Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 

News:

The new Daygame Cafe is open for business! Grab yourself a coffee, take a seat and rest your weary Daygame legs! :) - The Daygame Cafe Management



Author Topic: The Alan Roger Currie VS Yad Philosophical Debate  (Read 29063 times)

Offline ModeOne4Ever

  • Cafe Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Karma: 3
  • New around here
    • View Profile
The Alan Roger Currie VS Yad Philosophical Debate
« on: January 08, 2011, 01:57:00 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2011, 02:23:11 PM by Andy Yosha »


Offline Tony

  • Cafe Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 123
  • Karma: 6
  • Inventing the future!
    • View Profile
Re: The Alan Roger Currie VS Yad Philosophical Debate
« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2011, 05:39:37 PM »
Quote
Unlike Yad, I am not into "sub-communicating" anything.  I want my intentions communicated to a woman verbally, clearly, confidently and unequivocally.
But you do advocate strong eye contact and stuff like keeping your voice tonality low afaik. That's subcommunication, right? So how should I interpret this? Should it be that you advocate communicating your intentions on both channels? :)

Offline ModeOne4Ever

  • Cafe Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Karma: 3
  • New around here
    • View Profile
Re: The Alan Roger Currie VS Yad Philosophical Debate
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2011, 06:04:00 PM »
Quote
Unlike Yad, I am not into "sub-communicating" anything.  I want my intentions communicated to a woman verbally, clearly, confidently and unequivocally.
But you do advocate strong eye contact and stuff like keeping your voice tonality low afaik. That's subcommunication, right? So how should I interpret this? Should it be that you advocate communicating your intentions on both channels? :)

I believe non-verbal factors work in conjunction with verbal factors.  But leaning toward one or the other, I lean toward the importance of being verbally direct than being non-verbally direct.   ;)

Offline Charleston

  • Cafe Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 120
  • Karma: 7
  • More like Mode Fun!
    • View Profile
Re: The Alan Roger Currie VS Yad Philosophical Debate
« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2011, 10:14:07 PM »
I'm not Yad, so don't take my word as his, but...

If an attractive girl is approached in the street by a guy, most of the time she has little doubt in her mind what the guy wants to do to her. An indirect approach PUA will advocate communicating (via opinion openers and whatnot) and subcommunicating (via disinterested bodylanguage) lack of interest in this girl to "throw her off the scent" so to speak. In other words, unless you put on a very good act of not wanting to sleep with this girl, its not necessary for you to say "I want to fuck you" for her to know you want to fuck her.
While I'm not too sure what Yad does use specifically, I'm pretty sure its not indirect openers.

Also, I think perhaps the definition of "fluff talk" you give is a bit too binary. If I start talking to a guy because he looks like he would be pretty cool to hang out with, it would be weird if I only talked about how cool it would be to hang out with him. Also, maybe it would be a bit wierd if he immediately agreed to hang out the next day.
I get the impression of Yad that he loves the whole interaction, not just the end result.

Offline ModeOne4Ever

  • Cafe Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Karma: 3
  • New around here
    • View Profile
Re: The Alan Roger Currie VS Yad Philosophical Debate
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2011, 12:11:39 AM »
I'm not Yad, so don't take my word as his, but...

Just express your own opinions, and speak for yourself.  Yad is a big boy, and can express his own opinions and speak on his own behalf, I'm sure.

If an attractive girl is approached in the street by a guy, most of the time she has little doubt in her mind what the guy wants to do to her. An indirect approach PUA will advocate communicating (via opinion openers and what not) and subcommunicating (via disinterested bodylanguage) lack of interest in this girl to "throw her off the scent" so to speak.

I've never bought into this misguided notion that simply approaching a woman automatically means that 99% chance, she is going to assume that you have a romantic and/or sexual interest in her.  Matter of fact, I proved that assumption to be invalid at The Direct Approach Dating Summit in London.

There was an attractive Asian woman who joined David X and I on stage named "Sophie."  Initially, Sophie said, "No man has to 'tell' a woman that he wants to fuck her.  We (as women) know as soon as men start a conversation with us what they want (i.e., some pussy)."  But then ... about 20 minutes later ... David X asked her why she hadn't had sex yet with a guy who was one of her male "platonic" friends.  Sophie's response?  "Well ... I'm not so sure my [platonic] friend actually wants to sleep with me ... I mean, he's never said that specifically ...."

I just looked at the audience, and they fell out laughing.  So much for the "A man doesn't have to say anything" bullsh** assumption.

