Warning: in_array() expects parameter 2 to be array, null given in /home1/modeone/public_html/wp-content/plugins/quick-adsense-reloaded/includes/post_types.php on line 46
Warning: in_array() expects parameter 2 to be array, null given in /home1/modeone/public_html/wp-content/plugins/quick-adsense-reloaded/includes/post_types.php on line 46
Just over six months ago, I posted a status comment on my personal Facebook timeline that said, “One thing I’ve told people I know repeatedly: Never confuse how LONG you have known someone with how WELL (you think) you know that person. More often than not, those two concepts are NOT synonymous.”
A man and a woman can converse with one another over the course of three hours, three days, three weeks, three months, or three years . . . but if all of the conversations between them amounted to nothing more than ‘pleasantly phony,’ superficial type ‘fluff talk’ and ‘small talk,’ then neither the man or the woman involved in those conversations will ever gain a better understanding of who their conversation partner really is at their core.
A good example of this happened about ten years ago. I have a female friend who was a high school classmate of mine in my hometown of Gary, Indiana here in the States. I’ll refer to her as “Donna.” I have another woman who I met in 1998 in San Diego while I was living in Los Angeles who I will refer to as “Sharon.” Donna is married, and has been for awhile now. She and I have never been involved with each other romantically or sexually. Sharon is now married, but prior to her meeting her husband, she and I first had a sexual relationship, and then later, that sexual relationship slowly transitioned into an enjoyable, mutually beneficial friendship (which honestly, rarely happens with me and my former lovers).
Skipping over a few miscellaneous details, I had told Donna about Sharon, and Sharon about Donna. All three of us engaged in a handful of three-way Email communications where we exchanged some lighthearted comments and discussed a few things related to dating and male-female relationship dynamics in general.
In one particular Email communication, Donna began ‘bragging’ to Sharon that, “I am one of Alan’s closest female friends! I am a very close confidante of his! Alan doesn’t share too many of his personal secrets with women, but I am definitely in his inner circle! We have known each other since we were in the seventh grade in middle school!” Sharon, who very much considered herself to be one of my closest female confidantes at the time, decided to ‘challenge’ Donna on her assertion. So unbenownst to me, she sent Donna an Email asking her questions such as, “When is Alan’s birthday? What is his favorite dessert? What is his favorite movie of all-time? What is his favorite television show of all-time? What is his favorite meat item (by now, everyone in the world who is familiar with me knows I love chicken wings more than any meat item on earth, but back around 2005, it was not as highly publicized)? What are some of his favorite books? What are some of his biggest goals and ambitions?” and so on and so on.
I cannot remember exactly how many questions Sharon posed to Donna – let’s say fifteen questions total – and Donna was only able to answer maybe two or three of them correctly. Sharon’s conclusion to Donna: “You THINK you know Alan, but you really don’t. You have known Alan for about thirty years, yet you know very little about the real Alan Roger Currie. I have known Alan for less than ten years, but yet I know way more about who he really is, and what he is really about, than you do. I understand you and Alan have never been intimate, but even if you call yourself his ‘play sister,’ you don’t seem to know much about him. So I have to ask … what do you two really talk about? Obviously, not much that matters.”
At the risk of insulting and offending Donna, Sharon’s assessment was right on point, although I would probably claim as much or more guilt myself than I would place on Donna. At that time, I had never revealed as much about myself to Donna in our various conversation over the years as I did with Sharon. I never felt the motivation to, because I never anticipated Donna and I having sex at any point in the near or distant future. Even with Sharon, I did not really shed my seemingly enigmatic and sometimes aloof personality until I knew for a fact that she and I were going to be engaging in sexual relations. Sharon was so cool, that even when she and I stopped having sex, she became somewhat of a ‘wingwoman’ for me (i.e., a wingwoman is a woman who helps one or more of her male friends meet other women to connect with romantically and sexually) and it was her and two of her close girlfriends who later gave me a nickname I still use to this day (“The King of Verbal Seduction”).
