She’ll Do What She Has to to Get What She Wants | Girls Chase

She’ll Do What She Has to to Get What She Wants

Chase Amante

Hey! Chase Amante here.

You've read all the free articles I can offer you for this month.

If you'd like to read more, I've got to ask for your help keeping the lights on at Girls Chase.

Click a plan below to sign up now and get right back to reading. It's only 99¢ the first month.

Already a GirlsChase.com subscriber? Log in here.

Chase Amante's picture

get what she wants
Girls: pretty darn good at getting what they want from men.

Apologies if this is a little rough-written. I haven’t slept in 36 hours (save a pair of 30-minute cat naps) and just spent 24 of those hours in a hospital emergency ward (not for myself; the injured party’s going to be fine we think). There’s a story there, though not sure if I want to share it. Suffice it to say 24 hours in an emergency ward surrounded by people in dire conditions with loved ones wailing over terrible tragedies is not something you want to experience if you have the chance to avoid it.

If you’re waiting to hear back from me via email, please be patient; I’m back over at the hospital again tonight, and if I’m not too tired after 60 hours of no-sleep I will get back to you within the next day. Anyway, we’ve got a website to run here, and the show must go on, so... on with the article.

I’ve had a few articles on female psychology I’ve been meaning to get up. This is one of them.

One of the strangest things you will notice when men talk about women is that men fall into roughly four different camps on how they think of the opposite sex:

  1. The white knight camp: “Women are all saints and angels and must be protected from horrible men!”

  2. The doesn’t care camp: “I don’t really know what women’s deal is, but so long as I’ve got one to cook me dinner and give me a blow job I don’t worry about it.”

  3. The bitter guy camp: “Women are all evil, scheming, manipulative succubae whose sole purpose in life is to cause men misery!”

  4. The ladies man camp: “Women are cute, silly beings who can be fickle and changeable, but they’re a whole heck of a lot of fun.”

The first guy is living in La-La Land, of course. He’s the white knight who dreams of trading his valor and loyalty in for an often ill-defined sexual payday. And the second guy just doesn’t know, and doesn’t care to spend the brain cells trying to know.

But what can we say about the third and fourth guys? Guy #3 looks at Guy #4 and mistakes him for Guy #1. Or he thinks he must have it good with women and has never seen their true nature. Guy #4 looks at Guy #3 and says there’s a guy who just doesn’t know how to push the right buttons with girls.

But is one of these guys wrong? Both men are drawing from often extensive experience reinforcing their views. Guy #4 gets laid plenty, has wonderful girlfriends who devote themselves to him, and overall has a great time with girls. Guy #3 gets ignored by women, taken advantage of by them, and screwed over in his relationships.

So what gives? Is Guy #3 just a crummier judge of character than Guy #4 is? He’s choosing the wrong women? Or maybe he’s just worse at meeting girls and running relationships?

While those things are generally true (i.e., guys with negative thoughts about women tend to harbor these thoughts because they aren’t good at getting what they want with girls), there’s more to the puzzle.

The ‘more’ in question is this: a girl’s going to do what she has to do to get what she wants from you. The difference between Guy #3 and Guy #4 is that Guy #4 makes sure women do things he wants to get what they want from him. Guy #3 has no such standard.

Comments

Alexander's picture

Interesting article for sure, but the question I had is about what you do with tests.

Say she starts testing you to stress test you as you say, if it's truly to get what she wants would a proper test reaction just be to ignore her and then leave?

Say you're at the house watching a movie, and she starts testing you. Can you just leave right then and there to say that this behavior is absolutely wrong and I won't be a part of it?

Obviously I don't mean just a single little test that you can just say no to and move on, but say she just lobbed like 3 tests in a row at you or something to that effect?

Thanks!

Evank's picture

In general, you don't want to seem like your emotions were hurt. So try shrugging off her tests or make light of them. Don't let her see that they bother you if they really do. And don't be brutally honest about how it makes you feel, because it'll come off like they effect you too much.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Just to add a little more on tests - detail on handling various kinds of tests in these articles:

Like Evan notes, be wary of overreacting. If she pushes you a bit and you just get up and walk out, it's too high effort a response for the situation. However, if she keeps digging at something, and you've told her repeatedly to knock it off and that it's bugging you and you want her to talk to you calmly or quit it, and she keeps at it, at that point if she persists, find to stand up and say, "That's it, I'm leaving."

Just make sure she understands why you do something so she knows how to adjust her behavior properly. Most girls won't push you to the point of leaving - well, once you've left once or twice and they know you mean it when you say it.

Chase

Marcus Boateng's picture

"And that will only be what you want if you’ve done a proper job aligning her incentives to match your desired outcome."
Are you saying women don't love men at all but are just objects they use.

N's picture

Thanks for another eye-opening article, Chase, and for putting in the effort despite your conditions. Hope your relative recovers fast. Please get some (well-deserved) rest.

