MikeMehlman.net

Main blog - https://mikemehlman.net/

Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/mikemehlman

Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/mike_mehlman/

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/mikemehlman.net

In this video and article I talk about how to pick up high volume of contact acquisitions through daygame approach. I've discussed this topic at length before, but this piece brings concise and renewed awareness to guys who are looking to increase the number of contacts they pick up.  The first point is to approach in a venue that enables high-volume approach. I find intra-city bustling stations are the number-one way to accomplish this. It is simply the case that the greater # of interactions/collisions with females per unit time, the greater number of approaches the male can make, and therefore the greater number of contacts he can pick up.  Most guys will say, "Yeah but I don't live in a high-volume area like that." And my response is: the same way it's the responsibility of the male to take the initiative to approach, period, it's also the responsibility of the male to move to an area that is conducive to high-volume approach. So plan to eventually make a move to a big city. If you cannot do that for a while, figure out which areas around your community are most populated (e.g., malls, etc.).  Rejection will be the overwhelming majority of cold approaches no matter what. So the male should expect to make, on average, between 3-7 approaches for every contact he picks up. Some days he will seemingly get all rejections. Other days he will be seemingly rapid-fire picking up contacts left and right. But nevertheless numbers balance out and, overall, simply putting oneself in an intra-city, intra-station venue enables the highest probability of high-volume contact acquisition.  Once the male establishes an appropriate venue, the irony regarding the pickup of high-volume contacts is that the male must focus on exactly *not* doing that. I preach that process-, not outcome-, orientation is important in keeping the male's mindset clean/free from behavioral regulation and contrivance, which in turn only serve to make the male less attractive in his interactions. The male must be as deregulated as possible in his interactions (i.e., completely winging them) and must engage women for short, not rambling, convos.  The male's ultimate aim should be that his convos evolve to be hyper-short and deregulated. Guys tend to feel uncomfortable and regulated making short, forward convos initially (i.e., they want to stand there talking for 5-10 minutes), but recognize that insofar as you pick up the girl's contact, the trajectory of the interaction is a toss-up regardless.  In other words, whether you pull her contact within 30 seconds or 8 minutes, the chance of her flaking vs eventually agreeing to a date isn't affected either way. Girls will always flake in perpetuity. Her willingness to accept a date in some form is almost always state-dependent, not based on the arbitrary degree of connection you felt you established with her during the cold approach. So let that give you comfort in knowing that your initial convo can feel super-abrupt/rushed, yet she's still just as likely to flake or accept a date anyway.  If you want to pick up lots of contacts, the focus of your approach days must be high-volume rejection. Your aim at the start of an approach day should *not* be, "I'm going to pick up x number of contacts today." It needs to be, "I'm going to take a high number of rejections today." This is the starting point for...

