The Top Pickup Artist Forum On The Internet: Fast Seduction 101

Mystery suggests that you should be able to close a girl within 20 minutes of meeting her - however, noone has mentioned anything about a MINIMUM amount of time to even make a lasting impression.

Is it just me, or is it next to impossible (barring EXTREMES) to SUCCESFULLY close a chick who you have interacted with for less then, say, 2 minutes ? Now I KNOW there are exceptions, like once I got a chick's number in a club in under 30 seconds where I did a cold approach, but those numbers almost ALWAYS invariably turn out to be flakes. Is it worth it ? For example, street sarges where they're walking the opposite way, you have a MAXIMUM time frame of about 1-2 minutes, if you're lucky, cuz usually they are going somewhere to do something, and you are just an obstacle in the way of them getting there. Are these even worth it ?? It probably CAN be done, but also EXCEEDINGLY hard unless they are drooling over you or you have other extreme factors working for you.

Shall we abandon these small time frame sarges for larger time frames, say, a minimum of 5 minutes interaction ?

That would make, for all you college bros, the only worth places of sarging somewhere where the chick is going to not LEAVE or MOVE for about 5 minutes, or; any type of line, street-sarging where you're walking in the same direction, the cafeteria, any table, the library, and the campus bar. Should everything else be ignored and deemed a write-off ??

I'm very interested on the replies to this, especially from the college bros like LowRider, TD, drunk_magician etc.

thoughts, comments, opinions...

superslicka

>Is it just me, or is it next
>to impossible (barring
>EXTREMES) to SUCCESFULLY close
>a chick who you have
>interacted with for less then,
>say, 2 minutes ?

It's not just you, and you bring up a good point.

However, no rule is 100%. I once interacted with a chick for 2 minutes and only @closed her, but she ended up falling in love with me a couple months later when I continued my interaction with her.

In any case, a broad rule must be applied for the time-frame of PUs, depending on goals. The goal and interaction will determine how the follow-through occurs, and will probably help many guys understand why chicks flake on them. Here is what I've observed:

I can get a chick's number in 30 seconds. That, in just about all circumstances, is useless. The number is likely to be bogus or, if it isn't, she's not likely at all to feel the least bit inclined to interact with you further if you call. You might as well open up a phone book and pick your numbers out of that.

Someone once posted about a study that was done which indicated that a chick's interest in a guy upon first meeting tends to decline after the 4-minute mark. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean you've got to wrap up your PU in less than 4 minutes. It means you have to be aware of the possibility of such a wane and will need to "shift gears" on the chick around that time in order to keep her interest heightened. That means, intensify the tactics or (preferably) change venues with her. Changing venues could mean extraction, going to the other side of a room, taking her to a coffee spot, changing clubs, or wherever. A change of venue attempt right back to your place or hers won't fly - you've got to venue-change somewhere intermediate first in order to create the frame of "dating" her, even if it's a spur-of-the-moment thing.

Within that 30-second to 4-minute time, if you're going to "close" a chick, you're going to have to stick to contact closing her. In that case, my g close rules still apply. Don't bother contact closing a chick unless you've properly g closed her (I'll be making a page available about this soon). G closing is, basically, creating an ATTRACTION in her - the the point where she WANTS to be contact closed by you (but necessarily f closed yet). It doesn't necessarily mean a SEDUCTION of her. You don't want to be interrupted while seducing a chick, so if you're going to have to contact close, work on building the attraction phase and, once accomplished, get the contact close and move on without concerning yourself over the seduction part - you can do that later when you follow-up with her in another face-to-face meeting. If you contact close without g closing first, you'll end up with a flake.