In other words, unless you put on a very good act of not wanting to sleep with this girl, its not necessary for you to say "I want to fuck you" for her to know you want to fuck her.

Everyone has their own opinion, but for me ... and those who have read my book and adhere to my principles and philosophies ... I argue that it is more often than not beneficial for a man to verbally express his romantic and/or sexual desires, interests and intentions to a woman in a highly self-assured, upfront, unapologetic and straightforwardly honest manner.

Why?

1)  It prevents "confusion," misinterpretations and miscommunications.

2)  It prevents manipulative 'head games'

3)  A woman knowing you want to have sex with her is not necessarily the issue;  The bigger issue is what type of sex?  Are you interested in long-term sex or short-term sex?  monogamous sex or non-monogamous sex?  When I interact with a woman, I want a woman to know very specifically what my interests are.  If I'm only interested in a one-night stand, I want that woman to know that.  If I'm only interested in a weekend fling, I want that woman to know that.  If my interest in a "friends-with-benefits" situation, then I want that woman to know that.

I recently interviewed a woman named Nikki who writes erotica stories for my podcast program entitled "The Erotic Conversationalist."  During our discussion and interview, I asked her about "direct approaches" vs "indirect approaches."  And in regard to my point #3, she said, "When a man is indirect, or doesn?t say much about what he wants (sexually) from me, that leaves things too vague and too open for me. Can a guy communicate his desires by just touching me? Not really. I have platonic male friends who touch me on my hands, shoulders, back and even my butt all of the time. That doesn?t mean anything. I like for a guy to be clear about his sexual intentions, particularly if all he wants is [casual] sex.  If a guy doesn't make it clear that he just wants some pussy, many women will assume that he wants something more (i.e., a long-term monogamous relationship)."


4) When I "talk dirty" to a woman, I am able to create 'erotic visuals' and plant erotic thoughts in her mind and imagination; Women have complimented my ability to do that many times.

While I'm not too sure what Yad does use specifically, I'm pretty sure its not indirect openers.

Anytime you are not verbalizing your specific desires, interests and intentions to a woman, you are being Mode Two or Mode Three (i.e., Indirect).  In my opinion, there is no such thing as exclusively being "non-verbally direct."  When you are being direct with a woman, you are being direct both verbally and non-verbally/physically, or just verbally.

Also, I think perhaps the definition of "fluff talk" you give is a bit too binary. If I start talking to a guy because he looks like he would be pretty cool to hang out with, it would be weird if I only talked about how cool it would be to hang out with him. Also, maybe it would be a bit weird if he immediately agreed to hang out the next day.

I get the impression of Yad that he loves the whole interaction, not just the end result.

I beg to differ.  Yad said himself in his discussion with Paul Janka that it is "all about the lays."  If anything, I would argue that I am the one who really doesn't care about the end result.  I tell guys that all of the time.  I don't exhibit Mode One Behavior solely and specifically to get laid.  I say that in my book.

For me, expressing myself to women in a highly self-assured, upfront, unapologetic, straight-to-the-point manner is much more important to me than simply getting some pussy.  In other words, the manner in which I express myself to women means more to me than what specific results I get from my manner of expression.  I'm the type of guy who would rather not fuck a woman at all, than to get some pussy from a woman by lying to her, misleading her, emotionally manipulating her, getting her drunk, drugging her, or generally bullsh**ting her.


I say this ... if indirect methods work for some guys, more power to them.  But I will never go back to being indirect.

And Yad .... is not direct.  He is indirect.

Case closed.


Offline HavocVulture

  • Cafe Newcomer
  • *
  • Posts: 46
  • Karma: 2
  • Negging is bad mkay
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Alan Roger Currie VS Yad Philosophical Debate
« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2011, 06:16:01 AM »
Firstly I want to take this opportunity to thank you Alan for providing me with the means to change my life.

To a large extent I agree with Andy on your debate. I for one don't give a sh## what box either of you are put in.
I have been radically influenced by both of you in a positive way.

You are both THE BOSS!  8)

Offline craze6663

  • Cafe Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Karma: 8
  • Well, listen baby. My car, uh, doesn't exist, so..
    • View Profile
Re: The Alan Roger Currie VS Yad Philosophical Debate
« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2011, 01:53:27 AM »
pretty sure there is no one method, theory, w/e you wanna call it, to work with EVERYONE.... so there's ALWAYS going to be these types of disagreement..I do advocate and "preach" to males peers amount honesty and letting girls know they let them, but after that everyone has their own style,ways lines, that they learn from trial and error...and everything will be shaped from your experience which is the most important word here....Yad goes up to girls, tells them he like their w.e..... and talks about w.e he wants, that a direct, verbal deceleration of interest

Quote
Anytime you are not verbalizing your specific desires, interests and intentions to a woman, you are being Mode Two or Mode Three (i.e., Indirect).  In my opinion, there is no such thing as exclusively being "non-verbally direct."  When you are being direct with a woman, you are being direct both verbally and non-verbally/physically, or just verbally.

