How to Use Indirect Game to Get Girls
by Chase Amante
Wednesday, 7 November 2012
Over in the comments section of the post on how to get a girl's phone number, Hunter asked for a review of indirect game:
“Hey Chase, I'm so glad you got to this, I actually had an exact question about phone numbers only to have you answer it with finesse!
I was pondering however about the aspects of city game vs closed space game, small towns or places you return to because you have to, school or work. I have done direct openers in places like school and around my city of medium size, but it can go awry easily and when it does, you hear about it back! It is almost normal to meet girls again whom I've approached before. The fleeting moment of awkwardness is fine, but if every girl I approached went awry at school, that'd be too much to handle.
I remember your post on direct vs situational approaching. I advocate direct approaching, but I feel they are not the best in places I return to frequently because I have to.
Can you go over the aspects of situational game? I know most guys actually get stuck in situational game, but after doing more direct openers, I'm having a hard time in situational environments coming off too strong or putting too much social pressure on her!
Thanks again, don't you guys stop anytime soon! Hunter
If you don't know indirect game, it's essentially using either situationally relevant (ideally) or other non-direct (e.g., not stating your romantic / sexual intentions) openers and
And, like most aspects of pickup and seduction, indirect game can be very effective - done right.
But also like most aspects of pickup and seduction, there is a right way to do indirect game... and a wrong way, and like most aspects of pickup and seduction (and I'm still not sure why this is) the wrong way is the one you'll usually hear about most.
So let's clear this up and get you using indirect right.
Opinion Openers Not Included
These have by and large been banished from pickup community teaching and literature, but let's go over these anyway: the opinion opener.
If you're unfamiliar with opinion openers, they go something like this: Guy: Hey - I need a female opinion, let me ask you a question. Girl: Okay.
Guy: You see, I was reading this article in Cosmo, and it was talking about lying...
basically, it posed the question of, "Who lies more? Men or women?" And I was having this debate with a friend of mine, and hethinks it's women, but I'm not so sure. This might just be male bias. So I said, let me go get a girl and see if we can find out. So what do you think? Who lies more?
Guy: That's interesting. You know, there's an old Chris Rock stand up routine where he's talking about this, and he says, "Men lie more, but when they lie, they tell small lies, like, 'No, those pants don't make your ass look big.' Girls, they don't lie nearly as much as men, but when girls DO lie, it's always a DOOZY... you know, with like, 'Well you know what it's YOUR baby!'"
Guy: So I can't stay long, I've got to get back to my friends in a moment, but did you see the fight outside earlier? There was a girl who looked like a model and this guy who must've been a midget rolling around on the sidewalk tearing each other's hair out... Back in 2005, when I first stumbled on pickup community teachings, I thought I'd found a godsend in opinion openers. I'd been cold approaching on my own for a year at that point, but I'd been relying primarily on direct, on what I'd now call "situationally relevant," and on simply just saying "Hi." But I was still struggling with shaking off approach anxiety and was only doing a handful of approaches a month at that point.
But opinion openers... now that seemed like an awesome way to get into a conversation with a girl without even having to put yourself out there! Because at no point was the conversation made to be about you and her, opinion openers seemed to offer a free pass: the
chance to talk to girls without being judged.
If they rejected you, it was just because they didn't want to talk about dogs, not because they didn't like you!
What I didn't realize at the time was that the opposite was equally true:
When you use an opinion opener and a girl DOES talk to you, it's often just because she likes the topic... NOT you.
It's very possible that a girl thinks you're cute, but gets totally turned off when the first thing you say to her is a question about Elvis.
And it's also very possible that a girl would never hook up with you in a million years, but finds the idea of talking about your friend's girlfriend finding your friend's ex-girlfriend's pictures in a shoebox and wanting to burn them in a bonfire absolutely fascinating.
I know they seem like an easy way to get into a conversation with a girl because the entire dialogue is all laid out, but trust me... they're the lazy man's approach to indirect, and they only work if you've already got solid enough fundamentals and are attractive to
So before we say anything else about indirect game, I just want to throw these out of the running for this post and make it clear why we're going to ignore this once trendy form of indirect: because it takes you down a side path and away from a seduction.
Opinion openers are the antithesis of our philosophy of moving fast and cutting out unnecessary details here... and they don't get you any hotter or higher quality women than other forms of game.
Actually, they're more likely to get you flighty women... but we won't go into that here. Onto the main event.
So what is indirect game, exactly?
Is it not telling a girl you think she's cute? Is it pretending you just met her by accident?
Is it acting like you're a super-social guy who just talks to anyone? Is it removing any sign of interest in her at all?
Well, it can be any of those... but not all forms of indirect game are created equal. To my mind, there are two main forms of indirect game:
1. True indirect, the type you'll hear bandied about most frequently 2. Indirect direct, which is the type I advocate on here (Ricardus too)
As you might suppose from those bullets, I consider true indirect the "wrong" way to do indirect game, and indirect direct the "right" way to do it.
But what's the difference, and why's it matter?
True Indirect: Playing Hide the Banana
The theory behind true indirect is that women aren't interested in a man until they have a chance to see his qualities, and true indirect - by taking a woman out of "assessment mode," where she's judging you right off the bat to decide whether she'll accept or reject your advances - ups your odds by giving you more time and more of a chance to display your attractive traits.
What true indirect practitioners actually end up doing, of course, is presenting themselves as neutral, uninterested parties, and seek to get women to pursue them first.
You know I like the second part of that. It's the first part I take issue with.
