Friendship Framing Part 1 - Should You Go Direct or Indirect?

[Vision]

I've had a few people ask me about Friendship Framing and how it works so I thought I'd do a few write ups on it to help people out that I've seen struggling with a few things as well as organize my own thoughts.

I've met a few guys since I've been back in the States and we've gone out and done some approaching together and I wanted to talk about this idea of Direct Vs Indirect because I've seen a lot of guys struggling and it's something I've struggled with before and I think this might help you out a lot.

What Is Direct Vs Indirect?

The mistake I see is this idea that you should always go direct. I'm sure this has been talked about and probably argued about in this forum over the years but I wanted to give my take on it since I'm still seeing just about every guy I meet go direct on just about every approach.

If you're not familiar with the term, direct has been used in a few different ways before. On the approach, it generally means that you're expressing your sexual/romantic interest up front.

You're verbally or non-verbally expressing it.

To speak to @Baron and his question about Mode 1, if you approached in an indirect way, made fluff talk or whatever for 5 minutes to find her availability, and then went into sexual direct, most would probably consider this an indirect approach followed by switching into sexual direct. We could get bogged down in the terms and shit but I don't think that's overly useful.

There are a bunch of other terms here like implied direct (you aren't using a direct opener but she probably is assuming you're talking to her because you want to date/fuck her).

With direct, you see this with guys walking up and saying, "I was over there and I saw you and I knew I'd be kicking myself if I didn't meet you" or "I wanted to talk to you because I think you're beautiful" or whatever other direct line that 99% of all guys who do direct approach use to ad nauseum while pretending they're "being themselves" right before they go into asking her 20 questions and trying to convince her to do all the work to hold the conversation she never wanted to get into in the first place.

This has been framed in the community as "man game" and "hyper masculine" or whatever... and don't get me wrong, it can be powerful. I've used it effectively. I know guys who are really good who basically only do direct, and most guys can probably do this well if their fundamentals are locked down.

Why Do Anything Other Than Direct on the Approach?

"So why then, Vision, would I want to do anything else if this can work and it makes me feel like a man?"

Well, hypothetical strawman that I use to counterbalance my conversations, that's a good question. And the answer is in this little thing we call, "Calibration."

There are some situations where you almost always need to go direct... like if you don't have a lot of time or a girl is in a clear hurry or it's some kind of weird situation where indirect just doesn't make any sense... by all means, go direct. Also, direct is often a better way to go when you're in bars and clubs because it's often more natural and makes sense.

Or if the girl you're talking to is giving you AIs or going direct works for you a good portion of the time or you're talking to girls who have a lower SMV than you (I know there's an argument out there that all women have a higher SMV than all men but I think that's silly).

HOWEVER...

If you're doing direct all the time and it's not leading to numbers, dates, and sex with women, you may want to change up your approach.

You see, with direct, you often put a woman in a position to make a snap judgment about you... that's why you'll hear boyfriend objections even if she doesn't have one.

She has to decide, "should I let this man who has a clear romantic/sexual interest in me, continue talking to me?" And if she doesn't feel it in that moment, she may often reject you outright without giving you a chance to display how cool you are, how much she would like you, or how big your ding dong is.

What About the Indirect Approach?

Indirect on the approach is when you're not communicating that you're sexually/romantically interested in her on the approach... for instance, if you walk up and ask a woman what time it is, looking to get into a different conversation, that would be indirect.

Or making a comment on, teasing her about, or asking her about a piece of clothing she's wearing... or asking an opinion on something... or anything else where it's made clear that you could be saying this to someone else and not her... or it's NOT clear that you're talking to her because of romantic interest, we'd mostly consider this indirect (or sometimes implied direct, depending on the person's definition).

Why would you want to go indirect?

The biggest reason is that indirect gives you time. She doesn't have to make a snap judgment about whether to reject you right off the bat.

You delay the rejection so that you can connect with her in a way that makes her want to talk to you more until she's attracted, hooked, or interested in continuing the conversation.

There are a bunch of arguments about indirect not being as manly or being sneaky or being about hiding your intentions or whatever.

But we're just talking about the approach right now... the reality is that most game and most guys I see who are getting laid by hotsies consistently aren't doing one technique or the other.

Sometimes I've seen straight "horny guy game" or "sneaky fucker game" but most of the time, game isn't as polarized as being indirect or direct, when I've seen it be the most consistently effective.

Most of the good guys that I see are calibrated, which means that they change their method up depending on the situation that they're in.

They go direct when it makes sense and they go indirect when it makes sense. They change what they're doing to fit the situation, pull back when it makes sense, push forward when it makes sense, give her time when he thinks she needs it, spikes her emotions when she needs it, calms things down when he thinks she needs it.

Sometimes this is done consciously but often it's just done instinctually based on their emotional and social intelligence that they've developed.

So you may be asking yourself, "Okay, so wtf are you even talking about Vision? How is this going to help me get my dick wet?"

