The Alan Roger Currie VS Yad Philosophical Debate

[neil_k]

And what about being 'friends' with girls you are sexually attracted to but you cannot move forward because of being lumped in the dreaded 'friend zone'? I am not saying go against what works for you, but that is a point to bear in mind. It is a bit different if you say your intentions early on and she says she's not interested but she'd still like to be friends, then you have a clear idea of where you stand and are able to move on. But when you are unsure about her feelings, that's when there are problems. You leave it too long and then move in, she can get a bit freaked out because she never saw you in 'that way', but if from the start you are clear in what you want, then so long as you have some social intelligence, she won't run for the hills. I have spent too long disappointed by liking a girl, leaving it too long, then trying to move forward, only to be shot down. I think it far better to make things clear from the beginning where you can, because you may get rejected, but you have only known the woman a short time so, you won't even care.

I am going to be honest here. I spent a year on a girl at uni, sometimes pretending I wasn't interested, teasing and flirting with her, but never fully verbalising my desire (which was there from the moment I saw her). Needless to say it did not work out when I did try and move the relationship forward. However though I needn't have told her my intentions from the moment I saw her, there was no reason I couldn't have done so later in the same day (she was in the year below me and I happened to be going on the same trip to London that the rest of the first and some second years were on). I did not think "Oh thats nice, she's a kind of friend.", I though to myself "I find her attractive and I want to date and eventually fuck her!" It was incidentally just before I read Mode One and frankly, if I'd known about it, I wish I'd read it before I started uni. I had this problem several times in the past, hence why I packed in the other 'technique'.

If you're happy being in the girl's friend zone, then that is fine. However it is not uncommon for men to be of that status in a girl's eyes and not be happy about it. So hence why it is referred to as the 'dreaded' friend zone.

This is EXACTLY the reason that men need to let women know their true intentions UPFRONT. I think it's silly to falsely 'befriend' a girl and then wait weeks/months/years before revealing your true intentions. It ALWAYS seems to make things awkward when a guy acts like a woman's 'friend', only to reveal his intentions out of the blue sometime later on down the line - it very rarely ends well.

Better to state your intentions UPFRONT, and then if the girl isn't interested, don't get into the 'friends zone' in the first place. Just leave her alone and move on to another girl.

[neil_k]

M1 is a little bit too crude...the kind of things i've heard quoted like "you have nice lips i'd love to see them around my...." are too out there. You can be forward, open and honest without blurting out graphic sexual desires to some poor woman you just saw wherever. Its about finding the balance between not being a deceptive manipulative machine *cough* magic trick *cough* and being a crude and objectivising. In my opinion Yad and Andy have the right balance; they are honest and intent-driven from the very start, without the added crudeness.

As 3under said, you don't have to be 'crude' to be Mode 1. However, it's obvious by the replies to this post that a lot of you haven't read Mode 1 and you still believe that Mode 1 = 'walking up women and saying crude comments'. It does get tiring after a while when people keep misinterpreting what Mode 1 is, when they haven't even read the ebooks.

BUT, on the flipside.....Mode One CAN be about very xxx rated language. What a lot of guys don't realise is that it's possible to say extremely xxx rated/sexual stuff to women without being 'crude', without being 'creepy', etc. A guy who has mastered the art of being 'verbally erotic' with women can say very xxx rated/sexual stuff to women and can get women sexually aroused with his words. Alan Currie has a new ebook coming out on this very subject.

Some guys can pull off 'talking dirty' to women in a way that gets women sexually aroused....whereas other men fall flat on their faces if they try and talk dirty to women. One guy can talk dirty to women and get them turned on like mad, the other guy can creep them out. The difference is in the experience and the confidence the guy has....if a guy is massively confident with women and has a certain demeanour about him, he can absolutely pull off highly xxx rated/verbally erotic Mode One approaches.

So, although Mode 1 doesn't have to be about xxx rated approaches, equally it CAN be! You just need to be very confident and experienced with women to be able to successfully pull off the xxx rated stuff, and to know when to use xxx rated and when not to. That is something that experience will teach you. It's what I'm working on myself.

[neil_k]

I think the biggest problem with this debate is how we are defining direct. Mode 1 guys believe it is when you verbalize intentions, and the other camp says it's just about both people knowing that "it's on" regardless of if it's been verbalized or not.

If you don't verbalise your intentions to a girl, it's not a Direct approach. If there is any ambiguity or doubt about your intentions, it is not a Direct approach. End of.

There's no way to tell whether 'it's on' for sure without being verbally Direct. If you don't verbalise your intentions to a woman, you leave room for ambiguity and doubt about her intentions.

