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.