Mode One vs Roosh - Printable Version

Mode One vs Roosh - Printable Version

+- Roosh V Forum (https://rooshvforum.network)
+-- Forum: Main (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Game (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-2.html)
+--- Thread: Mode One vs Roosh (/thread-3903.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Mode One vs Roosh - Leónidas - 03-09-2011

Look at this little "debate":

http://www.direct-game.org/showthread.ph...-One/page6
http://www.direct-game.org/showthread.php?p=1096&page=7

Let me know wht you think

Mode One vs Roosh - Leónidas - 03-09-2011

Quote:Leónidas Wrote:

I think an argument that adds a lot to this and the [URL="http://daygame.com/cafe/index.html/topic,313.0.html"]The Alan Roger Currie VS Yad Philosophical Debate[/URL] is:

http://www.rooshv.com/direct-game-vs-indirect-game

Quote:Roosh V Wrote:

Many say direct game is “better,” but unfortunately we’re not able to conduct scientific studies to prove either side. Even my conclusions are based only on experience and anecdotal evidence. The main problem I have with direct game is this: it shows your cards right away and forces the girl to make a decision before you build up any value besides your appearance and confidence. That’s not enough for the majority of Western girls. You’re not giving her the time and information she needs to weigh the pros and cons on sleeping with you. Instead, immediately after the opener, you force her to decide right then and there if she wants to get involved. She’ll bow out (“Sorry I have a boyfriend”), or just be nice to you for the flattering attention. Truth is direct game guys get a lot of numbers but have a pitiful close rate.
(...)

The more value you have, in terms of looks and status, the more direct you can go where you can approach girls saying they’re beautiful and bang that night without problems. But if you’re a random guy off the street who needs to study game to get the girls he wants, chance are you don’t have that initial value where you will be rewarded for your direct opener.

(...)
Bottom line: there are girls who will reject your direct game that would have eventually fucked you had you gone indirect. But not the other way around. If you approach a girl indirect that you could have gone direct on, the only difference is that it will take a little longer for the close. Because of this reason alone, it’s simply a good bet to have a default game that is indirect. Direct game is fun to mess around with on the side, but when I’m serious about getting laid I stay indirect. Even in a country like Brazil, where direct game is more rewarded than in the States, I still roll with indirect game unless I’m on a hot streak. For average looking guys, it’s their best option.

Quote:ModeOne4Ever;1080 Wrote:

In my experience, there are pros & cons, and advantages & disadvantages for BOTH.

As I mention in my second book, [URL="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1601457952"]Upfront and Straightforward[/URL], I place all [single] women into four general categories:

Reciprocators: Women who once they know what your specific desires and interests are, they will reciprocate your desires and interests fairly quickly;

Rejecters: Women who once they know what your specific desires and interests are, they will not hesitate to let you know that they do not share the same desires and interests;

Pretenders: Women who once they know what your specific desires and interests are, they will temporarily or indefinitely "pretend" as though they do NOT share the same desires and interests as you, but deep-down, they do want to reciprocate your desires and interests at some point;

Timewasters: Women who once they know what your specific desires and interests are, they will temporarily or indefinitely give you the misleading impression that they share the same desires and interests as you, but deep-down, they have no intentions whatsoever of reciprocating your romantic and/or sexual desires and interests;

When you're dealing with "Reciprocators" and/or "Rejecters," it really doesn't matter if your approach is direct or indirect. You could use either approach, and your end result will generally be the same.

But when you are dealing with the latter two ... "Pretenders" and "Timewasters," it is much more advantageous to use an upfront and straightforwardly honest / direct approach than a beat-around-the-bush / indirect approach.

With the latter two, indirect opens the door for "manipulative head games." This is the #1 reason why I tend to shy away from indirect approaches. When you're dealing with a non-manipulative type woman, indirect won't hurt you. But when you are interacting with a seasoned manipulator, you are going to end up feeling angry, frustrated and bitter if you approach her using an indirect approach.

This is why the vast majority of those who follow The Mode One Approach rarely, if ever, use indirect approaches. Too many 'head games' involved.

My thoughts.

Mode One vs Roosh - Leónidas - 03-09-2011

Quote:Neil_K;1093 Wrote:

Ok, I just read that article and it is WAY off the mark. I'm actually boiling after reading that article, because the guy who wrote it states a lot of his misconceptions about Direct as facts, when in fact much of what he says isn't true at all. That guy doesn't understand Direct at all. He is a typical 'indirect PUA guru' who talks shit about Direct. I'm going to break his article down bit by bit, because it's mega important that someone stands up to these indirect guys who are spreading false propaganda about direct. I've got some strong words to say here, and I make NO APOLOGIES for what I'm about to say because it needs to be said. This is going to be a long reply, so grab yourselves a cup of coffee guys and read on....

I disagree....a lot of people seem to think that if you're a newbie to approaching and dating women, that you should start with indirect and then later on progress to Direct. I think this is misguided information. Direct and indirect are two OPPOSING philosophies and two different forks in the road, so you have to decide which fork in the road you're going to take. One road does not lead to the other.