Alright, geez... that brings us to...

Friendship Framing

Friendship Framing is further down the extreme side of indirect type of game. The reason I bring this up at all and wanted to talk about it is that I see so many guys in the push push push mindset that I thought I'd bring a little bit of balance to your world.

It's a calibration technique that you can use to not only delay rejection but to also take a girl's game away from her if she tries to friendzone you.

The incident that originally brought this up was when this girl in Ukraine I met who said something about being friends on the first meet. And instead of fighting it, I agreed and amplified it... taking her game away and creating uncertainty around my intentions.

The cool thing about the friendzone is that you can often get away with a lot of things that women often wouldn't do in a romantic scenario. Ukraine is notorious for women making guys pay for expensive things, making guys take them on expensive dates, waiting until several dates in to even allow themselves to go to a guy's place, etc.

In fact, after we started seeing each other for the very brief amount of time that we did, that's what that girl told me she normally makes guys do... she said she strings guys along for months normally.

But with me, she showed up at my place for a day 2 with home made dinner. Red borscht in fact, and it was delicious! I mean, there was still a little bit of bone in it, which is annoying, but nobody's perfect.

Then by the time it became clear that I was interested in a sexual relationship, she was already so hooked on me that it didn't matter how direct I was anymore or whether that frame was there, she wanted it to happen too.

The point is...

It's not always best to go direct.

IMO, I think it's best to use a calibrated approach to the situation instead of being dogmatic about anything.

If you think this is interesting and you want to hear more about friendship framing and building attraction inside of it, let me know and I'll write another post about it.

If you think friendship framing is morally and ethically fucked because I'm not being totally upfront about my intentions, I'd like to hear you out on that too.

 

[Skills]

very interesting vision I arrived at many similar conclusions (i brought a lot of those points before), i brought up in this forum before how direct is important in short time situations (like you just describe) were there are obvious approach invites and in some countries (brazil) direct works really good...

Eventually many guys will end up being indirect/situational... They will notice most of the time accidentally that their ratios go up... The hardest part is to generate the situational /indirect at times...

funny i talk about the friendzone method (discover accidentally years ago) ended up sleeping with all the "Friendzone" girls...

i also made the point of the main point of the opener is to buy time..

Yeah i am interested to see if is similar to what happened to me, i still use it time, my main goal is strategically to lower their guard, so they relax, and then attack...

I don't see anything unethical other than, it can be used as bait and switch....

 

[Tim Iron]

Friendship framing is best for women approached: in gyms, at work, in classes, areas where you could run into her without agreeing to meet. On the street, indirect direct (ask about directions, then go direct) seems to be the best.

 

[Baron]

Nice post and an interesting topic. A few thoughts.

To speak to @Baron and his question about Mode 1, if you approached in an indirect way, made fluff talk or whatever for 5 minutes to find her availability, and then went into sexual direct, most would probably consider this an indirect approach followed by switching into sexual direct. We could get bogged down in the terms and shit but I don't think that's overly useful.

Yeah, I would normally distinguish between a direct/indirect approach and a direct/indirect opener. A direct approach would be where you make your intentions unambiguously clear to the woman very early in the first conversation. One can argue where the cut off point is, 5 minutes or whatever.

Also, I wouldn't consider heavy kino as being direct. If a guy's talking about intellectual topics (politics, philosophy, etc) while groping a girl's ass (yes, I knew a guy who would do that), I'd just call that sleazy. Direct to me, and in the mode context, should be verbal.

With direct, you see this with guys walking up and saying, "I was over there and I saw you and I knew I'd be kicking myself if I didn't meet you" or "I wanted to talk to you because I think you're beautiful"

I wouldn't consider those to be direct openers. There was a time when I did back in the day. Without following up with some kind of statement of intent, I'd now consider that as just giving a woman an unnecessary ego boost.

But anyway, onto the meat of the post.

There are a couple of other things I'd add which might influence an aspiring seducer's approach.

The end goal
Everyone here is chasing pussy, but what's really the goal (when it comes to non-LTR sex)? Do you just want to rack up lay counts by any means necessary? Or do you want to shag girls with as little time, money, drama, guilty feelings and emotional maintenance as possible (even if that means passing on potential lays)?

For me it's the latter. I don't want a girl getting attached, being clingy, creating drama, stalking me or whatever ... IF all I want from her is a fk buddy or FWB. I want an easy life.

By going direct/direct sexual or just by being sexual, I avoid misleading the girl about what I want or what kind of a guy I am ... plus like you said it feels more "manly" you get that alpha male respect from the girl.

Can it 100% prevent fuck buddies from getting attached or falling in love? Of course not, but at least it's on them.

