boom she wants you (or is considering) you again.

Those are very simple and stupid examples but you get my point I hope which is that people aren't set in stone, they can change, and women can change their minds based on those changes too.

There's usually a point when people eventually accept no as an answer. Hitting a customer's doorstep daily for a month or a year could be considered harassment, even before you consider any sexual analogues.

Lol, I've gone to the same house multiple times (I try not to, because I agree). However I've gotten apps from people who initially slammed the door in my face. Wonder how...

Interesting. And now you got me thinking we're talking about the same thing, because this sounds exactly like what I'd like DMSI to train users to be able to do.

It actually sounds more to me like you're trying to borrow a refrigerator to see if you can turn it into a freezer. But I could be wrong.

Most fridges have a built-in freezer.

The difference is:

Have you done that and saw a girl you wanted and gotten HER?

Have I been within visual range of a woman that I'd found attractive and experienced her coming up to me? Yes. Because that's true of every attractive (and unattractive) woman who comes up to me. She tends not to approach me if she can't see me. Happens even when I haven't noticed that she's in the room. Happens even when I don't want her. And it also doesn't happen too.

And have you been able to do this repeatedly with predictable outcomes?

You seem to be looking for 100% solutions again. And predictable strangers and controlled outcomes. I can't even predict if there will be one woman that I find attractive in the room/building (no matter who does the approaching), let alone if she'll want me.

Interesting. You seem to have a "it's fate" mentality.

Dropping a fishing line in the water does not guarantee a fish will bite it, no matter how many worms or lures you use. But people still fish. And catch absolutely delicious ones. And throw back what they don't want. Whereas you seem to want a fishing rod that, when calibrated to Moby Dick, will cause Moby Dick and only Moby Dick, even if Moby Dick isn't in the lake, to swim to you, commit suicide, and cook itself. That's an intriguing goal, but, no, that's not what I'm doing. Partly because I don't (yet?) know of any logistical process that will culminate in that result.

Well, why use a fishing rod when you can use one of those boats that drags a net along the bottom?

Then you have ALL the fish, and the one you wanted is in there too. Once they're on the deck, you just grab it.

Moby Dick lol. No.

(And I'd have chosen an edible famous fish, rather than a whale, if I could've come up with one. Really slim pickings on that one.)

If so, then that is seduction to me.

I seduced a woman by being visible in public? Lots of people see me when I'm in public. That's sort of the definition of being in public.

I guess what I'm looking for DMSI to do is a hybrid of the two.

... which would be great if there weren't someone else in the room with you that you should hopefully be trying not to confuse. I've never gotten a girl to initiate by confusing her.

(Oddly, I have gotten them to do so by being confused, but that's neither here nor there.)

Like I said: I've done it in sales. And unless ypou're suggesting that people change their psychology during a sales call, the same principles should (IMO/in theory) work for both.

If the person that you're calling tries to sell you their product in the middle of your own sales pitch, I'm guessing that the psychology says that they wanted to sell you something because you're a person and because they're selling something to everyone.

No because I'm talking about selling my product, but THEY sold it to themselves based on the information I gave them. I don't do a lot of talking in sales. And as most great influencers agree, you can't get anyone to do anything. It has to be their idea.

An eager buyer and an eager seller are two different things. As I'd said earlier, from what I've observed, people generally see "the first move" as a seller's move, not a buyer's move. If you've been trying to sell them you, they're usually more inclined to let you finish your sales pitch than to interrupt and start selling themselves (a product other than what you're selling!) to you. They're not unable to do this, but it appears to be uncommon for them to do so. From what I've observed.

I see what you're saying. They wouldn't sell me their own product when I'm selling them mine.

So then I think I understand where the confusion has been in the "who is selling what".

