I took a guy out a few days ago to day game. He has seen me get girls to bring me to their place during the day. At night, pull to my car and have fun. He has also seen me get opened. Obviously, he asks me why I am not always 'on' as he see's it. Why cant I go up to ANY girl and get her to like me. Well, the fact is I can, and so can you. The myth of a guy being able to get a girl into him 100% of the time is garbage, but once you get good enough you see this holds some water.

How? First, you begin to automatically screen girls based on body language. You dont register IOI's but you get them. Naturals approach girls who make eye contact and smile, so I do that too. A girl locks eyes and looks away, I approach because I assume I am so great that she is intimidated.

This related to opening because most of opening is the sub-communication. I am not a woo-woo guy. State is how you feel. You can go run frat game and blow sets open and a girl will be 'into' you because in the right environment you are the fun guy. In the day or out of context you look like a freak. When you open, the text book way is to smile, strong EC, and open body language.

I biol it down further than most guys teach by working on the angles you approach at, and where your feet are pointed. Did you know that body language has a few master hacks? If your belly is exposed it signals that you do not fear the person you are speaking to. Lining up your belly button also is a primal way to seek and gain rapport. Also, each person has a dominant side which their level of being receptive varies. For example, some people like to sit on the left side of a booth and other the right in order to get a proper angle with the group which gets them into rapport mode better.

When your feet both point at who you are opening it signals an investment into the person and a level of seeking rapport. Angle your feet away is disarming but also breaks all other body language cue's. If you are a lefty, you are often screwed. Especially if you are left side dominant because it changes how you shake hands, get into rapport, and communicate. Their is a reason our grandparents who were lefties were forced to learn to write right handed in the United States, you are more successful in life.

If you have read all I posted here to this point, you see some cues on how to improve rapport and opening. But that is the surface. I read no less than two books a week on the human mind and body language and such areas. I went to college and minored in Psychology. Why does this matter? Most people who study this cannot apply it to save their lives. Knowing what to look for is one thing, using it is another. Some guys study Hypnosis, NLP, and Game for years and SUCK still. You need to piece it all together.

When you are speaking to a girl and she says she has a boyfriend, how do you know it is false? Her body language is not defensive, and although she controls her words her facial expressions and where her eyes avert to indicate she is imagining it. If she says to to automatically (Milliseconds) and gets defensive without you being awkwardly foreword, it is made up. You can TELL due to her lack of congruence with what she says verbally and what her body tells you.

Why does all of this matter? This is why your indirect opener fails. If you go in seeking rapport with an opinion opener and a general playful and safe opener (I.e. high success rate) which includes Situational openers your body language must be congruent. This is how you open 100% of the time. Your body needs to read, "I am safe, I want to be a friend, I am Asexual, I just want a few seconds of your time." This is why you do FTC's, you open indirect, you open over your shoulder. If you run pure MM, and run it correctly, it works beautifully.

Here is the problem, and why guys get 'rejected'. They approach wrong. When they want more than a second, when they want to be more than a friend, it conflicts with the person the girl initially opened with. Guys who get really good with MM eventually go from indirect everything (Verbage and Body Language) and slowly get flirty, open up body language, and increase Kino. This method is the mythical 7 hour rule method. You need to PROVE you are this safe guy and things "Just Happened". It is so long, so technical and not natural. If you run indirect game, you must be unnaturally congruent to the lie that you don't like her. This is a LOT of work.

When you go direct and then try to go into indirect material and body language, the girl blows you out as well. Sure, Direct is EASY once you get good Indirect. All you do is fess up to your desires and navigate. You get faster pulls but more blow outs. But once you get good indirect, you learn to handle rejection pretty well so that is why many guys LOVE direct. No BS, quick results. I wont go into the value concepts behind direct vs indirect, or the attraction assumption levels because for opening it does not matter. *Ask if you want this*

If you do not match your verbal game, with your body language, with your frame, and get similar facial expressions your opener will fail.

Another reason why your opener fails is because she notices you before you approach. This can be the typical wall flower starting to approach, or the "Community" guy peacocking getting blown out of sets. It is much more simple than this, if she makes EC with you and you avert your eyes, it signals you have no confidence, so you cant open. You fumble around before you get the nerve to approach, she notices.

