Riker lets loose!!
Craig (from private email): Ah ha! When I say that calling chicks on bs is a bad thing to do, I meant in the beginning. It seems like supplication, but...When the girl didn't call you back the game was over. She was obviously interested, and I think you could be banging her as we speak if you had handled it the right way. I don't know what the exact right way is, but my point is that you did the Speed Seduction bs calling response perfectly and it didn't work. If she didn't work at that bar anymore you would probably never see her again. I believe that if a girl gives you her # (willingly :) then it is always an opportunity to fuck her if you play your cards right. Now you and I both know that alot of numbers end up in the trash can for whatever reason, and that is something I am trying to change. When Phil gets a # it is a definite hookup, and she will probably ask him to marry her if he sticks with her too long :). And back to the supplication...This is something I have noticed in every nat
urals game. Like the line that Phil wanted me to say to the chick at the grocery store (he said I just be completely honest with her and say something like, "Excuse me...I know this may seem a little weird and you might even have a BF
, but I'm not out here very often so I probably will never see you again, and I was wondering if you wanted to go out sometime?") . I thought it was ridiculous. But what the naturals realize and we do not (until now!) is that supplication can be used as a manipulation tactic to gain more control later. I remember that your friend Max supplicates also. I suppose it is like playing possum. You let them think that they have you and it gets you in the door, then bam! you are in control. I remember before I knew about this list or SS or ASF I would meet chicks and supplicate like no other, and everything would be fine for about a week or two, then the chicks would get bored and they would be gone. But what if I were to use a little bit of supplication (not extreme, but maybe a dinner
date or something) for the first few days to get things going, then slowly took control? I think that is how Phil works. He met a girl at a Sushi bar a few weeks ago and took what I thought was an AFC route. He made eye contact with her, then waited till she was alone, and went up to her and said, "Next time you come her, do you wanna come here with me?" She said ok and he called her and made plans, but he said that he might have something to do so he would call her to confirm on the day of (sound familiar?). When the day came he flaked on her with no call and we went skateboarding. And bam just like that he had full control of the relationship. I asked him if he was gonna call her and he said maybe, and I asked him what would happen and he said if he called her again it would be on. I think some supplication has merit...if you can bring it back in the right direction...What do you think?
My Comment: I think we may be on to something here. I think a key piece which Ross may have figured out but which I don't remember him ever spelling out precisely is that when he says lines such as "...and I figured I would take a chance on making a complete fool of myself to meet you..." he is in fact dealing with one of the main problems women have with men they meet -- either they are too inexperienced or too experienced. If you are too slick, polished, etc. this can backfire and they think you've got another woman in your bed every night. But if you throw a little nervousness or embarrassment into the picture -- bingo, you're a real person with flaws and suddenly very appealing because she feels a little safer than if you said all the right things. This bears further investigation...
Riker: >Halbmike: >One often ignored area of seduction is attitudes during and after sex. I >think many people are serious when they should be laughing and having fun, >and others are unresponsible when they need to be responsible.
I agree that this should be a *possibility*, but not the way it has to be. Once I get to know a woman, I let her know that I enjoy the full spectrum of the ways in which sexual episodes may be enjoyed:
Laughing and Playful (as above). Soulful, loving spiritual Fucking like Porn Stars For me, anyone who has any long-term potential must be able to experience sex in these ways. (and yes, I inquire what it is that they like to experience, and incorporate that as well). Think of the above ..... many guys wonder "how do you convey to chicks that you don't want to be with them long-term?" Well, if a chick is able to do all of these things, she has *potential* for long-term. If she does not, well, ..... since this attitude and wish on my part is A part of who I am and not some memorized stuff, she knows that I am looking for all of this. And it becomes apparent to many women that they cannot fulfill all that I want in a LTR , and they conclude that I was an experience meant to be had for a time, and after some time, they see that they must move on, because they will not fulfill me. >Draz: >On one of the SS videos, Major Mark talks about the image of the bad boy.
Great topic. >The renegade rogue. The romantic hero. ...The whole concept stirs my >interest and is one that I would like to see get more play in our >discussions. It seems to be incredibly revealing, so I raise it now in >hopes that we can explore it further here and perhaps gain some more >insight.
This is very important. And you don't have to slay dragons, or drive Harleys to be that man. >Way beyond the idea of the non- AFC and the outright jerk getting all the >women is the idea of the romantic hero.
finally someone freaking gets it (at least some of it)!
