Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

criteria

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    present,

    To cut to the chase: I don't think this kind of direct approach is an optimal strategy for you. It could become a tool in your arsenal, but would still require some form of screening or prior intel about the guys experience/sexual openness.

    Some of the likely preconditions in which such a direct proposition would be both welcome and not subject to misinterpretation (i.e. strings-attached, leading to monogamy, etc.) are:

    1. you're already fucking him
    2. the guy is sexually experienced and confident enough not to have his manhood challenged
    3. the guy has no reason to suspect you of ulterior motives
    4. attraction is mutual

    I honestly think attraction is the least important factor. Doesn't matter if she's a 10 or a 7, as long as minimum fuckability standard protocols are in place. Confidence/experience/openness are far more important.

    I feel like the guys who are saying, "Yeah, I'd love to be propositioned," are not calibrating their responses to your purpose. Your question to the forum should not be, "Would this approach work on you?" because we can always imagine a scenario or a woman for whom this would work or has worked, but rather, "How can I implement this strategy most effectively?" One deficiency I can see is that this sort of ultimatum can force the man into a kind of either/or panic situation. "Is this chick for real or am I gonna look stupid?" or "Oh shit! I'm not ready but it's now or never!"

    Yes, in theory, every male wishes they had an abundant, unencumbered supply of sex. But I would say the vast majority of men outside of the community are simply not self-possessed enough to be fluid in their sexual receptivity like this. It deprives them of the aphrodisiac of their own (imagined) agency and CAN imply a lack of congruence/calibration on the woman's part. It's like someone offering you money on the street: suspicious. So, as a point-blank, cold-open gambit: out.

    What you are really looking for is a way to directly signal sexual interest/intent but IN A WAY THAT ENCOURAGES THE MAN TO TAKE THE APPROPRIATE ACTION. You are focusing on the proposition itself as the crucial gambit, but don't forget to consider the back-end. In addition to screening, it is probably best to also prepare/escalate things by suggesting your desired outcome. Some subtle, sexy things that girls have done with me, even when I was clueless, were to simply tell me how horny they are, how long they've been without a man, or suggest going back to hers because "it's quiet."

    Similarly, with new guys, we like to hammer home the importance of having your logistics LOCKED DOWN whenever there's even the remotest possibility of sex. No borrowing money from a friend, scrambling for a place to fuck, stopping to buy condoms. The back end of the seduction always carries unexpected spoiler potential, so the more you can progress the interaction to something comfortable and familiar for the guy, the greater your chances of success.

    I have more to add but I want to see if this is on target with your intention.

    Some issues I see for you seem to be rooted in polarized thinking when it comes to relationship dynamics. I'm reading this vis a vis your question about whether women can be both aggressive and submissive and also your query about "changing" a man from beta to alpha. I've found it more the rule than the exception that aggressive women strongly desire to submit to a dominant male, and subsequently grow increasingly frustrated in their quest to find an adequate partner.

    On the flip-side, while men can groom their women for greater femininity/receptivity through the mechanism of sexual dominance, it is almost impossible for a woman to help a man "Man up," because both emotional and sexual motivation tend to work on only beta males. The alpha transformation must ultimately coincide with a man's aloof PURPOSE and SELF-SUFFICIENCY. It's like the conundrum of med school dating or Officer and a Gentleman. Once the girls from the neighborhood help get the candidates through their ordeal, the guys don't need them anymore and move on to greener pastures!

    Comment


    • #32
      I wonder if by MY following this paradigm, a man around me can graduate from Beta into Alpha? If I decrease my attention to him when he's acting all supplicative, and increase it when intermittent rays of confidence and happiness shine through?
      The goal isn't to change a woman's behavior, it is pretty much a given that women are the way they are and you can't do much to change them. The whole purpose of nexting and compliance building is to get them to stop annoying behaviors and to spend more time doing endearing behaviors. As long as they are being easy to get along with and not causing problems you just have fun with them. If drama erupts, you bail out and do something enjoyable instead.

