10-01-2017, 08:17 AM
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'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.
