Hey Shannon, thanks for the response. Would like to address things in order.
(09-14-2020, 09:25 AM)Shannon Wrote: [ -> ] (09-13-2020, 02:41 PM)apollolux Wrote: [ -> ]Hm, I'm not sure how to feel about the conjecture about what's actually changing in DMSI. I just want DMSI to be useful and ultimately do the opposite of the stuff it did poorly. I did not listen to DMSI for years expecting the outcome to be women trying to use me for their own selfish purposes and claiming to love me as a manipulation tactic, promising sex only to leave me hanging, and I certainly did not listen to it for years expecting the belief that women would only be sexually attracted to me if I had money to be strengthened. Fix both of those.
The first point is, you may need to change your exctations. DMSI is designed to cause you to develop maximum sexual irresistibility. The result of that is that those you attract will want to have sex with you.
I am fully aware of the need to change my own expectations, and honestly thought DMSI was going to help with this, either by making it easier to accept different, preferably
better, expectations and/or straight up providing the different expectations itself within its scripting.
(09-14-2020, 09:25 AM)Shannon Wrote: [ -> ]Depending on various peripheral factors, they may wish to just have sex with you, including using you to satisfy the sexual urges you are triggering in them. That is, in fact, a perfectly valid successful response.
I understand this may be a valid and indeed successful response, but you seem to misunderstand what I said. This did
NOT happen
at all during these past years of listening to DMSI, and
none of what these women were using me for was sex-related.
(09-14-2020, 09:25 AM)Shannon Wrote: [ -> ]Claiming to love you as a manipulation tactic to get you to have sex with them is another successful response, although we don't want that, but if they did it to achieve sex with you in order to satisfy their sexual attraction and urges caused by the program, then it's a successful result of DMSI.
The same misunderstanding as the previous line. They weren't claiming to love me in order for them to get sex, they were claiming to love me in attempts to stroke my ego, grease my emotional wheels so they could more easily get away with having me do menial tasks for them or give them money
without providing me sex or other relevant compensation in return. Unfortunately for me, their tactics worked and I did their work for them and lent one money, under the clearly false assumption that they were operating in good faith.
I assure you I understand that the choice to do their work and lend money was mine and I theoretically could have chosen to not do that. My default response to a thing like that has been, and unfortunately still is to some degree, to beat myself up over it, over-blame myself for "falling for it," and ultimately be disappointed in myself for "not being better" or even simply for "not being good enough to 'see through it' and 'avoid' it." Whether it was desperation, assuming good faith, or otherwise feeling convinced or other reason, I know and acknowledge I chose incorrectly to believe them and do the things to my detriment.
(09-14-2020, 09:25 AM)Shannon Wrote: [ -> ]Promising sex only to leave you hanging isn't DMSI, it's them. They are internally conflicted, and choosing to be influenced by fear (or maybe wisdom, if they know something you don't) instead of desire. This can also result from displaying signs of desperation on your part. Again, not DMSI.
Tied to the misunderstanding in the previous lines. They weren't leaving me hanging after making promises due to some sort of internal conflict they may have had, I'm saying they straight up had no intentions to actually follow through with sex and love and made promises in bad faith. I acknowledge I chose incorrectly to believe they would have followed through on their promises and claims.
(09-14-2020, 09:25 AM)Shannon Wrote: [ -> ]The belief that women would only be attracted to you if you had money strengthening is also not DMSI. That is your choice based on your interpretation of your observation of results, as a result of using an experimental program in a constant state of flux as I figure out how to push the right buttons and what those buttons are. Your interpretations of, and the resultant choice of beliefs resulting from, your experiences is not my responsibility or that of DMSI.
I assure you I would love nothing more than to weaken and outright remove the belief that beautiful women would only be attracted to me sexually if I had money. Even just changing my subconscious focus to "being
physically attractive" as the key to sexual attractiveness would be a better solution, and had approached DMSI with the hard goal of having a better belief than "being a provider" on which to base my own sexual attractiveness. Even just successfully promoting greater testosterone production would be enough for me at the moment. I would have to sift through the years of my journal to confirm better, but from recollection (whether due to a confirmation bias or not, I acknowledge there may exist some) the only times during the past few years of listening to DMSI any beautiful woman has even come close to "acting" upon any supposed sexual attraction to me was when money was involved and/or they wanted something from me that wasn't actually sexual.
My goal is to be acknowledged and accepted as the "lover" over as the "provider."
I do understand DMSI is experimental, Shannon. I want you to succeed at developing it and I really do want to help make it work more and make it work better, hence choosing to spend money for DMSI back during a time when I had extreme financial hardship. During the overwhelming majority of the time I was listening to it (all versions since I first paid for it) I had also been taking prescription anti-depressants as outlined in my DMSI journal, so from the simple fact that there was chemical influence involved in stunting my emotional range I did not originally feel that any consistent reporting of lack of design goal success would have been useful. That combined with being in the throes of major depression and a perception of regular dismissal of negative reporting of DMSI by others certainly did not help my motivation to be a more active reporter here.
(09-14-2020, 09:25 AM)Shannon Wrote: [ -> ]As far as I can see, the only valid point we have here is that they tried to manipulate you to achieve sex.
Which version(s) did this happen with?
To sum up, this did not happen. If I had written syntactically ambiguous in my original post then I apologize for not being more clear about what happened.
My personal journal says I started DMSI 3.3.2 on 2019-11-24 (though I'm unsure why I didn't explicitly mark that in my journal here), and the manipulation by women became more blatant after that. I understand correlation does not equal causation, so for now I've been choosing to interpret the timing as coincidental, especially since so many other things happened, many of them I had documented in my public DMSI journal here.
I understand and have always understood that DMSI is a set of instructions and likely mentally (emotionally?) reinforcing affirmations, and that it is my choice how to consciously act or not act. I just want DMSI to be the best quality instructions they can be for developing maximal sexual irresistibility and attractiveness, and I would strongly prefer those instructions focus on promoting being a better lover rather than better provider if I had to choose between those.
I look forward to continued progress with DMSI.