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/

Main blog - https://mikemehlman.net/

Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/mikemehlman

Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/mike_mehlman/

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/mikemehlman.net

This topic is going to be met with probably a high degree of pushback and criticism by many guys. There will be plenty of guys who disagree with me here. "Michael you're wrong." Or (my favorite) "Mike, I read your last post. I agree with 80-90% of what you said." My response: "Meaning 10-20% of you is a cuck." And that's okay. We don't have to agree on everything.  When we consider ghosting, where the girl ignores our message, this can obviously refer to pre- or post-hookup. This discussion is more in relation to post-hookup, because we already know that most girls will ignore pre-hookup anyway (i.e., no matter what you say or do, most girls will not respond to your initial text, or will fade after a few texts).  So let's say you've hooked up with a girl. She was "super-affectionate," seemed "really into you," and even texted you afterward saying thank you and that she's looking forward to next time. Then she goes on to ignore your messages. What's that about? What happened?  My contention: That's not weird. That's normal female behavior. Frequently getting ghosting, regardless of who the male is, is predictable and expected. It's not a repudiation of you. This is just how females work much of the time.  You see, it takes many many years and many dating data points to start to feel this out. We as guys always want to draw our conclusions about things:  "There *must* be a reason she wasn't interested. We had amazing chemistry, so it *must* be because I'm not good-looking enough. That *must* be the case. Because we got along so well. If I were Brad Pitt, obviously she wouldn't ghost. So it *must* be my looks. No other conclusion can be made." Etc. We always want to draw conclusions. We always want to establish the reason she wasn't interested. And the overwhelming majority of the time, guys will assume it comes down to either looks or bedroom performance.  I can start off by saying that I take more rejections and get flaked and ghosted on more than anyone else out there. And with that I've started to be able to see that ghosting is just normal female behavior, as is the rejection on the cold approach, as is her unwillingness to come back on the date much of the time.  This is about understanding what's normal and predictable. The same exact way on the cold approach we know rejection is going to be the outcome the overwhelming majority of the time - it doesn't matter who we are, what we say, or what we do - most girls will reject/deflect no matter what - well most girls will decline to come back on the date, even if you are maximally forward, *as will most girls ghost after you've hooked up with them.*  In other words, I'm making the assertion that even if an occasional girl doesn't want to see you again because you didn't go down on her for 29 minutes in the bedroom and make her come twice, or because she only wants to settle with a guy who's at least 6'5" and a CEO, the overwhelming majority of girls actually don't function this way. You need to escape these movie-esque notions that only cause you to get down about yourself.  It's reasonable for us to think as guys that if a girl ghosts post-hookup, that it likely means that despite crossing a threshold where she was willing to hook up, we didn't cross this higher, arbitrary threshold where she was willing to take us on as a boyfriend. We might think that's the case because *we think that way in terms of how we date girls,* but women don't think like we do.

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/

Main blog - https://mikemehlman.net/

Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/mikemehlman

Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/mike_mehlman/

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/mikemehlman.net

Incessancy is an understatement when referring to the number of times the past year guys have been asking me to write a bedroom game article.  I talk about in this video some of the basic things I see as important when I take a girl back to my place. I've made other videos and articles on how to pull from a date, but this piece focuses exclusively on what to do once you actually get her back to your place.  The first important point is: Do not service her in any way.  Do not ask if she wants some water. Do not ask if you can get her some wine.  This behavior on the male's end is catering and beta and will only function to increase the chance she shuts herself off. Some guys might think this sounds excessive. It's not. You need to be focused on just moving quickly to hook up. It's not about making her comfortable. Don't worry about her comfort level.  The second important point is: The more time you spend at your place, the less likely you are to actually hook up.  Do not spend time talking and getting comfortable. The same exact way your date should be as short as possible (i.e., 10-30 minutes tops), once she's at your place, do not dither where you are entering deep convo mode over wine. You literally want to walk through the door and just get some sort of movie ready.  I walk into my place with the girl. During the first 60 seconds, I shut the curtains, dim the lights slightly, turn on my lava lamp, and open my laptop and find a movie. While I'm doing this, I tell her to find her name on the Kanji poster on my wall (almost all of the girls I bring back are Japanese).  Then I walk over to my bathroom and quickly wash my hands. Part of the reason I do this is because it allows me to smoothly shut off the light by the door at the same time I turn the bathroom light off. I will also lock the door at this time (if she hadn't already done that when she followed me in).  I then just start the movie and sit down on my bed. I'll tell her she can sit. If she sits more than 1-2 feet away, within 5-10 seconds I'll put my arm around her and tell her she can sit closer. She will usually move next to me at this point. I then dim the lights fully and within 30 seconds go for the kiss. If the girl is not putting up any resistance, then it's obviously just clear-sailing from there. However the value I can communicate is when the girl is putting up varying degrees of resistance.  If she doesn't kiss, don't try to kiss her a second time. I'd say at least one-half to two-thirds of the girls I hook up with at my place refuse the kiss. It's been to my subjective understanding over many years that going for the kiss repeatedly when she refuses the first time risks genuinely putting her off. Many girls will be willing to hook up; they just don't want to kiss.