Beyond the 4-minute stage, to the 20-minute threshold, the purpose must shift beyond g closing, into a progression to same-day close, with a contact close option being the default backup plan. If you're going to interact with a chick for greater than 4 minutes, then your internal clock must give you the next 16 minutes (roughly) to same-day f close her. Every thing you do in that time should be working towards that goal, as if it is your first date and 16 minutes later she'll be in your bed (hypothetically). That means, continue building her attraction, but gradually induce a seduction stage where you utilize the basics (mirroring, tonality, rapport, character cues, pacing) to the things integral for closing (kino, sexual imagery, kissing, leading). Between all of this, you will likely get tested in a few different ways, and you must always be on your toes for that, be prepared to handle whatever she throws at you, responding in ways that may very likely be outside societal norms, political correctness, or your own idea of what it means to be "nice" to chicks. This is where guys who know how to lead will have her walking away with them 20 minutes later, on the way to fucking, where guys who don't have a handle on leading will have the chick walk AWAY from them - becoming a flake if a follow-up is ever attempted later.

There are many granular details between all these timings and stages, but this should provide enough of a base structure for many guys to be able to pace themselves better.

After the 20-minute mark, you SHOULD either be taking the chick to a venue where the next expected step is taking her home or f closing her at that venue OR you should be shifting to your next target, starting the process all over again.

For beginners/newbs, they should stick to the 4-minute range of contact closing. Then, as skill progresses, attempts towards the 20-minute stages should be tried regularly, to get the feel of it. After a while, enough experience will garner the ability to handle a 20-minute full attraction-seduction cycle and it becomes possible to f close chicks same-day.

For the 20-minute f-closes, usually what will happen is at the 20-minute mark, you'll KNOW whether you will be fucking this chick that same day or not. The primary things you need to be aware of is to keep her in that state and judge the final tactics you will use, depending on what kind of chick she is and what you've elicited from her. It may be a slow progression seduction which could have you taking her around for a while for another 2 hours, gradually intensifying her perceived connection to you, or it could just be a simple logistical thing of finding a place to fuck. BUT let HER worry about logistics - your job is to focus on attraction-seduction. If you stop thinking about attraction-seduction and start wasting time thinking about logistics, you'll hose yourself. Not to say that logistics should be thrown out the window, just don't dwell on them. One good way to save yourself from this is to pre-determine some logistical solutions before going out to PU that day, depending on where you'll be. Then, get that stuff out of your mind and focus on attraction-seduction.

With these understandings in mind, go back and review some of the most interesting same-day closes you've read from some of the veteran guys post around here. You'll start to see how this plays out and how this timing structure applies. Then go out with that same understanding and start improving your game.

--
jay [[email protected]]

Fast Seduction 101 - http://www.fastseduction.com/
Class is now in session...

>I assume this is all for
>street PU.

It's for all kinds of PU.

>As far as the
>logistics go, do you go out
>specifically to PU or are you
>taking care of
>other business as well?

Depends. If I have things to do, that is my focus and I'll only be distracted if I see a chick that really drives my interest. If I'm just heading out with no goal, PU doesn't have to fill that void, it's just something I'll do if I feel like it. On the times/days where I head out to specifically PU, not only do I think about logistics ahead of time, but if I'm with wings theres the predetermination of "what's the story" just in case chicks ask us stuff that we have to all respond consistently to.

>How do
>you integrate that with this
>PU methodology
>in the latter case?

It's not rocket science. If I'm PUing near where I live, I plan on potentially bringing chicks back to my place. If I'm in town, I drop that notion (unless it becomes an extended PU and I'm able to be near by my car). In that case, whatever becomes most convenient for the situation. In the case of being out-of-town, depends on the proximity to where I'm staying. If PUing nearby, the default goal is to take them where I'm staying. If not nearby, gotta play it by ear and just focus on attraction-seduction as SHE'LL figure out something for me, if that's what the case turns out to be (successful same-day tactics applied).

--
jay [[email protected]]

Fast Seduction 101 - http://www.fastseduction.com/
Class is now in session...

> softcontrol wrote:
> >I assume this is all for
> >street PU.
>
> It's for all kinds of PU.

Really? So are you saying that anytime you sarge a chick for more than 4 minutes you are going for a same-day !close? In many situations with external time constraints, I find that I just have to let the situation determine the correct pacing.

> do I think about logistics
> ahead of time, but if I'm with
> wings theres the predetermination
> of "what's the story" just in case
> chicks ask us stuff that we have to
> all respond consistently to.

I don't work with wings much. What kind of stuff do you mean?

