Suggestion List

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3769
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Suggestion List

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle » Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:00 pm

Unless of course she is inappropriately trusting herself - in which case she gets the double whammy of scaring off the good guys and attracting the smooth-talking users and losers.

User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Suggestion List

Post by divine focus » Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:11 am

She will not be attracting players, as it were, if she is trusting herself, unless she is a player herself. Either way, she would know what she is doing. She would be aware of her attention and what she is choosing to pay attention to.
eliasforum.org/digests.html

User avatar
Laird
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:22 am
Location: Tasmania
Contact:

Re: Suggestion List

Post by Laird » Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:16 am

David Quinn wrote:It sounds like the kind of spiel that hypnotists and seducers direct at women when they want to get into their pants.
Interesting then that it was written by a woman. The Sue Hindmarsh of hypnotic seduction perhaps?

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Suggestion List

Post by Dan Rowden » Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:34 pm

What woman?

User avatar
Laird
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:22 am
Location: Tasmania
Contact:

Re: Suggestion List

Post by Laird » Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:23 pm


User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Suggestion List

Post by Dan Rowden » Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:19 pm

Liana Gailand is passionate about creating juicy alive intimate relationships.
Sounds right up your alley.

User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Suggestion List

Post by divine focus » Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:30 pm

Laird wrote:
David Quinn wrote:It sounds like the kind of spiel that hypnotists and seducers direct at women when they want to get into their pants.
Interesting then that it was written by a woman. The Sue Hindmarsh of hypnotic seduction perhaps?
And she just happens to be in Australia.
eliasforum.org/digests.html

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Suggestion List

Post by David Quinn » Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:39 pm

Laird wrote:
David Quinn wrote:It sounds like the kind of spiel that hypnotists and seducers direct at women when they want to get into their pants.
Interesting then that it was written by a woman. The Sue Hindmarsh of hypnotic seduction perhaps?
It doesn't surprise me in the least. The skill of a hypnotist/seducer lies in telling women what they want to hear, such as the tripe written by Gailand above. Women know what they want to hear, and so do skilled seducers.

-

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Suggestion List

Post by David Quinn » Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:40 pm

As well as cunning gurus.

-

User avatar
Laird
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:22 am
Location: Tasmania
Contact:

Re: Suggestion List

Post by Laird » Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:06 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:
Liana Gailand is passionate about creating juicy alive intimate relationships.
Sounds right up your alley.
Absolutely. I'm very interested in what this woman has to say. I'm not willing to spend $1000 to hear her say it on the other hand.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Suggestion List

Post by Dan Rowden » Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:10 pm

Oh, no wonder you can't get a woman, you're cheap!

User avatar
Laird
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:22 am
Location: Tasmania
Contact:

Re: Suggestion List

Post by Laird » Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:47 pm

And it's no wonder that you get all the babes, if $1000 is nothing to ya.

But enough with this talk of money, it truly is cheapening.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Suggestion List

Post by Dan Rowden » Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:37 pm

I don't think that's the part that is genuinely cheapening.

User avatar
Laird
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:22 am
Location: Tasmania
Contact:

Re: Suggestion List

Post by Laird » Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:08 pm

Oh, then what's the genuinely cheapening part?

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Suggestion List

Post by Dan Rowden » Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:21 pm

Everything Miss Grand represents.

User avatar
Laird
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:22 am
Location: Tasmania
Contact:

Re: Suggestion List

Post by Laird » Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:50 pm

Oh, what, like intimacy between a man and a woman, and great sex? Sounds like she's got the winning ticket to me.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Suggestion List

Post by Dan Rowden » Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:03 am

I'd act surprised but no-one would believe it.

User avatar
Laird
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:22 am
Location: Tasmania
Contact:

Re: Suggestion List

Post by Laird » Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:45 am

Well I for one wouldn't. You already knew my position. And I think that it's semi-comical, semi-tragic that you three (and others around this joint) stick your fingers in your ears and chant "La-la-la-la-I don't want to be attracted to the opposite sex! I don't, I don't, I DON'T!!!-la-la-la-la-la". It's not at all manly, in fact it's quite boyish, as per Kevin's ten-year-old decision that nothing further could be learnt about male-female relationships. A good deal of masculinity is its relation to (and relationships with) femininity - in other words how you as a man relate to women. The signs are there that all three of you are as attracted to women as any other men, it's just that you're in denial of the value and potential of that attraction - hence the semi-tragic aspect. In this light, I second skipair's suggestion of Franco the Seducer as a worthy guest on The Reasoning Show. I reckon that he'd have a lot to say about just what you guys are denying yourselves, and why that denial is anti-masculine and ultimately foolish. Make sure that you spelt out your philosophy to him beforehand though, so that he could prepare himself properly.

