Mode One | Alan Roger Currie | Direct vs. Indirect DEBATE

[Skills]

Not sure this is related to what I wrote about misunderstanding mode one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you implied that you judge the effectiveness of mode one in terms of its meet-lay percentage in comparison to other methods. My point was that it's not all about that. Maybe I've missed something.


ARC (not only him) distinguishes persuasion, manipulation and coercion. In the context of meeting and seducing women, persuasion is when you're able to convince a woman to do what she already wants to do but is unable to be open about it due to her social conditioning. Manipulation is when you deliberately trick or mislead a woman into, for example, thinking you want a relationship or get to know her, etc when you really want casual sex. And coercion is when you force a woman to have sex e.g. date rape, getting her sloppy drunk, blackmail, etc. Could using mode one (persuasion) lead to buyer's remorse? Maybe, but at the end of the day I laid my intentions on the table. As long as she wasn't drunk, it's on her.


Yeah, that's true. It was an overstatement on my part. But it's definitely less likely to happen than many other methods.


Drama caused by her feeling at some point down the road that you misled her about your true intentions. I'm sure you've experienced that.

Yeah, he'll respond to specific questions if you're a patreon subscriber. Plus he had a 9 year running radio show, there's hundreds of hours of material. But if you're looking for night game strategies for example, you might want to look elsewhere.



If by "you", you mean me, not "you (general)", then that is a strawman argument. I do not have some higher, noble goal to make life better for womankind. Fuck no. Nor do I think you are less of a human for not using it. It's more "ethically sound" in that it helps keep things simple, prevents future negative energy and resentment from girls, which I'll admit I'm sensitive to, and overall helps me sleep better. I'd call that more a self-serving goal.


There's a patreon group, but not a whole lot of activity, though you can ask him questions directly depending on your subscription level. There's a FB wing man finder page for patreon subscribers too where there's some limited discussion. But yeah it's mainly YT comments and a lot of them are from sycophantic fans who I don't know if they're actually using his stuff in practice or not. Plus he deletes a lot of critical comments which is a shame because there's value in discussion. However, he does address criticisms of his method a lot in his videos.

M1 is about being upfront and straightforward about your true desires and intentions. If you know you want a relationship from a girl, doing dirty talk and telling her you just want to fuck is actually not mode one. M1 would be to tell her you want to get to know her, you're looking for a relationship. If you want casual and you start casual and later change your mind, of course you can transition into an LTR. You can do that anyway, in spite of the type of game you used in the first. ARC just happens to emphasize casual sex because that's been his thing.


At the end of the day, I don't really care whether he studied marketing/selling or whether he has a cult or not (though it might be an interesting business discussion). As you stated at the beginning of your post, what's important is whether the methodology or whatever helps you to achieve your desired outcomes in practice.

Shock stories + field report
Now quickly to address what you said in a previous post about his shock stories, I've no reason to doubt they took place. I do doubt they happened verbatim like in his books as he'd have to have the memory of a super computer to recall a word-for-word interaction from the 1980s or 90s.

But I'm going to share a m1 style interaction I had last week in a bar at around 00:30 with a girl prob 20 years younger than me and you can imagine that such stories are not beyond the realm of possibilities. My interaction didn't end up in a lay, her friends showed up when I was on the verge of getting her out and that seem to have broken her state. Probably I tried to close it a little early too.

Here

I wrote it up a few hours after the interaction and even then I couldn't remember every word or sentence spoken. You have to imagine I'm doing the dirty talk close to her ear and looking at her directly in the eyes afterwards to show her I own every word I said.

@Skills you can take this as a sample. It's not a lay report but it's a better representation of a "pure mode one" interaction than lays which involved some m1 stuff in the interaction but were a bit messier overall.

Everything good till you went mod one spiked asd, she had a state change, this is what I was telling you everything works, but is Lower odds game... if the girl is not dtf and even then lower odds. Do you know he got this from John leslie fictional porn movie. Take a look how I do it, higher odds:

Verbal game lay were I used second generation verbals (the 8 orgasms routine) Tales from the club - The Skills Method

Disclaimer.- If you are serious about seduction and getting good, I would advice to read this post, before proceeding to read this tale from the clubs. Soon I will write … Continue Reading →

www.theskillsmethod.com

 

[Baron]

Everything good till you went mod one spiked asd, she had a state change, this is what I was telling you everything works, but is Lower odds game... if the girl is not dtf and even then lower odds. Do you know he got this from John leslie fictional porn movie. Take a look how I do it, higher odds:

Verbal game lay were I used second generation verbals (the 8 orgasms routine) Tales from the club - The Skills Method

Disclaimer.- If you are serious about seduction and getting good, I would advice to read this post, before proceeding to read this tale from the clubs. Soon I will write … Continue Reading →

www.theskillsmethod.com

"Until I spiked ASD" ... that doesn't sense. I went M1 from almost the beginning of the interaction. That's what got her intrigued in the first place.

The dtf argument is debatable. All girls have a pussy that gets wet and unless she's extremely socially conditioned, brainwashed by religion, in a very committed relationship/marriage etc, I would say all girls are potentially dtf if there's a basic level of attraction to you.

Yes, the John Leslie story is well known.

Nice report, thx for that. Though comparing a lay report to a non-lay field report doesn't say anything about odds. Your set worked out, mine didn't. It doesn't mean that my odds would be higher if I adopted your approach or yours would be lower if you were more direct earlier on. As @Vision pointed out, to test that properly that would need to do an A/B test on a significant number of girls while controlling for environmental factors.

I would probably skip all the social proof part of your set, making her think you're rich or important or whatever, but that's just me. If I'm looking to get laid, I care only about getting her pussy wet and nothing else, as your 8 orgasms routine seemed to do. Plus, when you're travelling in a new place you can't do that social validation stuff.

Miami was cool. I was there in 2012 and the girls loved the British accent. Will probably go back there soon as I have friends/family in the region.

 

[Vision]

Not sure this is related to what I wrote about misunderstanding mode one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you implied that you judge the effectiveness of mode one in terms of its meet-lay percentage in comparison to other methods. My point was that it's not all about that. Maybe I've missed something.

