mASF post by "lost_and_found"
posted on: mASF forum: General Discussion newsgroup, July 7, 2005
Thanks a lot for the reply, I argue about most of it bellow, I hope we follow
this discussion a bit help me make some distinctions.
On 7/16/05 1:17:00 PM, thrillseeker wrote:
>On 7/16/05 11:23:00 AM, lost_and_found
>wrote:
>>Many people argue that the
>>best approach is some indirect
>>approach and not to show
>>interest.
>
>Perhaps "many" do argue that, though I'm
>not sure who they are. I'd argue that
>it's best not show too much interest, or
>rather more importantly, neediness,
>right in the first 2 seconds.
>
>I'm not
>>comfortable with opinion
>>openers, I haven't really
>>figure them out or something.
>
>The way I use them, I don't act like
>there's some bullshit situation going on
>that I really need some advice on, and
>that I'm only talking to them because I
>need an answer. Rather it's just some
>nonsense I spit out as a more
>interesting way to start the
>interaction.
Well to me any of the opinion openers that float around this forum are not
interesting. Like David Bowie, Who lies more, Thugh loving or any of those.
That what I haven't figure out, but I know thats an issue I have. I've read
that the idea is to not pay attention to the topic and change thread as soon as
possible. I've done that and It works fine, my wing does Who lies more? I
immediately change the topic to anything situational or regarding her
reactions. That works fine with me, but I suck if I try to do the opener
myself.
>
>>Direct on the other hand gives
>>me something to say right off
>>the bat.
>
>Fine. Use whatever "opening line" you
>want. Fuck, I'm sure you can bark at
>them and have it open if you're cool
>enough. It's not that big a deal. AN
>OPENER IS NOT A STYLE!
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.
>>But I hate
>>the simple thought of doing
>>that, I have yet to see a
>>canned opener not seem
>>awkward.
>
>Dude, the opener is not awkward, YOU are
>awkward. A half-way decent PUA can open
>with ANYTHING and have it work. It's in
>the delivery. If they sense any
>weirdness, they'll be weirded out. If
>you're cool, they'll think you're cool.
>Chill out. Be playful. Fuck with them.
I can open with anything, sure. What I cannot do is open with something canned.
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 don't argue that they where not effective, they could plow through
it, and there they where, in set. 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 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. And let me tell you, none
of the RSD instructors there actually seemed smooth doing it while in the
workshop.
>I have to repost this from another
>thread. This direct/indirect nonsense
>is starting to irk me. IT'S A
>DISTINCTION THAT WAS INVENTED FOR
>COMMERCIAL PURPOSES THAT HAS NO
>EXISTANCE IN REAL LIFE!
I have personal experience of the difference, it is not invented for commercial
purposes, it might be exploited for that reason, but its not invented by them.
>Like TD says, an opener isn't a style. I
>can open with Thug lovin or I can open
>with "Hey guys, what the fuck is up?" I
>do both. The "routines" that I've been
>using are mostly just lines for
>attraction, that blend in seemlessly
>with and amp up a playful, teasing,
>flirtatious vibe.
The "hey guys, what the fuck is up?" is pretty much like doing a direct opener,
I'm sure, from where I stand now, that no one can do that in a real difficult
set. 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. They have seen you in the venue
before and haven't notice you at all, they all have you in a way lower scale of
value. You open like that and they will all look at you weird and block you
away.
Just the same way as if you open direct on the HB10.
That will work with a set that regard you with enough value as to do that.
>This isn't indirect at all. In fact,
>what I am doing now is very direct,
>cause I'm saying shit like, "You're my
>new gf," "I love you, we're getting
>married." Flat out talking about us
>hooking up like this, but in a joking
>playful way, with lots of push-pull, is
>one of the things that has helped my
>game the most.
"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. You are not putting your ball in the table all the way with
those lines, you are just joking. That is not really direct.
And again, that will get you blown out of a difficult set.
>
>And then shortly afterward we're holding
>hands, a little later I'm almost making
>out with them. I don't see how you can
>get more direct than this without
>saying, "I want to take you home and
>fuck you. Let's go."
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. Thats why it
doesn't work on a difficult set.
>Maybe what you're talking about is very
>different. If you're just spitting out
>routines, and you're being too
>"indirect," I think the problem is that
>you're holding back, you're playing it
>safe, you're afraid to risk, you're not
>cutting in, you're not escalating,
>you're being a balless asexual eunuch
>girly-boy, you're not ENAGING THEM
>SEXUALLY. THAT is the problem, not
>"direct vs. indirect," whatever the fuck
>that means.
I don't spit routines, so thats really not my issue, but yes, you are right.
>
>But it's not what you say, it's how you
>say it. The sexual vibe is mostly
>SUBcommunicated. You don't have to say
>"I want to bone you." They get it. Girls
>are not stupid, at least not when it
>comes to nonverbal communication.
In indirect you better not subcommunicate sexuality, thats the trick. Thats
what I learned from reading Toecutter. Thats apparently they way to not get
blown out by 9's and 10's.
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. 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.
Lost & found
|