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/

Main blog - https://mikemehlman.net/

Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/mikemehlman

Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/mike_mehlman/

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/mikemehlman.net

If you go out to the city to approach and have 2-3 hours to kill, it's a big big rookie error to take a girl's contact instead of trying to insta-date her.  When you go on a date with a girl, the amount of time that has transpired since you met her, whether that's 30 minutes or two weeks, is irrelevant in terms of the probability of her ultimately coming back with you. This is a hugely valuable piece of information because guys will think there's no way a girl is just as likely to come back with you if she just met you.  "Mike, the odds must be slightly lower. Like probably at least a little bit." No, they're not.   All that matters is that you are on the date. It doesn't matter that you just met her. And then you go for the pull exactly as you would any other date. The chance of her coming back is the same. This has been my experience in the macro.  So then why am I preaching that it's a huge rookie error to take her contact as opposed to insta-dating her?  Because you're very likely never going to see her again after you exchange contacts.  If she declines the insta-date, yes, exchange contacts. But don't just default into automatically making the contact acquisition your strict focus. You need to push for insta-dates as a core aspect of cold approach.  When she's standing in front of you after you've opened her, that's likely going to be the last time you're ever going to see her. She likely won't respond.  The same exact way most girls on the cold approach will reject - that's not weird; we know that's normal; we expect that - the same is true with texting: most girls just won't respond or will ultimately not meet up. It's not a repudiation of you; it's just how the fractional dynamics of dating work.   You have to think about what you're trying to accomplish when you take a girl's contact. What are you expecting to happen. You're going to text her in, e.g., a day, or one week, or two weeks, with "Hey." Then you hope she responds. Then you ask if she likes coffee or tapioca. Then she has to respond again. Then you ask when she's free or propose a day that works for you. Then she has to agree to it. The point being: the texting process generates friction, and most girls will inevitably not reply.  So let's say you actually do get the girl out again. You managed to get through the texting friction. The two of you are now face-to-face in the city / station, ready to go to a cafe. But isn't that the same exact situation you were in when you first met? Literally nothing has changed: you're both just standing in front of each other again.  When you meet an 18-year-old who's your type, good luck getting her out again if you exchange with her. By all means, yes, various girls will meet up with you just out of probability, but just be aware that if she's not up to anything in particular and you don't try to insta-date her on the spot, that's a big big rookie error. Because if she agrees to go to a cafe with you, the chance of getting her back is the same as any other date. Once again, *all that matters is that she's on the date,* not the duration of time that has transpired since you first met.

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/

Main blog - https://mikemehlman.net/

Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/mikemehlman

Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/mike_mehlman/

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/mikemehlman.net

The ideal date is no more than 30 minutes in length and takes place at a cafe or tapioca place. The shorter the date is, the more likely you are to get her back.  If she proposes dinner and drinks, counter by saying a cafe is good. The former is more expensive and time-consuming. The notion that a nighttime-vibe-type date will increase your chances is false in my opinion and experience. I know some guys vehemently disagree with this point, and that's okay, but dinner and drinks DO NOT increase your chances over just a simple cafe date. That's a valuable initial point for me to make.  Meet her in the station and walk to a cafe nearby. Make small talk for 10-20 minutes before going for the pull.  This might sound incredibly short for most guys. I understand and can empathize with that. My dates have evolved substantially over the past couple of years, where even myself two years ago would view my current perspectives as unrelatable. As your non-neediness, confidence, and experience levels grow, your dates will naturally become shorter and shorter. This is because you see that shorter dates are *better,* not worse.  The girl will come into the date where she's either down to hook up or she's not, and it's on the male to lose the hookup by not being forward enough. Insofar as the male is sufficiently forward, it doesn't matter who he is. He's interchangeable and meaningless, and the girl will go back with any male who's sufficiently forward. That will be her state going into the date.  If that sounds weird, recognize that the girl in front of you is interchangeable as well. You'd go back with pretty much any girl who's cute enough. Doesn't really matter who she is. Well it's the same with her in terms of the forward guy she's with. It's not about what he looks like; it's about how *forward* he is. She doesn't have to like you. She doesn't have to be interested. But if you're forward to get her back and she's in the hookup state, she'll take your lead. Once again, it's not about male looks.  If you're sufficiently forward and she comes back and hooks up, the male can't get high on his own supply because it's not the case that the girl even necessarily likes him; it's just the case that he was sufficiently forward. But this is good news, because if she rejects / doesn't want to come back (assuming the male is maximally forward), this is not a repudiation of him; she just wasn't in the state to hook up.  When you go on the actual date, it's not about what you say. Talk about whatever you want - school, work, hobbies, siblings, travel - anything you want. Be non-smooth. What you talk about doesn't matter. What matters is that you are 100% winging your conversation (i.e., being deregulated) and are forward.  After 10-20 minutes, even if you're having good conversation with her and could extend, make your movie transition. Some guys will say their deregulation is to build connection and have longer dates. My response to that is: deregulation is not a permission slip for being non-forward. The aim is to carry a baseline of forwardness with deregulation superimposed onto it.

