Subliminal Talk

Been somewhat distracted from updating about the past week. This past weekend was the first FWB weekend since switching to 3.1-B weeks ago. I know that most people are probably clamoring for some "B made things amazing" story to inspire them. Can't say that B improved anything there -- if anything, I'd felt intermittently undervalued and inconvenient after years of unwavering appreciation from her. Could have nothing to do with DMSI, could have nothing to do with me, could be my shifted perception, could be my behavior, could be this, could be that, etc. There's no shortage of possibilities, and, for all that I know, they're all wrong. What I do know is that something felt slightly "off."

Reasons aside, she'd shown unusually reduced interest (except at moments when everything was perfectly normal again), and the greater emotional intimacy that I'd enjoyed on A was either absent or strained while on B. To be clear, it's not so much that the highs weren't as high, but that the lows were lower. Her roommates were even more affable than usual, so it's not as if I'd been rubbing everyone the wrong way. Tempted to switch back to A on Saturday or Sunday, with the intent to temper any harsh edges acquired from weeks on B and to heal/clear anything that might've been kicked up in the meantime.

Since resuming A, it's been hurdle after hurdle. Not as far as listening, emotions, or resistance, but as far as the circumstances of life: mechanical device failure, others' demands of me, and neighborhood-wide emergencies. Put simply, rougher waters than the average week.

I've been navigating the challenges with a surprisingly positive attitude. And with far less surprising annoyance. But it's been depriving me of sleep (logistically, not insomnia) for far too many consecutive nights. As soon as one hurdle was behind me, another appeared as I woke up (or woke me up) on the following morning. Today's been milder and a lot more restful, but the pattern's still going. Whether these have been DMSI manifestations, my perception, or just relentless coincidences, I wouldn't care to guess, but it's been a strange week nonetheless.

I'll comment more on the return to A as these distractions subside, but one likely DMSI-inspired observation that pertains to imposition: I've known for a while that the amount of trust, interest, and emotional connection that I have in any other person seems inversely proportional to the amount of expectation that they have in me (i.e. stress). This now makes me wonder if it also creates a built-in preference for being seen as low value rather than high value and if it also drives false modesty. Not that it would be prompted by everyone or even by those who desire me, but it may be prompted by those who desire things from me.

As it is, my career and life decisions have been steeped in providing what's needed before anyone's noticed that they need it -- avoiding expectation through preemption. My apologies to Cheap Trick for arguing with their hit single, but I think that I don't mind being wanted, but I loathe being needed. I'm far more comfortable accepting responsibility for my own decisions than having responsibility thrust upon me for someone else's decisions, especially decisions with which I disagree. That may prompt me to aim for less value with others than with myself, warding off the vampires (and, as collateral damage, non-vampires) with Jedi mind tricks: "This is not the blood you're looking for." And my social successes may have primarily been with those who expect little more from me than I already provide to them without being asked. At least until they start asking.

The return to A has brought more resistance with it. As has been common for me with inner turmoil on A, I've spent the past couple of days feeling guilt bound tightly to a fear of authority, as if I'm awaiting final and inescapable condemnation for my mistakes (whether sins or just errors). Not sure how it applies to DMSI's actual goal, but, as a reaction to OGSF (or anti-perfectionist?) scripting, it may make sense.

Felt inspired to shop for new clothes on Sunday. Life hurdles are less distracting than last week, but new ones have still been cropping up. Had a decent cry yesterday morning, but my mood's no lighter from it.

Two women that I've known online since the late 90s have each admitted similar things about me in the past week: One says that she feels more like herself when she talks to me. The other thanked me for helping sculpt her into the person that that she is today.

On the more IRL side of things (but via email, in this case), my emotional connection with the FWB seems to be returning to normal. Being back on A (slowly) seems like it's meeting my intentions for the swap back from B.

Also, in reference to my last post, I'm thinking that my condensed social time also stems from that same need-avoidance. To be enjoyed intensely and briefly in both directions (on my terms), and, then, out-of-sight-out-of-mind. Remembered as having been, but not as still being. Burning brightly and then fading into nothingness before I can be caught and used up. Makes me feel somewhat will-o'-the-wisp, as if I don't exist to others except while visible. Not that everyone isn't temporary in more than one sense, but I wonder if I'm living like a preemptive ghost in multiple connotations of the phrase. I'm also still undecided if that's a negative, a positive, a neutral, or all of them at once.

