Gonna go super deep psychology shit no one has ever heard about, who hasn't studied it, so read carefully.
Ok we all know at some base level people are attracted to each other based on their body, face, hair, build or their overall looks.
That's the simple first fact of it. Simple absolute truth.
In this game, in this community however, our goal is of course to use that thing between her ears to get her attracted, regardless of having ideal overall looks for her ideal.
What I will explain here is how to get her brain working in the proper directions, so she will when be influenced in her choices about you.
When I studied everything from neurology to biological psychology to physiological psychology, I always had an eye on that exact mechanism. The "choice mechanism", what was it, how could I work in to it and influence it?
I never imagined I would even have a debate with someone in my life who did not work at it from this angle. Never imagined this because the use of "changing someone's choices", for influence in any area, is of course NEED ONE.
Any practitioner of influence who doesn't understand this and exactly how it works has no hope of ever understanding their game fully.
So what is the first and foremost understanding one needs to have in interpersonal influence?
Between a man and a woman?
Psychology 101 here so don't write it off, and if you are a woman, unless you have attended a university and studied the shit don't tell me I am wrong, out of ego:
Sex is an act of submission for a woman, to an overall dominance of her being.
To be penetrated, to take in, to be filled up with someone else is an act of submission. This is not to say women do not enjoy the act, they in fact love it, but it is hard wired in the DNA of heterosexual women that this submission is the ultimate in sexual pleasure.
If anyone knows their shit already and wants the "gattaca" dna breakdown and consequence from the chemical reactions behind it on male vs female neurons look it up yourself. Or if enough ask for it I will draw it up and get it online.
Of course looks can come in to play and cause a biological attraction to the guy which fosters this, but does not make it happen by itself.
We won't concern ourselves with that element of it however. Everyone who knows anything knows to look their socially acceptable best for the mating game already. Anyone who knows anything also knows good looking guys fuck up their attraction game just as bad if not worse than others at times.
Without going in to all the exact science and filling up 30 pages, just know that women take in, men put in. Not in some little kid fashion, but hard wired in the resulting DNA from the x and y chromosones.
We cannot however just walk up and put our penis inside of her to achieve this.
We need dominant behaviors to trigger this inside her mind that will result in her feeling submissive.
First what is "dominant" to her "submissive" nature?
As you look at the below traits listed, think of how women possessing them have a harder time with men in general, how they repulse us, or in the guy with no game, even scare him away.
Quick list of traits:
Being masculine.
Being looked up to by others.
Being of more social intelligence than others.
Being able to let loose and not hold back/confidence in actions.
Having a stronger persona than her.
Having a more powerful positive state than her.
Lots more.
Now I don't want this to get TOO long so I will list some behavior and situations you can get examples of that are these things:
Oldie but a goody, not supplicating. Instant fucked up frame is established when you kiss ass of course.
Having a conversation with her and she says she doesn't like something you say you like, saying "well you don't know shit about it woman!" tongue in cheek is dominant without being a dick. While on the other hand saying "come to think of it yeah it is stupid" breaks frame.
Something I like to do at bars and clubs and parties is have a stronger party vibe than everyone else. An "UP" state which inside of I will:
Walk up to a chick and put up my fists as if to fight and when she puts hers up play fight super light with her until she turns her back to me from me fake slapping at her.
I will literally walk up and pick up a chick. On my shoulder and carry her away.
If a chick does the "ahhhh scream and run away" thing mid conversation I will chase after her and grab her around the waist and pick her up.
If a chick busts my balls about something, maybe makes a joke at me, I will put her in a light headlock.
If you are reading these saying "I ain't like that though that's what other guys do with their girlfriends" you are dead on right. That's why they are some other guys girlfriend, not yours.
Other things I will do is if in a deep conversation with a chick and she is talking a lot and offering a lot more insight in to the topic, I will change the subject to something *I* am more well versed in and not act phased by her insights.
I frame women and other men as a student and me as the teacher in conversations. I ain't a rude and interrupting guy, and I don't talk down to people. But I also tell people how it is, I don't go "uhmmm maybe you should think about getting rid of that car if you can". I say "get rid a that car that sounds like a piece of shit"
Dedication to what you say. Not "approval hopefully for saying this" is the key.