I actually think if a guy who's new to approaching and dating women starts off with indirect, he's going to find it harder to progress to Direct at a later stage because he'll be so brainwashed by all these indirect 'pseudo science game theories' that he'll have to unlearn that before he can progress to direct. If a guy wants to be Direct with women, he should start out as Direct from the start. He shoudn't get involved with indirect at all if he wishes to pursue the Direct philosophy. End of.

First point: direct is not 'game', it is simply about TRUTH and being REAL. I wish all these indirect guys would stop calling Direct 'direct game'. Basically, they are trying to use direct as a technique or tactic. 'Game' is a term from the indirect community, where one applies a bunch of techniques, tactis and routines in order to try and get women.

Direct is the antithesis of all that. It's about not using 'game' and instead about being REAL. So stop referring to direct as 'direct game' and instead refer to it simply as Direct.

Second point: Direct is not about having preplanned 'openers'. Direct is about opening with whatever is on your mind in the moment and letting your interest in the woman be known right from the start. The concept of using preplanned 'openers' comes from the indirect community.

Third point: neither of those two 'openers' are Direct. The first one 'Hi I noticed you from across the room and you seem like an interesting person. What’s your name?' is NOT direct. In no way does this 'opener' express the fact that you're sexually/romantically attracted to the women. This 'opener' simply conveys PLATONIC interest, as there is no sexual element. How is the women going to know what you want from her and that you're interested in her sexually/romantically by saying that 'opener'?

The same applies to the second 'opener', 'Hi I don’t have a lot of time to talk, unfortunately, but you seem like the type of person I would like to get to know. Do you want meet some other time over coffee?'. The only thing this opener conveys is that you're interested in getting to know the woman....but there's no way to tell if you're interested in getting to know her because you want a platonic friend or if you want a lover. It cannot be 'assumed' that she knows you're sexually attracted to her.

Therefore these openers are Mode 2 or even Mode 3...i.e. indirect. There are NOT direct. These examples alone prove that Roosh does not understand Direct.

Again, stop calling Direct 'game'. And there is nothing wrong with opening with a genuine, sincere compliment. Nothing at all. David X, the Godfather of Direct, compliments women from the outset. He asks himself 'what about her turns me on?', then goes over to the woman and tells her what he's noticed.

As long as you're not using compliments to gain 'browny points' and as long as you state your intentions straight away, then there is nothing wrong with opening with a sincere compliment. If anything, a compliment lets a woman know you're sexually attracted to her if said right!

What's wrong with showing your cards right away? When you show your cards right away, you force a girl to show HER cards right away...which is exactly what you want! Also, you can still get to know a girl after you've approached her Direct, so you can see if you're compatible or not. A lot of indirect guys seem to think that you have to get to know a girl first, before revealing your intentions.

But when you hide your intentions by going indirect, you allow the girl to hide her intentions too, thus leaving yourself open to being manipulated, having your time/money/emotional energy wasted. Better to know UPFRONT if a girl is sexually attracted to you or not, so you can move on without wasting time if she isn't interested. The problem with indirect is that is doesn't allow you to efficiently identify which women are interested in you sexually and which women are not.

This is EXACTLY why you need to be Direct with women! You NEED to put them in a position where they are forced to either RECIPROCATE or REJECT your interest in them. The problem with indirect is that it doesn't do that...it allows a woman to toy with you and not give you a yes or no answer, but instead to say 'maybe' to you. Wouldn't you prefer to know UPFRONT whether a woman is interested in you or not?

What do you base these assumptions on? I'm sick of indirect guys AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMING that 'direct will get you rejected, therefore you need to go indirect'.

Let me set you straight. A woman will only reject you outright if she's not interested. I haven't found that women will 'just be nice to you for flattering attention' if you approach them Direct. I've found that with indirect, though.

And the line 'I've got a boyfriend' shouldn't always be taken at face value. Anyone who's experienced with women should know that.

NOT TRUE. If anything, it's indirect that has a pitiful 'close rate'. Most indirect guys spend ages talking to women, running their routines, techniques, tactics etc and their focus is on getting the phone number. However, how many of these phone numbers actually lead to anything more, such as a date, sex, getting a girlfriend, etc?

My thoughts about indirect are that it simply entertains a girl in the moment...gets her laughing, gets her talking to you....but a lot of the time gets you nothing beyond that. Indirect simply gives you the ILLUSION that you're 'getting somewhere' with a woman, when in reality all you're doing is having an entertaining interaction with her and possibly getting her phone number. But what about actual closes?

Here's something a lot of people don't know: David X has said in interviews that he used to give counseling to Mystery. Mystery used to entertain women and get tons of phone numbers....but he could very rarely 'close' any of these numbers. And to think, thousands upon thousands of men all over the world look up to Mystery as if he's some kind of 'pickup God' or something. The actual truth is a lot different.

As for Direct getting guys a lot of numbers...you'll actually find that most Direct guys DON'T put their emphasis on getting phone numbers. Instead, we place our emphasis on STATING OUR INTENTIONS. Most Direct guys also don't ask a girl for her number, but instead prefer to give her our number and tell her to call if she's interested in getting together. So I don't know where you got this idea that Direct guys get a lot of phone numbers and not many closes. This isn't true, mate.

