Men are Penetrators. Women are Receivers | Girls Chase

Men are Penetrators. Women are Receivers

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

receivers and penetrators
A man’s ability to penetrate defines him, just as a woman’s capacity to receive defines her. But it isn’t just physical penetration: it’s mental and emotional too.

What is different between woman and man?

In 1908, Sigmund Freud introduced the concept of ‘penis envy’ in his article “On the Sexual Theories of Children.” The (rather circuitous) thought process Freud believed little girls went through included wanting to have sex with their mothers, realizing they lacked the equipment for this, then blaming their mothers for their ‘castration’ and turning their affections toward their fathers.

Freud himself admitted not really ‘getting’ women, and his attempts to psychoanalyze them seem to make clear he never really did ‘get’ them.

Yet ‘penis envy’ is a real phenomenon (even if it may not come about quite as Freud imagined). More or less every woman experiences, at some point, the desire to be the penetrator herself. To know what it feels like to thrust the reproductive part of her body into the body of another. Even women, who cannot penetrate, recognize the power of the role.

Men who struggle with masculinity invariably are men who have lost sight of this uniquely masculine role – the role of the penetrator. And they have forgotten women’s uniquely feminine one – the role of recipient. Unlocking masculinity in yourself, and unlocking femininity in the women around you, comes down, to large extent, to this question: can you penetrate, and will she receive?

Comments

Jimbo's picture

I understand being more dominant than your woman physically or in your character, but how does one dominate intellectually? Like by knowing more stuff than she does in a certain topic? Because I've never perceived book-smarts as being sexy.

Mr. Shark's picture

Hi,

Intellectual would mean having great intellect, which lots of people prescribe to many things. Like, if you know something others dont (be it a fact or something else entirely), they will tell you that you are intelligent. Same for solving some problems. Sometimes even showing a leadership ability (because you solve a problem like, get from A to B). Another could showing your analytical skills, your critical thinking, using the right vocabulary. For example a girl once told me that having certain standard I have seems bad to her, because the girl cannot change it. So I said I understand her, but also said that I thought she meant influence (because it was about eye color). And she said that was what she meant. Another intellectual thing could be found in this article. Chase saying that women all across the spectrum is more intellectual than someone stating that all women want only the most macho alpha guys. Simply because what Chase said is closer to reality. Another thing could be showing your experience. Like you talk about anything and she uses general knowledge like that media screw your views the way they want and you tell her that the regular reporter is just finding good stories, editor might want to run with it, but at the top, there is some dude, who thinks people are not ready for that or whatever oter reason he has. But they are all people with different drives and wants. Also, sharing some stuff that others accept aswell shows intellect because those people feel like "you nailed the head" when you talk about that stuff. Like someone says cheating is ok, and you its not and you argue. Majority views cheating as bad. Another, winning arguments. Someone might accuse you of something, like that you do not care about others because you did not come to some event and you say that ypu were busy with work this time because you have a big client who demands a big procet this month. And you can add that whenever you have time, you go out with guys and to ask Pete to confirm it (best used if Pete is there). Which could be considered frame control which Case mentions lots of times to be important.

Jimbo's picture

The picture's clearer now. Thanks for your response man.

Footbig's picture

Chase loving your latest articles. Read your article on make her orgasm in 8 minutes or less, how else can I make a girl orgasm P-I-V?

What do you do specifically?

Caz doing the same stuff over & over can get mundane you know.

Also looking at studies, why do you think so many women (about 50%) rarely orgasm PIV, & only about 30% do orgasm PIV? You think it's the guy's lack of technique? Never talked to my guy friends about this caz I feel like guys & their ego would up their tales

You make it sound easy tho to give women hard, penetrative orgasms ;)

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Footbig,

Glad to hear it!

Once you've trained a girl to orgasm (or found one who already can), you can bring her to a penis-in-vagina orgasm in any position. However, some are easier than others, and her level of foreplay / arousal before you begin has a big impact on how quickly and easily (or not) you can bring her there.

Women have trouble orgasming due to a combination of 'immature defense mechanisms' and partner performance. The better you are at both the technical and psychological aspects of sex, the easier it is to make her cum. But by the same coin, if you find a girl with high immature defense mechanisms, it can take time to train her to orgasm from sex (sometimes a lot of time - sometimes years).

