# How to send the "approach me" signal?



## baby blue me (May 9, 2014)

The question goes for all genders and sexes. That being said, pls specify your gender/sexuality.

I asked the question because I don't seem to send the right signals when I'm interested to get to know someone.

When people look at me, seemingly interested, I...
a. Look away because I'm not attracted to them/I'm busy/I just don't care about the surroundings.
b. Stare for sometime, maybe 1-3 seconds longer than usual, then look past them/look away. I may utilize various directions (e.g. behind them, leftward, or rightward). I stare for sometime when I find the person attractive.
c. Look past them. I do this and it may mean that I am interested/uninterested or attracted/unattracted. 

If you like to read something more specific, 



baby blue me said:


> I would see him staring at me, multiple times. I respond with my poker face and trying to look at it objectively (if I may say), I would look rather uninterested. There was a time when he sat on my 11:00. My peripheral vision says that he was looking at me. I didn't have the courage to even check if he was indeed looking at me. I made a thread in PerC whilst I enjoy his so near but yet so far presence. I figured out I needed to look at him and smile but then I couldn't do it, At the back of my mind, I didn't want to go out of my comfort zone. If I smile at him, what if he looks away. If I smiled at him and he smiled back, what's next? There were a lot of possibilities and I got overwhelmed. So I stayed on my comfort zone and never looked at him. I'm let wondering up to now as to what could've happened if I took the courage to just look at him. It was as easy as turning my head a bit in the left or just my eyes looking leftward but at that time, it was the hardest things I could do. WHY, I would ask myself.
> 
> I no longer see him as much. It seems his lunch time has changed. He no longer stares at me too whenever our paths would cross. I couldn't blame him, don't think I can do anything about this so I move on silently.
> 
> This is a cycle.


-Taken from http://personalitycafe.com/sex-relationships/569106-relationship-venting-thread-8.html


What advise/s do you have?


----------



## Cotillion (Mar 26, 2013)

what if i told you... girls are allowed to make the first move


----------



## aef8234 (Feb 18, 2012)

You can do the eye flirty thing, can't really explain it. But honestly, it's more the initiator's call than yours.


Cotillion said:


> what if i told you... girls are allowed to make the first move


Not really the point.


----------



## Force Majeure (Apr 15, 2015)

I don't know about approach me signals or such.
I just go talk to a person I find interesting.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

I am a pansexual (sexual attraction to all genders) transgender woman. I don't advocate sending subtle signals to get someone to approach you because it feeds into a patriarchal idea that women shouldn't have sexual agency... 

Plus, your signals are too weak and easily misinterpretable. If you make a signal, you want something that leaves an impression. At the very least, a wink in their direction coupled with a big, goofy smile.

Plus, have you gotten to even know the guy you're talking about? He seems like some guy who shared a class with you or something, but who you've never even asked "You seem like a cool guy. What's your name? My name's baby blue me, it's lovely to meet you."

Number 2 is the only real signal, and that is one that could be easily misinterpreted. Staring? You could be staring at a zit on my face, or checking to see if I look like someone you know.

What I'm getting is that you're afraid of your own sexuality, and how people will react to it. You don't want to send any strong signals at all because you know that anything that makes it clear to him that you like him at all opens you up to the fact that he may not like you.

I also think you're afraid of coming off as a slut, so you stand on the sidelines of sexuality. From your previous posts, I get a strong impression that you are an intensely sexual person, and are afraid of that coming out. 

I don't like to send signals to get someone to approach me. I like to flirt with someone I like because it is fun. If they shut me down, I don't like to bother them. But even if someone isn't going to be in a relationship with you or have sex with you, it's still fun to flirt since it makes you feel attractive.

I'm a big believer of "If there's an opportunity that you could be having a relationship with someone, you should jump on it."


----------



## Cotillion (Mar 26, 2013)

aef8234 said:


> You can do the eye flirty thing, can't really explain it. But honestly, it's more the initiator's call than yours.
> 
> Not really the point.


sorry for not encouraging a childish behaviour

i categorically ignore any hint
the harder they try, the colder i get

if they enjoy so much being a coward, who am i to interrupt their fun


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

Sara Torailles said:


> I am a pansexual (sexual attraction to all genders)
> 
> i am not trolling
> my question is a serious one
> ...


