Direct Vs. Indirect approach. ARC calls out Tomassi

[SmoothHendrixPS2]

I really enjoyed listening to Rollo Tomassi and Alan Roger Currie collaborate when Tomassi was interviewed on ARC's Blogtalk radio show about 6 years ago. As many know, ARC is considered "the godfather of direct verbal game" and the "king of verbal seduction", while Rollo is considered the "godfather of the red pill". The video below is basically ARC calling out Rollo Tomassi for not being as Red Pill as everyone thinks. On his show, Rollo sort of co-signs two indirect conventional PUAs from London who speak negatively on ARC's mode one approach. ARC addresses it and brings up some REALLY VALID POINTS:

How can a man be "Red Pill" if he is indirect with women? Being red pill means that you truly understand the true sexually duplicitous nature of women, hypergamy, etc. What is masculine or Alpha about being a verbal coward and trying to manipulate women?

I have my own opinions on indirect vs direct. As some of you may know, I am a huge ARC fan (Read and own all 5 of his books), and have used the mode one philosophy during my IN PERSON encounters with women for the last few months. I still use indirect (mode 2) when interacting online with women or if I'm in professional settings such as the workplace.

I see the benefits to both sides. I've been successful with both. I do feel like being mode one (upfront and straightforward) allows you to never get played, save time, money, and be able to identify the type of women you are approaching, while also conquering approach anxieties or fears. On the flip side, Being indirect can usually lead to lying and manipulative behavior. One main example is giving women the misleading impression that you want to be more than a casual sex partner when really, you just want to have no more than 2 or 3 episodes of casual sex. This would be an example of a man being sexually duplicitous.

I'm sure this will create some heart felt debates, but I want to know what some of your thoughts are on indirect vs direct game with women?

 

[Zimbabwe]

Agree that direct game is the way to go, she either likes you or doesn't. No point in wasting time

 

[lgbs2004]

Alan Roger Currie and DavidX are my favorite "gurus". Rollo Tomassi is too much mainstream now...

 

[Pierce Manhammer]

Well there are some of us who are in a hybrid mode. I’m casually looking for a long term relationship myself. Everything begins with a series of sexual encounters and you then decide if you’d like to proceed from there.

 

[In2theGame]

Been saying it. ARC is the absolute best in the dating coach game.

It's my own personal opinion but through my experiences with Women, Alan knows EXACTLY what's talking about.

 

[SmoothHendrixPS2]

Well there are some of us who are in a hybrid mode. I’m casually looking for a long term relationship myself. Everything begins with a series of sexual encounters and you then decide if you’d like to proceed from there.

Fair to say! I think being hybrid is great. I think men will benefit from being aware of how both mode 1 and mode 2 work, so they can decide for themselves when to use either. Also realizing that being mode 3 (using resources or money to get women) and mode 4 (angry and mean verbal game) is beta as hell.

 

[SmoothHendrixPS2]

Alan Roger Currie and DavidX are my favorite "gurus". Rollo Tomassi is too much mainstream now...

You gotta listen to the up front and straightforward podcast where Alan interviews DAvid X! So dope.

 

[SmoothHendrixPS2]

Got 1 of his books. They are both legit in their craft. The thing is being direct can have little to do with what you say. Your words can be indirect but your eyes are saking "fck me" at the same time. Next level

VEry true! But this is not VERBALLY direct. You can eye **** the **** out of a girl and still be vague and ambiguous with your words. **** teasers and timewasters can eat up a dude that does this. I've done it before and it deff has it's benefits, but it's not quite as direct as mode one preaches

 

[Cerwin Vega]

Alan Roger Currie and DavidX are my favorite "gurus". Rollo Tomassi is too much mainstream now...

I go to the WOMEN'S BATHROOM INSTEAD!!!

I love the guy but it's more for entertainment than proper advice. The man can't teach for ****

 

[Velasco]

One main example is giving women the misleading impression that you want to be more than a casual sex partner when really, you just want to have no more than 2 or 3 episodes of casual sex.

Huh?

Anyway both of them are morons

 

[SW15]

Sometimes you need to go indirect with some situational observation opener and then progress the conversation into a direct ask out. This works best in retail outlets, fitness classes, and the general gym floor. If you go too direct in indoor retail, you risk being kicked out of the venue or having your gym membership revoked. Remember the stories of the guys who were doing approaches in the Toronto mall.

 

[SmoothHendrixPS2]

Sometimes you need to go indirect with some situational observation opener and then progress the conversation into a direct ask out. This works best in retail outlets, fitness classes, and the general gym floor. If you go too direct in indoor retail, you risk being kicked out of the venue or having your gym membership revoked. Remember the stories of the guys who were doing approaches in the Toronto mall.

Most of the dudes who are being direct on the internet field approaches are doing it as some sort of experiment and just blurting **** out in a very corny/random manner. There's more to mode one than just being verbally direct. You have to be smooth, seductive, and extremely confident. You won't get kicked out of anywhere if you do it right.

 

[SmoothHendrixPS2]

Huh?

Anyway both of them are morons

What's your question? Many men (including myself) give women the misleading impression that they are open to more than just a few casual sex interactions when they know that's not the case.

I disagree. I think they're both quite intelligent. If you haven't read any of their books than you calling them morons is kind of ignorant isn't it?

 

[SW15]

Most of the dudes who are being direct on the internet field approaches are doing it as some sort of experiment and just blurting **** out in a very corny/random manner. There's more to mode one than just being verbally direct. You have to be smooth, seductive, and extremely confident. You won't get kicked out of anywhere if you do it right.

There are guys getting kicked out of malls, grocery stores, and other indoor venues for doing approaches. I started doing non-bar approaching about a decade ago and I've never gotten kicked out of a place for doing it, though there have been times in a grocery store I did attract staff attention for lingering. Lingering is a normal part of grocery store approach as it can take a while to find viable approaches.

 

[Velasco]

What's your question?

Maybe that's true with girls that aren't your type. But I don't know why any man would restrict himself to 2-3 meets with girls that are his type.

 

[SmoothHendrixPS2]

It's not about whether they are your type or not. it's about letting them know what you are specifically looking for as opposed to leaving them in the dark, blurring the lines, etc. I've had enough psycho bitches stalk me and **** BECAUSE I was being manipulative and playing the part as potential boyfriend. It takes balls and backbone to tell women exactly what you are looking for, which is what mode one is all about.

She may be my type physically, but if I don't want to spend any time with her non sexually, be her emotional therapist, or talk on the phone all day, then it is up to me to directly tell her these things.