Social Commentary

Since my last article on the rebellious mind dealt with the concepts of uncertainty and unknowableness – topics which are always uncomfortable for us since human beings tend to be “truth seekers” who want a final answer (hence: science, religion, philosophy, etc.) – I figured I’d delve into a topic normally cloaked in unknowableness today too.

Specifically, I want to talk about the conflicts of interest inherent in romance and seduction, some of which are effectively irresolvable.

There are many simpler aspects of meeting and having relationships with women that are resolvable, such as:

• How to ask a girl out
• How to text a girl
• How to get a date
• How to sleep with girls
• How to begin a relationship
• How to manage your relationship

These all fall into tactical, operational, or, in the case of the last three (or a particularly tricky situation on the first three), some degree of strategic.

However, there are problems in romance that are unresolvable because you and the girl simply have end objectives that are too different, or even in active opposition.

These occur at the romance equivalent of “high strategy”, and if yours and hers are diametrically opposed, then one of you must submit his wants to the other’s wants, or the relationship will fail.

I suppose I should caveat then that these are normally unresolvable conflicts of interest – from time to time, one of you may cave to the other and give in to that other’s desire for where the relationship goes (or where it doesn’t go), but unless one party abandons what is in his or her best interests, these conflicts do not resolve in any way other than you and her going your separate ways and meeting other people.

Unless you hack your way around them, which we’ll also talk about (a little later), rather than address them head on again and again and again like what most people try and fail to do.

In “When to Throw the Ball into Her Court (and When Not To)”, a reader writes:

“You have some vague guides on believing certain things as well as some articles on what you should believe. You have some important ideas like independence and having conviction spread out throughout your site. What your website really lacks though is a guide to psychological strength. What it is, how you get it, why its more important then fundamentals (or at least as important). Many of your articles peripherally address this concept. What do I mean though by psychological strength? A great question, I’m glad you asked. I love concision so I’m going to describe it in two words. Irreverence and identity. I believe that true leadership and independence only comes from uprooting everything that influenced you in your past. Deconstructing your beliefs. Consciously assessing all your beliefs and finally replacing your previously held beliefs with new ones. These new beliefs are what give you conviction in your life. You form a new belief in yourself, a self-concept, self-respect, and self-adoration. Finally leading to self-actualization. It starts with irreverence and a challenging mentality of everything and finishes with an identity.
Ciao”

I have considered writing on this topic before, but shied away from it because I honestly don’t think it’s something that most people aspire to.

It’s also not something I have consciously learned to any degree, which makes me skeptical of its teachability – I don’t generally like talking about things that in my case are more natural ability than they are adopted qualities.

However, I suppose it’s at least worth having up for anyone curious for curiosity’s sake, so heck... why not talk about it.

Caveats out of the way then, allow me to present the psychological qualities of irreverence, personal conviction, and psychological independence – and how you perhaps may develop them if you choose to.

In this post we will be reflecting on sexual liberalism. If you have read some of my earlier posts, you have probably seen that I discuss this matter a lot, as it is something that I’m deeply interested in and I believe it to be extremely relevant to the field of seduction.

Previously I have discussed how each person should be free to live out their sexuality as they wish without having people judge them for it. As long the sex is consensual and no one is intentionally causing harm to the other person or a third party, people should be sexually free to do what they want.

If there is no harm involved then there is no reason for legal or moral restrictions.

But it is however the case in this world that most societies are not sexually liberated. Some societies have more sexually liberated cultures in them than others no doubt, but none can be classified as sexually liberated per se.

Women are still being labeled as sluts as a result of their sexual actions; men are still labelled as perverts for being sex obsessed, etc. Even though, legally speaking, most countries are either already liberalized or going through a liberalization process, morally speaking, not much change is taking place. The moralism around sexuality is still strong.

In this post, I cover whether or not we should aim for a sexually liberated world in the moral sense. Will a society with total sexual freedom, in the sense that people just have sex with each other as a result of horniness, without any moral limitations, be better than how things currently are? Do we benefit from the stop of moral policing?

Before we dive in, I would like you to know that I have been thinking a lot about this topic and my answer to this question is a result of much reflection. However, it still remains my personal opinion. There is no objective right or wrong in this case, and if your opinion differs from mine, do not hesitate to share it in the comment section – but, as this topic is politically and morally loaded, I ask you all to be constructive in your comments, not only for my sake but also for the other people reading.