Well, at the end of the day, we're in a seduction forum talking about seducing women and the different methodologies that can be used to get there.

I get your point and your attempt at differentiation. It's smart. And frankly, ALL of the stuff we're doing in dating/seduction (IMO) is/would be healthier if it comes from the standpoint that it is ALL about more than just getting laid.

If Mystery wasn't such an egomaniac back in the day and maybe actually knew something about business and marketing, he would have done something similar... make the M3 model a part of a larger scale thing about becoming a high value man, having principles and values, growing into the man you want to be, etc.

But Mystery's a PUA/mad genius who was so dead set on becoming famous that he pushed anything else aside and lost all of it, his students came out of Mystery's work and created their own companies to compete with him (RSD was founded by a Mystery student, TD). He outsourced any kind of business work to Savoy who stole Mystery's company and drama, drama, drama ensued.

Getting laid is an important skill for a man to have. But when the end of the line is a competition for how much vagina you can slay, it becomes a pretty meaningless hedonistic pursuit after awhile... which is why most guys get out of it.

If we were talking about being better men, having values, growing into an identity of becoming someone more, changing society so that we're freeing men, etc... I think it would have more weight to the entire thing.

And RSD does do that to a certain extent and so does ARC. Part of what ARC is doing is building stronger men who are direct and to the point with what they're doing. It's smart.

ARC (not only him) distinguishes persuasion, manipulation and coercion. In the context of meeting and seducing women, persuasion is when you're able to convince a woman to do what she already wants to do but is unable to be open about it due to her social conditioning. Manipulation is when you deliberately trick or mislead a woman into, for example, thinking you want a relationship or get to know her, etc when you really want casual sex. And coercion is when you force a woman to have sex e.g. date rape, getting her sloppy drunk, blackmail, etc.

Yeah, again, smart marketing. Creating and redefining terms creates a strong bonding and insider effect with people who engage in it... the PUA community does it as a whole.

If you want to see a company that did a great job of this, check out Landmark and their Forum program. It's extreme cult-marketing over there. Brilliant stuff.

I picked up ARCs ebook yesterday and started going through it... and I'm glad I did, it's a lot easier for me to speed read it than listen to the audio.

Here's the exact definition he gives for manipulation so we're all on the same page here...

"Any time that you're attempting to influence and motivate a specific response from others that is desirable and beneficial to yourself through the use of incentives and rewards and/or deceptive, misleading behavior"

Basically, after that, he's saying that if you do anything other than start out with telling a woman you want to bang her, in order to bang her, you're being manipulative.

The example he gives is, "if I want something from you, and I attempt to flatter your ego first, treat you nicely, take you out to dinner, etc. THEN ask you for what I want... that's being manipulative."

I don't think that's a good definition of manipulative but I can see how it serves his purpose and gets you to buy into his idea here.

If you take this definition on though... basically everyone who does almost any kind of sales and marketing is being manipulative.

We could talk just about this one concept forever so I'll get off it now.

But I can see why it might feel bad to think that ARC is doing this kind of marketing/sales/persuasion in the background if we're defining terms in this way and trying to create an environment where it feels like we're being upfront about everything.

Could using mode one (persuasion) lead to buyer's remorse? Maybe, but at the end of the day I laid my intentions on the table. As long as she wasn't drunk, it's on her.

Since I'm nitpicking things, let me nitpick this for a second.

If women aren't being naive, they know that when you approach them and want to spend time with them that you're looking to build a romantic relationship with them, regardless if you make it overtly known or not.

I mean, you're a man walking up to a woman you don't know, trying to get to know them and spend time with them... why would you possibly do that with some random person you saw?

Because you want to boom boom them... any other thought process is naivety. There are situations where there could be other things going on... like you want to learn a language or be shown the city or something... but there's always that underlying thing there, still.

Drama caused by her feeling at some point down the road that you misled her about your true intentions. I'm sure you've experienced that.

Oh, yeah, that's definitely a thing... even if you state your intentions... often because she WANTS it to be something more, not even because you misled her.

That's one of the reasons I talked about that "wasting women's time" thing in that previous post. If you know she wants something more with you, even if you've made it clear that you want nothing more with her, you're far better off just breaking things off, ime.

Is she responsible for herself? Yes... AND you're going to do more damage the longer you hang out with her.

Yeah, he'll respond to specific questions if you're a patreon subscriber. Plus he had a 9 year running radio show, there's hundreds of hours of material. But if you're looking for night game strategies for example, you might want to look elsewhere.

I might check out his patreon then and see what's in there.

I assume you're talking in general here. Personally, I do not have some higher, noble goal to make life better for womankind. Fuck no. It's more "ethically sound" in that it helps keep things simple, prevents future negative energy and resentment from girls, which I'll admit I'm sensitive to, and overall helps me sleep better. I'd call that more a self-serving goal.

I'm not talking generally here. In noble, I mean it's more ethical, more value based, not that you're making things better for womankind.

What I meant is that you're not being manipulative, by ARCs own definition, and that's more noble than being manipulative to get what you want.

We're using noble and ethically sound the same way, I think.

There's a patreon group, but not a whole lot of activity, though you can ask him questions directly depending on your subscription level. There's a FB wing man finder page for patreon subscribers too where there's some limited discussion. But yeah it's mainly YT comments and a lot of them are from sycophantic fans who I don't know if they're actually using his stuff in practice or not. Plus he deletes a lot of critical comments which is a shame because there's value in discussion. However, he does address criticisms of his method a lot in his videos.

Well, there are a lot of trolls on YT. I'm sure he gets tired of constantly dealing with that in the comments... and it's a better environment for people to take on his stuff if there isn't harsh criticism on there of what he's doing.

Obviously, I'm a big fan of criticism but from a marketing standpoint (which I'm also a big fan of, lol), it's MUCH better to leave that for somewhere else.