----------



## aef8234 (Feb 18, 2012)

Cotillion said:


> sorry for not encouraging a childish behaviour
> 
> i categorically ignore any hint
> the harder they try, the colder i get
> ...


She asked a question, answering it would probably be better than venting out your own frustrations.


Vinniebob said:


> how is this different from a bi sexual


Bi implies guy/girl
Pan is every gender.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Vinniebob said:


> Sara Torailles said:
> 
> 
> > I am a pansexual (sexual attraction to all genders)
> ...


Bisexual's a muddy term with regards to openness to having intimate relations with trans people and respecting the gender identity of non-binary individuals. There are bisexual people who say that they would never be attracted to a transgender person (I'm doubtful of that, though, since a lot of transgender women on years of hormones and with SRS can resemble cis women to the point that no one can tell the difference), or that don't like to use proper pronouns to refer to someone's gender identity (which is stupid).

Pansexual is very clear with regards to that.


----------



## baby blue me (May 9, 2014)

Cotillion said:


> sorry for not encouraging a childish behaviour
> 
> i categorically ignore any hint
> the harder they try, the colder i get
> ...


It's beneficial to me that you mentioned this. Hearing this from a guy is challenging. It helps me overcome my inhibitions. I actually have an idea as to what I need to do bec I've been trying to learn about attraction. I just couldn't live the lessons yet. 

How does a good "approach me" signal look to you? It may have come from a movie or a real life experience that you've had. By the "approach me" signal it may be intentional or uninetentional. As long as your attention was caught and you approached the person you were attracted to bec of that gesture/act then that's what I meant.


----------



## baby blue me (May 9, 2014)

Sara Torailles said:


> I am a pansexual (sexual attraction to all genders) transgender woman. I don't advocate sending subtle signals to get someone to approach you because it feeds into a patriarchal idea that women shouldn't have sexual agency...
> 
> Plus, your signals are too weak and easily misinterpretable. If you make a signal, you want something that leaves an impression. At the very least, a wink in their direction coupled with a big, goofy smile.
> 
> ...


It's good to see you again. You now have a longer name from before.  Thank you for being a silent observer (I think you were).

I agree, my signals are weak and easy to misinterpret. More than being afraid not to be liked, I am afraid of being vulnerable. I haven't made peace with the idea of being dependent to somebody for many beautiful reasons like companionship and intimacy for the very least. I'm currently trying to resolve the issues that hinders me from living my life fully. Thus, this thread and thank you for replying.

In my mind, I've created scenes of how I can appropriatrly approach him. We're workmates. The moment I realized that I should be approaching him, I never saw him alone anymore. Since I may not be able to get to know him, I now know better and this shall benefit future encounters.


----------



## baby blue me (May 9, 2014)

Force Majeure said:


> I don't know about approach me signals or such.
> I just go talk to a person I find interesting.


I think this is doable for me. How do you usually start the conversations?


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

Holy shit. No wonder so many women are unsatisfied and/or single. You're only electing to take what's offered to you. If you see something you like, get up, walk over, and take it. Tell that hawt thang exactly what's on your mind. It doesn't need to be dirty, just simple, straightforward, and honest.

Some of the best guys might over-analyze you, and not approach, just like you do to them. Many dudes suck at confidence. He can only reject you. In other words, there's nothing to lose!


----------



## sogood (Aug 24, 2014)

Eye flirty thing:

idk for guys but I think everyone picks up a slightly diff style. For me, slightly smile and slightly sustained eye contact. You can glance down and back up through lashes. Seems to kill them.


