Attraction explained.

[Gunwitch]

Originally posted by rgeere
Gunwitch, I hope you do not feel that I am putting you down by the things that I have said. I am not, in fact, reading your material has helped me because there were problems in my own life that were specifically pointed out from reading what you wrote. In result, I have a tremendous respect for the fact that you want to help other in this regards.

However, over time I studied your material and got more than a basic grasp of the general context of the entirity your writtings, and I began to see some indications of dysfunctionalism that isn't necessarily healthy, and this was reflected in the advice. In a way, you were revealing yourself to those who read your material, the way you live your life.

You say you have had nine love relationships, and that they have all failed because you got bored, they got annoyed, and you both fought alot. Well, I don't doubt it. Maybe someday there will be a time where you can look back and wonder what you could have done better with your life, and hopefully see some of the mistakes. Life is an experiment and a learning process afterall, atleast you can't regret that fact.

I hope you would take the time to read and seek to understand some of the things that I have been saying in response to this thread. I did it out of respect for you, and I want to return some of what you've given to everyone. I don't have to, but I'm doing it anyways.

They say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I agree.'

I am very happy living my life the way I do and thinking the way I do.

Insanity would be doing anything differently in my book, because it could ruin what I have going.

The "dysfunction" you see in me and the way I think is probably an age, class, area or even race thing.

I hate for quality information to be derailed by talk of "is Gun an OK guy and fine role model?" as that is never what I have wanted to or tried to be. I just explain the process to people what they do with it and what they can take out of if is what is important. I certainly don't want a bunch of Hutner S thrompsonesque "high powered mutants" like myself out there.

But if anything my method has less of ME injected in to it than any other.

The rest of the **** I write is just me goofing off and jabbering on the internet, little to do with the psychological aspects of influence and attraction I present when I am serious.

 

[rgeere]

Originally posted by AlwaysExcel
Ok, cool. But I'm still in the dark about HOW you go about establishing rapport. HOW do you explore and stimulate the "5 parts of her self?" I'm asking for concrete examples from your experience. My biggest frustration with people advocating rapport is that they don't go into specifics that much. I mean we have all types of routines/examples and strategies/methods for attraction but not as much for rapport.

Yeah, NO SHYT, creating a connection is ideal. NO SHYT, stimulating her whole being is ideal! How SPECIFICALLY do you do this? Step by step stuff. Examples. Frames. Methods. Instructions for avoiding being sucked into her frame. And even more importantly, how do you connect with her AND feel a connection yourself? I've "connected" with girls accidentally or
sporadically and they've gushed on about our great connection, while I'm thinking, "I feel NOTHING!"

I am going to give you the most honest answer anyone can give you, mostly because I would be close to spouting crap out at you otherwise. I'll leave it up to you to decide whther it is a sufficent answer or not.

I don't think that there really is a standard way of creating repore with a woman. They are all different with similar and dissimilar expectations. What worked with one woman in one situation may not work with another woman in another situation. The are enough valid and invalid variables on what you could do in perticular situations to go nuts for a life time worrying about it, so most just dont.

Now, I suppose you can do what I have done, and that is to learn as much about human psychology as you possibly can to try to compensate for all of the abstract and differing variables.

Atleast this way you would have a basic understanding of what people have a tendency to do in certain situations and maintain some control over that; this is what alot of people who are quick seducers have tried to accomplish through patterning and other forms of subtle behaviour modification. If you are really smooth this sort of stuff will work atleast in the short term, but becomes really obvious in the long-term. The downside is that if you mess up with it right off it looks to her like you are some sort of manipulative creep. This is part of the reason I feel most men should steere clear of this; only a few are really any good at it and it's not good for establishing any sort of long-term connection.

It was after I realized this that I did some research and discovered the parts of 'self' that form a person, and what sort of stimuli were involved; it is also closer psychologically to what the DJ philosophy entails. Instead of using tricks and gimmicks to isolate the means by which to procure sex, every part of a woman becomes stimulated to entice her closer. Granted, this also means not giving sex a high-priority or atleast not a higher priority over the other senses. This also means that you must live up to your potential as a man and defeat insecurity at it's root core by any means possible other than the very negitive, if possible; it is not an easy route to take, but pays off big-time in the end. Most would rather take the shorter and quicker superficial route.

 

[Sart]

INTERESTING

Liked the stuff, can see its merit.

 

[Don_Marko]

this is $$$

no need for volumes of debate

 

[rgeere]

Originally posted by Don_Marko
this is $$$

no need for volumes of debate

I do what builds character, if that means debating than so be it; conflict is good in this aspect.