> If not nearby, gotta play it by
> ear and just focus on attraction-
> seduction as SHE'LL figure out
> something for me, if that's what
> the case turns out to be (successful
> same-day tactics applied).

Thanks for the explanation. Logistics is an area where I need to improve. I'm still a little curious about how you let her worry about logistics. I often find myself with clear but ill-defined opportunities, and I'm trying to become better at sensing the most effective way to convert these. The situation has been improving, but I am still finding that I am not as prepared as I would like to be logistically.

>Really? So are you saying that anytime
>you sarge a chick for more than 4
>minutes you are going for a same-day
>!close?

You better fuckin believe I am. The only thing that will stop me in that regard is some logistical thing I can't control (which is, really, a matter of perception) or a total C&B. In the case of logistics, I contact close and follow up later.

>In many situations with
>external time constraints, I find that I
>just have to let the situation
>determine the correct pacing.

Then you are giving up your fate to circumstances that are very likely under your control.

>I don't work with wings much. What kind
>of stuff do you mean?

Chicks asking what you & your wing(s) were up to that day, how you know each other, what plans you have for later, etc. At least some of that has to be in sync because chicks test pairs of guys to see whether they've got merit (have lives beyond trying to just pick up chicks) and do such testing through "jabs" of questions aimed at corroboration. Like the way cops do interrogation of 2 suspects in different rooms. But that's just in the context of wings - which is yet another reason why guys should approach solo, even if they are hanging with wings. Solo, you can create your own ultimate reality without needed to corroborate with someone else.

>Thanks for the explanation. Logistics is
>an area where I need to improve.

This used to be a CONSTANT problem for me and I started correcting for it a lot the past few months. Particularly, I was at a hotel lounge with my friend Dante and he was observing me PU a chick hanging at the lounge by herself. He ejected to allow me to close properly. She indicated early in the convo that she was sharing a hotel room with her female boss, so stupid me started focusing on logistics of getting her out of the hotel. The chick was solidly interested, I'd already paced her through much sexual imagery, did a lot of kino, but as soon as my gears started working on things like logistics for f closing her rather than just continuing the focus on attraction-seduction, I'd lost my grasp on her. I mean, in that situation, if I just let go of logistics, I could have f closed her in the bathroom, worked on her in an elevator, test-closed her with the implication of my getting a room, progressed more aggressively at the bar, etc.

>I'm still a little curious about how you
>let her worry about logistics.

This goes all the way back to my first experience learning from David X and understanding what he means by his first rule of "Don't care what she thinks." Essentially, you do a PU the way you want, tactically maneuvering wherever you need to go in order to create attraction in her, seduce her, and induce her into following your leads. During that process, you completely let go of your CONCERN of what she's thinking. He doesn't literally mean don't care at all what she's thinking (you still have to do things like calibrate and EV in order to properly seduce), he means let go of your concern and also let HER worry about how it is she can have you. Think about it this way: If you get a chick 50% interested and spend the other 50% of your time thinking about WHERE you'll be able to f close her, you'll lose the f close because 50% interest isn't powerful enough for her to really want you in that way at that moment. However, if you let go of logistics and focus 99% of your actions on getting a chick 100% interested, she'll do whatever it takes to get you ASAP, she will figure it all out FOR you. She has work in the morning? Let HER figure out how to deal with that. She's got to meet her friends soon? She'll decide to flake on them. Her car is parked in a tow zone? Not your problem - she'll take care of that later.

In fact, once you are on THAT side of the equation, you ironically begin to find out EXACTLY why chicks flake on guys in the first place, particularly if they are a prime commodity like HB8.5+. You're with a chick and getting her to worry about logistics and start leading her away from previous plans. Somewhere in that, she gets a call from some guy. She either doesn't pick up her cell or, when she answers, she flakes on him with TOTAL BS, making no mention that she's being lead around by a PUA. I am serious - once you are on that side of the equation, you will smack your head when you first see that happen in front of you and think "Holy fuckin shit, Jay was right on target - now *I* am the guy who is causing chicks to flake on OTHER guys... who are now probably cluelessly wondering why she's flaking!" Savor that moment. Now you know why I always will go for same-day after (roughly) the 4-minute threshold.