----------



## Cotillion (Mar 26, 2013)

baby blue me said:


> It's beneficial to me that you mentioned this. Hearing this from a guy is challenging. It helps me overcome my inhibitions. I actually have an idea as to what I need to do bec I've been trying to learn about attraction. I just couldn't live the lessons yet.
> 
> How does a good "approach me" signal look to you? It may have come from a movie or a real life experience that you've had. By the "approach me" signal it may be intentional or uninetentional. As long as your attention was caught and you approached the person you were attracted to bec of that gesture/act then that's what I meant.


i don't think it exists
i turn down any signal indiscriminately
i don't know what you mean by unintentional
if it is something like "looking down while blushing" when i look at them, that doesn't work either

i have a keen eye for subtle signals
any attempt to manipulate me into doing anything will result in failure and will only piss me off
in special cases, when i'm feeling particularly sadistic, i go in mirror mode and give them a taste of their own medicine
if they think that manipulation is all they need to get what they want, i let them see what happens when one of their betters chooses to resort to manipulation

the only way to make me do anything is to ask me directly






my duals don't have any problem with that


----------



## Tezcatlipoca (Jun 6, 2014)

As always google has the answer to all of life's questions. 

I simply typed in "flirtatious woman" switched to images and this is what came up


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

Tezcatlipoca said:


> As always google has the answer to all of life's questions.
> 
> I simply typed in "flirtatious woman" switched to images and this is what came up


Honestly I think I'd only understand if the woman display the expression in the first picture.

Second look like she's playful.

Third is a bit too obnoxious, I wouldn't trust that

Last one seem alcoholized and friendly, so I'd simply take her back home, then stay if she ask me but wouldn't make any further move. Alcohol is a weak way to lose control


----------



## shrumz (Jul 19, 2015)

the lip bite gets me every time

also the nibbling on the straw the girl in weeds does all the time

hnnnngh



baby blue me said:


> More than being afraid not to be liked, I am afraid of being vulnerable. I haven't made peace with the idea of being dependent to somebody for many beautiful reasons like companionship and intimacy for the very least.


first and foremost people need to discard this idea of how relationships work

dependency breeds inequality breeds resentment breeds unhealthy relationships

a healthy relationship is two people that dont need each other but enjoy spending time with each other

if you ask any longtime married couple they will always say that their sig other is their best friend

thats the only healthy way to approach a relationship


----------



## Courtalort (Jun 29, 2013)

I think smiling is the most 'approach me' signal you can make. Look open, study body language and look approachable. 
Or! Just go talk to someone you find hot.


----------



## love_glitter (Jul 20, 2015)

I just simply talk to him and see how it goes. I am not good at signals.... like super awkward not good at it. I just talk to him. I am however excellent at handling rejection LOL


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

Just tell him that you want to sucky sucky and love him long time.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

baby blue me said:


> The question goes for all genders and sexes. That being said, pls specify your gender/sexuality.
> 
> I asked the question because I don't seem to send the right signals when I'm interested to get to know someone.
> 
> ...


I think the easiest way to send the "approach me" signal is to *be the one that approaches them first*.

You could try teasing. Teasing is fun and can be romantic at times. *It shows someone you're comfortable with them and helps people be more comfortable and more of themselves with each other*.

*Teasing is to downplay someone's importance or skills*.

What else is important?

Feelings (yeah more than you know it)
*Taking care of feelings*.

*When you approach someone, to take care of their feelings, to have their feelings into account*. To, I don't know how to say this, to interact with the person and be emotionally aware of their feelings. *To take care of how they feel and make them have a good time*. A feeling of protectiveness.

*A feeling of protectiveness cand lead to a reciprocity in return. The "I care about you and I'm taking care of you" type*. This is in direct contrast to all those below-average pick-up lines where you don't even interact with the other person and see them as an object. And people wonder why that doesn't work.

Communication and manners are also important.

*Dominating the conversation means being there above, in control*.

If you want to approach someone and get them interested in you, you have to be the one dominating the conversation. By that I mean *directing and redirecting the conversation, keeping the conversation alive*.

Some people complain that "I have to do all the work, all the heavyweighting in keeping the conversation alive". If you think that way, you're probably doing a pretty bad job at keeping the conversation alive. Because dominating the conversation means being there above, in control and directing and redirecting the conversation *in a way that the other person also finds enjoyable*. And that's the key, the other person also finds enjoyable. *A way that the other person is also interested in*.

*It's an interaction, an opportunity to exchange ideas and get to know the other person while the other person is also having fun*. If you don't talk about something they like, clearly they won't like it and won't want to take part in this conversation and you will feel like "carrying a dead weight", because the conversation is already dead, since they have no fun or interest in it.