Delayed vs instant rejection
Another thing to consider is how you respond to delayed rejection. If you walk up to a girl, open her and she tells you to fuck off, yeah it stings for a bit but after a few minutes you're over it. Now instead let's say you've done an hour or two of "comfort building" (getting to know her, talking about your passions, your work, your family, etc etc) only for her to excuse herself and tell you she needs to "look for her friend" or she gives you her number and doesn't respond when you message her later. Or you've spent a week texting her back and forth and she just ghosts when you suggest meeting up. For me, situations like that piss me off way more. But with direct there's only so much you can say before the girl is forced to reject or reciprocate your desires.

Most of the good guys that I see are calibrated, which means that they change their method up depending on the situation that they're in.

It's interesting you brought up mode one, as almost everyone thinks this approach is basically walking up to a girl and telling her you want to fuck her in one way or another. I think this is partly ARC's fault for the way he emphasizes that side of it. But in fact, if you listen to some of his stories, not the ones I played to you, what he does or claims to do isn't always technically "direct", although he's usually very verbally erotic. For example, if he feels a girl has a less than average level of attraction towards him but she lets him know she's into another guy (could be an ex or even a fantasy guy, e.g. her favourite flim star), he'll attempt to get her pussy wet by talking about the other guy's dick, i.e. he'll describe in vivid detail how she'd love to get fucked by the other guy (of course after establishing that there's no logistical possibility of her leaving him to make the fantasy a reality!) Then he'll make a move while she's horny. Is that technically "mode one direct"? I don't know, but I guess it's an example of calibration, changing from direct sexual to what seems to be indirect sexual.

If you think friendship framing is morally and ethically fucked because I'm not being totally upfront about my intentions, I'd like to hear you out on that too.

I think it is if 1) you don't really enjoy her company , 2) she develops feelings for you but in the end you fuck her once or twice and dump (I think that's what Skills meant by "bait and switch").

But I get why you'd feel the need to use that strategy in Ukraine. It's pretty sneaky way of avoiding "dating" $$$ them. And we discussed why going direct or too sexual on a cold approach in Ukraine is potentially problematic. But sounds like you were lucky as the girl friend-zoned you first. I can't imagine how you would cold approach a girl in Ukraine, convince her you only want to be friends and have her agree to it and forgo the extra benefits she'd normally expect from meeting a foreigner.

 

[Vision]

very interesting vision I arrived at many similar conclusions (i brought a lot of those points before), i brought up in this forum before how direct is important in short time situations (like you just describe) were there are obvious approach invites and in some countries (brazil) direct works really good...

Eventually many guys will end up being indirect/situational... They will notice most of the time accidentally that their ratios go up... The hardest part is to generate the situational /indirect at times...

funny i talk about the friendzone method (discover accidentally years ago) ended up sleeping with all the "Friendzone" girls...

i also made the point of the main point of the opener is to buy time..

Yeah i am interested to see if is similar to what happened to me, i still use it time, my main goal is strategically to lower their guard, so they relax, and then attack...

I don't see anything unethical other than, it can be used as bait and switch....

It could be used for bait and switch, I wouldn't consider this bait and switch though, unless you're telling her explicitly that you only want to be friends, which isn't what I'm doing.

I have told women that I only wanted to be friends with them and slept with them before... but I only wanted to be friends with them when I told them that and then later we were drunk or whatever and had sex. So I think it would true in the moments that it was said.

Friendship framing is best for women approached: in gyms, at work, in classes, areas where you could run into her without agreeing to meet. On the street, indirect direct (ask about directions, then go direct) seems to be the best.

Thanks for sharing.

Yeah, I would normally distinguish between a direct/indirect approach and a direct/indirect opener. A direct approach would be where you make your intentions unambiguously clear to the woman very early in the first conversation. One can argue where the cut off point is, 5 minutes or whatever.

Also, I wouldn't consider heavy kino as being direct. If a guy's talking about intellectual topics (politics, philosophy, etc) while groping a girl's ass (yes, I knew a guy who would do that), I'd just call that sleazy. Direct to me, and in the mode context, should be verbal.


I wouldn't consider those to be direct openers. There was a time when I did back in the day. Without following up with some kind of statement of intent, I'd now consider that as just giving a woman an unnecessary ego boost.

Okay. I think ARC distinguishes this or something, if I remember. As it not being direct unless it was sexual direct? I'm not sure I remember how it was phrased.

There are a couple of other things I'd add which might influence an aspiring seducer's approach.

The end goal
Everyone here is chasing pussy, but what's really the goal (when it comes to non-LTR sex)? Do you just want to rack up lay counts by any means necessary? Or do you want to shag girls with as little time, money, drama, guilty feelings and emotional maintenance as possible (even if that means passing on potential lays)?

For me it's the latter. I don't want a girl getting attached, being clingy, creating drama, stalking me or whatever ... IF all I want from her is a fk buddy or FWB. I want an easy life.

By going direct/direct sexual or just by being sexual, I avoid misleading the girl about what I want or what kind of a guy I am ... plus like you said it feels more "manly" you get that alpha male respect from the girl.