Old one here in this community but I don't look away first when eyes lock with mine, chicks or guys. I make sure they look away first.
Another old one, I don't speak super fast, I come off like people actually want to hear what I have to say and will wait. I naturally talk fast so have to work at this one sometimes.
I see myself as masculine, a man, not a boy, and project that to people.
I will tickle you, I will tickle her, someone tickles me I don't giggle, they do.
I don't always feel the need to answer everything everyone says to me. Someone says something trivial like "this is a cool song" that I just put on the radio I don't go in to a novel about how I like it.
I pick up words. Phrases I like and words other people don't use, I use em, and talk how I want to talk, I don't hold back for fear of "seeming weird".
Lots of things like this, that you can easily realize by looking for dominance(not MEAN but MORE based dominance).
Now these alone will not achieve attraction fully.
At this point she simply has submitted to your frame and is now admiring you, attracted to you as a persona.
You will start to then notice her do opposite behaviors things like:
Never giving you eye contact for more than a few seconds with a certain look in here eye you have to know to know.
Running off and looking back at you playfully.
Play fighting with you and losing rather easy.
Jumping on your back to get a piggy back ride.
Jumping on your front and wrapping her legs around you.
Trying to make you tickle her.
Asking your opinion on things in the conversation.
Things to suck you in to the mating ritual, naturally start to come out of her.
At this point you simply need to go sexual state on her fully:
Project the sexuality through your tone of voice.
Touch her more sensually/slower and longer strokes.
Get closer and closer to her.
Give her deep sensual eye contact.
She will at this point:
1. At a neurological level she will see you as a lover, because you are taking the actions of a lover. This works a lot like "anchors" of the Pavolvian sense (CS), but more modern HUMAN biological psychology instead. Different areas of the brain process this than sense (visual, auditory, kinosethetic) based anchors, and she feels a sense of similarity with you as a lover from her awareness of other people. This also works in other terms like the (UCS)in that she feels she SHOULD act on it because she HAS in the past.
2. She will follow your sexual state because of the dominance set in before. She begins to herself slide in to the sexual state as part of her overall attraction to you, and hence becomes biologically attracted as well.
3. No science here, but I suspect from all I know it is, she once going sexual also begins to wonder "why" she is attracted, and attributes good qualities to you. Like "fractionating" theory. Basically she says if she is in to looks and knows it: "oh it must be because he has strong arms", if she is in to money and knows it: "this guy is so smart he has a lot of potential" even though you may be fat and broke. As she does not 100% KNOW you are attracted, as you have not told her you are, yet SHE is becoming attracted she will come up with her own reasons/excuses if you are not her "classic type".
Put all 3 together, or AT LEAST the first two from biological fact, you have attraction achieved that you can easily close her based on, the sooner the better.
As usual coming from you a very insightful post. I always enjoyreading your writings. You are more aggressive than I in PU, but hey we are all different. May I ask something of you? In the past you said there were photo's of you on the net. I have searched and come up empty, would you be as kind as point me in the right direction?
> As usual coming from you a very insightful post. I always enjoyreading > your writings. You are more aggressive than I in PU, but hey we are all > different.
I know women who break up with guys who espouse those views in mixed company, but I also know women who fuck guys like that.
I find when I've "gone Gunwitch" (I called it using Ted Nugent's attitude when I did it), that some women are very responsive, and some of those women are even very hot. I view it almost as a form of "slumpbusting" in that if the rewards for being more polite and patient don't materialize, I can just say "fuck it" and pursue aggressively.
I wouldn't make it my only method, but it definitely has its place, even moreso than NLP, I'd say (NLP also is very effective with a specific subset of women).
-- Ray Gordon, Author http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating affiliated books!
>> As usual coming from you a very insightful post. I always enjoyreading >> your writings. You are more aggressive than I in PU, but hey we are all >> different.
> I know women who break up with guys who espouse those views in mixed > company, but I also know women who fuck guys like that.
I don't understand the above....is your meaning concerning talking about the "method" in front of girls?
