1, 3 and 4 are subjective. I make a point of holding eye contact until she looks away, not the other way around. And intensity sometimes just happens. Great chemistry makes for an electric atmosphere. Theres nothing better than holding a burning eye contact with someone and knowing they are thinking and feeling just like I do at that moment.
Number three is well, also subjective. Flirtatiousness demands a small amount of sexualization in that chemistry needs intimacy in a way. Sometimes a hint of vocalised attraction is a good thing.
Number one is subjective too. Some women like a guy to be up front and sure of himself. Forward and confident can easily be blurred into 'pushy' depending on the perspective of the woman.
There's really no hard fast rule. Some women like to text a lot. Some women dont. some women date and have commitment in mind, some women dont.
it's a question of compatibility more than anything else IMO.
I wouldnt really change much about myself or try to play by set out rules because the situation varies in each encounter.
Honestly, I don't think any of those things were subjective. Women like confidence, not cockiness. Sometimes girls won't immediately be attracted to you. To be pushy towards them when they say no at first, you're not just burning the bridge, you're taking a flamethrower to it! Patience and chivalry are two important things in my opinion.
Sometimes eye contact, especially prolonged, is WAY too much in the initial stages of meeting someone, and even in a relationship.
Three is no exception. Unless, well, maybe when you're married. Once again, upon first meeting someone, even while in a relationship with that person, I'd say the crude talk is out. C'mon, save that stuff for marriage. Simple flirting is okay, I think, within the context of a relationship.
Some women like to text, some don't. I think, especially at the beginning of a relationship, if possible, keep the texting at a minimum. Lots of miscommunications happen over e-mail and text message. You put your own voice and tone to it, and then things can be interpreted wrong.
I agree nothing is completely cookie-cutter, but there are such things as "Ground rules," and I think what Stilly posted were it.