Hugh Mungus's picture

The honest truth is, most men in modern societies are screwed, and It's not even their fault, they were just unlucky to be born during this time. If they were born 50 years ago, most would probably be strong men. Plus, nowadays most men will never even know that getting good with women is an option. I'd say 9/10 are doomed to live a lackluster sexual life, while the rest get all the spoils. Truly tragic.

Lawliet's picture

Well that's a good note.

Hey Chase,

Hope everything is alright on your end. Thanks for this article on women and unmasking. I always had a feeling how the society is not only unconstraining on women, but also giving them more preferential benefit of doubt (such as rape accusations or cases of crime where a woman and a man are perpetrators, the woman can put all blame on the man and get away free as a victim...quite opposite to what we talk about in the article!)

Re: People pick fights

I've tried to word this for months. So I apologize if it's unorganized, but I did ask pieces of questions to ensure you catch what I'm getting at, the fuller picture in this comment.

I finally figured what it is these people are doing that spirals me into confusion.
Not talking about physical fights but verbal.
They intentionally arouse confusion.
People who are close to you, such as a brother or father.
How do you deal with this?

An example to illustrate my point:
Someone close to you asks for your help. Such as help translate to another language (random)
Your dad doesn't know punjabi and you do.
So you explain what it says, they ask so what does that mean?
Paper doesn't say, so you just tell them exactly what you see, you don't know.

Then they start getting accusational and accuse you of not helping them.
Or your brother who tells you to get him something, you do, and he accuses you of not doing it.
It's strange because it's unexpected to be accused while you're putting effort out for the benefit of others.

Now I know, it's a fight.

I usually explain: "No, I'm doing x y and z, so ABC is not the case"
But it feels weak, powerful men like us probably won't be defensive.
What would you do?

And this concern always come back in my mind, what if they really don't understand your perspective and results in accusing you? How would we handle that.

Re: If that someone isn't close or is one of your girlfriend
Like this article, women get what they want through all ways.
What if someone accuses you of doing something and you didn't, or complain you're late/didn't do the laundry/at fault because of X, how would a powerful man like us handle it?

Or if they blame you for X, how would we explain without seeming defensive and weak?

If it is someone close, we can't ignore things like these since we still see these people in our lives.

But if it's someone not as close, a friend or one of your girlfriend (close but I feel we hold our standards same),
how would you react? Would we ignore?

Lawliet

Lawliet's picture

Sorry for the long note.
I've been kerfuffled by this, spent months trying to figure out what was it people were doing, so wrote more detail in this one.

A: "How are you feeling? You don't look too well"
B: Why? You want me unwell don't you.

B: You not coming back to grab your stuff?
A: I am, still busy unlocking the door.

This is the third type.
It seems like accusations disguised in harmless content, and the other person explains themselves.
It might be accidental and just their phrasing (second one) or it could be intentional and more offensive (the first one).

And lastly,
A: I forgot my phone.
B: Did you intentionally leave it or did you forget it?

I don't even know what this one is...
This one is in the context of B texting to A, but A not replying.
They meet in person, and this was the conversation.

Would you handle these the same way as my first comment?
Or are these an entirely different animal?
Do you have a name for what these people are doing?

Thanks,
Lawliet

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Lawliet-

Yeah, those kinds of accusations are annoying. However, as you're the one who's done the favor, the moral high ground is on your side, so they're easily turned in your favor:

Bro: Can you do me this favor?

You: [do the favor]

Bro: I can't believe you still didn't do the favor! Some brother you are.

You: Are you KIDDING me??? I just DID you the favor, and now you're flipping out saying I DIDN'T do it for you? Screw that, I'm not helping you anymore. Do your own favors.

The key is to highlight how ungrateful the other person is for you having done the good deed he asked you to do. Moral force is on your side. The formula is "I did it --> you're ungrateful --> I'm not helping you anymore."

If someone accuses you of doing something you didn't, same thing. Go meta and use moral indignation: "Well, you can accuse me of whatever garbage you want, it isn't going to change the fact I didn't do it." I'll use absurdist examples in that case, too: "I mean, you can tell me I just went out and shot 50 people, or that I'm a secret billionaire hiding all his wealth in a Swiss bank. You can accuse me of ANYTHING! Doesn't mean it's true. Just means you're accusing me of it. Well you can take your accusations and shove them."

Your third type are passive-aggressive responses to negative framing or nagging dialogue from you. If you don't want people responding that way, don't tell them they look poor or nag them so much.

Last one is people using paranoid frames on you. Either she's trying to be funny, or she's near auto-rejection (could be she's just a paranoid person constantly on the cusp of auto-rejection with everyone). In response to something like that phone one, I'd just say, "I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean," and force her to clarify whether it's a joke or she actually thinks you might intentionally leave your phone to avoid her calls/texts.