> I find when I've "gone Gunwitch" (I called it using Ted Nugent's attitude > when I did it), that some women are very responsive, and some of those > women are even very hot. I view it almost as a form of "slumpbusting" in > that if the rewards for being more polite and patient don't materialize, I > can just say "fuck it" and pursue aggressively.
You use gun's ideas?
SluttyFox pop quiz......how do you tell if shes "ready" by kissing her?
>>> As usual coming from you a very insightful post. I always enjoyreading >>> your writings. You are more aggressive than I in PU, but hey we are all >>> different.
>> I know women who break up with guys who espouse those views in mixed >> company, but I also know women who fuck guys like that.
> I don't understand the above....is your meaning concerning talking about > the "method" in front of girls?
Well, an antiplayer method is designed to bring up topics like this, which tend to favor the antiplayer once everything is verbalized.
>> I find when I've "gone Gunwitch" (I called it using Ted Nugent's attitude >> when I did it), that some women are very responsive, and some of those >> women are even very hot. I view it almost as a form of "slumpbusting" in >> that if the rewards for being more polite and patient don't materialize, >> I can just say "fuck it" and pursue aggressively.
> You use gun's ideas?
I used Ted Nugent's ideas based on a biography of him I saw on cable once. Did very well with it.
I call it "going Gunwitch" because that's the name the people around here relate the ultra-alpha attitude to, but I'd say Nugent is the leader of that school of thought. He did settle into a nice, primitive marriage where he claims to be loyal now, which given his age and history is likely.
-- Ray Gordon, Author http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating affiliated books!
>>> I know women who break up with guys who espouse those views in mixed >>> company, but I also know women who fuck guys like that.
>> I don't understand the above....is your meaning concerning talking about >> the "method" in front of girls?
> Well, an antiplayer method is designed to bring up topics like this, which > tend to favor the antiplayer once everything is verbalized.
Discussing the "methods" with anyone is generally a BAD thing to do unless they know of them. Generally though, I introduce all my LTR's to it. And believe it or not it's ok with them. I've taught my current one and we sarge together. I'll never forget the time I was showing her the DC2000 tapes. RJ was talking about deep level structures, getting deep into her mind, when she looked over at me with this amazed look, like a deep dark secret had been exposed, and she said...you better be careful who you do this with. She acknowledged the power of talking with a woman on that level.
>>> I find when I've "gone Gunwitch" (I called it using Ted Nugent's >>> attitude when I did it), that some women are very responsive, and some >>> of those women are even very hot. I view it almost as a form of >>> "slumpbusting" in that if the rewards for being more polite and patient >>> don't materialize, I can just say "fuck it" and pursue aggressively.
>> You use gun's ideas?
> I used Ted Nugent's ideas based on a biography of him I saw on cable once. > Did very well with it.
> I call it "going Gunwitch" because that's the name the people around here > relate the ultra-alpha attitude to, but I'd say Nugent is the leader of > that school of thought. He did settle into a nice, primitive marriage > where he claims to be loyal now, which given his age and history is > likely.
> Psychology 101 here so don't write it off, and if you are a woman, > unless you have attended a university and studied the shit don't tell > me I am wrong, out of ego:
> Sex is an act of submission for a woman, to an overall dominance of her > being
There ya go - hard wired, instinctive behavior. Keep in mind, most people dismiss instinctive behavior in humans, since we're so rational. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Count on her neurology to trump her conscious mind.
> First what is "dominant" to her "submissive" nature?
> As you look at the below traits listed, think of how women possessing > them have a harder time with men in general, how they repulse us, or in > the guy with no game, even scare him away.
[Snip of the good stuff - hey, I don't need to repeat it] Gun has elucidated the type of behaviors that spark her instinctive reactions. Read and heed.
> If you are reading these saying "I ain't like that though that's what > other guys do with their girlfriends" you are dead on right. That's why > they are some other guys girlfriend, not yours.
Heh, nice point. Look, guys, get your head screwed on straight. You owe it to yourselves.
> Lots of things like this, that you can easily realize by looking for > dominance(not MEAN but MORE based dominance).
Mean = small minded.