User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3769
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Suggestion List

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle » Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:21 pm

That would probably be the most hilarious Reasoning Show yet. Talk about getting your thoughts bloodied...

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Suggestion List

Post by David Quinn » Tue Mar 04, 2008 3:34 pm

Laird wrote:Well I for one wouldn't. You already knew my position. And I think that it's semi-comical, semi-tragic that you three (and others around this joint) stick your fingers in your ears and chant "La-la-la-la-I don't want to be attracted to the opposite sex! I don't, I don't, I DON'T!!!-la-la-la-la-la". It's not at all manly, in fact it's quite boyish, as per Kevin's ten-year-old decision that nothing further could be learnt about male-female relationships. A good deal of masculinity is its relation to (and relationships with) femininity - in other words how you as a man relate to women. The signs are there that all three of you are as attracted to women as any other men, it's just that you're in denial of the value and potential of that attraction - hence the semi-tragic aspect.
Translation: "I am obsessed with women and sex, and those who don't share this obsession are semi-tragic".

In this light, I second skipair's suggestion of Franco the Seducer as a worthy guest on The Reasoning Show. I reckon that he'd have a lot to say about just what you guys are denying yourselves, and why that denial is anti-masculine and ultimately foolish. Make sure that you spelt out your philosophy to him beforehand though, so that he could prepare himself properly.
We'll definitely try and get him on this year. However, you do know he is a misogynist, don't you?

-

User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Suggestion List

Post by Alex Jacob » Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:24 pm

Laird, from the look of it I don't think you would appreciate Franco the Seducer or the 'philosophy' of the player and the doctrines of the Art of Seduction. They start from the premise that women are not really in possession of themselves, that their attractions are fickle and that despite what they say (always a series of false representations), what motivates them to act---to respond to seduction---has nothing to do with what they say and how they act. The starting point for success with women in this school of thought is a kind of 'contempt', an aloofness, a disinterestedness.

The best seducer is really a man who doesn't care about women, not in the way we have been taught to believe we must care about them. The best seducer is a sort of manager of women, who intimately knows that women at their core lie and misrepresent, and he uses this knowledge strictly for his own benefit. Because he knows the truth about women, no woman can fool him, and such women also know that he is not fooled, and so they drop the pretenses.

The principals of a seducer are not only for a single 'player', they apply in any context one deals with women. According to this doctrine, a woman's interest in a man is fundamentally shallow, though all her emotional responses may appear soaring, profound. The core of the doctrine states that she is an addict to emotions, that she craves emotions, that she would greedily accept unhappy emotions to feeling no emotion at all. The art of seduction is in knowing that women are constantly on the lookout for emotions---they want to feel things. The art of seduction is to discover what specific things a particular woman wants and needs to feel, to then invoke those feelings in her, and channel those feelings toward your person, and to do that so subtly that she never notices it. The fundamental doctrines of seduction assert that a woman does not really know what she wants, and that she is not in control of what she wants. Never believe what a woman says, but pull the strings and watch her dance.

She wants to feel the sweeping waves of emotion, she wants to be carried across the threshold to the bedroom, she wants greedily to feel every strain of feeling she can. Modern culture has put all sorts of ideas and mental structures in her head, and we are told we must believe what we are told to believe about women, and that they must believe what they tell themselves, but the doctrines of seduction are a sort of cruel key that unlocks the lying lock of feminist doctrine. It says 'you say you are thus and such, but I know what you really want...'

The better looking a woman, the more essentially narcissistic she is, and the more she is accustomed to getting her way as a result of her external shell. Good-looking women use their looks to the hilt and at the same time have contempt for those who allow themselves to be manipulated. When a woman encounters a man who does not believe her charade and refuses to bend to it, refuses to give her what she gets from all men, all the time, it throws a wrench in her whole system. When she encounters a man who simply won't give her what she is used to, and what she feels she deserve, it piques her interest, and also indicates that she is in the presence of a stronger man, one who can 'handle' her essential womanish nature, who will enter into the game with her, who will tweak her emotions deliciously, who will never bend to her girlish, spoiled will.

