+- Subliminal Talk (https://subliminal-talk.com)
+-- Forum: Men's Journals (18+ NSFW) (https://subliminal-talk.com/Forum-Men-s-Journals-18-NSFW)
+--- Forum: Men's Journals (https://subliminal-talk.com/Forum-Men-s-Journals)
+--- Thread: DMSI 3.1 - The Journal (/Thread-DMSI-3-1-The-Journal)
RE: DMSI 3.1 - The Journal - Shawn - 07-26-2017
MLS journals seem to become more and more but it is not surprising at all if you read the journals. However, here still DMSI.
Today as I went to the car there were two girls talking. I looked at one of them and then at the other. The moment I looked into her eyes I felt strong attraction, but not that much sexually charged, it was more lovely, but still strong. But I still looked away immediately. Then I asked myself why I did not look longer in her eyes or have smiled and it become the following dialogue:
"It's because of the fear"
"What kind of fear?"
"Fear to be rejected"
"But I don't feel like I fear rejection"
"Not the fear of being rejected as her lover, it is fear of being rejected as person, as human being, fear of being devalued"
After getting this response I was surprised and next moment I just thought "She cannot devalue me because whatever she thinks doesn't change anything about my value". So far it looks like my mindset is ok, but it is not (yet) what I feel emotion wise. But looks like DMSI is working on something regarding these fears.
Other than that I got nice responses and smiles from many people.
Edit: Still 2 loops (hybrid/TS)
RE: DMSI 3.1 - The Journal - Shawn - 09-28-2017
I would also like to add some things to the DMSI list, some of the points are similar to what RTBoss said but with different suggestions:
1. Re-check the goal wording: I brought this up because the last known candidate for the wording was "...people of the gender I am attracted to which also want to have sex with you". And we don't know the exact goal but IF it is something that relies so much on the woman already wanting you then there can be issues when the woman changes her mind IMHO.
2. Remove the current anti-sniper and replace it with a few, well defined (basic) anti-snipers. Here is what I wrote initially:
Quote:I think the next version should only have something like V3.0.1 or a few basic well defined anti-snipers. Like people who want to kill you, steal from you, ruining your reputation on purpose, stalker and people who want to harm you on purpose. And even "harming" has to be better defined than here. At least something like that. This would prevent serious harm while giving you lots of opportunities. And when we get the release candidate for final we can think about other anti-snipers.
3. Detox (especially) the body whenever necessary for full execution and meeting the sub goal.
4. Calculating secondary ASRB (if useful) in terms of days on/days off and make it auto-config
5. Checking effectiveness of current LDS and replacing it with a different statement or with the perfect sexual lover instead. Reason: LDS might be harder to get than your perfect sexual lover and offers (probably) less satisfaction in terms of sex. Of course, I don't know if this is possible without distracting the sub from its goal.
6. Finding optimal balance between comfort/familiarity and sexual attraction/polarity: The aura should find the balance for every affected person.
Those were the latest thoughts I have had regarding DMSI. Some other are already in your list or in RTB's list. Feel free to consider what is useful and discard what doesn't make sense.
RE: DMSI 3.1 - The Journal - RTBoss - 09-29-2017
(09-28-2017, 01:19 PM)Mr. Anderson Wrote: 1. Re-check the goal wording: I brought this up because the last known candidate for the wording was "...people of the gender I am attracted to which also want to have sex with you". And we don't know the exact goal but IF it is something that relies so much on the woman already wanting you then there can be issues when the woman changes her mind IMHO.
I was thinking about how this would actually be awesome goal-phrasing for a sniper if the phrase was worded to read:
"...people of the gender I am sexually attracted -whom I already know - and who are already interested in having sex with me."
In other words, a sniper that would constantly snipe women you are sexually attracted to (who you already have an established rapport/connection with) that also already want to have sex with you. So while it wouldn't be the main goal-phrasing for the program, there would at least be a portion of the program "outing" women in your life that you've always wanted to fuck by getting them to seduce and fuck you! It would be just a little extra push, because the sniper can tell that they already had fantasies about fuckin' ya anyway!
This may be a great way to utilize the LDS.
RE: DMSI 3.1 - The Journal - CatMan - 09-29-2017
What if none of the girls you find sexually attractive want to have sex with you and aren't attracted? I know that feel. That statement may not work well for people in that boat.