>I often find myself with clear but
>ill-defined opportunities, and I'm
>trying
>to become better at sensing the most
>effective way to convert these.

Then always go in with the attitude of g closing and focusing on same day than contact closing and doing a follow-up. Challenge yourself in real-time. Not only will you increase your skills faster, but you'll also find out whether a chick is going to be a flake RIGHT THEN AND THERE and not have to do silly stuff like contact close unless you have a good feeling she won't flake. An you will get that feeling, because your calibration skills will improve. If you don't get a chance to same-day f close, default to contact close. If you reach the 4-minute mark and don't have enough material to progress adequately with a same-day, end it with a contact close. But, underneath all of this, always realize you must g close before everything else.

>The
>situation has been improving, but I am
>still finding that I am not as
>prepared as I would like to be
>logistically.

Then let that go for now and focus on what you can control. Sure, you MAY run into scenarios where a chick is 100% interested yet there's no possibility for f closing her that moment or same-day, but that is still a GOOD thing as you can eject from something like that abruptly and initiate her to chase you more intensely later on when you do follow up with her later.

--
jay [[email protected]]

Fast Seduction 101 - http://www.fastseduction.com/
Class is now in session...

> With these understandings in mind,
> go back and review some of the most
> interesting same-day closes you've
> read from some of the veteran guys
> post around here. You'll start to see
> how this plays out and how this
> timing structure applies. Then go out
> with that same understanding
> and start improving your game.

These are great generalizations, Formhandle, thanks for the commentary.

I'd have to say that there is one other thing to add to the mix ... the concept of the chick "closing herself for you." Basically, there are types of ways to get "into her head" such that your seduction-oriented behaviors replicate themselves in her mind. She starts to think about you. She worries that you WON'T call soon enough. She gets horny and so forth, whenever the thought of you comes up. And little things throughout the day (starting a car; typing on a keyboard; etc.) REMIND her of the horny-for-the-PUA feeling.

It isn't all about anchoring, but that's a large part of it. Another large part, is being so "in control" of yourself and your world (or, at least, the version of your world that you create for her) (BTW I am forgoing the word that begins with A, and means not-beta, as a New Year's resolution!) that she starts to feel your presence seeping into every nook and cranny of HER world. You are like the Dark Lord Sauron (thank you popular reference!) slowly covering the WHOLE UNIVERSE with a type of shadow that changes her whole perception of everything and steals her autonomy (evern wonder why chicks don't go in for Lord of the Rings as much as guys? cuz it's a story in which the bad guy takes away autonomy and free will, and causes former leaders to become followers -- which doesn't seem all that bad to chicks, they WANT someone to follow). Thus, as her universe grows to more and more resemble yours, her own participation in the sarge becomes more and more cooperative and fuck-directed. Even in your absence, you are sarging her. Ooo-ee, creepy.

Anyway, that's just something I've been thinking about, along the lines of the "aura" thing that Jay and I once corresponded regarding -- he and I were asking each other, "how come strippers seem so much MORE hot than chicks who COULD be strippers?" or some such. Typical guy talk. :) Anyway, part of the deal is that they're "up there" on stage where they're SUPPOSED to be appealing; and another part of the deal is, that they know how to work an "aura" into their performance (and by "performance," I mean EVERYTHING they do in the club to get their $$, of course). Aura-manipulation, is in some ways the external facet of emotional proactivity.

Man, the things you can say on this newsgroup with a straight face.  Amazing.

Blargh ... anyway, I hope some of you get an inkling of what I'm getting at. Cheers for now. Great comments, Jay.

FiD

>However, no rule is 100%. I
>once interacted with a chick
>for 2 minutes and only @closed
>her, but she ended up falling
>in love with me a couple
>months later when I continued
>my interaction with her.

Ya, every rule can be broken by extremes, however, I believe this happens very rarely.