In the book Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes, Frans de Waal, the famed Dutch primatologist, talks about the observed tendency of beta males and subadults to sometimes grow an erection in the presence of fertile females, but then in the presence of a dominant male who's around, those beta and subadult males will take their hands and cover up and hide their erections, so as not to attract undue attention.
Meanwhile, of course, the alpha male prominently strides about, erection in full view - or just goes for the female he wants, mounts her, and takes her.
I tend to think of the difference between the dominant males and the nondominant males in terms of them "hiding their bananas"... or not.
And every time I see a guy doing true indirect, all I can think to myself is... he's hiding his
Only he isn't even hiding his banana from a dominant male... he's hiding it from the female
herself - something even the beta chimps don't do.
Here's why that's wrong: there's a certain thought process a woman goes through when a man's doing full-on true indirect...
1. "He's talking to me, and I know he has a reason. It's not like he's talking to EVERYONE here... he came up to ME."
2. "He's acting like he's not interested in me at all... but he just keeps talking to me. Weird."
3. "Okay, I've got it - he LIKES me, he just doesn't want to ACT like it. I'll play along."
In effect, it doesn't take a woman long to realize a man using true indirect is playing hide the banana.But how's a girl react to a guy hiding his banana around her?
Well, for one, she doesn't treat him rude... after all, he's harmless. He's hiding his intentions - and she knowshe has them, women aren't dull, they know if someone's talking to them it's because they want something - and guys who hide their intentions aren't a sexual threat in any way... there's not much danger of her ending up with a guy like this.
So, if she's getting some enjoyment and entertainment out of the conversation, she'll play along... she'll give him reactions instead of results... she'll flirt and chat and laugh away... because it's fun!
And at the end of the night, he'll leave thinking he did GREAT... even if he never talks to her or sees her again - which is what usually happens.
But he just keeps getting those reactions, and he just keeps thinking things are working perfect.
They're not though - he's not getting results, he's not focused on moving girls, he's not focused on inviting them home. He's just playing hide the banana, and the girl's playing along and pretending she doesn't know there's a banana underneath his hands there.
Indirect Direct: Letting the Banana Hang OutThere's another way of doing indirect game though, and that way is indirectdirect. Or, as I like to call it, letting the banana hang out.
If you think of true indirect as hiding the banana, and true direct as shoving the banana into a girl's face (or other part of her anatomy), indirect direct is not making any effort to shove your banana in her face right away... but not making any effort to conceal it, either.
Indirect game that's deployed with a direct twist comes down to a few components mixed in together:
You're on the surface just chatting to her for the sake of chatting
Simultaneously, you maintain a very sexy vibe and air about yourself
You employ the sexual frame and chase framing to set the tone
When women test you on your attraction, you tease them back... not play dumb The overall feel of an indirect direct interaction is that it's all a big tease... you're pretending you're just talking casually to her and are not really interested in her,
but she knows you are, and you know she knows you are, she knows you know she knows you are, and you aren't actually trying to hide it from her, but rather tease her about it instead, and paint the facetious, but very fun and exciting for her, picture of her being the pursuer instead.
You're letting the banana hang out.
Indirect game in this fashion is talking about the weather... with decidedly sexual undertones.
It's taking the conversation down winding alleyways that explore her deepest dreams and desires... while being physically close and firmly in command of the trajectory the two of you are on.
It's teasing her like the two of you are old friends... and implying that she's been trying to get together with you forever.
That's indirect game done right. You're not telling her outright that you like her style or think she's beautiful or sexy or even qualifying her all that much, as you would with direct... ... but that's because you don't need to.
Of course, all we just covered on indirect direct - on infusing your indirect game with barely-contained sexuality, with raw, latent energy, and with a smooth but firm grip on the flow of the interaction and the course of the conversation - all that's easier said than done. First, a cautionary note on true indirect, just to hit this point home.
There's a reason why so many guys use true indirect, and why so many teachersrecommend true indirect to their students:
Pay no mind to the fact that it hardly gets results, of course - the important part is that it gets you talking to women!
Personally, I'm okay with someone sacrificing some return in the short term in order to acquire more data points... but not if they're the wrong data points.
And the data points you gather running true indirect are most certainly thewrong data points.
As someone teaching this stuff, let me tell you, the hardest, most hopeless cases you will ever encounter are NOT the brand new guys who don't know how to talk to girls and don't know how to kiss a girl and have never had a girlfriend before.
Those guys are like wet clay. All they want it for you to form them into something that's effective with women, and let them go to work.
No... the guys who are the worst to work with in the world are the guys who've been running true indirect game for 4 or 5 or 6 years. Why? Because they've acquired so many reference points from this style of game that they've become completely
convinced it's the only way to do things, and that because getting results with women this way is really hard, then so far as they're concerned getting results with
These are the guys you look at and say, "Dude, why are you doing that? You're adding like 30 extra steps to your pickups, extending them by about 5 unnecessary hours, and
increasing the odds that you trip over your own two feet and never get the girl EXPONENTIALLY! You're making it way harder than it needs to be!"
And they look back at you and say, "These steps are all necessary if you want beautiful, high quality girls. I don't get those girls, but some true indirect guy told me years ago that's the case and I believe it. I don't know what you're doing with all your step-skipping and fast game, but you're probably only getting easy girls and low hanging fruit."
And I'll say, "Amigo, the only girls I date are beautiful, charismatic, driven, ambitious, life-of-the-party type social butterflies who are pursued by hordes of men and never get caught. I DATE AND SLEEP WITH THE GIRLS OTHER GUYS CAN'T GET! If you want to date and sleep with and have relationships with these girls, instead of just talking to them and getting blown off by them, just try this out!"