Seems like most of the resistance mentioned in my last post may have been tied to motivation inhibited by fear. The resistance quickly dissipated, once I'd completed something that I'd been dreading for months. The strangest part? I'd completed it because "fear of the thing" was suddenly replaced by "fear of not doing the thing." Almost makes me wonder if the OGSF scripting will automatically clash with the motivation scripting unless there's some included way to bridge from "fear of not doing the thing" (negative) into "desire to do the thing" (positive). In which case, it might mesh more than clash.

Or maybe it's just a natural (or unavoidable) four-stage process from where I've started, no matter how I approach the destination. Fear doing it -> fear not doing it -> fear doing it less than I fear not doing it -> desire to do it? Where taking the step backward is part of the push-pull dance that moves me forward? Hmm. Still seems overly reliant on inverted fear increase to overcome the original fear enough (hopefully?) to get to positive motivation. But that also describes resistance too, so, again, that might just be how I'm personally getting from point A to point B, not how everyone gets from point X to point B. I might have to bridge from "inverted fear beats fear" to "the opposite of deferred downsides beats deferred downsides" (emotional -> logical) on my own, all because of where I've started. Which may be why I've been so focused on how preemption mitigates stress -- to remind me me, in my own terms and examples, how early completion mitigates deferred downsides. To show me where my personal door between the two is. To use my well-worn tools in a different-but-applicable context.

Sometimes, I wonder why I have to turn such a simple thing into a puzzle in order to simplify it again.

Friday night was my first social time in a few weeks. A couple instances of women going out of their way to gather my info or say that they'll contact me -- when almost no one ever does. Always makes me wonder why it's so important to get my info. Scavenger hunt, maybe? Beyond that, nothing out of the ordinary. Although my ordinary may not be very much like anyone else's.

Extremely tempted to try UD, but, for me, DMSI is still the right thing for right now. Besides, my current detoxing practices are at the point that my esthetician tells me how "amazing" my skin looks before she even does anything to it. I'm in no immediate rush.

The US or EIP in DMSI may (or may not?) be affecting me a bit. I've taken a single huge conceptual leap forward on several work projects at once, raising performance 200-600% in some areas. And I'm suddenly more productive too.

I've also taken an unexpected step forward when friends seek out my advice. Traditionally, I've leapt to empathy, donned their perceptual filter, validated their emotions, and only strayed to play the devil's advocate. But, out of nowhere, I've adopted a more balanced approach of both sympathy and empathy, which allows me to take an interest in how their decisions could change who they become, not merely how it will affect the (forgettable?) outcome of a single predicament. Meaning that each choice influences 1) the outcome of the situation and 2) the foundation of the person making that choice. My past advice rarely gave #2 as much emphasis as it deserved.

Which makes me ponder something: If I can balance that same synergistic compassion toward myself, it may put concern over "who my choices will make of me" (as a person, not on paper) at a more equal priority with concern over "what incidental outcome my choices will achieve right now." Making the outcome of myself as important to me as the outcome of any single situation or long-term plan. The future of who I'll be (inside) as opposed to where I'll be, how I'll appear, or what I'll have (outside). Which isn't to say that I haven't been doing that all along, somewhat, but, possibly, not with as much emphasis as it deserved.

Not sure if it's the US + EIP in DMSI, my recent tricks for reducing brain fog, or both, but I just came up with another huge conceptual leap forward at work on a 13-year-old project where 2 minor changes could improve it in 4 different ways. And, if it works, it could positively affect the daily grind of virtually every person in the company. In multiple ways. Amusingly, the 2 changes are so synergistic (a recurring theme for me lately) that, while both could be independently beneficial, their pairing should offer something unattainable without both parts. Still funnier, initial testing of the theory behind one of the changes might not have even been possible without my previous leap forward from last week, even though it's not directly related.

Not sure if it's DMSI or just a cascade of inspiration, but I'm liking it. And, if it's DMSI, I have absolutely no idea how it makes me any sexier.

Well, Tuesday's brainstorms lived up to expectations. Had another idea on Friday morning that I'm saving until Monday. I swear that I'm not doing doing MLS!