Ok, so for me, and the way I'd like to see DMSI work:

- User is the product
- The way that product is "sold" is based on indirect observations from the buyer (woman) and careful calibration from the product (i.e. only showing the features the buyer is interested in. As an extreme example to prove I'm not talking about being "fake" or manipulating: we all take shits. But does the girl need to see us taking a shit? Should we show her our shit? No, that's ridiculous and disgusting. But it's natural! And an argument could be made for "it's genuine"! lol (remember, this is an EXTREME example to prove a point) So, in exactly the same way, some aspects of our personality may be repulsive, so instead of show them to the girl, keep them where they belong, elsewhere)

- When the buyer sees what they like, they WILL buy, even if that means making the first move.

So that's as best I can describe it.

People make the first move to buy all the time. When's the last time you bought something on impulse in the store without a salesman telling you all about the product?

Hope that clears everything up.

Glad you stuck with me through all this, and clarified some things. You've given me much to think about and helped me refine my communication and figure out what I'm really getting at, so cheers!

[myth]

Almost kept clarifying, but that "awesome" comment made my adrenals wince. I said "needs and values" and, somehow, "taste in appearance" was read. I touched on synchronicity, randomness, opportunity, planning, preparedness, analysis, and process of elimination, yet fate was inferred. Learning how to speak Sarge-English fluently requires more resources and incentive than I currently have. Sorry.

So, something new. DMSI feels different after UD. Given RT's post to mat422's thread yesterday, I'd like to point out that, while I wasn't a fan of a protracted UD run (for myself, in particular) or how it felt (doesn't cleaning a dirty home usually feel grimy and gross?), I may still return for short-term runs later on. If I clear enough, I might even consider a longer-term run. But, initially, it was like vacuuming a carpet so filthy that the dust bag/compartment immediately filled, got clogged, and needed to be emptied before the vacuum could continue to clean. Doesn't mean that the carpet shouldn't be cleaned or that vacuuming should feel like a fun experience, only that stopping the vacuum periodically to empty it seems to be the sensible thing to do. And, if I'm wrong, on my own head be it. Literally.

I still can't articulate the difference, but, whether it's DMSI after UD or just UD winding down in general, it's like there's this reflective glint that people give off that shines on top of their body language when they feel good for a moment, like how a kid will light up with genuine excitement when he or she has figured something out or "just had a great idea!" Only, with adults, it's like they try to hold back that light out of embarrassment (or they show suspicious over-excitement at incongruent times), so I can only catch glimpses of the real thing poking through, but glimpses that weren't as obvious to me as they are now. And something about it makes me feel like it might be worth fanning that ember into a flame when I see it, particularly with those that are nearest and dearest to me. Sounds corny, I know. But I also wonder if it might also be what E1, E2, and UD bring out of us too, something that others see as brighter and that we aren't fully able to see ourselves shine, except maybe when it's reflected back at us. Not an aura as much as removing the inhibitions blocking our baseline inner glow. Like cleaning a headlight. Which may also be why I can see it clearer in others than before: lenses are two-way, after all.

With DMSI powering the high beams back up (and a hopefully cleaner-if-not-clean lens to shine through), I'm curious as to whether I'll notice any differences when I'm around anyone for longer than 30 seconds. That won't be happening until at least the weekend, though.

[SargeMaximus]

Almost kept clarifying, but that "awesome" comment made my adrenals wince. I said "needs and values" and, somehow, "taste in appearance" was read. I touched on synchronicity, randomness, opportunity, planning, preparedness, analysis, and process of elimination, yet fate was inferred. Learning how to speak Sarge-English fluently requires more resources and incentive than I currently have. Sorry.

No worries man. I suck at conversations so it's all on me. :/

Thanks for trying.

[myth]

Not pleased by the past week's forum contention, but I've reminded myself that this is a commercial product support site, not a Utopian society.

So, back to potentially product-related observations. Ahead of last weekend, my new esthetician raved even more about my skin than my previous one had, not that she'd seen it beforehand. Last weekend itself was spent with the FWB, so no crowd-testing of DMSI-resumed-after-UD. But the FWB did reveal that a prior worry on her side was not a worry about me (as I'd originally understood it to be) but a worry for my happiness, which put an entirely different spin on the whole thing and allowed me to mitigate that concern. (Bottom line: increased clarity of others' motivation.)