In both the seduction community and the Manosphere, the term “beta male” is the diametrical opposite of the “alpha male”. He is also a contagious meme in the popular culture, but he is, contrary to the “alpha male”, usually referred to by folk terminology.

He is known as a “nice guy”.

As discussed in the previous article about “alpha male” and “sigma male” strategies, the term “beta male” is used in an imprecise way in the seduction community and the Manosphere, and I will thus not use it in the rest of this article. However, the almost synonymous concept of a “nice guy” is used in a rather consistent sense in contemporary society and it thus makes sense to discuss what characterizes him.

While there is much advice around on how socially dominant men behave and how to become more socially dominant, there is the problem that the advice usually only attempts to fix superficial behavior patterns of such “nice guys” and does not treat the underlying psychological conditionings that created the “nice guy” in the first place.

This is problematic because it causes incongruence, usually in the form of dominant behavior patterns that are in conflict with the underlying “nice guy” belief system.

There is also an incongruence problem in that a player lifestyle will generate reference experiences that are often deemed as negative in the “nice guy’s” belief system. This article will discuss how the “nice guy” has been conditioned and how the “nice guy” can recondition himself on multiple levels in order to become more socially successful. But first we will discuss why all these “nice guys” are around in the first place.

Note from Chase: this is a guest post from Sarah Williams of Wingman Magazine. In this article, Sarah shares the features in gay men that women find so alluring, and why women keep gay men in their lives and around them. If you haven’t spent much time in gay bars, you might be surprised how cute and sexually available the women who hang around gay men can be; if you’d like a peephole into why this is, this article’s a solid primer on the subject. Take it away, Sarah.

Imagine the scene: a bar, a pretty girl or even a group of good looking girls, all hanging out with just one guy in their circle. He doesn’t seem to be a Dan Bilzerian playboy type either. He’s just their friend, laughing and having a great time with all of them. This lucky guy is simply surrounded by hot females, who all get along very well with him, instead of hanging out with a bunch of dudes talking about football. He doesn’t seem to be doing anything special, but the most beautiful chicks stick to him like bees to a honeycomb... They all have so much fun together!  He treats the presence of beautiful girls around him as a naturally comfortable situation. Why couldn’t that be you who so easily enters and enjoys a group of beautiful girls without being completely awkward?

There is one major different between you and him – you’re not gay.

You’ve probably seen at least one pretty girl or even a group of pretty girls laughing and having fun with a gay guy. I personally love to hang out with gay guys even though I’m looking for straight men. As a single woman who lives in a big city, I have quite a bit of choice with whom I hang out with. I love going out with my girlfriends, and I’m friends with guys both at work and outside of work, but most of my very best male friends are gay!  And I’m definitely not the only female who appreciates their company…

What makes gay guys so special that women love to hang out with them?  What makes so many females choose gay guys as their best friends?

The answer is more complex than just sexual orientation. It touches on certain common characteristics and typical behaviors gay guys display towards women. When it comes to conquering women’s hearts, straight guys could learn a lot from gay guys.

It is taken for granted, as well it should be, that women respect strong men and detest weak ones. There is no way around it, and no amount of pretty, eloquent fluffiness will detract from the impact it already has on your life.

You see it everywhere: women throwing themselves at men with spines while trampling on those without and laughing in their faces.

Today’s article is not a discussion of strength in the physical sense – you can find articles on how to get in great shape elsewhere on this website. Instead, this is about a topic that I don’t often see discussed: being a man of conviction.

Some good Hollywood examples of men with conviction are James Bond and Han Solo; classic archetypal males who get the job done and get laid doing it.

This is the first in a three-part series on regional sexual selection pressures. This piece introduces the concept of “game imbalance”, defines it, and posits it as a contributing cause of men’s difficulties with women.

I have an alternate theory why certain classes of men struggle with women far more than certain other classes do, on average. Alternate from what most guys cite: looks discrimination, racial discrimination, height discrimination, income discrimination, etc.

The one we’ve been seeing the most complaints from on the discussion boards lately are men of Indian descent. Asian and Arab guys struggle a lot as well. Of course, men of all races complain about their inabilities to succeed with women (and I’ve heard plenty of success stories and known personally plenty of successful guys from all of these racial groups), but some of these race-level complaints are far more ubiquitous than others.

So what makes the difference?

I have a theory. Actually, a hypothesis. I’d like to call it “game imbalance hypothesis.”

And if you’ll walk with me a moment, I’ll show you how I think the effect the hypothesis describes is hampering certain men and favoring others in the sexual marketplace.