To begin to uncover the greatest lies that have ever been thrust upon the mind of man, one need only begin to examine the real, psychological platform of attraction and seduction, and to see women as they in fact are. It is radically different from what they say.

Women are fundamentally handled by 'superior' men, and one of the great arts of life is learning how to handle them. As is said in the I-Ching, in the second line of hexagram No. 4, Youthful Folly:

"To bear with fools in kindliness brings good fortune.
To know how to take women
Brings good fortune.
The son is capable of taking charge of the household."


"These lines picture a man who has no external power, but who has enough strength of mind to bear his burden of responsibility. He has the inner superiority and that enable him to tolerate with kindliness the shortcomings of human folly. The same attitude is owed to women as the weaker sex. One must understand them and give them recognition in a spirit of chivalrous consideration. Only this combination of inner strength with outer reserve enables one to take on the responsibility of directing a larger social body with real success".

The social body is defined as 'female', and it is men who have the internal power to act on the female body. It is all a question of internal power and knowing who you are. Obviously, the seducer exploits masculine or male power to achieve certain ends with women, with the female, and should never come under a woman's, women's or female power. It doesn't really all have to be for 'low' ends either. I think what the QRS-H are doing is attempting to see the equation in the rawest and most stripped down terms, and then asking themselves: Do I really want to be involved with that?

They know that the narcissistic female child has been given the leeway to run the show, call the shots, that her merest appetite must be fed when she damn well says it shall be fed! In a commercial environment based in seduction of the person at the most core level (Freudian advertising doctrines) modern women is let loose. You've got it all now, baby! This system was designed by men to manipulate the 'female body' of culture, but it also ends up turning men into women. So, these doctrines of seduction are the lowest rung on the ladder of understanding human impulses.

Once women (both male and female) get too far out of control, there is no reining them in, just like with kids in a day-care center. It turns into bedlam. It turns into the worst of the worst of a consumer pseudo-democratic shopping mall culture. Actually, there is no way for the 'thinking man' to participate in this, and the whole game appears horribly and insultingly stupid from a certain perspective.

One might hope to find a woman who is 'above all this' but the only way to do so is to become 'above all this' oneself. Then, one is defining and living a different life altogether with different values. However, none of this changes 'the essential nature of women', and one can never lose sight of this. That is why it says 'a son is capable of taking charge of the household'.
Ni ange, ni bête

User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Suggestion List

Post by divine focus » Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:42 am

Alex Jacob wrote:The social body is defined as 'female', and it is men who have the internal power to act on the female body. It is all a question of internal power and knowing who you are. Obviously, the seducer exploits masculne or male power to achieve certain ends with women, with the female, and should never come under a woman's, women's or female power.
The whole world, all of reality, can be considered female. You can never come under the world's or female power unless you give it up! Nothing has any inherent power over you. Without your power, you see the world as a place with rules--and if you don't follow them, there will be consequences!! There are no negative consequences, truly. Every experience is for your benefit of learning, if you are noticing.

The world is happy to bend and reshape to accomodate you. All you have to do is trust yourself and act on your direction. You have to become a master of your own attention, always noticing where your attention is. The world has taught you that its reality exists in your thoughts. You have learned to keep your attention on your thoughts, and then you began to equate your attention with your thoughts. There is no possibility of choosing where your attention is, and the world in your thoughts controls you.

Outside of your thoughts is the world of experience. This is the actual world, and it has no power to control you. It would like you to control it with your direction. You don't have control over other people, but you do have the power to control how they affect you. This control is not overt. It is subtle, and within energy. Your attention determines where your energy is directed, and once you own your attention, you own your power.

There is a female power within all of us, as well. This power provides a clarity of attention. It involves an openness to the world of experience, and in that, it is invulnerable. There is nothing outside of it to threaten its vulnerability, unless the world of thought is still given credence. Even then it is invulnerable, as the fears of harm never come to pass. Harm only occurs when there is a closing of the heart, as the erecting of defenses produces true vulnerability. The harm actually comes from within; it is pulled onto yourself from the world. In denying your female power, you deny your safety.

If you are owning of your attention but denying your female power, you will feel shame over your inability to produce invulnerability. You will blame the world for its incompliance, and cynicism will fester. The only way out of this trap is to take a leap of faith and return to openness. As you test the waters, you will notice the benefit of vulnerability and eventually realize that invulnerability is rooted in this openness. But you must begin; nothing can make you grow. It can be thought of as an experiment in openness, but every experiment requires a leap of faith in trying something new. The outcome is always unknown, otherwise there would be no need to experiment. Without experiment, there is only faith in what is known, as if it were everything. Humility is essential to learning.
eliasforum.org/digests.html

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Suggestion List

Post by David Quinn » Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:45 am

Now that's a good post, Alex.