Being someone who dabbled in stand-up comedy for a brief period of time (I performed comedy for about 18 months until late 1990), I love comedians who express commentary that is both funny AND TRUE … particularly if it is related to dating and male-female relationships. One such comedy bit is one from Chris Rock’s comedy special entitled Bigger and Blacker. During that performance, Rock said this about the early interactions between men and women in today’s dating scene:
When you’re meeting a man or woman for the first time, you’re not really meeting the ‘real’ them; You’re meeting their ‘representative’ – Comedian Chris Rock
Generally speaking, I would apply Rock’s assertion to members of both genders. I would definitely apply Rock’s statement to the vast majority of women in society. Along these lines, I once had a male listener call into my live talk radio program, Upfront & Straightforward, and express this comment: “Alan, I don’t believe in the whole idea of taking time to ‘get to know a woman’ prior to having sex with her. Because the reality is, you really don’t know a woman until you two have had sex at least a couple of times. Most women act totally differently toward a man before they have sex with him than they do after they have had sex with him. Sometimes, it’s almost like they are two totally different women.”
For the most part, I would generally agree with that statement by this listener. At bare minimum, I would offer this strong assertion: No man will really know the true nature of a woman until he engages in at least one in-depth conversation and discussion with her about her thoughts regarding her own sense of sexuality and more specifically, whether or not that woman is genuinely interested in having sex with him. Until that moment happens, your real self is not really engaging in a conversation with that woman’s real self. To Chris Rock’s point, you are just allowing your ‘social representative’ to engage in trivial, superficial, but yet entertaining conversation with that woman’s ‘social representative.’ Nothing more, nothing less.
A good scene in a movie that addresses this issue is the first dinner-date between Jake (Actor John Cusack) and Sarah (Actress Diane Lane) in the 2005 romantic comedy, Must Love Dogs. Jake, similar to myself, is not a fan of trivial ‘fluff talk’ and ‘small talk,’ and he lets Sarah know this during their first date. Soon, the two are discussing their real thoughts and their real desires and interests, and fast forward a few minutes later, and the two are in the car on their way to find a drug store to purchase some condoms for Jake (if I remember correctly, the two don’t end up having sex that particular night).
What is your ‘real’ behavior? In a nutshell, that is the behavior you exhibit toward others that is totally representative of your real thoughts, your real desires, your real interests, and your real underlying motives as well as your real short-term and long-term intentions.
On the other hand, if while you are conversing with someone, you are exhibiting behavior that is not truly representative of what is really on your mind, and not really representative of your true feelings toward a person or not really representative of what you really want from them, then this means you are doing nothing more than being ‘pleasantly phony’ with others. You are displaying a public façade with those who you are in conversation with designed to ‘win them over’ and provoke them to develop a ‘favorable impression’ of you. In other words, your top priority is to get that other person to ‘like’ you. The problem is, getting people to ‘like’ you should never be your number one priority.
Your top priority should be to verbally communicate to people why you are truly interested in sharing their company. To borrow money from them? To ultimately have sex with them? To have them flatter your ego and give your self-esteem a boost? To crack some jokes and make you laugh? What? Why are you really talking to that person right now? What is your true underlying motivation for socializing with this person, both now and in the near future?
Reality check for men (and women too): Until you and a woman have openly expressed what type of companionship you two are looking for from each other (e.g., purely platonic? strictly sexual? a romantic relationship with a strong emotional bond? business-professional relationship only? other?), everything you talk about up to that point is nothing more than entertaining bullsh*t designed to help you two pass the time without ‘ruffling each others feathers’ in any sort of way. In the long-run, that trivial conversation means jack if you never verbally expressed to that woman why you are really talking to her and why you really want to engage in a series of personal and social interactions with her in the near or distant future. You just wasted your time. She now believes that you are a ‘polite gentleman.’ So what. You now believe that she is a ‘polite lady’ or ‘classy good girl.’ So what. In the big picture, neither subjective perception means jack.
Why discuss how good the weather is with a woman if that woman has no interest in being your next girlfriend, your next casual sex lover, or at bare minimum, your next long-term platonic friend? What’s the point? A total waste of time.
Why discuss what foods a woman enjoys eating if she is never going to agree to share multiple lunch meals with you or dinner meals with you (either in a romantic sense or a purely platonic sense)? What’s the point? A total waste of time.
Why discuss a woman’s love for cats and/or dogs if that woman is never going to allow you to visit her residence where you can interact with her one or more of her favorite pets? What’s the point? A total waste of time.
When I am in conversation with a woman who I am interested in possibly engaging in a long-term romantic relationship with, I am only going to talk about subject matter that is directly related to determining if this woman and I will have great romantic chemistry. Any other subject matter that is not directly correlated to that objective is never discussed on my behalf. Why would I? That would be a total waste of time.