Chase

Josh in NYC's picture

I realize that the objective was to suggest that women's behavior will shape who you are (good or bad)

It makes me think are that women are the goal have no thought or innate loyalty. They just want what they want. It makes me question my GF motivations, and that without being continually perfect she could leave at any time. Anybody could leave at any time, but that they are unable to be loyal. It feels personal and unsafe

Franco Lombardi's picture

Josh,

I think you missed the point of the article a bit. Womens' behavior won't shape who you are -- it'll just indicate where you're at (in regards to your masculinity, dominance, and overall success). By no means are you required to change who you are because of a woman's behavior, but if you want to have success with them, then you need to become the man that they desire of your own accord.

It makes me think are that women are the goal have no thought or innate loyalty. They just want what they want.

Most men think of "loyalty" as some form of one-time contract. "Once she decided to become my girlfriend, she agreed to be loyal to me." But that's not quite how it works. Loyalty is a flexible attribute to women; if you give them reasons to be loyal, then they will be loyal. But if you give them reasons NOT to be loyal, even if you're already in an exclusive relationship, then it would be in your best interest to not assume they may not be loyal.

Women's loyalty comes from their level of respect for you. If you are constantly giving them reasons to respect you as a man, then in return, they will show you ferocious loyalty -- more than even some members of your family will ever give you. However, if you begin to weaken or become less attractive in ways that causes them to lose respect for you, then why should they continue to show you the same loyalty? If you think about it, as men, we generally desire the same things that women do from us: if your girlfriend was thin and beautiful when you first started dating her, would you still respect her exactly the same way if she suddenly became fat and ugly? Probably not, right? So why would you expect her to continue to feel the same way about you if you suddenly became weak and stopped leading -- the equivalent of "fat" and "ugly" for women?

The difference here is that women are emotionally strong enough to abandon ship when they know that the captain isn't leading the boat in the right direction. Most men are scared of leaving their girlfriends if they become fat/disrespectful/loathing because they are afraid of being unable to go out and meet new and better women -- and most women know this. However, a man who commands the respect of his woman and shows the capability of being able to replace her if she doesn't adhere to his standards is far more attractive to her. She'll be fiercely loyal because she knows loyalty is an attractive quality, and if she finds you attractive, then she'll work hard to continue to be as loyal as possible so that you find her attractive.

It makes me question my GF motivations, and that without being continually perfect she could leave at any time.

You don't have to be perfect. You just have to be better than what she thinks she's reasonably capable of getting. And as a man, this should make sense to you also -- why would you want to settle in a relationship with a woman that you know is well below your capability of obtaining? Women apply this rule throughout the entire course of a relationship. They expect you to remain the strong man that they showed their initial loyalty to. If you continue to be that strong man, then you have absolutely nothing to worry about. The loyalty will be there, and it will be there in droves.

At the same time, you should always be looking for ways to improve yourself. Her loyalty hinges on your ability to be a man she can respect, and any man who suddenly becomes not worth respecting is probably not worth her loyalty, either.

- Franco

JJ's picture

As a lady, I confess Chase is accurate. We simply dont back down, just never give up. Whether it has to take a decade or not it doesn't matter, but we don't hightail until we grasp or achieve what we've proposed ourselves to attain. I mean I even write things down a bucket list of sorts, I just never stop believing I will have everything I want happen and will do whatever it takes to make it possible. Wishes & things I covet usually take longer than i'd like them to become a realization, but they NEVER fail and eventually occur. I'm referring to big things not little things that I don't care if someone says no to. Its more in the territory of convincing men to obey my conditions at all times, additional guys to please me at travel destinations,receive through actions the expectations I explicitly expressed desire for from platonic relationships, professionally from superiors, when I was in school from my professors, advisors /counselors etc. I simply get those significant things I crave to happen. :). Only ppl I cant seem to ever get to abide me or please back/ be good enough for is my own family which really cuts me to the core -_-.

EvanK's picture

Wow, hell of an article, Chase! Hope all is well with you and everything you're going through.

Can you elaborate on what you wrote at the very end: "She can just be a girl, and let him be a man, and trust he’ll take all the action necessary to make what she wants occur." I'm curious about what these actions look like and how they actually play out?

Also, you mention that women test men to make sure they aren't fake-untamed. What does fake-untamed look like?

By the way, you mention guys in tech who aren't good at pick up but are good in relationships. I've seen this, but I question if they're really good. Unless you're with them all the time or see how their relationship will be 7 years in, I find that most of these girls who are with nerdy tech guys are looking for a provider. They want the money, stability, etc., but left to their own devices a woman will sink a ship not led by a strong man. Just my two cents.

This was a fantastic read. Please make more articles like this.

Cheers,
Evan

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Evan-

Well, it depends on what her goal is she's hoping he'll fulfill!