 

[rgeere]

Originally posted by Gunwitch
They say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I agree.' I am very happy living my life the way I do and thinking the way I do. Insanity would be doing anything differently in my book, because it could ruin what I have going. The "dysfunction" you see in me and the way I think is probably an age, class, area or even race thing.
I hate for quality information to be derailed by talk of "is Gun an OK guy and fine role model?" as that is never what I have wanted to or tried to be. I just explain the process to people what they do with it and what they can take out of if is what is important. I certainly don't want a bunch of Hutner S thrompsonesque "high powered mutants" like myself out there. But if anything my method has less of ME injected in to it than any other. The rest of the **** I write is just me goofing off and jabbering on the internet, little to do with the psychological aspects of influence and attraction I present when I am serious.

You say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again to expect diffrent results, and that doing anything diffrent will wreck the fact that you are getting the same results. However, the fact that you are getting the same results means that you are doing the same thing over and over and getting the same thing over and over, namely tons and tons of sex with diffrent women. And that you are happy about this ... You therefore conclude that this is not insanity.

However, it is equally justifiable that doing the same thing over and over again with the knowledge of negitive ramifications is insanity, and that doing the same thing over and over again with the knowledge of positive ramifications is not insanity. And I am happy with that...

I think insanity would also be like placing two men in a pair of semi trucks to play chicken.

As far as masculinity is concerned, the winner is the one who enjoys the collision most, as far as feminity is concerned, the winner is the one who enjoys evasion the most. Neither option is totally bad, and neither is totally good.

Some men are just naturally more masculine than others. Whether that is a weak thing is a matter of perspective. In my book, either way they are worthy of [my] protection.

You could say that I am justifying submission, but I am also not Hitler. I'd rather change the things that can be changed and accept the things that can't. Not everyone is perfect.

I have no interest in breaking up families, or disregarding the little man, or acting out against others for any cause. And I especially have no interest in forcing some other man to raise my genetic offspring with or without knowing the child isn't his. This is not my path.

The dysfunction I see has nothing to do with age, class, area or even race; it has to do with what is good and bad for people. If something is good for everyone I see it as functional, if something is bad for no one I see it as functional, if something is bad for everyone I see it as dysfunctional, if something is good for no one, then I see it as dysfunctional.

The last thing I want to do on this earth is breed more toxic shame, the stuff that eats at a person and causes them to hate the good of trust, and support the evil of mistrust. I have nothing but good intent; I want the live a decent life, and anything else that is good.

I want to give my children what I never had, and that is the right to develope into maturity with healthy principles and without interferance from negitive forces.

I think it is good to admit that intimacy is really what everyone wants of either gender, but the void of it causes strife. You can go on seeking out your sex, but as long as you do you will never find true intimacy. Realize that there is time to change that.

 

[AlwaysExcel]

Not to personally attack you rgeere but focusing entirely on theory and failing to give practical applications or personal examples strikes me as KJ. I can theorize and converse about lofty principles better than most people (I used to be a philosophy major). But I came to a place in my life where I realized that there's a gap between the IDEAL and its APPLICATION. That gap is the hardest for me to bridge and is the most neglected by people, so I've been focusing on practical application of ideals for the last couple years.

Sure you can't micromanage human relations and a lot of it is just FEELING out the right way. But we've got to have some meaningful idea of what to DO and HOW to act so that we're headed in the right direction. If you're going to criticize one person's method that offers plenty of practical application and personal examples, then you better be ready to step up with your own practical applications. Merely saying, "stimulate her 5 parts of self" is just as abstract and meaningless as merely saying "you've got to build attraction." DUH! That's what we're all here for but without discussion and examples of C&F, Playful kino, push pull, storytelling etc., no one would know what "building attraction" means. Otherwise, you're just getting lucky, regardless of what lofty terms you use to describe it.

 

[rgeere]

Originally posted by AlwaysExcel
Not to personally attack you rgeere but focusing entirely on theory and failing to give practical applications or personal examples strikes me as KJ. I can theorize and converse about lofty principles better than most people (I used to be a philosophy major). But I came to a place in my life where I realized that there's a gap between the IDEAL and its APPLICATION. That gap is the hardest for me to bridge and is the most neglected by people, so I've been focusing on practical application of ideals for the last couple years.

Sure you can't micromanage human relations and a lot of it is just FEELING out the right way. But we've got to have some meaningful idea of what to DO and HOW to act so that we're headed in the right direction. If you're going to criticize one person's method that offers plenty of practical application and personal examples, then you better be ready to step up with your own practical applications. Merely saying, "stimulate her 5 parts of self" is just as abstract and meaningless as merely saying "you've got to build attraction." DUH! That's what we're all here for but without discussion and examples of C&F, Playful kino, push pull, storytelling etc., no one would know what "building attraction" means. Otherwise, you're just getting lucky, regardless of what lofty terms you use to describe it.

Apparently there is some sort of hugh communication gap here where either I am not totally explaining it to you in a way you can understand or that you just are not getting what I am saying, period.