This is why on average if you sleep with women in their thirties, then sleep with women in their late teens, you'll notice many more of the women in their thirties you sleep with are orgasmic during sex than the women you sleep with in their late teens. The younger girls haven't learned to let go, immerse themselves in the sex, and let it happen yet.

Even among older women, there are plenty who've never learned how to orgasm from sex yet, though. Some girls have higher defense mechanisms than others. And many just never meet a man who's all that good (or all that interested in his woman's sexual satisfaction).

If you have a girl you want to train how to orgasm, check out this article:

3 Steps to Help Her to Orgasm from Sex

Chase

Pedro García 's picture

Chase,
It would be greatly appreciated if you did an article on penis size. I know that it seems pretty random(or maybe it's seeing the word penetrate a lot in this article) but I think that it's a topic that needs to discussed... Please craft something of that nature in the future. Thank you!

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Pedro-

Got it noted down!

Chase

UPDATE: Here's the article: "Will Women Date You If You Have a Small Penis?"

LOL123321's picture

So water is wet and sky is blue

Somedude's picture

Water isn't wet. It gets things wet but its not wet, lmao.

Jimbo's picture

Shit's getting too deep around here...

.'s picture

As others have already stated, you are on a roll with brilliantly insightful articles recently!

Would be interested in your view about traditional Islamic thought, i.e. as defined in the Koran, regarding sexual roles between men and women (in a sexual, that is, “married” context as far as the Koran is concerned), because many of the ideas you write seem to resonate with the social precepts written in the Koran about the respective “marital” roles between men and women (e.g. male dominance, female submission; and the male responsibility to ensure the [sexual] satisfaction of his wife/wives; etc.).

Would also be interested in your ideas/experiences about how penetration vs reception views are being applied to 21st century society, because even though women may want to be the receiver and submit *to her own man*, judging from your comments about the type of women you personally prefer as mates, you would be aware that this does not mean that she would want to submit to anybody else in her life (e.g. submit to her family/friends, and certainly not in her professional/academic life, that is, as long as she has an ambition to achieve in that realm).

Also, even though this site is primarily designed for heterosexual men, 21st century society also comes to accept LGBT lifestyle, relationships and legal rights relating thereto. It would be interesting to know the extent to which your ideas of the penetration vs reception dynamic applies to gay/lesbian couples in particular. As an afterthought, it’d even be interesting to know about surveys/statistics of dominance/receptiveness roles of gay couples or lesbian couples in general.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

.-

I've yet to read the Koran (have it on my e-reader... but I have a lot of stuff on my e-reader!), so am not nearly as well-versed in its teachings than I am in, say, what the Bible has to say about this. However, seeing as Islam is an Abrahamic faith, I would assume the basis for much of what the Koran lays out is rooted in the Old Testament, which I am pretty familiar with.

My thoughts are, generally, that it depends for the man what the purpose of having a wife is. However, if your purpose for having a wife is to serve you, support you, and aid you in achieving your goals - be that raising a family or building an empire - then you absolutely need a 'dominant man, submissive woman' paradigm. That doesn't mean you have to have a whipped woman, and if you read the Old Testament in the Bible (and I assume it's this way in the Koran as well), there are some pretty tough chicks, who serve their husbands well and are fiercely loyal to them, yet remain strong and effective.

The point of the 'one dominant, one supporting' partner paradigm is to create an effective working union. You do not have an effective union that can achieve much if you have an alliance between peers, with the man working on his goals and the woman working on his goals. One partner must be in support of the other. And if you reverse the roles (dominant female, supporting male), you get a messy situation, because females in the dominant position invariably seek out more dominant males. Every long-term dominant female, submissive male situation I've seen involves some degree of the female using her dominance to give herself freedom to chase after sex with more dominant males. Males are responsible for almost the entirety of invention, business formation, and empire building, which means if you want an effective society, you generally need effective men with strong support from their women. Conversely, if you want to tear a society apart at the seams, simply encourage its women to make war on its men.