This concerns me, but is that single post about a possible phrase the only instance of Shannon saying the program apparently may only attract women that are already attracted to you? I agree with others it'd be pointless to use the program if that was the case. I know I'd stop immediately because I don't seem to get attraction from girls I want and if I did I wouldn't need the program, so it wouldn't be useful to me anymore. As it seems none of the hot girls I know find me attractive or else I wouldn't have been rejected by them or they may have made moves or whatever. The whole point of me using this is to get girls I want that I wasn't able to get before the program. I highly doubt this is the focus of the program, only going for girls that already are attracted to you, is there a post I can be directed to for this to put this to rest?
Thanks guys!
RE: DMSI 3.1 - The Journal - RTBoss - 09-29-2017
(09-29-2017, 01:43 PM)CatMan Wrote: What if none of the girls you find sexually attractive want to have sex with you and aren't attracted? I know that feel. That statement may not work well for people in that boat.
This concerns me, but is that single post about a possible phrase the only instance of Shannon saying the program apparently may only attract women that are already attracted to you? I agree with others it'd be pointless to use the program if that was the case. I know I'd stop immediately because I don't seem to get attraction from girls I want and if I did I wouldn't need the program, so it wouldn't be useful to me anymore. As it seems none of the hot girls I know find me attractive or else I wouldn't have been rejected by them or they may have made moves or whatever. The whole point of me using this is to get girls I want that I wasn't able to get before the program. I highly doubt this is the focus of the program, only going for girls that already are attracted to you, is there a post I can be directed to for this to put this to rest?
Thanks guys!
For all you know, Catman, they do and you aren't acting on it...properly. Hell, that kind of sniper may do wonders for your world, for all you know!
Furthermore, I'd state that the only thing that may help you is improvement in anti-resistance technology. You're the one who's resisting/stonewalling the program so hard - no matter what the phrasing is.
RE: DMSI 3.1 - The Journal - CatMan - 09-29-2017
(09-29-2017, 01:47 PM)RTBoss Wrote:(09-29-2017, 01:43 PM)CatMan Wrote: What if none of the girls you find sexually attractive want to have sex with you and aren't attracted? I know that feel. That statement may not work well for people in that boat.
This concerns me, but is that single post about a possible phrase the only instance of Shannon saying the program apparently may only attract women that are already attracted to you? I agree with others it'd be pointless to use the program if that was the case. I know I'd stop immediately because I don't seem to get attraction from girls I want and if I did I wouldn't need the program, so it wouldn't be useful to me anymore. As it seems none of the hot girls I know find me attractive or else I wouldn't have been rejected by them or they may have made moves or whatever. The whole point of me using this is to get girls I want that I wasn't able to get before the program. I highly doubt this is the focus of the program, only going for girls that already are attracted to you, is there a post I can be directed to for this to put this to rest?
Thanks guys!
For all you know, Catman, they do and you aren't acting on it...properly. Hell, that kind of sniper may do wonders for your world, for all you know!
I have no idea how to "properly" do it, each one of them is an individual and may respond to different things at different times and different moods. All I know is somehow it's consistently been fail and they haven't been attracted etc. due to rejection responses and what not.
Or they've chosen to instead go out with bad boys even though they crash and burn over and over, told I'm too nice, or told me we're just friends, or tons of other clear signs of disinterest. So I truly doubt they are interested sexually despite all that. I feel such a phrase would doom me on this program as I don't seem to have any of the girls I like actually interested in me, and I suspect most others are in the same boat. Seeing as most of the guys are using this because they are failing hard with women to begin with. If that gets implemented, it'll seem to be curtains for me sadly. I'll have to move on. And to me it'd defeat the whole point of the program, seeing as they'd already be attracted to you anyway before the program then.
However, I'm positive this is controversy over nothing. I do doubt that phrase is in there or it's concept.
RE: DMSI 3.1 - The Journal - RTBoss - 09-29-2017
(09-29-2017, 01:50 PM)CatMan Wrote:(09-29-2017, 01:47 PM)RTBoss Wrote:(09-29-2017, 01:43 PM)CatMan Wrote: What if none of the girls you find sexually attractive want to have sex with you and aren't attracted? I know that feel. That statement may not work well for people in that boat.