Quote
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.

I looked at david X seminar and he said he would use lines like "are you paula? cause you look like a paula, that was my mothers name" or "what language is that? I always try to guess what language people are speaking" those are what he would use in the streets.......so david X is mode 2? that doesnt seem very mode 1 to me.

Quote
And Yad .... is not direct.  He is indirect.

Case closed.

I think you feel you set the standards for what direct is, but I disagree, I think we all have different standard to what direct is, and opinions arent facts.

Offline ModeOne4Ever

  • Cafe Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Karma: 3
  • New around here
    • View Profile
Re: The Alan Roger Currie VS Yad Philosophical Debate
« Reply #7 on: January 10, 2011, 04:14:58 AM »
I think you feel you set the standards for what direct is, but I disagree, I think we all have different standard to what direct is, and opinions arent facts.

Look in the dictionary of "direct," and read some books that relate to communication / interpersonal communication, and see what men and women with more "expertise" than I have tend to say about being "direct."

To be direct means just the opposite of being indirect, vague, ambiguous and/or nebulous.  In other words, when you converse with someone ... and the person you are talking to ends the conversation feeling TOTALLY CLEAR about what your desires are, needs are, expectations are, feelings are, etc., then that means your communication style is DIRECT.

If you converse with someone, and the person you are talking to ends the conversation feeling "confused," "perplexed," or simply "not really sure" what it is you really and specifically want from them, then you are being INDIRECT.

So ... if I approach a woman ... and have a conversation with her ... and within the first 10, 15, 20 minutes of the conversation, this woman clearly understands that I am talking to her because I want to have casual sex with her ... that is being DIRECT.

If I approach that same woman ... and my manner of conversation leaves that woman wondering if I'm interested in a) a platonic friendship?  b)  a long-term, monogamous relationship?  c)  a business relationships?  d)  a "friends with benefits" relationship?  e) a one-night stand??  f)  a weekend fling or longer fling?   Then this would represent a communication style that is INDIRECT.

Direct = Your desires, interests and intentions are SPECIFICALLY SPELLED OUT and laid on the table.

Indirect =  You express your desires, interests and intentions in a vague, ambiguous, general, "beat-around-the-bush" type manner.


Case closed.

Offline craze6663

  • Cafe Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Karma: 8
  • Well, listen baby. My car, uh, doesn't exist, so..
    • View Profile
Re: The Alan Roger Currie VS Yad Philosophical Debate
« Reply #8 on: January 10, 2011, 04:35:41 AM »
why 10, 15, 20 minutes? if you are going to let a woman know from minute one, your there to have sex with them, then why would it take you that long for them to know that? because your GOING to have fluf talk, like it or not, there IS a grey area...like I said why would you consider davidX direct and not Yad? davidx told his students some of his lines, and some of his "openers" were indirect like(and I like davidXs stuff btw)...why is there a double standard? not saying doesnt = lie or phony (again like david X said)

like it or not there is a grey area, it's so so black and white, which leaves space for corrections, which is awesome

Offline Dick Strong

  • Cafe Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 52
  • Karma: 2
  • New around here
    • View Profile
Re: The Alan Roger Currie VS Yad Philosophical Debate
« Reply #9 on: January 10, 2011, 12:01:29 PM »
What is there to possibly say in this debate?

Non-verbal communication is a huge part of human interaction and we do it on a day-to-day basis all the time. You can be highly sexual and direct without saying a word but Alan will dismiss those sorts of instances because it doesn't fit into his narrow tunnel of reality.

So whilst Alan is debating the merits of verbal vs non-verbal the people who have a better understanding of these things will use both to get laid.

In terms of conversation: context > content
« Last Edit: January 10, 2011, 12:05:43 PM by Dick Strong »


Offline ModeOne4Ever

  • Cafe Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Karma: 3
  • New around here
    • View Profile
Re: The Alan Roger Currie VS Yad Philosophical Debate
« Reply #10 on: January 10, 2011, 12:29:21 PM »
What is there to possibly say in this debate?