M1 is about being upfront and straightforward about your true desires and intentions. ARC just happens to emphasize casual sex because that's been his thing. If you know you want a relationship from a girl, doing dirty talk and telling her you just want to fuck is actually not mode one. M1 would be to tell her you want to get to know her, you're looking for a relationship. If you want casual and you start casual and later change your mind, of course you can transition into an LTR if she wants that too. You can do that anyway, in spite of the type of game you used in the first.

Roger that.

At the end of the day, I don't really care whether he studied marketing/selling or whether he has a cult or not (though it might be an interesting business discussion). As you stated at the beginning of your post, what's important is whether the methodology or whatever helps you to achieve your desired outcomes in practice.

Shock stories + field report
Now quickly to address what you said in a previous post about his shock stories, I've no reason to doubt they took place. I do doubt they happened verbatim like in his books as he'd have to have the memory of a super computer to recall a word-for-word interaction from the 1980s or 90s.

But I'm going to share a m1 style interaction I had last week in a bar at around 00:30 with a girl prob 20 years younger than me so you can imagine that such stories are not beyond the realm of possibilities. My interaction didn't end up in a lay, her friends showed up when I was on the verge of getting her out and that seem to have broken her state. Probably I tried to close it a little early too.

Here

I wrote it up a few hours after the interaction and even then I couldn't remember every word or sentence spoken and I probably missed some of the fluff talk in between the "bombs". Anyway, you have to imagine I'm doing the dirty talk close to her ear and looking at her directly in the eyes afterwards to show her I own every word I said. Also, her reaction was a bit more receptive than I'd anticipated. Usually if it goes well there will be at least some token shit tests e.g. "Do you start a conversation with all women like this?" I guess this particular girl really dug the approach, at least until her friends showed up.

Cool, I'll take a look at it later. Thanks for posting it.

The problem I see with assuming high value is that a big part of value is not subjective. His high value stems from having oustanding game, and he is also ranking high in the looks department.
Without outstanding game/high SMV, which are factors intrinsically linked to him, compliments won't feel the same to others.

Well, most of the best PUAs that I know are good looking guys... my supernatural friend is a good looking guy too... short but he has a really strong jaw, which is a big indicator of testosterone in men.

I'm not great at knowing how good looking men are... but when I see Mystery, I know that's a good looking man... and he's crazy tall.

Part of the problem with most PUAs, even well known ones, is that you don't really know what most of their results look like. That's why we used to post photos, back in the day, to prove results.

If you've hooked up with 300 fatties, that's a problem... or if the girls you hook up with are mostly ugly... that's going to change a lot about the difference that we have when we meet women and what we're going to be able to get away with.

Same is true with looks... we've already tested this... if you're a model looking dude, you can get away with all kinds of dumb things that a regular guy can't get away with.

Fortunately, there are things that you can do to improve your looks which I think are worth focusing on... but without plastic surgery, there are obvious limitations.

AND you can get better at game. You might never be the same as your friend but you can model it until you get consistent results with it.

I think that even if I brainwash myself totally convincing myself that "I am high value", that won't make necessary think the people I am interacting with that I am high value, so they won't react the same way to my compliments/lifting up as to his.

There's something that I call, "The Law of Belief Transference" (yes, I made the term up) which states that whoever is more certain about their beliefs will transfer those beliefs to the people around them.

Obviously, others can have really strong beliefs that are nearly impossible to break through but you CAN and WILL transfer beliefs onto other people, even if it's just through subconscious actions that you have.

If you don't brainwash yourself into convincing yourself that you're high value, if you don't take on that identity and do your best to live into that identity, you'll convince people through your subconscious actions that you don't really believe in your own value and that will eventually be transferred to them, unless they have really strong beliefs about you as well.

If you brainwash yourself AND train yourself to act that way, dress that way, and feel that way, you'll be a powerhouse.

 

[Skills]

"Until I spiked ASD" ... that doesn't sense. I went M1 from almost the beginning of the interaction. That's what got her intrigued in the first place.

The dtf argument is debatable. All girls have a pussy that gets wet and unless she's extremely socially conditioned, brainwashed by religion, in a very committed relationship/marriage etc, I would say all girls are potentially dtf if there's a basic level of attraction to you.

Yes, the John Leslie story is well known.

Nice report, thx for that. Though comparing a lay report to a non-lay field report doesn't say anything about odds. Your set worked out, mine didn't. It doesn't mean that my odds would be higher if I adopted your approach or yours would be lower if you were more direct earlier on. As @Vision pointed out, to test that properly that would need to do an A/B test on a significant number of girls while controlling for environmental factors.

I would probably skip all the social proof part of your set, making her think you're rich or important or whatever, but that's just me. If I'm looking to get laid, I care only about getting her pussy wet and nothing else, as your 8 orgasms routine seemed to do. Plus, when you're travelling in a new place you can't do that social validation stuff.

Miami was cool. I was there in 2012 and the girls loved the British accent. Will probably go back there soon as I have friends/family in the region.

About the social proof i agree, i didn't want that to happen, it happened accidentally (getting in clubs free and people coming up to me, it actually helped, but not my intention)

About Miami, the quality in Miami has gone down from 2012, there are better women in broward and west palm beach (more attractive people in general) Yeah with a british accent in miami you will kill it, or australian but that is in usa in general...

Most times i have gone sexually direct, either in text or in person i get a similar reaction that they Bail, just like it happen to you for some make no sense reason (this is why i called lower odds and i suspect is a spike on asd in nerds term), now if i am doing really physical game first and she is receptive to my touch and THEN i am sexually direct (a bit higher odds but not much), when i am combine sexually indirect after a the point of investment, post opening, post hook, post compliance and micro escalations, a bit of investment, and then i go sexually indirect my ratios totally skyrocket in which i actually believed i laid most girls, either that night or after. That 8 orgasms' is from teevester (try it so you can see)... i learned it from that report...

That is why i can relate to what happened to you (i have done similar your game is not bad i like it), but is less control...

- you don't have to lie to women, but most women don't know what they want or what they will be ok with, so if she thinks she wants a boyfriend that will be her husband and have 3 kids... She may think she wants that but maybe what she really wants is a dude that show her all type of crazy sexual adventures and is a cool attractive guy that keep her always exited and interested....