*It's like approaching someone and then talking about your collection of rocks, with no regards of whether the other person even enjoys or cares about that*. This goes back to feelings, the first part. *You got to be aware and take care of their feelings. Which implies being aware whether they like the conversation*.

You can talk about rocks as much as you want, you'll have no success in it, since you're not including the other person. So yes, in a way, you got to shape, direct, and redirect the conversaion, *in a way that includes the other person*.

That the other person is being aware of it and also likes it.

*As for manners, it's just generally how to be polite and behave in society*. You probably know, you just think you don't know.

Better to try it out and give it a shot than never know and always wonder.

Say for example you have a crush on a big celebrity, Inna. What do you do? *go ahead and talk to her. Approach her*. Best case scenario: (a) she replies and you talk to her, (b) she doesn't reply and you don't talk to her. In the case of (b) you're already at step 1 where you started from, so you've got nothing to lose.

I thought this was stupid until I had a friend that was hitting up on celebritices until once it actually worked. And he ended up with them. They are just humans, just like us.

This example with the celebrity is a little exaggerated but it also applies to normal people, better to try it out and give it a shot than never know and always wonder.

The first 2 ideas with feelings and dominating the conversation are especially good.

*You can be a little slick, like listening to cool music and such, having a bit of social value. But underneath and at the end of the day is the interaction between you 2 that matters the most*.

As for having fun? jokes and teasing, and especially a having good fun, good vibes atmosphere and attitude.
*Joker. Be a little joker*.

*Things are simple, we overcomplicate them*.

Approaching is not some complex mechanism with dozens of equations and such, the other person on the other side of the end is a human, just like us. So *treat them like a human*.

Not like some sort of ATM machine where you have to insert your lines and everything will work out. Because most of the time it won't, exactly because of this, the lines and not interacting with them like a human.

*Go talk to them, talk to them for a little while, when you feel comfortable with each other ask for a date, go on a date on a Saturday night or something like that, then about everything and a lot, remember this talk - from childhood to modern fashion to jokes*. It's all really simple.

*You want to see the human underneath and they want to see the human underneath as well*.

I also want to add something about bring attractive.

So yes, things are simple, we overcomplicate them, *you want to see the human underneath, but at the same time it also matter to be attractive, it's science, it's attraction*.

This, and being bodily attractive, facially attractive.
Losing weight in essence.

You could have 6 or 29 conversations with a person, *it matters the most how you feel in it, how you felt in it, how they felt in it. What values you bring in, what values I had in it*.

By values I don't mean possessions like cars, money, etc; but *things that you appreciate and they appreciate. That's what makes it either easy or instant, easy-going, like a charm, or either difficult or hard*.

*That's what screams the most compatibility or incompatibility, values, things you like*. And the way both of you are like, as a people.

If you have the same values, like the same things, appreciate the same things, the conversation will be much smoother, much more natural.

I suppose you could fake it, but why would you do that? what's the point in that? *If you like someone with "faked values" you don't really like them for their values. You like them for their body and pretend to have the same values to get along with them*.

You're not really compatible but pretend compatibility for the sake of their values, and their body. How to say this. *You agree with them only so you can pretend to agree with them, not because you geniunely believe it*.

You 2 don't click, don't have a match where you have similar worldview and expectiations.

But at the same time, don't make it too easy. *Agree what it is to agree, what you really agree with and disagree with the rest. You can genuinely and respectfully disagree without conflict*. You are being real, you can connect and without pretending to agree. You are being a person.

*So yet, there needs to be some resemblence or harmony of agreement for compatiblity, but not manufactured*. And not always agreement, because that's too easy and will likely come across as clearly manufactured, so be honest, be real. You pretend to agree with them to get to them, you end up incompatible but faking it, you like them for their values and they like you for yours, except not really.

When it comes to disagreement on small things, you can even disagree in a fun-spirited way, as a joke. Saying that they don't have tastes, they don't know what's best, and so on. *Even the disagreement can be fun*.

*And they don't really like you for your values either, you faked your values so they don't know your real values*. You didn't really present your values, you presented your fake values. You're just 2 incompatible people faking compatibility.

*So TL;DR seek agreement, but don't go out of your way to do it*. Seek that you mold with each other, seek what you have in common, what you both like, etc. If you go out of your way it will either make it too easy or manufactured.