      I don't know if you can alter something as basic as where a guy is on the Alpha - Omega continuum. That would be like trying to turn your Lindsay Lohan type FB into Taylor Swift so you could take her home to meet momma. Given that you are into 35+ guys, their basic personality is pretty much set, unless they were to undergo a long term program aimed at profound change and self improvement, and people only do that when they become unwilling to go through life as they currently are, which is rare.

      Realize that if you are trying this, all of it is designed for men to use to improve their experience with women; it will take some adapting on your part to use it the other way. One of the mindsets that is required to understand the stuff PUAs developed is that men and women are different. That much of the problems people have with the opposite sex are caused by not understanding that they are opposite. So you are going to have to reimagine this stuff to manage your relationships with males so they fulfill your needs. Most of this is not based upon changing women, but rather changing how you interact with women in order to get a more satisfying result.

      Like how you'd use nexting with a guy would be if he embarrassed you at a restaurant or in front of friends or something else that was really irritating. Then you'd just not contact him for a bunch of days until you cooled down, and then engage like nothing happened. It is a form of operant conditioning. Remember, any reinforcement is reinforcement. Yelling at him is less effective than ignoring him. This is to stop really annoying and relationship sabotaging behaviors, not to get robotic adherence.
      The older the violin, the sweeter the music. Augustus McCrae

      Comment


      • #33
        And I'll add to Dai's comment on the direct approach, I have had several times where a girl I had just met that night whispered in my ear that she wanted to leave and go fuck, but it was not out of the blue. It was always where I had met her, we had started talking and were clicking, but I also continued to talk to others, drink and/or smoke weed, and generally continue having a good time, and she was dragging me out because it looked like I would stay there all night otherwise. And just saying I want to leave makes her sound like she is cutting off my fun, where saying let's leave and go fuck is offering more fun.
        The older the violin, the sweeter the music. Augustus McCrae

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Present View Post
          And I can see the PUA point that it might actually be more respectful to "teach" them nonverbally by soft-nexting rather than by giving them so much boring, Beta-like verbalization.
          That only works on women, because women are all about subtlety and non-verbal dances. A man verbalizing is beta. But men are different.

          Question: I wonder if by MY following this paradigm, a man around me can graduate from Beta into Alpha? If I decrease my attention to him when he's acting all supplicative, and increase it when intermittent rays of confidence and happiness shine through?
          No. Don't play these games with men that only women like. Appeal to his rational male nature by simply telling him instead.

          I hate when angry women say to chumps "I can't believe I actually have to tell you!" Well maybe you don't need to verbalize with an experienced seducer from this forum, but the average man thinks in rational, verbal ways, unlike the average woman. A man will be eternally grateful if you do something that would be beta for a man to do to a woman, like direct verbalizing.

          Otherwise, he may not get your hints. He's not a woman, and most likely, not an experienced seducer either.

          Comment


          • #35
            @Present:

            There's one more thing I forgot. Try not to give the appearance that you're taking the guy for granted. Sex as fast as possible is cool (in fact, that's what I, and other POS guys, prefer), but try to give the impression that you know there is a very real possibility of the guy saying no. In other words, be just a little bit humble about it, or just slightly nervous. That's beta when a guy does it, but again, women are different.

            One thing I hate is when women act as if men have no free will and take sex with them for granted. If a woman doesn't want a man she says, "Why is he drooling over me? Doesn't he know I'm not interested? What's wrong with him?" But when she wants him and he doesn't want her, she says, "Doesn't he see that I'm throwing myself at him? What's wrong with him? Is he gay?"

            In other words, many women don't recognize men as human beings with free will, but rather as lifeless tools to suit women's whims. If a man said that every girl who rejected him is a lesbian, we'd dismiss him as an arrogant idiot who thinks too highly of himself, or a man with a very fragile ego.

