To begin with, the charitable interpretation is that since I didn't say "deliberately depriving the target of access to relevant facts that they would wish to know before making a decision whether or not to engage socially, sexually or romantically with the suppressor" is rape that you should not interpret me as saying that. You were saying "X is not rape" as if that claim ended the matter, and in response I was saying "X is depriving the target of facts which you know are highly likely to be relevant to their decision to interact with you and this is morally questionable regardless of whether or not it goes in the category of things that are rape".

A rational women would, I imagine, prefer to have access to a man's un-spoofed social signals so that she could avoid interacting with men who are lacking in confidence or who are nervous, because those signals convey that the man in question is likely to be lacking underlying qualities like self-esteem, sexual experience and so forth. Spoofing those signals so that those who lack the underlying qualities that give rise to confidence is depriving the woman of relevant and important information so the man can get laid.

Secondly, you are the one who tried to substitute "acting confident and suppressing nervousness" in to replace what we were actually discussing, which was the fact that the person approaching the hypothetical woman was a PUA using specific PUA techniques. I brought us back to the topic in the next paragraph. That is a piece of information which I believe would be a deal-breaker for a large number of entirely rational women and hence there is an immediate ethical problem with a PUA concealing it.

Construing the final paragraph you quoted as saying that "Acting confident and suppressing nervousness is rape" seems wilfully obtuse. The question is whether concealing information that would be a deal-breaker for a substantial number of informed and rational women belongs in the same moral category as rape. I tend to think it does, although conceivably you could argue that it's closer in nature to fraud.