But, speaking of other subs, I'm about to contradict what I'd said last weekend, partly because it's a week later than when I'd said it. I think that I may finally take a break from DMSI after... 15 months since version 1? Not because I care about the shiniest new toys in the acronym toybox or because 3.1 isn't doing its job (it has been for me) or because I'm running away from anything, but because I've spent the last three months increasingly focused on my liver health while running a sexiness sub. Some steps that I've taken during those months were instinctively helpful before I even had any idea that they were helpful and were also well beyond my daily dandelion and nettle tea days. If DMSI has been indirectly pushing me more and more into detoxing my body for months (or UD's TID is strong enough to reach back months into the past), my subconscious has clearly thought that detox was what I should be doing, long before UD was even an option.

And the idea of switching to UD doesn't excite me at all; it calms me. I see it as a task that needs doing, and that's it. Not to personify subs, but it's almost like DMSI is saying, "We both know that you're detoxing lately to get where I need to take you, and, together, we've made huge strides in that area, but we're doing it slowly and indirectly when you could be doing it quickly and directly. I'm good, but it's really not what I'm built to do. So, now that we've finally gotten you to a more motivated, do-what-needs-doing place, let's let UD do detox right, get that step out of the way, and then get your ass back here, so that we can finish what we've started with some real fuel in the tank. Or stay and take the scenic route. Whichever." So, I think that I'll put a pin in DMSI, take a week off to mitigate turbulence, and hopefully buy/start UD in the next week or so. No idea if I'll keep a public journal for UD or how long my run of it will be. My plan after that is to return to DMSI and to this journal.

Super-long post ahead. Proceed at your own literacy.

Before I switch gears to run UD, I'm going to drop some of my most recent ideas here as a bookmark of where I've paused with DMSI. These are just some nuggets that I've refined for myself while on DMSI; they're not quotes or re-blogs or meant as advice, affirmations, discussion topics, or things that I expect anyone else to see similarly. In fact, I consider them no more than my current self-delusions, which is, more or less, what perception is.

It's just a snapshot of how I think/feel today. Could all change by tomorrow.

1. A sexier me is still me. If "me" wasn't her thing, "sexier me" probably isn't either. If "me" was her thing, "sexier me" will probably go over really well. If "sexier" does make a difference, then "me" never mattered, and I see no value in prospective relationships where I don't matter.
   
2. I don't force people to like me; I welcome the ones that do. My goal with others is appreciation and mutual respect, not subjugation or conquest.
   
3. I aim to control self, not others (or the universe). Anyone who wants to control others enjoys having an extra workload; my own workload is plenty, thanks.
   
4. An attractive (or repellent) woman liking me (or disliking me) is not proof of anything. Her outside has nothing to do with how her insides feel about me.
   
5. I don't try to impress others with the outsides of a woman whose insides happen to like me. Others aren't involved and have different tastes, so it makes no sense to me.
   
6. A woman's attraction to me is more important than my attraction to her. If she's not attracted, then any attraction on my part is moot. (Unless it's porn or unless I change professions to become a photographer, beauty contest judge, make-up artist, etc.)
   
7. I don't care about controlling who chooses me. I notice who chooses me and create my preferred outcome from the abundance of options it provides.
   
8. The universe has designed "awesome" better than I ever could. It's brought me several amazing women that I'd never have typically chosen for myself, so it clearly knows things about choosing my prospective partners that I don't. Humility keeps me from missing out on what I don't know/understand and from chasing mirages that I don't see for what they are.
   
9. I don't choose my partners until the choice is really mine to make.
   
10. A person's taste in sexual partners has nothing to do with my taste in them as a sexual partner. The notion that we will be at equal places on each other's attraction spectrum is ludicrous, even if we're both intensely attracted to each other. I've let the unrealistic expectation of "equal attraction" go -- in favor of "compatible attraction."
    
11. A person's taste in sexual partners is about how they see others, not about how their body looks to others, about who others think/wish they would choose, or about who others think should choose them. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not the eye of the third-hand observer or even the eye of the beheld.
    
12. "Out of my league" is a conclusion drawn from the faulty premise that relationships aren't subjective.
    
13. The flip-side of lamenting one specific attractive woman's unique taste is being able to benefit from another's.
    
14. Everyone has a different point of view about me that I may never be able to comprehend, much less replicate with others or emulate myself.
    
15. No one's perspective of me outweighs mine. Everyone is liked and disliked, so no person's opinion of me is universal, consistent, or mine to change, whether the opinion is positive, negative, or completely unintelligible. And the only opinion truly within my (not necessarily conscious) control is my own.
    
16. Do what works for me, and those who resonate with it will follow. Those who don't will go elsewhere, and they're welcome to do so.
    