In a lot of these times I think it would be inappropriate to verbalize it, I think it would kill the vibe.

I've never found it 'kills the vibe' to be upfront about my intentions with women. What I have found, however, is that if you hide your intentions, only to suddenly reveal them out of the blue sometime later, it makes things weird. Better to be upfront right from the start...

[neil_k]

 "if you're not straightforward..."

You can be straightfoward without being really weird. When you see these M1 type people they always just seem really dark and misogynistic...theres no need for it, be honest without being a dick about it...

Why do indirect guys assume that 'being straightforward with women' = 'being weird'/'dark'/'misogynistic', etc?

How can being honest with women be 'weird' or 'dark' or 'misogynistic'? That doesn't make sense.

Actually, Mode 1 isn't about being misogynistic in any way. If you are misogynistic, you're actually Mode 4. Read Alan's book for more on this...

[Kraven]

Not saying thats the goal, just saying that when you compare the people using the different methods you can see a real difference in their personality. For example, take Sasha, he's fun-loving genuinely nice guy. Then you got someone like David X who is aggressive and vulgar. Just don't think that kind of method is healthy for a person...

[Rumba!]

I wish people would stop misinterpreting Mode One as saying stuff like 'Let's go and exchange body fluids'. All that proves is that you haven't read the Mode One books. Go and read them please and get yourself clued up on the Mode One/Direct philosophy before you comment any further on it.

I'm not quoting MO (which I have read). I'm stating an extreme direct opener; perhaps you should read MY comments first before making assumptions!?

We'll have to 'agree to disagree' on these points then, my friend. My personal opinion is that it's better for a newbie to start going Direct right away, if Direct is what he wants to do. There's no need for a newbie to 'ease himself in' by doing indirect approaches first, only to switch to Direct later. But if that's your opinion, fair enough...

You've obviously never encountered a guy who's severly shy before, then!

Quote from: Rumba! on October 19, 2011, 10:48:10 AM
Bottom line it's not what you say but HOW you say it!
That's a totally false statement. The truth is, both what you say AND how you say it matter.

Rubbish! Tyler from RSD opens girls with lines like "I like celery but not cabbage", proving it's not the words but how you say them and how you act (smiling, confident etc..). The words are illrelevent!

Sorry, but there is no such thing as 'semi direct'

So what is a line like "Hey, I saw your outfit and had to say it looks cute"? I consider that "semi direct" as it infers an interest in her but not my intentions.

Quote from: Rumba! on October 19, 2011, 10:48:10 AM
Girls like a guy who is confident and comfortable in who he is! You could have a guy go direct, but if he doesn't believe what he says he'll never get anywhere! Equally another guy who is confident, chill and relaxed could ask a girl where the nearest tube station is, chat to her and end up in bed with her!
Who says you can't be confident, chill and relaxed if you approach a girl Direct? Why is it that indirect guys seem to think that Direct = 'socially awkward' or something? Nothing could be further from the truth.

Where do I say/or infer that I think guys who are direct are socially awkward? I'm commenting on confidence of the guy, regardless of what he opens with.

Read the posts and make comments by all means, but don't slag off other guys comments without undertanding them!

Peace,
Rumba! 

[neil_k]

Not saying thats the goal, just saying that when you compare the people using the different methods you can see a real difference in their personality. For example, take Sasha, he's fun-loving genuinely nice guy. Then you got someone like David X who is aggressive and vulgar. Just don't think that kind of method is healthy for a person...

No no no, David X isn't 'aggressive and vulgar'! He comes across as quite 'brash' when teaching men his material....but when he approaches women he's gentler and more romantic, whilst still being Direct. He has a sort of classy/romantic Direct approach.

If you took the time to properly check out David X's interviews, seminars and other material, you'd know this to be the case.

Again, there are a lot of misconceptions and misunderstandings going on regarding Mode One/Direct around this place....

[neil_k]

I'm not quoting MO (which I have read). I'm stating an extreme direct opener; perhaps you should read MY comments first before making assumptions!?

So have you read any of the 'Mode One' books/ebooks? Be honest with me.

Rubbish! Tyler from RSD opens girls with lines like "I like celery but not cabbage", proving it's not the words but how you say them and how you act (smiling, confident etc..). The words are illrelevent!

Proves what? Eh? Come again? Tyler from RSD opening with lines like "I like celery but not cabbage" proves what exactly? I don't rate RSD or Tyler anyway (they are not Direct), but this reply is just a joke. Nope, all it 'proves' is that Tyler walks up to women and says "I like celery but not cabbage"....it 'proves' nothing beyond that. Let's get real.