For instance, in a courtship, she'll often be hoping he'll:

  • Make her feel more and more comfortable
  • Make her feel more and more excited
  • Move things forward logistically
  • Not screw up and give her a reason to abandon ship
  • Handle any obstacles that come up (like her friends)

Or in the case of a relationship, she'll tend to hope that he'll:

  • Show ever more warmth, tenderness, and care for her
  • Yet not stop being the same guy she fell for in the beginning
  • Impress the socks off her friends and family
  • Show great and increasing career / provision potential

Etc.

There are certainly guys who are providers who suck at meeting girls and aren't so hot in relationships too. I was referring more to the guys who are attractive to women but routinely fumble on logistical / mechanical parts during pickups (e.g., guys who are solid flirts but bad at closing) - these guys in my experience can be great in relationships despite being mediocre at picking up. The girl can still never fully trust she has a guy like this in a relationship though because she knows girls like him and she doesn't know he's bad at closing (after all, he closed her).

By "fake-untamed", I simply meant the guy who acts all big and alpha, but as soon as she tests him he's doing whatever he can think of to try to win back her favor or not upset her. This is the guy who boasts about how strong he is, but it's all for show. He needs her.

And, noted on "more articles like this." I'll see what I can do!

Chase

Jason122's picture

Hi Chase,

If a woman wants an untamed man for his sexual/romantic power over her, where does it go from there? Is the man supposed to continue being the untamed sexual man? Will she not get bored or this and move on?

And what does it tell us if a woman has sex with an untamed man but stop seeing him? As in a woman who has sex with an untamed man and then pretty much cuts off contact with him even after his active persistence in seeing her again. Is it that some women just want an untamed man for a one night stand and nothing more OR do untamed men pretty much have a strong power over women that she should come back wanting more?

Your elaboration would greatly be appreciated!

-Jason

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Jason-

No, she won't get bored with the untamed sexual man, precisely because (as J.J. notes in the comment above), if it takes her 10 years to achieve something, she is going to continue to try to achieve something.

So long as the man remains attainable to her as a partner, taming him becomes the ultimate unwinnable game for her, and it never loses appeal. He is hers, yet not hers, and she desires to make him COMPLETELY hers - to feel him come under her spell. The notion that a man may be into her, and with her, yet not completely captivated by her is an irresistible game for a woman to engage in.

This is why women get bored with tamed men - the game is won. There's nothing left for them to win. The untamed man, though - so long as he remains attainable and keeps the relationship a good, healthy one - he can be desirable to her forever.

Chase

Mr. Shark's picture

Hello, Chase

I noticed that girls start to ignore me when I explain myself. It kinda bothers me because when I screw up, its like... she is a human, why does not she care where I am coming from? I am sure that it can be done from position of strength just as from position of weakness.

I mean stuff like on Tinder, she asks me what am I looking for there. And I usually look at the girl and based on what I look for *with her*, I answer. And it usually goes downhill. So lately, just today actually, I said "well, I am not exactly looking for a scrabble partner, what about you?" and she sent me this 5 row long text with lots of stuff in it.

Or like, I had a girl in a social circle, it was going well with her over text, just had to ask her out but I wanted to see if she is single first because I did not know so we talked about how she only has one good friend and that its almost as hard to find a good, honest female friend as finding a great guy. And I asked what its like when she already has both. And she replied why do I assume she does. And I let it be there for the day, but then in the evening I sent her some bullshit, precise wording would be "Because that is the positive option, not having that would be negative. And you strikes me as a girl who would rather wait for the right guy rather than to be with a wrong one just to be with someone". And then, we met at campus, it was weird, it shifted to a nice conversation about school basically... kill me. This one I understand why it is bad, but sometimes, it just sucks. You misplan something and she seems bothered and you try to explain where you made the error but she does not care. All she cares about was the outcome and that I screwed up. And I guess the only option is to accept women are this way and simply not explain myself to them.

Cheers

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Mr. Shark-

Yes, explaining yourself is more or less the kiss of death. It's logical, it's boring, and it's the opposite of flirtation.

Your sardonic "Well, I'm not exactly looking for a Scrabble partner on here" reply is great - it's flirty, and it points out the boring obviousness of the girl's question ("So what are you looking for on here?" --> well, duh. It's Tinder). Anything that points out the absurdity of her question is good.

Girls don't want explanations. They want flirtation. By explaining, you tell them you view them as a platonic interlocutor, rather than a sexual prospect. If you don't want that shift, stick to flirting over explaining.

Chase

UPDATE: Here's the article: Tactics Tuesdays: Never Explain Yourself (to Women)

Jimbo's picture

"A woman will do what she has to to get what she wants."

But isn't that what men do as well? I mean, isn't that what Game is all about: do what we have to do to get what we want?

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Jimbo-

Sure. I never said they didn't!

In general, most people don't seem to be as aware that other people are doing this, though. They tend to know that they are doing it, but not always that others are. Or the awareness is at a lower level of consciousness.

