"Weirdo" is a limitation you have labeled on asking a indirect opener or opinion opener.
Matter of fact is that when running indirect game the opener has little to do with it. Heck, girls most often then not (unless you milk your opener) won't rember what you've come up to tell them.

Being a direct junkie, It may come up as a loss of time to not convey interest right off the bat. Not being able to tell if she is interested or not. But from a indirect perspective it is what you want to do. Make her invest time. Everybody like to jump on band wagons. Right now the 'Direct Game' band wagon is gaining speed over the slowing 'Inner Game' band wagon. When that wagon was hot, "It doesn't matter what you open with" was the phrase then. And people had results with that. I remember reading a lay report from Marc (doesn't post anymore IIRC) about laying a girl he approached with "I love Turkey!". He was having fun exploring boundaries. Sure, it screems Wierdo, but it was enough to start a conversation and do his thing that would eventualy lead to the girl's pants. Could he have gotten the same results by approaching with the oft used " Hi, I was sitting over there with my buddies and coudn't help but notice you. You look so invigorating and I could kick myslef if I didn't come to get to know you better" (or insert local variation? Sure he would most likely have gotten the same results and faster. But hey, I'm sure she didn't think for long that he was a wierdo.

_________________
Drink me, make me feel real
Wet your beak in the stream
Game we're playing is life
Love is a two way dream

(1) You cannot filter / qualify until there is some kind of mutual interest. Period. If a tramp comes up to you and starts trying to find out if you're "worthy of his time" you will laugh in his face and tell him to fuck off. Again, I'm talking about INITIAL IMPRESSIONS here (the OPENER). Yes, I go up to girls I FIND HOT. And I tell them they're attractive to me. [Unless you are sorting girls based on only their written profiles in online dating, I ask you - how do you decide which girls you are going to approach, except for their initial impression to you - what they look like, how the carry themselves, their style, etc?] THEN I continue the conversation and find out if they're worth hanging out with and if we share interests and would get along. But the INITIAL phase I make sure to figure out whether there's mutual interest, otherwise any further qualification is completely pointless.

(2) You can disagree all you want, but the two descriptions for the same person is an actual psychological experiment that's been repeated many times. It holds true for MOST PEOPLE. Your argument that because SOME people react differently doesn't disprove my assertion of a GENERAL RULE. No psychological technique works on 100% of the population. All we do is describe the GENERAL rules that work for most women. Of course you have to calibrate. It would be stupid to, for example, try to make a good first impression by wearing a suit and tie, and then telling a story about your bank job, to a hipster indie chick who's a massive socialist. What would be attractive to one girl will be a total turn-off to another.

But the GENERAL PRINCIPLE that your first impression will be the filter through which others perceive the rest of your actions thereafter very much holds true. That's why it's better to give off as positive a first impression as possible. My assertion is that a first impression that shows a LOT of confidence (opening directly) is better than a first impression that may be entertaining or interesting, but could subcommunicate shyness, weirdness or social awkwardness.

Again, the fact that SOME women might find "weirdness" to be an attractive quality does not disprove my assertion that IN GENERAL, MOST women do not. And, even so, you're better off doing CONFIDENCE FIRST, and then displaying your weird side later, so that your quirky humour is seen in the context of your confidence (i.e. you say whatever you feel and are comfortable with yourself) RATHER than starting with WEIRD FIRST.

(3) Maybe you mistyped, but I don't see how your assertion that the advice need not be sought in earnest has anything to do with the fact that an opinion opener subcommunicates that you are shy because you're using an excuse to talk to her instead of being upfront and honest.

(4) I am confident to say ANYTHING I want. Some of the really fun exercises I do with students is exactly that - going up to women and saying the most RETARDED shit, on purpose - just to show that the worst thing that can happen is they say no thanks and walk away. However, once I'm confident saying ANYTHING, it's still worth figuring out what the BEST thing to say is, i.e. the thing that gets the most positive reactions, immediately filters out women that are not interested so I don't waste my time interacting with them, and creates a massive attraction spike in those women that are interested. For me, that is opening with a compliment and expressing my desire to get to know them better. HOW I say it is incredibly important. It must be said with a smile, clearly and slowly, and with confidence and good body language. Then once she stays and listens, I THEN talk about whatever the fuck I want, and see what topics stick and whether we're into each other.

Think about it like this. In a room, there are 5 women who are attracted to you, and 5 women who either are not, or who would NEVER sleep with you. You are attracted to all 10, and you approach each one over the course of the next few hours. Each woman has 10 main topic areas she loves talking about, only ONE of which you share with her.

Now, if you open INdirectly, then you will begin your conversation in a topic area of your choosing. For each woman, that means you have a 1/10 chance of hitting an area she's interested in. 9/10 times, her first impression is a guy coming over to ask her something she doesn't care about, which means you are working actively against her initial disinterest to try and connect. The longer this goes on for, the longer she has time to get bored of you and give you some excuse for why she has to fuck off.