-

User avatar
Laird
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:22 am
Location: Tasmania
Contact:

Re: Suggestion List

Post by Laird » Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:07 am

David Quinn wrote:Translation: "I am obsessed with women and sex, and those who don't share this obsession are semi-tragic".
Haha, you're quite the Hindmarsh there with that misinterpretation. The actual translation is more like: men and women who repress and deny their natural desire for the opposite sex are semi-tragic, particularly when it seems likely that their desire is alive and well.
David Quinn wrote:We'll definitely try and get [Franco the seducer] on this year.
Once (if) you confirm him as a guest, would you please let me know? I'd like to share with him my impressions of your philosophy as an "outsider" to help him to properly prepare himself.
David Quinn wrote:However, you do know he is a misogynist, don't you?
I didn't know that but somehow I doubt it. Could a man who writes on his homepage, regarding his "Manual of Seduction", that "{i}t teaches you also how to make your women happy" really hate women?

Alex,

I haven't read enough of Franco's material to fully judge his position/approach, but from what little I know I really don't believe that you've captured it well at all. For example, he links to this blog which I read in its entirety a couple of weeks ago: David Clare's blog. This stuff is utter gold. I wanted to write to the guy and tell him how much he inspired me but I couldn't find a contact link. It's completely practical advice grounded in a solid understanding of the natural dynamics between men and women. It's not hateful or demeaning at all - it's based on developing mutually beneficial romantic/sexual relationships. There is "manipulation" of a sort in what he talks about, but I'm not sure that "manipulation" is really the best word to describe it (I'll use it anyway), because its aim is not for purely selfish gain - it's for mutual benefit. The sort of manipulation that he talks of is in for example strategies for managing conflict and irrational emotional tendencies in your partner, or how to present yourself in a desirable way to the opposite sex. I shared this blog with a friend and he thought that it was helpful too. That friend is not a misogynist either.

For example, how can you fault this blog post of his?: Strong hearted.

Here's the meaty bit:
David Clare wrote:Vitality is being strong-hearted. Strength of heart is hardness, but a hardness based in love. A hardness acknowledging her emotional pain, not judging her for it. Strength of heart is being willing to carry through pain until resolution is achieved.
Spot on David - romantic relationships really would be more vital if all men followed this advice.

So, getting back to Franco: since writing the above paragraphs, I've read his Neediness management page. As with David Clare's writings, this is great stuff. Here's a sample:

"How to manage your need for contact.

When picking up girls touch them early on and touch them a lot. Make sure they touch you a lot. In[sic--Laird] you are not in an exclusive relationships keep MLTRs ( Multiple Long-Term Relationships ) with sweet girls who touch you a lot. Get a lot of physical contact! Never do the AFC ( Average Frustrated Chump ) thing of staying in a LTR ( Exclusive Long-Term Relationship) with a woman who is not able to take your humanity and link physical contact with sex. Never spend your time with women who are emotionally cold and distant."

Does this seem manipulative and hateful? Or does it seem inclusive, sensible and joyful? For me it's the latter.

This advice might seem pretty obvious, but there are some guys (in the past this applied to me, and at times it still does) who are afraid to touch women who are showing signs of interest, or to touch to show their own interest. They are afraid that their touch will be unwelcome. They haven't yet realised (or have momentarily forgotten) how natural and wholesome it really is - that women like to be touched by men to whom they are attracted just as much as men like to be touched by women to whom they are attracted.

I honestly don't believe that Franco's position is that "[t]he best seducer is really a man who doesn't care about women". On the contrary, I think that he cares for women very much. I also don't believe that his position is particularly well represented as being that "[t]he starting point for success with women in this school of thought is a kind of 'contempt', an aloofness, a disinterestedness." 'Contempt' for women is, as far as I can tell, the furtherest thing from Franco's attitude. I believe that he would advocate that there is a time and a place for aloofness and disinterestedness, but that in the main, strong-heartedness (to re-use David Clare's expression) is what is required.