This concerns me, but is that single post about a possible phrase the only instance of Shannon saying the program apparently may only attract women that are already attracted to you? I agree with others it'd be pointless to use the program if that was the case. I know I'd stop immediately because I don't seem to get attraction from girls I want and if I did I wouldn't need the program, so it wouldn't be useful to me anymore. As it seems none of the hot girls I know find me attractive or else I wouldn't have been rejected by them or they may have made moves or whatever. The whole point of me using this is to get girls I want that I wasn't able to get before the program. I highly doubt this is the focus of the program, only going for girls that already are attracted to you, is there a post I can be directed to for this to put this to rest?
Thanks guys!
For all you know, Catman, they do and you aren't acting on it...properly. Hell, that kind of sniper may do wonders for your world, for all you know!
Again though, they wouldn't have rejected me.
Or gone out with bad boys instead even though they crash and burn over and over, or told me we're just friends, or tons of other clear signs of disinterest. So I truly doubt they are interested sexually despite all that. So such a phrase would doom me on this program, and I suspect most others. Seeing as guys are using this because they are failing hard with women to begin with.
I adjusted my post after thinkin' about what you just said.
I think we still need some kind of breakthrough in ASS/ART for you to get the most out of DMSI.And dude, I'm just talking about ONE SNIPER. I said having that as goal phrasing for the ENTIRE program would not be good.
RE: DMSI 3.1 - The Journal - CatMan - 09-29-2017
(09-29-2017, 01:52 PM)RTBoss Wrote:(09-29-2017, 01:50 PM)CatMan Wrote:(09-29-2017, 01:47 PM)RTBoss Wrote:(09-29-2017, 01:43 PM)CatMan Wrote: What if none of the girls you find sexually attractive want to have sex with you and aren't attracted? I know that feel. That statement may not work well for people in that boat.
This concerns me, but is that single post about a possible phrase the only instance of Shannon saying the program apparently may only attract women that are already attracted to you? I agree with others it'd be pointless to use the program if that was the case. I know I'd stop immediately because I don't seem to get attraction from girls I want and if I did I wouldn't need the program, so it wouldn't be useful to me anymore. As it seems none of the hot girls I know find me attractive or else I wouldn't have been rejected by them or they may have made moves or whatever. The whole point of me using this is to get girls I want that I wasn't able to get before the program. I highly doubt this is the focus of the program, only going for girls that already are attracted to you, is there a post I can be directed to for this to put this to rest?
Thanks guys!
For all you know, Catman, they do and you aren't acting on it...properly. Hell, that kind of sniper may do wonders for your world, for all you know!
Again though, they wouldn't have rejected me.
Or gone out with bad boys instead even though they crash and burn over and over, or told me we're just friends, or tons of other clear signs of disinterest. So I truly doubt they are interested sexually despite all that. So such a phrase would doom me on this program, and I suspect most others. Seeing as guys are using this because they are failing hard with women to begin with.
I adjusted my post after thinkin' about what you just said.
And dude, I'm just talking about ONE SNIPER. I said having that as goal phrasing for the ENTIRE program would not be good.
The LDS, right?
I love the idea of that thing. I hope it stays, there's 3 girls it could be for me. Only 3, each is immaculate and no others gave me that kind of feeling ever. They would be no doubters that this thing is legit. I also deal with some celebs in my line, so the possibilities if that works could be insane. Would leave zero doubt. Most fascinating part of the program to me, maybe one day when the program starts firing for me it'll be even better to live it.
I think Mr. Anderson is the one that initially started in with the phrasing thing, thinking the program only attracts girls already attracted to you. I doubted that highly, and wanted to speak on it to hopefully get some more info from him or another on it mostly. I saw you posting about something similar enough to be relevant and though I'd bring it up. That is all. I still don't think that kind of thing is in there and that Mr. Anderson is mistaken, wanted confirmation. No worries.
RE: DMSI 3.1 - The Journal - SargeMaximus - 09-29-2017
Yeah it makes no sense, but Shannon's silence makes me suspect all the more that this is, in fact, the case.
That DMSI is only targetted towards women who ALREADY want to have sex with you, which is not only pointless, it's narrow-minded.
People change their minds, but if the program only targets people who have, or "when they do" want sex with the user, it is quite useless.
Like taking a sub that "makes" you sleep at night. >>
RE: DMSI 3.1 - The Journal - Shawn - 09-29-2017
(09-29-2017, 01:33 PM)RTBoss Wrote:(09-28-2017, 01:19 PM)Mr. Anderson Wrote: 1. Re-check the goal wording: I brought this up because the last known candidate for the wording was "...people of the gender I am attracted to which also want to have sex with you". And we don't know the exact goal but IF it is something that relies so much on the woman already wanting you then there can be issues when the woman changes her mind IMHO.
