“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
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.
Advantages:
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.
Disadvantages:
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.
Direct
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.
Advantages:
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.
Disadvantages:
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.
Q-tip:
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.
Marvellous!
ReplyDelete