[hydrogonian]

[MiXX]

LMAO!! Yeah, do not try that at home boys and girls....

Mixx

[DH-Godzilla]

aright, cock in throat....*takes notes*

[Tuthmosis]

I've already secured three (throat) bangs using this killer move.

Is this the beginning of a porn or something? I'm pretty sure that's "Avena Lee."

[hydrogonian]

Ya gotta love a girl named "Sobriety"...

[Agent_GQ]

Haha! Throat game. Gotta love cheesy porn

[hydrogonian]

Seriously though, I'm a big fan of very direct game.

While I haven't used and don't necessarily recommend using this exact line, its not totally out of the "framework" of what you could do with a woman with very direct game. That is, it doesn't go against the model.

When using direct game, you just have to make sure that you stay within the accepted framework (in that you stay direct about what you want from her). If you do, then you succeed even if you crash and burn. If you don't stay within the model, then you fail even though you get laid. Make sense? Its about the approach, not the result. Also, not making it about the result, but rather the approach, makes you much less needy.

Also, for spitting such a ballsy line, this guys demeanor around it is just about perfect. Therefore, I thought that this video was a very good example of very direct game and not just entertainment. Even if you change up the specifics of what was said, or not, many women won't act as offended as you think and will behave much like the woman in the video (I'm not referring to the makeout, but rather her staying with the conversation). Others will be shocked and offended (its just an act - most of the time - unless you are waayyy under value to her). Just hang with it and never apologize. Maintain your frame and plow. Your value will build and you might be surprised at the result.

Disclaimer: I am acknowledging that this guys specific line was at the extreme end of balls. I am not an expert at spitting lines quite that ballsy as an opener, although I could see myself trying it. I tend to use lines in an opening dialogue that infer similar things, but aren't as vulgar. Although, once you have rapport for a bit and have built a little interest, those type of lines become much easier.

Just get ready not to be the nice guy, and to defend further tests of that status. Also, direct game obviously has its time and place.

[gringoed]

(05-05-2011 08:40 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Seriously though, I'm a big fan of very direct game.

While I haven't used and don't necessarily recommend using this exact line, its not totally out of the "framework" of what you could do with a woman with very direct game. That is, it doesn't go against the model.

When using direct game, you just have to make sure that you stay within the accepted framework (in that you stay direct about what you want from her). If you do, then you succeed even if you crash and burn. If you don't stay within the model, then you fail even though you get laid. Make sense? Its about the approach, not the result. Also, not making it about the result, but rather the approach, makes you much less needy.

Also, for spitting such a ballsy line, this guys demeanor around it is just about perfect. Therefore, I thought that this video was a very good example of very direct game and not just entertainment. Even if you change up the specifics of what was said, or not, many women won't act as offended as you think and will behave much like the woman in the video (I'm not referring to the makeout, but rather her staying with the conversation). Others will be shocked and offended (its just an act - most of the time - unless you are waayyy under value to her). Just hang with it and never apologize. Maintain your frame and plow. Your value will build and you might be surprised at the result.

Disclaimer: I am acknowledging that this guys specific line was at the extreme end of balls. I am not an expert at spitting lines quite that ballsy as an opener, although I could see myself trying it. I tend to use lines in an opening dialogue that infer similar things, but aren't as vulgar. Although, once you have rapport for a bit and have built a little interest, those type of lines become much easier.

Just get ready not to be the nice guy, and to defend further tests of that status. Also, direct game obviously has its time and place.

Interesting reply Hydro. I've always done direct game with a much more confident demeaner, even if it's forced. This guy has a much more bumbly, shy, wavering demeaner which I haven't tried using but are you saying that having this kind of demeaner can be MORE effective when going direct? If so, I'll definitely give this a try.

[hydrogonian]

Quote:

Interesting reply Hydro. I've always done direct game with a much more confident demeaner, even if it's forced. This guy has a much more bumbly, shy, wavering demeaner which I haven't tried using but are you saying that having this kind of demeaner can be MORE effective when going direct? If so, I'll definitely give this a try.