By that silly rationalization that you are baiting and switching with an extreme example (arc on honesty "I want to be your boyfriend so let me hit it" like women are moronic and they will be "oh shit let me open the legs for him he said he will be my boyfriend" and you got the laid, that is total kj, that shit used to happen in the 70s maybe 80s good luck trying that today..... The idea that influence is negative is incorrect if i am selling a girl fun and multiple orgasms which is a mutual net gain, how is this something bad or negative is ridiculous most women i have influence them in good ways for example i can count the number of women i have helped with fitness and style etc..

By the way the radical honesty angle i like a bit due to polarization, type of bluntness angle (i used this a lot in my game) BUT is really misapplied by doing sexual directness polarization (again lower odds when it comes to sex)

here is a sample of mod 1 ( Again good luck trying this with the odds now a days) when i talk about odds it means you will burn many leads, to try to get a lay, so your ratios will not be tight, a good seducer does 1 in 10 lays or 1 in 5 lays or 1 in 3 lays.... this approaches (again going back to my analysis, will make you burn a lot of leads is blow me in blow me out, is not game is too much reliance on the numbers)...

LR : 30 minute club pull with no "kino" - PUA Forum

The night started well with Barcelona 1 - 2 Real Madrid which made me very happy.

Arrived at the club at 12pm alone.

Buy myself a sprite as I normally do and sit on the couch.

I see this girl being "gamed" by this guy sitting next to her , I lock eye contact 2 times , on the third time she smiles , I smile back.

I get up , throw the cigarette of her hand , grab her hand and pull her to the seat next to me.

At this point I didn't want to get rapport or ask her questions about herself , but instead in that split second I decided to ask her to come home with me.

As expected she says , "No , thank you" . she gets up and goes back to her seat.

Glad actually , I wasn't really into her and I knew she was going to turn me down.

I browse the place , met with a ex-highschool colleague , catch up with him for some time , then we split.

Go back down again to the couch and see the girl from before kissing with the guy I rescued her earlier.

I lock eye contact with her again and even though I wasn't pissed I flip her the finger.

MORE OFTEN THAN NOT , PERSISTENCE IS MORE IMPORTANT THEN 'GAME"

At this point the clock was 1.30 am and I decide to go to the upper floor.

For some reason I decided to use the No escalation , No kino technique posted in the PUA lounge.

I scan for 10 seconds the upper floor , find a DTF 2 set , plant myself in front of the blond one lock eye contact with her for a few seconds :

Me : I want you tonight in every position ( I said it strong and the eye contact afterwards I think made her pussy wet )

After I said this she flipped her hair and started texting ignoring me as I was standing to her right looking at her.

Her friend was looking at me , I could see it with the back of my eye.

She played with her for phone for about 10 minutes as I sat there with my hands in my pockets looking at her and sometimes at the DJ.

After that I told her : " I am going to stay here until you say YES"

Another 10 minutes pass , none of those girls even have the courage to tell me to go away so I want to see how this ended.

I tell her : You are gorgeous.

She puts her phone in her pocket and tells something to her friend then leans back on the bar as I look into her eyes and gesture with my head to get out of here.

She looks away, then down.

I continue to try locking eye contact 5 minutes pass with her ignoring me until she grabs my hand and says :

She : "Let's go" ( with fuck me eyes)

She is dragging me out of there by my wrist.

Outside I say to her I am with my car and end up at her place.

The best sex I had this year so far as my total number hits 260 women.

------------------------------------------------------------

There you have it , no physical escalation club pull.

I am going to adopt this technique from now on.

 

[Baron]

By the way the radical honesty angle i like a bit due to polarization, type of bluntness angle (i used this a lot in my game) BUT is really misapplied by doing sexual directness polarization (again lower odds when it comes to sex)

here is a sample of mod 1 ( Again good luck trying this with the odds now a days) when i talk about odds it means you will burn many leads, to try to get a lay, so your ratios will not be tight, a good seducer does 1 in 10 lays or 1 in 5 lays or 1 in 3 lays.... this approaches (again going back to my analysis, will make you burn a lot of leads is blow me in blow me out, is not game is too much reliance on the numbers)...

About the "mode one sample" you shared ... yeah, I agree that's low odds. But the thing is, his ratio might be lower, but the time he's spending investing in each set is also lower. So, the question is how much total time he's spending to get the lay, not how many approaches he's doing. In general, at least a few minutes of witty back-and-forth conversation before going sexual direct probably might increase the odds slightly without sacrificing too much time.

I like the way you neutralized the cock blockers in your lay report. Most men are uncomfortable talking about sexual topics in front of girls they've just met, and you used this to your advantage. I usually prefer to use the radical honesty frame to handle cockblockers, e.g. if they're coming indirect I'll accuse them of trying to get in the girl's pants right in front the girl and try to embarrass them. Or if I've had a conversation earlier with the girl about how most guys talk about irrelevant topics like the weather because they don't have the balls to tell the girl what they really want (as I did in my field report) ... then if a cockblocker arrives, I'll ask him "What do you think of this weather?" and that will immediately expose him, make the girl laugh and confuse the cockblocker and make him go away. Or sometimes if there's something about the guy I don't like and he's not a physical threat to me, I might just tell him to fuck off.

arc on honesty "I want to be your boyfriend so let me hit it" like women are moronic and they will be "oh shit let me open the legs for him he said he will be my boyfriend" and you got the laid

I've never ever said "I want to be your boyfriend", but in the past I have got laid by not being totally clear about my intentions, and in the end sometimes I wished I never got laid with the girl in the first place. So, I'd disagree with your statement. But I've never regretted a lay by being radically honest. Ever.

The idea that influence is negative is incorrect if i am selling a girl fun and multiple orgasms which is a mutual net gain, how is this something bad or negative is ridiculous

If you're selling multiple orgasms, you're basically being m1. If you're doing comfort because you enjoy the girl's company in a "friends with benefits" type way, and you've made that clear to her from the start, this is also m1. That's not bad or negative at all. The problem is when you're giving mixed signals, e.g. you find her boring but you want to fuck her and you try to build an emotional connection because you feel that's the only way to get in her pants. Yes, she might enjoy the sex but she enjoys and wants your non-sexual company too.