It doesn't prove anything. It also proves how brainwashed people get by the whole indirect seduction community. People will say any silly lines they read on the internet, 'just because some seduction guru said so'. It's silly. So let me set you straight...starting a conversation with "I like celery but not cabbage" isn't 'pulling' a girl. Not even close. It's just a silly comment. How is a woman going to know you're interested in her sexually if you start with an ultra indirect comment like that? How is she going to know what you REALLY want from her by starting with a line such as that?

So I stand by what I earlier said....if you want to pick women up, both what you say AND how you say it matter. If you're going to be Direct with women, then you need to let them know, in your own words, that you're attracted to them and what you really want from them.

I HOPE you're not going to tell me that you personally walk up to women and start conversations with "I like celery but not cabbage" just because 'Tyler said so'. At least be original and come up with your own conversation starters!

So what is a line like "Hey, I saw your outfit and had to say it looks cute"? I consider that "semi direct" as it infers an interest in her but not my intentions.

"Hey, I saw your outfit and had to say it looks cute" is a compliment. A compliment alone isn't Direct. A compliment alone doesn't let a girl know SPECIFICALLY what you want from her. It's fine to start with a compliment, but you also must state what you want from her if you are to be fully Direct. David X starts with compliments a lot, and so do I, but we follow up after the compliment...

"Hey, I saw your outfit and had to say it looks cute" doesn't convey your interest specifically enough. That compliment could be taken in a platonic way, it could be taken sexually, or it could be taken as just a neutral comment, as there is no sexual edge to that compliment. Also, you're not actually complimenting the girl herself, you're just complimenting her dress.

Personally, I would be more likely to say "I think you look really sexy in that outfit". That's the real deal. Here, I'm complimenting the girl herself, whereas in your compliment you were merely complimenting her outfit. My compliment also has a sexual edge to it, whereas yours doesn't really. I don't like calling a girl 'cute'....my pet dog is 'cute', but when it comes to women I prefer words such as 'sexy', 'attractive', and other similar sexual adjectives.

But to answer your question....no, a compliment alone isn't Direct. The compliment must be followed up by telling the girl exactly what you want from her if it is to be a full on Direct approach.

For example, after I approach the girl and say "I think you look really sexy in that outfit", I might follow up with something like "I was just fantasising about making love to you, how would you feel about you and I getting together sometime in the next few weeks?", or I might just say something like "I'd love to get together with you sometime in the next few weeks so we can get to know each other" and then I'll make it clear that I'm looking for lover and not just a friend, etc. I'll let the conversation take off from there....(don't copy these words exactly, they are just examples...the point of Direct isn't to use the same words every time and not to copy other peoples' words...be yourself and come up with your own words).

So basically, starting with a compliment is fine as long as 1) it's a genuine compliment (and not just some line you read on an RSD website!), and 2) you follow up by stating exactly what you want from the girl.

[3under]

Quote from: Rumba! on October 19, 2011, 10:48:10 AM
Bottom line it's not what you say but HOW you say it!
That's a totally false statement. The truth is, both what you say AND how you say it matter.

Rubbish! Tyler from RSD opens girls with lines like "I like celery but not cabbage", proving it's not the words but how you say them and how you act (smiling, confident etc..). The words are illrelevent!

Then what happened? Did Tyler had a nice conversation? Did he spent hours before he got laid, providing that he did? How many hours did he spend on doing bullshit?

What's the goal here? To just open and talk? If so, yeah, that ridiculous action is fine.

Sorry, but there is no such thing as 'semi direct'

So what is a line like "Hey, I saw your outfit and had to say it looks cute"? I consider that "semi direct" as it infers an interest in her but not my intentions.

So giving a compliment on her clothes is considered (any level of) direct now? If so, me and Neil are using a completely different dictionary. No wonder this is going nowhere.

Not saying thats the goal, just saying that when you compare the people using the different methods you can see a real difference in their personality. For example, take Sasha, he's fun-loving genuinely nice guy. Then you got someone like David X who is aggressive and vulgar. Just don't think that kind of method is healthy for a person...

Different people have different personalities, but they can all be direct/M1. That is the reason why ARC doesn't like to give specific examples of the way he's M1. Reading the responses on this thread, I can see why.

Also, it sounds like you're implying that Sasha, the fun-loving guy, is indirect; and David, the aggressive and vulgar guy, is direct.

[Rumba!]

I don't rate RSD or Tyler anyway (they are not Direct

Not direct!?!! LOL!!! Have you seen "Blueprint" or "Transformations"? Come on be honest with me!?
Sorry dude, I?ve got one word for you..?TROLL?!!..

