What are the factors to consider when asking someone out via email?

[BobG]

This is 2006, email and txt msg's hold as much weight as a phone call to the a lot of young people.

Just email her and get it over with, otherwise you'll be kicking yourself in the ass wondering what if. I had a 3 year relationship from an email. Keep it short and casual and upbeat and treat it as its no big deal, because to a woman getting asked out is no big deal it happens a lot.

"Hi, this is...from...Why don't you join me on saturday..for... " Its that simple. Your intentions are obvious. Shes either interested or not.

Dont treat it as an email. Play down the fact its electronic and encourage her to meet you, don't say "I was wondering..." "If your free.." etc..

Women respond better if you sort of indirectly say "Im going out, and your comming along".

Especially if she's good looking, this works well as she's used to a lot of attention from people begging her.

Im seeing a very hot woman now. Casual approach works very well. "Im going to see a movie on sunday, you should come along." And she did.

Maybe I'm just stuck in a time warp, but I would never, never ask someone out on a first date by E-Mail unless Miss Manners officially endorsed the practice - or at least Lady of the Manners at Gothic Charm School.

Sean1234: By the way, while I couldn't find anything on the etiquette of using E-Mail to ask someone out on a first date (I doubt anyone has ever been crude enough to think of it before), something I did find made me wonder - you do know her name, don't you?

Dear Miss Manners:

I have been dating my boyfriend for four months and it came up this week that he still does not know my name. I do not know what to do about this because he has heard my name so many times, both my English name and my Italian name. I also write it on everything I have given to him, yet he still calls me by the wrong name."

Miss Manners - As much sympathy as Miss Manners has for bad memories and disabilities, she has to break it to you that a gentleman's inability to learn the name of a lady he has been courting for four months is not a good sign. You might consider impressing it upon him with a letter of farewell.

 

[honestrosewater]

This is 2006, email and txt msg's hold as much weight as a phone call to the a lot of young people.

Just email her and get it over with, otherwise you'll be kicking yourself in the ass wondering what if. I had a 3 year relationship from an email. Keep it short and casual and upbeat and treat it as its no big deal, because to a woman getting asked out is no big deal it happens a lot.

"Hi, this is...from...Why don't you join me on saturday..for... " Its that simple. Your intentions are obvious. Shes either interested or not.

Dont treat it as an email. Play down the fact its electronic and encourage her to meet you, don't say "I was wondering..." "If your free.." etc..

Women respond better if you sort of indirectly say "Im going out, and your comming along".

Especially if she's good looking, this works well as she's used to a lot of attention from people begging her.

Im seeing a very hot woman now. Casual approach works very well. "Im going to see a movie on sunday, you should come along." And she did.

Yes, I think that's great advice. Think of her as your dog and you asking her out as taking out and jangling her leash. She'll be jumping on you in no time!

</sarcasm>

 

[JasonRox]

Yes, I think that's great advice. Think of her as your dog and you asking her out as taking out and jangling her leash. She'll be jumping on you in no time!

</sarcasm>

As sad as it may sound, it works and it might even have worked on you.

It's all part of that alpha male thing.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes, I think that's great advice. Think of her as your dog and you asking her out as taking out and jangling her leash. She'll be jumping on you in no time!

It's more subtle than that, obviously, but true. I can't tell you how many relationships I never got into because I suffer the heartbreak of having been raised square in the middle of the feminist movement and was trained not to be the "take charge" guy. All around me all my life I see the "take charge" guys getting women left and right. When I was in college guys used to get lectured by women all the time for things like holding the door open for them: "Why are you doing that? Are you trying to make me feel helpless so you can control me? I'm perfectly capable of opening a door."

 

[honestrosewater]

As sad as it may sound, it works and it might even have worked on you.

It did work on me before I decided that I didn't want to play that kind of role. I'm sure it does work on women who want, or are willing, to be treated like dogs by their "partners". But why do guys want a woman who wants you to treat her that way? It not only says something about her; it says something about you too.

It's all part of that alpha male thing.

You mean you want a woman who is attracted to status? Or is this more the dominant-submissive thing?

 

[zoobyshoe]

It did work on me before I decided that I didn't want to play that kind of role. I'm sure it does work on women who want, or are willing, to be treated like dogs by their "partners". But why do guys want a woman who wants you to treat her that way? It not only says something about her; it says something about you too.