 

[ulrich]

About the "mode one sample" you shared ... yeah, I agree that's low odds. But the thing is, his ratio might be lower, but the time he's spending investing in each set is also lower. So, the question is how much total time he's spending to get the lay, not how many approaches he's doing. In general, at least a few minutes of witty back-and-forth conversation before going sexual direct probably might increase the odds slightly without sacrificing too much time.

If we’re going to consider ratio vs. effort, I guess it’s worth considering quality too.

I think (total KJ here) that going that direct doesn’t land as well in super hotties.

 

[Baron]

But Mystery's a PUA/mad genius who was so dead set on becoming famous that he pushed anything else aside and lost all of it, his students came out of Mystery's work and created their own companies to compete with him (RSD was founded by a Mystery student, TD). He outsourced any kind of business work to Savoy who stole Mystery's company and drama, drama, drama ensued.

He's a genius to you, he's by no means a genius in direct game circles the same way ARC isn't considered a genius in indirect circles, this forum included. For example, Badboy used to refer to his system as "mysery method". As I mentioned before, according to the late David X, Mystery's success in clubs and bars was an illusion, he was getting numbers from women in front of his students because the women found him entertaining but the numbers were mainly fake (here). And there's an old video of him droning on and on about nothing to a girl in a club (here) yet the presenter and some of the commenters are talking as though he's pulling off some genius seduction technique. No, he isn't, he's just droning on and boring the girl to death and it looks to me she's only putting up with it b/c he's tall and good-looking. So, if you want to talk about cults, I'd say Mystery has or had his own fair share of cultist followers. However, in terms of achieving legendary fame and mainstream success, then yeah one can make the genius argument.

If we were talking about being better men, having values, growing into an identity of becoming someone more, changing society so that we're freeing men, etc... I think it would have more weight to the entire thing.

And RSD does do that to a certain extent and so does ARC. Part of what ARC is doing is building stronger men who are direct and to the point with what they're doing. It's smart.

Yeah, I think the two goals are linked. It's hard to achieve sustainable success with women from a position of limited or no success without making those kinds of improvements you mentioned.

If women aren't being naive, they know that when you approach them and want to spend time with them that you're looking to build a romantic relationship with them, regardless if you make it overtly known or not.

I mean, you're a man walking up to a woman you don't know, trying to get to know them and spend time with them... why would you possibly do that with some random person you saw?

Because you want to boom boom them... any other thought process is naivety. There are situations where there could be other things going on... like you want to learn a language or be shown the city or something... but there's always that underlying thing there, still

This is a very good point. And that's what allows them to manipulate men. They know you want to bang them BUT they know you don't have the balls to tell them (I've got women to admit this countless times, it's not just an ARC talking point). This makes it very easy for them to use men e.g. for flattering attention, free drinks, free food, an empathetic listening ear, entertaining small talk, etc. Those types of women ARC calls "manipulative time wasters". I'm still waiting for an effective indirect game technique that can expose and eliminate these kinds of women.

That's one of the reasons I talked about that "wasting women's time" thing in that previous post. If you know she wants something more with you, even if you've made it clear that you want nothing more with her, you're far better off just breaking things off, ime.

Is she responsible for herself? Yes... AND you're going to do more damage the longer you hang out with her.

Yes, I agree with that, but it's far far different when you've intentionally misled her compared to when she caught some feelings for you even though you made it clear from the start what kind of relationship you want. In the latter case, responsibility is totally on her. You've done everything your could that was under your control.

Basically, after that, he's saying that if you do anything other than start out with telling a woman you want to bang her, in order to bang her, you're being manipulative

If your goal is just to bang her, yes. Though by "start out", he means usually in the first conversation with the woman and no later than the 5 minute mark (though I've heard him say 10 minutes on occasion). 5 minutes is actually a much longer time than you think. I did a role play experiment with a buddy, and it felt far longer he thought it would. Try it.

This thread is getting really nitpicky and derailed, mods should prob move it somewhere else, at least the "ultra direct vs sexual vs indirect" related posts.

 

[Baron]

If we’re going to consider ratio vs. effort, I guess it’s worth considering quality too.

I think (total KJ here) that going that direct doesn’t land as well in super hotties.

You'd have to do an A/B test to find that out assuming you can pull off both types of approach to an equal level of competence. I haven't seen any evidence indicating one way or the other. None of them, however, compare to being a rich and famous celebrity in entertainment, sports or music industries

 

[Dreamer]

NOTE to moderators: This thread has been derailed to death from original OP question re: compliments. Any way it can be moved to another thread starting from post 23 or post 24 perhaps? @Bismarck

 

[Vision]

He's a genius to you, he's by no means a genius in direct game circles the same way ARC isn't considered a genius in indirect circles, this forum included. For example, Badboy used to refer to his system as "mysery method". As I mentioned before, according to the late David X, Mystery's success in clubs and bars was an illusion, he was getting numbers from women in front of his students because the women found him entertaining but the numbers were mainly fake (here). And there's an old video of him droning on and on about nothing to a girl in a club (here) yet the presenter and some of the commenters are talking as though he's pulling off some genius seduction technique. No, he isn't, he's just droning on and boring the girl to death and it looks to me she's only putting up with it b/c he's tall and good-looking. So, if you want to talk about cults, I'd say Mystery has or had his own fair share of cultist followers. However, in terms of achieving legendary fame and mainstream success, then yeah one can make the genius argument.

When I say he's a genius, I'm not saying he's good at something. I'm saying he has a very high level IQ.

He was also really at pickup and banged lots really hot women including playboy models.

And just like everyone else, he's got his own issues, one that I mentioned.

This is a very good point. And that's what allows them to manipulate men. They know you want to bang them BUT they know you don't have the balls to tell them (I've got women to admit this countless times, it's not just an ARC talking point). This makes it very easy for them to use men e.g. for flattering attention, free drinks, free food, an empathetic listening ear, entertaining small talk, etc. Those types of women ARC calls "manipulative time wasters". I'm still waiting for an effective indirect game technique that can expose and eliminate these kinds of women.