Realistically, the majority of how well your set will go is based upon the principle of thin slicing. Peacocking and Brad P's Sexual Stereotype's work because it gives her an image of a stereotype she should often like or is different than everyone else. (Note on this concept, actual seduction science by scientists prove that naturals peacock to stand out, and do women, so this concept holds a LOT of merit for someone like me who only wants stat driven material). A girl likes you or does not. How well your set goes is based on her perception of you. Even if women have a 51% say, a slight majority, in how well you do, it proves you cant overcome ALL obstacles with Game. And no set goes PERFECT.

Typical game mentality is to then up your odds with a peacock item, very structured game to prevent limiting factors on results, dress and groom well, work out and handle inner game issues. Some guys have so much baggage that even doing all of this, they cant get the mans 49% sway over a woman. The fact is, you cant force someone to like you. You can maximize chances, but not get a full-prove method of opening and closing. With manipulation, persuasion, NLP, Hypnosis and so on, you can't change the perception of a woman decision to or not to be into you.

This thin slicing is covered best (Unless you want to read the boring articles like I did) in the book "Blink". The community approach of dressing in an appealing way to women is GREAT. It WORKS. But, guys who get great results differ in how they do it. Tyler Durden dresses in 'normal cool guy' clothes which often tilts to that of a 'highly educated man' attire. On the other hand, Brad P is a very loud dresser. He screams 'rock star'. Now, who opens more successfully? In field, I find Brad P either opens amazingly or get a bitchy reaction. TD often gets a warm open.

Why do I point this out? Both are considered some of the best in the world. If I could learn from two guys, its them. Both have different games. Both get great results. Both use the perception of thin slicing very well.

I could suggest you approach like them. Pick something, be congruent with it fully and your success will sky rocket. If you dress like a shy young guy (You can do it, try to fit in), open kinda nervous, have the correct body language, smile a lot and struggle for eye contact you will get better results than that same structure but dressed like a rock star. Get it?

I advise opening before she can judge fr real bad AA and guys who get blown out. Go next to a girl, do indirect body language and use a situational opener. Classically, with the over the shoulder look, the woman already see's enough of you to make the judgment. I got this idea from online dating. An ugly and non-community guy often gets a good looking girl because she cant make that judgment and is forced to decide. This is also why accomplishment intro's and blind dates by friends are SO much easier.

Give this one a spin. You open a lot more consistently.

_________________
Field Reports (I also link my best posts within this FR and personal Routines)

Frame Stacking for Attraction

You have to pretend to not be into her in order to get her, in this theory.

Which goes back to what PUA Ninja argued, that women condition men to lie.

Which goes back to what I said, that we live in a superficial society and that all PUA does is teach people to adopt superficial behaviour.

This works against a more healthy society for men, because it doesn't reject the meme that men are a priori to be considered predatory pervert freaks. A meme feminists engrave upon society, in order to control men through their need for emotional and sexual intimacy with the other sex. And making this intimacy more tough to acquire. And thus men have to make serious sacrifices in order to get it, even though women enjoy sex as much, if not more, since they can have several orgasms within a very short timespan.

My friend Ann studied a tad of Nietzsche and Plato, and ponders upon the Über-Alpha Man as well as Plato's ideal sophocratic society. We were talking, and I said to her: "The only reason women have all this power today is because rape is illegal. Because we all know that guys thrive when having sex with a girl they have feelings for. Since society frames these sexual desires as unwanted by the woman, they cannot just obtain it, and have to go through lots of trials to please the woman sufficiently to give it up. But at the end of the day, women use this prospect to take advantage of men, and often make them jump through loops like little pets."

In the same talk she asked me what I thought of cheating and monogamy. And if I thought it was wrong. I replied by saying: "By using the term cheating, you affirm exclusivity in sexual partners as a moral norm. Thus, you don't ask this question with an open mind. To be honest, I have for a long time had a desire in mind. This desire is to make passionate love with a woman who challenges my mind intellectually, since I like to think the sex will be just as steamy and stimulating for our bodies, as the exchange of thoughts is for our minds. And when I was fantasizing about this woman, I was thinking of you."

I said this calmly while I looked her straight in the eyes and my voice didn't waver. She was playing around with her bracelet in a fussy way. She took in my words but didn't reply to them. Then a little bit later I laid my hand on her wrist, felt the warmth of her skin. She said: "No," resolutely. I said; "No? You are fiddling around with that bracelet so much. I couldn't help but notice."

But in the end, as the above post says, there is no decisive factor that determines whether a girl likes you, it's just that with confident body language, personal hygiene and some skills at conversation, you might be able to seize a situation when it presents itself. A guy enters a room, and within 2 seconds a woman decides in her mind: "When all is said and done, will I be prepared to have sex with this guy, yes or no." And the decision is made in her mind. They just like toying around with guys and exploiting their power.

