I have to interject... I would be extremely careful with hypnotic trances... I think the this community in general fails to realize how powerfull they can be.


Also Shades book isn't the bible, it's alot mental but if it where 100% then why would women have a clitoris? Also you could do the same thing to a man with a hypnotic trance... Hell Hypnotic trances have induced multiple's to change there personality mid chance, and with it change things like eye color, skin tone, birth marks, voice, vision (like going from needing glasses to 20/20 with the different personality). In a trance state it seems almost anything is possible once we figure out the right brain rewiring to create it... Using that kind of power just to get someone off? Thats irresponsible IMO.

Shade goes into explicit and intricate detail about physical stimulation of a woman's vagina in his writings, hinting that they are better used in ONS or no strings type pickups as opposed to LTR. For instance, he claims there are in fact four erogenous zones inside, and that stimulating the later two often leads to much greater and pleasurable orgasms for the woman.

In fact, much of the hypnosis material he used was exclusively on his LTR, with the noted exception of his experiments as a phone sex operator as a way to test his theories. It should be duly noted here that he specifically says that no hypnosis was required to bring his customers to orgasm so long as the flow of the conversation is conducted properly in a linear, predictable fashion. He does hint that basic understanding of NLP is required, however.

But most important of all is the fact that he mentions using his hypnosis or "mind fuck" techniques works very well with girls he's known awhile and not as well with strangers. I interpret this as to say that when you are with someone for awhile, there is an unconscious level of comfort and trust that makes the feats described in his hypnosis sessions possible, whereas a woman you just met will resist at some level and thus you must dial back the mental artillery while focusing more on her body. Of course, it would be awesome for any PUA to be able to snap his fingers and bring his girlfriend to instantaneous orgasm, but this is not possible without much of the preconditioning he described in his books.

P.S. Wow, I'm starting to write novels on this forum now. Awesome. No wait, I need to go sarge.

_________________
afc-challenge-to-the-masters-social-anx ... 10108.html

Maybe YOU should reread that. He says female SEXUALITY, NOT the female orgasm, is 100% mental. They are linked, sure, but they are not one and the same.

You are right that he claims it is 100% and I stand corrected, but I don't believe anything is 100%, I think that to believe anything is 100% to exclude other possibilites and that is a poor choice for someone to make, because you want to be opening as many doors and as many possibilities as possible, not closing them. To say that death is 100% is even being arrogant, because you are telling us that people that believe in an afterlife are wrong, because they are just dead and that's all there is to it. People come back to life on a daily basis with the help of doctors using drugs and technology to restart hearts, so even if we discount the afterlife, it still isn't 100%.

_________________
"The 'Brick Walls' are there to allow you to prove how badly you want something!" ~ Randy Pausch

~ Rye

Doc is very right about the power of trances and hypnosis. It can be extremely powerful stuff and shouldn't be trifeled with. I don't know whether I would ever want to play with the stuff myself, just because there are a lot of possibilites to damage people's personalities and who they are at their very core. Anyone that is interested in doing things like making their girl cum on command, or other things that use such powerful levels of NLP should be incredibly careful, make sure that they know what they are doing and NEVER use it on someone against their will.

That being said, if I ever do have the required knowledge and level of skill, being able to make a girl cum on command would be incredibly sexy, especially if it were done in the middle of a club or some other social setting, without the knowledge of anyone else around.

_________________
"The 'Brick Walls' are there to allow you to prove how badly you want something!" ~ Randy Pausch

~ Rye

lmao Rye for some reason that just reminds me of "Bruce Almighty".


Also with the whole against thier will and being careful if you do posses those levels of expertise in NLP... It's similiar to a physicians malpractice, or a cage fighter beating someones ass on the street... at those levels if anything was ever brought against you it would likely be a very harsh charge that would stick... Because of the high level of expertise and experience, and the fact that at that point you should know better, and there for are held to a higher standard.

Just a couple more words of warning, better safe then sorry IMO.

More true than you may realise. I'm planning on getting my Master's, possibly a PhD, in Psychology and with that level of training and whatever knowledge of NLP and PUA skills I combine, I would easly get in a lot of trouble if I were to mess with someone against their will, or in a way that was harmful. Even without a degree in the field though, if they can prove that you have the requisit knowledge, then you would get in just as much trouble. Martial artists have gone to jail for hurting people that attacked them badly, just because they are so well trained that they are expected to be able to not hurt people when they get in a confrontation.

This is why I don't like teaching people that I feel aren't morally and ethically sound, because it is exactly like putting a loaded gun in a child's hands.