You guys who think it's AFC or jerk have no clue. There are other options. > The very notion itself seems to be >the dreamy figment of a woman's fantasies -- a deeply ingrained metaphor >that recurs in female stories, from fairy tales to soap operas to romance >novels -- an ideal held in the deepest recesses of her mind which, if >properly leveraged or tapped, could be a magic key for the seducer. The >Major discusses this when he references Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women: >Romance Writers on the Appeal of the Romance -- the book that cracks the >code of that genre.
Well, let me give you a brief snapshot, framed in a way that most men can actually be this man.
This man is strong as the world sees him. Powerful, assured, secure (notice I did not say he was an asshole). With that power he does not take bs. (Ok - get that point. I am very charming, but convey an attitude that if a woman does get bratty, I then call her on it. I don't treat women like shit. Frankly, a woman that would respond positively to me treating her shit, when she has not shown bad behavior to warrant such treatment, is fucked up in my book. These are woman who believe they are shit and seek to be treated as such.).
This man also does have sensitivity, and that is beneath the surface. And if she behaves correctly, she then gets to see that.
Excuse the emphasis points, guys, but I get SO upset seeing guys following paths that I don't agree with. Trust me, I have tried many of them.
You can be a good guy. Just don't walk around being all sensitive right away to women.
This is also the reason that guys say shit like "I can't imagine saying that ross stuff to chicks'. Jeezus, guys - it's talking about feelings and stuff. I sincerely hope that guys reading this get the security in themselves to be able to talk and express what they want. When it is appropriate, of course.
Women see me exhibit this power/sensitivity stuff a lot, and love it. When I meet or talk to them, I am funny, charming. I let them know (by pointing out some examples of women who did get out of line) that I don't take bratty behavior. If she (the woman I am talking to) gets bratty, I call her on it. Period. I stay charming as much as possible. Funny, engaging. I'll ask maybe about men they know, have known, boyfriends of their friends, etc. Get data from her about what she has seen men do that she does not like. I then bring up examples of my experience. Again, describing women who got bratty and I "called them on it". >I tore into it right away, along with some others that it led me to, >including Bad Boys: Why We Love Them, How to Live With Them, and When to >Leave Them ...and another out-of-print one called Endless Rapture: Rape, >Romance and the Female Imagination ...and then even an actual romance novel >(a trilogy called The Erotic Adventures of Sleeping Beauty, the second >volume of which is called B
eauty's Punishment) -- this purchase inspired by >a maxim article titled Submit! in which Internet babe Danni Ashe said, "I >start reading it and by the time I get to the third page, I have to have sex >right then and there." By the way, Dangerous Men is definitely the foremost >source and by far the most worthwhile of these.
Hmm, well, the brief version of that book is.... Be hard on the outside, ... mad, bad, dangerous to know .... and have a sensitivity underneath that if she is woman enough then she will get to experience.
After those points, you are much better off learning some Ross/Mark stuff. Really. >All this inquiry makes me think we are really onto something with this >romantic hero thing. It has led me to seek to incorporate more of the >defining traits into my own persona. But as a pretty good guy for the most >part, I find that to be a bit difficult ...even though I do think there is >a definite distinction -- with the bad boy being a particular type of >romantic hero, which is the larger, all-encompassing concept.
Again (sigh ...) ....... being a good guy does not somehow take you out of the running of this Romantic Hero mindset.
Sure, ok, maybe to a degree, the rh is bad first, with the sensitivity. But you can come way close to that by being charming, and letting her know that you can and will call her on bad behavior.
Imagine, ... a man that is charming enough to go anywhere with her socially, powerful enough to keep her in-line when she "tests" you (by getting bratty), and also sensitive enough to make her melt when she is alone with him.
they love this.
this is what they want. >Anyway, I am not sure how to make all of the traits tangible or how to >convey them effectively to a woman. With a look? With an attitude? With >languaging? With sex toys? With behavior? With physical force? (ok, we >know that one isn't right, so no threads needed on how wrong it is to even >ask.) The point is that it seems like it has to go beyond mere >attitude/frame.
ok, be sincere, be secure. know that you have options, that your possibilities are wide and varied (not only with women). This hits so deep into who you are that it's tough to convey. You can work on your "frame" and use state control if you want (anchor feelings of power and security). The Confidence tapes from Ross go this route, and do it very, very well.
(I see so many guys complain, whine, get upset about this subject, and you tell them to get and, uh ...... use these tapes, and they don't. Jeez guys, believe in yourself, do something. You can read ASF all year, but tapes sets like this, when you actually do the exercises help a lot. And, also, uh, actually talking to women.)
