Over the years, the tactics needed to turn on Western girls have shifted. As sex destigmatizes, subtlety has gone out the window.
Are you born talented, or do you learn it? Varoon reviews the book… plus why some men succeed as others flounder.
Throughout the history of the Girls Chase boards, I and some others have noticed two kinds of people who post:
Guys who ask few specific questions but are desperate to become perfect in dating right away, hoping to get from A to Z – right away, right now. They fixate on acquiring all the information ASAP to “beat the final boss” in the dating game, yet they never seem to post reports or focus on specific areas they need help with. They don’t want to play the game and learn it themselves over time, as all woman-experienced men have done. Over a period of months, they ask the same questions over and over without ever field testing advice given by guys with experience. Typically they get frustrated over their lack of results... and quit.
Guys who put forth specific situations and ask very specific questions, then listen to and immediately follow the advice they get. These guys have accepted and evaluated their current strengths and weaknesses, and they know exactly where they need to grow. These guys are asking lots of questions that are very pointed to specific areas needing improvement, and after they learn something new, they go field test it, over and over until they get it right. These guys have field reports popping up repeatedly with new questions or new skills. They post frequently but also demonstrate improving results.
I’ve always noticed that those men who’ve grown steadfastly and quickly tend to be the second type of guy. And in addition to the big pushes from Chase and others to go and practice rather than simply reading GC and learning, I discovered that I and those men have grown more through focused effort. In effect, we were training our behavior through live practice and feedback from the women around us.
Then I started reading Talent is Overrated by Geoff Colvin. This book argues that no human being is inherently talented; instead, we become extraordinary only through focused and deliberate effort. Everything clicked.
We’ve talked about this before in How to Master Anything. One of the tools that will get you the best, most consistent results in the long term in ANY field or exercise – including the art of attracting women – is deliberate practice.
If you think about success with women as cause and effect, you’ve got it all wrong. You must think in terms of probabilities.
First off, causality and probability are not opposites.
But from a mental models point of view, they may as well be.
Most people in most walks of life think about things in terms of causality. Causes have effects, and effects have causes. If X happens, it’s because you did Y... or someone did. And if you do Y, X will happen.
This is what we might call ‘normal thinking’. It’s how the untrained mind interprets everything.
If you go out to the bar at night, and meet a girl, and you and her end up in bed together, you caused that.
If you hit on a girl in the office, and she rejects you, and then the entire office mocks you for weeks for it, you caused that too.
We’re going to unpack a lot of this thinking today. I’m going to show you why it’s not entirely correct, and in fact is more incorrect than correct.
Along the way, I’m going to expose a lot of wrong thoughts you likely have about seduction, about social interaction, and about the way the world itself works.
How does Buddhism relate to dating? While you refine your persona, you must put on a “false face”… Yet as you do you deceive yourself, as much as others.
I was talking to a coaching client of mine the other day. He expressed to me how badly he wanted to be a “seduction machine” and that he was willing to do anything to reach that level.
I smiled. His enthusiasm and drive was uplifting. Also, he was willing to pay good money for probably one of the most important skills a man can have in his life: the ability to connect with women emotionally, romantically, and sexually; that is a sign of drive if anything is.
However, progress is not so simple. Or, to put it another way, it is far simpler than you can imagine.
In his imagination, he had this grand idea of “the master seducer” – a version of himself that is everything he’s ever wanted it to be: to have a voice that sizzles women’s ears and makes their pussies tremble, to walk and move with the grace and power of a seasoned warrior, to have eyes that undress women literally and emotionally, and to have a voice that commands them as though Zeus himself demanded their obedience.
Unfortunately, this self is a mirage. Fortunately, it is also closer to you than your skin and your bones.
This is not a contradiction. Contradictions are when one thing needs to be right, and you say both are. This, instead, is a paradox: both statements are correct yet seem contradictory.
And it’s been my experience that if you are following a path of inquiry and have not yet reached a paradox, you haven’t gone far enough.
Some men argue that to learn game is to be a “slave to pussy”. Is this argument valid? Or is it a flawed argument that misses the big picture?
If you’ve been working on your game for any not too-short period of time, you’ve probably heard the Slave to Pussy™ Argument. That argument goes something like this:
“Don’t waste your time on girls, you’re just being a slave to pussy. Instead you should be hunting, fishing, working out, stacking money, and making something of yourself. Let the women come to you.”
I suppose you might also call this the Field of Dreams Argument: if you build it, they will come.
