Wednesday 17 July 2019

Indirect or direct interaction with women?

“Fate can bring people together in the same way fate can drive us apart.”

There is a lot of information out there on various blogs or alternative reading regarding whether it is more beneficial to approach women, when hitting on them, in an indirect or direct manner.  Some of what I write in this post may have been read before, but I’d expect a few items will be a little more original.

It’s important to set out the parameters and differentials between indirect and direct interaction, with the according advantages and disadvantages to suit:

Indirect interaction consists of a man approaching a woman with an environmental/common ground opener or similar.  At no stage does the man state his intentions of affection onto the woman, even though in a lot of (but not all) cases a woman would be aware this man has interest in her.

Pure and simple, indirect interaction buys a man time.  As a by-product, this time allows him to exploit his personality and likeability (although in turn not being too nice or happy), and as women require a self-evaluation of many male desirables which are not only based on physical attractiveness, there is a more likely circumstance of her wanting to get to know him better if he ticks the early boxes. 

The main deficiency in indirect interaction is never quite knowing whether she likes you or not in a way you want her to venture on.  A good deal of women will quite happily give a man their number, engage in messaging, and even go on a date or two (or three or four!) in receipt of the ego boost and attention they receive, yet in fact have no intention whatsoever to engage sexually with him.  If not nipped in the bud sooner rather than later, many a man wastes a good deal of money, time and emotional investment on a woman who isn’t interested in him other than non-sexual motivations. 

In easy language, direct interaction is when a man doesn’t hide his attraction onto a woman, and he informs her of this fact early on.  It is rare to use this strategy as an immediate opener, but it can work.  Direct interaction – and the verbal execution of a man telling a woman he is attracted to her – is most beneficial shortly after an indirect opener and some brief conversation, but his intentions must be stipulated at some stage prior to going their separate ways.

Unlike indirect interaction which can and does leave a man hanging and scratching his head down the line when her interest appears indifferent at best, direct interaction boxes a woman into a corner in enforcing her to decide.  She will know this man who attains the cojones to know what he wants is not in the habit of wasting time, and this will, usually, at the very least eradicate her innate time-wasting trait which is born out of the attention she craves.  In simple terms, direct interaction saves any wasted money, time and emotion exertion.

For women who are on the insecure or low confidence side (which represents most women), a direct approach will be too intimidating for them.  They will believe a man who has this level of fortitude and balls approaches many other women in the same way, and in fact she is just a number.  Whilst nearly all women are sexually attracted to highly confident and courageous men, their high insecurity more often than not subconsciously (or sometimes consciously) leads her to choose a less confident man for relationship material. 

Where do I stand?

As someone who has approached hundreds of women in my life, both indirect and direct interaction have brought me successes and failures.  In truth, I would expect a lot of these women on the rejection side would have declined my advances irrespective of strategy, therefore the overall assessment is a difficult one to conclude.

Nevertheless, as a man who is far nearer the proactive than reactive scale in comparison to the greater male population, in addition to being a person who can’t stand wasting time or associated investment, I would recommend direct interaction every time.  The rejections will be far greater in number and percentage, but this is, in my view, a small price to pay for having the luxury to move onto the next objective.

Another reason I far favour direct interaction is the knowledge gained that women never stick to something for very long.  So, if you see a woman in the gym for example on a Wednesday morning, there is no guarantee she will be there the following week on the same day and time.

One more reason is knowing how many women use men, especially men like me, as a validation tool and ego massaging instrument.  They will sometimes happily talk to me and exchange numbers, but unless I have made my intentions clear they will often just use me as a purpose for attention.  When I have cornered them, I find they do not go through with the time-wasting exercise – and thus either role on sexually or never respond. 

The best course of life is nearly always derived from the path of least resistance.  Aim to accomplish the most through minimal exertion. 

A Final Thought

You may or may not think this is suitable for you, but a line or two I have used over recent times (after a few seconds of indirect interaction) is as follows:
“You may find this too direct for your liking, but I don’t want to waste your time and I certainly don’t want to waste mine.  The reality is, I find you attractive, and I have done probably since the first or second time I saw you.  It was just a case of then finding the right way and time to tell you.  And it’s not just because you’re hot, although this does help, but you seem like a relatively likeable person too.  But if you feel uncomfortable with me or nervous around me then that’s fine, we can just go our separate ways and I’ll never ask you again, I can assure you of that.  I just think life’s too short for regrets or what ifs.”

There are elements of beta in the above, but this is intentional.  If a confident (and good-looking) man approaches a woman he doesn’t know personally, he must show a level of betaness too.  Without it, the confidence she is attracted to borders on being counterproductive.