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/

Main blog - https://mikemehlman.net/

Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/mikemehlman

Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/mike_mehlman/

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/mikemehlman.net

One of the questions guys ask me is about what becoming more confident feels like. What should they expect to see changing for themselves? What's going to be different if they just trust what I've been preaching about high approach volume and put in the work to meet lots of girls and absorb incessant rejection.  We all want to look forward to a positive dating future. Sure, Michael says just go out, put in the work to approach, take incessant rejection, and then after many months and years, good things will happen. But why trust that. Why have faith that being patient will pay off. Can you at least tell me some things to expect as time goes on?  I think one of the most important points to drill down is that the same way rejection is a prerequisite for positive outcome (i.e., you're guaranteed to get rejected 14 times in a row while cold approaching before the 15th girl exchanges with you), fucking up a lot with girls and missing out on easy sexual opportunities over the course of many years is a prerequisite for ultimately becoming a deadly agent with how effectual you are on the approach and pull.  In other words, the realization of how fucking up is inherent to the dating process is something that manifests as time goes on. The more confident the male is, the more he's able to contrast with his pre- and early-approach life and see how things have changed drastically. He basically just views his "earlier life" as incessant fucking up. It's painful to think about, but many of his inconvenient memories help continue driving him forward.  The male's concept of what fucking up entails will continue to evolve as macro approach volume grows. In the beginning, fucking up simply means you didn't make a move while the girl was at your place. Then fucking up can evolve to mean you just didn't go for the pull while out on the date. Then it will eventually become that you didn't try to insta-date / insta-pull her directly from the station after 30 seconds when she said she wasn't really up to anything, and yet you could have "squeezed her in" before your date in an hour ("I should have just gone for it. Who cares if I have a date in an hour."). Once again, your concept of what fucking up means will continue to shift as you become more experienced.  Essentially the only reason I'm in a position where I can preach about dating and approach as though I'm so knowledgeable is because I had to fuck up and lose out on countless opportunities in my past.  The leverage I have to be able to preach about how to be better with approach and dating is only derived from the inordinate number of mistakes I made over the course of many years.  The other thing is: the male will tend to always think he's pretty good at every step of the way, especially when he's confident, even though with each passing year he'll look back and say, "Wow, I was incredibly amateur."  So why does recognizing that fucking up is normal actually matter? How does this relate to growth in confidence and real-life changes?