            But women think this garbage all the time - if a man says no he must be gay because no man would say no to her.

            Be a little humble, a little nervous, and treat men as if they actually have free will by not treating the sex as if it is a foregone conclusion. In other words, don't take men for granted.

            If you can pull that off, while at the same time having sex with the guy super fast, you would impress many men who have self-respect. Women taking the sex for granted has always irked me as an arrogant presumption which slightly turns me off. I also find that attitude disrespectful. So, by all means, have fast sex, but also show that you respect him and recognize his free will in the matter.

            I also agree with Diagoro about first screening the guy for sexual open-mindedness. You don't want to be slut shamed by some asshole who is stuck in traditional programming.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Sase View Post
              Pure/ prissy/ virginal girls tend to be star-fish in the bedroom. The POS can have them all.
              Uhhh, I don't think so, buddy! Pure/prissy/virginal girls make me sicker than sick! They stink of Magic Pussy Syndrome! I believe that if you inspect every aspect of female prudery, you will find female supremacy!

              I doubt many POS guys would want these inexperienced princesses!

              I just thought you'd appreciate the pain, the challenge, and the thrill of the hunt.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by ChitownMaverick View Post
                She'd be a FB only, forever,
                Why?

                and she'd probably insist on keeping me at the same distance if she's that type of girl.
                This strikes me as slut shaming, or at least some mild M/W. What's wrong with getting into a serious relationship with a girl like this (an open relationship, of course)?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by NWP View Post
                  Be a little humble, a little nervous, and treat men as if they actually have free will by not treating the sex as if it is a foregone conclusion. In other words, don't take men for granted.

                  If you can pull that off, while at the same time having sex with the guy super fast, you would impress many men who have self-respect. Women taking the sex for granted has always irked me as an arrogant presumption which slightly turns me off. I also find that attitude disrespectful. So, by all means, have fast sex, but also show that you respect him and recognize his free will in the matter.
                  NWP is on fire! Yes it would be impressive AND effective as you have put yourself in your 'targets' shoes and tailored your approach accordingly rather than just making presuppositions on what would work from a woman's point of view and understanding - this is how you need to think to be an effective seducer

                  Also, the ideal seduction is planned ahead meticulously yet comes across as spontaneous and uncalculated to appear that it is YOU that have been seduced by your targets charms - which has a VERY intoxicating effect on your victims

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    There is so much rich, valuable material here overall, on lots of topics, that it is going to take me a long time to study.

                    Daigoro, you're convincing on this: "It is almost impossible for a woman to help a man "Man up," because both emotional and sexual motivation tend to work on only beta males. The alpha transformation must ultimately coincide with a man's aloof PURPOSE and SELF-SUFFICIENCY."

                    Therefore, I'm confused, NWP, by this: "Appeal to his rational male nature by simply telling him instead." YOu think that a guy might learn to be alpha if I said to him, "stop trying so hard to please me!" It feels like a no-win situation. He is then in the situation of trying to learn to be alpha in order to. . . please me. Did I misunderstand you?

                    Anyways, thanks to everybody for putting in so much generous thought and time.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Present View Post
                      There is so much rich, valuable material here overall, on lots of topics, that it is going to take me a long time to study.
                      You're better off going out and trying it and seeing what happens. Report back with field work and we'll have more insight into what's happening. I wouldn't spend too much time trying to study or memorize this shit.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Present View Post
                        Therefore, I'm confused, NWP, by this: "Appeal to his rational male nature by simply telling him instead." YOu think that a guy might learn to be alpha if I said to him, "stop trying so hard to please me!" It feels like a no-win situation. He is then in the situation of trying to learn to be alpha in order to. . . please me. Did I misunderstand you?
                        Well it may not teach him to be alpha, but it will teach him to do what you want. I'm saying that many average men say to themselves, "Why can't she just say what she means and mean what she says?" If you were to just rationally explain your problem, he may very well provide a solution. This wouldn't be very sexy if a man did it to a woman, because, for a woman, it would ruin the game. But as I said, men are not women.