You're exaggerating it into something it isn't. The dynamic behind it, I think, is that women want guys to take charge in a "good authority" way. In other words they want a guy who can organize and motivate everything they way their dad used to when they were little.

 

[JasonRox]

It did work on me before I decided that I didn't want to play that kind of role. I'm sure it does work on women who want, or are willing, to be treated like dogs by their "partners". But why do guys want a woman who wants you to treat her that way? It not only says something about her; it says something about you too.
You mean you want a woman who is attracted to status? Or is this more the dominant-submissive thing?

I never said anything about it being what I want.

 

[honestrosewater]

You're exaggerating it into something it isn't. The dynamic behind it, I think, is that women want guys to take charge in a "good authority" way. In other words they want a guy who can organize and motivate everything they way their dad used to when they were little.

I think dog owners take charge in a "good authority" way with their dogs. The owner-pet relationship was just the first one that came to mind, after the typical husband-wife one, of course.

I don't think I'm exaggerating. Is anyone actually interested in fleshing out the typical husband, wife, and dog roles? How does the dog role differ from the wife role? I can think of some rather uninteresting ways (resulting from one being human and one non-human). I guess the similiarity that jumps out as me is that they both depend on someone else (the husband) for their basic needs (food, shelter, etc.). I imagine they are usually both physically weaker than the husband too, or at least they would probably lose a fight with him for some other reason, e.g., being less skilled in that kind of thing.

 

[honestrosewater]

I never said anything about it being what I want.

Right, I included that assumption in my question knowing that you could deny it. Is that what you want? If so, why? If not, why?

I'm also partially addressing everyone -- I just really want to understand.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't think I'm exaggerating. Is anyone actually interested in fleshing out the typical husband, wife, and dog roles? How does the dog role differ from the wife role?

You are exaggerating by insisting that in any relationship where one person is the planner/motivator, the other is somehow comparable to a dog. I think it is something else entirely: an ingrained tendency to revert to parent/child dynamics.

Women, I think as a carryover from their relationships with their fathers, want and expect guys to make the first move: to always be the one organizing and planning and motivating: taking charge. That has nothing whatever to do with wanting to be treated like a dog. Women also, of course, want to be able to veto things, say no, make changes, suggest alternatives.

 

[Evo]

When I was younger, guys were often too shy to ask me out (that's what I kept telling myself ) so I would simply go up to a boy that I liked and ask him where he was taking me Friday night, it worked every time. It's just an assumptive close. I personally agree with what nsimmons said about using that approach with a girl, I'd probably say yes because it's a novel approach and I wouldn't see it as a "supremacy" thing.

 

[JasonRox]

Right, I included that assumption in my question knowing that you could deny it. Is that what you want? If so, why? If not, why?

I'd say I would want a little both.

I want my girl to take charge of me, and I want to take charge of her once in awhile too.

I think it's part of feeling like you are wanted.

 

[zoobyshoe]

When I was younger, guys were often too shy to ask me out (that's what I kept telling myself ) so I would simply go up to a boy that I liked and ask him where he was taking me Friday night, it worked every time. It's just an assumptive close. I personally agree with what nsimmons said about using that approach with a girl, I'd probably say yes because it's a novel approach and I wouldn't see it as a "supremacy" thing.

"An assumptive close." Good way to put it.

 

[honestrosewater]

You are exaggerating by insisting that in any relationship where one person is the planner/motivator, the other is somehow comparable to a dog.

What did I say that makes you think that? We have such a problem communicating sometimes that I feel like you're just trying to argue with me.

Women respond better if you sort of indirectly say "Im going out, and your comming along".

I thought this and the rest of their advice was clearly not about a divsion of labor or taking the initiative but about dominance and submission. They seem to be suggesting that the typical woman responds better to a man who, instead of asking, tells her what to do. That is, the typical woman, contrary to what I have been led to believe, actually wants to submit to the man who fills that mate/boyfriend/husband role. They also don't seem to suggest this be done as a joke or by being cute -- you wouldn't be indirect about a joke.

I think the typical owner-pet relationship is quite similar to the typical unequal husband-wife (boyfriend-girlfriend, etc.) relationship: they are both dominant-submissive relationships; there's an unequal interdependence (the one in the submissive role being more dependent); the relationship's existence depends on both participants fulfulling responsibilities; there is genuine mutual affection; play between owner-pet may not take the same form as play between husband-wife, but it is present in both and I think it has similar functions. I think the owner-pet relationship is quite nice and healthy, as far as dominant-submissive relationships go.
Husband-wife seems more like owner-pet than like the other dominant-submissive relationships that I can think of: parent-child, master-slave, teacher-student.

