mASF post by "thrillseeker"
posted on: mASF forum: General Discussion newsgroup, July 7, 2005Damn dude, you're making me think. ;) I admit I'm not familiar with what
Badboy teaches. I've listened to the Shark CD, and all I got out of that is
that you're supposed to open with "I like you, I vould like to get to know
you," and if anyone asks you why you are going to the club, you say, "I am
going to get zee hottest cheek." I'll have to check it out someday, but I've
made huge progress with what I've learned from RSD, so I'm going to stick with
that for a while.
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.
>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?
>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.
>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 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.
>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.
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.
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!
>And again, that will get you blown out
>of a difficult set.
Which are you referring to here?
>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?
>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.
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.
>
>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.
>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.
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.
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.
|