When I am in conversation with a woman who I am interested in engaging in a sexual one-night stand or weekend fling, I am only going to talk about subject matter that is directly related to determining if this woman is cool with indulging in one or more episodes of short-term non-monogamous sex with me. Any other subject matter that is not directly correlated to determining if this woman and I are ‘on the same page’ sexually is never discussed on my behalf. Why would I? That would be a total waste of time.
When I am in conversation with a woman who I feel can possibly help me further my career and/or possibly help me generate more book sales and help me improve my finances, I am only going to talk about subject matter that is directly related to determining if this woman can truly assist me in improving my career, and my sales revenues. Any other subject matter that is not directly correlated to her helping me enhance and improve my career and my finances is never discussed on my behalf. Why would I? That would be a total waste of time.
Today, you wasted my mutha fuckin’ time . . . DON’T WASTE MY MUTHA FUCKIN’ TIME! – Lieutenant Vincent Hanna (Actor Al Pacino) to his Confidential Informant Albert (Actor Ricky Harris)
I’m the type of guy, that when I converse with women, I don’t even want to waste more than roughly five minutes talking to a woman if I am not sure if she has any genuine interest in sharing my company in a romantic and/or sexual manner. If my interest is a one-night stand, I want to find out if the woman I am conversing with has the same exact interest as I do as soon as possible. If my interest is a weekend fling, I want to find out if the woman I am conversing with has the same exact interest as I do as soon as possible. If I want a woman to be my next long-term girlfriend … or even my long-term ‘fuck buddy’ … I want to find out if the woman I am conversing with has the same exact interest as I do as soon as possible.
One thing you have to remember about people in general, and particularly women: If you offer someone the opportunity to waste your time in an unproductive manner, they most certainly will. Especially if they are a phony and highly manipulative type person.
Many women, if you let them know immediately and straightforwardly that you want to have sex with them (i.e., you verbally communicate your desires and interests to them in a Mode One manner), many of those women will usually respond with a comment along the lines of, “Well, we need to get to know each other first.”
What the fuck does that mean?
If I am in the market to buy a new house, why do I need to “get to know” a man or woman until I am for certain that their house is up for sale? Why would I take time to “get to know” a young woman who earns money as a babysitter if she has not yet confirmed that she is even interested in babysitting my children?
Many men make the mistake of buying into the misguided notion that you should take time to “get to know a woman” prior to letting their true sexual desires, interests, and intentions be known. WHY?!? THAT MAKES NO SENSE.
Those men have it twisted. What you do is, you first let a woman know what type of companionship that you are interested in … and then, if she expresses that she also has many of the same desires, interests, and intentions as you do, then you two take the time to discuss what information about each other needs to be shared (if any) before sex takes place.
If there are at least two women who I have interviewed in the past who share a lot of my same thoughts, it would be Dr. Veronica Anderson (a former guest on my live talk radio show, Upfront & Straightforward) and Kendal Williams (a former guest on my Adults Only podcast program, The Erotic Conversationalist). Both guests, in their own way, suggested that getting to know a person better in a purely non-sexual manner has very little if anything to do with getting to know them on a sexual level. In other words, a man can spend days, weeks, months, and even years ‘getting to know a woman better’ in a non-physical, non-sexual, purely platonic manner, but even if their non-sexual chemistry is “five stars,” that platonic chemistry is not going to necessarily translate into any sort of mutually beneficial sexual chemistry or sexual compatibility.
I tend to operate in the opposite manner of many men. A number of men I know tend to initially spend time ‘getting to know a woman better’ on a non-physical, non-sexual level … and then, when they believe that the woman ‘likes’ them and trusts them, they then slowly transition into more sexually provocative conversations with that woman. Conversely, what I do is first seek to find out everything possible about a woman’s innermost erotic thoughts and sexual desires and interests, and then once I know that a woman and I are ‘on the same page’ sexually, then and only then do I seek to ‘get to know her better’ on a non-sexual level (with the exception of those sexual relationships with women where I know ahead of time that I will not really be spending much time with them non-sexually).
