Trom (The Resolution of Mind)
TROM (the resolution of mind) => Games Strategies => Topic started by: TromFan on October 13, 2019, 08:47:55 am
-
Guys, ever have the experience of a woman "putting the moves on you" only to be rejected after you tried doing the same to them?
If you study "The Exclusion Postulate" in Dennis' materials, there is a clue as to what is happening, if you interpret the woman's actions into compulsive games play in the "to seduce" goals package (one I would not recommend running at level 5b because "seduction" has its negative connotations and would be a non-life goal. One of it's meanings is "to lead astray").
One compulsively operating on the "to seduce" postulate is also running on the "to not be seduced" postulate. She wants to seduce you, but does not want to be seduced herself. She wants to put you into the class of "to be seduced" and puts herself into "to not be seduced" to keep herself from going into that same class she is trying to put you into.
I've gotten into several of these games conditions in my life where a woman was acting very seductive towards me yet when I made a move on her she flatly rejected me. Then goes into these claims that all the things she did were not actions of seduction at all. That "nipple slip" was an accident. Her holding my hand is something she does with friends, etc. I am sure if you are any halfway desirable man, you can recall at least one woman on your track who will tell you this kind of bullshit.
If you don't spot what's going on, it can lead you to some very uncomfortable thoughts and actions. This is especially true if you encounter a woman who is seductive yet for societally imposed reasons, (like she is married, you are married, and the seduction is forbidden) you can't carry through with letting her win the game.
You could compulsively go into "must not be seduced" but then if you do, and you are in compulsive games play, you will then have a strong desire to seduce her. Why? Because, if you go into "must not be seduced" then your exclusion postulate is "to seduce".
Dennis uses the example of "to stab" and "to not be stabbed" in his lecture "The Exclusion Postulate" 20 Aprli 1993
"Now, why do we call this postulate the Exclusion Postulate? Well simply because it excludes him, it excludes the games player out of the class of the opponent. Out of the class he’s trying to drive the opponent into.
In other words his games postulate is trying to drive the opponent into a certain postulate and his exclusion postulate keeps him out of that class that he’s trying to drive the opponent into.
In terms of the “to know” goals package if the person is operating on “to be known” and the games player is compulsive, his opponent would be occupying “to not know”. So the person occupying “to be known” would also be operating on a “to not know” postulate but the “to not know” postulate will be keeping him out of the class that he’s trying to drive the opponent into.
Now you say, “Well, what the devil? Why doesn’t he want to go into that class?” Why doesn’t he want to go into that class?” Well it’s not particularly obvious in the “to know” goals package but let’s take a more destructive goals package.
Let’s take the goal "to stab." Now a person in a stabbing game has two things he wants to do he wants to stab the opponent but he doesn’t want to be stabbed. So the games play is compulsive. He’s occupying the class of “to stab” and “to not be stabbed”.
His games postulate is “to stab” and his exclusion postulate is “to not be stabbed” and the postulate “to not be stabbed” keeps him out of the class of “to be stabbed” which is the class he’s trying to drive the opponent into.
The opponent's in the class of “to not be stabbed” and he’s trying to drive this guy from “to not be stabbed” into “to be stabbed”.
But the last thing the games player wants is to end up in that class himself. You see that? He doesn’t want to be stabbed. We call it an exclusion postulate, that is the best name for the postulate."
So a man isn't going to get relief on this subject of some "forbidden woman" trying to seduce him if he just says, "Well I'm just not going to let her seduce me" because if he's in compulsive games play when he makes his postulate "must not be seduced" it will make his exclusion postulate "must seduce" and then feel compelled to seduce the woman.
Personally, spotting this I've gotten some relief by saying to myself. "all right, fine. She seduced me. Can't stop thinking about her, want to look at her every time I see her, blah blah blah." which is the complementary postulate to her "must seduce". Similarly, deciding, "OK, well she got me, but I am not going to try and seduce her back" complements her "to not be seduced" postulate.
It's interesting to note, one does not have to take any action in the matter. One does not need to fall into another's arms or communicate anything to the other person. Merely the thought "Ok, you won, and I am not going to try and initiate the same game with you" is enough to end the situation.
Hope this helps with some of those manipulative, teasy, seductive women.
-
Hey Tromfan! Loved this post. I found it especially helpfull when you showed examples. Good info and its nice that im married and dont have to worry about seduction anymore but i can recall a time when i had tried to seduce women. You opened my eyes. Thanks
-
LOL--- I am married and I still have to worry about seduction, and it's more dangerous because of it!
I won't mention any names, but I did have to resolve this as a postulate configuration on someone who is married and still in this compulsive state. Ended the game, at least between her and I.