17. There's no sense in trying to make people like me (disrespectful to them, desperate of me) when other people don't need convincing. There's no shortage of people in this world that I find interesting or attractive, and some will like me, whether I want them to like me or not. That's plenty.
    
18. I don't waste time on an uninterested person when their physical/intellectual/etc twin is actually interested. And I definitely don't ignore the second one while wasting effort on the first. It's not about first-seen-first-obsessed.
    
19. I dig where X actually marks the spot. I don't dig where I want treasure to be and expect treasure to hop in solely because I've dug the hole.
    
20. Crushes (one-itis?) are nothing more than premature commitment. I don't commit to something before there's something there to commit to. And "premature commitment" isn't something to shame myself for having done in the past, just something to been seen as unnecessary to me now.
    
21. I outgrew "imaginary friends" when I got old enough. I outgrew "friends with imaginary benefits" when I got old enough. It's just a stage of growing up.
    
22. Upon entering a room, I wait to see how I'm rated before bothering to rate anyone else. Finding the hottest-woman-who-doesn't-want-me is never a goal.
    
23. When someone shows subtle positive interest, a positive reply makes a difference, no matter how subtle.
    
24. Teasing is about making someone want more, not about taunting them for sport.
    
25. Body language is a conversation, not a one-way traffic light.
    
26. Body language is no less vague, individual, or awkwardly spoken than English is, and ignoring what someone's saying, simply because it's not articulate, is a choice to remain ignorant.
    
27. Past precedent is only previous present spontaneity, not a recipe to adhere to for all similar future decisions. What happens tomorrow can be brand new present spontaneity when I get there.
    
28. My first reaction to a stimulus is not a promise that all future reactions should be the same. Pavlov's dog was not built in a day.
    
29. My past documents when I first decided to turn left, but my future can document when I first decided to turn right. Past me may be defined by my past, but present me is defined by my present, and future me is defined by my future.
    
30. I'm not accountable for the universe, but I am accountable for how I react to it. The universe includes subliminal suggestions, past experiences, things that other people say, and a whole lot more. My reactions include my emotions, thoughts, actions, dreams, etc.
    
31. My response to a stimulus is my responsibility. The stimulus is not to blame for which response I choose to have. That's all on me.
    
32. I control how I present myself to others. I do not control how they perceive it or react to it. But, if I lead by example and see myself positively, they may lazily agree with me.
    
33. People apparently love to join and defend bandwagons. Make my sexiness a bandwagon, and then leave it to them to overdo it. Declare myself sexy first, beforehand, and then leave it to them to figure out how and why, letting their soapboxes, whisper campaigns, recruitment drives, etc do the work for me.
    
34. My conscious mind may want to be in control, and one of its jobs is to filter ideas administratively, but my subconscious mind is the one with more understanding, wisdom, capability, resources, and practice. A good manager understands when they may lack the perspective or experience of those doing the heavy lifting.
    
35. I have the ability to change the way that I feel about myself. If I have a negative feeling about myself, I should either pause it, find a better one, or refute the reason behind it. I shouldn't wallow in it or encourage it. If trying to pause the feeling doesn't work, it's not the only positive option available.
    
36. I don't measure the temperature with a yardstick. Likewise, I don't measure my sexiness, sex appeal, or attraction by the amount of sex that I perform or by the variety of people with whom I perform it.
    
37. I don't have to have lots of sex to be desired for lots of sex. Sexiness isn't about how much sex I choose to have. It's about how strongly sex with me is desired.
    
38. It's not the violin's fault if the violinist has to master their craft with hard work, discipline, care, and patience. Skill takes time.
    
39. "Natural affinity" may just be the result of having practiced something similar to the current goal for longer than others have. There's a difference between faster speed and having leisurely walked 90% of the distance for years beforehand.
    
40. A trophy's function is to sit on a shelf. Being thought of as "the prize" isn't nearly as important to me as having made myself worthy of the designation.
    
41. Wanting a certain compliment (smart, sexy, etc) isn't the same as deserving it. I care more about what I am than about how many others acknowledge it. Or which others acknowledge it.
    
42. Others' opinions don't make me who I am; I do.
    
43. Mimicking others is called following. Thinking for myself is called leading. I'd rather succeed by my own definition than model success by someone else's.
    