Also, men fall into complacency pretty quickly in their relationships - both their relationships with women they haven't slept with yet, and with women they have and are dating. Women never fall into complacency... There just isn't a complacency switch in the female brain. Because people tend to project, this is one men often aren't aware of - that she isn't happily sitting there going, "Everything's perfect and I have no need to fight for anything further with this man," but instead is sitting there going, "What else do I need to do now to get what I want from him?" Another way to put that might be that men want the battle to stop at sex. Sex happened, I'm hers, she's mine, now everybody can relax and we can all be happy. But for women, the battle never ends. She always needs to see if he's still manly, still loyal, still desirable, etc.

Chase

Jimbo's picture

Great article, though it would've been perfect if you gave a few practical and circumstancial examples of a tamed vs. an untamed (and calibrated) man.

Evank's picture

Chase alludes to it because it's been discussed before. A tamed man is the man who is not bound by societal norms. Societal norms in Western society tend to make men nice, preppy type of guys. Think of guys who wear polos, khakis, and opens doors for women. An untamed man, in an extreme sense, would be a biker type or a rockstar type who doesn't care what people thing. Now these are extremes and stereotypes. Obviously most people don't fit either category, but that's how you can imagine it to put things into context.

Jimbo's picture

Thanks for your answers, Evank.

You know what? Your examples made me think of something: it's all about the illusion of untamed.

Take rockstars. They're not breaking any laws by doing what they do. Neither are they social rules -- rock music and rock singers may have been unacceptable to a portion of my dad's generation, but it's pretty well accepted right now by the vast majority of society, even by older people. Nobody frowns on rockstars breaking their guitars, wearing torn jeans, or screeching their lungs out, or thinks they should be jailed or shunned for it -- on the contrary, most people love them for it. People know it's all just an act and yet it's true that rockstars do fit into the untamed mold when we try to think of untamed men.

As to bikers, I've mentioned that in a previous comment: I've known bikers personally, I've been around them on more than one occasion. All they do is form cliques, compare hogs (among themselves and among other gangs), drink and get high, talk ammo, and take rides through the US 50 to their hangouts (usually in certain bars). Again, nobody frowns on them, many of the members are known in their neighborhoods, yet people (myself included) still think of them as badasses because they have long hair, beards (or some other kind of facial hair), dress rough, and ride cool motorcycles, and travel in pack (the pack thing alone does have an intimidating air to it).

So yeah, what these two categories of people do is that they still give the illusion of badassery. And that seems to pretty much enough for people to considers them untamed. Something to keep in mind if one wants to go full untamed.

Also, frat members do dress preppy and yet get a lot of pussy. Though it's well-known they're pretty wild in their parties. And they also have that clique/gang thing.

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

"The majority of mankind are satisfied with appearance, and are more influenced by the things that seem than those that are."

-Niccolò Machiavelli

Amen, Nick!

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Jimbo-

Well, here's the biggest difference, and the one that is not illusory:

Could my man walk outside and go fuck another girl right now if he wanted to?

That's the difference between tamed and untamed. Whether she believes she truly has a sexual monopoly over you or not. That doesn't have to mean you are shagging other girls. It doesn't mean you need to be cheating if you're running a monogamous relationship. But she has to know that, if push comes to shove, you can go out there and stick your dick in another girl and feel good about it if you need to.

All the other things men do to paint themselves as badasses are just to adopt the appearances of the untamed, for various reasons. Untamed men are cool, untamed men are sexy, etc.

But if she started to feel like that is just for show, and you won't really go out and shag another girl, no matter what, you're tamed. You are hers, you're not going to leave, she can do whatever she wants.

Conversely, if you're the preppy khaki-wearing guy but she knows you can pull ass at the drop of a hat, you can be as nice and sweet and thoughtful as you want, but you will still be untamed.

It comes down to whether a man remains a sexual threat or not. Is he or isn't he?

The wild stallion isn't asking for the mare's permission to go mount other mares. He just mounts them and spreads his stud DNA around. The tamed male stallion just stands there staring at the ground even if a bunch of mares are waving their tales at him in heat. Whether she suspects you're the stud or she suspects you're the broken horse, that's the real difference.

Chase

Jimbo's picture

Hmm, I see. Thanks for the responses.

You know what? I think all women like it when their men screw other women. Maybe not on an emotional level (think, mammalian brain), but on a primal, sexual level, this titillates the hell out of them.

And come to think of it, if you look at public figures (politicians and such), how many women really left their husbands who've been caught cheating? I don't recall any. Most of the outrage comes from the rest of society.

Check this.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Most women won't admit to it as plainly or publicly as the women in those Twitter screenshots, but, yes... that's the gist of it.

