Build Confidence First and Learn the Mating Dance After

Build Confidence First and Learn the Mating Dance After

By Vittorio Norman

Too often, men put "techniques" ahead of building confidence, which results in techniques chosen to preserve the ego rather than a technique chosen because it ensures a greater chance of success. For example, in some cases it is better to get a woman's email because you can tell she won't be very reachable on the phone. So if I personally make a decision like that, it is based on good strategy, whereas some other guys will opt for the email route because they are scared of calling

Another example of good strategy is waiting to approach a woman until she appears most receptive. Shy men would use the she-isn't-receptive clause to avoid approaching altogether, as an excuse. Experienced, confident men, would instead delay approaching until she gives some sort of sign, indicating the best time to approach.

The problem with some good mating dance strategies is that they are often mis-used (and mis-interpreted) by men who are simply shy towards women and want the easy way out. Therefore, it is my strong belief that a guy new to the "game" should initially practice a bold, very forward (Direct) style in his interactions with women. Then once he builds the confidence he can temper the style with a less aggressive (more Indirect) style, which may work better depending on the circumstances.

In the past I have tried an extreme form of Direct (take no prisoners) which upped my confidence and ability to make physical advances at the drop of a hat. I can now WILL IT to happen, whether or not it's wise to do that.

I have taken the Direct approach very far on many dates, such as going for the kiss within the first 30 minutes, and if she dodged me I would playfully say, "you can't avoid my lips forever", and then try again a few minutes later. Or I would caress her leg telling her i'm glad she got the chance to get to know me, etc. I made these physical advances, and persisted with them, even when she appeared not to be quite ready yet, and many times she got into it only because of my charm, but even so, the absolute most I ever got was a makeout, as I was never allowed to go any further. And I rarely got a second date.

Even though these women liked my boldness and flirtateous humor, and were laughing with me a lot of the time, something felt off for sure simply because I didn't give them a chance to do their part in the mating dance.

The level of boldness I demonstrated would have been great to use, but only after she gave me some indicator of interest. This is obvious when I look at the common threads between all my successes and all my failures. The difference between success and failure could be answered by this one question: Was she given a chance to choose me? Was she given the opportunity to let me know that she was ready for me when I made my move?

Women have many subtle ways of letting the man know she is ready for him to make a serious move, such as touching him, complimenting him, looking at him with a sexy gaze, etc.

After trying the hardcore approach on dozens of women, and having limited success overall, I concluded that confidence and boldness is not enough, by themselves, to attract and seduce. You need to also allow the woman to do her part. The woman's part to play in the "mating dance" is her signalling the man to take things to the next level. It is her role in the selection process. Once she gives the "green light", then you can start taking things to the next level, physically. This is an example of good strategy. It is also showing respect for the natural male-female dynamic. You need to respect the process.

Another example of good strategy is meeting women in clubs, using an Indirect approach. If you going in guns-blazing, and go up to the girl you want, ignoring her friends, you will likely be shot down, DESPITE having the confidence to go after what you want. In this case, the best approach would be to approach the group of friends and get to know them first, before shifting focus to the girl you want, and only after it becomes clear that SHE would like to know YOU better. It is not a question of choosing the latter because you are fearful of rejection, but because it is better strategy, like a better "chess" position to play. You'll be thinking to yourself, "Yeah...I could go up to that girl and tell her I like her, but it's smarter to structure the interaction so that she has to chase me a bit." Someone who is fearful of women would be thinking to himself, "It is better for my ego if I don't go after the girl directly, and just focus on talking to the friends instead". The mindset behind this is bad and will pollute your "vibe", making you look insecure, and get you shot down just the same. This is why you need the confidence first. Your decision making has to be based on the externals in front of you, not the internals holding you back.

Now here's the counter-argument: Women know you want to sleep with them so may as well be direct about it, she will appreciate it more. This is a bad mindset and has screwed me up many times in the past. It is a bad mindset because, as I said, it neglects the role the female has to play in the mating dance. Sure, she will suspect that you want to sleep with her, but instinctively she wants you to play your cards so that you don't fully act on that desire until she gives you the readiness signals. This is the power and philosophy behind using more Indirect methods.

Before she gives you the readiness signals it's perfectly fine to flirt, act confidently, be masculine, etc. It's even okay to touch her a bit beforehand, encouraged even, but don't go for the serious advances until she gives you the signals. And if you're still at the stage where you are developing your confidence, then feel free to push the envelope the same way I did, just don't be crude about it, and recognize when "no" really means no.

Vittorio Norman is the webmaster of NLP Based Flirting and Seduction http://www.nlpbasedseduction.com/

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Vittorio_Norman