You also wrote that "[t]he best seducer is a sort of manager of women, who intimately knows that women at their core lie and misrepresent". I think that here you're projecting your own ideas onto other people (Franco and the "seducer crowd"). Alex, from this post and other past posts I have formed the impression that you are something of a chauvinist yourself - in particular I note your stated aim of maintaining relationships with your female partners in which they must purely support your own power. I hope that you don't find this characterisation offensive - it's just my response to your attitude, just as I accept that your response to my attitude is that women will "see through me" (I'm paraphrasing but I think that I've captured the essence of it). My experience is quite the contrary. I'm currently involved in one online relationship with a wonderful woman and have another nascent one possibly starting up, or perhaps that nascent relationship will turn out to be purely sexual/"physically" affectionate - it's early days yet. Both of those women seem to value the intimacy that we share and neither has said anything remotely indicating that they believe that I'm being insincere. No luck so far on the "real-life" scene although I've had some promising encounters at the pub of late - e.g. a sexy woman coming up and doing some dirty dancing with me and telling me how sexy she thought that I was, and us ending up in each other's arms - I'm pretty sure that she would have come home with me only some guy dragged her away violently. Turns out that he wasn't her boyfriend, obviously just a jealous prick who wanted to spoil other people's happiness. Anyway she drove past me in the passenger seat of a car the other day and called out "Hey baby!" to me, and I called back "Hey baby!" to her, at which she and the driver squealed in delight. And that's just one of a few promising incidents. So hey, at least some women respond to me and recognise my sincerity. I'm slowly coming out of my isolation of several years and starting to actually make friends in this (small) town. It's challenging, but very rewarding at the same time, and there are some very supportive people here who remember the days when I literally wouldn't say a word to anyone (difficult times - I literally spent over a year in complete verbal silence and that's not the first time that I've done that either) and are pleased that I've overcome those difficulties. Notably, those supportive people tend to be women. The more that I get out and practice, the more people that I get to know, the more confident I get and the easier it becomes.

Alex, I'll do some more reading of Franco's writings (it won't be difficult - this stuff interests me a lot more than enlightenment teachings) and get back to you if I decide that your representation of his approach is accurate after all.

DF, I'm sorry to not have a substantial response to your post. I did read through it and found some nuggets of wisdom, but in the main I find it hard to connect with a lot of what you write. After all that I've read of you so far I still haven't yet worked out your basic philosophy, although I have found some clues to it. I'll keep on reading your posts though.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Suggestion List

Post by David Quinn » Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:34 pm

Laird wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Translation: "I am obsessed with women and sex, and those who don't share this obsession are semi-tragic".
Haha, you're quite the Hindmarsh there with that misinterpretation. The actual translation is more like: men and women who repress and deny their natural desire for the opposite sex are semi-tragic, particularly when it seems likely that their desire is alive and well.

I think you're extrapolating from your own situation here. It sounds as though you have been repressing your own desire for female company and sex for many years, due to your own emotional issues, and now the thought of accessing these things has become an obsession.

To my ears, your thoughts on these matters are incredibly adolescent. You sound like an inexperienced, desperate, sex-obsessed teenager. In all honesty, you don't really belong on this forum at all, and I'm not sure how long I can put up with your sexual obsessiveness intruding into things all the time.

Laird wrote:
David Quinn wrote:We'll definitely try and get [Franco the seducer] on this year.
Once (if) you confirm him as a guest, would you please let me know? I'd like to share with him my impressions of your philosophy as an "outsider" to help him to properly prepare himself.

I very much doubt that I will.

So, getting back to Franco: since writing the above paragraphs, I've read his Neediness management page. As with David Clare's writings, this is great stuff. Here's a sample:

"How to manage your need for contact.

When picking up girls touch them early on and touch them a lot. Make sure they touch you a lot. In[sic--Laird] you are not in an exclusive relationships keep MLTRs ( Multiple Long-Term Relationships ) with sweet girls who touch you a lot. Get a lot of physical contact! Never do the AFC ( Average Frustrated Chump ) thing of staying in a LTR ( Exclusive Long-Term Relationship) with a woman who is not able to take your humanity and link physical contact with sex. Never spend your time with women who are emotionally cold and distant."

Does this seem manipulative and hateful? Or does it seem inclusive, sensible and joyful? For me it's the latter.

How can the advice to never spend time with a particular sort of woman be described as inclusive? To me he sounds calculating, his only aim being what he can get out of women. If she doesn't provide what he wants, he discards her and moves on.

-

Post Reply