Get rich enough, jacked enough, and masculine enough first. Then, girls will begin to pop into your life all on their own.
Obviously, if you know me, or this website, you know I’m going to tell you this argument is bunk. The idea that you don’t need to learn game to do better with girls (or put in the practice to solidify that game) is one we’ll tear apart here.
But before we even dive into these arguments, I’ll point out one
flaw of this argument. That is its setup of game (learning to do
well with girls) and
(turning yourself into a man with attractive passive value) as two
opposing, mutually exclusive forces – when the
truth is, these two forces are complementary. That is to say, learning
game does not stop you from working out or stacking money; and you
should develop yourself in multiple
ways (yes, learn game, but also lift, and improve your financial
prospects too. And read a lot of good books). We’ll
dive into this
further below... But first, a comment on the men who don’t even think
your fundamentals are worth improving.
What is masculinity? Who defines it – who makes the rules? Is it intrinsic, or culturally determined? And is it even “real”?
Sometime back, I came across an intriguing double bind.
I found it in the comments section of some feminist website, on an article written by a man about his enjoyment of pegging (i.e., when a man lets a woman shag him with a strap-on). Some male commenter had insulted this writer, and called him less than a man.
But then, the feminist readers of the website piled onto this commenter. And they all had the same attack line for him:
“What’s the matter, are you
man enough to take it up the butt?”
It’s a fascinating rhetorical device. Either you agree to receptive anal sex, which has profound effects on the male psyche (anecdotally, men who receive anal sex become more feminine, moodier, and bitchier), effectively making you no longer a full ‘man’... Or you don’t agree to receptive anal sex, in which case you are ‘not man enough’.
This double bind got me thinking: what is masculinity, anyway? How
do we define what is or isn’t masculine? Who in our society holds the
right to craft these definitions, women or men? Is masculinity decided
by the society, by the man, or by something else?
The answers will intrigue you, I think.
And don’t worry – in the end, we’ll address that feminist double bind attack too, and show how a firm concept of masculinity makes attacks like these run off you like water.
To pay for sex or not? What are the benefits to your game (and life)... And what are the risks?
A few years back, on my article about pornography addiction, a reader named John Jones asked about prostitution:
Great article. I do have a major problem. Every few months I get a prostitute. I find that paying $300 for an hour of a blowjob and sex is a good deal but I know I shouldn’t be doing this.
Can you please write an article about prostitution? Or give me some advice. I read a lot of your writings, and I gotta admit, I aspire to be like you and think the way you do. You really do have it together, brother.
So, let me say before I get into this, there are a lot of men with entrenched, emotional opinions about this issue within the manosphere on the Internet.
Some of these guys love prostitutes, and view any advice against using prostitutes as a personal attack. They see it either as an attempt to undermine their freedom / control them by taking prostitutes away or making their patronage unacceptable (or illegal)... Or they view criticism as a personal attack that undermines their personal value or status as men.
Others of these guys hate prostitutes, and view them as dirty, degenerate, and/or disgusting, and/or view the men who patronize prostitutes as pathetic or weak.
I’m going to come at this article from a different angle.
I’m here neither to condemn nor absolve. Instead, I’m going to talk with you about what I have seen, again and again, repeatedly, among the various groups of men who use prostitutes, and the effects (both good and bad) prostitution can have on men.
The bad guy compels because he isn’t afraid to speak truth and break rules. But more than this – he is a product of his zeitgeist.
There’s been a funny trend of late, in film and other media.
The bad guys are sexy. They’re cool. Way, way cooler than the good guys.
Vincent in Collateral. Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men. The Joker in The Dark Knight.
And among the coolest guys in cinema who aren’t out-and-out bad guys? Well, the other cool guys aren’t good guys either. They’re anti-heroes, like Johnny Depp’s Captain Jack Sparrow, Brad Pitt’s Tyler Durden, or Guy Pearce’s Eric in The Rover.
The bad guy hasn’t always been cool. In most older movies, the good guy is significantly cooler, more interesting, and more relatable than the bad guy.
Yet in more recent films, the good guy is often... Too gullible. Too naïve. And he stays that way.
You watch old movies, and if the good guy starts off too naïve, he eventually comes to understand the way of the world, yet remain a strong, firm good guy at the end of it. In more recent films, the good guy always finds a way to remain more or less entrenched in his bubble of ‘correctness’, despite whatever pitfalls befall him along the way.