You can also "fake it till you make it". Success brings success. It's like a spiral. It can go up or down. Hanging with men who are like this helps.
For deep-level change, get hypnotized.
and you guys wonder why I wore out one of my major mark tape sets! >I am certain this is powerful stuff if we can harness it.
It is. >Has anyone done any development work in this area that directly resulted in >outrageous success in seduction -- where you have been able to not only >embody and manifest bad boy attributes, but more importantly convey >concretely to women that you are indeed the romantic hero they fantasize >about?
Yes. Ross and Mark (do I sound like a broken record). See above. >I should revisit the tape because I know Mark takes us through such >a process -- one that trances you out, that's for sure.
Yup, the one in particular is the "Boys With Toys" - Major Mark induction. Also, the new "Hypnotic Awakenings" tape set. >But I would enjoy >learning more from this audience on this topic as well, if anyone has any >ideas.
Well, there ya go. >oui...fornicate: >> D.S.: >> had actually success using Speed Seduction, i.e., whether anyone >every met >> anybody in the bright of day and, without the aid of alcohol or >drugs, >> nailed the brawd. And you respond by saying you once had sexual >intercourse >> with a woman after the two of you were watching a movie on your tv? >What >> about that encounter was Speed Seduction? > >If you understood the nature of Speed Seduction, it would be obvious. >I understand why Riker gets frustrated at guys on the SS list who >want the "exact words." Speed seduction is not about the exact words, >it's about using language to capture and lead a woman's imagination. >In the situation I had mentioned, we were hanging out at her place, >waiting for our mutual friend. Her tv was on, and music videos were >playing. I started talking about songs, and how they affect us. >(Anchors anyone?) Anyway, I'm playing with her, not really thinking >about going anywhere with it, since we were waiting for someone, >bu
t I was getting a green light...so I kissed her. Is that rocket >science?
Why was it not SS ? Because he did not say "Pattern xyz" verbatim? Sure, not all seduction is SS . But I know many guys who have used SS -like techniques with this level of success. Of course, at this level, SS is not as much about "stuff you do", but who you are, and the way you now talk with women. I don't think about "hmm, what pattern from the books do I use now". I watch her, I talk, we talk, I see where she is ......." etc. I use many many of the techniques which Ross (and Mark, and Kim/Tom) speak of, I just don't think of them much anymore as "technique xyz".
I have done what was mentioned above (although I specialize in getting women from the net). Bishop has done this. Ross, Rick, etc.. more and more as well. >Which is one of the reasons why D.S. believes that "getting sex _is_ >fucking 'rocket science'" and it seems to me that he believes that >so strongly, that his subconscious is being 'helpful' by making that >belief a reality...for him. I think the first big step, before he >spews patterns like a bulimic, is to learn to get out of his own way. >Until then, his success will be severely limited. >Luke: I don't believe it. >Yoda: That is why you fail.
exactly.
Jeez - this type of thinking directs your thoughts and actions.
I feel sorry for the guys who hate women (and you know what, there are a lot who I read their posts, and it's obvious they do). >Big T: >A message to ds: (re: sex is scarce and not rocket science): >Well it is pretty evident that getting laid is rocket science cause none >of us guys wouldn't need this list or anything that resembles >it....unless you're Brad Pitt, Ricky Martin or anyone in the spotlight, >getting laid for guys like that all they have to do is step out their >front door but, for the average joe you have to have a strategy >otherwise if you want it (poontang) fast without any hassle then pay a >hooker...no wine, dine, flowers or bullshit just the negotiated price >and there's no strings attached. If you are the average joe ( AFC ) then >you're going to have to pay for it no matter how you slice it then there's >trusty 'ol....speed seduction...end of story!
Well, the basic issue here is ....
Men think differently than women.
We want something, and we think in a certain way. That is not the way most women think, and is not the way many think about sex. SS and its related areas, help to bridge the gap.
Hey - women want to be desired. You know what - they are taught that (the fortunate ones, anyway) while young. How to dress, how to walk, talk, act, .... to be desirable. Damn, look at a magazine cover for women, there are TON's of "how to get the man you want" type articles. >Adam: >again, that is alot of work. it's cumbersome and quite frankly unrealistic. >consider ... lightening up. stop analyzing your internal dialogue. consider >focusing on tactics and strategies for conveying A happy personality rather >than working on internal mantras and other such nonsense. be result- >oriented. get laid. be happy that way. if you don't think you could enjoy >getting laid, why are you even studying the PUA ? (that was rhetorical).