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/

Main blog - https://mikemehlman.net/

Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/mikemehlman

Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/mike_mehlman/

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/mikemehlman.net

I've talked about how the male is his most attractive when he is fully deregulated (i.e., 100% winging his approaches).  However an observation I've made after having started to preach deregulation is the propensity for guys to use it as an excuse for being non-forward and not putting in work.  In other words, guys will frequently say things like, "Well I spent 90 minutes at dinner with her and didn't go for the pull, but that's my deregulation. I think it's okay to not burn the bridge."  The implication is: the guy is uncalibrated and non-forward, but he proclaims that's okay because he's just being himself, and, as Mike has preached, the male should just be himself by deregulating.  It's really important that I reiterate deregulation is not a permission slip for non-forwardness on the approach and while out on dates.  I've said before that, yes, I would rather have you 100% deregulate and be inefficient in your interactions than to force unnatural behavior, but I want you to take on the mindset that *pushing yourself to be more forward in your interactions while simultaneously deregulating is not synonymous with regulation.*  That is to say, just because you feel uncomfortable being forward doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for forwardness.  I'm not telling you to artificially modify your behavior. I'm telling you to 100% wing your approaches and be you. I'm just saying *be forward while winging your approaches.*  You want to improve your sexual outcomes. I know. And you're asking me how you can improve your conversion rates. Well I'm telling you.  Guys would rather pay thousands of dollars to PUAs who will lie to them about how rejection is avoidable and how implementing various tactics will help. People are always looking for shortcuts - always looking for soundbites that corroborate their laziness.  *Be glad* that I'm not recommending needy tactics and schemes to you. I'm literally saying: if you want more sexual outcomes, you need to:  1) Approach a high number of girls and accept that rejection will be the inevitable outcome the overwhelming majority of the time. It will never go away no matter who you are, what you say, or what you do.  2) 100% wing your approaches. Don't implement needy tactics (e.g., kino). Be okay with being non-smooth. Remember that it's not about what you say. Your mere behavior when you completely wing the interaction *is* how you come off as your most attractive.  3) Push the interaction along and don't waste time. Recognize that your perception of burning the bridge is all in your head and one of the biggest mistakes guys make. Your impression of the interaction is untethered to the ultimate trajectory. Shorter conversations are a natural manifestation of male non-neediness. Go for the insta-date followed by pull within 20 minutes at a cafe. If you're meeting up with a girl at a later time for a date, recognize that you are more likely to get her back the shorter the date is; go for the pull within 20-30 minutes tops while at a cafe.  Guys like to frame my emphasis on the normalcy of rejection as somehow reflective of my non-desire to have sexual outcomes. "Michael, I know you preach how rejection is the source of male confidence, but some of us guys just want to get laid. Why can't you just admit that wanting to get laid is okay?"  That's always a good one. Once again, this converges back on male excuse-making. 

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/

Main blog - https://mikemehlman.net/

Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/mikemehlman

Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/mike_mehlman/

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/mikemehlman.net

My views have heavily evolved since I wrote The Direct Approach article back in 2017. In that article, I talked about how if you say hi to a girl and she's moving away, terminate the conversation immediately. I really emphasized the point that the male should be non-needy in his interactions and not fight through with girls who seem unreceptive.  After all, isn't that needy to push back and attempt to fight through with girls who appear to be uninterested?  I even went on to include this article as one of the chapters in the book, The Forward Male, which I published in the spring of 2019. It wasn't soon after however that I became aware of my evolving perspectives, with the concept of how pushy the male should be on the cold approach as one of the most paramount.  I now see it as amateur to not push hard with girls on the cold approach. Because many of these girls who *seem unreceptive actually aren't.* That's what it comes down to.  If the girl is truly unreceptive (i.e., outright ignoring you), then yes, peel away and approach others. But if the girl throws up her hand at you, acts like you're creepy, tells you she's in a rush, or moves/accelerates away when you say hi, plenty of these girls will in reality go on to exchange with you if you are just a bit pertinacious.  I call this behavior-state untethering. And I wrote a recent article on it. That is, you can't judge a book by its cover, where the male is prone to misinterpret the girl's receptivity based on what he observes on the surface.  Just because a girl seems receptive doesn't mean she is; likewise, just because a girl seems unreceptive doesn't mean she is either.  As I've mentioned before, you can say hi to a girl where she's twirling her hair and blushing, and she tells you your approach was rare and that you're handsome, yet she refuses the contact exchange. Or she'll exchange and then ignore your texts. Guys will encounter this scenario occasionally and act surprised by it even though it's predictable: it's called behavior-state untethering. Was she receptive? No. It's her *actions* that matter; not your impression of the situation.  Well the opposite scenario on the cold approach is also frequent: the girl seems disinterested at best, or she tells you she can't talk because she's rushing, or she throws up her hand and jumps back a few feet when you first say hi; you non-react and pretend like nothing happened, and continue to engage her with short convo. She then goes on to exchange with you. You're like, "Wow, I can't believe that girl just exchanged." But then this will happen repeatedly until you just see it as standard and predictable: how the girl appears on the surface often has no relation to her underlying receptivity state.  Behavior-state untethering is the basis for why I'm hyper-pushy on my approaches now. Probably most of the girls I exchange with don't seem overtly receptive. I see that as normal. I don't expect them to be enthusiastic. I don't expect them to be warm and engaging. I see apprehension and resistance as normal female behavior.  Biologically, the male is to be pushy, and the female resists but acquiesces. That's how mating dynamics work...