Can it 100% prevent fuck buddies from getting attached or falling in love? Of course not, but at least it's on them.

You know, it's funny. There's this cute, young girl who wants to be with me in an LTR. And I'm avoiding it... yet, I claim to prefer relationships. Sometimes I wonder if I'm just fooling myself.

Either way, I'm definitely open to being in relationships and enjoy being in relationships. Unless I'm absolutely sure I wouldn't want anything but sex (pun?) with her, I don't take that off the table until I get to know her.

And unfortunately for most women, it really takes up to a couple months to get to know someone well enough, have them let their guard down, and for me to find out what's really going on there (often less if their issues come out more quickly or they have lots of issues or I trigger their issues, which tends to happen).

The dating process, is often, for me, a process of getting to know them and figuring out if they'd be good with me in a relationship. I could see, if I was purely just looking for sex and absolutely avoided any deep connection, how I might want to do only sexual direct.

But for me, that deep connection is often what I want. It makes the sex better.

I also think, if you're debating what method to use, you may want to look at your own personality and find what fits with you. Or maybe try on different things and feel what fits initially.

Delayed vs instant rejection
Another thing to consider is how you respond to delayed rejection. If you walk up to a girl, open her and she tells you to fuck off, yeah it stings for a bit but after a few minutes you're over it. Now instead let's say you've done an hour or two of "comfort building" (getting to know her, talking about your passions, your work, your family, etc etc) only for her to excuse herself and tell you she needs to "look for her friend" or she gives you her number and doesn't respond when you message her later. Or you've spent a week texting her back and forth and she just ghosts when you suggest meeting up. For me, situations like that piss me off way more. But with direct there's only so much you can say before the girl is forced to reject or reciprocate your desires.

It's interesting you brought up mode one, as almost everyone thinks this approach is basically walking up to a girl and telling her you want to fuck her in one way or another. I think this is partly ARC's fault for the way he emphasizes that side of it.

There are misconceptions around all of the methods. Mostly from people who don't know or understand it or are dogmatic about something or immediately dismissive of something without trying it or actually figuring it out.

I think it's a natural judgment process that most people have to avoid needing to overly think about things.

I also think part of it is the lack of clarity in what he's talking about. I've listened to a shit ton of his audio and read a bunch of his book and I'm still not fully sure what I'm supposed to do with Mode 1... something about dirty talking her and telling her you want to exchange orgasms, lol.

He really needs a one page cheat sheet on exactly what to do. Maybe he has one somewhere?

But in fact, if you listen to some of his stories, not the ones I played to you, what he does or claims to do isn't always technically "direct", although he's usually very verbally erotic. For example, if he feels a girl has a less than average level of attraction towards him but she lets him know she's into another guy (could be an ex or even a fantasy guy, e.g. her favourite flim star), he'll attempt to get her pussy wet by talking about the other guy's dick, i.e. he'll describe in vivid detail how she'd love to get fucked by the other guy (of course after establishing that there's no logistical possibility of her leaving him to make the fantasy a reality!) Then he'll make a move while she's horny. Is that technically "mode one direct"? I don't know, but I guess it's an example of calibration, changing from direct sexual to what seems to be indirect sexual.

Yeah, there are some PUA terms around this kind of behavior. If she's turned on and available, even if you're not the object of her sexual interest, a lot of women will be open to sex with you because you're the one engaging with her at the moment.

Sounds like he's using this concept to his advantage. It's smart.

I think it is if 1) you don't really enjoy her company , 2) she develops feelings for you but in the end you fuck her once or twice and dump (I think that's what Skills meant by "bait and switch").

If you're building any kind of a connection with a woman and she's an avoidant attachment style, she's likely to latch onto you and develop feelings for you in an unhealthy way. You can often screen for this kind of thing but sometimes you won't be able to.

But I get why you'd feel the need to use that strategy in Ukraine. It's pretty sneaky way of avoiding "dating" $$$ them. And we discussed why going direct or too sexual on a cold approach in Ukraine is potentially problematic. But sounds like you were lucky as the girl friend-zoned you first. I can't imagine how you would cold approach a girl in Ukraine, convince her you only want to be friends and have her agree to it and forgo the extra benefits she'd normally expect from meeting a foreigner.

I wouldn't tell a girl that I only want to be her friend. I think that's a little misleading... that's the line for me, actually. And I also don't think it's a good idea to do for a number of other reasons. One of them is that you're then lying... another is that there's a lot of certainty around it. And certainty is boring.

One of the points of doing friendship framing, to me, is that it creates uncertainty... like, "Does he want to be my friend or does he want to date me? Why does he keep mentioning friends?"

She doesn't know. And that's exciting, mysterious, and different than what she gets with all the rest of the guys.

With that girl in particular in Ukraine, she was attempting to push the friendship idea... either as a way to game me (if I'm trying to convince her that we should be more than friends, I'm chasing her or I'm attempting to set a standard that she can accept or reject) or as a way to attempt to protect her own heart. Either way, she went further into that direction.