44. Someone who desires obsession probably hasn't lived it. And almost certainly hasn't tried to break up with it.
    
45. Finding a sexual partner isn't about me being more like other men, it's about understanding the type of woman who thinks "yum" when she looks at me.
    
46. Being more certain that I'm right doesn't mean that I'm any less wrong.
    
47. A theory being revered for decades or centuries doesn't make it correct. (A geocentric universe, for example.)
    
48. There's a difference between a proven hypothesis and a popular hypothesis.
    
49. There's a difference between a proven hypothesis and cherry-picking "evidence" to support the hypothesis that you want to be true.
    
50. I'm wary of theories whose only "proof" is that they haven't been disproven.
    
51. If I see a person as disposable, I see no value in winning them. And I certainly wouldn't want to deserve them. Or 1000 of them. 1000 x 0 = 0.
    

That's probably more than enough of a mental placeholder for where I've left off. Again, these are my current views after 15 months of DMSI effort, some newer than others. How much is DMSI and how much is me, I don't know, but you don't argue for sole credit when you run a three-legged race. I'll be starting my first loops of UD within the next hour or so, having already taken an 8-day break from DMSI to minimize turbulence.

And I'm back on DMSI 3.1-A. There's a difference between working on my worst attributes for a month and feeling like nothing but my worst attributes for a month. UD felt like the latter, and I'd rather not feel like I'm training my worst qualities to eclipse my best qualities permanently. If I cleared anything on UD, great. If not, so be it. I've found other ways accelerate my physical detox, and that was the whole purpose of my detour.

I'm trying to stay out of the 3.2 discussions, since very few seem to acknowledge that there's a world of difference between seduced and seducer scripts, starting long before either party is even in the same room. But I'll state my own opinion about that indistinction here, outside of discussion, in case anyone cares to read it:

Sailing a boat to an island is not the same as flying to it, and trying both at once (or trying to fly a boat) rarely goes very well. Saying that "the island is the same goal with both vehicles" doesn't justify mixing and matching vehicular components, designing a seaplane without an engineer, flying a boat, sailing a plane, choosing a boat when you get seasick, choosing a plane when you get airsick, choosing a boat with no water near your starting point, or choosing a plane when there's no airstrip on the island. And, unless I've been misreading, people who pick the seducer role up-front keep wondering why women cast as the seduced don't suddenly leap at the idea of trading roles midstream, as if that's an unexpected result.

Subs aside, if I'm trying to convince the other person to choose me, I'm the seducer. By definition of seduction. To succeed, I have to seduce them because they aren't convinced and I am. Their job is either to respond or reject. Because we have to complete the flavor of situation that I started.

If the other person is trying to convince me to choose them, only then am I the one being seduced. It becomes my job either to respond or reject. Because they're trying to convince me, and we have to complete the flavor of the situation that they started. Like yin/yang. Both are important roles (to different situations) ending in sex, but it's important (to me, at least) to respect the differences and to use the right tool for the right job.

The entire script is flipped, not just one tiny line of dialogue. The first overt move is not the only difference between the two roles, despite popular thinking. If Chewie and Leia suddenly swap lines for a single scene in the middle, wouldn't the original Star Wars confuse everyone watching the whole movie for the first time? Would anyone expect them to swap roles in one scene for no reason? (Tempted to make a Han/Greedo reference.)

A woman who isn't convinced that she wants me (requires seduction from me) isn't suddenly likely to start convincing (seducing) me into wanting her, especially when I already do and when she doesn't actually want me to want her. The onus is on me because I picked an attractive girl who needs convincing, pre-picking like a seducer does, instead of responding to an attractive girl trying to convince me, post-picking like the seduced does. Has nothing to do what men and women do or don't do; has everything to do with having started the entire movie as seducer instead of seduced and then getting angry that everyone's staying in character. Just like dressing for the job I want, I pick the role for the character whose narrative I want. Side note; Results often transpire significantly better and faster if she picks the role of seducer before I even have the chance to pick seduced. (I say this, having been seduced since 1991 onward, and I like to think that I might've noticed one or two things along the way.)

And, before anyone wonders why I don't find DMSI pointless (since the hasty assumption seems to be: women fall into your lap or they don't, so why use DMSI?), there are (at least) 3 very big points to consider: 1) If I'm closed-off or auto-start into seducer mode, I'm lessening my chances of being seduced. 2) When it comes to finding desirables amongst the undesirables, more options are more options (the numbers game argument inverted: one approached, many approachers, and filtering by attractive instead of attracted). 3) Being more receptive to/focused on those that I like (snipers) keeps me from being distracted by the undesirables who approach, the same reason that an approacher focuses on women that he wants to seduce. (The approacher picks the most attractive, in search of interest; the approached picks from interest, in search of the most attractive.)

