There is a distinction between "upset about being approached" vs "aggressive towards us for even being nice".
Feeling uncomfortable when you're approached by someone not attracted to is something people have less control over compared to how they choose to treat others.
Compare if you asked a girl "would you be open to going for some sort of date with me this week?"
1) "no thank you"
2) "ARE YOU SERIOUS? YOU'RE NOWHERE IN MY LEAGUE! CHAD! COME KICK THIS NECKBEARD'S ASS
The former is clearly less rage-inducing than the latter. Yeah it'd still make you slightly sad, and maybe even slight anger ("I bet she'd say yes if my face was more handsome!" speculation, etc) but probably not same degree of anger as the latter.
The former is a bit more ambiguous. You can cope w/ bluepill rationalizations like "yeah maybe she'd never say yes, but maybe she would if not for other barriers like she has to catch a plane for a 2-month overseas trip in the next ten minutes" so you can't embrace justified anger to the same degree with (1) as in (2)
Girls can give reply (1) which is relatively polite even if they don't particularly feel honored/flattered by the attention.
I don't believe anyone should be expected/obligated to feel honored/flattered by any particular person's attention.
Even if we believe we are people worthy of respect and that foids should in theory respect us and be flattered by us taking time to reach out to them, there's some things to consider here.
a) the foid may know little about us, so even if she might be capable of acknowledging our worth, it's unrealistic of us to expect her to inherently know that without getting to know us
b) we may know little about the foid, so even if she would be flattered by us being attentive to her personality (thinking she is worth our time) AFTER getting to know her on some deeper level, she may not feel flattered at receiving a man's attention simply because of her what she thinks are shallow/surface attributes like her body/attractiveness
Later probably involves some sexist assumptions, like foids assuming their bodies are the male's primary interest. We might well be responding to other cues like how the foid dresses, her body LANGUAGE (posture, facial expressions) or even observed things, like maybe she picked up a piece of litter someone left on the grass and threw it in the trash and THAT impressed us. In THAT case it's actually her personality we're responding to.
We could aid matters by, if responding to something like that, specify that in some way in the pickup line. Like for example "Greetings m'lady, I admire how you threw out that candy wrapper someone else left, I wish there were more avid environmentalists like yourself!"
If she seems apprehensive/hostile in response to that, after an awkward pause of 1-2 seconds one should probably tip one's fedora and go "well g'day ma'am" and continue on one's way.
That's not only wise to avoid problems (keep pressing when she seems uncomfortable and you might get viewed as a harasser) but actually maximizes chances compared to just standing there doing nothing: by abandoning an unresponsive foid (she's not worth your time if she doesn't positively reciprocate within reasonable duration) you're doing a moderate negging which makes you look less desperate compared to doing a lurk/orbit hoping she'll respond.
I don't think there's any chance of a missed opportunity in doing that: if she would've replied but was just pausing to think of something to say, then she'll probably say something as you leave. Otherwise (silent treatment) she probably wants nothing to do with you. If she's super aspie/awkward maybe affirmation could be non- verbal like a smile or a filler pseudoword ("um..." etc)
One of the greater difficulties would be when a foid is scared and just nervously fills the void of conversation to avoid offending/angering you, but actually is uncomfortable and not wanting to speak. Ideally we perceive those situations and leave her alone, but one of the big dilemmas I think would be those situations where it's not overwhelmingly obvious and we're not sure.
The "she's scared and just being polite but wants us to leave" situation happens exponentially more often for us than for Chad, so that possibility will seem probable and overwhelm us to the point of second-guessing everything. If it's true 99% of the time then the 1% of the time it isn't, you'll probably assess a false positive.
Conversely this is probably why Chad is prone to harassing the occasional unicorn who doesn't like him: girls respond positively 99% of the time so the 1% of the time a girl wants him to go, he's likely not to perceive it.
The flip side which complicates it is that in addition to "girl wants you to leave but acts pleasant out of politeness" is that you also have girls who want you to stay but don't want to appear over-eager and thus play hard-to-get and standoffish.
What's very bad about this game is that enough girls do this for it to be known, which means even girls who are genuinely making an attempt to be standoffish because they want to leave can be interpreted as just "playing" at resistance rather than genuinely resisting.
That's probably another reason Chad tends to get rapey (though with less consequence: foids are more likely to forgive him and retroactively rationalize it as a non-rape with attractive men) because he knows a higher % of women will desire him and play hard to get compared to women who dislike him (polite and impolite combined)
We are so used to rejection that the idea of women playing hard to get to impress us is a needle in a haystack: it's far more likely that their rejection is genuine, so we don't second-guess standoffishness to the same degree Chad would.
Smart women would realize that and if they did desire our company, hopefully be more forthright about it and not play games.
Another foid game which contributes to the 'rape culture' they whine about is "I want to see if I'm important enough to this guy for him to persist in pursuing me despite obstacles". The whole "fight for me" thing, like if they coquettishly say they're busy, have a BF, not interested, etc but are lying.
These same barriers/hoops done to elevate a woman's SMV (conveying chastity / less likely to have sex partners) are also done to literally narrow down the field of men she's willing to date to those who will ignore barriers and persist in going after them.
The problem with that strategy is that women who put barriers like this in place simply because already know they don't want a relationship with someone (not to enhance her SMV/importance or shit-test someone she views as a prospect) are inevitably going to get harassed by confused unrequited men because the same signals are being used.
Distinguishing these requires further attention to subtle things and good intution: like one would hope that shit-testing SMV-raising women have some kind of subtle cues (playfulness, reciprocative body language which contradicts her words, or vice versa) that could help in distinguishing them from legit-rejecting women.
I think that's where "mixed signals" type memes come in. That's not utterly reliable though: a woman might blush (unchosen unconscious reaction) for reasons of embarassment rather than arousal. Something which might be used to detect dishonesty ("she says no, but she wants me") could also merely be a symptom of nervousness ("she says no, but she's scared of how men react to rejection")
I would hope acknowledging these facets and empathizing on confusion and fear and mixed signals would humanize us some what to foids, at least hypothetically, to dismantle misandric charicatures of one-dimensionality.
At the same time: I can't expect some random foid to telepathically be aware of me writing an essay like this, and should not fault her for not knowing who I am and how I think from some random encounter. All she has to go on at least from outset is stereotypes, and there are some bad guys out there who propogate them.
These of course get inflated by foids who focus in on those bad actors, the same way our own negative stereotypes about women are probably slightly exaggerated (though I think to a lesser degree) by obvious bad actors we've witnessed who we zero in on and give undue importance to when establishing precedents.
worth noting: "go out with me?" is a pretty assertive opener. I never get that far because you want to establish rapport first (get to know at least some basic stuff) before moving to that, and it's those pre-openers (if asking on a date is sex then "foreplay") which confuse me and which I have a lot of difficulty with.