Not everything in indirect is a technique... And indirect is just a term used to describe the initial approach, not the whole thing.

You could go sexual direct and then let a girl waste your time... Obviously ARC teaches you how not to.

But the simple answer is that you don't let her waste your time... You push things towards sex and the bedroom. And if she's trying to manipulate you and get you to do things, don't do it.

Yes, I agree with that, but it's far far different when you've intentionally misled her compared to when she caught some feelings for you even though you made it clear from the start what kind of relationship you want. In the latter case, responsibility is totally on her. You've done everything your could that was under your control.

Yeah, of course. Don't intentionally mislead women.

If your goal is just to bang her, yes. Though by "start out", he means usually in the first conversation with the woman and no later than the 5 minute mark (though I've heard him say 10 minutes on occasion). 5 minutes is actually a much longer time than you think. I did a role play experiment with a buddy, and it felt far longer he thought it would. Try it.

That sounds a lot like what most people do in indirect.... By 5 to 10 minutes in, most guys doing indirect have now transitioned over and are qualifying and showing interest.

Indirect is really about the approach more than anything. If you're running what the community calls direct, it means the approach was direct... You don't go indirect for 5 minutes and then switch and call it direct.

If you chitchat with a girl for five minutes and then go direct, that's indirect game.

So I guess with arc, he's okay with indirect as long as it goes sexual direct and stays there at some point.

This thread is getting really nitpicky and derailed, mods should prob move it somewhere else, at least the "ultra direct vs sexual vs indirect" related posts.

I agree.

 

[Baron]

That sounds a lot like what most people do in indirect.... By 5 to 10 minutes in, most guys doing indirect have now transitioned over and are qualifying and showing interest.

Indirect is really about the approach more than anything. If you're running what the community calls direct, it means the approach was direct... You don't go indirect for 5 minutes and then switch and call it direct.

If you chitchat with a girl for five minutes and then go direct, that's indirect game.

So I guess with arc, he's okay with indirect as long as it goes sexual direct and stays there at some point.

So we're getting lost in semantics here.

For me the distinction is is more about your intent and authenticity. If you're direct, you're straightforwardly honest about your desires and intentions, even if you have to delay it by a few minutes to feel the girl out first. There may also be practical reasons for that too, e.g. you might find yourself in an environment where you can't be explicit right away or if you need to find out if she's single and available before dropping the heavy artillery.

But at the end of the day, you're direct with your intention and authentic, you don't play cocky-funny games or negs to raise her interest or get her to chase you. You don't attempt to build emotional rapport when you just want to bang. You don't pretend you need an opinion on something. You don't nitpick her character. You don't fake interest in where she got a particular item of clothing. You don't pretend it's your niece's birthday, etc. The first few minutes of the interaction should be to just feel her out (if you're naturally witty at the same time that's great).

In that context, you can use a situational opener (e.g. "So, shopping on a Friday night, huh? ... Are you shopping for yourself or you and someone else?") or you can give her a genuine compliment on her looks or the way she walks etc. You could even probably ask for directions and then go m1. Or you can just go balls out sexually direct on the opener.

Correct me if I'm mischaracterising it, but with indirect game you're purposely hiding your intentions at the beginning. You end up having to qualify because now you have to justify why you were aloof or critical before. You can't exactly say "you have an incredible ass, I'm visualizing fucking the shit out of you doggy style" after telling her for example "beauty is common, what else do you have to offer?"

To sum up, to me there's a more profound difference than just how many minutes of chit chat determines whether you're direct or indirect.

 

[Skills]

Geez we are totally going in circles, you talking about nitpking, you are nitpicking the answers and changing the subtext.... I will explain it again:

- Everything works (everything i have a post explaining this somewhere all methods even the crappy ones, you can throw shit to the wall something may stick)
-some things work better than others.
- i have done both styles (direct sexual/indirect sexual)
- By going direct sexual you will burn for more leads and the quality of the leads will be lower, also with yellows you will totally polirize them more to red and with green some of them will go to yellow or red.

The goal of indirect vs direct is indirect gives you MORE TIME, to come somewhat under radar, develop strategies, gather intelligence, exploit info, get tighter influence.... By going direct you are totally blow me in blow me out type of game, this was amazing at a time (i used to do this it was awesome efficient game) now a days is extremely inefficient cause they are LESS WOMEN OUT, do to online, social media... You need tighter higher odds game...

^ that is it....

 

[Baron]

Geez we are totally going in circles, you talking about nitpking, you are nitpicking the answers and changing the subtext.... I will explain it again:

- Everything works (everything i have a post explaining this somewhere all methods even the crappy ones, you can throw shit to the wall something may stick)
-some things work better than others.
- i have done both styles (direct sexual/indirect sexual)
- By going direct sexual you will burn for more leads and the quality of the leads will be lower, also with yellows you will totally polirize them more to red and with green some of them will go to yellow or red.

I understood your point the first time. It's another version of the old "going direct leaves some pussy on the table" argument. The counter argument to that is ...
1) how would I know for sure that I'm burning leads? There's no signed contract by the girl declaring that she would have banged me if I had gone indirect sexual. And vice versa. Or as ARC would put it, "how can I leave pussy on the table if the pussy wasn't offered to me in the first place?"
2) Your examples of direct sexual were not really proper seductions, they were just a guy blurting out that he wants to go to bed with some girl, just Hail Marys. I'd need a FR for reference
3) maybe for you it's "lower odds", doesn't mean for everyone. Both can get pussies wet, I've been indirect sexual too. Direct/radical honesty just has specific advantages for me e.g. it's more authentic, comes across as more ballsy and nobody else is doing it (at least over here) and so helps me differentiate. And I like the feeling of the girl feeling like she's in the company of a badboy.

The goal of indirect vs direct is indirect gives you MORE TIME, to come somewhat under radar, develop strategies, gather intelligence, exploit info, get tighter influence....

With direct sexual you have a little time to feel a woman out, you're not obligated to go sexual on the opener.