And they say, "It won't work, trust me."
They've been conditioned to fail by years of running true indirect.
That's the real reason I think true indirect isn't just downright ineffective... it's harmful. It's like training a guy to play piano with his fingers starting on the wrong keys, or training a guy to play basketball with a really awkward shooting pose, and then the guy just does it that way for a half decade. You'll have a beast of a time trying to untrain years and years of actively working to learn an incorrect form and open his mind to trying something different again.
Too much true indirect conditions men to expect to not achieve results with women.
So, I know it might be tempting to use because it's easy and a lot less scary not to show any interest in girls, but what it usually leads to in my experience is learned helplessness.
You've been warned. Let's get on with how to do indirect game right.
How to Do Indirect Game Right
The image I have in my head of the perfect indirect direct is James Bond. You'll almost never hear James Bond tell a woman he can't stop thinking about her... instead, his entire dialogue is innuendo that pretends to be neutral but dripswith sexual undertones.
Sean Connery did this great as Bond. Pierce Brosnan did it well too... I'm thinking of Halle Berry walking out of the sea and Brosnan's Bond saying, "Beautiful view," which on the surface was meant to be about the scenery, but they both knew what he really meant. Like Brosnan's Bond, indirect game done well makes use of situationally relevant content and context to pain a seemingly benign, ordinary conversation over a layer of sexual thrust and romantic intrigue.
I'll give you a fuller example of this so you can see what I mean before we go more into specifics:
Guy: [slowly, sexually] So what's the story with this place? Girl: [turning to face him] What do you mean?
Guy: This whole coffee shop... it seems so gauche. Girl: I think it's supposed to be chic.
Guy: Does it seem chic to you? Girl: No... no it does not!
Guy: You don't seem like the kind of girl who'd be in such a gauche place that aspires to be chic.
Girl: Why do you say that?
Guy: [waves his hand in front of her torso, gesturing] That. Your whole style-thing. Not gauche chic. More like just light, trendy... on top of things.
Girl: Oh [looking down at her clothes]. Well what are you doing here? Guy: I didn't realize it was going to be so gauche chic before I walked in. Girl: [laughs] Well why did you stay?
Guy: By the time I noticed how terrifying the decorations were, it was too late, and I'd already paid for my hot chocolate. So I'm stuck here.
Girl: You could just leave.
Guy: And miss out on analyzing the patterns in that throw rug over there? Not in a million years.
Guy: How about you, why are you here? You seem like the type who'd be too busy to hang out in a wannabe-trendy coffee shop.
Girl: Well, I have the day off from work today. Guy: Oh really? And what's work?
Girl: I work in a clothing store.
Guy: Is it... a gauche chic clothing store?
Girl: [laughs] No, it is NOT a gauche chic clothing store!
Guy: [laughs] Okay, well that explains why you have better style than most I suppose. How long have you been working at the clothing store?
... and from there we're into normal deep diving and everything proceeds per usual (see the conversation example for more on how to run an ordinary conversation with a girl).
You'll notice that this isn't too different from the ordinary approach you see me talk about on here, and that's for good reason - my own normal style with women is largely indirect direct. I modeled my approach after James Bond, after Val Kilmer in The Saint, and other seducers with smoldering sensuality like that.
When you pretend to be asexual and uninterested in women, as in true indirect, why on Earth should they be interested in YOU? But, when you come out and tell a girl you like her directly, well... that just kills all the fun. Those are my philosophies, anyway. Even
when I use a direct opener, I transition very quickly into indirect game with sexual undertones like this, because it's the style of pickup I feel works best for my personality (lower energy, not overly talkative).
To help you understand the difference between true indirect (the wrong way) and indirect direct (the right way), I'm going to set up the how-to walkthrough as a compare and contrast illustration.
Difference #1: Impersonal vs. Personal
Have a look at that example we just went over, and compare it to the opinion opener example way back at the beginning of this article. Notice any differences?
If you've been at this for a little while, the biggest difference should be glaring: our proper indirect game example is extremely personal, while the opinion opener example
is extremely impersonal.
Imagine you were on the receiving end of these two conversations (pretend you're the girl, or that some guy is talking you and you're still you):
Which conversation do you feel more engaged in?
Which one do you feel like you're contributing and sharing and involved?
Which one do you feel like you're actually really starting to like this guy, and which one do you feel like is just an empty spectacle and nothing more?
That's right... the second one makes you feel engaged, contributing, sharing, involved, and a growing respect, admiration, and intrigue for this this new individual you've just met... he seems like a cool, interesting person.
The first one - the opinion opener example - is interesting for its spectacle value, but do you really care if you never see this guy ever again?
And a major part of the difference in the feel of these two conversation is the personal nature of the second one - it's all about getting to know the girl, building an emotional connection with her, and finding out more about her.
The first one's just about trying to throw some bizarre and interesting stories at the girl and hoping that somehow she realizes this guy is the man of her dreams. Not exactly a
Difference #2: Monologue vs. Dialogue
Another part of the "engagement" difference is that, as you might notice, our second guy is talking with his girl... while our first guy is talking at her.
Guy #1 is monologuing... he's just going on and on and on about his openers, then his DHVs, then his stuff. He doesn't want to show interest in a girl, so of COURSE he can't ASK her about herself! That'd be showing INTEREST!
So she never gets engaged.
Guy #2 is dialoguing, though... he's not going to go into any lengthy stories until later in the conversation, when it's more contextually relevant. Instead, he's guiding the
conversation along a steady, natural progression, from his situationally relevant opener into eventually finding out what she does and getting into his normal conversation flow.