> Now these alone will not achieve attraction fully.
> At this point she simply has submitted to your frame and is now > admiring you, attracted to you as a persona.
Watch what she does, pay no attention to what she "says".
> At this point you simply need to go sexual state on her fully:
> 1. At a neurological level she will see you as a lover, because you are > taking the actions of a lover. This works a lot like "anchors" of the > Pavolvian sense (CS), but more modern HUMAN biological psychology > instead. Different areas of the brain process this than sense (visual, > auditory, kinosethetic) based anchors, and she feels a sense of > similarity with you as a lover from her awareness of other people. This > also works in other terms like the (UCS)in that she feels she SHOULD > act on it because she HAS in the past.
> 2. She will follow your sexual state because of the dominance set in > before. She begins to herself slide in to the sexual state as part of > her overall attraction to you, and hence becomes biologically attracted > as well.
> 3. No science here, but I suspect from all I know it is, she once going > sexual also begins to wonder "why" she is attracted, and attributes > good qualities to you. Like "fractionating" theory. Basically she says > if she is in to looks and knows it: "oh it must be because he has > strong arms", if she is in to money and knows it: "this guy is so smart > he has a lot of potential" even though you may be fat and broke. As she > does not 100% KNOW you are attracted, as you have not told her you are, > yet SHE is becoming attracted she will come up with her own > reasons/excuses if you are not her "classic type".
> Put all 3 together, or AT LEAST the first two from biological fact, you > have attraction achieved that you can easily close her based on, the > sooner the better.
Who says this guy's a Neanderthaler? LOL Vince -- 8===Ð
** You admitted (see below) you ".wished." ** a child would die, JUST to get revenge on ** her mother for her crime of ".loving you."
SO, the question is, Mr. Gordon Roy Parker:
".how old was Michelle's daughter Cierra when you "wished" she would die, and if your "wish" could come true, what would you "wish" to happen to her.. ?????? ."
...Usenet records seem to note her age at 6 or 7...
>>Path: news.alt.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news >>Cc: cavema...@nni.com >>Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:58:08 -0400 >>Subject: Ray Takes FULL RESPONSIBLITY For The Michelle Mistake >>Message-ID: <20000628.075839.-285523.10.The______Seduction_________Libr...@juno.com> >>X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11 >>X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-3,6-9,17-18,20-21,29-30,40-41,48-49,61-62,71-72,84-85,94-95,105-106, >>115-116,126-127,133-134,154-155,164-165,178-179,187-188,196-199,201-202,2 06-207,212-213, >>215-216,219-220,222-226,228-231,237-238,241-246,249-250,257-258,264-265,2 74-275,289-290,293-300 >>X-Juno-Att: 0 >>MIME-Version: 1.0 >>Content-Type: text/plain >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>From: The Seduction Library <the______seduction_________libr...@juno.com> >>Mail-To-News-Contact: postmas...@nym.alias.net >>Organization: mail2n...@nym.alias.net >>Newsgroups: alt.romance >>Lines: 307 >>Xref: news alt.romance:246369 >>WARNING: If Oedipus, Krusty or Tusky respond to this message in any way, >>I will return to ASF immediately. If they want me off that newsgroup >>they can stay the hell out of my threads. >>Read up. I post this not for myself, because I don't care what people >>think of me. I post this for my METHOD, because it's being destroyed by >>attacks on its creator. >>I am going to clear the record on a few things here: >>1. I DID wish death on Michelle's daughter Cierra. I did so in an >>attempt to snap her back to reality after she had used others' defamation >>of me as leverage to get me to want her. Why did I "hurt" her? I DID >>NOT TALK TO HER. That's correct: my crime with Michelle was not falling >>back in love with her after she had fallen in love with me for four >>months, IMing me constantly, E-mailing me constantly, BEGGING me to love >>her the way I "loved" "Dominique" (these two are in quotes because I >>neither loved her nor necessarily knew her). >>2. Wishing death on someone is not a crime. The words were spoken in >>anger, after MONTHS of provocation
Main Entry: mo·lest Pronunciation: m&-'lest Function: transitive verb Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French molester, from Latin molestare, from molestus burdensome, annoying; akin to Latin moles mass
1 : to annoy, disturb, or persecute especially with hostile intent or injurious effect
2 : to make annoying sexual advances to; especially : to force physical and usually sexual contact on
Ray Gordon wrote: > I find when I've "gone Gunwitch" (I called it using Ted Nugent's attitude > when I did it), that some women are very responsive, and some of those women > are even very hot.