>I can get a chick's number in
>30 seconds. That, in just
>about all circumstances, is
>useless. The number is likely
>to be bogus or, if it isn't,
>she's not likely at all to
>feel the least bit inclined to
>interact with you further if
>you call. You might as well
>open up a phone book and pick
>your numbers out of that.

EXACTLY my point. My question is, what is the MINIMUM amount of time needed ?

>Someone once posted about a
>study that was done which
>indicated that a chick's
>interest in a guy upon first
>meeting tends to decline after
>the 4-minute mark. HOWEVER,
>that doesn't mean you've got
>to wrap up your PU in less
>than 4 minutes. It means you
>have to be aware of the
>possibility of such a wane and
>will need to "shift gears" on
>the chick around that time in
>order to keep her interest
>heightened.

Interesting, 4 minutes eh ? You say it starts to 'decline' after 4 minutes; does that imply that she was attracted from the start ?

I'm talking about very small time frames here. Like street sarging, actual ON THE STREET sarging, not the blanket term given to anything outside the nightlife-sarging. How long must you interact before you can close with reasonably reliable anti-flaking ? Or is there EVEN a time limit ? I believe there is, since from experience, I have never had an girl not flake on me whenever the sarge took less then 2-5 minutes...

>A change of venue attempt
>right back to your place or
>hers won't fly - you've got to
>venue-change somewhere
>intermediate first in order to
>create the frame of "dating"
>her, even if it's a
>spur-of-the-moment thing.

EXCELLENT point.

>Within that 30-second to
>4-minute time, if you're going
>to "close" a chick, you're
>going to have to stick to
>contact closing her. In that
>case, my g close rules still
>apply. Don't bother contact
>closing a chick unless you've
>properly g closed her (I'll be
>making a page available about
>this soon).

really? cool. can't wait to see it...

>G closing is,
>....
>contact close without g
>closing first, you'll end up
>with a flake.

k - so what is the MINIMUM amount of time needed to G-close then, in cold approaches ?

>Beyond the 4-minute stage, to
>....
>out with that same
>understanding and start
>improving your game.

EXCELLENT post, Formhandle :) Many valuable insights in there...

Nevertheless, you kinda side-stepped my question. I was asking whether there should be a MINIMUM sarge time-frame...is there a MINIMUM amount of time that you must interact with a chick in order for them to be, as you call it, g-closed ? Because, if there is, it automatically excludes MANY situations which one might see a hot chick in.

thoughts, comments, opinions...

superslicka

>EXACTLY my point. My question
>is, what is the MINIMUM amount
>of time needed ?

Minimum for what? To make sure when you contact close, that you won't end up with a flake? As a broad rule, not less than 30 seconds. But again, I'll come back to g closing. Use 4 minutes as your "rough" indicator of how much time to be interacting with a chick for the very first time, before her interest wanes outside of your control. Then, don't focus on the time, but rather focus on the stages of PU in the initial approach/meet/interact:

1. Opener.
2. Build attraction fast, through cues. When I refer to cues, I mean Cialdini style "click, whirr" shortcuts that cause her to make broad unconscious judgements about you. This is an example of how C&F works so well in the initial stages - it clicks many character cues for a chick about you and causes her to accept that you must be a worthwhile and attractive man, irrelevant of your looks.
3. G close. This isn't really a close per se but the point in the PU where you can honestly believe the chick would WANT you to AT LEAST contact close her, regardless of whether you do or not.
4. Roughly the 4-minute range. Contact close or continue the PU with a "gear shift" as I described in my previous reply.

>Interesting, 4 minutes eh ?
>You say it starts to 'decline'
>after 4 minutes; does that
>imply that she was attracted
>from the start ?

No. If she was neutral from the beginning, and remained neutral, this is the point where boredom creeps in. If she was initially attracted, it's the point where, in order for her to remain positive about you or increase her attraction, you must take action in some way. That would either be to contact close or "shift gears" - upshift, not downshift.