Non-verbal communication is a huge part of human interaction and we do it on a day-to-day basis all the time. You can be highly sexual and direct without saying a word but Alan will dismiss those sorts of instances because it doesn't fit into his narrow tunnel of reality.

So whilst Alan is debating the merits of verbal vs non-verbal the people who have a better understanding of these things will use both to get laid.

In terms of conversation: context > content

I half-agree and half-disagree.  You can be sexual in general toward a woman without saying a word, but you cannot truly be direct without saying a word.  I interviewed a woman recently who said the exact same thing.

Verbally, I can distinguish to a woman whether or not I'm looking to have a ten-minute quickie, a one-night stand, a weekend fling, a "friends-with-benefits" relationship, a threesome, or a long-term monogamous relationship.  You cannot make those type of intentions clear non-verbally.  All you can do non-verbally is simply let a woman know you're interested in sleeping with her.

I have nothing against non-verbal cues.  I think verbal communication and non-verbal communication go hand-in-hand.  I don't usually dismiss one or the other.  But I notice a lot of guys, including Yad to a high degree, try to dismiss the importance of verbalizing your sexual intentions.  And that is a huge mistake.


Offline ModeOne4Ever

  • Cafe Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Karma: 3
  • New around here
    • View Profile
Re: The Alan Roger Currie VS Yad Philosophical Debate
« Reply #11 on: January 10, 2011, 12:40:11 PM »
why 10, 15, 20 minutes? if you are going to let a woman know from minute one, your there to have sex with them, then why would it take you that long for them to know that? because your GOING to have fluf talk, like it or not, there IS a grey area...like I said why would you consider davidX direct and not Yad? davidx told his students some of his lines, and some of his "openers" were indirect like(and I like davidXs stuff btw)...why is there a double standard? not saying doesnt = lie or phony (again like david X said)

like it or not there is a grey area, it's so so black and white, which leaves space for corrections, which is awesome

Well actually, it usually doesn't take me 10, 15 or 20 minutes to lay out my intentions to a woman.  More often than not, I express my [sexual] desires, interests and intentions to a woman within the first minute or two of my conversation.

That is over half of the benefit of being truly direct:  To avoid wasting time with trivial, but entertaining "fluff talk" and bullsh** "small talk."

I generally consider David X "direct" because he frequently has said that he will let a woman know immediately if he is only interested in casual sex as opposed to long-term monogamous sex.  That is being direct.

In indirect approach is one where you really don't make it clear what type of sex you want.  The woman doesn't really know if you want to have sex with her repeatedly / long-term, a few times / short-term, monogamously (i.e., you want to fuck only her), or non-monogamously (i.e., you want to fuck her in addition to other women).

That's half of the reason why I started exhibiting Mode One.  Because I saw other guys, including friends of mine, getting pussy from women by being vague, ambiguous, deceitful, misleading and manipulative.  Were many of them getting laid??  YES.  So if your intention is simply to get laid, I've never denied that being indirect WORKS.

But for me, it was more about the MANNER in which I get laid.  I don't like to get laid by lying to women, misleading women, emotionally manipulating women, getting them drunk, or generally bullsh**ting them.  If I can't get laid by spelling out my specific intentions to a woman, then I would rather not get laid at all.

Simple as that.

Offline Dick Strong

  • Cafe Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 52
  • Karma: 2
  • New around here
    • View Profile
Re: The Alan Roger Currie VS Yad Philosophical Debate
« Reply #12 on: January 10, 2011, 01:56:43 PM »
What is there to possibly say in this debate?

Non-verbal communication is a huge part of human interaction and we do it on a day-to-day basis all the time. You can be highly sexual and direct without saying a word but Alan will dismiss those sorts of instances because it doesn't fit into his narrow tunnel of reality.

So whilst Alan is debating the merits of verbal vs non-verbal the people who have a better understanding of these things will use both to get laid.

In terms of conversation: context > content

I half-agree and half-disagree.  You can be sexual in general toward a woman without saying a word, but you cannot truly be direct without saying a word.  I interviewed a woman recently who said the exact same thing.

Verbally, I can distinguish to a woman whether or not I'm looking to have a ten-minute quickie, a one-night stand, a weekend fling, a "friends-with-benefits" relationship, a threesome, or a long-term monogamous relationship.  You cannot make those type of intentions clear non-verbally.  All you can do non-verbally is simply let a woman know you're interested in sleeping with her.

I have nothing against non-verbal cues.  I think verbal communication and non-verbal communication go hand-in-hand.  I don't usually dismiss one or the other.  But I notice a lot of guys, including Yad to a high degree, try to dismiss the importance of verbalizing your sexual intentions.  And that is a huge mistake.