Here's what ends up being the main contrasts between each:
Guy #1 monologues, trying to impress a girl and grab her attention, thinking that by not showing direct interest in her, she won't realize what he's doing
Guy #2 dialogues, assuming that of course a girl's going to realize he's talking to her because he wants to get to know her, but instead of try to impress he digs into finding out more about her, effectively asking her to impress him.
Guy #1 monologues from the start, likely under the impression that if he stops talking too early, the girl will just blow him out or go away.
Guy #2 dialogues from the start, knowing that it's better if he can get her
contributing early and that he can always put more oomph into things if she doesn't respond warmly out of the gates.
Guy #1 monologues on impersonal topics to the girl, mistaking surprise, excitement, laughter, and interest for attraction, desire, and investment
Guy #2 dialogues on personal topics to the girl, deliberately keeping things somewhat interesting but largely toned down... he's far more interested in getting her attracted, desirous, and invested than excited, laughing, and interested in the conversation. I just saw a video recently of a guy running indirect game who was clearly experienced - he anticipated the objections he was about to receive from women and circumscribed them
easily before they even occurred - but he also talked far too much, mostly about himself, and his interactions ended on decidedly neutral terms.
This is common in guys running flawed indirect game... they assume they've got to do all the talking and position their value very high so the girl will chase after them. But that's not what makes girls chase.
Difference #3: Tough Transition vs. Easy Transition
Let's say you open with true indirect, and you're not asking anything about the girl, you're acting totally disinterested in her, and you're just talking about random neutral things that have nothing to do with either of you.
How do you transition to anything MORE than that?
How do you get to talking about her... to pulling her off somewhere with you... to escalating with her physically?
Whatever you do, when you're starting from true indirect, it's going to be an awkward transition. And awkward transitions are one of the major ways that most men lose women.
Now look at the guy who's doing indirect game properly... talking about things that are situationally relevant (so his thought process makes sense) as opposed to things that are all over the place and not-so-relevant to the situation (as most true indirect guys do... there's only so much situationally relevant stuff you can talk about before it's either talk about her, or talk about you).
Because the guy running indirect direct is already talking about her, and already implying, though not stating, that he finds her interesting, transitioning her to the next stage of the interaction once she's sufficiently impressed him is a snap. It's natural. It's what's expected.
With the true indirect guy, no progression is expected, because there's no reasonfor it. Why should she go sit with him... he doesn't know anything about her!
A true indirect guy will argue here: "That's not GOOD true indirect you're talking about, because a guy who does true indirect RIGHT will use screening and qualifying, too!" But screening and qualifying as used by true indirect practitioners tend to be unwieldy tools, clumsily hefted and inaccurately turned. Because a true indirect guy is NOT focused on the
girl, his screening consists of questions tossed into his monologue that only test pieces here and there, e.g.:
Guy: ... and ever since my ex cooked me that meal, I've loved Mexican food. Girl: Yeah, Mexican food's great.
Guy: Do YOU cook? Girl: Yeah I do.
Guy: Do you cook... MEXICAN food? Girl: No, not really. Mostly just regular stuff.
Guy: Okay, well, you still get one star for cooking, but we're going to have to work on that Mexican food thing. So get this: about a year and a half ago, I was IN Mexico, when suddenly...
This is really the only kind of screening and qualifying women available to the true indirect user, and it's okay, but it's not even close to being as effective as natural screening woven effortlessly into the conversation you're having with a girl through a deep dive.
(This kind of screening and qualifying is still worth playing around with when you're new, but it's not the final stop for this skill, and it's not a justification for using an ineffective style of indirect game, either.)
If you've played around with true indirect (and really, I think most newer guys do... *I* certainly used it for far too long), you know what I'm talking about:those impossible transitions you can never quite seem to master.
I remember how FRUSTRATED I was trying to transition to different stages of an interaction... God, why is this so HARD? I used to ask myself.
It isn't. It's just that true indirect makes it hard, by not setting the proper groundwork for a seamless transition.
Indirect Game Wrap-Up
If we go back and review those guidelines on indirect game done properly, we've got three main differences between (wrong) true indirect and (right) indirect direct. They are:
1. Impersonal (wrong) vs. Personal (right) 2. Monologue (wrong) vs. Dialogue (right)
3. Tough Transition (wrong) vs. Easy Transition (right)
For newer guys, this hopefully points out where along the path you've veered off the trail if you have. It's easy to fall into the trap of true indirect, if primarily for the reasons that it seems to offer more ego protection and be less likely to result in a personal rejection. But when you reduce the risks, you also reduce the rewards, and true indirect offers the greatest reduction of both risk AND reward of any style of game out there.
And you've still got a couple of great choices anyway... you can be the alpha male walking around shoving his banana in the female's faces (direct), or you can be the alpha male strutting around with his banana just hanging out in the wind (indirect direct).
Just don't, please, for the love of God, get yourself caught playing hide the banana.Girls
really don't have a lot of respect for the guys that do that, and they're not going to take your hands off and pull that banana out themselves (unless they're REALLY aggressive)... take my word for it.
You've got to help them get their hands on your banana. Man up - direct or indirect direct, either one's fine and either one works. They are what you want to be using (if, that is, you want results).
And whichever path you so choose, may the force of situationally relevant dialogues be with you.
Get Your FREE eBook on Texting Girls
Sign up for our email insights series and get a copy of our popular ebook “How to Text Girls” FREE. Learn more ...