Seek agreement, understanding, harmony. *If both of you want to go somewhere, you can ask them what do they want, then you say what you want and go with a middle ground from there, the point is to agree, to be reasonable*.

You could have been lying from liking ice-cream to lying about liking a certain sport or team to lying about having a home in Sillicon Valley, it's still lying at the end of the day.

And if what values I had in it is similar to what values they had in it. It's worth it.

*It's worth it as a baseline*.

It's really simple, really easy. We overcomplicate them, I think.

Some people think there's some kind of "sorcery" to approach people and talk to them and make them hit upwith you. *There is no "sorcery". Just talk normally, no "sorcery", just talk normally, as you would talk to another person that you are trying to get to know*.

It's really easy, shockingly easy.

*If you find someone where "it's really easy and the conversation is a lot interesting" while you were real, you know you've found a match*. No tinder needed.

*I'm not saying you are going to agree on all points, but if you agree on most points and have an interesting discussion on most points, that's enough*. As I said, there needs to be some harmony of agreement which implies you two have similar values. *They want to see the human underneath*.

You're not going to agree on everything, but even then disagreement is cool.

*As for the rest of the cases where there is disagreement, as I said, even conversation in disagreement can be interesting*, you can make it fun-spirited, as a joke. You can have a conversation in disagreement and still have fun in that conversation, given that you're doing it like some civilized adults and not some kids screaming at each other.

*You can have a conversation in disagreement without there being any tension or hostility or bad thoughts*. There can even be some teasing and jokes about it, like you don't know what's best and so on. Because people are going to disagree on things, you won't have a perfect match-up even if you're dating your twin brother, but it's up to you how you handle those disagreements and whether you make them fun or miserable. *Or whether you discuss your disagreements like civilized adults with understanding and care for each other's feelings and no personal conflict*. The "I like this, you like that, let's see how we can make it work so that we both are pleased" type, or discuss. Or with screaming and "you're bad because of it", which not only dating but generally speaking it's pretty bad.

*Besides, it's cool to disagree. To state your opinion. Even if they won't like it. It in fact leads to more attraction*.

And yet it can lead to conflict, but it will be a fun conflict, not a hateful conflict. And again. To disagree and state your opinion, do what they don't want you to do, can in fact lead to more attraction.

*Because who would want to stay with a puppet? Someone who always does and acts as they say. There's no fun, there no challenge, there's no spikes, there's no critique, there's no adrenaline*. There's no fun as I say (look at the previous one in here down below about it. About always doing and acting as they say being bad and non-attractove)

*TL;DR is - You can agree on fundamental values but disagree on the little things*.

Disagree productively. Mutually respectful. The way that you reach people is by finding common ground. Is by separating ideas from identity. And being open to persuasion.

People who disagree the most productively stand by finding common ground. Inviting us into want psychologists call shared reality. Debate ideas rather than debating identity. *Invite people into a shared reality*.

Disagreement, not giving people what they want, can be fun and attractive.

*Be in good spirits and overlook disagreements. Don't let them divide you*. Talk about them, hold your ground in them, leave from you both, but don't make a big deal out of them. People like reciprocity. Discussion is the better part of valor.

*You need more value. And more imposing*. Value and imposing and fun. Ideal male. Leader and imposing while also respecting others and "sharing"/valuing their opinions. But while also standing for your opinions. Having your own opinions and wants and beliefs while also standing your ground and sharing your opinions.

You share what you think, but also respect others. And what they think. Don't go fully against the tide. Ask "do you want to play that?", "Do you want to go there". You can be agreeable while faking disagreeability. Or reverse. Be disagreeable while faking agreeability. The idea is to get likeable.

Sometimes people would sometimes find excuses to avoid conflict, like "I'm hungary" so they won't say "I don't want", on disagreement. To disagree but without really disagreeing.

*To entertain the people you got to break some rules and so what otherwise they might not want you to do - disagreement*. *So yes, sometimes disagreement is good for entertainment*. In fact, I would say disagreement is essential for entertainment. If someone always aggres with you and always does like you it's boring.

Going back to teasing - normal expectations. Acting outside normal expectations. Doing the unproper. That can be fun and can be teasing. Saying the unproper. What is usually not said.

