myth's Belated DMSI 3.1 Journal

[SargeMaximus]

Let me first say that this post isn't saying anything about my opinion about DMSI. It's about clarifying my earlier point... which was about seduced/seducer, not about DMSI.

I see DMSI as a seducer sub myself. Granted we are getting the girls to be the initiators, but we are still the seducers. Deciding which girls we want, for example.

And that's where I keep pointing out that some (?) guys are conflating seducer and seduced scripts, because guys are often conditioned to think that they have to pick first (or they mistakenly believe that they're settling/not getting to pick if they don't):

You say that the girls are the intiators, but we're the seducers? So they're supposed to initiate, even though we have to convince them first, without initiating ourselves?

Kind of, it's definitely complicated.

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

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

Hmm. I don't think that I could execute what you're describing, so I wish you luck if you keep trying to do so. At least one side has to want to be together.

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?

If it's you, she has no incentive to initiate.

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.

If it's her, you have no reason to seduce the convinced.

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

If you both want each other, neither of you has a reason to seduce. If neither wants the other, no one has any incentive to initiate. So your goal is confusing.

If you both want each other it's the ideal situation.

We call that a "lay down" in sales, where the customer is already sold.

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.

To clarify what I've been talking about (since I can follow it better), I'll explain my understanding of seduced/seducer in excruciating detail, but only to explain. I seriously have no intention of convincing you or anyone else to do what I do. I have no interest in starting (or fighting against) any bandwagons. Again, I fully expect people to think that I'm claiming that the Earth is triangular.

First, let me dispel the illusion of "choosing first" as ever controlling the outcome. Think of what you see as the typical seducer/approacher dynamic. Most people expect that guy to approach a bazillion attractive women, a few give him their numbers, and maybe one actually responds when he calls. So he picked a bazillion and only one picked him back. Woo-hoo! One chose him. Did he pick which one? Nope. She's the one who picked which one. And she very well may have been (to put it in terms I loathe using) his "bottom of the barrel" for his bazillion attempts. So he gets to feel all proud for having picked first and might still end up still having to finish seducing a girl that he barely wanted in the first place (or give up on her). If anything sounds like settling to me, that does, but I guarantee that most guys will say that I'm the one settling. They usually do.

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.

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

Random "numbers game" approaches are not skill, they are luck, and i do not consider them to be successful seductions at ALL.

So, what do I do by attempting to be seduced instead? The opposite. The entire opposite. From start to finish. Essentially, the same thing that the girl in the last paragraph did. I make myself approachable and desirable (partly by learning what my real-life "fans" -- not other guys' theories -- like about me and by playing those things up), I go to where my "fans" can be found in greater numbers (like how a rock band promotes a concert to get their fans all in one room/arena rather that playing an unannounced impromptu show on a random street corner... or like when a woman chooses to go to a bar where she finds the guys to be hot and interested), and I make myself available and proximal to any attractive women, in case they happen to like me. But I don't get so impatient that I play seducer before they can. I let my body language be a sign the door saying, "We're open. Come on over!" Many (certainly not a bazillion) come up to me because, for reasons that I'll never fully comprehend in my lifetime, I happen to be their type. Despite me failing at every "guys must be" trope from height to muscles to square jaws to beards, their insides like me, whether I want their insides to like me or not. Typically, their outsides will span from super-scary to super-sexy and everything in the middle... because women's (people's) outsides and their insides don't sync up in any predictable way. Which is a curse only when you ignore the blessing half of it. What are the two things that these women all have in common? 1) A strong and decided interest in me. 2) They're secure in themselves, so a) they're fine with rejection and b) if we date, it won't take a month or three of them clinging to end the relationship if I need to. IMHO, that answers my top three questions for any relationship prospect without me lifting a finger. I have seduced before, and the break-ups lasted nearly as long as the relationships.

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.

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.

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

So, now, there's that dreaded problem of not getting to pick first that some guys fear/abhor. I didn't pick first! But, wait, I now have lots of options from super-scary to super-sexy, don't I? And they're interested enough to come after me. So... I pick the super-sexy ones? And that's what some call settling: being able to pick the most attractive (by my standards) woman who already wants me instead of still having to finish seducing the only (potentially bottom-of-the-barrel) girl who called me back and might still reject me. Admittedly, yes, approachers can get a lot more than one or two responses, and, yes, the callback girl may be cute, and, yes, a woman seducing me may change her mind in the near or distant future... but my point is that seducer and seduced are both valid methods (both roles are involved in every seduction) and that I have my reasons for preferring the one that I do.

As you know, the seducer numbers game works like this: approach several women and aim for any that are attracted. The more women, the greater numbers of attracted ones and the greater chances of finding very attracted ones.

And the seduced numbers game works like this: be welcoming enough to be approached by several women and aim for any that you find attractive. The more women, the greater numbers of attractive ones and the greater chances of finding very attractive ones.

I take the view that I'm more likely to find an attractive woman in a group of attracted than an attracted woman in a group of attractive. Because insides and outsides usually have nothing to do with each other. But that's my view. Doesn't have to be yours.

How does DMSI help me? Well, the aura generally draws more women in, upping my inverted numbers game of interested parties. The snipers raise the percentage and overall attractiveness of said parties. I personally think that "sniper" should be renamed "landing lights" to fit the seduced directional flow better, if DMSI is really about being seduced, but whatever.

Hopefully, I've explained it clearly enough, as you can rest assured that I have absolutely no interest in repeating all of this. Again, feel free to consider me wrong, crazy, backward, or whatever floats your boat.

Nah, it makes sense.

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

1. Know what the woman you want, wants

2. DISPLAY that effectively

3. Don't mess things up

I'm not talking about being fake, I'm talking about effective communication. Targeting your audience.

For example, in sales, I have a product that does x, but my customer wants y. Well, I ALSO have a product that does y.

What I DON'T do, is try to keep pushing x when it's clearly what they don't want, AND when I clearly have y. It makes no sense to do so.

In the same way, if I know what the woman wants, and I can GIVE her that, then everyone wins.

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.

In the example of my hairdresser, I can talk about what she likes to talk about or I can talk about what she doesn't like to talk about. It literally makes no difference to me and I often find myself talking about stuff she's bored of.

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

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.

I certainly hope DMSI isn't meant to be a passive "what happens, happens" kind of sub.

If you think that I'm relying on whatever happens, I must not be coming across clearly. I'm still doing work, still choosing, still controlling half of the outcome (the outcome relies on two people liking each other, not just one), and still playing a numbers game. But, because the roles are entirely reversed, the seduced's script is not the same as the seducer's.

Yeah I see your point, hopefully you got mine.

We definitely need some user flexibility and intuition to give the women what they want.

Or (in my case) not mess things up when you are approached (which I do all the time. I STILL don't knbow what these women saw in me that they liked, and I STILL don't knbow what they saw in me that they didn't like. Try selling a product that you have no idea what the customer digs about it vs what they hate about it. You won't be able to.)