_________________
"The 'Brick Walls' are there to allow you to prove how badly you want something!" ~ Randy Pausch

~ Rye

I agree totally about the hypnosis stuff. He even states at the beginning of the chapter that this stuff should only be used in LTRs, and that hypnosis should be done ethically and with consent. What he did do is ask permission Doc, and tested. He then tried the orgasms WITHOUT hypnosis and was able to succeed. Hence his theory of female sexuality being 100% mental.


LOL. Dude, I never said the female orgasm was 100% mental, and neither did I claim he said it. In fact, you are arguing something now that I said that wasn't said. Go back and reread my stuff then. However, it stands to reason (even through Zip) that if a woman's mind isn't in it, she isn't going to have a orgasm. Shade proved that orgasm was obtainable via means of mentally stimulation only.

My first post regarding the 100% issue.

ps. I won.

Also, he proved your disbelief that it is 100% mental. It's like not believing in gravity after Newton had the facts to support his theory. What's not to believe? He had a theory about sexuality and the mental aspect, he tested and eventually proved it. I think it's a open and shut case.

Yep.., very important distinction.

_________________
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4ufa-q7DcWM

Just because you feel moisture on the top of your head doesn't mean it's raining, could be someone standing on the roof above you pissing on your head. Just because you have tested some things and it indicates that female sexuality is strongly linked to their mental state, doesn't mean that it proves that it is 100% mental. You can't prove something like that, it's just not possible, because it is a qualitative measurement, not a quantitative one. This is something that we could debate until the sun exploded and nobody would ever "win", because it just can't be done. I guarantee that you can get a pissed off chick to have an orgasm if you know what you're doing, so she is being sexually gratified and yet her mental state is completely opposed to it. For that reason, it can't be stated that it is 100% in my opinion.

_________________
"The 'Brick Walls' are there to allow you to prove how badly you want something!" ~ Randy Pausch

~ Rye

Listen, my wife is 41 years old.

And she can't make herself have an orgasm without touching herself. Nor have I ever personally known a woman that could have an orgasm without touching herself, or me touching her in the right spots, with the right technique and for the right amount of time.

That's quite revealing to me.

Now that doesn't minimize the mental aspects to a woman sexuality.

It simply means that unless you crack her head open and stimulate the part of the brain and neural pathways that are connected to the female orgasm, the only way to currently do this (without a Vulcan mind meld or something) is to stimulate where the action is.

And those two areas are the clitoris and the g-spot. If you like giving women great orgasms stimulating these two spots should be your focus.

Along with making her comfortable and sexually excited with you from a mental perspective.

I've known women that were capable of such comfort and arousal and women who weren't capable of it with anyone, even themselves. Based in large part on their faulty programming, or their own guilt/shame/fear complex.

Beyond all this, if saq's giving lessons on how to make a woman cum without laying a hand on her, mentally, or whatever then I'm game for that class.

Let's just say I'm skeptical about learning anything new.

_________________
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4ufa-q7DcWM

It's possible. I'll just leave it at that.

_________________
- Zip

My wife says it's bullshyt.

It maybe possible.

But there is stimulation coming from somewhere. Sitting position, pressure, etc..

A woman getting good and juiced up sexually in the presence of an attractive man or a certain sexual context isn't an orgasm. Although it most certainly helps.

But Zip, if you can show me exactly how this occurs in real time, I'll gladly stand corrected.

Have you ever met men so interested in the female orgasm?

_________________
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4ufa-q7DcWM

Anybody ever think that different things apply to different people? Someone who's belief system is strongly rooted in a materialistic worldview would surely be more attracted to physical stimuli and pleasures. While on the other hand, someone who's more spiritual or metaphysically grounded will react more to mental stimuli and pleasures. There is of course, people who enjoy both (myself). No one of these different standpoints is the "way", it's a fact of life that human characteristics and personalities are unique and plentiful, like I said, different things work for different people.

_________________
Amor est Vitae Essentia

Sure, I'll buy that.

And some people still believe the earth is flat, politicians tell the truth, and that certain ships are unsinkable. And I'd like to believe my wanker was 9" long, but no matter how much I believe it to be, the evidence and my measurements suggests that it isn't.

Hey, whatever makes one feel good.

Although, that doesn't make it so from a physical or realistic standpoint. No matter how much we wish it would be, or believe it to be so.

I think there's a difference between what people want or choose to believe and what can be proven by experience or with evidence or even as a probably theory based upon logical examination.

Not hard to figure out which one I want flying my airplane, or taking out my appendix.

That being said, if someone can prove something to be a probable fact other than just subjective conjecture or a figment of their own imagination or desire, then I'm all ears.

Beyond that, if humans didn't push the limits of what was known, or what they considered possible then progress would likely stop.

I think there's a middle ground here some place, that each person must sort out for themselves.., or not. And it's not jumping off a building thinking somehow we will sprout wings, or believing everything that another mere mortal claims to be so.

_________________
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4ufa-q7DcWM