This seems ok, but you are allowing your happiness to be dictated by whether or not someone else accepts you. Get laid - then - be happy? So a woman accepting you is your way to feel happy? Bad thing.
be happy. Then you will get laid more. (Unless you are with some twisted chick who likes the dreary dark "life sucks" type of guy - she will be the same way. Have fun! LOL)
Now, yeah, I know, sure, we all feel better when we do have the approval of women. I understand that. But jeez, if you are allowing your feeling of security to be based upon women accepting you, the irony is you will get many fewer, and less interesting women.
You know - a good thing to do for guys who are really in a bad state, would be to just say and think ....
" I will not have sex for 6 months. Nope. Won't happen." No pressure.
And then just talk to women. Pressure is off - no performance anxiety. You feel about yourself how you feel about yourself, without any weight given to their acceptance of you. >Broadaxe: >Wow, Mystery, what a refreshing mindset! I'm getting tired of all >these people on the SS list, and a buddy of mine, who constantly stresses >"feeling states" and all this internal bullshit more than actually going out >and trying to get results.
Well, yeah, actually talking to women is the best way. The issue is that many guys (and trust me guys, I can relate) have such difficulty talking to them that they need to work on themselves a bit.
Which is another reason to just talk to them. Take all issue or thoughts of "wanted to bang her" out of the equation. After all, most of these guys that do have trouble, would have no trouble talking to a hot chick if they were not thinking ... "Oh god she is hot and I want her and I don't want to fuck up and I need to say the right thing and remember that pattern and control my state and do that thing ......".
Jeez.
Hey - think of this guys (you ones who have a lot of trouble). Lets say you are at a Mall. With your mom. ok? You and Mom. Now, for some reason, you're are standing next to Mom, and a hot chick is right there. Maybe asking you and Mom directions, helping you 2 in a store - whatever. You can talk to that hot babe no problem - right? Wanna know why? Because with mom there (well, for most men .....) you are not "trying to pick the chick up". You are just being you (because after all, Mom is there too.) See? No pressure, no "performance" thoughts (not talking about that in a bedroom context, more in a getting-to-the-bedroom context), and you are just you.
See?
Which is why, for many guys, a great thing to do would be too just go talk with women for a while, with no attempts at all of trying to bang her. >And if you are writing a book, I'm buying it. >But it is interesting to hear this from a PUA as successful as yourself. >Ross and Bishop are always saying: "go there first, and the only way for her >to feel good internally is for you to feel wonderful internally." Don't you >agree with that? And don't you agree with NLP techniques that if you >constantly rehearse a state with visualizations, feelings, and anchors, then >you can develop that state in yourself? Or do you think it's all wishful, >wimpy-thinking, hogwash? And do you ever consciously anchor states to women? >I never see you talk about that. I also like how you say that patterns are >just playful routines. I think that's a much better way to look at them than >thinking: "You have to get in that state for her to get into that state." >That just creates seriousness and unneeded effort when you "try and att
ain >the state".
Seriousness? Where is that from? That is you talking. >All that I've read from you is your one-liners. I would like to know all >your routines: The Elvis script, the Tangerine opener - everything. If you >could give me some info on how I can find them out, please let me know. >Right now, you are my modeling guru.
And we will hear from you in a while saying "I said exactly what Mystery said and it did not work".
Why not? Because you are not him.
Sure - learn from guys. Model them, that's great. But this bit of "I went to Mystery's site and memorized setup ABC and did it and it did not work, what did I do wrong" is BS !
What Mystery does works for Mystery because Mystery is Mystery.
Yeah, model to an extent. Learn. But do what works and feels well for you. >D.S.: >First, wanted to note that I tried the making a romantic dinner at home -- >and it yielded the ultimate result. In fact, she showed up bearing a bottle >of wine. So thanks much for the recommendation, Maxin. This is going to be >my m.o. henceforth.
oh god isn't that supplicating?!
LOL - that was a joke.
See?
You don't have to be an asshole guys.
A man, able to handle himself, handle others, handle her, who would show her this courtesy, is very impressive to her.
************* Well, guys that know me know that I am busy, so it's not often that I write this much. I have gotten a lot of good info from Cliff's List (thanks Cliff, once again). And I wanted to take some time and provide some feedback. Frankly though, I feel that there are like 3 people (ok, maybe 2, ok ..... maybe ...) who write way way way too much on the list, and we are getting too much of a view of one side. And please, if you think I might be talking about you, I probably am. And please, let's not have 12 pages of what you have to say about each and every point I made. Let's have some balance here, man. This is my attempt to help provide that balance in a way.