All these videos of indirect guys approaching women and getting numbers are bullshit too....I don't care how many numbers the guy got, I want to know what happened AFTER that....did he get a date with the woman? Did he have sex with her? Did he start dating her? No video EVER tells you these things. It's merely an ILLUSION that these indirect guys are getting ACTUAL CLOSES. Interactions and phone numbers, yes...closes? Rarely.

I want to add that I'm not saying indirect doesn't work, I'm simply saying that is it far less efficient than Direct, and causes men to waste a lot of time interacting with women who are not genuinely sexually attracted to them, whilst giving you the illusion you're 'getting somewhere' with her.

Mode One vs Roosh - Leónidas - 03-09-2011

SECOND PART OF Neil K

Quote:Neil_K;1094 Wrote:

I disagree. There are many, many Direct guys who are average looking who have massive success with Direct. David X is one example...he's not classically handsome or good looking, but he got laid like crazy because of his confidence. It's NOT TRUE that Direct only works for good looking guys. Women are more attracted to a guy's overall confidence and demeanor than his looks. I'm not saying looks mean nothing, but good looks alone don't gety a guy laid....they have to be backed up by confidence.

I think Alan himself has said in the past 'There is something compelling about a guy who is not good looking, but who carries himself with a boatload of confidence'.

This idea that you need to be indirect if you're not good looking is BULLSHIT.

Value? Please stop spouting these 'pseudo scientific' seduction theories such as 'value' around. The concept of VALUE comes from the indirect community. Us Direct guys don't over-think this stuff....we just concentrate on approaching women and being completely upfront and honest about our intentions. By doing this, we're automatically perceived as 'high value'...whatever that means anyway.

Initial value? If you approach a girl in the street in a bold, upfront, honest manner, you'll AUTOMATICALLY be perceived as a 'high value' male....without having to try and create 'fake value' like most indirect guys do.

COMPLETELY DISAGREE. It DOES NOT MATTER if you are being looked at or 'checked out' by women before you approach them. Why do you believe you can only go Direct if women check you out first? That's BULLSHIT. Anyone who waits for women to 'check them out' first before going Direct is basically SCARED OF REJECTION, therefore wants to GUARANTEE he won't be rejected from his Direct approach.

What about women who find you hot but don't give you any 'signs' before you approach? You don't need to wait for 'signs' or 'signals' before you approach someone Direct. Most women DON'T give you any signs first, as they're busy doing their own thing, so you should approach regardless of whether you get a 'sign' or not.

I disagree that Direct is 'suicide' in a club. Listen, clubs are full of manipulative women, attention seekers, etc. Direct will cut through all that shit and force the women who are interested in you to reveal their interest. But if you go indirect in a club, you'll waste time with a lot of these attention seekers who will TALK to guys for the attention, but won't go home with him.

The best weapon against manipulative women is direct honesty.

If I'm in a club, I simply walk up to women and let them know I'm attracted to them, and then let them know I'm looking for someone to take home with me tonight and ask if they're interested. This is the most efficient way to get one night stands in bars and clubs, because it cuts through the manipulative bullshit and gets right to the point.

If it takes longer to get the close from indirect, why not just go Direct in the first place? You'd have got faster results. I don't know how you can say it's better to have default game as indirect, when you've just admitted indirect is slower for getting closes. Your logic is a bit off there, buddy.

Again, your logic is off. When I'm serious about figuring out which women are sexually attracted to me, I stay Direct. Indirect is fine if you just want some fun, entertaining, flirty interactions with women with no real guarantees of their sexual interest in you....but for truly sorting out which women are sexually attracted to you vs which are not, then Direct is far more efficient. It doesn't matter if you're good looking, average, ugly....Direct is STILL the most efficient way to separate the girls who are attracted to you from those who are just wasting your time.

NOT TRUE. Here's the thing most indirect guys don't understand: YOU CANNOT MAKE A WOMEN WHO ISN'T SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO YOU BECOME SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO YOU. If a girl REJECTS you from a Direct approach because she simply isn't sexually attracted to you, NOTHING you can do could make her become sexually attracted to you. No amount of indirect routines/tactics/techniques will make her become sexually attracted to you.

This is where the indirect guys have it wrong: indirect guys believe you can MAKE a girl become attracted to you by 'gaming' her with techniques/tactics/routines etc. You CAN'T. The ACTUAL TRUTH is: if a girl sleeps with you from an indirect approach, she had some sexual interest in you from the beginning. Therefore, you'd have been better off going Direct anyway and you'd have likely got faster results by approaching her Direct.

Mode One vs Roosh - Giovonny - 03-10-2011

Guys should experiment with both styles and find a method that works for them. Like most of these "debates", there is no "right or "wrong" answer.

I have used both methods alot and I think there is a time to use each of them. It all depends on the type of girl and the situation. Sometimes I use both styles almost at the same time. I might open a girl "indirectly" and then quickly shift into more "direct" conversation.