This is not really about her actual mental attraction of you, it's the chemicals in her brain which are related to the "newness" of an experience. In order for that high to be sustained, you must be aware of the point of waning (wearing off of chemicals) and shift gears to spur those "newness" chemicals to kick in again. That's why I mentioned to completely disregard societal norms, political correctness, or your idea of "niceness" in regards to chicks after that gear shift happens. If you worry about that stuff, you will end up acting like any other guy and will just be burying yourself. In that regard, contact closing and leaving would have been more useful, as you wouldn't be around while her chemical-induced high is waning. You want to be associated with her highs, not her lows. I don't know the biological processes at work here, I just remember past posts somewhere about this and am also applying past experiences and observations.

>I'm talking about very small
>time frames here. Like street
>sarging, actual ON THE STREET
>sarging, not the blanket term
>given to anything outside the
>nightlife-sarging.

On the street (if we're talking literally here) takes more than just being concerned about time-frames. Literal street PU is hard to define a structure for when describing to guys who've never done it. Street PU takes speed of action, balls, and a sharp mind. It also involves higher stakes in the "shift gears" stage - you've got to redirect a chick from what she was doing before (shopping, going to meet people, running errands, etc.) and towards where you want to lead her. Street PU, within the first 2-3 minutes, takes a lot of focusing on cues and focus on the attraction part of the cycle. You've got to make her WANT to do what you're leading her towards, and this will generally be outside the realm of seduction until you're properly leading her. I'm trying to describe more concretely, but it's just hard to help guys understand if they haven't done it many times already.

A quote Danny used to always repeat: "For those who know, no explanation is necessary. For those who don't know, no explanation is possible."

Anyway, if you want a hard-and-fast rule to always go by, then the answer is 2 minutes minimum, 4 minutes maximum, if your overall goals and skill levels slot you into the "contact close" category. If you want to same-day close chicks, and have built up the skill for it, then you must get past the first 4 minutes with her attraction retained, change gears, then continue to hold & escalate her interest for another 16 minutes. After that, if you haven't already started leading her towards a real f close (dues to lack of actions by you or a logistical problem that can't be worked around), then contact close her & eject, move onto the next chick. If you've passed the first 20 minutes, her interest is still high, and you're leading her successfully, you will be fucking her that day unless you completely fuck it up. In that case, post a field report as that is the kind of stuff I like to de-construct as it is the thing I fuck up most with these days myself.

BEWARE... maybe the newbs will miss this, but if you've got her 20 minutes in, yet your continued interaction with her has nothing to do with leading to an f close that day, you will be boring the hell out of her and will most likely also get a flake if you end up contact closing, no matter how interested she seemed. Strange, but true, there is a low-end range which you MUST pass in order to avoid a follow-up flake, but there is also a high-end range where you must not pass if the situation is going to turn into a contact close. Butter to cut your losses and switch to a new chick than to spend another hour or two boring the hell out of a chick who you will not likely f close that day and who will flake on you later.

Time != lay

>How long
>must you interact before you
>can close with reasonably
>reliable anti-flaking ?

The best way to keep a chick from flaking is to not drop her until you're leading towards an f close with her same-day, but not longer than 20 minutes. Minimally, for contact closing, you'll need 2 solid minutes of good cues, making a lasting impression on her.

>Or is
>there EVEN a time limit ?

Nothing is carved in stone, but much of this tick-tock is because of biology, not logic, so there are some time frames which we must work within. The environment may affect this time frame somewhat, but I've noticed much consistency with the timings I'm referring to.

>I believe there is, since from
>experience, I have never had
>an girl not flake on me
>whenever the sarge took less
>then 2-5 minutes...

I've had a few chicks who I've been able to follow through with at least someone when the initial PU was less than 5 minutes. As I mentioned before, a chick I PU'd in about 2 minutes ended up falling in love with me a couple months later. But those were just far ends of the curve. The most predictable stuff will happen within the time frames I've described.

>>properly g closed her (I'll be
>>making a page available about
>>this soon).
>
>really? cool. can't wait to
>see it...

It's actually primarily an update to my e-mail rules, but contains a structure for contact-close based stuff. But I left out aspects involved in #closing follow-ups, as that is covered extensively already in the Player Guide.

>k - so what is the MINIMUM
>amount of time needed to
>G-close then, in cold
>approaches ?