I remember reading an interview with famous feature-film Actor Jack Nicholson. The interviewer asked Nicholson how he went about preparing for most of the characters he played in movies. Nicholson said, “The first thing I usually research is what type of person they are sexually.” The interview asked, “Even if you are not going to be involved in a love scene or sex scene with a female character?” Nicholson said, “Yes. Even if there are no sex scenes involving my character. I always want to understand a character’s sexuality, because in reality, our sexuality represents who we really are as opposed to who we want people to think we are.“
I agree wholeheartedly with Nicholson’s assessment. I once had a professional Masseuse say practically the same thing to me once in Los Angeles. She was giving me a massage, and I was butt naked on my back with a full erection. She and I were discussing dating, romantic relationships, sex, and everything related to those three subjects. And at one point, she said to me, “I love having these types of conversations with men while they are fully nude.” I said, “Why is that … so you can see their dicks get hard?” She giggled and said, “No so much so I can see them hard. But I do enjoy that too. What I enjoy most is that it is extremely difficult to be phony and full of shit with someone in conversation when you are naked, and you’re sexually aroused. A man, or a woman, is pretty much always going to be real with the person they are in conversation with when they are naked, and they are sincerely aroused.” There might be a handful of exceptions to the validity of that assertion, but generally, I agree with what she said.
Not too long ago, I posted some personal beliefs, attitudes and philosophies on Facebook and Twitter, and one of them had to do with being a woman’s “other man” (i.e., the man that she is cheating on her husband with, cheating on her fiancé with, or cheating on her long-term boyfriend with).
As I point out in my audiobook, The Possibility of Sex: How Naïve and Lustful Men are Manipulated by Women Regularly, just because you are married to a woman, engaged to a woman, or in a long-term ‘boyfriend-girlfriend’ relationship with a woman does not necessarily mean that you are observing a woman’s real behavior and real personality. Many women will perform like a professional ‘actress’ with men they are in a relationship with if they have underlying motivations of exploiting and using that man for financial and non-financial favors and requests.
Arguably the number one time when a woman is very quickly going to reveal her true sexual side to a man is when you are a man who she just wants a few episodes of sexual enjoyment and satisfaction from. When all she wants from you as a man is to be erotically dominated, and fucked very, very good.
When a woman wants something from a man other than just some good dick, that is when more-than-likely she is going to wear a ‘social mask’ with that man to one degree or another indefinitely, and she is going to consistently display some sort of disingenuous public façade with him.
Men, you have to understand: The average woman in society is not socially programmed to immediately and straightforwardly express their desire to engage in sexual relations with a man of interest in their first or even their second conversation with a man. This is why men absolutely must take the initiative to lead the conversation.
The vast majority of women are taught that being too forthright about their sexual desires and interests will cause them to be labeled a ‘ho’ and/or a ‘slut’ by men as well as by other women, and that such verbally provocative behavior will severely tarnish their public image as a prudish, monogamy-oriented ‘good girl.’ Therefore, even if a woman is in the company of a man who she very badly wants to exchange orgasms with, if her goal is a long-term romantic relationship and/or marriage, that woman’s social programming is going to encourage her to ‘hold back’ on acknowledging her desire to have sex with that man.
As most of my readers and followers know, when a woman is interested in having sex with a man – but she initially or temporarily ‘pretends’ as though having sex with a man is the absolute last thing on her mind – I refer to these women as Wholesome Pretenders.
I blame most of women’s social programming on men. Why? Because over a number of decades and centuries, men have placed women in a “Catch-22 – lose/lose situation.”
If a man meets a woman, and that woman is upfront and straightforwardly honest about the fact that she wants to engage in sexual relations with a man, the vast majority of men are going to inevitably label that woman a ‘ho,’ a ‘slut,’ and an ‘easy lay.’ No woman with any sense of self-respect wants to be labeled in such a disparaging manner, and for the most part, I don’t blame them for feeling that way.
If a man meets a woman, and that woman wants to have sex with this particular man … but she proceeds to play ‘hard to get’ and engages in a variety of manipulative ‘head games’ with a man, she then earns the label of a “manipulative game-player.” So, a woman has to choose the lesser of two disparaging labels. The vast majority of women would much rather be labeled a ‘manipulative game player’ than a ‘ho’ or ‘slut.’ And this is the very reason why you have so many women in society who are Wholesome Pretender types.