Enter Your Best Email Address ↓
Trying to piece together a seduction strategy bit-by-bit, article-by-article, question-by-question? Stop killing yourself doing it the slow and difficult way - and get it all spelled out for you instead, in detail, in exactly the order you need to learn it... with homework, too.
With our complete mastery pick up package, you'll get our 406-page how-to eBook How to
Make Girls Chase, our 63-minute long video Spellbinding: Get Her Talking, and 3 hours of
audio training - all for less than the price of the book and video alone.
Quit banging your head against the wall - get it now, to speed your learning curve up dramatically... and start really getting the women you want to want you too. You can go right here to get started and be downloading your programs in minutes: How to Be a Pick Up Artist. Publicarlo en Facebook 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Publicarlo en Twitter
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Publicarlo en Google+ Añadirlo a Reddit Publicarlo en StumbleUpon Publicarlo en Delicious
Imprimir con PrintFriendly
Añadirlo a LinkedIn
Enviar vía Gmail
What’s Different When You Talk to a
The Pick Up Game: Just Like Any Other
Game The 5 Big Differences Between Naturals and “PUA”s Student of the Game: How to Succeed with Women Printer-friendly version Send by email
Best type of game, in my opinion.
Posted by Walls on Wednesday, 7 November 2012
Wow, this is literally the only type of game I run. Now I know what it's called! Indirect direct... I find women really dig this, I get to not be so direct (secretly, I don't want to be), it obeys the law of least effort, and indirect direct actually makes you seem more mysterious playful, and sexual. Sometimes, maybe a little too playful and sexual (a lot of the words I say, I'll inflect them in a sexual manner.) Is there a too playful and too sexual? Granted, I do make the conversation more serious and about her as the convo flows.
But yeah, this is the type of stuff I'd picture a guy like James Dean or, like you said, James Bond using. Thanks for identifying it, Chase - reading this was like seeing myself in a mirror!
Too Playful and Too Sexual?
Posted by Chase Amante on Wednesday, 7 November 2012
Yeah, this type of game is good stuff isn't it? I think most guys who stay at this long enough eventually come to this style... it just works better than most everything else.
You can always be too much of ANYTHING... but if you're including the two together, it's pretty hard to be too playful + sexual simultaneously. The only way this works out to be bad is if a guy's so focused on being playful and sexual that he starts ignoring cues from her and she begins to feel like he's not genuinely there with HER and rather is just running through a process. e.g., she wants to get serious and talk about something from her past, and the guy keeps throwing sexual innuendo at her.
Another scenario where it can be too much is when you ramp up sexual tension too fast without having logistics sorted, and then it crashes when you're trying to get her somewhere to escalate and she goes cold. Those ones always suck because it was a girl you COULD'VE had, but you took it too far without realizing you weren't going to be able to maintain that peak without getting to intimacy FAST. Better to keep the pot simmering that let it boil over.
Normally though, if you stick to playful and sexual, and make sure you're serious when she needs to be serious and that you keep the sexual stuff under your thumb until you're
somewhere you can escalate it all the way, you're absolutely fine. Best,
Hey Chase, i know you've been
Hey Chase, i know you've been busy but i just want to drop in and say thanks for uploading a new article almost every day these two weeks. It's always refreshing to hear what you have in mind.
Posted by Chase Amante on Wednesday, 7 November 2012
Hi Adrian, no need to thank! I'm making a conscious effort to get more content on here, especially the stuff that people've been asking about. I've cleared the slates on some other things, and want to give GC more time than I had been for much of the year.
If you have anything in particular you'd like to see a post on, drop me a line in the
comments on a recent blog post, that's the easiest way for me to see it. Otherwise man, hope you like the stuff that's been going up and the stuff that's coming up soon!
Don't hide that banana!
Posted by Franco on Thursday, 8 November 2012
This put a smile on my face... I was just in Vegas a couple of weekends ago explaining the "process" of approaching women to a really close friend of mine that I had learned off of this website. I've only been doing this type of approach for a few months now, but my good buddy was really intrigued after I had approached multiple women that weekend and ended up with phone numbers rather easily. He is the ultimate example of "hiding the banana" when it comes to women, and I just so happened to use the "James Bond" analogy to
explain to him how it should be done. I told him exactly what to say and do (referring to what I now know as the "indirect direct" method) and he ended up spending the rest of one of those weekend nights with a girl. He's a great guy, so it was pretty cool to see him have some success. =)
On another note, Chase, I've recently tried to jot down any questions that have come up in my head with anything regarding women in general that I believe could use an answer (or possibly even a blog post). Here's just a couple that I'm curious about:
1. Sexting. In most of your texting blog posts, you claim to keep texting to a bare
minimum. Do you engage in sexting at all, or does it go against your mantra of "busy men don't have time to text?" If you do... maybe a blog post on this would be fun? ;)
2. Maintaining a good personal Facebook or Social Networking appearance. I think this would require a blog post (or maybe even a series of blog posts), but interacting with women on Facebook (whether directly or indirectly through posts/pictures) is a big part of the way individuals connect and socialize with each other today. Do you have knowledge or advice in this area?
I have more questions, but I feel like this is good for now.
And as one of the above posters stated, thanks for the increased productivity in making posts! They are always a pleasure to read.
Sexting and Facebook
Posted by Chase Amante on Thursday, 8 November 2012
Very cool story on your friend. That's truly one of the most fun things to do once you've got your own game trained up... taking a friend who's still flying blind, pointing him in the right direction, and then watching him start rack up some successes. It's always really satisfying.