And when in the last two years have you had sex with any woman, or how many times have you had sex with one or more women in the last two years?
Oh good, I finally remembered to stop asking, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?"
Vince Runza wrote: >>Psychology 101 here so don't write it off, and if you are a woman, >>unless you have attended a university and studied the shit don't tell >>me I am wrong, out of ego:
>>Sex is an act of submission for a woman, to an overall dominance of her >>being
> There ya go - hard wired, instinctive behavior. Keep in mind, most people > dismiss instinctive behavior in humans, since we're so rational. > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Count on her neurology to trump her conscious mind.
>>First what is "dominant" to her "submissive" nature?
>>As you look at the below traits listed, think of how women possessing >>them have a harder time with men in general, how they repulse us, or in >>the guy with no game, even scare him away.
> [Snip of the good stuff - hey, I don't need to repeat it] Gun has > elucidated the type of behaviors that spark her instinctive reactions. Read > and heed.
very true, vince. that's why your average frustrated waldo falls on his face in these situations with women. his "conditioning" tells him to be nice to a chyck, pay for drinks and dinner, kiss her ass enough, blah blah blah and it'll pay off.
of course the opposite is true. it is what we are taught since the time we realized that we are as males, that we are indeed sexual beings. we have to be different than the others or otherwise getting what you want from a woman is at best, a crapshoot.
whistleblower/anti-player methods just get a guy lumped into the un or underrespected "nice guy" category. that's why such methods are rejected enmass. nobody respects a tattletale no matter how good his intentions are. buying a chyck drinks & dinner for anything other than a reward for quality time spent with you will be nothing more than just rewarding her for being attractive enough to get a guy to pay attention to her.
you have to fight against such conditioning. that's why those not familiar with the methods rebel against it so, because it doesn't fit into what they are taught over a lifetime.
gun knows his stuff and it is more than obvious that he has spent a great deal of time researching it personally to separate what works from what doesn't. i like gun's outright blatancy. i'd never have the success i want to the degree i'd be comfortable with if i wasn't blatant at times.
have you ever seen those tiny breath mints? the triangular ones? or the round "ice breakers", or tic tacs? i eat one before i make my play and work it into my mind as a game, that they are pills that make me sexy and extremely desireable.
>>If you are reading these saying "I ain't like that though that's what >>other guys do with their girlfriends" you are dead on right. That's why >>they are some other guys girlfriend, not yours.
> Heh, nice point. Look, guys, get your head screwed on straight. You owe it > to yourselves.
>>Lots of things like this, that you can easily realize by looking for >>dominance(not MEAN but MORE based dominance).
> Mean = small minded.
>>Now these alone will not achieve attraction fully.
>>At this point she simply has submitted to your frame and is now >>admiring you, attracted to you as a persona.
> Watch what she does, pay no attention to what she "says".
>>At this point you simply need to go sexual state on her fully:
> See GWM for details...
>>She will at this point:
>>1. At a neurological level she will see you as a lover, because you are >>taking the actions of a lover. This works a lot like "anchors" of the >>Pavolvian sense (CS), but more modern HUMAN biological psychology >>instead. Different areas of the brain process this than sense (visual, >>auditory, kinosethetic) based anchors, and she feels a sense of >>similarity with you as a lover from her awareness of other people. This >>also works in other terms like the (UCS)in that she feels she SHOULD >>act on it because she HAS in the past.
>>2. She will follow your sexual state because of the dominance set in >>before. She begins to herself slide in to the sexual state as part of >>her overall attraction to you, and hence becomes biologically attracted >>as well.