Nah...I guess I should'nt have used those specific words, or maybe I should have been more specific as to what I meant. What I meant to imply is that this guy made it work. Whatever that took, thats what I thought this video showed. Everything is included in that. But I think perhaps a more confident demenor could have worked as well.

Sure, it was a little bumbling at first. But whatever shyness he used, it obviously was a front used to offset that very confident line. Maybe a more confident guy would have been met with more resistance? Its hard to know with that specific line, especially since this was an enactment. But, in general, Id say that going with your most confident self is always the safe bet. If you were to use a line like this, the only certainty that I could give would that you would have to test. Maybe a shy demeanor and then a more confident one.

As for me, I always go with my most confident self. As I before said, I havent gotten quite that dirty off of the bat, and so I can't say exactly how confidence / shyness would work with that specific level of dirty directness. I think both could potentially work if done right. But several tests would probably be in order.

[gringoed]

"this guy made it work. Whatever that took, thats what I thought this video showed. Everything is included in that."

Thanks for clarifying. So you're saying that this guy made it work even though he is low-confidence? That it's better to spit this kind of direct game even if you're uncomfortable with it then going indirect and feeling comfortable the whole time?

I'd have to agree, especially since the confidence with direct will go up with experience.

Hydro, you seem pretty experienced with direct game. Why don't you write a concise review of it for those of us looking to incorporate it more? I can think of 2 lays in the last 2 weeks that I missed for being too indirect, so I'm definitely looking to do it more.

[hydrogonian]

Quote:

That it's better to spit this kind of direct game even if you're uncomfortable with it then going indirect and feeling comfortable the whole time?

Yes!
This (by 'this' I mean direct game in general, and not necessarily the specific line in the video) is especially useful for guys who are not naturally overbrimming with confidence. I know that seems counterintuitive.

Here's why:
Lets say that two guys approach a woman. One is a natural, very charismatic and good looking and the other is not; but they both have enough indirect game to go up to talk to, entertain a woman, and have at least a chance (based on their indirect game alone) at luring her back to their respctive apartments at the end of the night. Their indirect game is mid-level. These are two guys that will never reach a very high, refined level of indirect game. Therefore, results will always be scattered.

Well, the charismatic guy is often going to get the benefit of the doubt of the woman. Not all of the time, but enough. Even though he isn't being very direct in his intentions (and therefore has an obvious fear of letting her know what he wants - a natural signal of lower status), she often will assume, through his charisma and perhaps looks, that dominant traits exist nonetheless. She will feel attraction due to his natural social charisma. She will percieve alpha status through his personality, even though he is showing a little fear through his not being direct with her. He will get laid enough, and will attribute that to his 'game' even though he is inlcuding genetic and personality factors that technically have little to do with anything that he has control over. Or which have been bred and refined over his entire life, and which would be difficult for him to explain and for someone else to duplicate through will alone.

Now take the other guy who uses the same verbal game. However, his energy and charisma is naturally lower. Perhaps is body language is a little worse, his subtle looks are a little less refined, he has a little less style, is shorter, and basically comes off as a little more naturally beta at first take. Otherwise, he says the exact same things as the charismatic guy. He smiles, is social, and women are comfortable around him. However, women are never going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he can rock their vaginas how they want. His indirect game is going to need to be razor sharp to see the same success as the first guy, as a complete personality change is out of the question. Women are not going to assume that he has 'alpha potential' based on anything but his verbal game. Absent of perfectly executed indirect game, he's going to be very often put in the nice guy friends zone, even though he thinks that he is avoiding it through his idea of game. Most guys that get put in the friend zone have no idea how that happens, because they think that they are doing what it takes to stay out of it. Most of the time, they are not.

Now lets take the second guy again. Same guy, same persoanlity, style, everything. Upon first glance, the woman is either neutral about him or has her doubts as to his status and ability to attract her. Maybe she even pigeon holes him before he opens his mouth due to his look, body language, and through referencing her experiences with similar looking guys in the past. Except, now this guy is going to exhibit one crucial difference. He's not going to attempt to small talk her for more than 30 seconds to 2 minutes before he is very clear about what the nature of any further relationship with her will be. That is: he somehow makes it clear, in a direct way, that he is interested in a sexual relationship with her. This can be in a more charming way than the video shows (even though that guy somehow managed to seem a little charming by expertly using shyness), it can be funnier (but not joking), it can be that dirty, or it can be cleaner. It can also take just a little bit longer to get to the point, slowly leading her down that sexual road. Or not. What matters is the message and the intent, not necessarily the words.