I?ve read comments before from guys on this forum who?ve been posting a while and thought to myself, ?Nah, that won?t work..?! I could reply and quote chunks of their posts, dismissing it, or even just right a follow up post saying why I don?t think it will work. 

Now you could say ?Well Rumba! More fool you for not stating your case!?, and perhaps your right but the reason I don?t is because all these guys have spent time helping guys with their issues/questions and have proved themselves. You, on the other hand have posted 16 times, mearly stating your beliefs (nothing wrong with that!) but then making assumptions of other posters as they disagree with your views, and more importantly, never answering newbies who are posting questions. 

I?ve seen this so many times on other (non pua) forums. What starts as a really good forum with people helping one another, decends into a series of spats, between people. The newbie guys don?t bother returning as their questions are never touched, and the site folds soon after. All of it a result of guys with no desire to help but who jump on a bandwagon and diss everyone who they don?t agree with! I?ve no time for anyone  who just posts a ?This is my belief? type entry or a ?your sooo wrong? comment but can?t be bothered to help guys who probably have no one else they can ask. So before you start telling the world how how this is the right way etc.. spend some time helping some other guys, who want some advice!

Hope I?m wrong mate, and I hope you can use what you believe in to help other guys on this board!

Peace,

Rumba! 

[neil_k]

Not direct!?!! LOL!!! Have you seen "Blueprint" or "Transformations"? Come on be honest with me!?

Yes. I didn't like them. Too much unnecessary waffle and 'pseudo seduction theory' for my liking. I stand by what I said. Tyler and RSD are NOT Direct. Tyler and RSD are passing around a false form of direct, which I call 'pseudo direct'.There are dozens of indirect gurus who are passing around this form of false, 'pseudo direct'. Essentially, these guys try to turn direct into a 'technique' or a 'tactic' or a 'routine', or a series of 'openers', etc. They over-complicate everything and try to turn it into a huge pseudo-scientific model. They try to make Direct into a series of steps, like indirect, which is not how True Direct is done. True Direct is not about using techniques/tactics/routines/pre-conceived openers....True Direct is simply about being REAL and HONEST with women.

Earlier in this thread (on page 7, reply number 94), I wrote a reply about true direct vs 'pseudo direct', and how to tell whether a 'guru' is true direct or false direct. Read that reply thoroughly before commenting any further. If you need me to clarify anything as to why Tyler and these indirect gurus are NOT direct, just ask.

True Direct is what David X and Alan Currie (Mode One) are teaching. The only other teachers who teach true direct are Don Suave and possibly Zan Perrion and Johnny Soporno. Everyone else is either indirect or 'pseudo direct'.

You didn't answer my question about reading the Mode One ebooks, so can I safely assume you haven't read them? After you've read Mode One, you'll see that RSD and Tyler aren't true direct, so read Mode One and check out David X's materials too if you get a chance. You'll soon see why Tyler and all these other gurus aren't the real deal.

Sorry dude, I?ve got one word for you..?TROLL?!!..

Listen buddy, the reason I'm replying so much to this thread is because people like yourself and others are spreading misconceptions about Mode One/Direct.  Don't call me a 'troll'.

The only people on this thread who truly 'get' what Mode One/Direct is about are Alan Currie, 3Under and myself.

You and others here don't 'get' Mode One/Direct. You THINK you do, but you don't. I'm not being malicious or nasty by saying that, and I don't mean it in a nasty way....but it's the truth. You and others here DON'T GET Mode One/Direct.

I?ve read comments before from guys on this forum who?ve been posting a while and thought to myself, ?Nah, that won?t work..?! I could reply and quote chunks of their posts, dismissing it, or even just right a follow up post saying why I don?t think it will work. 

I'm not 'dissing' anything or anyone. I'm simply defending Mode One/Direct against all these distortions and misconceptions that are being thrown around this thread from guys who don't 'get' what Mode One/Direct is.

You, on the other hand have posted 16 times, mearly stating your beliefs (nothing wrong with that!) but then making assumptions of other posters as they disagree with your views, and more importantly, never answering newbies who are posting questions. 

Against....I've posted 16 times (and will probably post a lot more if this continues) because people are spreading misconceptions about Direct.

SOMEBODY has to stand up for Mode One/Direct. Alan Currie is a very busy guy and doesn't have time to reply here much. So I'm afraid it's left to myself and 3under. I'm sorry, but if you're going to state things as facts that simply aren't true, and generally pass around false information about Direct, then I'm going to stand up for Direct.

I?ve seen this so many times on other (non pua) forums. What starts as a really good forum with people helping one another, decends into a series of spats, between people.