If you think it isn't a dominant-submissive thing, consider how well the same kind of behavior would be received 1) in an equal realtionship, as between friends or colleagues or 2) if done by the submissive in a dominant-submissive relationship.

Maybe I was wrong to think that most women don't (as thus this woman probably doesn't) want to be dominated by a man. This is what most people have claimed, but I am starting to think that they were just lying, to me or to themselves. Still, I think it's more civil to assume that a person wants to be treated as your equal even though they are a woman and you are a man. It's kind of like spitting on people; some people might like it, but it's nicer to find out first. Of course, maybe some people are more interested in getting a date than in being nice.

 

[honestrosewater]

I'd say I would want a little both.

I want my girl to take charge of me, and I want to take charge of her once in awhile too.

Are you really switching between dominant and submissive roles or just pretending to? For example, a parent may sometimes let a child act as if the child is in charge, though the parent remains in the dominant role. I don't see how a relationship that is equal with respect to power/control, e.g., a friendship, can change to an unequal one. It's like a fundamental part of a relationship, this equality thing... or at least, it seems so to me.

I think it's part of feeling like you are wanted.

Does being wanted include being depended upon? Wait, which makes you feel wanted: taking charge, being taken charge of, or both?

 

[nsimmons]

Its obvious you have some serious issues about a potentially abusive relationship. How can you begin to speak for all women based on only your experiences. How many women have you asked out? dated? I speak from experience and have support from other members here. Its not a "sad" thing. It has to do with status. No woman seeks out a poor, uneducated, ugly unmotivated man. If they do they want a project and have their own issues.

In every relationship someone is in dominant at anyone time. It has to be that way, there is never and can never be a 50/50 split in a male/female dynamic at all times. If you think otherwise then you're diluding yourself.

Most women do not want a wussy nice guy, who checks with his sweetie about everything he/they do. I never tell a woman what to do, I make a casual fun suggestion, about something I am going to do, then add "hey, why don't you come along". I make suggestions that appeal and offer something for her. Its selling yourself no different than any salesperson would do. Have you ever bought a new car and had the salesman say "you're buying this car now!" No, they present reasons why buying the car is good for you. Its no different trying to get a date.

This usually works. If you say "I was wondering if your free on the weekend", that sounds like a pickup line and gets no reponse. Or it gets "I don't know let me get back to you." Be assertive, direct and decisive or you'll get the brush off. If you don't present yourself as a challenge they get bored fast and you'll be wondering what happened. Every single time. I know. Until i smartened up

Definite daddy/daughter dynamics play into it. Your expected to make the first move, you're expected to escalate things when appropriate. You must constantly be moving things to the next level, or she'll think there's somthing wrong with you.

Pls ignore typos, just finished a 10 hr shift

 

[cronxeh]

The e-mail thing is iffy, I mean it would work only if the woman in question is _that_ shy and would rather talk online. You'll know the one I'm talking about. But if its a furious fist of fury kind of woman (think big.. think Moonbear or Evo for that matter), then you got to let your pheromones work a little. Come up to them, chitty chat crap and be an alpha male.. (looks around the room catching the stares..) ok well I'm going to go now..

 

[zoobyshoe]

What did I say that makes you think that? We have such a problem communicating sometimes that I feel like you're just trying to argue with me.

And yet you proceed to say the same thing again:

I think the typical owner-pet relationship is quite similar to the typical unequal husband-wife (boyfriend-girlfriend, etc.) relationship: they are both dominant-submissive relationships; there's an unequal interdependence (the one in the submissive role being more dependent); the relationship's existence depends on both participants fulfulling responsibilities; there is genuine mutual affection; play between owner-pet may not take the same form as play between husband-wife, but it is present in both and I think it has similar functions. I think the owner-pet relationship is quite nice and healthy, as far as dominant-submissive relationships go.
Husband-wife seems more like owner-pet than like the other dominant-submissive relationships that I can think of: parent-child, master-slave, teacher-student.

I thought this and the rest of their advice was clearly not about a divsion of labor or taking the initiative but about dominance and submission. They seem to be suggesting that the typical woman responds better to a man who, instead of asking, tells her what to do. That is, the typical woman, contrary to what I have been led to believe, actually wants to submit to the man who fills that mate/boyfriend/husband role. They also don't seem to suggest this be done as a joke or by being cute -- you wouldn't be indirect about a joke.