As Daniel Bergner points out in his book, What Do Women Want? Adventures in the Science of Female Sexual Desire, women are not born with any sort of biological desire to be more prudish or sexually conservative than men, they are not born with a biological desire to be more romantic than men, and they are not born with a biological desire to be more faithful, loyal, or monogamy-oriented than men. Women are taught and brainwashed to display these characteristics, mainly at the urging of the woman’s mother, father, step-mother, or step-father.
When you look at movies such as Fatal Attraction and Play Misty for Me, both of the ‘psychotic stalker’ type women involved in both films seemed relatively ‘normal’ until they had sex with each protagonist (Michael Douglas in Fatal Attraction and Clint Eastwood in Play Misty for Me). Once both men had sex with these women, the facades were dismissed, and we soon surmised that both women suffered from some degree of mental illness (Glen Close‘s character of Alex Forest was said to have suffered from Borderline Personality Disorder within the context of the story).
It is much harder for a woman to maintain a public facade with a man once the conversation turns to sex. Trust me on this. When the subject matter of the conversation is food, movies, music, politics, shopping, or current events, it is very easy for a woman to be content with conversing with a man under the guise of her ‘social representative.’
When the conversation turns to one’s sexual thoughts, fantasies, desires, interests, and intentions, then it becomes much more challenging for a woman to maintain that public facade of hers. And this is the very reason why I love to engage in sexually provocative conversations with women sooner rather than later.
Plain and simple, if a woman has no interest in having sex with a man, it is going to be very hard for her to discuss sex in any sort of enthusiastic manner with that man. If a man is not physically attractive in the eyes of a woman, and nothing about his demeanor, personality, or general behavior is sexually appealing to a woman, this is when women have a very hard time discussing anything about their sexuality in detail to a man. Same thing is true with men. Most men will refrain from bringing up the subject of sex when in conversation with a woman who they do not find physically attractive and/or sexually appealing.
On the flip side, if a woman is in the company of a man who she is genuinely attracted to, both physically and sexually, then it is usually going to be hard for her to hide that or deny that for too long. As mentioned in my book, The Possibility of Sex, women typically go crazy when they are around male strippers. Much more than men do when they are in the company of female strippers. I mention in the book that one African-American nightclub in Chicago had to put a stop to their once-per-month male strippers revue because the women would jump on stage and attempt to date-rape the male strippers.
This is why there are at least two adult films that I absolutely love, and that of course is Talk Dirty to Me and the sequel Talk Dirty to Me, Part II. I have always maintained that even if you deleted all of the visually explicit sex scenes from those two porn films, and converted them into R-rated mainstream movies, they would still hold up. I would argue that no two movies – porn, mainstream, or otherwise – deal with the sexual duplicity of women better than these two films starring the late, great porn legend, John Leslie.
In both films, Leslie’s character of ‘Jack,’ the prolific, verbally smooth and seductive womanizer, interacts with at least two female characters who were more or less Wholesome Pretender types: 1) In the original Talk Dirty to Me, it was the seemingly prudish female physician and the sexually frustrated married woman whose husband was always traveling out-of-town on business, and 2) in the sequel, Talk Dirty to Me, Part II, it was the female television talk show host and to a lesser extent, her maid.
Many women (and even a good number of men) have attempted to argue that it is ‘rude’ and ‘disrespectful’ to introduce the subject of sex in the very first conversation with a woman of interest. Nothing could be more ridiculous. That is almost like saying that it is ‘rude’ or ‘disrespectful’ to introduce the subject of a potential sexually transmitted disease in your first doctor’s appointment with a new doctor. Or that it is ‘rude’ or ‘disrespectful’ to offer meat to someone you had no idea ahead of time was a practicing vegan or vegetarian.
Sex is a desire that is as natural as the desire for food and water, and the desire for safety and shelter (matter of fact, I would easily rank the desire for sex as no lower than the #3 desire of human beings next to the desire for food and water and the desire for safety and shelter). So why should we avoid in-depth, candid discussions about sex with women in our very first conversations with them?
Because (prudish) men say so. Again, I place most of the blame on men rather than women. If you have already listened to my audiobook, Oooooh … Say it Again, you know that most men suffer from Dr. Sigmund Freud’s Madonna / Whore Complex. Which means that most men want all women to fall into two very specific, convenient categories: prudish, loyal, monogamy-oriented ‘good girls’ … and kinky, promiscuous and/or polyamorous ‘sluts.’ Period. No ‘crossing over’ from one category into the other, and no in-between “shades of gray.” Just either, or.