So, that's at least 5 paragraphs more than I'd wanted to say about this, but I find it baffling that people keep treating both seduction roles as if only 0.001% (not 100%) of the script is inverted, so I've offered up my perspective. Feel free to consider me a tinfoil-hat crackpot if you're so inclined.

I like your analogy. It definitely describes what is going on with women ime because I've had girls come onto me and then it's like "ok... who's seducing?" and it becomes a stalemate.

HOWEVER, I don't agree with your "seducer OR seduced" theory. Mostly because I do sales and, in my experience, it works more like this:

I want to sell my product. I know my product is the best.

The customer doesn't, so I have to go educate them.

The rules are, I can only tell them about aspects of the product THEY desire. Only aspects that THEY think are worth buying (my thoughts become irrelevant)

I keep talking about the things THEY value that my product has until they WANT it (they didn't before because they didn't know)

Then, by magic, the idea to buy becomes the customers, not mine and I can't fill the order fast enough.

The customer comes away from it feeling like it was all their idea.

That's roughly how it works in sales. Same can be done in seduction, I'd imagine.

The idea is yours, but the girl comes to own that idea as if it was her own.

My 2 cents.

I've sold things to people who have told me up front "I'm not buying that. Mine works fine".

But if you hit the right "buttons", they change their mind. And I come away with a sale (true story. Took 30 minutes to change the guys mind, but it was his idea )

So, I don't believe in the "they like you already or there's no chance"

It just doesn't work that way, and it's very limiting to believe that you cannot influence people.

(10-01-2017, 08:28 AM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]I like your analogy. It definitely describes what is going on with women ime because I've had girls come onto me and then it's like "ok... who's seducing?" and it becomes a stalemate.

HOWEVER, I don't agree with your "seducer OR seduced" theory. Mostly because I do sales and, in my experience, it works more like this:

Unless I'm misreading, you seem to be making my point anyhow. I sell co-workers on ideas constantly, dangling rewards until they're convinced that saying yes benefits them or was their idea. That's still seducing them into wanting what you want them to want, which is exactly what the seduction scene/movie always is. The reverse would be customers coming out to your car and trying to convince you to sell them windows, with you reluctant and needing to be convinced to see the benefit to you in selling them your product, with them trying to convince you that selling the windows was your idea.

When a woman approaches me, she has to justify to me why she's better than other options, or she's not seducing me at all. Her goal is to get me to want to say yes, not begrudgingly say yes, and I don't say yes solely because an attractive woman wants me to.

But, to your point, two people can run through the seduction scene so fast that it seems near-immediate or like both had chosen seduced simultaneously, and, as a example, I once confused a restaurant table of friends when a friend-of-a-friend and I both got up to leave, our mutual friend (and about 3 others) asked what was happening, and she answered, "He's taking me to his place." They were confused because we'd never met before and arranged it all without ever having said a word to each other.

Lol, awesome.

I'm on my phone so can't make a lengthy reply (thank God, right? Lol) but I have had customers try to impress me more than once.

I don't think I've ever sold anything where the customer begrudgingly bought. They were always very pleased.

One, it's not about dangling rewards, it's about showing them you can help them achieve their goals.

Anyhow, I am intrigued by your experience, what would you say dmsi needs to be a good womanizing sub?

(10-01-2017, 09:17 AM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]One, it's not about dangling rewards, it's about showing them you can help them achieve their goals.

I was originally going to phrase it similarly, especially given how I sell my ideas to co-workers, but "dangling rewards" seemed more appropriate to a physical sales product example.

(10-01-2017, 09:17 AM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]Anyhow, I am intrigued by your experience, what would you say dmsi needs to be a good womanizing sub?

I'm not sure if you mean in terms of change or key points. Or what "womanizing" even means in this context. I'm actually a fan of 3.1 and have no immediate interest in 3.2, although, admittedly, I'd be happier if the NSFX/halfway stuff weren't there. I see that as far more appropriate to SM, a sub with a goal of becoming a seducer. IMHO, DMSI's goal is its complement, not its twin or its successor. I see them as separate topics that should stay separately-focused when studied, not muddled together, where opposable elements can get conflated. North and south are wonderful directions when pursued separately, but they cancel each other out if taken simultaneously.