Accepting the invitation, "I'm going out and you're coming with me," or, to use Evo's example "So, where are you taking me Friday night?" could constitute a submission if it were delivered in a dictatorial way, and that would be a sad thing. However, you seem to think that's the only way it can be delivered. In fact, I think everyone in this thread who thinks it would work is assuming it would be delivered in a lighthearted, humorous spirit; a kind of surprising cutting through the bull of hemming and hawing. I don't think anyone is suggesting it should be an offer they can't refuse. There has to be the equivalent of a wink to it.

Maybe I was wrong to think that most women don't (as thus this woman probably doesn't) want to be dominated by a man. This is what most people have claimed, but I am starting to think that they were just lying, to me or to themselves. Still, I think it's more civil to assume that a person wants to be treated as your equal even though they are a woman and you are a man. It's kind of like spitting on people; some people might like it, but it's nicer to find out first. Of course, maybe some people are more interested in getting a date than in being nice.

You are clearly fixated on this dominant/submissive dichotomy and can't pick up on the fact no one's talking about such an extreme thing.

 

[nsimmons]

There has to be the equivalent of a wink to it.

Bingo.

I should also add that I am a geek, i like computers science math, I am on a physics forum?! talking about dating. I am not super hot, though i think I am decent, but I get attention from very attractive women. Being able to cut through the "bull" and getting to the point make a huge difference, and of course its always with a joke and a smile.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Bingo.

Yep. Women run from authentically demanding, dictatorial guys like the plague.

I should also add that I am a geek, i like computers science math, I am on a physics forum?! talking about dating. I am not super hot, though i think I am decent, but I get attention from very attractive women. Being able to cut through the "bull" and getting to the point make a huge difference, and of course its always with a joke and a smile.

It took me the longest time to understand it's not what you look like but how you act that is important.

 

[honestrosewater]

Its obvious you have some serious issues about a potentially abusive relationship.

Is that a joke? If not, I think you should support it. How did you come to that conclusion? It strikes me as an attempt to dismiss what I said without having to come up with something resembling an (non-fallacious) argument.

If you were suggesting that he tell her what to do as a joke, I didn't pick up on that, as I already said

They also don't seem to suggest this be done as a joke or by being cute -- you wouldn't be indirect about a joke.

What did you mean by being indirect? I've joked with people about dominant and submissive roles and the jokes are usually direct. In fact, that's what makes the jokes work.
Evo's example, I imagine something like "So where are you taking me Friday night?" is not what I would consider indirect. Women also are not traditionally in the dominant role, so the context is different; there's much less reason to suspect that she is being serious.

Personally, I don't think it's a good ice-breaker for a man to use on a woman. Similarly, because I am white, live in the US, and am aware of the history, I would not try to ask out a black man by suggesting, jokingly or seriously, that he be my slave. I think they just aren't appropriate to say to a practical stranger.

How can you begin to speak for all women based on only your experiences.

I wasn't and never said I was. Why do you think that? In fact, I just said a few posts earlier

Well, I'm starting to think that I'm not like most women, but for what it's worth...

How many women have you asked out? dated? I speak from experience and have support from other members here.

Congratulations.

 

[honestrosewater]

And yet you proceed to say the same thing again:

Okay, let me be clearer.

You are exaggerating by insisting

I intentionally say things like "I think" and "it seems" to indicate that I am not insisting but presenting my opinions and observations. I was insisting just now.

that in any relationship where one person is the planner/motivator

I did not consider it to be that kind of relationship or role, as I already said

I thought this and the rest of their advice was clearly not about a divsion of labor or taking the initiative but about dominance and submission.

the other is somehow comparable to a dog.

I listed specific ways that I think the typical husband-wife and owner-pet relationships are similar. You didn't address them. I'm not expecting a serious discussion, but if you disagree, why not address them?

Accepting the invitation, "I'm going out and you're coming with me," or, to use Evo's example "So, where are you taking me Friday night?" could constitute a submission if it were delivered in a dictatorial way, and that would be a sad thing. However, you seem to think that's the only way it can be delivered.

I don't know why it seems that way since I have already admitted that it could be said in different ways, but it seems like you didn't read my post, so let me say again: That is not what I think. That is more like a caricature of my opinion. Dictatorial? Seriously? Also, they didn't say to say so directly; they said to sort of say so indirectly.

