Trouble with Neo-Direct

Guys who try ‘gaming’ women with this new-style “neo-direct” game aren’t gaming girls. They’re simping IRL. Which explains the harsh rejections neo-direct gamers get.

Note: I will be criticizing super-direct (neo-direct) game in this post. However, I want to emphasize that I am not attacking direct game. I have previously been harsh about direct game, but those posts were mostly a criticism of super-neo direct game that I intend to criticize here. I will clarify further in my next two posts. I have a post on direct game coming out soon and will explain how to run it properly to get maximum efficiency and consistency. Stay tuned.

Hey guys.

Today I want to add my take on women and high standards in the era of social media and simping. I want to link this phenomenon with the surge of neo-direct game.

Direct game has become more popular lately.

However, the new form that has become more popular (which Chase calls “neo-direct game”) mostly teaches men to spam-approach on the street, show interest, and hope for the best.

These techniques have done nothing good for men, aside from giving them the balls to approach girls.

Girls with inflated egos from social media, plus the high amount of simping, only leads them to hunt for more validation. With this new form of direct game, you give her exactly what she wants. But now, you are not of much value to her—that is, unless she is looking for sex. Your odds are low since it is more likely that she would just call an F-buddy to satisfy her needs rather than going along with a stranger from the street.

Never have men obtained such bad results as they have using this approach to pick up. I have read reports on forums (some are from our own forum) of guys doing 100 approaches and only getting two lays. Those numbers don’t shock me, considering the style they apply.

What shocks me is that these results are considered normal. They are not. These men have been misled.

Such a ratio is not normal for someone who has made hundreds of approaches. The number of guys sharing these numbers may seem like outliers, but they are not; it is common. They do have one thing in common: they all used this super-direct approach.

Some guys are stubborn and stick to this bad routine because that’s how some of us are. (I have been guilty of this myself). Others just give up. The latter guys come to our forum or post in our comment section that women have too high standards. Chase wrote an amazing piece on the subject. I am not adding anything to his brilliant post.

It makes sense that many men think that women today have high standards. If you opt for super-direct game (neo-direct game), you will often get rejected. From there, it is easy to assume that you are not enough for her and that women’s standards have gone up drastically.

And in all honesty, in some ways, they have gone up. I will add a different perspective to Chase’s theory that doesn’t really conflict.

This “neo” super-direct game is no different than simping on the internet. Women indeed get plenty of attention from hungry, desperate men online. Just look at the surge of “sexual” services on OnlyFans.com, and all the attention-whoring on Instagram. Even Tinder is now used primarily as a tool to gain new followers on Instagram.

What we see coming out of neo-direct game is brutal. It is simping. Most beautiful women are used to such behavior. Even those who are not completely histrionic on social media will get some level of simping from different dating apps or elsewhere.

All this is because the internet facilitates two factors:

• Male simping

• Female attention-whoring

The internet motivates simping because this behavior in real life (especially night game) often results in a harsh rejection.

Why?

In real life, women have to reject to get rid of such men so they don’t annoy them or follow them around. There is also the danger of some men becoming sexual harassers.

Yet harsh rejections are not needed on the web because everyone is behind a screen. The men who follow a beautiful woman online either live far away or have no way of finding out where she lives. If an online fan goes too far, she block him, report him, and have him banned. So she does not need to reject harshly.

Men can stick around online since it does not pose any danger to her, and it can benefit her social status and validation. Instead of harsh rejections, women may give men a “like” to their comment as a pitiful reward, and if they are lucky, they even get an “Oh, you are so nice :D” comment.

However, once back to real life, women reject a stranger’s approach as a safety measure, especially when he is too pushy and forcing her into a corner. Remember that women have a risk-averse nature. (Read my theoretical post on female state control for more information.) A woman will usually choose the safe option, to reject, even if she considered you cute or interesting. She doesn’t know you and wants to play it safe. Smiling back and playing along will signify that she accepts your approach, which could potentially drag her into something she may later regret.

This fact has always been true. The club served as the main ground for attention-seeking behavior in the past,. (This still happens in clubs today, but the web now outcompetes it.) It’s why women have their shields up in clubs. Constantly dealing with frumpy and bitchy women, leading to plenty of harsh rejections, demotivates many men from using simping-like behavior in clubs. This is the reason why indirect game was revolutionary back in the 2000s. It was the opposite of simping behavior. It was a countermeasure to the harsh rejections men would face in clubs.

More and more men are arguing women’s standards are over-inflated. Does it help to argue against that… or should we be aiding guys to sidestep those standards?

Meta post here.

Something's been bugging me for a few years now, feeling like this shift is occurring in the men's space and I'm not keeping my thumb on it totally accurately. After I did two posts on standards last week, I mulled it over over Christmas weekend and I think this whole thing about standards is actually it -- and that we need to make a bit of a course correct here.

For years we've had more and more men drifting onto the site complaining women's standards are too high or that women "aren't worth the work" to get. What began as a trickle became a deluge... then a tidal wave.

Initially, I treated these guys as a nuisance.

I placed them in the same category as feminists telling us we should die or guys telling us pickup is wrong because it's manipulation or that premarital sex is wrong because it hurts women or goes against God's law or what have you.

Then as more and more of the 'too high standards guys' appeared, I just continued treating them that way because I was already in that habit.

They'd come back, claiming it didn't matter what I was saying; if I didn't agree with them I just "didn't get it."

Again, everybody with a strong belief system does this: feminists say we don't get it when we don't accept the patriarchy, "pickup is wrong" folks say we don't get it when we tell them it's not wrong, etc. It's a world views thing.

Yet at the same time, I've watched the seduction space slowly but steadily decline, even as the number of men declaring women's standards are too damn high and women aren't worth the work has exploded.

I've started to realize that unless I can speak to those guys, in a language that clicks with them, I am going to fail to serve what has over time become the majority of men out there, most of whom are frustrated, lonely, and feeling helpless. Arguing with them over whether women's standards are or aren't too high doesn't accomplish that.

So I had a good think, and I realized we need to switch around how we are coming at things a bit here.