1 second to 4 minutes :-)

Some guys now will say "1 second??? Motherfucker, how am I supposed to do that?" Well, what I can say is, think about it this way: It's actually HARDER for guys to contact close chicks and not get flakes later if they're the type who can create that attraction from a chick that quickly Why? Because the 2-minute clock starts ticking on them IMMEDIATELY so now they have to full the remaining 119 seconds with stuff that will AT LEAST sustain her interest if not escalate it before going for a contact close. Even G closing a chick doesn't mean you can get a number and not get a flake. You still have to apply SOME time (at least 2 minutes) in order for that number to not be a waste of time. For a guy who doesn't have that "instant attraction" aspect about him, he has 2 minutes of play time to initiate her interest and get a good g close feeling.

There, now how's THAT frame for us not-so-looking guys? In that frame, we have the advantage over great-looking guys in street PU because we come in under the radar. For anyone that doesn't know what the hell I'm talking about, go rent "Devil's Advocate" with Al Pacino & Fast FWD the part where e takes Keanu Reeves' character through the NYC metro system... pay attention to the stuff he tells him in regards to women. Same shit.

>EXCELLENT post, Formhandle :)
>Many valuable insights in
>there...
>
>Nevertheless, you kinda
>side-stepped my question. I
>was asking whether there
>should be a MINIMUM sarge
>time-frame...is there a
>MINIMUM amount of time that
>you must interact with a chick
>in order for them to be, as
>you call it, g-closed ?

G close can happen anywhere from 1 second to 4 minutes (roughly). BUT, in order to avoid a flake (if you end up contact closing), then you've got to spend at least 2 minutes with her.

>Because, if there is, it
>automatically excludes MANY
>situations which one might see
>a hot chick in.

Why? name some of those situs. I'll describe ways of how to get the 2 minutes in.

--
jay [[email protected]]

Fast Seduction 101 - http://www.fastseduction.com/
Class is now in session...

> Mystery suggests that you should be
> able to close a girl within 20 minutes of
> meeting her - however, noone has
> mentioned anything about a MINIMUM
> amount of time to even make a lasting
> impression.

I don't actually think there is a minimum time. a lasting impression can be made just by a lingereing glance, when the two people NEVER ACTUALLY MEET.

> Is it just me, or is it next to impossible
> (barring EXTREMES) to SUCCESFULLY
> close a chick who you have interacted
> with for less then, say, 2 minutes ?

Play it how it lays. Things depend on the situation, but if things are geared up the right way, you can close incredibly quickly.

Example: I was in a club on Saturady night and i made eye contact with this hot, short blonde. i walk over and say

Cass: hi
HB: hi
Cass: you having a good time yeah?
HB: yes
Cass: i haven't been to this club for years, but its EXACTLY the same as i remembered it (true). What's your name
HB: Cecille what's yours
Cass: Cassius
Cass (i look her up & down): hey can i ask you something?
HB: what?
Cass: i know we've only just met but do you want to kiss me
HB (goes red and flustered): I DONT KNOW!!!
i wait a couple of secs and just look at her
HB: i don't know you!
Cass: you're not sure 'cos you don't know me
HB: yeah
Cass: tell you what, let's have a little one and see

HB puckers up her lips
I kiss her and then she sticks her tongue in my mouth and we have a nice wet snog.

Total time from meet to kiss, probably just over a minute. I knew she fancied me cos of the EC and the fact she was willing to chat. I just had to capatilise to get the close. Point is if the situation is good, you can close almost immediately and it's not as rare as you seem to believe, especially in clubs.

> Now I KNOW there are exceptions, like
> once I got a chick's number in a club in
> under 30 seconds where I did a cold
> approach, but those numbers almost
> ALWAYS invariably turn out to be
> flakes. Is it worth it ?

i tend not to go for numbers in clubs, so i can't comment

> Shall we abandon these small time
> frame sarges for larger time frames, say,
> a minimum of 5 minutes interaction ?

The problem i have with a time frame is that it traps you in to thinking that the PU MUST follow it. Play it as it lays. i think what you do should be guided by her reactions rather than the clock.

Cassius
"learn something new every day"