I was not necessarily going against what Gunwitch described as dominance, I was not going against the though of kino, c+f, or dominance play or anything else. I actually agreed with it for the most part. In fact, I have also done similar with girls and have had similar results. I've even gotten girls in a position to where they make the first move to make out or to initiate sex using similar techniques, but I am not going to be doing this for bad purposes or just because I can; it takes all the meaning out of life.

What your problem is against what I am saying I have no clue, but you keep asking me questions that appear totally irrevelant to anything that I have been saying, in fact they seem almost off topic.

However, I was debating the usage of dominance for good and for bad purposes. This is where Gunwitch and I seem to have parted ways, and I don't think you seem to understand why or even have a clue where I am coming from.

If you would take the time to look I gave plenty of applications throughout this thread that you either didn't read or didn't notice because they may or may not have been in a post specifically directed to you. I'd have a look at some of them.

 

[MrHarris]

It's amazing to see this thread grow to 3 pages. The time and energy put into debating this could of been spent trying Gun's methods out and getting laid.

I'm also amazed at the length of some of the posts. That takes alot of thought. How about investing the same energy into developing great opening lines to meet that girl you pass everday but don't have the courage to speak to her.

 

[rgeere]

Originally posted by MrHarris
It's amazing to see this thread grow to 3 pages. The time and energy put into debating this could of been spent trying Gun's methods out and getting laid.

I'm also amazed at the length of some of the posts. That takes alot of thought. How about investing the same energy into developing great opening lines to meet that girl you pass everday but don't have the courage to speak to her.

Been there done that, so what else is new?

 

[AlwaysExcel]

Originally posted by rgeere
Apparently there is some sort of hugh communication gap here where either I am not totally explaining it to you in a way you can understand or that you just are not getting what I am saying, period.

LOL! So, either you're "failing" come down to my dim level or I'm just slow. Nice reframe.

Originally posted by rgeere

I was not necessarily going against what Gunwitch described as dominance, I was not going against the though of kino, c+f, or dominance play or anything else. I actually agreed with it for the most part. In fact, I have also done similar with girls and have had similar results. I've even gotten girls in a position to where they make the first move to make out or to initiate sex using similar techniques, but I am not going to be doing this for bad purposes or just because I can; it takes all the meaning out of life.

What your problem is against what I am saying I have no clue, but you keep asking me questions that appear totally irrevelant to anything that I have been saying, in fact they seem almost off topic.

However, I was debating the usage of dominance for good and for bad purposes. This is where Gunwitch and I seem to have parted ways, and I don't think you seem to understand why or even have a clue where I am coming from.

If you would take the time to look I gave plenty of applications throughout this thread that you either didn't read or didn't notice because they may or may not have been in a post specifically directed to you. I'd have a look at some of them.

The problem is that I have no desire to discuss Gunwitch's psychological motivations or get into a player vs. DJ ethical argument. I stated this in my original reply. I'm merely asking you about your statements concerning building trust and "stimulating the 5 parts of self." If stimulating these 5 parts just means applying playful dominance etc in a morally appropriate, non-overbearing way, then cool. We have nothing further to talk about.

But if you're saying that there is MORE to seduction than attraction game, that you must get to know the girl on a spiritual, emotional, etc. level, then I want to learn HOW to do this. Are you just shooting off at the mouth with feel-good concepts or can you actually define and explain the application of these concepts, preferably with examples from your field experience?

 

[legolas]

Originally posted by Jariel
I agree. I think compromise is a much better philosophy. Being able to adapt to different people and different situations is by far the best social skill one can have. Nobody likes a control freak who tries to get his/her own way, be right all the time or who imposes his/her will on others.

Not to hijack the thread, and we can even have the debate on another thread, but just to bring it up....don't you think that by adapting to different people's talking style, or even lifestyle, makes you lose your originality? I mean, I know from NLP that the system with the most choices wins, but still I feel like if you match people on any level it kinda feels like you have no individuality of your own. What do you think?

 

[Blue Phoenix]

Originally posted by legolas
Not to hijack the thread, and we can even have the debate on another thread, but just to bring it up....don't you think that by adapting to different people's talking style, or even lifestyle, makes you lose your originality? I mean, I know from NLP that the system with the most choices wins, but still I feel like if you match people on any level it kinda feels like you have no individuality of your own. What do you think?

That's exactly what I was going to ask. If you are constantly adapting in order to deal well with people it means you have no identity, that you're a mere chamaleon.

It means that you don't have personal limits, neither your own point of view, desires nor beliefs. How can you actually trust someone like this? You will never know who this person really is!

