06-28-2017, 11:20 AM
Pondering #1:
We know that DMSI is supposed to make us look, sound, taste, etc sexier. This sensory-differentiated concept makes me wonder about our tendency, in the case of subtle indicators, to rely so strongly on the visual sense to detect not-yet-stated attraction in others.
I'll start with an example of something similar: I view the popularized notion of IOIs as an enemy of real body language, since it promotes shorthand over fluency, like insisting that five isolated English words can adequately replace the entire English dictionary and the value of sentence structure. Distracting from better understanding with the "promise" that a shortcut is comprehensive.
Along similar lines, I wonder if strong conscious emphasis on subtle visual indicators (body language) may unintentionally allow us to overlook the wider array of counterparts available to us through our other senses -- e.g. subtle changes in the responder's semantics, vocal tone, inflection, volume, types/degree of physical contact, body temperature, smell, etc. There's plenty of focus on the DMSI user's words, timbre, smell, etc, but how much attention are we really paying to the other side? Now, I may not be one of the pheromone junkies on this forum, but it still seems to me like it would be helpful to to pay attention when the responder's pheromone shift and vocal shift and temperature shift (and so on) indicates increased interest in you. Saying that "men are visual creatures" is a self-limiting cop-out when we have at least four other functioning senses, and, if it can at least be agreed that women don't have the same self-fulfilling adage to live down to, it doesn't seem far-fetched to consider that they might communicate attraction more than just visually or by stating it plainly.
Of course, for all that I know, all of this may be in DMSI's scripting, and this may just be coming to my attention because it is.
We know that DMSI is supposed to make us look, sound, taste, etc sexier. This sensory-differentiated concept makes me wonder about our tendency, in the case of subtle indicators, to rely so strongly on the visual sense to detect not-yet-stated attraction in others.
I'll start with an example of something similar: I view the popularized notion of IOIs as an enemy of real body language, since it promotes shorthand over fluency, like insisting that five isolated English words can adequately replace the entire English dictionary and the value of sentence structure. Distracting from better understanding with the "promise" that a shortcut is comprehensive.
Along similar lines, I wonder if strong conscious emphasis on subtle visual indicators (body language) may unintentionally allow us to overlook the wider array of counterparts available to us through our other senses -- e.g. subtle changes in the responder's semantics, vocal tone, inflection, volume, types/degree of physical contact, body temperature, smell, etc. There's plenty of focus on the DMSI user's words, timbre, smell, etc, but how much attention are we really paying to the other side? Now, I may not be one of the pheromone junkies on this forum, but it still seems to me like it would be helpful to to pay attention when the responder's pheromone shift and vocal shift and temperature shift (and so on) indicates increased interest in you. Saying that "men are visual creatures" is a self-limiting cop-out when we have at least four other functioning senses, and, if it can at least be agreed that women don't have the same self-fulfilling adage to live down to, it doesn't seem far-fetched to consider that they might communicate attraction more than just visually or by stating it plainly.
Of course, for all that I know, all of this may be in DMSI's scripting, and this may just be coming to my attention because it is.