My views on penetratoin-reception in 21st century Western society is this: it's down to the man. Women in a lot of societies (not just 21st century Western society) are good at coming out on top in the battle of the sexes. However, if you put a man who knows what he's about and has rock-solid frame control into the mix, it doesn't matter. Women will still submit to him, no matter how wild and liberated the environment. That said, environment does matter a lot, and the more liberated the environment, the more of a challenge it is to make a woman fully devote herself to a union with a man; the more restrictive the environment, the less challenging this is. This is why society plays such a large role in determining how strong or weak the family is and, thus, how strong or weak the nation ultimately is. Most men are not masters of frame control, and even those that are tire out and lose their patience in environments that pit them against the world.

And, as far as homosexual relationships go, penetration-reception is absolutely a part of this, too. I talked about this a bit in both voluntary and forced (e.g., prison rape) scenarios in a forum post a few months back:

Re: Is Sexual Orientation Born or Bred?

Chase

Pistol's picture

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/14/donald-tr...

Chase I respect you so much but that bit on Syrian refugees was an egregious simplification of a complex issue into manospheric nonsense. I admire your irreverence for political correctness because it is normally balanced by your hyper cultivated base paradigm- the notion that there are many angles and nuances to every issue. You've never been one to lash out with a poorly fact checked polemic- which makes me speculate this may be a product of personal experience with refugees throughout your travels. While the narrative you crafted is humorous, there is much more going on in the minds of male liberals than a subconscious desire to be cuckolded by savages more in touch with their penetrative nature. There is raw human empathy at play (which obviously needs to be tempered by rationality- although there are many historical examples of long term economic benefit coming from a well operated refugee assimilation) as well as a humanitarian desire to reify the International Refugee Law crafted in the aftermath of WWII.

An interesting side note- Steve Jobs' father was a Syrian refugee. Perhaps his entrepreneurial virility is a direct product of his dad's inherent penetrative savagery ;)

Eric L.'s picture

As a German myself, I am shocked Chase went with such an ill-informed and ignorant view of the refugees. The stories in the media of the locals being raped is ridiculous and click bate. Sad to see Chase go down that road instead of the higher road of the open-minded and cultured.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Watch this video, gents:

If you're getting your news from the mainstream media, all you're getting is propaganda.

That doesn't mean there can't be great and amazing refugees. We're talking about populations, not individuals. At an individual level, you can find any example or anecdote to support any position.

Steve Jobs's father, by the way, was an immigrant, not a refugee. Syria was a very different place when Jobs's father migrated to America than it is right now.

Eric, your country has some of the most stringent anti-speech laws in the world, and some of the hardest core propaganda in the news and television media. Germany makes the Chinese look like free speech advocates. Be very careful before you accept what these people are telling you.

Both of you, read this article:

Mind Control: How Media Influence Your Thoughts and Feelings

Chase

Pistol's picture

Chase, if we're talking pure propaganda, that's a video that would make Eddie Bernays proud. Most of it is taken completely out of context:

http://www.vice.com/read/with-open-gates-the-forced-collective-suicide-o...

I don't want to undermine you or strike a disrespectful tone (as I may have with my incorrect assertion about Steve Jobs's father- although he did flee because of protests and volatility in the region). I had a girl tell me I was something out of a romance novel the other day and in my head I thought, "Thanks to Chase Amante." But that just shows how influential you can be in shaping a young, impressionable man confused by this uncertain world.

That's why you have to realize that with this topic hatred can spread like wildfire. I'm sure many of the guys reading this site, especially the younger ones, take your word to be gospel. If some pissed off virgin kid trying to cut his teeth in a Berlin nightclub strikes out and walks home alone, it isn't hard to imagine him taking his frustration out on a Muslim refugee passerby on the subway (noting that even his sage mentor put aside his characteristic level-headedness for this particular scourge). The cycle continues as the Muslim refugee feels unwelcome and retreats deeper into his own community instead of assimilating into Western values and culture.

If we want to end radical-Islamic terrorism, we need to bring the next generation closer to Western values, not push them away to fringe communities, where echo chambers encourage militancy. The migrant crisis is only going to get worse in the coming years due to climate change;

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ominous-story-of-syria-climat...

With the globalist-nationalist rift in the West (where you think my side is pure propaganda, and I think the same of yours) bringing so much vitriol into the region, you may be right about bringing more refugees in. But if we do not discuss the potential solutions and handle this crisis with tact we are in for a much more formidable opponent in the War on Terror, and a much less pleasant world.