"So whilst Alan is debating the merits of verbal vs non-verbal the people who have a better understanding of these things will use both to get laid."

That's exactly what I just said.

Non-verbal sexuality operates on the boundary between the conscious and unconscious mind. They know what's going on but they're not aware of it enough for it to fully trigger off their defences. When you use predominantly non-verbal means to ramp up the sexual tension to the point where she becomes incredibly horny then you just simply say "wanna fuck?" and then you go home and fuck her.

I write on a regular basis so I can often come up with sexually suggestive language at the drop of a hat just as long as I perceive the girl in question in a sexual way. An example would be if a girl says "I always thought the man of my dreams would be taller" and you reply "I will be if you get on your knees".

It's sexually suggestive language but if she were to bring it up you could turn it around on her and say: "You've got a dirty mind. I like that." If she doesn't bring it up then I bet she'll be thinking it all the time when she's around you.

I actually called this "direct by being indirect" ages ago on another forum.

As an aside: You mentioned you've asked women what works and what doesn't but that's like a woman asking me what techniques will work to seduce all men. There's no hard and fast rule that works for everyone (including the stuff I just mentioned).

Offline ModeOne4Ever

  • Cafe Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Karma: 3
  • New around here
    • View Profile
Re: The Alan Roger Currie VS Yad Philosophical Debate
« Reply #13 on: January 10, 2011, 03:05:38 PM »
"So whilst Alan is debating the merits of verbal vs non-verbal the people who have a better understanding of these things will use both to get laid."

That's exactly what I just said.

Non-verbal sexuality operates on the boundary between the conscious and unconscious mind. They know what's going on but they're not aware of it enough for it to fully trigger off their defences. When you use predominantly non-verbal means to ramp up the sexual tension to the point where she becomes incredibly horny then you just simply say "wanna fuck?" and then you go home and fuck her.

I write on a regular basis so I can often come up with sexually suggestive language at the drop of a hat just as long as I perceive the girl in question in a sexual way. An example would be if a girl says "I always thought the man of my dreams would be taller" and you reply "I will be if you get on your knees".

It's sexually suggestive language but if she were to bring it up you could turn it around on her and say: "You've got a dirty mind. I like that." If she doesn't bring it up then I bet she'll be thinking it all the time when she's around you.

I actually called this "direct by being indirect" ages ago on another forum.

As an aside: You mentioned you've asked women what works and what doesn't but that's like a woman asking me what techniques will work to seduce all men. There's no hard and fast rule that works for everyone (including the stuff I just mentioned).

The difference between you and I is that I don't care about a woman's "anti-slut defenses."  If a guy is truly direct, he doesn't care about that crap.  Indirect guys care about that, because they don't truly know how to negate it or neutralize them.  I do.  At their core, indirect guys are afraid of rejection, they're afraid of harsh criticisms, they're afraid of negative reactions and insults, or they're afraid of all of the above.   Guys who are truly direct don't fear rejection or criticisms from women.

I've had women throw 'anti-slut defenses' in my face repeatedly ... only to have those same women sucking my cock an hour or two later.

For me, there is no such thing as being "direct by being indirect."  At any moment in time, you are either direct or indirect.

If you go into a restaurant, and you tell the waiter or waitress exactly what you want to eat (e.g., "I would like the steak, potatoes, corn and bread roll please with some iced tea to drink"), that is representative of being direct.  If you went into that same restaurant and said, "This is really a nice restaurant .... I bet you guys serve some good food here ....  I bet you guys get a lot of customers ....," but you never specifically express what you want, that would be representative of being indirect.

Most of us are direct in many various aspects of our lives, but when it comes to letting women we want to fuck them, all of the sudden we have to become all "creative" and "suggestive." 

Not for me mate. 

Offline Dick Strong

  • Cafe Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 52
  • Karma: 2
  • New around here
    • View Profile
Re: The Alan Roger Currie VS Yad Philosophical Debate
« Reply #14 on: January 10, 2011, 08:31:47 PM »
I do it that way because I enjoy it. I only analysed it after the fact because you seem to enjoy arguing about this stuff so much.

None of us have to do anything and there is no one interpretation of what is direct or non-direct. Mode One as written works for you, however I am not you and you are not me so I am free to do as I please which means I can adopt some, all or none of what you have written.

As long as it brings me the results that I am happy with who are you to tell me what I am doing is wrong?
« Last Edit: January 10, 2011, 08:38:37 PM by Dick Strong »