The problem with conventional indirect is that you're also open to being manipulated and having your time wasted. I've seen guys who thought they were running good indirect game only to get a delayed rejection, get friend zoned or ghosted on after an hour, several hours or more in set. They might think they were gathering intelligence, developing strategies etc but the girl knew what they wanted eventually and she played along for the entertaining chit chat or flattering attention.

As I mentioned in an earlier post even Mystery, while he was a teacher, was dealing with that exact same issue, according to one of his early mentors David X, and Mys was considered the king of indirect game.

By going direct you are totally blow me in blow me out type of game

I'd have to see a field report of what you consider to be good direct sexual game. Those examples you gave were not. A good direct sexual seduction involves creating an erotic movie inside her mind as it is with good indirect sexual.

now a days is extremely inefficient cause they are LESS WOMEN OUT, do to online, social media... You need tighter higher odds game...

Well, I don't know how it is down there in Florida man. You should visit this side of Europe sometime.

 

[Dreamer]

As I mentioned in an earlier post even Mystery, while he was a teacher, was dealing with that exact same issue, according to one of his early mentors David X, and Mys was considered the king of indirect game.

Just lol! Hey guys, news flash -> David X now qualifies as Mystery's "mentor" eh? He's also Ross Jeffries's "mentor" apparently. Despite their approaches having no similarities. Who knew. Yeah, I'm calling BS on this one. Do us all a favor and stop spreading this nonsense. People here aren't as socially dense or brainwashed like the noobs and armchair hacks on ARC's YT comments section.

 

[Baron]

Just lol! Hey guys, news flash -> David X now qualifies as Mystery's "mentor" eh? He's also Ross Jeffries's "mentor" apparently. Despite their approaches having no similarities. Who knew. Yeah, I'm calling BS on this one. Do us all a favor and stop spreading this nonsense. People here aren't as socially dense or brainwashed like the noobs and armchair hacks on ARC's YT comments section.

I've already posted the link to where David X talks about that in his seminar. Of course I don't know for 100% that he isn't lying about it, so go look up what the words "apparently", "allegedly" and "according to" mean in a dictionary.

 

[Skills]

I've already posted the link to where David X talks about that in his seminar. Of course I don't know for 100% that he isn't lying about it, so go look up what the words "apparently", "allegedly" and "according to" mean in a dictionary.

hey baron, do me a favor i explain this to you here better, i did a voice recorder: https://voca.ro/11EKWLxrpSE6

 

[Dreamer]

hey baron, do me a favor i explain this to you here better, i did a voice recorder: https://voca.ro/11EKWLxrpSE6

To be honest, this was a good explanation but slightly a waste of time. He did the same shit on a girl he met at a conference (so there was no friends to cockblock him and kill the 'sexual bubble' as per @Velasco) and the result was the same -> no lay. He spiked her sexual buying temperature, got props for boldness / honesty and all that but he couldn't f*** close her, neither then and forget about the day 2 since her ASD / buyers remorse triggered). He thinks sexual arousal or making her "wet with words" is enough to get the lay, when clearly it's an important factor but often times not enough to seal the deal. How does she know you're not a guy who kisses and tells post-arousal? How does she know you can handle her mental obstacles to sex? How does she know she feels allowed to ACT on her sexuality? How does she know you won't judge her for being labelled a "slut"? How does she know you're not a "pump & dump" guy?

 

[Skills]

To be honest, this was a good explanation but slightly a waste of time. He did the same shit on a girl he met at a conference (so there was no friends to cockblock him and kill the 'sexual bubble' as per @Velasco) and the result was the same -> no lay. He spiked her sexual buying temperature, got props for boldness / honesty and all that but he couldn't f*** close her, neither then and forget about the day 2 since her ASD / buyers remorse triggered). He thinks sexual arousal or making her "wet with words" is enough to get the lay, when clearly it's an important factor but often times not enough to seal the deal. How does she know you're not a guy who kisses and tells post-arousal? How does she know you can handle her mental obstacles to sex? How does she know she feels allowed to ACT on her sexuality? How does she know you won't judge her for being labelled a "slut"?

i explain that on the recording already, but yeah that and other things, there other stuff to address depending on the girl internal obstacles, blocks, objections etc.. that you uncover during interaction... When you are going that direct sometimes there are not chances to uncover and the answer to objections are just more boldness/polirization "i will not apologize for my desires as a man" and the likes...

 

[Vision]

So we're getting lost in semantics here.

Well, I'm glad we're getting clear here so that we can be on the same page when we're talking... Indirect and direct are community lingo and they mean something very specific.

So if you call something direct but chitchat with a girl for 5+ minutes, you're doing something different than what I thought you were doing... Which I'm happy to know because I genuinely want to understand it better.

For me the distinction is is more about your intent and authenticity. If you're direct, you're straightforwardly honest about your desires and intentions, even if you have to delay it by a few minutes to feel the girl out first. There may also be practical reasons for that too, e.g. you might find yourself in an environment where you can't be explicit right away or if you need to find out if she's single and available before dropping the heavy artillery.

But at the end of the day, you're direct with your intention and authentic, you don't play cocky-funny games or negs to raise her interest or get her to chase you. You don't attempt to build emotional rapport when you just want to bang. You don't pretend you need an opinion on something. You don't nitpick her character. You don't fake interest in where she got a particular item of clothing. You don't pretend it's your niece's birthday, etc. The first few minutes of the interaction should be to just feel her out (if you're naturally witty at the same time that's great).

But according to the next statement, you can fake caring about her shopping or whether she's shopping for herself or someone else... Or fake caring about directions.

Which you obviously don't care about because you just want to bang.

I honestly don't see how that's a whole lot different than faking interest in where she got an item of clothing... It's all just breaking the ice and getting you into a conversation...

Opinion openers are a little different but not a whole lot. They're more engaging and can serve multiple purposes though... You're still just faking interest in wanting to talk about something to get into the conversation though... It's just a super engaging way to do it.

In that context, you can use a situational opener (e.g. "So, shopping on a Friday night, huh? ... Are you shopping for yourself or you and someone else?")

