myth's Belated DMSI 3.1 Journal

[K-Train]

In regards to the anti-sniper, due to DMSI being incomplete and unfinished I believe it would make more sense (IMHO) to first allow the subliminal to achieve design goal on a consistent enough basis for the MAJORITY of users and once that happens we can play around with adding in an anti-sniper. As it is, we are (once again, IMO) adding in blocks and barriers in front of the design goal before we've proven that we can get the design goal working for the majority of users first.

If I recall correctly, I believe SM used to have programming that would only attract single women but in the later addition it was taken out and it was left up to the user. I think a similar approach should temporarily be taken with V3.2 for the reasons I indicated above

[myth]

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? So... both sides wait indefinitely for the other to start? 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. If it's you, she has no incentive to initiate. If it's her, you have no reason to seduce the convinced. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.)

[RTBoss]

I can't even read all that. I stopped at, "Women don't initiate." You don't know what you're talking about, Sarge. They most certainly do. I've experienced it multiple times.

I'm sorry, dude. You have literally no experience with women, except for your hairdresser. Anything that comes from you is guess-based-theory all based on limited experienced, bad assumptions, perhaps some good assumptions, and what you've heard/read from other people's experiences.

[SargeMaximus]

I can't even read all that. I stopped at, "Women don't initiate." You don't know what you're talking about, Sarge. They most certainly do. I've experienced it multiple times.

I'm sorry, dude. You have literally no experience with women, except for your hairdresser. Anything that comes from you is guess-based-theory all based on limited experienced, bad assumptions, perhaps some good assumptions, and what you've heard/read from other people's experiences.

Lol, k.

Great.

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

Glad we cleared that up.

[DarkPlouf]

Ehhh, since when women initiate ?
The only girls I know who initiate are "hookers" or desperate.
I'm not experienced but I'm not oblivious to the external world either.

I've seen multiple girls gave up on their crush or person they like very much just because they didn't want to initiate at all.
That's so common I wonder if we live in the same world.

[RTBoss]

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.

[SargeMaximus]

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.

[Duke.Togo]

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.

[RTBoss]

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. 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.

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.

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!

[myth]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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

3. And that's wanting to be infallible.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[DarkPlouf]

@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.

[myth]

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.

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.

[myth]

Ehhh, since when women initiate ?
The only girls I know who initiate are "hookers" or desperate.
I'm not experienced but I'm not oblivious to the external world either.

I've seen multiple girls gave up on their crush or person they like very much just because they didn't want to initiate at all.
That's so common I wonder if we live in the same world.

There are plenty of reasons why girls don't initiate, just like there are several reasons why a guy might not initiate. Some girls have approach anxiety, just like some guys. Some girls find their crush intimidating, just like some guys. The male object of a female's crush can actually be intimidating toward nearly everyone, just like some female objects of male crushes. And so on.

I won't dispute that some girls in some situations don't initiate. Neither will I dispute that some guys in some situations don't initiate. But some is not all. And, if you change the situation (or the girl), you may get a different result. Just like if you change the situation or the guy. And the object of the crush actually being approachable, welcoming, relaxed, affable, personable, and easygoing usually helps a lot.