One of my favorite things to do is to use "indirect language" but "direct body language" at the exact same time. I will not tell the girl that I'm attracted to her but I will look at her and talk to her in a tone that lets her know that I like her. I call it a "hybrid" approach. I will just talk to her about any random topic but while doing that, I will look at her in the eyes seductively and move my eyes around her body.

You can say almost anything and make it seductive. For example, "Damn, its so hot today, I need to get some ice cream"

As I say "Damn", I'm looking at her waist. Then I slowly move my eyes up her body and slowly say, "its so hot today", then look her in the eyes without any fear or embarrassment. Of course I keep a little grin on my face and say everything with a playful but strong tone. Tonality is very important with this type of approach. The way you talk and your body/eye language is almost more important then what you say.

During the day I think its important to not be too direct. You can look like a weirdo and scare girls away. At night when everyone is drunk is better for being really aggressive and direct.

I don't think girls want us to be overly direct. Its such a caveman way to talk to people. You can tell a girl you want to fuck her without actually saying it. Girls like it when you do it in a smooth, witty way. Thats sexier to them.

As far as practice:

Indirect forces you to work on your quick wit and conversational skills.

Direct is better for building a strong vibe and presence. With Indirect, I don't talk as much or as fast.

I personally use alot more direct because I think you waste alot less time that way.

Mode One vs Roosh - Giovonny - 03-11-2011

Edit:

Towards the end of my post I wrote.."With Indirect, I don't talk as much or as fast"

I meant to say, "with DIRECT I don't talk as much or as fast".

Mode One vs Roosh - OGNorCal707 - 03-11-2011

Good breakdown and advice Giovonny, there are pros and cons to both approaches. I think it's smart to take the positive aspects of both and be well versed in them, so depending on the situation you can use either.

Mode One vs Roosh - Dash Global - 03-11-2011

i agree with Roosh on this one. You need high value and status or good looks to be successful with direct game on a consistent basis. If u are an ugly dude and go direct u will get shut down REAL quick.

i like roosh's club scenario about getting alot of IOI's and being approached outright by females. direct game would stand alot better chance of success in this case as opposed to a cold approach without any IOI's.

for the average looking/status guy indirect game is more fruitful.

not saying u shouldnt use direct game, u just need to know WHEN to use it.

Mode One vs Roosh - Dash Global - 03-12-2011

I know for a fact their theory is BS about not being able to get a grl to fuck you if she initially isnt attracted to you sexually, hell they dont have to be sexually attracted to u at all.

I even ask girls i know why they fuck some ugly guy and they say it was there, or he was just showing me attention, ect ect.

Mode One vs Roosh - Dueyz - 03-12-2011

Without much refinement of my game, I spent the past few years going direct. Needless to say, the results weren't mostly positive. All of us that have spent enough time 'out there' have learned our strengths and weaknesses. I knew that my best game was always direct. And it still is. But I lacked the understanding of when and how to properly use this game in a way that would end the way I wanted. Reading through some of Roosh's views on how to refine this approach helped me tremendously.

In many of these cases, I intimidated the woman in a situation that would have otherwise worked out well for me. Many women are NOT prepared for an instant response scenario. Their defalt response in these anxious encounters is 'no thank you'. I should've built the attraction over a couple minutes and let her natural attraction make her feel comfortable with what I had in mind.

Now I approach more softly within the first 60 seconds. I gauge her feel and adjust as needed. As complex as women can be, I've found that they are very basic in these scenarios. Our window of opportunity can be very brief, so this interaction is crucial. If she wants a dominant man, you wont have much more than 60 seconds in the initial meeting to make sure you're game is direct. If she responds better with a little coaxing, you wont have much more than 60 seconds in the initial meeting to make sure you aren't being too direct.

Mode One vs Roosh - Screwston - 03-12-2011

Can someone explain the difference between direct and indirect game? Just a few examples of each or something.

Mode One vs Roosh - Dueyz - 03-12-2011

Quote: (03-12-2011 03:10 AM)houston Wrote:

Can someone explain the difference between direct and indirect game? Just a few examples of each or something.

Direct game is approaching a woman in a very direct way; this means you skip small conversation. It's a very blatant way of showing interest and gauging feedback. Through this approach, you immediately force her to make a choice on being into you or not.

Indirect game is approaching a woman in ANY way that allows for your time together to continue without her ever making the conscious decision to do so. She doesn't necessarily recognize that you're using game, but she's interested for some reason she hasn't quite fully understood yet.

Mode One vs Roosh - docsedated - 03-12-2011

Mi dos centavos :

Roosh is in favor of opening with Indirect approach but to be changed to direct later.....

Roosh Says : Bottom line,there are girls who will reject your direct game that would have eventually fucked you had you gone indirect. But not the other way around.