What happens then? Several things. First, its impossible for her to evermore put him in an asexual "freinds zone" category. Even though she may not reciprocate right away, or ever, he will always be known as a sexual being to her. All guys want to be in this category, even if they never touch the girl. Fuck being friends with a woman. Id rather offend her than be immediately or eventually thought as asexual. Even if you spit some good indirect game, you are always at risk of being put in the friends zone especially if you are dealing with a very sexual woman or have a skilled direct guy to compete with. Your game will always be overshadowed by his no fear dominace which resonates with women on a very primal level. Additionally, she will remmeber that direct suxuality, and even if she doesnt respond that day or that week, it can turn her on over time and she often wil eventually seek you out. No amount of indirect game, absent of other factors (looks / charisma) will ever have a memorable effect on a woman. Especailly a memorable effect that makes her hornier the more that she thinks about what transpired.

The second thing that it will do is immediately raise you in the social heirarchy in her mind. No matter how you look (within reason), no matter what else you say (within reason), if you have enough balls and lack of fear to let her know what you want from her, without care as to her response, then she will have no choice but to think of you as a higher status male. This is because this is a very rare trait in a (modern) male. Showing no fear is what this is about. Beta males are defined by their fear and their need for approval. By letting her know that you are after her sexually, and dont care about her response, you are elminating any suspicion that you are a fearful male or that you require her approval. This is very attrative and high status. Being direct is the shortest and most sure fire route to being thought of as higher status male that exists. It is truly a status upgrade for the lazy guy. Its will not only raise your status with women, but with other men who observe you behaving like this. Even many so called "alpha males" are generally afraid of women enough to not tell them what they want, and they will respect you if you have the balls to do so. This feedabck loop of social status will also help raise your success rates. However, also be ready for other alpha males to be wary of you as you now represent legitimate competition and a threat to their ability to select the females that they want. Real high level alpha guys will want to be your friend, because they arent afraid of competition and like hanging with other confident men, but more insecure alphas might constantly try to challenge or undercut you.

In summary, for a guy that isnt going to become the next natural alpha overnight, if ever, being direct is the verbal shortcut to this status and generally acts as a 'mind eraser" for any preconceptions that a woman may have of you. If you look at my post (scroll to the third post of the thread) under the thread Fast seducers...How they do it I give an example of me instantly turning the power balance around one night with one line of direct game.

Quote:

Hydro, you seem pretty experienced with direct game. Why don't you write a concise review of it for those of us looking to incorporate it more? I can think of 2 lays in the last 2 weeks that I missed for being too indirect, so I'm definitely looking to do it more.

Unfortunately, there is no way to concisely review it in a post that would be particularly helpful. I'll pm you.

[Chaz]

Hydro,

Thanks for the all the awesome stuff about direct game! I would like to try it out on this married woman I know. She seems like a good candidate for this. Do you have any thoughts/experience on married women and how they might respond to it?

Last year, you recommended the book Mode One. I didn't buy it, but now I'd like to. (I understand that it's about direct game.) Do you know of any other books or articles or anything that deal with direct game? Or anything else that might be useful?

[hydrogonian]

Chaz, I PM'd you. I need to request that no one else make a request for me to go into it further on the forum (for a couple of specific reasons), but anyone can PM me at any time and I will help you out.

[SFTD]

That was overly cheesy and great. About 1 in 100 000 guys could pull that off.

[Walderschmidt]

(05-06-2011 11:25 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Chaz, I PM'd you. I need to request that no one else make a request for me to go into it further on the forum (for a couple of specific reasons), but anyone can PM me at any time and I will help you out.

Could you PM me as well? I'm interested in what you have to say on the subject.

Wald

[hydrogonian]

Quote:

but anyone can PM me at any time and I will help you out.