I'm on the verge of being able to really articulate what I'm trying to say here, but it's not quite right, so bare with me as I dump some thoughts I've been having specifically about hitting on girls.
Mystery created some really good stuff, but he also really fucked a lot of people (myself included) up with the idea of being indirect. And to be clear I don't think he did it intentionally, or even that being indirect NEVER works. The reason the whole indirect thing fucked people up was that people equated being indirect with OPENING with an indirect opener.
In my experience there is a big difference in the grey area between starting a conversation with an indirect comment or opener and actively going out of your way to NOT show any interest in the girl. And don't even get me started on negging and "active disinterest".
So the first point here is that Opening direct and demonstrating direct interest are not the same thing. You can start a conversation indirectly with anything and then at ANY time demonstrate some direct interest in the woman. For the sake of me not losing my mind typing, we're gonna call any sort of direct interest shown in a woman "hitting" on her.
So you Can and SHOULD hit on every woman you approach. Notice how there is a difference between approaching a woman and hitting on her. A lot of guys out there approach women, very few actually hit on them. Even when they are doing direct openers.
Some thoughts on direct openers:
I like direct openers especially during the day time. I think that if you know how to flirt they are a great way to start a conversation especially if it's a particularly awkward situation like she's walking down the street fast or she's at a table in the corner of a restaurant. I don't however think that direct approach is the be all and end all to approaching. It is a tool, there are times it's the best choice in the situation and there are other times where it will get you immediately disqualified. The real problem between direct and indirect openers is that students tend to get really attached to one kind of opener to the detriment of the other. There is a time and place for both kinds of openers. Though in my experience direct is more efficient because girls are either interested or not almost immediately. The main guy who can benefit from a steady diet of direct approach is a guy who has made himself a 7 who can handle rejection(for real not just in his head) and doesn't want to spend a whole lot of time talking to women who aren't interested in him.
So back to hitting on girls:
The real game is the game of getting a woman to allow you to hit on her. You can talk and be interesting all day long, but if she won't let you hit on her, you're going NOWHERE.
When I say she won't let you hit on her, what I mean is this; as a conversation evolves you're going to need to express increasing levels of interest in her. This might start by saying she has a cute smile and escalate into telling her she's really turning you on, etc... Subtext is majorly overrated. You need to tell the girl you want her/ are attracted to her in order to actually get laid. But more than that you need her to accept those expressions of interest, rather than deflect or ignore them.
Because with all of our game and tactics and techniques, the woman still makes the final decision on whether or not she's interested.
In the past I've had women deflect hitting on them by saying "not on the first night" or " You can't hit on me I have a bf" and yes some of these obstacles can be overcome but really they're a good thing. If a women is not going to let you hit on her, she's not going to have sex with you. When girls deflect or ignore (as opposed to challenge which I'll address in a second) direct interest they're not worth the trouble. Sure you could try to stay in there and turn it around but if you're honest with yourself you'll know that you don't turn sets around that often (don't worry none of the gurus do either).
Now the other option is that a woman will challenge your direct interest with a tease or sarcastic comment. This is actually a good thing. Back in the day we thought women were testing us was a bad thing. Guys thought you should be sooo fucking good with women that you should just breeze through every set with complete control and awesomeness. Turns out that's not how the process works and this back and forth testing process is actually more like verbal foreplay. When a woman verbally spars with you she's testing to see if you can handle her. The implications being if you can handle her in conversation you can handle her in the bedroom. Now there are many ways to pass these tests outside of the holy couple of ignoring or agreeing and exaggerating. I've seen guys stare tests down, get crazy with the chick, tickle them etc.. The point is you have to show the girl who is boss and in some weird way that's what she subconsciously wants, when she responds to you hitting on her with a challenge.
So I gotta wrap this up to move on to other work but the main points I wanted to make were to separate direct interest from direct openers, point out that approaching a woman and hitting on her were different things and show you the 3 responses to hitting on a girl: acceptance, ignorance or deflection and challenging.
I'll have more on this as it gets more clear but using this stuff I've pulled 3 Same DAY lays in the last few weeks ( I also moved 3 blocks from a mall which helps).
More to come.
JS- The King Of Content