>>3. No science here, but I suspect from all I know it is, she once going >>sexual also begins to wonder "why" she is attracted, and attributes >>good qualities to you. Like "fractionating" theory. Basically she says >>if she is in to looks and knows it: "oh it must be because he has >>strong arms", if she is in to money and knows it: "this guy is so smart >>he has a lot of potential" even though you may be fat and broke. As she >>does not 100% KNOW you are attracted, as you have not told her you are, >>yet SHE is becoming attracted she will come up with her own >>reasons/excuses if you are not her "classic type".
>>Put all 3 together, or AT LEAST the first two from biological fact, you >>have attraction achieved that you can easily close her based on, the >>sooner the better.
> Who says this guy's a Neanderthaler? LOL > Vince > -- > 8===Ð
> Is where my picture is now located in a combo workout manual and pic > page.
> Probably why you couldn't find the original url anyplace that worked.
Thanks, how many years have you been pumping iron? Its something I would like to get back into, stopped back in the 90s after 10 years due to a back injury.....fucking cablerows..:). You like Firearms I know, have you had a chance with the S&W 1911?
> Also notice my dominant way is more playfull than agressive. This is > because of what I look like scaring women if I am more controlling or > rude.
> Most guys could afford to be even more dominant than what I explained > and not scare the chick though.
I noticed how you were playful, that is the key there. You behavior in that manner can be unexpected thus setting you apart from the others.
>> Sex is an act of submission for a woman, to an overall dominance of her >> being
gun, if more guys would ....just understand that part...they would go soo much farther. Guys, you HAVE to UNDERSTAND women. On ALL levels. One if the best ways to get insight into a womans mind is staring you in the face everyday. Read romance novels. Trust me.
>> [Snip of the good stuff - hey, I don't need to repeat it] Gun has >> elucidated the type of behaviors that spark her instinctive reactions. >> Read >> and heed.
> very true, vince. that's why your average frustrated waldo
"Waldo" is an insult used by wimps who can't fight yet want to sound tough. It's a sign a guy is a domestic abuser as well as wanting to deflect from his own character flaws.
>falls on his face in these situations with women. his "conditioning" tells >him to be nice to a chyck, pay for drinks and dinner, kiss her ass enough, >blah blah blah and it'll pay off.
That's only recent conditioning. Thanks to the internet, this is changing rapidly. Paris Hilton's quote about how every woman needs a "jackass to pay for everything" will also cause some men to stop thinking this way.
-- Ray Gordon, Author http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating affiliated books!
>>> Sex is an act of submission for a woman, to an overall dominance of her >>> being
> gun, if more guys would ....just understand that part...they would go soo > much farther. Guys, you HAVE to UNDERSTAND women. On ALL levels.
Yet if the guy tries to say this in front of his girlfriend, he's in the doghouse.
You guys are such REAL MEN when the women aren't around, and so easy to humiliate when they are. Tell a girl that Gunwitch's only tough muscle is his mouth and he's checkmated.
Of course, "Slut" here likes to RAPE women with NLP, so it's no shock he'd take the wannabe alpha posture. It's why he has to stay anonymous.
-- Ray Gordon, Author http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating affiliated books!
Ray Gordon wrote: >>>[Snip of the good stuff - hey, I don't need to repeat it] Gun has >>>elucidated the type of behaviors that spark her instinctive reactions. >>>Read >>>and heed.
>>very true, vince. that's why your average frustrated waldo
> "Waldo" is an insult used by wimps who can't fight yet want to sound tough. > It's a sign a guy is a domestic abuser as well as wanting to deflect from > his own character flaws.
you have been known to use the term "waldo" on this newsgroup. if you have any proof a person such as myself is actually a "domestic abuser" you had best cough it up, liar. that is unless you enjoy having absolutely no credibility at all.
>>falls on his face in these situations with women. his "conditioning" tells >>him to be nice to a chyck, pay for drinks and dinner, kiss her ass enough, >>blah blah blah and it'll pay off.
> That's only recent conditioning. Thanks to the internet, this is changing > rapidly. Paris Hilton's quote about how every woman needs a "jackass to pay > for everything" will also cause some men to stop thinking this way.
i'm glad you stated that. since it came from you i'll be sure to believe the opposite should the situation arise. now that you've made your yucky statement...