PLUS, you may hit the perfect topic area for a girl who'll NEVER sleep with you! Then you get into a great conversation for 10, 15, 20 minutes because she IS interested in the interaction, only for her to say how awesome you are and now she needs to go meet her boyfriend! What a waste! (This is where I disagree again - 20 minutes may well be interest, but interest in a friend, or just enjoying the interaction for the sake of it, rather than actually progressing towards SEX)

Now, I walk into this room and go up to every woman in turn and tell them they're attractive and I want to get to know them. The 5 who'll never sleep with me will say so right off the bat within 1 minute, and I'm left with the 5 who will. They will all be attracted further by my confident approach, and will give me FAR more leeway to sort through conversational topics to find something we connect on, whilst at the same time giving me much more in terms of information about themselves, asking me questions, etc.

The basis of this is twofold - heightening a woman's attraction for you who would already sleep with you, AND immediately sorting out the women who wouldn't sleep with you anyway. It's plain efficiency.

Again, these are not "rules" for interaction. I'm not saying you CAN'T open indirectly or that it'll never work. I have had plenty of success from doing so. But I have had TEN TIMES that success by being direct, honest and confident about my romantic intentions, and I encourage every man to TRY IT, and see if it works for them too.

_________________
SEX Technique Material http://bit.ly/iFdky0

FREE PDF w Openers, Date ideas and Videos on Direct: http://www.sashapua.com

You guys miss the point of opinion openers (indirect game).

They're designed for HOT model type girls in club environments that would reject you based on your looks if you approach her directly.

But in day time, especially if you're hitting on 7's and 8's it's flattering if you go direct, sincere and genuine.

Every opener can work if you know how to follow up and deal with a bitch shield if she has any.

Just be situational relevant.

_________________


"Their compliance is,
'Does she grab your hand?' F*ck you! I want to grab her mind. If I can
grab her mind, she'll be grabbing whatever I want, any way I want her to." - Ross Jeffries

Actually direct game delivered properly will work as well with 'hot model types' in day or night game. Even though I'm here defending the indirect approach style (devil's advocate really), direct game has yielded solid results for me.

_________________
Drink me, make me feel real
Wet your beak in the stream
Game we're playing is life
Love is a two way dream

What are you talking about, dude? I always go indirect, but i never had the need to walk into a girl and start asking stupid questions about my friends relationship. That´s awful. Indirect open isn´t synonymous with being a desperated freak.

Splinter-

The point of the canned opener is to start having crap come out of your mouth. It doesn't matter what you're saying, girls are barely paying attention to that. They're looking at body language and checking you out. I've opened with "Did you hear that shit on the radio that 45% of americans think the moon landing was faked? What's your opinion?" THEY DONT CARE what is coming out of your mouth as long as you have confidence. If your body language is "cheese-dick" street pua then they'll see right through that. I don't LIKE canned opinion openers but they DO have their benefits. Hell, I rarely use them but for someone who isn't comfortable talking to girls it is a tool to get over their own awkwardness. It shows a newbie that girls will give you at least 1 min. and chat with you. Once they realize this they can overcome approach anxiety.

Basically, I would suggest not scarring any newbies away from canned openers just b/c you don't like them. If I have never talked to a girl and I read your post, I would've probably died a virgin! You may not like them but they do get results in 1 fashion or another.

-Engineer

That opinion of mine hasn't changed, and this is rapidly devolving into a debate for it's own sake, but I actually enjoy debates so I'll keep it up a little longer.
WTF? My qualifiers are unilateral. They have nothing to do with what she wants.
I've spent a lot of time on the streets of Seattle, working professionally as a signature gatherer and voter registrar, and I lived in a downtown neighborhood for 11 years, so I've met a lot of homeless. I daresay that if some homeless person did approach me with such a qualifier, instead of the time worn "spare any change?" that tracks oh-so-well, my curiosity would be sufficiently piqued to give him another 15 seconds to keep talking. I've also seen that other homeless populations, such as in the South where urban environments are not as dense, have far better game than their compatriots in bleeding heart liberal Seattle. They have to be, or they wouldn't make any money.
Most women don't know what they want.
That's not "best." You've overlooked the possibility of creating interest.
So you like low hanging fruit. Who doesn't? But it may not be a big deal for someone to stretch their arm higher than yours. They may have a longer arm than you do in some way. You may be efficient at sorting but they may be talented at creating.
This is already a completely fucked up description of a conversation, ignoring every non-verbal and sub-textual modality of communication available to you. What about all those attraction or fear pheromones you're giving off because of your internal state?
It ain't getting blown out, which was the original context. 20 minutes is a huge amount of time for a professional adult to give you out of the blue. If you can't get a phone number in 20 minutes, you fucking suck.

1. Again, these are not RULES. These are my preferred patterns of communication because, in my experience (and the experience of my mentors and students) they lead to far superior results, both in terms of progressing the interaction, but also in terms of the mindset it develops - one of being honest, direct, confident, and not giving a shit what people think of you.

