Disclaimer: After numerous in-person requests, I am mulling over the possibility of detailing my approach to seduction (as a man who frequently seduces totally sober women). My ultimate decision will be in some part a function of the response here. I apologize if what I am writing about has been discussed already under another name (but would be grateful if /r/seduction users could fill me in on existent terminology where it applies).

In using direct language to seduce women, I have found that, on occasion, the other person will respond with something that is neither a yes nor a no, but rather a superficially unrelated statement. To illustrate the sort of scenario to which I refer, here are two examples (in response to a carefully worded question about whether the woman would like to come home / stay over with me):

Example 1. (at a party) I'm here with a friend and she's somewhat intoxicated, so I want to be sure that she's okay getting a cab home.

Example 2. (from someone in the same building as me) I still have my contacts in, though, and I didn't bring the solution with me; so I guess I should go.

I think a lot of people take either statement as meaning thanks but no thanks. Of course, if you ask for consent and the answer is not a clear yes, then the answer is a no. But sometimes people respond in ambiguous ways, whether it is out of surprise at being asked such a direct question, or if it is because they feel some responsibility not to "seem easy." (I'm sure readers can think of other reasons to answer ambiguously.)

In such a situation as presented in either of the examples above, I like to use what I call a bluff-call pivot. Stated succinctly, the strategy is to identify exactly what the ambiguous response is, and to reiterate a direct ask for consent while suggesting that the unrelated comment not be conflated with the idea of, for example, a decision on casual sex.

Example response 1: (approximated and without response dialogue) That seems like a good choice, but I'm still wondering if you're interested in leaving here together. If you're not interested, or if you're intending to leave along with your friend, no problem. If you're potentially interested but want to ensure your friend can find a cab safely, then I'd be happy to go outside with both of you and help hail one. I'm sure there are lots of empty taxis at this time of night. Just let me know what your preference is.

Example response 2: (approximated and without response dialogue) I definitely wouldn't want your eyes to dry out and render you permanently blind. I'm still wondering, though, whether you're interested in staying here for the night. If you're disinterested, then that's totally fine; but if the only issue is your contacts, I'd be happy to wait while you grab the solution, or even to go downstairs with you if you'd like company. But I hope your decision to stay here or not won't be based on going up and down a few flights of stairs; let me know what your actual preference is.

I don't know if others have employed this strategy, but I have found it to be very successful. Stated somewhat crudely, it seems to cause the other person to re-schematize the question of "sex or no sex?" into the question of "is this irrelevant comment a good reason to turn down sex?" Because the comment is totally irrelevant (e.g., her friend needs a cab, or she needs to go up and down two flights of stairs to deal with her contact lenses) the result is that women will answer the re-schematized question in their mind as "no, it is not a good reason to turn down sex" and will give clear consent. (Though you will probably end up accompanying them to help their friend get a taxi or to put their contacts somewhere.)

The reason for the name bluff-call pivot is that I view the irrelevant comment as a bluff: they expect that saying something unrelated to the yes/no consent question will somehow imply a yes or no. I choose to reiterate the yes/no consent question directly, and pivot off of it by linguistically transforming the question of having sex into the question of the relevance of something irrelevant (from which the desired consequence follows almost trivially).

The key points to this technique are:

  1. Ask directly if someone is interested in going home with you or staying the night.

  2. If instead of a yes/no answer you hear what sounds like an unrelated response, then (gently) point out the irrelevant nature of their answer, and re-ask directly.

  3. When you re-ask, conflate the unrelated response with the answer of no.

  4. If, when you re-ask, she says "no" or eludes the question again, then there is no consent and you should kindly tell her that you enjoyed her company, to have a nice night, etc.