I'd also say that any suggestion for DMSI fueled by an inferiority complex or body dysmorphia probably isn't a very good idea. Unless it's to remove the inferiority complex or dysmorphia itself (without creating a prideful by-product), and even that may still belong in another sub more than in DMSI. For all that I know, OSGF and self-image scripting may take care of that with time anyhow.

And I wouldn't object to the sexual performance script correction.

Also not overly interested in the anti-sniper, since I've been rejecting people (politely) for years without needing one to amplify it or to make my rejection choices for me. I also like being able to make that decision on more than hasty first impressions, after I'm better-informed. My subconscious may be powerful and observant, but it's not omniscient. Being hyper-aware of a closed book is still being unaware of what's inside it..

Beyond that, I don't know enough about DMSI under the hood to offer specific suggestions, since, other than what the sales page says, I don't really know what's there and what isn't. I do think that a lot of people have various misconceptions to unlearn (myself included, probably), but I'm pretty sure that the polymorphic everythings, Roman-sounding engines, ASS/ART, OSGF, EIP, etc may have to teach us indirectly which specifics are useful before those specific concepts can be re-injected to upgrade it into something even better.

That's if I had to change anything, but, honestly, 3.1's still teaching me so much each day (often "discovering what I already know"), even so soon after restarting it again, that I'm not complaining.

(10-01-2017, 01:16 PM)myth Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2017, 09:17 AM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]One, it's not about dangling rewards, it's about showing them you can help them achieve their goals.

I was originally going to phrase it similarly, especially given how I sell my ideas to co-workers, but "dangling rewards" seemed more appropriate to a physical sales product example.

Fair enough. It's just semantics.

(10-01-2017, 01:16 PM)myth Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2017, 09:17 AM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]Anyhow, I am intrigued by your experience, what would you say dmsi needs to be a good womanizing sub?

I'm not sure if you mean in terms of change or key points. Or what "womanizing" even means in this context. I'm actually a fan of 3.1 and have no immediate interest in 3.2, although, admittedly, I'd be happier if the NSFX/halfway stuff weren't there. I see that as far more appropriate to SM, a sub with a goal of becoming a seducer. IMHO, DMSI's goal is its complement, not its twin or its successor. I see them as separate topics that should stay separately-focused when studied, not muddled together, where opposable elements can get conflated. North and south are wonderful directions when pursued separately, but they cancel each other out if taken simultaneously.

I agree with the bold.

However, hmm...

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.

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

(10-01-2017, 01:16 PM)myth Wrote: [ -> ]I'd also say that any suggestion for DMSI fueled by an inferiority complex or body dysmorphia probably isn't a very good idea. Unless it's to remove the inferiority complex or dysmorphia itself (without creating a prideful by-product), and even that may still belong in another sub more than in DMSI. For all that I know, OSGF and self-image scripting may take care of that with time anyhow.

I think DMSI has self-esteem modules as well as a whole host of other things aimed at the user's self-image.

(10-01-2017, 01:16 PM)myth Wrote: [ -> ]And I wouldn't object to the sexual performance script correction.

Also not overly interested in the anti-sniper, since I've been rejecting people (politely) for years without needing one to amplify it or to make my rejection choices for me. I also like being able to make that decision on more than hasty first impressions, after I'm better-informed. My subconscious may be powerful and observant, but it's not omniscient. Being hyper-aware of a closed book is still being unaware of what's inside it..

I totally agree.

I've turned down women on DMSI already. It's not hard. We definitely don't need the anti-sniper.

(10-01-2017, 01:16 PM)myth Wrote: [ -> ]Beyond that, I don't know enough about DMSI under the hood to offer specific suggestions, since, other than what the sales page says, I don't really know what's there and what isn't. I do think that a lot of people have various misconceptions to unlearn (myself included, probably), but I'm pretty sure that the polymorphic everythings, Roman-sounding engines, ASS/ART, OSGF, EIP, etc may have to teach us indirectly which specifics are useful before those specific concepts can be re-injected to upgrade it into something even better.

That's if I had to change anything, but, honestly, 3.1's still teaching me so much each day (often "discovering what I already know"), even so soon after restarting it again, that I'm not complaining.

Fair enough. I'm not complaining either, just trying to help make DMSI the best it can be.