mASF post by "lost_and_found"
posted on: mASF forum: General Discussion newsgroup, July 7, 2005
>you say, "I am going to get
>zee hottest cheek." I'll have
hehe, yea, I think the secret must be in having a croatian accent.
>On 7/16/05 3:21:00 PM, lost_and_found
>wrote:
>>Well to me any of the opinion openers
>>that float around this forum are not
>>interesting.
>
>I guess that's your problem. You don't
>like them, so you can't be congruent
>with them. So your options are (1)
>force yourself to believe in them
>somehow, (2) make up your own (you can
>ask for an opinion about any
>chick-relevant bullshit), or (3) use a
>different style of opener that you do
>feel comfortable with, whether that's
>direct or situational or whatever.
Thats something that I have been thinking about. I have several routines I run
several times in set. They are my routines, just as powerpuff girls is Tylers
routines. The problem is that I don't have enough routines as to grant
transition from grabbing initial attention from the set to be in conversation
with them, and pre-planed stuff, all the more if its someone elses, makes it
even worse.
>>The style, direct or indirect, sets the
>>mood to the interaction, from where I
>>stand. I do indirect a lot, without the
>>canned stuff, and It feels fucking
>>different from direct right from the
>>beginning to some point midgame, then
>>its all the same.
>
>Ok. Honestly I don't know what you're
>supposed to follow up "I like you,"
>with, so I can't address that.
>
>>I can open with anything, sure. What I
>>cannot do is open with something canned.
>
>Which is it man? You're contradicting
>yourself here?
Open with anything is a fucking hard thing to do sometimes, it can only be done
if you are in a talkative mode and you can engage in conversation naturally.
When you are not in the best mood, you have to push yourself into set and even
pre-plan what to do.
>
>>I feel awkward, and so does all other
>>people I have seen doing opinion openers
>>and canned routines. I've been to an RSD
>>workshop man, I've seen the RSD crew,
>>masters of canned and indirect, and they
>>all seemed awkward to me when they did
>>routines.
>
>I can't say anything about your
>experience. All I know is that I was
>mad impressed with those dudes, and I
>have never gotten girls to giggle
>hysterically using the Best Friends Test
>like they did. In my group though, they
>didn't even give us openers. They just
>told us to introduce ourselves. I think
>they've been getting away from scripts
>to focus on the underlying process,
>which the scripts are just tools to help
>with.
Agreed. I think I posed an unfair judgment on RSD. They didn't run nothing very
impressive in front of me. But I understand doing workshops is hard, you have
to perform with a cockfarm watching and expecting you to do well. And also,
when I when I did have game and had pulled ass from clubs in several ocassions,
so I was harder to impress.
>>But
>>that doesn't mean that it didn't seem
>>awkward to use the canned routines on
>>the girls, and some its not just me, the
>>girls also found it like that most
>>times, so they told me.
>
>I know exactly what your talking about
>here. I know guys like that. Like I've
>heard from the girls, "That guy asked me
>some bullshit about if he should live
>with these girls. Is that even a real
>story? Is that like his pickup line?
>He's weird." But I'm telling you, the
>problem was HIM, not the material. He
>just wasn't cool. It's
>subcommunication. I swear I don't get
>those reactions and it doesn't come
>across as awkward. Guess you'd have to
>see me to judge for yourself.
I would like to see you and judge for myself. Altough I spent a lot of money to
go to RSD and see precisely that and I didn't...
>>I can imagine an canned opinion opener
>>working, sure, but I feel it takes a lot
>>of effort to put up the acting and been
>>in the mood.
>
>It's not effort for me, cause the way I
>do it is...I guess kind of tongue in
>cheek. Also, I've been tapping into the
>ATTITUDE of C&P, and it is this ATTITUDE
>that gets massive attraction very
>quickly.
Mmmm, I guess it's just me making excuses and not really trying it for real.
>>Like a 4 mixed set, 3 guys and a
>>HB10. They are all dressed up really
>>nice, you are not looking that good at
>>all.
>
>That's a pretty detailed scenereo there.
>At least you're being specific. That
>doesn't actually sound like that hard a
>set though. I actually find myself
>LOOKING for mixed sets now. The guys
>usually dissappear very quickly.
Yea, but not only mixed, but also they look much more money that you do. You
come from a point of lower value in their eyes.
>But ok, I see what you mean. You'd have
>to immediately follow it up with some
>good shit.
>
>>"You are my new GF" in not really
>>direct, is teasing and indirect, its
>>flirtatious, its C&F, but its not
>>direct. You don't fuckin mean it. Look
>>at badboys forum to see what direct is,
>>its looking her right in the eye and
>>have the balls to tell her you like her,
>>you have chosen her, that she may feel
>>special about it.
>
>My initial impression is that this just
>sounds fucking lame, and for me it would
>be way more fake than what I'm doing
>now. I'd have to do a lot more acting
>to pull that off successfully. But I
>haven't seen it, and I haven't even read
>about it in detail, so I'll suspend
>judgement.
Yea, the part of been her chosen is kind of hard to convey for me. Although I
can see Badboy pulling that off, hes quite a character. But the part of been
sincere and 'sweep her off her feet' is for real, it can be done, and its
powerful, at least in my case with girls that approve me already.
>You are not putting
>>your ball in the table all the way with
>>those lines, you are just joking.
>
>No, I'm not JUST joking. I am, but I'm
>not. Dude, GIRLS ARE NOT LITERAL! THEY
>DO NOT THINK LOGICALLY LIKE WE DO!
Is she in a position to say "I'm sorry, I don't like you", or are you saying it
in a way that its playful and there is not way for her to respond in such a
serious way. With direct you are telling it outfront, I've been rejected a lot
lately with things like that, but phrased more politely. I believe thats when
you are running direct, weak direct in my case.