-C

Jimbo's picture

Yeah. I also notice, both from these tweets and from the videos Mike posted below that black women tend to be a lot more candid than white girls about their true opinions on men. You'll rarely see a white girl admit openly that she has a thing for cheaters or bad boys and suchlike.

Jason H's picture

Hi Chase,

For a guy that's naturally a romantic, believes in monogamy and wants to run a strong relationship(but also flirtatious with all women, just is the way I am) what's the best way to communicate that I'm a sexual threat? I.e I'm prepared to push the boundaries because I have a better understanding of women and how they work now.

I've seen women be with men despite their outward flirtation with other women or in some case a one-off cheating. I've also seen women stick to their guys despite them showing no outwards flirtatious behaviour with women, but still are attractive men.

Is it essentially continuing to be a sexy man, successful, strong(and improving fundamentals). Or is there something more to it, that she has to see. I can imagine this depends on the type of woman as well.

How do you balance out the argument she brings up about you being flirtatious with other women but you calling her out if she's being flirtatious with other guys?

I'm essentially seeing two parts to the attraction formula: Being an attractive guy, strong voice, in control of his life, , successful, your experience with women etc

Being the guys that other girls want; this can be through talking about dates you've been on, other girls talking about how attractive you are etc it's like a domino effect and can trigger a girls attraction for you if other girls are interested in you.

Cheers!
Jason

Jimbo's picture

This part especially piqued my interest:

"And in fact, wealthy urban societies unshackle their women in ways equivalent to impoverished hunter-gatherer societies (it is the middle societies – the agricultural/pastoral ones – that place the most restrictions on their women; why is beyond the scope of this article, but basically seems to come down to these societies need to control their women more simply to survive)."

I wish you could expand on that in a future article, Chase. How and why do wealthy urban societies eventually end up unshackling their women? And how does this manifest itself in the behavior of said women? Also, in what ways is this similar to hunter-gatherer societies? And finally why do agricultural/pastoral ones need to control their women so much?

Thanks a lot, man.

Evank's picture

A new article isn't really needed on this since that would be too much of a sociology paper.

Wealthy/urban societies, in general, have safer environments both in a physical and social sense. Woman are safer, and as such, they can take roles in society without the threat of harm to them. These roles are "freer" roles, in which they can be liberated socially and sexually. This manifests itself as women being sexually free and dating many men at once, for example. In most third world countries, like Mexico, women and people in general are not as safe physically (kidnappings, rape, violence) and they are socially bound (less social freedom, less open-minded people, fewer institutions for higher education, etc.). This makes the women more conservative in society, and they will be less sexually/socially liberated and tend to be in more monogamous settings.

Jimbo's picture

Well, Chase did write sociology-type essays, and I loved them. Those make fascinating reads to me. So that's definitely part of his repertoire.

As to your explanation, there's certainly some of that, but there's also something else to it. Because see, you mentioned Mexico, well women there are slutty as hell, be in the way they dress or their level of promiscuity. Same for Mexican-Americans, who are also of lower socioeconomic status than whites. And same for black women who live in high-crime, poorer inner cities -- they have attitude, they're loud, screw around, and pop out babies from different fathers. Brazil is pretty unsafe yet Brazilian women are liberated, both by law and by society. Southeast Asians are also pretty loose in their sexual morality.

Conversely, Saudis and Emiratis are rich yet very conservative.

EvanK's picture

To your point about Mexican women being conservative, that's not true from what I've seen and studied. Mexican women IN Mexico are conservative. You mention Mexican-Americans being slutty, but they are not Mexicans in Mexico. Mexican-Americans are Westerners living in Western society, particularly the U.S. They are influenced and subject to all the societal norms of the U.S. Brazil is an exception, and one that defies this phenomenon for reasons way beyond our scope. But in general, it's not as poor as some of its neighbors. Take Colombia, for example. Women there are much more conservative in public.
To your point about Southeast Asians, I disagree here, too. They are in no way as sexually liberated as Western women. Just look at TV ads from Italy or France and you can see the sexual innuendo oozing out.
Finally, Saudis and Emiratis are not Western countries, so obviously the women are not sexually liberated. Their religious lifestyles trump their wealth in how open the people are. So, again, it's affluent Western societies we're talking about here.

Evan

Jimbo's picture

Your first comment didn't mention anything about Western countries. You just made the parallel between wealthy/urban and non-wealthy, and so that's what I was responding to.

Perhaps Chase could contribute if he visited Latin America, but based on accounts from Roosh from example (who visited Colombia), he really didn't have much trouble getting laid there.

And the reason I associate Southeast Asia with sexual liberation is that prostitution seems to be widely tolerated there, and also you hear things like a three-way gay marriage in Thailand (wtf).

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Jimbo-

Noted on your article request.

As a quick note, and this might clear up the discussion with you and Evan, pastoral/agricultural societies seem to trend toward sexual conservativeness due to their spread-out nature and the need for stronger family ties.