Yeah, in the community, we'd consider that an indirect opener... You can call it whatever you want to but I'd say it's building social comfort... You're asking her something you don't really care about to get into a conversation and break the ice with her.

That's what the community means by indirect... But it mostly just refers to the first few to several minutes of an interaction with a woman.

Most guys, after that point, would do the same thing whether direct or indirect.

There are other things... Like things I've talked about before, like friendship framing or coming from the friend zone, which could last anywhere from an hour+ to a couple of days while you build sexual tension and get her more interested in you romantically.

Most guys aren't doing that though. But it can take a woman who was very hesitant about you and turn her into someone who wants you... You probably shouldn't do it if you're not looking for a relationship with her though.

or you can give her a genuine compliment on her looks or the way she walks etc. You could even probably ask for directions and then go m1. Or you can just go balls out sexually direct on the opener.

The compliment would be considered direct, the directions would be indirect and, obviously, the last is direct... According to community lingo.

Correct me if I'm mischaracterising it, but with indirect game you're purposely hiding your intentions at the beginning.

Maybe, maybe not, depends on what your intentions actually are and what you're doing in the conversation.

If you were just looking for casual sex, you probably shouldn't use traditional Mystery Method... That's better for getting a girlfriend... Although, you can definitely use it for casual sex... You're probably better off using some kind of sexual framing model though.

With either, I wouldn't say you're hiding your intentions but you're also not coming out and telling her that you want to fuck her immediately. I think it's in ARC's best interest to make it seem like you'd be hiding your intentions because it sets a frame for his students that his method is the only honest one.

I'd say that what you're doing, specifically with sexual framing, is bringing her into a reality where she can be sexually open, aggressive, and real with her desires without worrying about judgements and shame, all while linking those things to you and your interaction with her.

What I'd say ARC is doing is trying to break her into that reality more quickly... It's high risk, high reward. If it doesn't work, you're done. If it does, you can cut all the BS.

You end up having to qualify because now you have to justify why you were aloof or critical before. You can't exactly say "you have an incredible ass, I'm visualizing fucking the shit out of you doggy style" after telling her for example "beauty is common, what else do you have to offer?"

That's because Mystery is setting you up to get a girlfriend here... Or at least potentially have a girlfriend if you want it.

It's really giving you more power and choice with women while setting up frames for her to look at you like you're a high value man. That way, if you want a relationship with her, it's a lot easier to setup because you have a strong emotional connection together, she knows why you actually like her, and she looks at you as a man she would be lucky to have in her life.

Also, the whole negging, being critical thing is super old school... From what I know, most people aren't doing that anymore since it's a bit harsh and playing on low self-esteem.

To sum up, to me there's a more profound difference than just how many minutes of chit chat determines whether you're direct or indirect.

Of course, you're transitioning into something that is very direct, very intense, and has a high reward if it works.

From what I understand, you're cutting out as much of any other interaction as you can so that you're moving to sex quickly and preventing her from using you in any way.

It's definitely different.

I was thinking about ARC's problem with bars... My guess is that he just couldn't make it successful there because most women aren't going to bars to just bang, even if they are open to it... They want to drink, get validation, meet people, dance, hang out with friends, etc... Things ARC, I guess, considers wasting your time

It's probably a bit miscalibrated to approach sexual direct and try to get them to leave immediately, unless they specifically came out open to meeting a guy and hooking up... Which is almost certainly why running community game is far more likely to get you laid at a bar... It's designed around it working in bars and the bar environment.

 

[Baron]

But according to the next statement, you can fake caring about her shopping or whether she's shopping for herself or someone else... Or fake caring about directions.

The shopping example was taken from ARC's grocery store story. He asked about her shopping habit to find out if she was single that evening. As for directions etc, yes of course you can fake it but then you can own up to that easily (e.g. "Actually I already know where I'm going, I just wanted to get your attention" or whatever) and you're still being pretty authentic. Personally, if possible, I like to start the interaction with some sort of witty observation and spend a couple of minutes with some back-and-forth banter. I find that softens them up a bit and makes them a bit more receptive.

But I understand what you're saying. Yes, it's all breaking the ice but I think it just depends how far you take it. If she's wearing a silky dress and you open with "What kind of fabric is that?" and then move on e.g. to a complement about how it looks on her or something else, that's very different than asking if she got it from Zara, then talking about Zara or going into some routine about buying someone a present or whatever.

That's what the community means by indirect... But it mostly just refers to the first few to several minutes of an interaction with a woman.

So, my understanding is different. To me, the opener and the overall approach are separate things, i.e. you can be direct but open indirect and you can be indirect but open direct. An example of the latter would be if you opened a girl by telling her "hey, I noticed you over there and I thought you look hot, I want to get to know you intimately" and then you proceed to talk about orange juice, your sister's dog, the weather, etc etc until she gets bored and walks away. Would you say I was direct or indirect in this scenario? Maybe we need to define new terms.

There are other things... Like things I've talked about before, like friendship framing or coming from the friend zone, which could last anywhere from an hour+ to a couple of days while you build sexual tension and get her more interested in you romantically

Sure ... to quote what @Skills said in an earlier post (I'll respond to him later), everything "works".

I was thinking about ARC's problem with bars... My guess is that he just couldn't make it successful there because most women aren't going to bars to just bang, even if they are open to it... They want to drink, get validation, meet people, dance, hang out with friends, etc... Things ARC, I guess, considers wasting your time

It's probably a bit miscalibrated to approach sexual direct and try to get them to leave immediately, unless they specifically came out open to meeting a guy and hooking up... Which is almost certainly why running community game is far more likely to get you laid at a bar... It's designed around it working in bars and the bar environment.

I came across a guy called tony ruca, who's somewhat similar to ARC. I don't know if he's a copy cat with his own spin or if he developed his stuff independently, but he recommended going verbally ultra direct within an hour of closing time if you want to take her home. If you do it earlier, it's better to leave the girl hanging and get a number instead then text all your numbers towards the end of the night. Most girls are just not ready to leave a club so early. This might have in part prevented me getting the lay in the field report I shared with you and @Skills , it was still pretty early and I tried to get her out the club too soon.