>> That's only recent conditioning. Thanks to the internet, this is >> changing rapidly. Paris Hilton's quote about how every woman needs a >> "jackass to pay for everything" will also cause some men to stop thinking >> this way.
Man if it wasn't for fastseduction.com and thundercat's site, you wouldn't have any info on whats going on in the seduction community. Are you learning anything to help you imporve your game from reading all the posts at fastsecution.com?
> Ray Gordon wrote: >>>>At this point she simply has submitted to your frame and is now >>>>admiring you, attracted to you as a persona.
>>>Watch what she does, pay no attention to what she "says".
>> That's almost verbatim for how I put it in my 1998 book.
> and ross jeffries wrote it before 1998 and you know it.
Ever notice how these "gurus's" seem to want to take credit for simple human interaction, stuff that anyone can see or pick-up on their on.
I guess when you can't understand the mind of a woman that's all you have to fall back on.But anyway the nlp, hypnosis, and seduction communities seem to have the biggest bunch of cry-babies I've seen in any technology that pertains to knowledge.
Ray wrote: >Tell a girl that Gunwitch's only tough muscle is >his mouth and he's checkmated.
Bet they push more iron than yours grandpa.
Anyway I don't sit around and talk about fighting and how bad ass I am like you like to pigeon hole me as doing.
The RARE "muscle slut" as me and my wing call em, is in to me based on them, but usually more in to him because he is even better built.
And even more rarely some chick will as you call it be trying to "bluto" me and get me to "protect" her from her crazy mean abusive ex boyfriend.
Which I don't fall in to, because usually they are a nice guy she is just trying to play wounded bird off of. I ain't some stupid asshole that says "I am gonna kick that guys ass if I see him!!" just because she CLAIMS he hit her or abused her.
If you were to walk up to a table me and a chick I am gaming were at and say: "the only tough muscle on his body is his mouth" they would look at you like you are from mars, because for the last time I don't run that sort of game.
DOMINANT, not "big dumb crazy tough and stupid brave masher and smasher".
It's not like I am Sylvester Stallone big or something and can live my sex life off my muscles.
Nah sluttyfox I haven't had a chance with the smith 1911. Matter of fact the only 1911 I ever owned was a surplus norinco which left a rather foul taste in my mouth about them I am sure you can imagine.
The only 45 I ever owned that I liked was the smith 4506, but the weight and size made it about as practical to carry as a damn shotgun.
Lately I have been more in to snubbie revolvers for concealed carry. Got a taurus 605 357 mag for winter with bigger clothing and a smith 642 38 for the summer carry.
Have you by chance heard anything on the new kel-tec 380? I have considered swapping my 642 out for it, when it is too hot for much more than shorts and a tank top.
Oh of course 12 gauge for home. And whatever I carried that day on my end table.
> Nah sluttyfox I haven't had a chance with the smith 1911. Matter of > fact the only 1911 I ever owned was a surplus norinco which left a > rather foul taste in my mouth about them I am sure you can imagine.
Norinco.....thats a scary gun..never trusted those. I'm going to get the SW1911.
> The only 45 I ever owned that I liked was the smith 4506, but the > weight and size made it about as practical to carry as a damn shotgun.
I owned a 4506...I loved it....never failed. I agree, it was too big for concealed carry.
> Lately I have been more in to snubbie revolvers for concealed carry. > Got a taurus 605 357 mag for winter with bigger clothing and a smith > 642 38 for the summer carry.
In snubby's I have enjoyed using a ruger sp101 357. 125 grain federal. In the 45 I use black talons...;) As you know the 357 load in federal is rated as 96% one shot stop by american hangunner magazine.....its a nice read.
> Have you by chance heard anything on the new kel-tec 380? I have > considered swapping my 642 out for it, when it is too hot for much more > than shorts and a tank top.
No I haven't....consider the sp101, same size as most 38's packing the 357....quite concealable.
> Oh of course 12 gauge for home. And whatever I carried that day on my > end table.
nothing like a 12 guage...nothing. I had a spas 12, but it was just too big for a shotgun. Now I just use a mossberg.