This weekend, actual crowd-testing happened for DMSI-resumed-after-UD. And, thanks to more increased clarity of others' motivation, I think that I may have a stronger sense of why the aura-sourced interest has been so situation-limited. Previously, the aura resulted in "You're awesome, and I won't stop touching you, flirting with you, or distracting you away from others. That turns you on, right?" Which helped them to seduce me. Now, it's "You're awesome, and I won't stop touching you, flirting with you, or distracting you from others, but we have no future, so I'm really just wasting your time and mine while keeping others away from you. That turns you on, right?" Which doesn't at all, thanks to the extra TMI, but it tells me more about what's really going on in their heads. Strangely, when both options are available, I prefer being seduced by someone who actually wants me, not by someone who just wants to seduce me. Silly me.

Switching to track B again.

[myth]

My time on B is coinciding with some strange things:

• More fear and panic motivating me to clean, which neither increases my sexiness nor my sexual activity, as I don't intend to entertain any future visitors at my present accommodations. My idea of a clean home is an empty home, my idea of an empty home extends to an empty closet, and my idea of dressing sexy doesn't usually include an empty closet. For me, clean home equals less sexy, not more sexy.
  
• I chose cleaning over sleeping, against my natural/conditioned instincts. More tired is also not more sexy.
  
• FWB wants to see me for a second time in the same month.
  
• I'm debating whether I should skip my annual Halloween tradition to sleep.
  
• During the past two nights, my dreams were of an alternate 1998 that didn't happen.
  
• I may have unintentionally asked someone out (more of an indeterminately-timed promenade than a date). Only meant it as a alternative to her disrupting her job for a half-hour at a time while a line of impatient patrons seethe behind me.
  

Some of these things don't feel like decisions that I was given the choice to make. I don't generally go overboard on cleaning unless I'm moving or expecting home upkeep/repair visits. My annual Halloween plans are usually... annual. I don't ask women out, whether for a walk, a date, or anything else; we usually just decide together, or we don't. The current moment isn't making much sense to me.

[stratos]

in my experience cleaning your place is a sign that you're making yourself ready to meet people, even if you don't consciously intend to bring anyone home. cluttered is more for when you're building yourself and clean is for when you're preparing to put them into action.

[Benjamin]

It's also a sign of internal shifts. A few times i've got a shift and started cleaning. At the start of DMSI 3.0.1 I cleaned up my computer room and bedroom tons, then during 3.1 at some stage I did more. And i've had similar with other programs.

[myth]

Both theories are possible, but neither truly fits the circumstances. Perhaps I should've specified: the logic escapes me due to insufficient and inconclusive evidence, not from a dearth of theories. I could probably rattle off ten plausible guesses without even trying, but I find that pure speculation too often leads to fallacy-based conclusions and to mistaking correlation for causation. Possibility informs probability, but it doesn't dictate it.

To follow up on my last post:

• I'm dreading that I'll end up cleaning more during the week, once I've caught up on sleep.
  
• Skipped my annual Halloween tradition and slept instead. Far too tired.
  
• FWB wants to see me next weekend too, making it 3 weekends out of 5. That's atypically frequent.
  

[myth]

Over the weekend, my FWB referred to herself as a girlfriend of mine and, several minutes later, implied by gesture that she considered me a boyfriend. Despite "friend" being her previous term of choice. As long as she doesn't psyche herself out with insecurity about me, toward me, or about herself (any of which is fairly common after a watershed moment like that), good things could be ahead.

The cleaning's still going, detracting from my social activity by emptying my closets of clothes. Seems more lingering UD than active DMSI to me, but it could be either, neither, or both. It's hardly consciously voluntary, much less in character for the person that I am.

[Determined]

in my experience cleaning your place is a sign that you're making yourself ready to meet people, even if you don't consciously intend to bring anyone home. cluttered is more for when you're building yourself and clean is for when you're preparing to put them into action.

I've always found that the state of a person's room mirrors their state of mind.