Most men want at least one woman in their life to be their “personal good girl” (usually their long-term girlfriend or wife), and they want one or more ‘kinky slut’ types on-the-side as mistresses or side pieces. In addition, all men who have one or more daughters want their daughters to fall into the ‘good girl’ category. Very few, if any men want their beloved daughters to develop a reputation for being kinky and extremely promiscuous.
I always say, if you removed all ‘good girl’ types from planet Earth, the vast majority of men would go crazy. They would not know what to do with themselves when it comes to their desire for a long-term relationship that will ultimately lead to marriage. Similarly though, if you removed all of the ‘kinky slut’ types from planet Earth, even more men would go crazy. Men would be indefinitely agitated and sexually frustrated that there would be no women to have sex with outside the context of marriage or a long-term, committed ‘boyfriend-girlfriend’ relationship.
What most men don’t realize is that many women are the exact same way when it comes to their attraction to Alpha males vs. Beta males. You can think of most Alpha males as the male equivalent of the ‘kinky slut’ type for women, and most Beta males as the male equivalent to the ‘good girl’ type for women.
In my audiobook, Mode One, I divide all men into these four categories: Total Alpha males, Alpha males with a few Beta traits, Beta males with a few Alpha traits, and Total Beta males.
Most women view Total Alpha males as the type of guys they would be content with just engaging in a few episodes of short-term, non-monogamous no-strings-attached casual sex with. They look at Alpha males with Beta traits (men are the leaders and final decision-makers in the relationship) and Beta males with Alpha traits (women are the leaders and final decision-makers in the relationship) as the type of men who they would date and potentially marry. Finally, most women view Total Beta males as being worthy of nothing more than a purely platonic friend.
Have you ever noticed that when a Total Alpha male type attempts to engage a woman in provocative sex talk, their response will usually be something along the lines of, “Oh my God! You are SO BAD. You are so naughty!” Their reaction will usually be lighthearted.
If that same woman perceives a man as an Alpha Male with a few Beta traits, they will try their best to maintain the demeanor of a prudish or semi-prudish ‘good girl,’ and refrain from saying anything that is too provocative or too explicit.
If that same woman perceives a man as a Beta Male with a few Alpha traits, the woman will usually behave as though she is ‘offended’ by the man’s provocative sex talk, and she will let that man know that she feels ‘disrespected.’ She will usually immediately request an apology of some sort from that man.
And God forbid if that same woman perceives a man as a Total Beta Male. That man will be cursed out, insulted, and possibly even slapped or physically assaulted. At minimum, the women will respond with a response of “Ewwwwwww. Gross. I do not want to have any sort of sexual conversation with you. Not at all.”
Bottom line? The more Alpha a woman perceives you to be, and the more raw sex appeal a woman feels you possess, the more receptive that woman is going to be in response to your provocative sex talk. The more Beta a woman perceives you to be, and the less raw sex appeal she feels you possess, the more likely she is to have a very negative reaction to your provocative sex talk.
This is why I always advise men – through my eBooks, paperbacks, and audiobooks – to always verbally communicate with women with an underlying attitude of “Alphaness.” You want a woman to always perceive you as a Total Alpha male (if your primary interest is casual sex only), or at minimum, an Alpha male with a few Beta traits (if your interest lean more toward marriage or a long-term, emotionally profound, monogamous relationship). Again, anytime your personality and behavior is perceived by a woman to be more ‘Beta’ than ‘Alpha,’ she is more-than-likely going to have a very adverse reaction when you attempt to engage her in a sexually provocative conversation. Sometimes, if a woman is not sure if you are more Alpha than Beta or more Beta than Alpha, she will purposely exhibit a negative reaction to your sexual candor just to see what your reaction will be (basically, if you don’t back down from your comments and avoid apologizing, she knows you’re more Alpha than Beta … but if you apologize very quickly and back down from your sexually provocative comments directed at her, then she knows you’re really more Beta than Alpha).
Stop wasting time fellas engaged in bullshit conversations with women who are not genuinely interested in sharing your company in a romantic and/or sexual manner. Let your romantic and/or sexual desires, interests, and intentions be known to women within approximately the first five minutes or so of your very first conversation with a woman. If nothing else, let that woman know that a series of purely platonic social interactions with her are out of the question.
Mode One Baby. Go out and make some shit happen!