Good questions on sexting and Facebook / social network.
Sexting I've never done in my life... I'm always the last to adopt technology, and I've never had a phone that allowed the sending / receiving of text messages. These days I'm totally averse to texting for any reason other than logistics, too... when I get any kind of, "Hey, how's it going, let's talk over text!" type communication from girls, I basically just grunt and turn the phone over, or send them something back akin to, "Totally, we should meet up! When's your schedule open?"
But I'll keep it at the back of my mind... I'll see if Ricardus or anyone else has experience with using that effectively and wants to write something on it.
On Facebook - let me do a post on this. I started writing a response and realized I had a lot of content on it... I'll put an article up on it instead!
Posted by Chase Amante on Thursday, 8 November 2012
All right Franco, post is
up-Why to NOT Meet Girls on Facebook
I spent a little time breaking down how I used to meet girls on Facebook at the end, too... hope this gives you some more insight into the medium!
Hinting at "I like ur style and ur the reason I'm still here"
Posted by JFAV on Thursday, 8 November 2012
Now this was a great post. It's something I've naturally done a few times in my life and the times I did it were GOLD. In fact I just used a form of it a night ago and got into a pretty saucy text convo with a cute friend of mine.
I came off too strongly at the end but I can definitely see the benefits of this style. I was confused or curious as to what was being said in between the lines in the conversation. Was the guy hinting that he liked her style and that she was his whole reason for staying there? I'm still a lil hazy on how to use it myself, but then again its late and I should be a sleep lol!
I think I'm looking for more of that analysis you gave in the conversation example. That one was heavily detailed... maybe I should read that one again.
Re: Reading Between the Lines
Posted by Chase Amante on Thursday, 8 November 2012
Glad you liked the post.
You're part right on that last line about her style being better than most - our hero there WAS saying he liked his style, though not that she was his reason for being there.
The way that compliment is structured, and the reason it might seem a little confusing, is because it's structured to look not like a conscious compliment and more like an observation - something he's just noting in passing. Which in some ways is more powerful than a
compliment... what she reads it as is he actually likes something about her, and it just kind of slipped out without him meaning to. So she gets to think to herself, "Aha! He DOES like me! And he doesn't know I know... haha..."
Some girls are socially sharp enough to pick up on this, if they've been around game enough, and they just read it as a more subtle, more savvy compliment than what most men employ.
The parts that talked about his reason for being there are A) he's already ordered his hot chocolate before noticing the decorations, and now he's stuck, and B) he's intrigued by the rug (but she knows he's being facetious). So actually he hasn't really told her why he's there still - he's brushed off the question with humor while seemingly answering it... but at some point she may come back to it again, feeling intrigued and realizing her question was never satisfactorily answered, and ask him again: "So why are you HERE??"
(he can just say something like, "It's close to my house. I like the cocoa here, too," and then get the conversation back on track)
Hope that clears it up :) Chase
Hey chase, just want to say i
Posted by Balla on Thursday, 8 November 2012
Hey chase, just want to say i like how you stay so apart of this website and help us guys out but can you please tell me what I'm doing wrong. I come straight out with my interest to females, I move fast, i dont stick around them very long or do any of that friend zone crap because my time is important, they give me so much attention, they flirt with me, they hug up all over me and hold hands, they buy me things and drive me around. I get treated like a star with all the compliance I get but when it comes to them coming over my pad it never happens. What's going on?
The Missing Piece?
Posted by Chase Amante on Thursday, 8 November 2012
Hard to say from just your brief comment there, but if I had to guess it sounds like you're throwing all your cards on the table, which is fine, but then you've got to challenge them a lot unless they're compliant early on, and it sounds like that's not happening yet.
Direct is best for either a same-day / night pickup, or if you're just going to talk to them briefly and then set up a date that you progress things on quickly after that.
The thing with direct is it takes everything up a notch; a girl receives direct game from you and thinks, "Whoa, this guy's SERIOUS." The slower it moves to sex though, the more she starts thinking, "Oh, he's still inexperienced and hasn't figured it out... well, it's CUTE that he's trying!" And she'll still like you and respect you, but it won't be a sexuallike and respect.
When I was starting out and used direct, I'd have girls be really flirty and pay for things for me too, but then it'd never progress to actual physical intimacy. You get this vibe from them that's kind of like, "You're CUTE... but you're not quite READY for me yet." In other words, while she likes you, she still knows she's firmly more in control than you are, and if anything happens it'll be because she says so, rather than because you do.
I don't know if that's what you're experiencing exactly, but that'd be my best guess. The way I solved it for myself was to start seeing flirting as a kind of "uh-oh" marker... too much flirting goes on and I'm firmly in "cute-but-not-ready-yet" territory. These days, the instant a girl starts flirting with me too much, I move things to the next level - put-up or shut-up time. That's when you find out if she's legitimately interested in you or if she's just pulling your chain. With very flirty girls, this makes figuring things out quickly very easy - either you keep escalating, and she keeps going along with it, or you hit a roadblock and find out she's just doing it for kicks, and you cut her loose and move onto a girl who's genuinely interested in you.
Posted by Adrian on Friday, 9 November 2012
Great to hear from you! Cultivating an "edge" is something you often talk about. That said, my understanding of what exactly constitute this "edge" is still rather spotty. To me, cultivating an "edge" is a movement along the "disarming and friendly" model towards the "bad-boy/don't-give-a-shit" model. Considering being warm and welcoming an integral factor in your process, how does cultivating an "edge" fit into it? Furthermore, during your journey in developing "edge" to your character, what are some specific areas/mindsets you worked on?