In fact, I think everyone in this thread who thinks it would work is assuming it would be delivered in a lighthearted, humorous spirit; a kind of surprising cutting through the bull of hemming and hawing.

Well, you are wrong. As I already said, I think it would work on some people and I assumed it would be delivered as they said, in an indirect, yeah-I-just-told-you-what-to-do-don't-pretend-you-didn't-notice-and-like-it kind of way.

I don't think anyone is suggesting it should be an offer they can't refuse.

Great, I don't think anyone is suggesting that either.

There has to be the equivalent of a wink to it.

Even as a joke, the person making the joke is assuming a dominant role for themselves and a submissive role for the other person. Do you disagree? Even if you don't agree that owner-pet is similar, do you agree that parent-child is a dominant-submissive relationship?
What in the original post made you think that it was intended as a joke? I'm looking for actual quotes from the post.

You are clearly fixated on this dominant/submissive dichotomy and can't pick up on the fact no one's talking about such an extreme thing.

I don't see dominant and submissive roles as an extreme thing. They are roles in lots of normal relationships. In fact, I think there is a trichotomy: For any relationship between two people x and y, at any given time, either x dominates y or y dominates x or they are equal with respect to dominance. Do you think that's false? I am talking about these roles because that is what I think the comment was about.

My comparison of the submissive role in the traditional husband-wife relationship to that of a dog's role was just sarcastic at first -- I even said so, for crying out loud. As I have already said (as if it really needed saying), I don't think the roles are exactly alike, but I do think they are similar. I don't like being wrong, so if you think I'm wrong, please tell me your reasons for thinking so. "You are crazy", while perhaps true, is not what I consider a sufficient condition for my being wrong. Are you willing to consider that, instead of me seeing something that isn't there, you might be not seeing something that is there?

 

[Monique]

Personally, I don't think it's a good ice-breaker for a man to use on a woman. Similarly, because I am white, live in the US, and am aware of the history, I would not try to ask out a black man by suggesting, jokingly or seriously, that he be my slave. I think they just aren't appropriate to say to a practical stranger.

Why does one taking the lead make the other sub-ordinate? In a loving relation it means the one taking the lead is a care-giver, not repressor.

Someone saying: "Im going to see a movie on sunday, you should come along." would be flattering, if you know it is well-meant (personally for me it would mean the date is not a date, but just a meeting as friends). There are guys who are arrogant to think they can get any girl in sight, such a comment from them would be highly insulting (since they would see it as a date).

 

[honestrosewater]

Why does one taking the lead make the other sub-ordinate?

Dominant and submissive are the terms I see used, so I borrowed them. I associate being dominant with being in control. I think that's just the way those roles work by definition. If both people are leaders, they're equal, so neither of them is really leading. One being a leader implies that the other is not a leader but a subordinate. How else could it work?
I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with that, by the bye.

In a loving relation it means the one taking the lead is a care-giver, not repressor.

Yes, I agree. If people want that kind of relationship, great -- if they aren't hurting others, I have no problem with that. I've just been told that people, or at least most people from my generation on, want to be equals in that kind of relationship. So I thought it was funny when they suggested that the man assume a dominant role in order to attract the woman.

Someone saying: "Im going to see a movie on sunday, you should come along." would be flattering, if you know it is well-meant (personally for me it would mean the date is not a date, but just a meeting as friends).

Sure, if you know it's well-meant. I interpreted the original advice to be the man telling the woman what to do. That is, sending her the message, in so many words, "I am going out, and you're coming along." That sounds like dominant behavior to me, and it seems to play on the traditional husband-wife relationship.

Of course, I never really had a father, so maybe I'm a freak.

 

[Evo]

Bingo.

I should also add that I am a geek, i like computers science math, I am on a physics forum?! talking about dating. I am not super hot, though i think I am decent, but I get attention from very attractive women. Being able to cut through the "bull" and getting to the point make a huge difference, and of course its always with a joke and a smile.

Confident geeks with a sense of huimor will get me every time. :!) :!) :!)

Guys, listen up, a confident, pleasant attitude will work wonders for you.

 

[nsimmons]

I had a really long response typed up but the server went down right as i sent it and i lost it.

Bottom line is, honestrosewater, you state opinion. I state fact as in the fact my approach works. Its very common for it to work, and any guy who 'gets' women use something similar.