 

[nishbuk]

Just to interject. Some of you may not realize the track record, or even celebrity status that gunwitch has. For what he wants to do his method works perfectly. There is no better expert. Now, if you're not into doing what gunwitch does, then by all means try something else. But if you are looking to have as many sexual partners, and as much sex as he does, (perhaps without significant emotional connection, I don't really know), then there is not a better source than this man.

 

[pimpfromdayone]

OK, the post wasn't really deep or something we haven't heard before, it was just about dominance. Really though, your post was about MASCULINITY. Dominance stems from that. We are attracted to feminine women like they are attracted to masculine men, simple pyschology/biology. Good post though. Just don't ever appear to be trying too hard or putting on an act.

Dominance is powerful. For instance, I have playfully said to hot girls simple things like: "What do you think you're doing? Get out of my seat," and it is gold; when they stand up and obey they give me that deep look in the eyes that says "I want you, you big pimp," and smile. Pure connection going on there, rapport if you will. ****y/Funny also does wonders, but you have to develop it over time and not just pretend like you are really like that. Said it before: work inner game first.

Of course, balance is everything. Go over the top with anything and it is bad.

I forgot where I read this quote from on here, but it said something like:
"A woman wants a powerful creature who has the capacity to crush her physically, intellectually, and emotionally, and yet, at certain times, be as gentle as a kitten."

They want to be controlled, to be led, to be dominated, but they also want someone they can love and who can love them. It really is not that complicated. Be a man.

I'd also like to add that it is not a good idea to pick up and twirl around women you do not know, even though I know you meant that one for girls you already know.... at least I hope you did. And oh yeah, building rapport is just a way to say connecting with her on more than just a physical level. You get her to trust you as well. How? You really mean to say that you have trouble getting women to trust you? I didn't think anyone had a problem with this.

 

[legolas]

Originally posted by Blue Phoenix
That's exactly what I was going to ask. If you are constantly adapting in order to deal well with people it means you have no identity, that you're a mere chamaleon.

It means that you don't have personal limits, neither your own point of view, desires nor beliefs. How can you actually trust someone like this? You will never know who this person really is!

Good point. I was going to add that you can match someone on some level, say language, or even half way there. I always speak my own version of ebonics everytime I meet some of my buddies from da hood. But I never try be 100% black It's almost subconscious for me. Imagine you talking slwo and another person talking really fast. Usually what happens is that they slow down a bit, and you speed up a bit to reach a common middle ground which is a level playing field. That is done subconsciusly and neither person loses their identity. Some flexibilty is required but not enough to make one lose their identity.

 

[pimpfromdayone]

Good ideas.... kinda goes along with "mirroring" too, which is where the girl matches her body language to yours, pretty interesting stuff which one can see happening but only if they are aware that it exists.

 

[Delta]

hey gunwitch,

i generally like what you have to say.

but i think locking eyes with men and not looking away until they do is just dumb.

if you had a bunch of guys at a party who thought like you (or even took your advice for that matter), you'd have a room full of guys who for the whole evening are gazing deeply and intensely into each others eyes for some reason!

establishing dominance, when taken to an extreme like that, is not a mark of dominance but insecurity.

who's the bigger man, the guy who's committed to eyeballing you till you give or the guy who laughs at you and walks away?

delta

 

[diplomatic_lies]

While I agree with Gunwitch's post overall, I do think that many guys reading it will get the wrong idea.

See, most guys who read Gunwitch will go: "Gee, to become a cool guy I must go out and stare people down, talk loudly, and never admit a mistake".

I've met plenty of guys like that - they have to dominate everything, and even a simple conversation with them about the weather turns into a p1ssing contest. Yes they're dominant, but nobody likes them. At school/college they have few friends, at work they're the first to get fired, and in social circles nobody wants them in.

Alpha as much as you like, but beware of crossing that line between "respect" and "dislike".

 

[DJ_Alex]

Originally posted by diplomatic_lies
While I agree with Gunwitch's post overall, I do think that many guys reading it will get the wrong idea.

See, most guys who read Gunwitch will go: "Gee, to become a cool guy I must go out and stare people down, talk loudly, and never admit a mistake".

Yeh agreed people take it too literally. IMO he is spot on with most things in his post, I've studied this for ages, during which I've read and observed in action all this stuff working.

A Tip for the eye contact thing:

You can look at a womans eyes in lots of different ways..i.e

- Submissive
- Submissive sexual
- Dominate - In a starring down "what you looking at?" kind of way.
- Dominatly Leering
- Dominiate Sexual

..to name a few, not many men know this or know or how to bring them on. Aslong a you look at woman with a look of "dominace and sexuality" she will reconize it and desire you and won't see you as starring her down of threatened by you.

If you can't do it don't hold eye contact too long.. I'm sure everyone's heard of the method where if you hold a dominate and sexual eye contact and she looks away then looks back at u that is a sign of interest and means you should go over and talk to her.