This isn't a 'spat' between people. It's a case of the majority of guys on this thread don't understand the Mode One/Direct philosophy vs a couple of guys who DO.

So before you start telling the world how how this is the right way etc.. spend some time helping some other guys, who want some advice!

Hope I?m wrong mate, and I hope you can use what you believe in to help other guys on this board!

Again, I'm not here to post on tons of threads offering my advice. I'm not here to start a 'flame war' or a 'spat'. I'm not here to 'bash' indirect. I'm here to clear up the misconceptions about Mode One/Direct that are being spread here. If it wasn't for the fact that people keep replying to this thread with false information about Direct, then I wouldn't be here. If you're going to spread false information about Direct, don't complain when guys who DO get it come along and correct you.

So, with that in mind, try and reply to my points intelligently and objectively please.

So yeah, my main beef is that people here are saying things about Direct that aren't true, such as 'Direct guys are weird/dark misogynistic', etc etc.

And if you're going to mention newbies....well I for one don't want newbies getting the wrong idea about what Direct is, and it's guys like you and others who spread all this shit about Direct that causes newbies to get confused and head down the wrong path. So if any newbies are reading this thread, take heed of what myself, Alan and 3under say, and don't let yourself get confused about Direct.

This thread is just going round in circles anyway. I think I've made my point.

And let's not forget, this thread was originally about Yad vs Alan Currie....

[3under]

I've had plenty experiences of being with a girl, and neither of us have mentioned it, but we both know what's going to go down. This DOES happen, whether you believe it or not. In a lot of these times I think it would be inappropriate to verbalize it, I think it would kill the vibe.

If verbalizing it kills the vibe, you didn't have genuine, sexual vibe from the first place. She was probably playing you for attention.

[Michael]

After you've read Mode One, you'll see that RSD and Tyler aren't true direct, so read Mode One and check out David X's materials too if you get a chance. You'll soon see why Tyler and all these other gurus aren't the real deal.

I wouldn't say that RSD is indirect. And nor would I say that it is is direct. I'd say it's natural. I'm probably just nit-picking here, but RSD, as a teaching, simply promotes the claimed virtues of being positive, dominant, unreactive, etc.. The men who then adopt these behaviours choose for themselves whether to be direct or indirect -- and they can be one at one time and the other at another.

Edit: actually, reconsidering, I can see where you're coming from in calling RSD "indirect"; it teaches you to act in ways that women find attractive rather than to simply tell them what you want and let the cards fall where they may.

But you're right; Mode One, David X, etc. are the only actual teachings (that I know of) that actively promote being direct over being indirect.

Personally, I tend to use Alan's approach with David's attitude and RSD's "inner game" behaviours. If there were just three products I'd suggest guys to buy they'd be Mode One: Hardcore, David X's Montreal Seminar, and RSD Mastermind #16 - Derek: The Adventures of an RSD Super Soldier.

[craze6663]

mode one is mad pussy son

[Legoman]

I only read the first few pages of this thread, so I hope I am not repeating what others have said over and over, but I believe that this discussion/disagreement largely stems from a false dichotomy.

Directness is not either/or, its a spectrum.

It is also important to remember that meaning is not only communicated by words and bodylanguage, but to a large degree by context as well.

In reality, every utterance has a different degree of directness, but for practicality I think it makes sense to divide openings according to four levels of directness.


Indirect/Misleading
(no communication of interest or intention, transition is always required)
                  
   Asking for information (directions, etc.)

   Asking for opinion

   Providing information - "you should try those muffins", "you dropped this"

   Offering assistance/help

   Commenting on situation (shared situation, or her situation) - "freezing, isn't it?" - "I love that book"

Indirect
(interest and intention may be inferred, transition may be required)         
      
   Commenting on her (compliment, observation, etc.) - "you have pretty eyes", "you [blank]"

   Asking about her (personal question or question about intention/purpose) - "are you a student here?", "what are you up to?"

Direct/Semi-direct
(interest stated, intention inferred)      
      
   Stating interest in her - "You look just like my type of girl, so I wanted to say hi"

Direct
(intention stated, interest stated or inferred)   
   
   Stating ultimate intention - "I am not gonna bullshit. Just saw you and thought I wanna fuck you silly."


Much of the discussion seems to focus on misleading openers versus super-direct openers. I personally prefer a semi-direct approach, where I avoid both overwhelming her and feeling like a pussy.

While opening by stating ultimate intention may make you feel like a man, I believe its major disadvantage is that physically attraction will play a bigger role in whether the girl rejects you or not, since you haven't had any chance to create attraction through interaction. Of course a perfect dilivery creates attraction through showing confidence, but is it enough for most average looking guys going for hot chicks?