When individuals have the chance to, and no reason to stop them, they tend to sample as much of the dating pool as possible. This is part of the 'satisficing' drive people have with mate selection.

In agricultural societies, individuals have much less interaction with each other, since much of the time is spent on the farm. They only rarely come into contact with non-family members, at market in town or at a seasonal dance, for instance. Because mates seem scarce, they wed early, often to cousins (whom they see often and have a chance to build a romantic connection with), or to neighbors.

In hunter-gatherer societies, small groups of individuals are in constant close contact, sort of like being in high school / college, except all the time, throughout one's entire life. Just like people hook up a lot in high school and college, they do in hunter-gatherer societies too.

Urban environments are different - they don't have the constant close proximity of a hunter-gatherer tribe, but they offer plenty of mating options, unlike pastoral living. They have the added bonus of near total anonymity, since urban individuals are often living away from family members who might otherwise modulate their behavior, and are surrounded by sexy strangers. Because there are so many mating options, there's a lot of opportunity to sample many of the goods and arrive at a much better mate choice than you'd be likely to get in a more limited environment, like either a hunter-gatherer or agricultural setting.

In this sense, cities in Mexico and Thailand will tend to be more like cities in America than they are the pastoral regions in any of these countries, because the environment is more similar in these regards. This is why pretty much every urban area offers more or less an abundant of sex (except Toronto I guess). From friends I've had who've gone there, even Saudi Arabia has plenty of sex going on in its big cities, even among the locals there. They just have to be a lot more discreet and keep out of the eyes of the religious police, is all. And, apparently, anal is a REALLY big there, because the girls have to all be virgins when they get married. Just because you can't use the front door doesn't mean the back door isn't open instead...

Chase

Jimbo's picture

Hi, could you please add the following to my "examples of tamed vs. untamed" comment? Thanks.

"I mean, for example, I've always done well in school and I don't have a problem with my boss having authority over me, but I only do so for pragmatic reasons, for myself, usually to get enough money and power to truly to do whatever the hell I want, go wherever I want, at any time I like, associate with whomever I want, and be an independent in every possible way. So that's like being strategically tame for a while so I can afford to be untame.

The problem with married men who become pussywhipped is that they lose too much of that independence, of being able to go out and meet with the guys whenever they like, of taking trips, of hitting on chicks, of sleeping when they want, eating what they want, watching the programs they want, leaving the toilet seat up, dressing like losers on the weekends,... basically whatever made them men when they were bachelors (with a decent income to themselves). And even though a wife might appreciate that on a rational level, her now-tamed man just doesn't do it for her anymore. So yeah, I think for a married or LTR man to keep his missus respectful of him and attracted to him, he has to keep a healthy dose of "I do whatever the fuck I want and if you don't like it go pout elsewhere" into the relationship whenever challenged or else he loses his luster and whatever non-physical traits attracted her to him in the first place.

Of course he has to take his precautions first to be able to do that like putting his money in trust funds, prenup, keeping his pickup abilities honed, etc."

Jimbo's picture

I think women are just hardwired to use men to obtain or experience whatever things they want. I say this because even with the types of guys you'd think these chicks would just want them for sex, some of them still use them to experience the things they want (while still desiring sex with them).

When she goes for the untamed rebel, it's often because she has rebellious bones in her body and just wants someone she can tag along with and allows her to live her rebelliousness, so she'll find that type of guys hot.

If you act tough, she'll be aroused, yes, but she'll also want you to beat up some guys for her.

If she longs for order, she'll have the hots for the policemen of society (formal and informal) who put the jerks and rascals back in their places.

If she's for animal protection, she'll look for the guys who take initiative in that arena and are in the forefront of it.

If she has a leaking pipe, she'll find plumbers hot. And so on.

... as long as all of these guys act in a confident, authoritative, I-know-what-I'm-doing way, and do what they do because they want to and that's what they do (untamed).

I think that's the foundation of what makes a female aroused (or at least part of it) -- a capable man who gets her to obtain or experience the things she wants with her being on the passenger seat (or simply playing assistant), i.e. not having full control of what's happening.

Mike's picture

I'm glad it finally dawned on you buddy, but girls themselves have been saying that pretty openly for a while. If you look up "why i love bad boys" or something like that, you'll hear that some of the most recurrent reasons are that it's because they do the (bad) things girls wish they could do but don't dare to (like in this video), that they look like they could provide them with the fun and excitement they long for, get them out of everyday boredom (like in this one), or that they could protect them and do the dirty/risky things for them (this one). The last one also mentions that they're more of a challenge to turn into husband-material and that the girls love this task. Some of them also use them when they want to stick it to authority figures.

