First of all, if you haven't read Andy's commentary, CLICK HERE
This was a fair and seemingly objective evaluation and assessment by Andy regarding the "philosophical differences" that have developed between Yad and I.
For those who attended The Direct Approach Dating Summit
in Central London (Saturday, November 20, 2010 & Sunday, November 21, 2010) know how this "difference of opinion" started. For those who did not attend, I will offer a brief backstory to how this started:1)
On the 2nd Day of The Direct Approach Dating Summit (Sunday, November 21, 2010), Yad was one of the guest speakers on stage. I came from upstairs down to the auditorium at the Cavendish Conference Centre, because Sasha had told me about Yad, and I wanted to hear what Yad had to say regarding approaching women, initiating a conversation with them, and ultimately expressing his desires, interests and intentions to women.
The first thing that "rubbed me the wrong way," was when Yad said (paraphrasing his words), "There are some gurus involved in this conference who will tell you that verbalizing your [sexual] intentions is the way to go ... but I say that is wrong. The best way to communicate your sexual desires and interests is to SUBCOMMUNICATE them."
I felt like this was an intentional jab at The Mode One Approach
. As Andy pointed out in his commentary, I'm all about expressing my romantic and/or sexual desires, interests and intentions to a woman in a manner that is highly self-assured, upfront, unapologetic and straight-to-the-point
. I like to "cut through bullshit." I don't like to engage in "manipulative head games" with women.
Unlike Yad, I am not into "sub-communicating" anything. I want my intentions communicated to a woman verbally, clearly, confidently and unequivocally.2)
The second comment Yad made that bothered me in a big way, was when he said (again, paraphrasing his words), "Have I asked a woman straightforwardly 'Do You Want to Fuck later?' Sure I have. But if a woman was to respond favorably to that sort of approach, I would immediately lose interest. I would not see that woman as a 'challenge.' Any woman who would sleep with me that quickly or that easily after letting her know that I want to shag her is not worth my time. I would not perceive her as a woman of quality. I would more than likely perceive that type of a woman as a slag."
I very much took offense to this. My attitude is, why even approach a woman if you don't want to date her or fuck her? I don't approach women simply to see "how easy they are," or to pass judgment on them. I approach women to let them know that I am interested in them. Either for a long-term, romantic relationship or for a short-term, casual relationship.3)
Even though Andy says that he believes Yad's style is "direct," I disagree. And I told this to Sasha and some of the others who attended The Direct Approach Dating Summit in London. In MY OPINION, Yad did not "fit in" at the Summit. Even many of the guys who I spoke to at the Summit shared my sentiments.
When Yad started emphasizing his principles of "subcommunication," most guys perceived his methods, philosophies and techniques as being more "indirect" than "direct." For me, a direct approach is when you approach a woman, and RIGHT OFF THE BAT you make it clear to her that you are talking to her because you have some degree of romantic and/or sexual interest in her. You want to immediately eliminate even the remote thought or idea of that woman relegating you to the dreaded "Friend Zone
."How can you tell if your approach is "direct" or "indirect?"a)
When the conversation between you and a woman concludes, is the woman totally clear about what your desires and intentions are? Or is she left feeling a bit 'confused' and 'not-so-sure' about why you really want to share her company?
If the woman is clear about what your desires and interests are, you are being direct. If what you have expressed to this woman is perceived as vague, ambiguous, nebulous and/or not clear and too general, then your approach was indirect.b)
If your intention is only to have CASUAL sex (i.e., a one-night stand, weekend fling, or other variation of short-term, non-monogamous sex), have you made that clear to the woman BEFORE
you have sex with them for the first time? Or do you wait until after you've had sex with them at least once to say, "Well ... uh ... I gotta tell you ... I'm not really looking for anything too serious..."
If you let women know before
you sleep with them that you are in no way looking for a long-term and/or monogamous relationship (LTR), you are being direct. If a woman goes to bed with you under the impression that a LTR is at least a "possibility," you are being indirect (and more so, misleading & manipulative).c)
Anytime you interact with a woman, inevitably you have to converse with this woman about SOMETHING. That being said, if you're not talking about your desire to exchange orgasms with a woman and becoming erotic with this woman, what are you talking about? The weather? politics? Her favorite television shows and movies? Her nails and handbag? What?
If you are engaging in a high degree of what I refer to as "bullsh** fluff talk" or "trivial, but entertaining small talk," you are being indirect. I define a direct approach as when you let your true romantic and/or sexual desires, interests and intentions be known to a woman within the first 3-to-5 minutes of your first conversation with a woman.Bottom line
: If what Yad does works for him and his clients, more power to him. For most men, getting laid is what it is all about. I am not going to "throw salt on his game" if his principles and teachings are working for some guys.
But I will maintain that I am highly reluctant to brand Yad as a "direct" guru. Again, in my opinion, he is not. He is an "indirect" guy, like Mystery, Neil Strauss and various other Dating Coaches and Attraction & Seduction Gurus in the dating & relationships industry. As most know, the only other author and guru who I think is direct in a manner similar to me is David X
I do appreciate and respect Andy though for offering his thoughts, opinions and commentary on the philosophical differences between Yad and I. It was a good read.