I have had email dialogs of one type of another with thousands about such things. I have presented to hundreds on such things. I have personally spoke with many about such things. So I believe what I have said has some merit. Are there other opinions? Sure there are. Mine is just one.
Flyer: > (Ross Comments Continue): "Whereas, personally, I've met women who are > stunning but have nothing but drama, desperation, dysfunction and disaster > surrounding them. this you find attractive? For this you are going to tweak > yourself, watch your every thought, response and move to make > sure she comes after you? Everything in your post, Flyer, is about your > appearing more attractive to them...isn't this, in a sense, a form of > existential supplication...where all of who and what you are is bent towards > drawing them? So what would you get out of being with a "10", looks-wise? > You've proven yourself? Your attractiveness? What?
The same reason a rock climber climbs a mountain: simply because he wants to. I want a "10" HB for the same reason a man who is a connoisseur of sports cars wants to drive a Lamborghini vs. a Porsche, etc. What I would like in the interim is answers to my original Social Proof question: can one get a "10" with a "7", or in Mystery's format: get an " HB " with a "B" ??, and if so, are there more nuts and bolts info regarding using social proof ??
My Comment: I seem to remember Rick commenting once about how he was with this very attractive bi woman and they were out hunting for a young lady to join them. Some of the women this woman pointed out were very unattractive to Rick and he remarked that he's realized that women don't see the same things we do when they look at women. In my opinion, a "7" would probably be good enough to cause those competitive thoughts in a "10's" mind to start working.
NightLight9: >D.S.: Two things. First, I'm going stop calling a sexually-motivated >meeting with a girl a 'date' or a 'meeting.' I'm going to start thinking >about such a meeting and talking about such a meeting (around male friends) >with the term >'f-op'. So for example, if I'm telling my boy I'm going to meet a brawd >somewhere, I'm going to say, I've got an 'f-op' with this chick today. My >reasoning is that if somebody starts thinking by this term, they might get >out of the dating 'frame', (which I now realize does indeed exist (contrary >to my previous protestations)) and might start thinking about meetings with >girls as opportunities to fuck the girls, instead of 'dates' in which you >must court the girl and lavish the girl with unwavering attention. I might >suggest others try out this term, 'f-op'. If all of us use this term to >refer to 'meetings' or 'dates' with chicks and soon this term is all we >use, >our thinking will probably become influenced by the term, which might >mater
ially lead to getting laid more.
I like the concept of the op, but I think I will use it as just a plain op, and I will consider it an Op for both of us. I will use it in convo with both men and women and I think it will be a good convo progresser, particularly when you have really good rapport. Kind of like Riker's Three rules. "I don't go on dates, but I do go on ops." "What's an Op?" "An op is an opportunity for you and I to find out what kind of adventures we might have..." >[snip]and that means that someone having a >giant fucking mansion is no big deal to you. >And that will impress her. And most importantly, it will impress her >without her even knowing that you intended to impress her. >Now this is la, where people know what a screening room is. So if >screening >room might not be understood where you're at, maybe use "the guest house." >That would probably work, as in, "We deserted the party and went to "the >guest house" and talked until three in the morning.
This concept is so important. The money angle is one example of something that sounds good if you don't brag, but sounds like crap if you do. Here is another example based on something that I have in my life that is an asset for picking up women but can be a detriment if I use it like a hammer not a feather tickler: Bragging: I'm a snowboard instructor. Obvious attempt at not bragging: You snowboard? Really? I'm an instructor. ok: Your cousin wants to learn to snowboard? She should come up sometime when I teach snowboarding. Better: The concerts on Saturday? Oh I can't go Saturday, I have to give snowboard lessons. Darn.
In other words, wait for the right opportunity (or the right opportunity for you to direct the conversation to the right opportunity). How you communicate your strong points is as important as your strong points. It's better to say nothing than to sound like you are bragging.
Halbmike: Ross mentioned that SS is currently looking at screening patterns. One thing that I'd encourage everyone to do is consider "Who do you want to be with?" Ask yourself what types of people you'd like to meet. I think a lot of guys go out looking for a woman with a certain look. They're sorting pattern is "I want to get laid." In the process they delete many wonderful people and opportunities. Here are some questions to get you started:
Who can I learn from? Who seems to be having the most fun here? Who can I make money with? Who looks the most interesting? Who looks the most exciting? Who seems the happiest? Who seems the most successful? Who seems like they'd be good to converse with?
