myth's Belated DMSI 3.1 Journal

[myth]

Prologue: Internals, part 2.

Intent to reduce/remove less attractive traits

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in consistency so far? More consistent.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? Emotional albatrosses are getting less debilitating as time passes. Other areas seem lower priority or less visible. Or less directly targeted.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? During.
   

Intent to highlight more attractive traits

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in consistency so far? More consistent, even when results might be compromised by either factors.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? Less concern over appropriate circumstances/setting or over negative consequences. Less proactive.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? During, mostly.
   

Sexual availability (emotionally)

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in consistency so far? More consistent.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? More emotionally and sexually available
   in sexual situations. Slightly less inhibited during sex.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? Conditional. During, within an existing relationship. Before, during a ONS. Emotionally-speaking, relationship sex has become more affectionate and easygoing, and incidental sex has become more disappointing. Not really sure if one can transition from incidental to relationship with that dynamic, but the transition was definitely possible pre-DMSI.
   

Confidence in user's own sexuality

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in consistency so far? Slight uptick.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? Fewer inhibitions regarding appropriate behavior.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? During.
   

Confidence in user's own sexual performance

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in consistency so far? Slight decrease.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? More mutual expectation that the responder's wishes are implicit and clear when they aren't. (Less responder verbal communication, even when prompted. Less responder trust in the user's skills when responding very positively to their consequences, and more responder trust in the user's skills when responding negatively to their consequences.)
   
5. Before/during preference so far? Before. But, to be clear, cross-wired communication may have been strictly circumstantial and may not be representative of a more diverse set of responders.