*Seek to disagree, like which car is cool, disagreement leads to more attraction*, but also to get understanding within that disagreement, like with a heated conflict.

If someone always does what you want, as I said above on "too easy". Someone told me once why they broke up: it was too easy. He always did what she wanted, this is why she didn't like him. It was to easy. There was no challenge, it was too boring.

It was too easy, so this one with always plesing, resulsts in being too easy it's true. Even more reasons that disagreement is cool.

*Are you aware of the boogie controversy? He ended up in a controversy exactly because he was too agreeable, too people pleasing. Because that's not what people wanted from him. *Ironically enough.

Boogie said something that video games feminist Anita Sarikissian objected to and this led to a confrontation and discussion. He made a comment about gay marriage that some thought it was in poor form. This got to back & fourth between Boogie and his critics and eventually lead him to rectract his original statement. And this, led to accusations that Boogie was fence-sitting, for his retraction.

He received the same allegations before. Unfortunately, you cannot please everyone. Generally, I do believe that people should stand for what they believe in. And shouldn't just cater to every side.

The controversion was ironically, on whether Boogie was a fence-sitter or not.

Maybe he was a man of strong principles and elaborate reasonins and the pronunce to be persuaded. Or maybe he is a facade for someone who is trying to please every demographic.

I think the best thing to do is: Taking a concrete stance while being still being considerate of those that may disagree with you, and attempt to appeal to them as well.

For example: saying that obesity shouldn't be indulged but while still having that reservation that there are ways to be constructive about it, and help people make that change in a way different insulting them.

However, Boogie tends to approach responses assuming that the person has good intentions. Generally, I think that's a fine idea. As a base rule, we should always approach under the premise of reasonable doubt. That we have reasons to believe that someone has good intentions until there is enough proof to suggest otherwise.

However, the problem comes around when you set that burden of proof to heavily. This generally makes you too permiting of someone and may cause you to view them positively even when their actions suggest otherwise. And they may continue to take advantage of that.

*The concept of people pleasing in moderation is pefectly fine*. Nothing wrong with being empathetic towards others.

However, Boogie came up far too much like he was policing himself to the point of oversensitivty. If you show yourself as someone who tries too hard to please other people, then you leave yourself prone to having people who will make unreasonable demands.

And when you say "no" to them they will become upset and aggravated and you will buckle.

Also, if you focus too much on pleasing people it becomes hard to stand for anything in particular, because plenty of people disagree on topic and although there are plenty of reasonable people, being afraid to upset the unreasonable ones will often make you overly-cautious. And may make you not really stand for anything.

Now this isn't to say that it's good to be the opposite. Being a good old bellend doesn't necessarily work either. But Antia Sarikissian is someone who in spite of my criticism of many things of her, she's not afraid to make them feel uncomfortable, and that is one thing that I will stand by.

*We should not always focus on making people comfortable. There are definetly standards of conduct, but you can't pander too much either*.

Sometimes opinions will be said that make others uncomfortable and I think Boogie worries too much about that.

There are definetly ways in which you can handle drama in more opinionated fashons as being able to stop these things. I don't think there's an issue with admitting you are wrong sometimes, in fact, being prepared to admit you're wrong is an important part of any discourse.

*However, it's the reasons for admitting you're wrong*. If you see someone's logic, and you understand that point of view, then you may want to change your mind. However, Boogie often seems to backtrack to appease the number of people who object to him rather than their own logic.

If you side with the angry crowd in an attempt to gain popular support, time will transpire and your anger will be shown as overblown and this will undermine your credibility as an arbitrator for the community. On the other hand, if you avoid that and you face immediate backlash you may have the tendency to bulcke and give in to the angry mob. Which may frame you as someone who is more focused on catering on opinions rather than having your own. But long term it pays off to be rational, which may even include having the unpopular opinion sometimes.

We all run a series of algorithms that create our opinions, we all lean on different rules to help us come to those conclusions. I think Boogie's algorithm probably leans too much on those around him and their immediate emotional response. Which then leads to heavily mitiaged opinions and then retractions rather than what may be best long-term for people.