She went far enough that she didn't see me as a sexual threat. And because of that and the conversation we had, she ends up showing up at my place with some borscht (heavily invested).

I'm pretty sure, even to be friends, a woman needs to be attracted to you. I mean, why would she want to be friends with some random dude she met from a cold approach or something? In Ukraine, it could be that she wants to learn English or something... but she could go to an English language exchange and do that.

She'd need to be excited about you for some reason, which basically boils down to being attracted to you, ime. She's not certain about what you want because you're flirty, fun, but also are making references to being friends instead of talking about being her boyfriend or having sex with her or whatever else most guys talk about.

She wants to explore it some more so she meets up with you but her guard is down because you're not in a dating frame and then she gets caught up in the excitement because you're a player.

And at a certain point you start going more direct, she could say no but she's so excited and turned on by you and the emotions you've stirred up in her that she says yes. Or maybe she tries to friendzone you again but you make it clear that you're going to flirt with her or try to sleep with her because you're attracted to her and that it's not a big deal.

So when she comes back to meet up with you again, she's accepting the frame that you're going to try to sleep with her and it's just a matter of time from there.

It's definitely not as efficient as walking up and telling her that you want to exchange orgasms with her, doing some dirty talk, and then going back to your apartment and having sex. But it might be necessary to get a chance with a woman that you probably wouldn't otherwise get a chance with (obviously there's no way to know for sure, outside of testing it with girls that you would normally go direct on and comparing the results you got).

It also probably requires a bit more skill.

 

[Baron]

The dating process, is often, for me, a process of getting to know them and figuring out if they'd be good with me in a relationship. I could see, if I was purely just looking for sex and absolutely avoided any deep connection, how I might want to do only sexual direct.

If you're looking for a relationship, you can still use the mode one approach, just can say "get to know you" or "find out if we are a good match" or something instead of "fuck the shit out of you" lol. You're still being upfront about your intentions.

The reason I focussed on sex was:
1) this forum is called skilledseducer.com not skilledrelationshipseeker.com
2) I find it easier and less risky to start casual and then in the future upgrade the relationship IF I see the girl as LTR material. Unless I'm absolutely sure I want an LTR from the get go. But even in the latter case, it might be easier to seduce the girl first, especially if she's much younger as I think a younger girl is more willing to have no-strings-attached sex with a guy twice her age than start a relationship.

Okay. I think ARC distinguishes this or something, if I remember. As it not being direct unless it was sexual direct? I'm not sure I remember how it was phrased.

It's not direct unless it's verbal. He doesn't believe in the concept of subcommunication, though he does emphasize other things like good eye contact and voice tonality. He also doesn't consider going direct over text as proper direct, so Tinder openers don't count.

I also think part of it is the lack of clarity in what he's talking about. I've listened to a shit ton of his audio and read a bunch of his book and I'm still not fully sure what I'm supposed to do with Mode 1... something about dirty talking her and telling her you want to exchange orgasms, lol.

Yeah, if he had a course or something it would be nice. I think you have to figure it out by practising just being more direct/honest/authentic with women in general. But essentially, mode one and seduction (dirty talk) are separate things.

Mode one is just being honest and upfront about your intentions, whether you want an LTR or just sex. You can express those intentions in a wide variety of ways from ultra explicit ("I wanna fuck the shit out of you") to very tame (e.g. "I'm absolutely not looking to be your next platonic male friend"), either off the bat or after a few minutes of fluff talk. How you calibrate the situation and your personality will determine the words you choose to use. It's not really a seduction method, it's just a way to screen out or expose women who are going to manipulate you or waste your time, energy or money.

Seduction/dirty talk is basically persuading a women who deep down wants you to fuck her to let you fuck her. Such women may initially react adversely to your ballsy direct approach but they're really testing you. You can be mode one without seduction, but you're only going to fuck very DTF women.

The two main challenges I've found with this approach:
1) state crashes ... this is more of a night game thing, you meet a girl in a club or bar, talk dirty to her, get her wet and horny but it's too early for her to leave the club so you take her number but the next day or week, her "good girl" side takes over and if you don't have the opportunity to see her in person again and rekindle the interaction, she's gonna flake. Discussed that with @Skills on a pervious thread. I've heard about strategies to deal with that but haven't field tested anything.
2) knowing what you want from the girl. If for example you're as close to 100% sure as you can be that you only want a FWB type relationship from the girl, then you're going to come across as a guy who's confident and knows want he wants, which is much sexier than some wishy washy dude who is all over the place and keeps contradicting himself.

One of the points of doing friendship framing, to me, is that it creates uncertainty... like, "Does he want to be my friend or does he want to date me? Why does he keep mentioning friends?"