I agree with first have of the above statement, yes you can scare some girls with direct approach but not with the other half where he says"..... girls might have eventually fucked you had you gone indirect",...... here is where I agree with the proponents of Direct Game, I am quoting text from a previous poster

YOU CANNOT MAKE A WOMEN WHO ISN'T SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO YOU BECOME SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO YOU. If a girl REJECTS you from a Direct approach because she simply isn't sexually attracted to you, NOTHING you can do could make her become sexually attracted to you. No amount of indirect routines/tactics/techniques will make her become sexually attracted to you

After much pondering and trial in the field here is the conclusion I have come to

1. One should open with Indirect so as not to scare the cats away but to switch to Direct as early as you can, If you stay indirect you will be wasting a lot of time on girls that might think you are just a friendly person and will keep on just because they are getting attention fron you and yes you won't get any because they don't see u that way......

2. There is no absolute here Indirect Vs Direct, every girl is different, Every Player is different and their goals are different, Learn to use both effectively. If looking for GF or relationship Indirect works ,Looking for ONS go direct.

If girls are checking you out, Placing themselves in your vicinity, obviously showing you the clevage or touch your Dick accidently..... yes it has happened, By all means go Direct.

3. With Indirect you spend/waste a lot of time to know if a girl is DTF and i think if you would have used the same time approaching directly, get blown out 10 X you will find the girl who is DTF, afterall it a numbers game and you have to use your time effectively.

@ Houston :

Indirect would mean she wouldn't know what ur intentions are and u are flying under the radar, when she becomes comfortable , you will eventually have to break the comfort (yes u would have to direct and let her know what ur intentions are)

for example I use different perfumes on each wrist and ask for Opinion, this is Indirect.

Vs

Direct would be that she knows you want to get in her pants but you also are not saying, My pad is around the block , lets go and fuck like crazy......

for example same opener above

" Imagine yourself in bed with me,......... Pause....... which perfume would you like better " [Image: smile.gif]

More you game and the better your game level becomes you will switch to Direct or from Indirect to direct very early in the Interaction.

Game on Brothers..........

Mode One vs Roosh - Dash Global - 03-13-2011

Quote: (03-12-2011 04:57 PM)docsedated Wrote:

YOU CANNOT MAKE A WOMEN WHO ISN'T SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO YOU BECOME SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO YOU. If a girl REJECTS you from a Direct approach because she simply isn't sexually attracted to you, NOTHING you can do could make her become sexually attracted to you. No amount of indirect routines/tactics/techniques will make her become sexually attracted to you

I think the thing most people are missing is that a chick does not have to be sexually attracted to you to fuck you. Thats where game, time, and cheer luck comes into play. The supporters of modeone and direct game throw this statement out there all the time and it means absolutely nothing.

Obviously if your only in town for ONE night you might be better served going direct. Also you can tell if a girl is DTF whether ur going direct or indirect.

Which approach to use is gonna depend on the situation and the girl. But unless ur really goodlooking or have high status ur gonna be better off going indirect in most interactions imo

Mode One vs Roosh - docsedated - 03-13-2011

Dash Global wrote:

I think the thing most people are missing is that a chick does not have to be sexually attracted to you to fuck you. Thats where game, time, and cheer luck comes into play.

Great Point Dash Global , I never thought from that perspective and now that I am thinking there are many reasons why a women would fuck you even when she is not sexually interested in you, Like revenge on her partner, she's bored, she wants to show off to her friends etc......

Mixx recommended a great book on this topic " Why women have sex " that help players understand this point better, I recommend everyone to read this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Women-Have-Sex...909&sr=1-1

Dash Global : Kindly elaborate how you find out if a girl is DTF going both Direct and Indirect ways ?

Mode One vs Roosh - HD668B - 03-13-2011

Game works.

When I first met my 2nd German girl, she had the berlin wall as a bitchshield. So I just moved on. And she actually forgot me from that night. Then I met her again few nights after, knowing what to expect, and played my asshole game perfectly untill the bang.

Mode One vs Roosh - Dash Global - 03-13-2011

Quote: (03-13-2011 01:52 PM)docsedated Wrote:

Dash Global wrote:

I think the thing most people are missing is that a chick does not have to be sexually attracted to you to fuck you. Thats where game, time, and cheer luck comes into play.

Great Point Dash Global , I never thought from that perspective and now that I am thinking there are many reasons why a women would fuck you even when she is not sexually interested in you, Like revenge on her partner, she's bored, she wants to show off to her friends etc......

Mixx recommended a great book on this topic " Why women have sex " that help players understand this point better, I recommend everyone to read this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Women-Have-Sex...909&sr=1-1

Dash Global : Kindly elaborate how you find out if a girl is DTF going both Direct and Indirect ways ?

Just look for the obvious signs. Huge sign in America is making out. If a chick has had a few drinks and makes out with you there is a HIGH chance you can fuck her that night. Other signs might be how she touches you, sexual innuendos, how she responds to any sexual innuendos you make. Trust me you can just tell when a girl is DTF for a ONS.

Mode One vs Roosh - iknowexactly - 04-16-2011

Of course, the biggest undiscussed truth here is that by far the WORST approach is PASSIVE game. I was better looking than average when I was younger, and only once or twice in DECADES did a woman actively run game on me so that I would have had to explicitly say "no" to avoid getting laid. Women FREQUENTLY hint, but almost never ask for one's number etc.

It's their biological imperative to screen for only aggressive/assertive males.