One last note, about the mainstream media. I understand that a handful of multinational corporations such as Comcast, Disney, Time Warner, Viacom etc. control much of what people see and read, as well as how it is covered, and what is omitted. But I wouldn't cast the more sophisticated New York Times, New Yorker, Atlantic (even Bezos' Washington Post, the most establishment of the major outlets, does a lot of good reporting) as baseless propaganda. Since we humans possess imperfect perception we are wired for subjectivity, and feigning objectivity by normalizing the Trump administration would be a complete sacrifice of integrity.

But that is a whole other discussion and I am sure you are extremely busy making the world a better place by sculpting men into romantic stallions. The reason I have taken the time to challenge you on this issue is because I believe you are on a higher level than the rest of the manosphere, where you sculpt those young men to not only be studs, but heroic, compassionate, and thoughtful stewards of this earth.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Pistol-

You seem to think me uninformed and buying into propaganda! I assure you, the reverse is true.

I just try not to talk about this stuff on here too much because a.) it isn't the goal of the site, and I've worked hard to keep us from veering too far off topic (most guys get bored of talking about seduction all the time, and almost every seduction blog turns into something about politics or morals or values or whatever... see Roosh, Mark Manson, etc.), and b.) it's whole 'nother can of worms.

However, since we're on the topic...

That Vice article is classic 'win by nitpicking and diversion': "the fact that X detail isn't mentioned means Y argument is completely invalid." This is what the rise of populism is primarily against; its individuals' collective refusal to be stumped into silence and inaction by critics saying, "Well, you got this one detail wrong, so your entire argument needs to be ignored."

Allow me to rephrase the Vice critique in blunt, direct language:

  • Argument: migrants burning and destroying things because the police killed a migrant has nothing to do with the behavior of third world immigrants in Europe whatsoever. It should not be included in a discussion of their impact. (argument made about clips at the 2:40, 2:55)

  • Argument: some of the migrants aren't 2015 refugees, but rather migrants from earlier waves. If third world migrants did not come in the 2015 refugee wave, we should not include them in a discussion of whether Europe should be home to large amounts of third world migrants. (argument made about Islamic State supporters attacking Kurds in Germany, pro-Kurds attacking Turks, many other spots in the video)

  • Argument: some of the videos show migrant supporters beating up random people, not migrants themselves making these attacks. Therefore, we should not include them in a discussion of whether third world migrants are bad for Europe and whether their enablers (i.e., migrant supporters) are people we should listen to. (antifa beating up Slovakian migrant)

  • Argument: migrants rioting and destroying the island of Lesvos, or breaking through Hungary's fences to keep them out, because they were denied passage on to continue, is completely understandable. It should not be shown in a video about the effect of migrants in Europe. (Greek woman at start of video, migrants crashing through fences)

  • Argument: Donald Trump is quoted that migrants are mostly 'strong, fit men.' This isn't true [no statistics are given by Philip Kleinfeld, author of this article, to support his assertion; however the official statistics are that 66% of migrants into Europe are male. Among 'accompanied minors' - a number which includes a great many men in their 20s, 30s, and some in their 40s posing as teens to get easier entry into Europe and more free stuff - the number is approximately 90% male. So, in fact, Donald Trump is correct, and Philip Kleinfeld is the one who is misinformed]. Therefore it should not be included in a discussion of who these people are and whether Europe should welcome more of them in.

  • Argument: language was dubbed of a migrant saying, "I want money to smoke and give it to my mother in Syria," when in fact he said, "I want money to smoke and calling my mother in Syria." It's touching that he wants to call his mother; we should welcome more of these people in and give them more money. Similar argument for a migrant saying "Their money [in Germany] is very good" vs "Germany is very good." Because he doesn't explicitly state that he is going to Germany because of all the free stuff (i.e., money) Germany offers migrants when compared with places like Croatia, this clip should not be included. Since we can't know exactly with 100% certainy what he's talking about, of course. He could be going to Germany because of his passion for schnitzel or the German language... we don't know for SURE that he is going there for handouts / asylum. They should've left him out of the video.

  • