Face it, Direct Game is not a good way to meet girls.

[everywomanshero]

It's quite easy to open situationally and despite Mystery's continious ranting on how a situational approach will not work I continue to have good results. It's not direct and it's not really indirect either. She knows I am tentatively interested in communicating with her, however, I am playing around with her and might walk off at any moment. I do like to use a false time constraint.

It is not required that an approach is either direct or indirect, I will use whatever gives me good results and allows me to go out and have a good time.

I reject the idea that seduction is a chore or that one needs a mindset that he *Must* get something for it to be a success (laid, a #, whatever). I am of the opinion that it is OK to approach for my own amusement and come of it what it will.

I also reject the idea that one needs to model some PUA or have a covert agenda. I actually think most guys would have way more success finding a local guy who is good at attracting women and modeling some of his behaviors and beliefs than trying to be the next guy acting like X PUA.

 

[ketostix]

yes, but the problem with indirect game is that you have to invest way more time and then at the end of the hour long conversation you find out that she has a bf/ a husband/ a pimp/ is a lesbian/ used to be a man/ is a man.

Common misconception. You don't need to spend any predetermined amount of time being indirect to see IOI's, and to determine whether she has an interest in you, and escalating. Or you could go in right off the bat, You: "..You got a BF?". Her: "Yes" or "Sort of" "Maybe" (she really doesn't but you havent given her any reason to be interested in you). You: "OK. bye". Besides a girl can often string you along when you go "direct"with her. I don't know that she's not more likely to.

 

[Mad Manic]

So why not take the power from them and have a lot of options with hot girls yourself?

Yes, hopefully one day I will do lol, easier said than done of course. I was just saying, when dealing with girls high in demand, it's way more than just about attraction. Sometimes a hot girl may meet a guy and fancies him a lot etc. but when he texts, she isn't in a good mood or has other stuff to do and she flakes on him and that's the end of it. Sometimes it's random stuff. Sometimes girls don't even meet up with guys because 'If I do, it will/probably will lead to sex and then I'll seem like a slut.' etc.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

yes, but the problem with indirect game is that you have to invest way more time and then at the end of the hour long conversation you find out that she has a bf/ a husband/ a pimp/ is a lesbian/ used to be a man/ is a man.

WTF are you talking about for an entire hour not to know that she's not interested/available?

 

[CraigMack]

Guitar Wizz you certainly are nobodies fool. I now see the real purpose of your post. You don't care about which style wins or loses as can be seen in the poorly written post you put up.


Lets just say I saw the marketing that was going on with this waste of a thread.

 

[ketostix]

Good observation CraigMack. I realized he was working an angle. Nonetheless, there's some good and valuable info in this thread. It's a legitimate discussion.

 

[rainy_day]

I must admit that direct doesn't work well for me. Actually, in most cases I do felt like an idiot afterward. I don't have any problem with my confidence or my voice tone, and EC comes naturally to me. The thing is, direct looks creepy to most girls over here (Central Europe), even though I've probably been doing it right and I'm certainly not ugly.

From my experience, indirect works much better. My success rate is approx. 80%. I believe this is not bad Also, I don't feel like an idiot when I get rejected, cause the whole thing is just more "natural" and not creepy.

This is my first post BTW

 

[JuanMoore]

This video is so funny!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CFJsmMETwuk

I see no kiss though.

 

[Duke]

IMO many guys are misunderstanding direct game or have no understanding of it at all.

Badboy and Shark were the main proponents of direct game back in the day. The basic gist is opening with "Hi, I like you and I want to get to know you" and then you proceed to build rapport and qualify and then go for the close, whether that be a venue change or a makeout or a phone number.

One of two things will happen. The girl will smile really big and tell you she has a boyfriend OR she will smile really big and say "Hey, whats your name?" and you're IN.

Is it less subtle and less polished than "indirect" game? Yeah. Does that make it INVALID and USELESS as a way to open and attract girls? No, not by any means. It works, but it relies HEAVILY on your bodylanguage, including your voice tone, eye contact, etc. Also your core sense of confidence. If your inner game is waining then it will not work well.

It's a little more "hit or miss" compared to indirect game, but when it works, it WORKS and its ON. No bull****, no feigning disinterest and playing the power games, it's easy and natural.

Does that make it "better" or "worse" than indirect game? No. It's just different. It's suited for a different type of headspace.

In my experience, the girls love it and are always flattered even if they say they have boyfriends. Could these boyfriend excuses have been circumvented by going the indirect route? Possibly, but sometimes it's fun to just put yourself on the line and connect directly with a girl with no barriers between the two of you.

I like direct game for the fact that I can't "hide" behind a false persona. It keeps me on my path, because if I become lax and let my inner game wain, then it shows very quickly, whereas you have more leeway with indirect game to sell a persona. Conversations also tend to be more 50/50 with direct whereas its more like 80/20 with indirect, so that's a relief if you're not naturally a motormouth.

But both are valid and effective if done properly.

Direct game is NOT supplication and it is NOT in any way shape or form needy or creepy. It is honest, natural and will come off well if you're relaxed, have good style, bodylanguage, and confidence. It actually syncs up well in a girl's mind and creates comfort from the get go if you're a confident, cool guy, because that is how girls IMAGINE themselves being approached. They do not imagine some guy running rune routines, reading palms, doing methodical backturns and thowing out backhanded compliments.

 

[çun]

De angelo wrote sth that I think is perfect for this situation.
If you have a social status higher or even equal to the girl you want to approach you can go direct.If not,depending on your looks and over all apparence,you can try to increase it at her eyes by acting alpha with other girls and getting their attention and then make your move.

What about women that go direct,what do you think about them?

 

[dynamicallyidle]

....we aren't serious here are we?

The reason direct game works at night is because girls go out specifically to be hit on, at this time.

It doesn't work during the day because girls do NOT go out to be hit on. They are not in a receptive state from the get-go.

 

[LostAndConfused]

Fück it. I live by a combination of both direct and indirect. For me, direct game openers come off as too needy, and indirect openers are too corny (the ones I've seen used on here). I think it doesn't matter about the practicality, as in "Hey, this girl LOOKS as if she seems the type to use direct game on, I'll use that on her!" You don't wanna do that. Just be easy, look for IOI's and go with the flow.

But next time I go to the mall, I'm gonna sing to a random HB that James Blunt song "Your beautiful" in my deep voice =).