I think it's, like most debates, situational.

In a military campaign, no competent general would ever say it's always better to do a frontal assault or to do covert operations.

It largely depends on what the situation with relative strength of enemy is , etc.-- although your facility with direct or indirect also is a factor to consider.

Best summary: Sun Tzu's quote: ( paraphrased) " If the general knows himself and knows the enemy, he will never lose. If he knows himself but not the enemy, or vice versa, he will sometimes lose. If he knows neither himself or the enemy, he will almost always lose."

For instance, if you have a relatively weaker force, but you are out of supplies, need to steal those of your enemy, and your army will die within a day without victory, the intelligent decision might be to attack a stronger army-- even though the odds are poor, they're the only odds you have.

c.

Mode One vs Roosh - neil_k - 07-31-2011

Hello, this is neil_k, the guy who commented on Roosh's original 'Direct game vs Indirect game' post. I saw this post today and decided to sign up and give my feedback on your comments, and clear up at lot of your misconceptions about Direct.

Quote: (03-10-2011 10:58 PM)Giovonny Wrote:

Guys should experiment with both styles and find a method that works for them. Like most of these "debates", there is no "right or "wrong" answer.

It's up to the individual to decide whether they prefer the Direct or the indirect approach. What I object to is when indirect guys start spouting out their misconceptions about Direct as facts.

Quote: (03-10-2011 10:58 PM)Giovonny Wrote:

I have used both methods alot and I think there is a time to use each of them. It all depends on the type of girl and the situation.

I disagree. There is no situation where Direct can't be used effectively in my experience. I've never found a situation where it's more advantageous to use indirect instead of Direct.

Quote: (03-10-2011 10:58 PM)Giovonny Wrote:

Sometimes I use both styles almost at the same time.

It's NOT POSSIBLE to be Direct and indirect at the same time. In any given interaction with a woman, you are either 1) Direct, 2) indirect, or 3) not revealing your intentions at all. You cannot be more than one of these at the same time.

Quote: (03-10-2011 10:58 PM)Giovonny Wrote:

I might open a girl "indirectly" and then quickly shift into more "direct" conversation.

It is not Direct if you start indirect and then try to shift to Direct later on. That is still indirect. In the context of Alan Currie's ebook, you would be 'Mode 2' with the approach you just described.

Direct is where you let a women know, verbally, RIGHT FROM THE START what your intentions are.

Quote: (03-10-2011 10:58 PM)Giovonny Wrote:

One of my favorite things to do is to use "indirect language" but "direct body language" at the exact same time.

There is no such thing as 'direct body language'.

See, this is one of the biggest misconceptions indirect/PUA type guys have about Direct. They think that you can be 'non-verbally direct' or 'direct with your body but not your words'.

I call this 'pseudo direct' i.e. a false form of 'direct', but not TRUE Direct.

There's a lot of this 'pseudo direct' theory floating around the indirect/PUA community. Usually the guys claim to be 'direct with their body, indirect with their words'....yet they claim they are Direct.

The reality: if you don't let a woman know your intentions right from the start VERBALLY, you are not Direct. End of.

Quote: (03-10-2011 10:58 PM)Giovonny Wrote:

I will not tell the girl that I'm attracted to her but I will look at her and talk to her in a tone that lets her know that I like her.

That's indirect then. Not direct. If you're not revealing your intentions verbally, you are not Direct.

I don't personally believe you can 'talk to a girl in a tone that lets her know I like her'. That sounds really 'wishy-washy' and vague to me and just leaves too much room for the girl to misinterpret what I want from her. It might give her the HINT you like her, but you're not actually telling her straight up so it leaves room for her to misinterpret/misunderstand what you truly want from her.

I prefer to be make it CRYSTAL CLEAR, verbally, what my intentions are when I approach a girl. That is TRUE Direct.

Quote: (03-10-2011 10:58 PM)Giovonny Wrote:

I call it a "hybrid" approach. I will just talk to her about any random topic but while doing that, I will look at her in the eyes seductively and move my eyes around her body.

If that's the sort of approach you do and it works for you, fair enough. But this 'hybrid approach' is NOT Direct.

Quote: (03-10-2011 10:58 PM)Giovonny Wrote:

You can say almost anything and make it seductive. For example, "Damn, its so hot today, I need to get some ice cream"

'Making something sound seductive' is still not Direct, though.

Quote: (03-10-2011 10:58 PM)Giovonny Wrote:

The way you talk and your body/eye language is almost more important then what you say.

I disagree. Verbal and non-verbal communication WORK TOGETHER to convey the overall message you want to get across.

You can only go so far with non-verbal communication. You cannot tell a girl exactly what you want from her with non-verbal communication alone.

Quote: (03-10-2011 10:58 PM)Giovonny Wrote:

During the day I think its important to not be too direct. You can look like a weirdo and scare girls away.

I STRONGLY DISAGREE. I've actually found the exactly opposite to be true. I've personally found that women, especially in the daytime, respond better to me when I'm Direct, upfront and honest with them. I rarely, if ever, 'scare girls away' when I'm Direct in the daytime. Usually I get women smiling and blushing, telling me 'aww thanks' or 'you've made my day!', etc, and they don't want to leave. They're into you from that women on.