I propose that in topsy-turvy times, when black is white and up is down and left is right, those men who attack and upend the established order of things are those we most intuitively grasp as those who must be ‘correct’. And because they see fit to buck a powerful trend that has most individuals cowed, not only are they correct... they are powerful.
And power, no matter what the era, is always sexy and cool.
A review of The Rational Male, a book focused at upending fem-centric thinking in men and teaching them to think like men again.
Rollo Tomassi’s book, The Rational Male, is an amalgamation of essays from content on his own website, The Rational Male, and other dating advice forums where he frequently contributes. I came across this book by chance on Amazon and found the content interesting enough to warrant a look.
This series of writings tunes men in to the dynamics of the human sexual marketplace through an exploration of human behavioral and evolutionary psychology, and demonstrates how such concepts show up culturally and politically. Tomassi’s intent is to educate the average man about his sexual potential, options, leverage, and strategies in his general relationship with women while exploring women’s sexual strategies, relationship strategies, and social conventions that we see commonplace today. Rollo summarizes this himself near the end of his book:
“My intent with all this is to illustrate how the reality in which we find things ‘normal’ is rendered by fem-centric influence. Across ethnicities, and encompassing all manner of social diversity, this influence is so insaturated into our culture, laws, media, entertainment, from our collective social consciousness to our individual psyches that we simply take it for granted as the operative framework in which we live. I realize this is a tough pill to swallow, because male imperative does in fact intersect with female imperative depending on mutual goals. However, the point is that of operative framework, the reality we function in, is primarily defined by the feminine.”
– p. 266
The now well-known men’s self improvement community, which includes the “manosphere,” consists of many trains of thought and communities devoted to understanding the masculine-feminine dynamic. Rollo’s background consists of what he terms a “rock-star” 20s that led to pursuing a university degree in behaviorism psychology at age 32. This, coupled with his intense life experience and his near decade use of forums as a testing ground for ideas on sexual dynamics and attracting women, led him to be a critical author in the manosphere and men’s rights community.
This book is based on many psychological concepts, and also ventures deep into the darker elements of the masculine-feminine dynamic and human sexuality. I caution readers toward its content and suggest reading with a curious mind. I consider Rollo’s book more appropriate for intermediates looking to advance their skill set to the next level in their relationship with women, as it is critical to develop healthy mindsets about women and sexuality in order to use that power responsibility.
Power is power, and we have a responsibility as men to use it ethically – as seen in the core philosophies of Girls Chase, we always practice from a mindset of love and adventure, never from one of hate, revenge, or negativity. However, for many men who find this community on their own, they see a world that bitterly challenges deeply rooted beliefs. From the book:
“Game was a wondrous tool set of skills, but without the insight or foresight to deal with what these tools could build, it was potentially like giving children dynamite.”
– p. 113
With that in mind, let’s explore.
The women of the 1910s and 1920s had a lot more in common with the women of the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s than you might suspect.
I’m usually anathema to making predictions, since these so often
turn out wrong. However, the pendulum seems to be swinging in earnest,
so at this point I think I am more pointing out a shift that’s already
started and probably isn’t able to be derailed. So let’s get to it.
From 2015 into 2016, we in the West experienced what a lot of writers on the Internet have dubbed ‘peak SJW’. Victim mentality hit its shrillest levels, the concept of certain groups as ‘privileged’ and thus ‘the enemy’ reached boiling point, and efforts to censor, outlaw, or subjugate target groups hit their apogee.
This phenomenon, of ‘peak SJW’ (Social Justice Warrior), followed the trend all movements follow in the ‘boiling point’ period. That is, they rise to a fevered pitch, then one of two things happen:
They use this momentum to topple over and completely crush their enemies, or
They spin themselves out against an indomitable foe, run out of gas, and enter decline
Movements work the same as tests or challenges in this regard. So long as the movement is able to gain concessions from its adversaries, it becomes more and more powerful. But as the movement begins to run into walls, or see its efforts backfire, it begins to lose steam. It loses, and the negative momentum of being on the losing side piles up. A reverse winner effect takes hold within the movement.
Why the Social Justice movement was ultimately unsuccessful in crushing its opponents in the West is beyond the scope of this article. However, I will note that successful Social Justice movements at other points in history that eventually achieved more or less full suppression of their enemies have been more careful to incorporate majority groups in their ranks, rather than target said majority groups as the object of their offense.
That aside, the point of this article is to give you a few predictions about how to expect women’s behavior to shift over the next couple of years.