I do believe it is smart to call people out who are championing causes in a destructive fashons. A good cause does not give you any right to behave like a jerk.

Generally speaking, there is a sect of the population that will always be a bit nuts. And then you have the rest of the public who are fairly reasonable individuals, they may be wrong from time to time and they may be more divided on certain issues, but most of them generally are open-minded and ready to hear you out.

Many violent extremists are not extremists because they are strongly politically inclined, but for other reasons surrounding their personal lives. And at that point what they do is hijack a political notion that seems most justifiable to them.

When Boogie does something it can often come across with other people in mind. He always tries to include others. And although sometimes it might be justified, it often sounds like he is devolving responsability. It just means that it becomes hard for him to stand for anything.

I think in these situations when you focus on too many people it becomes so easy to contradict yourself that you undermine your own credibiltiy. Boogie want to be reasonable, but reason should be an equally internal process rather than relying solely on the reaction of those around you. As it means those around you can manipulate their reactions to possibly influence you.

When you are a public figure, there may be people who can call that out. And you can't just allow your enviroment to shape you that easily, because in the wrong situation it makes you prone to being complicit to some very bad things. I think that's what concerns people, and the cause of Boogie controversy.

We can always do better. We can always challege our audience, so why shouldn't we? It is important to qualify your statement, to be clear, to make sure people understand you. You can still gain respect from a majority of people, and actually take a harder stance against these bad things that may be happening.

People aren't solely concerned about opinion. And the ones who are are typically the ones who will never be completely satisfied anyway as you will never be fully on board with them. *What matters is respect from the people who are reasonable and a lot of people are reasonable*.

Making people happy is a good thing, but appeasement isn't always the best option. Sometimes appeasement is waiting for a crocodile to eat you last. There will always be drama to react to, but it's your raction that will reshape what kind of audience you retain.

*Most things are not black and white, but instead of leaving it grey, you can pick apart the details that may be easier to distinghiush*. Often it depends. But if you can't provide the condition which it depends on, the people can't really take anything away from what you say either.

I think that's what distinguishes you from a fence-sitter to someone who stands for something. You can still believe in it but have reservations. Every sensible doctrine should in a way. *But if you don't state them, people just see you as someone trying too hard to appease individuals and you contradict yourself countless times because you only speak in vague language*. And people will eventually become detached from you. *Because someone who stands for nothing, stands for no one*.

*As I said, to entertain the people you got to break some rules*. So yes, you can get along nicely and have cool disagreements.

TL;DR - the "we get each other" agreement. But without coming across as too easy and disagreeing occasionally. Disagreement is cool.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

I don’t usually sit and fuck around trying to think of a way to send a signal to send for someone to approach me. I don’t even usually like flirting. I can only flirt with someone I’m already seeing. I’m more likely to just try to converse. If they converse back then I’ll try to speak more in depth to see what kind of read I’m getting. Then if I’m still seeing attraction and I have the sense they are too, then I’ll usually just express a generic interest. I.e. letting them know I dig their vibes, and just asking if they want to have a date etc.

The clue of I may be drawn to someone is usually I’m direct and just say so if the opportunity seems there. Or if anything I get bashful and can barely talk. That’s if it doesn’t seem opportune to be able to express an interest (like the environment doesn’t call for it or the person has given no indicative clues, then I will probably just be stand off in order to not offend boundaries).

I’d never dick around with the cat and mouse games. I’ll either go for it, or just have a crush from a far and write it off. I don’t want anyone pursuing me unless they had an interest. Not because I put out a bunch of secret codes. I can’t stand doing those games. And I really can’t stand when people play that crap with me. While I can recognize what’s happening. I don’t usually understand the need to for needless back and forth bull crap. I’d rather after initiating an initial conversation, just get to the point and show an interest direct and so we can all move on with life.

Plus like let’s be real here there are alotta goofballs that think a woman eating their food off to the side during a lunch hour, who is alone is sending a signal. And somehow someone chewing their food translates to some of these goofballs as… this woman is lonely and would like to be told to smile. So if a mouth full of food on a lunch hour, gets confusing for some people, I can’t imagine I trust if I put real signals into play 🤣


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

Cotillion said:


> what if i told you... girls are allowed to make the first move


qft


----------