I've often had women tell me it's really refreshing to for a guy to approach them and be upfront and honest like that.

See, this is the thing that a lot of indirect/PUA guys always say - they claim 'Direct will scare girls away'. I used to believe that too, until I tried Direct for myself and mastered it. Usually the indirect/PUA guys who claim 'Direct will freak a girl out' have never done any Direct approaches in their life, yet they spout these wacky, unfounded theories around about Direct 'freaking girls out'!

So no, I don't agree on this point and my own personal experience tells me Direct doesn't 'scare women away' if done correctly.

Quote: (03-10-2011 10:58 PM)Giovonny Wrote:

At night when everyone is drunk is better for being really aggressive and direct.

Direct works well in ANY situation. Direct is ALWAYS the most efficient way to figure out whether a girl is genuinely sexually attracted to you or not.

I use Direct successfully in bars and clubs, as well as the daytime. Direct is not limited to just bars and clubs.

Quote: (03-10-2011 10:58 PM)Giovonny Wrote:

I don't think girls want us to be overly direct.

Haha, that is so wrong!

It is my experience that women prefer men to be upfront and honest. I've experimented with both indirect and Direct for many years, and found Direct gets better responses from women. I would never go back to indirect now.

I guarantee if you ask a sample of 100 women whether they prefer a guy to be Direct or indirect, the overwhelming majority will say they prefer a guy to be Direct and honest with them. I've even had a lot of women tell me that personally (generally women I've approached and been successful with)

Women are tired of men beating around the bush and being full of shit with them, so I guy who has mastered the art of being Direct and sincere with them will find he is at no shortage for womens' company.

Anyone who claims it's better to be indirect than Direct is essentially saying it's better to lie than it is to be honest. And that is sad if you think that.

Quote: (03-10-2011 10:58 PM)Giovonny Wrote:

Its such a caveman way to talk to people.

This is yet another misconception about Direct. A lot of indirect/PUA guys believe Direct is simply spouting out one line and that's it. Direct doesn't mean you can't have a conversation with a women, etc. See the next point for more on this....

Quote: (03-10-2011 10:58 PM)Giovonny Wrote:

You can tell a girl you want to fuck her without actually saying it.

No you can't. How would you do that? Unless you tell a girl VERBALLY what you want for her, there will always be some ambiguity about your intentions.

Let's say I want to borrow £100 from my best friend. How would I go about communicating that to my best friend?

Simple: I'd ask him straight up 'Can I borrow £100'.

Let's say I go into a restaurant and I want to order steak and chips. How would I go about communicating that to the waiter?

Simple: I tell him 'I'd like steak and chips please'.

It amazing....we are Direct in all other areas of our lives....but when it comes to meeting and dating women, guys over-complicate everything with all these complicated, unnecessary, hooky theories and techniques, instead of simply being REAL and HONEST with women.

Quote: (03-10-2011 10:58 PM)Giovonny Wrote:

Girls like it when you do it in a smooth, witty way. Thats sexier to them.

Who says that you can't be smooth and witty while also being Direct?

Again, this is YET ANOTHER misconception that indirect/PUA guys have about Direct. They believe that Direct approaches are somehow devoid of charm, humour etc.

The actual truth is you can be Direct and also be charming, witty, too.

Just because a guy is Direct doesn't mean he has no charm or wit, etc.

That just shows you don't get Direct and have a lot of misconceptions about it.

Quote: (03-10-2011 10:58 PM)Giovonny Wrote:

Indirect forces you to work on your quick wit and conversational skills.

Not necessarily. A lot of indirect involves using canned scripts and hooky theories you read in some seduction guru's ebook, instead of focusing on bringing YOUR natural charm and personality out.

Direct is about being YOU. Not some fake 'PUA persona'. So if anything, Direct forces you to work on your wit and conversational skills more so than most of the PUA indirect material.

Quote: (03-10-2011 10:58 PM)Giovonny Wrote:

Direct is better for building a strong vibe and presence. With Indirect, I don't talk as much or as fast.

You don't talk as much when you're indirect? Really? I thought indirect guys talk more than Direct guys, since indirect guys feel they have to 'entertain' or 'run routines' or 'canned stories/scripts' on women.

Quote: (03-10-2011 10:58 PM)Giovonny Wrote:

I personally use alot more direct because I think you waste alot less time that way.

Yes. This is one of the many advantages of Direct. You waste no time on the women who are not genuinely interested in you sexual.

One of the many disadvantages of indirect is that it causes you to waste too much time interacting with women who aren't genuinely interested in you sexually. Direct weeds these types out in a quick and efficient manner.

Mode One vs Roosh - MiXX - 07-31-2011

I think this whole direct/indirect mentality has to be calibrated with cultural upbringing. Women from different languages/social customs/and financial means respond differently to direct/indirect.

example:

A high status lawyer from D.C/Miami/new York will be open to direct game "I want to fuck you, and this is what I want you to wear while I do it" type of game.