Actually, I think if you're friends with her and you're not misleading her as to what kind of person you are (i.e. a player) and if you're able to get her excited and wondering what it would be like to sleep with you, it has the potential to work out well if you know what you're doing. The element of uncertainty you mentioned is built into that too, like "Why hasn't he made a move on me as well?" If you wanted to be really sneaky, you could arrange it so she "accidentally" listens to you talking dirty to another woman to make her horny, as the main character did in the porno movie that inspired ARC's approach.

 

[Just a Man]

For me, indirect will tend to be the better starting point purely for situational reasons: (1) married game (and I don't hide being married) favours plausible deniability at the outset; (2) initial approaches can often happen in extended professional or social circles, which again tend to favour plausible deniability at the beginning.

Where I can see evidence of interest, however subtle, it's then possible to move on to a coffee date - at which point sexual interest is still plausibly deniable for both of you, but you also both have a pretty strong clue about what's going on.

I would then aim for sexual framing by the end of the first cup of coffee - otherwise, in my experience, you're timed out at that point. If the sexual framing goes well, and you're both clearly on the same page, then switching to direct (as elegantly as possible) is the right step.

Timing of going direct could vary in order to calibrate or if the situation is different, but for me that's less likely.

I'm ambivalent about friendship framing. I'm attracted to it as a path to FWB; but I also misfired with a woman a few months back by trying it, as she was looking for me to escalate and I misjudged at the time.

 

[Vision]

If you're looking for a relationship, you can still use the mode one approach, just can say "get to know you" or "find out if we are a good match" or something instead of "fuck the shit out of you" lol. You're still being upfront about your intentions.

The reason I focussed on sex was:
1) this forum is called skilledseducer.com not skilledrelationshipseeker.com

Har dee har har...

2) I find it easier and less risky to start casual and then in the future upgrade the relationship IF I see the girl as LTR material. Unless I'm absolutely sure I want an LTR from the get go. But even in the latter case, it might be easier to seduce the girl first, especially if she's much younger as I think a younger girl is more willing to have no-strings-attached sex with a guy twice her age than start a relationship.

Yep, it's better for men to start with sex, for sure... and then decide later... most of the time.

It's not direct unless it's verbal. He doesn't believe in the concept of subcommunication, though he does emphasize other things like good eye contact and voice tonality. He also doesn't consider going direct over text as proper direct, so Tinder openers don't count.

Lol, he doesn't believe in subcommunication. That's so funny.

Yeah, if he had a course or something it would be nice. I think you have to figure it out by practising just being more direct/honest/authentic with women in general. But essentially, mode one and seduction (dirty talk) are separate things.

Mode one is just being honest and upfront about your intentions, whether you want an LTR or just sex. You can express those intentions in a wide variety of ways from ultra explicit ("I wanna fuck the shit out of you") to very tame (e.g. "I'm absolutely not looking to be your next platonic male friend"), either off the bat or after a few minutes of fluff talk. How you calibrate the situation and your personality will determine the words you choose to use. It's not really a seduction method, it's just a way to screen out or expose women who are going to manipulate you or waste your time, energy or money.

We definitely need a "one sheet" of the best Mode 1 lines. Then we could just go out and test them in daygame scenarios and see how they fair. It's mostly daygame, right? That's well worth a test.

This isn't illegal to do in London, right? We should meet up in London and go walk around and try it out on women. Just get the nonverbals really dialed in and do a bunch of approaches where we go Mode 1 in the first 3 to 5 minutes of a conversation and see how many girls we can hook up with doing that.

Are we looking for stationary women? What's the best environment for this again?

Seduction/dirty talk is basically persuading a women who deep down wants you to fuck her to let you fuck her. Such women may initially react adversely to your ballsy direct approach but they're really testing you. You can be mode one without seduction, but you're only going to fuck very DTF women.

The two main challenges I've found with this approach:
1) state crashes ... this is more of a night game thing, you meet a girl in a club or bar, talk dirty to her, get her wet and horny but it's too early for her to leave the club so you take her number but the next day or week, her "good girl" side takes over and if you don't have the opportunity to see her in person again and rekindle the interaction, she's gonna flake. Discussed that with @Skills on a pervious thread. I've heard about strategies to deal with that but haven't field tested anything.
2) knowing what you want from the girl. If for example you're as close to 100% sure as you can be that you only want a FWB type relationship from the girl, then you're going to come across as a guy who's confident and knows want he wants, which is much sexier than some wishy washy dude who is all over the place and keeps contradicting himself.



Actually, I think if you're friends with her and you're not misleading her as to what kind of person you are (i.e. a player) and if you're able to get her excited and wondering what it would be like to sleep with you, it has the potential to work out well if you know what you're doing. The element of uncertainty you mentioned is built into that too, like "Why hasn't he made a move on me as well?" If you wanted to be really sneaky, you could arrange it so she "accidentally" listens to you talking dirty to another woman to make her horny, as the main character did in the porno movie that inspired ARC's approach.

