My Definition Of Jerks & Nice Guys...
James L. King III
The LOVE GOD <call_me_m...@juno.com> wrote:
> Some Guy Writes:
>
> > <--------It's easy now for me to be confident because there's no
> "hidden
> > fruit" I'm chasing. I know the endgame. The opening becomes easy to
> > play after that.
>
> I have to agree. When you are interacting with a woman, and
> in a sudden fit of maniacal hubris :), you say to yourself,
> "yes, I could seduce her if I wanted to," one is not worrying
> about confidence. :)
>
> <--------My brain isn't even trained that way. More like I assume there
> is no opportunity until I see a clear window or an "open three" at which
> point I pursue. It's an issue of letting the game come to you and not
> forcing it. That part you are teaching, but once the game comes to them,
> what do they do?
>
Ray, but an "open three" doesn't count, right? I mean, that's an "empty
net goal" from an earlier post of yours. Maybe you can explain to me
what the difference is between an "open three" and an "empty net goal"
-- I know that you highly recommend the open three, and you criticize
the empty net goal as not an indication of one's skills in seduction --
in other words, it was too easy. What's the difference between the two?
>
> No, you're not, but that's not the point. I'll elaborate below.
>
> <-----It is and it isn't.
>
Ray! I had no idea you were a Taoist, too! :)
>
> > > The more shy you are, the LESS you should concentrate on hitting
> > > on women and the MORE you should concentrate on merely meeting
> > > them. Don't ask ANY women out on dates from this venue until
> > > you are comfortable with the scene and no what's going on.
> > > Knowing that you have no intention of approaching and therefore
> > > knowing that you can't be rejected (because you're not approaching)
> > > is a sure fire way to learn to relax and be yourself.
> > >
> > > <---------Usually if I want to seduce a woman, I hit on her. I find
> it
> > > to be ideal. However, it's knowing WHEN to hit on her that's the
> key.
> >
> > You are *relaxed* around women.
> >
> > <----Because I KNOW HOW TO SEDUCE THEM.
>
> And you didn't really learn how to seduce them until you
> weren't wound up around the axle so much. Chicken, meet
> the egg.
>
> <-----The egg HAD to come first. All chickens were once eggs; all eggs
> were not once chickens.
>
Unless you believe in creationism, in which case the CHICKEN came
first, because it was created, and there was one chicken -- ok, a
chicken and a rooster -- who were not eggs first.
Just a different point of view there. To be honest, it doesn't make a
hill of beans of difference which came first to me ... the fact is that
right now, there is a rooster and hen and who's going to pay the child
support for all these eggs?
[snip]
> <-----------It comes down to technique. Every man should imagine that a
> porn star has agreed to be his submissive for five hours and plan, IN
> DETAIL, what he would do to her. All you have to do is pretend that
> rejection isn't an option. That frees your mind up to create the type of
> scenario that will truly turn her on.
Is this turning her on, or turning you on by thinking about being dom
to a porn star?
I think it creates a scenario that turns you on, and perhaps she'll be
turned on by the fact that you're turned on, but it doesn't follow that
imagining something so specific as you being dom to a sub porn star is
going to turn her on. I'd do quite different things with a porn star
than my current partner.
> If a porn star did that to me, I
> wouldn't be fazed; if Kasparov sat down against me at chess, I wouldn't
> be fazed. I'm not going to let my opponent dictate my game; if I do
> that, I lose.
But open threes (also known as empty-net goals) don't take that much
technique, really. I mean, they just simply don't count, right, Ray?
James King
nutm...@my-dejanews.com
"James L. King III" <jlk...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <19990519.195131.-25172...@juno.com>,
> The LOVE GOD <call_me_m...@juno.com> wrote:
> > <-----------It comes down to technique. Every man should imagine
that a
> > porn star has agreed to be his submissive for five hours and plan,
IN
> > DETAIL, what he would do to her. All you have to do is pretend that
> > rejection isn't an option. That frees your mind up to create the
type of
> > scenario that will truly turn her on.
>
> Is this turning her on, or turning you on by thinking about being dom
> to a porn star?
His statement makes me laugh because he doesn't understand how a woman's
sexuality works.
>
> I think it creates a scenario that turns you on, and perhaps she'll be
> turned on by the fact that you're turned on, but it doesn't follow
that
> imagining something so specific as you being dom to a sub porn star is
> going to turn her on. I'd do quite different things with a porn star
> than my current partner.
Exactly.
For most women it takes more than just having a man hot for you.
I said most, not all.
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Courageous
> For most women it takes more than just having a man hot for you.
And yet cognitive mirroring is a *very* important part
of seduction.
C/
Shawn T Pickrell
: Exactly.
: For most women it takes more than just having a man hot for you.
: I said most, not all.
I think that Ray's comments would work if the woman is already favorably
disposed toward you. In which case, erotic imagery would work quite well.
Shawn Pickrell
GMU SITE '03
nutm...@my-dejanews.com
That is the key, it's not going to MAKE a woman horny for you.
Not at all, she may even laugh.