I find that when I go out usually the best thing to do usually is look around and notice who seems to be laughing the most and having a lot of fun? I've actually approached groups and said "Excuse me, I don't know anyone here, but I was looking around the room and you people seem to be having the most fun. Can I join you?" When you do notice a woman's looks, ask yourself if she seems like someone you'd enjoy being around? Ask yourself if she seems like she'd be a good lover?
You can also do the reverse of approaching a group? You can grab someone and say "You seem like fun. Join us over here."
Bill: I think clothes make a difference. I have become more aware of this lately and have been making some improvements in my style of dress. Key word "my style", as in the example where the guys were all wearing suits and the chick said "boring" It's still the same when all the young guys are all dressed the same. And it's even worse when someone older tries to dress in the latest young guy style. BTW never take one chick's point of view on anything. Seems we're smart enough to get her values so we can seduce her. Because we recognize that they are different and need to appeal to the person we are talking to. Then when getting advice on something, we think what one chick says is gospel. What you get is once again, important to the person you are talking to. no one else. I am working on developing my own style that works for me. Example: I would not wear what Rick wears. That is not congruent with who I am. But, boy, does that work for Rick because it represents who he is. Clothes help because before you can even open your mouth she sees you. It may happen over a period of time. Across the room, regularly in the same work setting, or when you are approaching her on a street PU . Remember that it's all part of the package that you present to the world. How do you know if you are improving your style? Easy if you are receiving some compliments then you have real world feed back. I have been getting some. I don't always dress in the improved style when I leave the house. So sometimes I forget that I am dressed nicer and I get caught off guard by the response I get from people. It is different and it is better.
Kallisti: I had an interesting experience last night, and while I did not close her then, I definitely believe that I have set the frame correctly. I was in a pub with some friends, and I approached an attractive woman. I open with a simple "hi". She is sitting there with a friend and they are talking with a guy. As I walk up another guy offers to buy her a drink. I laugh and said, "Did he just try to buy you a drink? What a silly man." They said I could buy her a drink. I told them that I didn't buy people that I was not involved with drinks. (Hoop Theory and Ross) I then used Sisonpyh's great opener, "Did you know that the average woman in the U.S. in 5'4", 140 lbs. and a size 14?" I really liked this, because it immediately made me a part of the group. I started to talk to her to find out more about what she enjoys. Turns out she is pre-med. and wants to focus on Pediatric Medicine. Her friend wants to go check out something else in the bar, so they wander off, saying that they will be back. I immediately start talking with another girl on the other side, and it turns out we have something in common too, shocking eh? She seems to be interested, but I really don't like her friends so when it comes time for her to go, she lingers waiting for me to get the number. I'm not interested so tell her maybe I'll see her again. I then look around the bar for the HB 'lil Doctor, and I see that her friend and her have been watching me play.
I walk over to her and have a disapproving but playful look on my face. I tell her that, I was a little disappointed that she had not come back, like she had promised because she had struck me as an honest person. She said that they were just getting ready to come by. I immediately move on to learning more about her. I tell her that I thought that she was interesting and I would love to get together with her so that we could learn more about each other. She looked interested, but I was going to wait until she offered me her number, I waited 8-10 seconds and since she had not realized what she was supposed to do, I gave her a hint, "Why don't we exchange numbers?" She said yea that sounded like a great idea, told her that I didn't have a pen, but I would go find one. I started to go get it, then acted like I just had the realization that I had a cell phone and I could store her number there. (I like this because it seems more spontaneous) I then gave her the phone rules. I was getting ready to go and another guy came up and started trying to close. He walked up and began begging for her phone number. She was kinda hesitant and I had a funny idea, I said, "Oh, that is cute, wait one second, I'll be right back." I went and grabbed a napkin and a pen, I then went back and said they should exchange numbers. My logic was that I didn't want to block the guy, at least not in an overt way. I feel that this put me into a new category in her mind as someone that is extremely confident, a person with so much game that no one else is a threat to me. I told them that I had to go, HB lil' Doc and her friend (sister in law) followed me. She said that she was looking forward to getting together with me. I said I was going to be in B.C. skiing and she would not be able to do anything with me for at least a week. I'd love a critique of this PU as well as opinions as to how I should have closed better. I think that there was a possibility that I could have ramped her up even more, but I'm not sure how I should have done that.
- Login or register to post comments
- Trackback URL