Or you could tell a story about someone you know who was really into kinky sex of some kind or have a conversation with her about romance novels and whether she finds them exciting or not and then move further and further down that conversation until you're getting more and more explicit. Another way might be leading her down that road through questions that start off innocent and become more and more sexualized as they go along. Another way would be through hypnotic languaging techniques like one of the versions of the October Man Method that was out a long time ago.

We used to run October Man with girls in clubs and I've gotten women to orgasm over the phone with it. I don't remember what segues we used to use to get women to allow us to put them into hypnotic states but I'm sure that wouldn't be hard to come up with new ones.

For me, indirect will tend to be the better starting point purely for situational reasons: (1) married game (and I don't hide being married) favours plausible deniability at the outset; (2) initial approaches can often happen in extended professional or social circles, which again tend to favour plausible deniability at the beginning.

Where I can see evidence of interest, however subtle, it's then possible to move on to a coffee date - at which point sexual interest is still plausibly deniable for both of you, but you also both have a pretty strong clue about what's going on.

I would then aim for sexual framing by the end of the first cup of coffee - otherwise, in my experience, you're timed out at that point. If the sexual framing goes well, and you're both clearly on the same page, then switching to direct (as elegantly as possible) is the right step.

Timing of going direct could vary in order to calibrate or if the situation is different, but for me that's less likely.

I'm ambivalent about friendship framing. I'm attracted to it as a path to FWB; but I also misfired with a woman a few months back by trying it, as she was looking for me to escalate and I misjudged at the time.

Yeah, you bring up a good point, which is calibration. It could be easy to misjudge.

Are you in an open marriage or do you just not care or something?

 

[Just a Man]

I've become a pragmatist about what helps to keep a marriage together when you're potentially looking at 50 years of it. After 15 years, I'm pretty sure that pure monogamy is not that helpful. Equally, marriage has statistical health benefits overall, so I'm not inclined to throw it over.

 

[Baron]

Lol, he doesn't believe in subcommunication. That's so funny.

Yeah he mocks the idea of it, saying you'll never hear a black guy say "Yo imma go subcommunicate with those honies". He also thinks the idea of "text game" is absurd.

We definitely need a "one sheet" of the best Mode 1 lines. Then we could just go out and test them in daygame scenarios and see how they fair. It's mostly daygame, right? That's well worth a test.

Well, he does have a few generic lines (I wanna fuck the shit out of you, when do you want to share my company?, exchange orgasms etc) but think it's best to have your own lines as well. For example, one I came up with for clubs is ... let's say a girl tells you she's looking for her friend (fuck, they're always looking a friend!), I'll say "well, you can make a new friend, or a new lover. I prefer the second option", look her dead in the eye ... and don't forget to add "copyright, Baron 2021", just kidding.

The cheat sheet might be more useful however in dealing with shit tests, objections and adverse reactions. This is the real skill of the approach, identifying the girls that are shit testing you (ARC calls such girls "wholesome pretenders"), not rejecting you, and getting them to reveal their naughty side.

And this is where the "cheat sheet" might be useful, because there's only a finite number of objections you can hear, so if you're prepared for each response that could be useful. A typical ARC style mode one interaction with a "wholesome pretender" might go like this:

MAN: [after a few minutes of fluff talk] I can just see myself pulling that sexy skirt you've got on down to your ankles and fucking the shit out of you doggy style.
GIRL: Excuse me?
MAN: You're excused.
GIRL: I beg your pardon.
MAN: You don't have to beg now, I promise I'll make you beg later.
GIRL: Do you talk like this with all the girls?
MAN: What do you care what I say to other women?

etc. etc. until he breaks her down and gets her really horny.

Mode one interactions I've had don't go exactly like that because I'm in EE and girls here speak a little different and aren't as sassy and snarky as American women in general. But you mentioned London ... I'm up for doing mode one approaches anywhere, but why do you suggest London in particular?

This isn't illegal to do in London, right?

As far as I know, words alone are not illegal, unless you're harassing them or doing it in a workplace.

Are we looking for stationary women? What's the best environment for this again?

Stationary women or women walking slowly are best. ARC says mode one doesn't really work well in clubs (as in lead to sex) because clubs are full of cockteasers and attention whores and the loud music makes it difficult to execute the method properly as you're not able to talk to the girl in a low volume, seductive way. Shouting isn't sexy. However, he acknowledges that clubs overseas, non US clubs, might be different. I've tried it more times in a club than in the day but it does seem to be more effective outside of an alcohol-fuelled club environment where she might think you're drunk or she'll sober up the next day and change her mind about hooking up.

It's still great fun in a club though. It's funny how many women actually respond well to immediate bold sex talk, as long as you've got the right nonverbals as you say, and you deliver the lines in a non-judgemental, matter-of-fact manner. I was at a club on Friday with a wing and we spotted a girl who he told me "looks like she gives good blowjobs". She was more his type than mine but anyway I approached her and said "My friend saw you earlier, he told me you look like you give good blowjobs. Is it true?" Instead of getting offended, she was almost glowing with pride and we ended up having a naughty convo. Maybe the reactions would be different in the States, I don't know.