I was thinking about how this would actually be awesome goal-phrasing for a sniper if the phrase was worded to read:
"...people of the gender I am sexually attracted -whom I already know - and who are already interested in having sex with me."
In other words, a sniper that would constantly snipe women you are sexually attracted to (who you already have an established rapport/connection with) that also already want to have sex with you. So while it wouldn't be the main goal-phrasing for the program, there would at least be a portion of the program "outing" women in your life that you've always wanted to **** by getting them to seduce and **** you! It would be just a little extra push, because the sniper can tell that they already had fantasies about fuckin' ya anyway!
This may be a great way to utilize the LDS.
Would be defintely an interesting alternative to the current LDS and I think more likely to succeed than one for a woman you encountered at some point in your life and found her most attractive. Of course, the other snipers should work independent of the fact if she already want to sleep with you.
(09-29-2017, 01:43 PM)CatMan Wrote: What if none of the girls you find sexually attractive want to have sex with you and aren't attracted? I know that feel. That statement may not work well for people in that boat.
This concerns me, but is that single post about a possible phrase the only instance of Shannon saying the program apparently may only attract women that are already attracted to you? I agree with others it'd be pointless to use the program if that was the case. I know I'd stop immediately because I don't seem to get attraction from girls I want and if I did I wouldn't need the program, so it wouldn't be useful to me anymore. As it seems none of the hot girls I know find me attractive or else I wouldn't have been rejected by them or they may have made moves or whatever. The whole point of me using this is to get girls I want that I wasn't able to get before the program. I highly doubt this is the focus of the program, only going for girls that already are attracted to you, is there a post I can be directed to for this to put this to rest?
Thanks guys!
Unfortunately Shannon has to clarify what the current statement is or at least if it is dependent on the woman be already attracted to you. Here what I wrote in RTB's thread:
Quote:It was the last known candidate for the goal statement. I brought it up because IF the current statement relies on the woman already wanting you then it could cause problems. But actually we don't know what the current statement is, just wanted to make sure it has been thought of. It is in the first Shannon's discussion journal, somewhere around page 250 I believe, but not completely sure about the page.
But, CatMan, RTB is right. You already get IOI's but it is one thing to get initial interest and another thing to bring this to the next base - to speak so. So you not succeeding in seduce her doesn't mean there are no IOI's.
RE: DMSI 3.1 - The Journal - Shawn - 09-29-2017
(09-29-2017, 01:50 PM)CatMan Wrote: I have no idea how to "properly" do it, each one of them is an individual and may respond to different things at different times and different moods.
That's where the sub should help us and let her make the job - at least in the final release.
RE: DMSI 3.1 - The Journal - RTBoss - 09-29-2017
(09-29-2017, 02:03 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: Yeah it makes no sense, but Shannon's silence makes me suspect all the more that this is, in fact, the case.
That DMSI is only targetted towards women who ALREADY want to have sex with you, which is not only pointless, it's narrow-minded.
People change their minds, but if the program only targets people who have, or "when they do" want sex with the user, it is quite useless.
Like taking a sub that "makes" you sleep at night. >>
I'm not sure how much of all this was discussed before today, but to be fair to Shannon not responding...today...it is Friday, which most of us know - and you should definitely know, as much as you're here - that Friday is his day off.
RE: DMSI 3.1 - The Journal - SargeMaximus - 09-29-2017
(09-29-2017, 02:11 PM)RTBoss Wrote:(09-29-2017, 02:03 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: Yeah it makes no sense, but Shannon's silence makes me suspect all the more that this is, in fact, the case.
That DMSI is only targetted towards women who ALREADY want to have sex with you, which is not only pointless, it's narrow-minded.
People change their minds, but if the program only targets people who have, or "when they do" want sex with the user, it is quite useless.
Like taking a sub that "makes" you sleep at night. >>
I'm not sure how much of all this was discussed before today, but to be fair to Shannon not responding...today...it is Friday, which most of us know - and you should definitely know, as much as you're here - that Friday is his day off.[/i]
I guess you don't get on here much
My bad, I forgot.Yes it has been brought up before today. in your thread, actually, by Mr. Anderson.
I believe I called for a response from Shannon then, as well. If not shortly thereafter.
RE: DMSI 3.1 - The Journal - Shawn - 09-29-2017
The discussion started when he was busy with the hurricane so maybe he didn't saw/realize that.