Many thanks, A
Posted by Chase Amante on Friday, 9 November 2012
Yes, you're right - I've had a few people asking me to post on edge (maybe you were one of them), and I forgot to get that one up, didn't I.
Edge is another one of those one's that's going to be interesting to finesse an article out of... I don't know if I've ever properly described it before.
But then, half the stuff that goes up here is stuff I've never properly described before, so I doubt it'll be TOO challenging ;)
Look for that sometime soon. Chase
Screening and qualifying
Posted by George on Friday, 9 November 2012
Hi, chase. Nice post again. I learned a lot tonight, man! Thank you so so much.
But I'm a bit confused about know to screen and qualify woman while you are keeping yourself indirect direct. I think many of us out there are more like the mexican food guy in your example,Like me, haha. Can you give an example about how it is done right, please? Thank you.
Screening Done Right
Posted by Chase Amante on Friday, 9 November 2012
In fact, I already have - though it might be hard to see buried in there (which is what you want... good game's about subtlety rather than blatancy). If you browse through
"Conversation Example," you'll see a variety of instances:
When he asks her, "Okay, well, why are you doing a job that's just okay? Why not find one that's amazing?"
^ that's a challenge and a screen. She feels pressure to answer appropriately, but it isn't a silly question like, "Can you cook?" It's a deep one - he wants to know why she's choosing the life paths she does.
When he asks her, "Like… well, I don't know. If you could do anything else in the world and get paid the same as what you get paid now, what would you do instead?"
^ that's another challenge / screen. She feels pressure to not be silly but also to be honest here about what she'd really want to do. It's also much more crucial to the core of who she is than whether she can cook Mexican food or not, and leaves a much stronger impression when she successfully gains qualification from him.
When he asks her, "You take pretty good pictures?"
^ it was contextual, she'd just said she loves photographs. He doesn't much care if she does, it's purely conversational, but the mere fact that he's not just letting her get by with a throwaway connection statement - he wants details, he wants to know her - makes her feel he's not going to let her be fake around him the way she might be with everyone else ("Oh yeah, I'm a photographer too!" Then everybody pats her on the back).
When he asks her, "So tell me about yourself; I don't know anything about you." ^ timed right in the conversation (once she already feels like he knows something substantial about her), this is also a well-placed screen. Instantly she goes from thinking, "Well, I've told this guy more in 10 minutes than most of the people in my life know about me. Now I can just coast and relax and he'll think I'm great." Nope - he still needs to know more. This also signals how firmly in control of the conversation he is, and that he isn't afraid to act like he doesn't know her, which most guys who don't actually know her are. ... and there are a million more examples like that weaved in there, but those are a few of the ones that stood out when I glanced back through it. Back when I wrote that, I wasn't even thinking, "Screen, screen, screen;" screening is just hemmed into the process of deep diving itself - you can't do deep diving without screening a girl pretty heavily just by default.
Anyway, to me, that's screening done right - it's about stuff that really matters to the girl and her identity, and it doesn't feel patched together like standard screening questions thrown inelegantly into a conversation do.
However, when you're starting out, you'll almost always have to start out patchwork and gradually make your way to interwoven, so it isn't a strike against you if you aren't totally smooth just yet ;)
More on Screening
Posted by Chase Amante on Friday, 9 November 2012
It slipped my mind, but the article on screening and qualifying women linked to above is completely about exactly this subject, too:
"Is Qualifying Women Really That Important?" Chase
Posted by JFav on Saturday, 10 November 2012
You know Chase after reading many of your articles these days and trying to practice a lot of them I'm realizing a lot about myself. For one I've realized I'm REALLY opinionated and a very strong with it too.
Another thing I've been told is I'm not a very cheery, positive individual instead "I'm negative and sarcastic." I'm also known as pretty serious too.
And, after reading through this post and imagining myself doing this I thought "there's no way I could pull that off right now" lol!
I think the girl would be freaked out or too nervous to speak with me. So, my question to you is what do you think of these things I'm mentioning here?
These days I've been in a funk not really wanting to talk to people or even interact with women in general because I've noticed these things. I have a feeling they are something that is inherently wrong with my game.
In fact, after mulling it over I feel like you did when you say you came off as "that angry red headed guy."
Just wanted to get your thoughts on this and see if its something I DEFINITELY need to change. And, if so are there any articles or things you'd recommend for me to read or do?
A Serious Disposition
Posted by Chase Amante on Saturday, 10 November 2012
You know, that's a tough one. On the one side, yes, you definitely DO want to rid yourself of negative comments and thoughts - you've probably seen it already, but the post
on overcoming depressionfocuses on the thought portion of this, and the thoughts are where the comments come from. Best realization is that negative thoughts and comments pollute YOUR mental attitude the most, and then reach out and choke the life out of the
relationships around you too... it gets to be that the positive, forward-looking people who are doing things with their lives steer clear of you, and you attract a lot of these negative people who are moving backwards instead. And that's the wrong recipe for any kind of success.
On the other side, while you do want to clear negative thoughts and comments, I'm always very wary of telling anyone to completely overhaul their personality. You can do this to an extent, but there's a limit... you're always just going to have some natural inclinations (dry humor, or no dry humor; sarcasm, or no sarcasm, etc.) that you're just simply going to prefer.
My suggestion would be work hard on scrubbing out negative thoughts and comments first. After that, see where you're at. I spent a lot of time learning to react the "right" way in social situations, since a lot of the small talk people engage in wasn't terribly interesting to
me... but once I had that down, I focused on learning how to get past small talk as quickly as possible and into substantial, meaty topics. Then you don't have to pretend to be interested anymore, because you can get people talking about things that are actually interesting.