 

[Skills]

Yeah he mocks the idea of it, saying you'll never hear a black guy say "Yo imma go subcommunicate with those honies"


Well, he does have a few generic lines (I wanna fuck the shit out of you, when do you want to share my company?, exchange orgasms etc) but think it's best to have your own lines as well. For example, one I came up with for clubs is ... let's say a girl tells you she's looking for her friend (fuck, they're always looking a friend!), I'll say "well, you can make a new friend, or a new lover. I prefer the second option", look her dead in the eye ... and don't forget to add "copyright, Baron 2021", just kidding.

The cheat sheet might be more useful however in dealing with shit tests, objections and adverse reactions. This is the real skill of the approach, identifying the girls that are shit testing you (ARC calls such girls "wholesome pretenders"), not rejecting you, and getting them to reveal their naughty side.

And this is where the "cheat sheet" might be useful, because there's only a finite number of objections you can hear, so if you're prepared for each response that could be useful. A typical ARC style mode one interaction with a "wholesome pretender" might go like this:

MAN: [after a few minutes of fluff talk] I can just see myself pulling that sexy skirt you've got on down to your ankles and fucking the shit out of you doggy style.
GIRL: Excuse me?
MAN: You're excused.
GIRL: I beg your pardon.
MAN: You don't have to beg now, I promise I'll make you beg later.
GIRL: Do you talk like this with all the girls?
MAN: What do you care what I say to other women?

etc. etc. until he breaks her down and gets her really horny.

Mode one interactions I've had don't go exactly like that because I'm in EE and girls here speak a little different and aren't as sassy and snarky as American women in general. But you mentioned London ... I'm up for doing mode one approaches anywhere, but why do you suggest London in particular?


As far as I know, words alone are not illegal, unless you're harassing them or doing it in a workplace.


Stationary women or women walking slowly are best. ARC says mode one doesn't really work well in clubs (as in lead to sex) because clubs are full of cockteasers and attention whores and the loud music makes it difficult to execute the method properly as you're not able to talk to the girl in a low volume, seductive way. Shouting isn't sexy. However, he acknowledges that clubs overseas, non US clubs, might be different. I've tried it more times in a club than in the day but it does seem to be more effective outside of an alcohol-fuelled club environment where she might think you're drunk or she'll sober up the next day and change her mind about hooking up.

It's still great fun in a club though. It's funny how many women actually respond well to immediate bold sex talk, as long as you've got the right nonverbals as you say, and you deliver the lines in a non-judgemental, matter-of-fact manner. I was at a club on Friday with a wing and we spotted a girl who he told me "looks like she gives good blowjobs". She was more his type than mine but anyway I approached her and said "My friend saw you earlier, he told me you look like you give good blowjobs. Is it true?" Instead of getting offended, she was almost glowing with pride and we ended up having a naughty convo. Maybe the reactions would be different in the States, I don't know.

Jesus Christ, he doesn't understand subcommunications I learned from a black natural and a had black wings they know and understand subcommunications but no by name, you can not be a decent player if you don't understand subcommunications some black guys call it womanese.... this style is highly low odds and very ineffective, is not seduction is a high level aggressive blow. Me in blow me out game.I. I only play with style like this once she is super invested and drooling over me a done deal...to do stuff like this from the opener is retarded... arc is another role Tomasi, guys that are not out there actually gaming selling crap like this I already debunked this type of silly high numbers low odds game multiple times specifically in such a tight sexual market place... arc hooked up with a girl that saw him in YouTube not even using his own method.
Vision here is the study I already did this

Very direct sexual methods statistics and analysis - The Skills Method

Currently there are 3 super direct sexual methods that are popular in the seduction community: Mode One (by Allen Roger Curie), Stelar Method (by Stelar from Sleazy forum who is … Continue Reading →

www.theskillsmethod.com

 

[Baron]

Vision here is the study I already did this

Just LOL, that "study" is a total joke. Saying "Would you come go to bed with me" is not seductive or smooth, and I think ARC himself even commented on one of those experiments explaining why it's not proper mode one.

As for the video you embedded, come on, man. The guy comes across as a clown. He's talking from a distance not in the girl's ear, his tonality is weak, he sounds needy, he's propositioning girls in front of their guy friends of boyfriends. I've never had girls giggle at me like that after being direct and I'd never ask "do you want to have sex with me?" that's lame and unseductive.

It's a funny video, but it's like me showing a video of a guy doing flying kicks on the dancefloor and saying "Skills method doesn't work." Show something where the guy is actually making an effort to do it the right way.

 

[Baron]

arc hooked up with a girl that saw him in YouTube not even using his own method

So what? If a hot girl found you through your youtube channel, you'd turn her down because you didn't use the Skills method?