Embedded commands dating
If a woman is ALREADY feeling safe and attracted to you, then you can be direct.
If you are physically attractive, have good body language, or are a very sharp dresser, then this may work particularly well for you.
But, according to Epstude and Förster (2011), how people interpret ambiguous romantic situations can be influenced.
Epstude and Förster (2011) assert that love and sex are independent in the mind.
This is because the process is emotional, not logical.
So, when you ask a woman "how" to do it (a logic question), it will be influenced by her feelings at the moment (an emotional response).
Her first email contradicts the second and the idea that I should only imply an interest in sex by saying I want to hang out with her contradicts the study by T.
Conley where women are very down with pretty much any context of casual sex so long as she feels attraction. Conley's study is true then why is it when I want to find out what are the accepted boundaries of asking for casual sex that people can't just simply respond that in their experience that practically half (or more because who said "no" didn't necessarily think it was wrong) of women don't think that casual sex (on any level) is a big deal at all?
Let's review a few examples of discussions that will get your date thinking along the lines of "love" or "lust"...
Cognitions (thoughts) of Love take place in the abstract and the future.
So, to call upon that construal level, get your dating partners to discuss some of the following: The mind is flexible, but it also has set "tracks" of thinking.
In other words, they are interested in casual sex under certain circumstances. When they FEEL safe and sexually turned on, THEN about 40% will agree to casual sex.
Given all of that, you have a choice with how to respond.