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/

Main blog - https://mikemehlman.net/

Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/mikemehlman

Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/mike_mehlman/

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/mikemehlman.net

I took a look at the comments on the last YouTube video and one seemed to get a little attention, which was asking about why some guys might have higher conversion rates compared to other guys. In other words, "Why am I going 1 for 15 on my approaches whereas another guy goes 3 for 15?"  This converges back on my talking point in that video about guys fixating on what they're "doing wrong" in their approaches.  The worst thing you can do is compare yourself to other guys as though what they're doing somehow relates to you in any way.  If you approach enough, you'll see that variation in micro (daily) conversion rates is normal, where you can go, e.g., 2 for 40 on a Tuesday, whereas the very next day you could go 7 for 25.  Never worry about your exact numbers on a given day. Fluctuation is normal. You need many data points to see that.  There was a day a few months back I had posted about to the WhatsApp group where I went I believe 0 for 70 or 80, before finally breaking through that day. Yet again, I also had a day this year where as part of an acquisition cluster I picked up ~12/16. These things balance out over the macro.  I've also discussed before how the more audacious and experienced the male is, the *lower,* not higher, his percentages. This is because if the male is adequately forward and bold, the more, not less, likely he is to get rejected.  If you say hi to a girl shopping with her mom, or while she's walking through an alleyway at 8pm, you're more likely to get rejected by default vs if you're only saying hi to girls on a sunny street in the afternoon. So a guy who takes rejections from being bold of course will have lower conversion rates.  One of the easy ways to gauge a male's experience level is by his view on "high conversion rates." If he views high conversion as a good thing, it says he doesn't approach enough, because the more the male approaches, the bolder he becomes, and the more he gets rejected and sees it as the most likely outcome from any approach.  However let's say we "hold boldness constant," where you take two guys of very different experience levels and have them approach only girls walking through a busy station. Will their conversion rates be different?  Well firstly, and as I just said above, you can never analyze micro conversion rates because approach is just a numbers game and one can have low conversions on one day but high the next day. So the exact numbers can't be analyzed from a single day alone.  But let's say we compare two guys over the course of an entire month, where they both theoretically approach in the same exact venue, with "boldness held constant"; the guy with higher macro approach volume, who is more audacious and forward, will certainly have higher conversion rates.   Why? Because he will be much more likely to push through interactions where the girl doesn't seem receptive, only for her to exchange anyway. The more novice male will think that receptive girls must be smiley and enthusiastic, without realizing that he's ejecting himself prematurely from many interactions because he erroneously believes a girl's receptiveness can be gauged by how she appears on the surface.

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/

Main blog - https://mikemehlman.net/

Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/mikemehlman

Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/mike_mehlman/

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/mikemehlman.net

One of the questions I hate seeing/hearing the most from guys is, "What am I doing wrong?"  "Mike, my percentages are low. I've been approaching a lot, but you can't tell me it's normal to literally be getting 1 contact for every 40 approaches, or to still not have hooked up with a girl after x number of approaches. What am I doing wrong?"  The reason asking what you're doing wrong is a dangerous line of thinking is because it opens you up to behavioral contrivance/regulation.  If your belief is that you're doing something wrong, then the natural logical branch point is to assume that you could improve your behavior somehow in order to minimize rejection.  The male is his most attractive the more deregulated he is (i.e., when he is 100% winging his approaches). It's not about what you say. That's a really important point to reinforce. You can say pretty much anything in a conversation and get rejected/accepted. It's not your words that matter; it's your *behavior* that does.  You need to go into your interactions being confident that you can be incredibly non-smooth / disjointed with your conversations and still get the positive outcomes you're looking for.  Because once again, it's not about what you say. As long as you walk up, introduce yourself, tell her she's attractive, and then 100% wing it, you *are* your most attractive. There's nothing else you need to do.  "But Mike, there's got to be some component that I could improve upon?"  Sure. It's called forwardness and conversational brevity.  I've described this as deregulation on a baseline of forwardness. That is, you're always forward in your interactions while simultaneously winging them.

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/