I'm glad that you're finally coming around to deeper diving into this material
@Francis
but can definitely see now Franco's talking about the same thing. I've only made it through a bit of the key book so far, but hopefully it will include the part about the balancing the masculine through escalation (and almost approaching grandmaster style) with what Franco calls the schizophrenic yin/yang method, like very rapidly going back and forth between engaging with her emotionally and leading it forward sexually
Franco literally directly used Sexual Key ver.3 but reworded it and made it abit more simplistic and vague, I suspect so people wouldn't simply abandon his book in favour of just going to read the original material from J.D. Fuentes.
Honestly, Sexual Key just focuses on that one tool and goes deep. I think Franco's book is almost like an epilogue supplemental work to that book - where he took the Sexual Key system, used it method gaining experience and then used that experience to generate some insights for his book. But Franco's book doesn't actually go into that method, he just alludes to using it and it's outline and then assumes you'll use the Sexual key method along with what he discusses in his book.
I also wanted to ask... do you use the part about the female emotional motivation? there's the male "mythic pattern" targeting>confronting>struggling>mastering, and the female mythic pattern realizing>accepting>opening>connecting>incorporating
Yes, both of these are directly taken from J.D. Fuentes' works. I use the male mythic pattern in stories I tell guys and just for general structure with males I work with or male clients/customers.
J.D has a full system for using this with males and with men (and women) in a sales/business capacity aswell.
Sounds very abstract and useless, but do you only talk in terms of flowery description to arouse her, or get deeper with this? cause we're really talking a fundamental dichotomy in how we process emotions as genders... for example, talking about a day at the beach... do you just go with the senses, or get really into what meaning that emotion has to her internally, leading to transformative change or whatever. If men like to accomplish, it's tapping into the female driver, which the book seems to be saying is about personal growth, in an internal sense.
I don't know where I would take it exactly... probably getting ahead of myself here. I can see exactly what Franco was saying about these being incredibly aggravating. JD was saying something similar... like men will read these and be like what the fuck man... a bunch of useless data. but it's literally hammering the same emotion and getting it to deepen with each repetition... I find it hard to actually read through the long "purple prose" examples.
No, I use the language as much as possible in all directions (emotions and senses) for many reasons (not just arousal or personal growth), it goes much further than what you've written here.
I think you are getting ahead of yourself here. Have you actually tried this on any women yet? It doesn't sound like you have, otherwise you would certainly know how useful it is very quickly.
Yes, talking this way to women, I sometimes zone out completely - it could not be more boring to me. I really find myself needing to engage and make it interesting for myself, so I'll add some plot sometimes (even if she doesn't want it or need it), just to keep it interesting for myself, while giving me some structure to riff on.
Same with using anything I find interesting and exploring it with her using that language, that way it engages my own interest aswell.
Women just love being talked to this way, it really doesn't matter what you talk about or the subject - as long as you talk this way.
But that only shows me how powerful it is, because the overarching point in the book is we have different brain structures as genders (I think it was the thickness of the connection between the brain hemispheres). Meaning we have no idea how strong it feels to girls.
Men really do think differently to women, the difference is night and day. After using this method, I realised that really anything logical that I'd ever said (and that any man has ever said to a woman) - it totally bores them. Any normal story structure (which normal plot structure where someone has a problem > overcomes > achieves/conclusion = Masculine method of storytelling.
Women don't give a shit about the hero structure or any plots in stories - that's only for men.
I don't have SMMA (maybe should, actually...), but can definitely see now Franco's talking about the same thing. I've only made it through a bit of the key book so far, but hopefully it will include the part about the balancing the masculine through escalation (and almost approaching grandmaster style) with what Franco calls the schizophrenic yin/yang method, like very rapidly going back and forth between engaging with her emotionally and leading it forward sexually. Like he switches every couple sentences... very rapid fractionation. Otherwise it's kinda gay lol I think Franco warned don't get too far into it without the balance.
I also wanted to ask... do you use the part about the female emotional motivation? there's the male "mythic pattern" targeting>confronting>struggling>mastering, and the female mythic pattern realizing>accepting>opening>connecting>incorporating
Sounds very abstract and useless, but do you only talk in terms of flowery description to arouse her, or get deeper with this? cause we're really talking a fundamental dichotomy in how we process emotions as genders... for example, talking about a day at the beach... do you just go with the senses, or get really into what meaning that emotion has to her internally, leading to transformative change or whatever. If men like to accomplish, it's tapping into the female driver, which the book seems to be saying is about personal growth, in an internal sense.
I don't know where I would take it exactly... probably getting ahead of myself here. I can see exactly what Franco was saying about these being incredibly aggravating. JD was saying something similar... like men will read these and be like what the fuck man... a bunch of useless data. but it's literally hammering the same emotion and getting it to deepen with each repetition... I find it hard to actually read through the long "purple prose" examples.
But that only shows me how powerful it is, because the overarching point in the book is we have different brain structures as genders (I think it was the thickness of the connection between the brain hemispheres). Meaning we have no idea how strong it feels to girls.
Didn't mean to type so much... the rhythm of the keyboard clacking drew me deeper into a trance of comforting trotting, like a sleek, majestic horse parading elegantly in a procession of regal purpose, drawn deeper into the forward moment of discovery, letting my thoughts slowly warm and bubble like a cauldron of infinite opportunity, rising like a steaming secret uncovered in a thick, warm cloud of hearty aroma, and a hint of sweetness lingering beneath it, tantalizing me with its potential.
So that would turn her on, despite not making much sense?
I would go a little harder and denser with emotional content recommended in the book, but otherwise very good.
Women really don't care if anything you say has any logic or sense or has a structure or plot; that's totally irrelevant to them.
Too many guys are trying to be logical, make sense and really say something logically interesting and logically insightful - women don't care or need that and it's mind-numbingly boring to them when there's any logic involved.
Just remember - most guys I see doing this wrong fall into a way of talking like:
- cause > effect
- problem > solution
- setup > conclusion (or beginning > ending)
- incomplete > completed
- chaos > order/peace
- losing > winning
- incorrect > correct
This is ALL completely masculine; masculine structures and masculine thinking/processing.
You used this setup>conclusion and cause>effect structure in the description above and you probably didn't even realise it because it's so natural for men to think in that pattern in all of their thoughts about everything usually are formed in that structure.
This is where men get caught being logical (and very boring to women): they always get caught trying to fit the way they talk to women in the above structures, which makes what you say to women very restricted and narrow (where men run out of things to say) which is much less fun, exciting or spontaneous and then ultimately isn't interesting or stimulating for her (even though it may be interesting for you).
There's no need to lock yourself into a restrictive corner with those masculine structures - women don't want or need them to enjoy a conversation.
Women almost never see the world or anything that happens to them in that structure, like men do. It makes no sense to women and even if it did, they don't agree with it and it bores them to tears.
and
eliciting values... it's mentioned in this book
Eliciting values is over-rated - you can direct women to tell you them without asking her about them like a rapport seeking therapist (like everyone recommends). You're already going in that direction anyway, so you'll rarely need to ask about her values, if ever, because she'll give them to you un-prompted throughout the course of the conversation.
Mirroring is another part of that book that I think is not useful for seduction. It's great for use in therapy, but not in seduction with women.
www.skilledseducer.com
'