                        Of course, you don't have to do this with men who are already alpha, because alpha males would never suck up to you like that, but sometimes a beta needs to be verbally smacked with a brick until he gets it.

                        As for turning him alpha, I'm not sure you can do that. And I'm not sure you'd be attracted to him if you had to try. Granted, you might not be attracted to him if you have to verbally tell him either, but then your only solution is to sleep with men who are already alphas.

                        So it's up to you. I'm just saying that there is no sexy way out of your problem if you insist on sleeping with beta males, and beta males don't respond well to non-verbal cues.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by NWP View Post
                          Uhhh, I don't think so, buddy! Pure/prissy/virginal girls make me sicker than sick! They stink of Magic Pussy Syndrome! I believe that if you inspect every aspect of female prudery, you will find female supremacy!

                          I doubt many POS guys would want these inexperienced princesses!

                          I just thought you'd appreciate the pain, the challenge, and the thrill of the hunt.
                          LOL NWP, it's not slut shaming any more than refusing to be monogamous with a girl who throws herself at guys, which is also called using your brain.

                          I'm not shaming anyone. I'm just also not going to mono-up a promiscuous girl, as you wouldn't either.

                          And as always it goes both ways; women don't really want players to be monogamous with them either. Same application from female to male. We take for granted that there are boring, monogamous Beta guys who women get "monogamous" with, but have exciting alphas on the side who are not monogamous.

                          The exact same thing applies to women, and calling it slut-shaming is disingenuous.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by NWP View Post
                            Uhhh, I don't think so, buddy! Pure/prissy/virginal girls make me sicker than sick! They stink of Magic Pussy Syndrome! I believe that if you inspect every aspect of female prudery, you will find female supremacy!

                            I doubt many POS guys would want these inexperienced princesses!

                            I just thought you'd appreciate the pain, the challenge, and the thrill of the hunt.
                            When you say open relationship, of course, you are displaying exactly the "M/w" you are accusing me of having.

                            It still implies that some girls are not built for m

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by NWP View Post
                              Uhhh, I don't think so, buddy! Pure/prissy/virginal girls make me sicker than sick! They stink of Magic Pussy Syndrome! I believe that if you inspect every aspect of female prudery, you will find female supremacy!

                              I doubt many POS guys would want these inexperienced princesses!

                              I just thought you'd appreciate the pain, the challenge, and the thrill of the hunt.
                              When you say open relationship, of course, you are displaying exactly the "M/w" you are accusing me of having.

                              It still implies that some girls are not built for monogamy and others are. I'm not going to get monogamous with anyone, but asserting that some are not better suited for it than others is insane.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by ChitownMaverick View Post
                                LOL NWP, it's not slut shaming any more than refusing to be monogamous with a girl who throws herself at guys, which is also called using your brain.
                                Who said anything about being monogamous?

                                I asked you why you would keep that type of girl only as a fuck buddy and not want to develop a serious relationship with her.

                                Where did you get monogamy from?

                                I'm not shaming anyone. I'm just also not going to mono-up a promiscuous girl, as you wouldn't either.
                                Correct. But again, who said anything about mono? I'm talking about serious relationships, not monogamy. I wouldn't "mono-up" a prude either (or anyone).

                                And as always it goes both ways; women don't really want players to be monogamous with them either.
                                You are mistakenly conflating "monogamy" with "serious relationship." Or do you refer to all open relationships as "fuck buddy arrangements?"

                                Same application from female to male. We take for granted that there are boring, monogamous Beta guys who women get "monogamous" with, but have exciting alphas on the side who are not monogamous.
                                So?

                                The exact same thing applies to women, and calling it slut-shaming is disingenuous.
                                Then instead of saying that you'd keep her as a fuck buddy only, say that you would never be monogamous with her, thus preserving the possibility of a serious open relationship.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X