2. Maybe I misstated. In order for a women to ANSWER your qualification question in the first place, she must have some interest in you to begin with. Asking a qualification question is a compliance test. If you ask something like "so tell me 3 qualities about yourself, apart from looks, that make you interesting and unique?" either very early in an interaction, or when the girl is just not that interested in you, she will not answer it properly or at all. If someone came up to me and asked me that out of the blue, it would be FUCKING STRANGE. If a tramp asked me that, again, I would laugh in his fucking face.

3. That generally thrown around phrase "women don't know what they want" firstly is not really that helpful. Women do know what they want, they just often verbalise it differently to men, or can't explain exactly why, but if you do something unattractive, believe me they'll know well enough to avoid you. Weirdness is generally not considered an attractive quality, and whilst it may be for a select number of women, in general it would be a low-reward strategy to present yourself as weird from the very outset. I can't see that this is a particularly controversial position.

4. I don't believe you can create attraction from ZERO. You can INCREASE attraction if you already have some. But if a woman would NEVER fuck you, then no amount of clever witty routines is gonna change that. I would prefer to know if I have ANY before I bother continuing the interaction. Furthermore, the very ACT of "checking" whether she's interested actually has the secondary effect of INCREASING that attraction because of the confident, direct way I do it. So it's completely win-win.

5. Low hanging fruit??? HAHAHAHHA! I've heard that assumption from someone on here before - that only the "easy" girls or "sluts" or ugly girls would ever respond well to a direct approach. It's absolute BOLLOCKS. The girls I've pulled off the street over the past few months have been some of the hottest I've ever been with - girls that, if they were in a club, would be the 9s and 10s and being hit on constantly. I was the ONLY guy ballsy enough to approach them in the street, and because they're so hot my compliment comes across as really GENUINE, which makes them respond incredibly favourably. In fact, I would definitely say the quality of girls I see (not to mention the frequency of my dates) has increased exponentially since I started going direct (and I am not particularly good looking at all).

6. Again, "not being blown out" does not equal "sexual interest from the target." I'm sure I'm not the ONLY guy who's had great interactions with girls who are getting on with me and really enjoying some fun banter, only for them to tell me later they've got a boyfriend, or go off with their friends, or generally be FRIENDLY, but were NEVER interested in actually having sex with me. I don't CARE about being "blown out" or not. For me, it's not rejection AT ALL. It's just filtering.

=> Your whole mindset has, at its core, the fallacy that if you're an incredible PUA with super amazing skills, you can walk up to ANY girl and close with near certainty. I hate to break it to you, but that's simply NOT POSSIBLE. No matter how polite she is, or how much she laughs at your jokes, or even touches you, plays with her hair, or asks you questions, some girls simply WILL NOT FUCK YOU. EVER. I would prefer to be blown out by them within 1 minute, then spend 30 minutes having a fun chat before they tell me they're engaged.

My core mindset is that I am completely honest, direct and unapologetic about my romantic desires. I will make it clear to a women very quickly that I am interested in getting to know her, first as a person, and then romantically and sexually. You don't have to SAY "I want to fuck you" in so many words, but there are plenty of ways of making it clear FIRST. She then has the choice to continue the interaction, or say she's not interested. If she continues it, then I display my awesome personality, and find out about her as a person. This is when all that "attraction building" stuff comes in, where I can get her to invest in me, use qualification, kino (if at night) and all the rest of it, KNOWING that she definitely is at least somewhat attracted to me and that she is interested, at some future point, in having sex. My job at that point is to make sure we actually click on some level, i.e. she gets my humour, we have some common ground, and she's not a fucking weirdo. Then it's a matter of escalating to close in as smooth and efficient way as possible. THAT'S "game."

_________________
SEX Technique Material http://bit.ly/iFdky0

FREE PDF w Openers, Date ideas and Videos on Direct: http://www.sashapua.com

Splinter- what kinds of openers do you find the most success with? I kind of agree with some of you reasoning, and would like you've found to work a little better.

rassta

I meant "low hanging fruit" as far as your tactics, not your targets. You are choosing the methods of approach that you feel are easiest. I am saying, some people may have a knack for exercising their creativity that you write off as "weird."

He didnt write it off, he actually said he's done it before and knows it's place.

He said it doesn't exclude these wierd girls because you can do the wierd stuff AFTER you've demonstrated confidence, which is more important and true for all girls.

And as blondeguy keeps repeating - his advice still stands because it is generally true. The fact that someone can open wih "wierd" every time, doesn't invalidate his advice at all.

Though I'm assuming you aren't speaking from experience, since you spoke in the third person and didn't give examples. To me it seems you're just taking the opposite stance just for argument's sake. Blondeguy isn't having a philosophical debate, he's speaking in practical terms, from experience.

And it seems you used the word "easiest" in a way that suggests "harder" is somehow automatically better - but this is just not a solid argument.