Posted by Kb on Saturday, 10 November 2012
Hey Chase. Was really frustrated with my dating life a while ago(2 months) and stumbled upon your blog. It was like a lightbulb turned on in my head.
Thanks to you I am going out a lot more and getting numbers and dates(actually went out with this girl for 3 dates and she was supposed to come over to my place for the 4th one but she flaked, but I digress).
Anyways, I want to ask you a question. I've been frequenting the pickup forums, and something I can't quite wrap around my head is "negging". What do you think about it? I feel really uncomfortable using it negs and all. Why would I want a girl to feel inferior when I can just make her feel like she's on my level?
Posted by Chase Amante on Saturday, 10 November 2012
I've actually got an article up on negs already - you can see it here:
Deconstructing the PUA Neg
Basically, my impression of negs are, it feels like something some nerdy 16-year old kid would do to a girl and then go back to his friends and say, "Score, I totally negged her and she loved it!" I've played around with them, and while you can work them into game, they're pretty hard to fit naturally into anything other than "entertainer-style" game, which isn't the most effective.
In that article linked to, I talk about curious indifference, which is what I recommend as an alternative to the neg. It has the same effect on women that negs are supposed to... it's just a lot more natural and a lot more powerful, is all.
And, as a bonus... it doesn't make you sound like a nerdy 16-year old who needs to take a break from the interaction for a moment to snicker about what her face looked like after he dropped his last neg bomb on her!
Anyway, check it out. You might find it a more useful option than negging. Cheers,
Video Examples of Indirect Direct?
Posted by JFav on Wednesday, 14 November 2012
After reading through this a couple of times I started to realize there is so much nonverbals I'm missing here. I just got back from watching Skyfall and after that movie I can tell EXACTLY what u meant by indirect direct because that movie has plenty of examples. Now, what I'm curious on is guys who exude this. So, far you've said Pierce Brosnan, The Saint, any more? I'm definitely going to look thru the epic movie seduction series again too.
Re: Video Examples of Indirect Direct?
Posted by Chase Amante on Wednesday, 14 November 2012
Indubitably, nonverbals are pretty hard to communicate over text. There's a lot of subtlety that we simply don't have good descriptive words for in English to discuss.
My own nonverbals are bit and pieces picked up from various different places. I've always like Ryan Reynolds's characters, particularly the title role in Van Wilder, though you've got to be careful not to go overboard with that one too far into cheesy (you need to keep a strong sexual undercurrent, which he does very well in that film).
Yes, definitely check out the "Epic Movie Seductions" series. Ricardus has a bunch of gems in there, many of which I haven't seen myself yet, but I know from his descriptions of them and what some of the commenters had to say on there that there's plenty of gold in those there hills.
This guy is on to something
Posted by Hazy on Wednesday, 14 November 2012
Coming from a lady who has seen many a guy approach via true-indirect, Chase, you are spot on. Hide the banana is lame.com, nothing sexy, appealing, intriguing, and i will NOT likely be interested unless you are one of the finest guys i have ever laid eyes on, and i would sleep with you regardless. LOL. just saying. Good advice to the fellas Chase.
Re: This guy is on to something
Posted by Chase Amante on Wednesday, 14 November 2012
Thanks for the female perspective, Hazy! Amazing how many people are willing to trade the things they want for a little ego protection, isn't it...
Hello Chase, there's
Posted by D on Tuesday, 5 February 2013
there's something about indirect rapport I'm not sure you've covered and it might be interesting. Very often and especially with girls whom you're likely to meet again -
colleagues, fellow students etc. - it seems to me going true indirect could make sense (while still being sexy that is, but not saying "I'm kidding, I just thought you were cute" which is in fact direct but just delayed 3 seconds) because it allows the girl to pretend she didn't know you were seducing her. She can then tell herself (or her friends) that she's completely innocent and didn't help you or make it easy for you. On the other hand, directness and indirect direct polarize reactions so it can easily become awkward if you have to see them on a regular basis afterwards. Maybe you could add a few words on this.
I was thinking about the same
Posted by OC on Tuesday, 19 March 2013
I was thinking about the same thing,and mostly I have the same vagueness.I like to be true indirect with girls that I don't necessary want to hook up with,but I still want to get them attracted to me(collegues,fellow students,my sister's girlfriends) ,and it works.In this way I'm playfull,cocky and interesting.Also I noticed that NEGs work too ,I've tried it on some 'bitchy' ,high-confident girls from my entourage and now they view me as a man of high value,compared with the other guys from the group.
So Chase,what do you think?
Flying Under the Radar
Posted by Chase Amante on Wednesday, 27 March 2013
Dave / OC
-Just made a post on your topic about this here:
Can You Flirt at Work Under the Radar? Why Yes You Can
OC, you'd just use the same stuff from here, but skip the part about turning that flirting into anything substantial and stick to keeping it pure flirtation.
Indirect direct approach in a nightclub
Posted by MJones on Saturday, 22 June 2013
What a great article it helps out so much!
I completely understand how the coffee shop example would work, and YES it really does make me picture James Bond in that situation.
But my question is that, how could you use that approach in a nightclub, and do you have a conversation example of this?
..As the coffee shop example makes out that the guy isn't keen on the place with it being 'gauche' and everything, and how she looks like she shouldn't be there either. But in a nightclub both of the people are there cause they want to be there so that approach couldn't really work, could it??