In the end, finding a girl(friend) comes down to approaching loads and loads of chicks, and sifting out the fickle crap from those who will actually reply to your investment with investment.

This is the truth, and it's very simple, and still people make buckloads of money with subjective, equivocal statements on how to be a PUA and talk any girl into bed based on hidden psychological patterns.

The majority of people who seriously believe in PUA are guys who dream about girls all the time, but never have the guts to actually talk to one. Like guys who dream about their ideal job all the time, then when the vacancy is shoved in their face they don't apply. People who read advices in books and websites every day, but at the end of the day do not desire women enough to actually make the move. They will come up with bitchy excuses in their own minds, like: "But I can't date her, because I can't bring her home with me, because my parents will be upset if I bring a girl." Or: "But I can't date her, because I met her on the work floor, and I will be fired for sexual harassment." Or: "But I can't approach this girl. I'm on holidays now, I'm fine with who I am, and I don't want my mood to be determined by anyone else than myself. So I'm good just as I am here and now."

Or they act retarded and do things like asking questions about sex on the first date, or even before the first date through cellphone texts, and bring up stupid anecdotes that make no sense. Like: "Hey let's talk about gypsies. I lived in Romania for a while, lots of gypsies there. Did you know there's a saying 'the gypsy king can have anything his eye gazes over.' That means the gypsy king can rape any woman he meets. Pretty interesting huh?" (Seriously I've seen it happen up close.) People like these are just beyond help and no PUA advice can be of any assistance to them since they lack the character and intuition required.

Marville, you bring up great points. I would first like to clarify that I do know direct works if you are congruent with it. Bring a guy out who has indirect body language and reverts to indirect attraction material and conversation, and he blows out because his intentions are CLEAR. It is bigger than the community sense of congruence, you need to walk the walk and talk the talk. You can get away with being a nice guy who occasionally says some dick-ish thing, you cant get away with changing your intentions.

The "Game" comes down to a girl willing to be receptive to you first, that is why avoiding the mechanics of screening people do naturally you gain the capacity to make personality and your personal "Game" matter more than it normally does. Men and Women think about a mate differently. I think all guys should be like women. A thin slice based upon if they would, or would not sleep with a person. Then, give them a chance to convey personality to make a good decision.

This is why women test you, to save time. This is the same type of activity that guys like Brad P and Sinn will do some outrageous things in set to screen women out to get one that will or will not be willing to have sex.

But I digress. I cannot stand guys who argue it is not a number's game. In some regard it is. But the reason women blow you out can be controlled. The thin slicing is a real thing based upon looks. It comes from how you dress and carry yourself. Body Language and personal style. Being a confident man who is true in his intentions and desires is leaps and bounds more attractive than a guy who is slouched over and dressed like a homeless person. This does not exclude looks. For uglier guys (I am not exactly 'good looking') and guys with physical limitations (Fat, short, bald, etc.) skipping this split reaction is a way to make your results sky rocket.

Most of PUA is normal social skills boiled down and re-packaged for guys who dont have or understand them. When social proof seems like a tactic and not common sense, you have a lack of experience not talent.

I do agree society is geared to teach all people to not be honest. Our natural intentions are deemed 'bad'. Guys who test it often come out perfectly fine, and society rationalize it as "Karma will get him" or "Good things come to those who wait" or some other nonsensical thought or saying to justify why the individual is the exception to the rule. But the truth is, a guy who is ballsy and attempts to break society's mold has greater success than those who try to fit it.

This concept can be applied to all facets of life and PUA. Who passes 'shit tests'? Whose business succeeds? Which athlete wins the competition? We all love the story of the guy who plays the game by the rules and gets success because it is so uncommon. Movies are made and books are written to solidify the concept that playing the game society has set for you is the sweetest success you can ever taste. When you do Hollywood gives you the girl, the job, the house, the money, the kids and the glory all in a nice and compact package that you can quantify based on how well you followed the rules.

On the other hand, guys who break the rules suffer in movies. Even if they succeed in the end (The badboy who saves the day) they at some point had to change their ways to do so to fit the concept of good or fit into society's standards or they suffer greatly along the way.

This is getting way out from my point of the thread, but this is why the conceptual badboy or Alpha has success with women. He does not play the game.

Great points buddy, great points on game.

_________________
Field Reports (I also link my best posts within this FR and personal Routines)

Frame Stacking for Attraction