Its directly playing on instinctual evolutionary processes whether you like it or not. Females are geared to be submissive, males are geared to be dominant. Look at most any species.

You're very close to concluding that dominant = abusive, controlling, narcisistic. I treat women with utmost respect, they always have a say in a decision.

A few decades of feminism can't overcome 2 million years of evolution.

 

[nsimmons]

Confident geeks with a sense of huimor will get me every time. :!) :!) :!)

Guys, listen up, a confident, pleasant attitude will work wonders for you.

See even the ladies here love me...

 

[Monique]

Confident geeks with a sense of huimor will get me every time. :!) :!) :!)

Guys, listen up, a confident, pleasant attitude will work wonders for you.

I was about to say just that, confidence is good and for someone to act confident some dominance is required.

 

[russ_watters]

Dominant and submissive are the terms I see used, so I borrowed them. I associate being dominant with being in control. I think that's just the way those roles work by definition...

So I thought it was funny when they suggested that the man assume a dominant role in order to attract the woman.

You originated the use of those words, in post 75. Perhaps the others didn't object strongly enough at first, but it was still you pushing that viewpoint.

I agree with the others - you are reading things people aren't saying, changing the conversation to be something people aren't intending, and your perception of how people think relationships work is different from what what people are actually saying here.

My view, in short, is that many women want a confident and assertive man, but that does not mean they want a dominant man. Women may want men to do most of the work, but do not construe that to imply dominance.

I don't see dominant and submissive roles as an extreme thing. They are roles in lots of normal relationships.

Perhaps 50+ years ago, but not today. The primary difference today is that women no longer stay in the home (and even if they do, it is by choice). So relationships are viewed by most as an equal partnership.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes, Russ, assertive is a good word I kept not quite finding.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, Russ, assertive is a good word I kept not quite finding.

And to clarify what that means, "assertive" is simply making the first move. As someone else pointed out, your odds may not be all that great in asking out a complete stranger, but the odds are zero in not asking.

 

[Moonbear]

My view, in short, is that many women want a confident and assertive man, but that does not mean they want a dominant man.

Precisely. Dominance would imply an imbalance and a power struggle, which I don't think is ever good in a relationship. Confidence and assertiveness just means you'll speak your opinion...it doesn't mean you'll always get your way, just that you'll speak up and say what it is you want, and the woman can do the same, and thus all those silly guessing games are out of the picture, which opens up real communication.

 

[honestrosewater]

Its directly playing on instinctual evolutionary processes whether you like it or not. Females are geared to be submissive, males are geared to be dominant. Look at most any species.

In other words, you are conceding that I was right the whole time; the message, whether it is delivered jokingly or seriously, is to be understood in the context of a dominant-submissive relationship, with the message sender in the dominant role.

You're very close to concluding that dominant = abusive, controlling, narcisistic.

No, I'm not. In fact, I have made statements that are inconsistent with that.

A few decades of feminism can't overcome 2 million years of evolution.

Well, if you fleshed out a little what kind of behaviors count as overcoming 2 million years of evolution here, I might just be a counterexample to it. I seriously doubt your approach would work on me, assuming I was sober and all that jazz.

And to everyone else to whom it applies: Please stop saying that I said things that I didn't say. I realize it's GD, but it's still PF.

 

[honestrosewater]

You originated the use of those words, in post 75.

Will you please show me where I said otherwise? Okay, sorry, that's mean. You don't have to. I didn't say otherwise. If you are wondering where I was borrowing them from, it's just various papers and such on animal behavior, gender roles, ethics, and such. They seemed pretty common. I was pointing out that I was borrowing the terms in case anyone was assigning some special significance to them.

If people stop putting words in my mouth, I will gladly leave.

 

[nsimmons]

. I seriously doubt your approach would work on me, assuming I was sober and all that jazz.

No one agrees with anything you've said. You're not willing to discuss things, just defend your position with personal speculation.

You keep coming back to "wont work on me". Guess what no ones talking about you. Stop interjecting yourself as the subject of discussion. Topic here is whether in general email is a good idea and what techniques work to attract a woman. Not what techniques work on honestrosewater.

Reminds me of a study I read about in a psyc class. One girl argued with the prof admitantly that its not valid, because she wouldn't react the way women in the study did. This is exactly what your doing, posing opinion vs established fact. She as well as yourself don't get 'it'.