>>And again, that will get you blown out
>>of a difficult set.
>
>Which are you referring to here?
The one where they initially think you are below them.
>
>>Nope, you open indirect, with a joking
>>statement, she likes your spontaneity or
>>style or sense or humor or overall
>>character, you can gage that and just
>>quickly escalate to makeout. Man, that
>>requires some balls to open the set like
>>that and skill to do the escalation, but
>>its not that direct, at each step you
>>are just going as far as you feel safe,
>>and you are allowed.
>
>So what are you saying, that going
>direct involves getting physical with
>girls regardless of whether they want it
>or like it or not? WTF?
No, not if they don't like it. You escalate calibrating just how far you can
go, and fall into the makeout soon. I've done that that way. It's the way I
understand quick makeout myself, the experience I had. Of course, my experience
has been proven wrong before many times.
>>Thats why it
>>doesn't work on a difficult set.
>
>I haven't found these "difficult sets"
>you're talking about. I just haven't
>experienced that. Maybe it's cause of
>the venues I'm in. Maybe I need to go
>to LA or something.
I don't even work really hot venues myself. But even in my regular venues you
can take a glimpse and calibrate how cool people look. There are the really
cool sets, of people that really look like the feel they are the shit, and
there are the sets that look average and the sets that look lame. I have
confidence that no other guy in the venue measures up to myself, I truly do.
But I look average, by the way I dress and my own looks. Sometimes I can look
cooler If I feel great and I'm socially proved, but again, I would like to have
indirect skills as to not need to look that cool and win a set over
conversationally.
>Sure I fail sometimes, but when I fail
>it's usually because my calibration is
>off, I'm lacking conviction, and I fail
>to keep the flow of the interaction
>going.
Yea, but where is your starting point. Do you open a set with people that look
much cooler than you, I don't mean atractive girls I mean higher status.
Unfortunately, unless I get heavily social proved, that not usually the case,
I'm not the higher status in the club.
>
>>
>>In indirect you better not
>>subcommunicate sexuality, thats the
>>trick.
>
>FALSE. Getting an email from Jeffy that
>included this paragraph: "They have to
>view you as someone that is engaging
>them sexually. You need that tension for
>chemistry to ignite. The danger is
>coming across as a "creepy perv", but
>you have to calibrate. The fact of the
>matter is, most guys err on the side of
>caution, and consequently just end up
>standing there like a dode. You've got
>to push things. Remember, you don't know
>where the edge really is until you've
>been over it. Experiment. DO IT."
>
>After reading that, the very next day,
>it clicked for me, I figured out how to
>get attraction, and since then I went
>from previously getting virtually no
>results, to getting abou 12 numbers in a
>little over a week and consistently
>getting attraction from seriously hot
>girls.
The last 3 words are the only reason I don't disregard the whole paragraph. The
reason is that I'm starting to believe that if you really don't have the
approval of the set and you go sexual you are probably going to bomb out. Going
sexual Is key with 7 and 8's, thats my meat and potatoes, and I do go blatantly
sexual at times and I do great. But I never go into high status sets sexual and
had good results. The seriously hot girls you talk about are girls that it I
catch just a glimps of you with her I could wonder "WTF is this girl doing with
this guy?" or are they girls a regular guy with your looks is banging?
I'm my case I had a few girls that look much better than me, but most of my
regular FB are and have been average looking. What would be impressive to an
outsider about me is not the quality of girls but the quantity and the way I
meet them, and maybe my relationships with them.
>>With a girl that likes you already, or
>>is likely to like you, you can open with
>>anything even a bark and just progress
>>using calibration and escalation or open
>>direct and go into rapport.
>
>It's your subcommunication that
>determines whether or not she will like
>you.
Yes, that might be the case. I'm very aware that even though I have great
confidence on my own value I still bo very low value when I open direct and
thus never set the 'Im the price' frame on those ocasions. Just when I'm doing
indirect can I set that frame.
> Just don't
>>fuck it up. With a difficult set I think
>>you need indirect, I don't know I think
>>I really have done it ever.
>
>You're bashing "indirect" and saying you
>can't make it work, but then you're
>saying that "direct" is inadequate.
>Either learn how to make it work, or
>just do something else.
Yea, I don't want to bash indirect. I just feel that pre-planed canned stuff,
specially not mine, is not working for me. But I belive indirect is the way to
go when dealing with harder sets. Unless you can really pull some really tight
direct that has enough strong sub-communication as to make the girl 'melt' with
your approach.
I'm pretty much fucked where I stand now. I can do 7 and 8's more or less ok. I
can pull indirect very well, but only If I'm talkative and feeling great if
not. And I suck at direct on cold sets. So I feel really hot girls to be really
out of my reach consistently, I need to get really lucky to get one (and I've
had a few fortunately). So I'm missing a consistent way to meet hot babes.
I can say for myself that I have quite a good 7 and 8 game, but inconsistent or
none 9 and 10 game. I can easily get girls that are in my looks range, but I
have no consistent way to meet girls above. Notice I say meet, since I do think
once they get to know me and I can convey my personality I can get way hotter
girls.
>I've only been marginally good at
>getting attraction for a week or so.
>I'm hardly any kind of expert. I'm just
>trying to speak from my experience. I
>think calling it "indirect" is
>innaccurate. But whatever. It's
>semantics. Call it whatever the fuck
>you want. The point is, I've been
>figuring out how to do it, and I've been
>getting results with it.
>
>Anyway, interesting discussion. Peace.
I'ved enjoyed the conversation very much. I've still a bit messed up in my head
trying to figure this out, and as you see I don't have a real point to my
discussion, but it has helped me create some distinctions.
Take care friend.
Lost & found
|