So yeah, female sexuality has always been titillated by getting it with men who (could) do the dirty or useful jobs for them, be it provide them with fun and excitement, manual labor, financial security, stick it to the Man, etc. because she has a pussy and she could "tag along with him" or be his assistant at it as you put it. And I say "could" because he doesn't have to actually do it to be aroused by the guy, especially if he happens to be confident and alpha about what he does--it's the potential that matters most.

Only difference is that if he has a strong character, is powerful, or masculine (compared to the woman), she'll want to fuck him too. If he doesn't she'll just try to use him to get the things she want from him and avoid fucking him.

Jimbo's picture

Thanks for expanding on (and confirming) my thought, Mike. I guess Al Bundy had it right all along when he said: "We're nothing more to women than an amusement park ride with life insurance."

Cale's picture

Recent reader Chase, thank you for your excellent work. I've come to realise a LOT of what I was doing wrong and those things I was doing mysteriously right.
But my eye got caught BIG TIME in this piece by your comment in passing:
*********************
"I should stress too that there are men who are terrific in relationships but awful at meeting new girls. I’ve known guys (often men with technology backgrounds) who didn’t know how to meet girls at all and took very little initiative to meet girls, but once they had a girl in a relationship, she was theirs. And I’ve known guys who were fantastic at piling up new lays and girlfriends, but they couldn’t keep a girl on to save their lives."

WOAHHHHH. Bro, help me out.
This is my life. I know two guys that can pull any woman, at any time. They are completely irresistable. But, they can never keep them for more than a month, two at the most.
Situation: Me. Technology background. Successful business owner. Confident and generally no fucks given around most people (including hotties I'm not especially interested in, or woman I wouldn't mind sleeping with) ... but for some reason that I am yet to source or correct - NERVOUS AS HELL (and meek) around girls I'm *seriously* into. Naturally, then, it's nearly impossible to get with the girls I really want.
Twice it's somehow happened, and we had...multi-year relationships where she was utterly loyal and devoted no matter what sort of badass tries to steal them or what disaster struck our lives. My neurotic anxiety wears off immediately once I get them to bed, and I revert to my usual personality with them thereafter, which is fairly dominant, some might say a little domineering (which I've worked on). I've missed out several important and fun relationships because of this issue. What the hell do I do?

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Cale-

That's an abundance menality thing: once you cross the threshold where you can easily sleep with girls who are your ideal, you stop being nervous around them prior to sex. But until you cross that threshold, it doesn't go away.

The only way to get this is to just go for enough girls like these and sleep with enough of them that your nervousness around them goes away. For me, it went after I'd taken four seeming 'dream girls' in about a five month period (in the midst of taking a bunch of other girls too). I had a small crisis of confidence after the second one and woke up one night thinking, "What if I never get another girl like that again?" and then a few weeks later I bedded the third one. I basically never get nervous around dream girl-type girls again. Now they're the girls I feel most relaxed around because I expect we'll have an electric connection and probably awesome sex.

So, mostly just about piling up enough experiences with this certain kind of woman who appeals most to you that she stops intimidating you anymore when you meet her. No easy way to it - you've just got to put in the work, do the approaches, run the dates, yet keep a special eye out for those special girls you really want... And run your process with them the same you would any girl.

Chase

Neal's picture

What's up Chase.

It's Neal again.

I was just thinking, about differences between women and men pastors.

It seems most attractive women are most mentally stable when it comes to atheism.

Atheism puts a very sour face to Black and Hispanic grandmas, but for young attractive ones, they seem to be the most flexible.

Zack Mike Hawk's picture

Every time I read your articles it makes me lose interest in women no joke.

SF's picture

ahah it really does for me too. Like right after reading this article, I just lost some interest in women. at least until i see some cute girl outside again ahah

i think since it is Chase's work/business to learn & teach about women & how to do well w/ them, he really goes into these things in depth a lot, kind of like business/econ where the textbooks are boring but in reality there's more fun to the actual application.

But this article does kind of portray women in a bad light tone-wise, makes a guy feel less trustworthy of women in general. It's because it gives the feel of them as always scheming/trying to get something from you in a using way, etc. I think it would've been better - and Chase kind of touched on this - but I think likely for most women these are instinctive feelings, they're not as manipulative as it can come across. it's almost like survival instincts I think. And also that it's not in a using way, like there's a more human element to this. I'm actually a bit confused now ahha.

Also I think it would've been better for Chase to better explain why women are like this, why are they so untamed/wild, I have an idea of maybe why but i don' think i'm really on top of understanding this situation.

it really started off poorly feel-wise right from the title haha. don't get me wrong tho, the info for guys was good, but the portrayal of women was discouraging

Leave a Comment

One Date girl next to the number one

Get The Girl In Just One Date

It only takes one date to get the girl you want. Best of all, the date's easy to get… and girls love it.

Inside One Date, You'll Learn

  • How to build instant chemistry
  • Ways to easily create arousal
  • How to get girls to do what you want
  • The secret to a devoted girlfriend

…and more great Girls Chase Tech