A high Status Lawyer in Bogota/Cuba/Mexico wil very likely walk away from you using the exact same line even though she may have liked you if you had gone more subtle and indirect, and led with physical cues/clues vs verbal force of direct words.

A poor girl in Europe, will react different to a poor girl in Mexico....calibrate your game to cultural customs!

Calibrate your game to the customs of your target. Hitting on a party college girl in Colorado State U - go direct, hitting on a girld doing laundry up by a river in estonnia, go indirect with more direct physical contact.

Hitting on a gold-diggin' status seeking Russian girl? Pull up in a Bentley and tell her to get in and kiss you!

Game is just like dancing salsa: some women are on LA style 1, and some are strictly Mambo on 2! It's YOUR job to figure out which to lead her on - she will NOT tell you!!

Mixx

Mode One vs Roosh - Roosh - 07-31-2011

Only neil knows exactly what is direct. Everyone else has confused direct for indirect and indirect for direct.

P.S. Direct game has been working out really well for the PUAs who post day game videos. [Image: lol.gif]

Mode One vs Roosh - neil_k - 07-31-2011

Quote: (03-11-2011 11:06 PM)Dash Global Wrote:

You need high value and status or good looks to be successful with direct game on a consistent basis.

Again, this is one of the other popularly held misconceptions that indirect/PUA guys have about Direct.

Us Direct guys don't waste time mentaly masturbating on theories such as 'value' and 'status'.

If anything, a man who is confidently Direct with women will automatically be perceived as 'high value' or 'high status'.

Quote: (03-11-2011 11:06 PM)Dash Global Wrote:

If u are an ugly dude and go direct u will get shut down REAL quick.

Again, this isn't true. Have you heard of David X, the Godfather of Direct? If not, look him up. He is NOT good looking. In fact he is quite ugly physically, but he has enjoyed massive success with women from Direct.

There are many examples of men in society who are average or below average looking who are Direct with women and do really well.

The bottom line is: women aren't attracted to men who are merely good-looking. They are attracted to men who are ATTRACTIVE. Big difference.

Being attractive is a combination of a man's confidence and demeanor, not merely his looks.

Quote: (03-11-2011 11:06 PM)Dash Global Wrote:

i like roosh's club scenario about getting alot of IOI's and being approached outright by females. direct game would stand alot better chance of success in this case as opposed to a cold approach without any IOI's.

I think it's a mistake to wait for 'IOIs' before approaching a girl. I don't wait for a sign before I approach a girl. If I see a girl I am physically attracted to, I approach her. End of. That is Direct.

I've had plenty of success without ever waiting for 'IOIs'. A confident man does not need to wait until he gets an 'IOI'. He should approach whoever he likes the look of. Only weak guys wait for an 'IOI' before approaching.

Not all women give out 'IOIs' anyway, so you will miss out on a lot of women by waiting around for 'signs' they want to be approach.

It's never hindered me to not wait for an 'IOI', so I disagree with this point.

Quote: (03-11-2011 11:06 PM)Dash Global Wrote:

for the average looking/status guy indirect game is more fruitful.

Again, not true. What are you basing all these assumptions/misconceptions on?

Quote: (03-11-2011 11:06 PM)Dash Global Wrote:

not saying u shouldnt use direct game, u just need to know WHEN to use it.

You can use Direct in ANY situation. There is no situation where you cannot use Direct to approach a woman.

Mode One vs Roosh - neil_k - 07-31-2011

Quote: (07-31-2011 01:34 PM)Roosh Wrote:

Only neil knows exactly what is direct. Everyone else has confused direct for indirect and indirect for direct.

P.S. Direct game has been working out really well for the PUAs who post day game videos.

Cheers.

Mode One vs Roosh - neil_k - 07-31-2011

Quote: (03-12-2011 12:04 AM)Dash Global Wrote:

I know for a fact their theory is BS about not being able to get a grl to fuck you if she initially isnt attracted to you sexually,

How do you 'know for a fact' that 'their theory is BS'?

Quote: (03-12-2011 12:04 AM)Dash Global Wrote:

hell they dont have to be sexually attracted to u at all.

Hahaha. So you're saying a girl with NO SEXUAL ATTRACTION to a guy will fuck him?

Yeah right...

Imagine if a fat girl who you felt NO SEXUAL ATTRACTION towards asked you to fuck her. Would you want to fuck her? No, didn't think so...

So of course a girl needs to be sexually attracted to you in order to want to fuck you. It's ridiculous to think otherwise.

Quote: (03-12-2011 12:04 AM)Dash Global Wrote:

I even ask girls i know why they fuck some ugly guy and they say it was there, or he was just showing me attention, ect ect.

They had sex with him because on some level they felt sexual attraction to him, regardless of his looks. End of.

Mode One vs Roosh - Roosh - 07-31-2011

Dude, instead of typing out essays about indirect vs direct to start some drama, why don't you post some direct game knowledge so that guys can try for themselves?

There are many ways to skin a cat.. we already know this. But to come on a forum to say "Direct is the only way, I use it all the time" but not actually describe your game is pretty close to trolling.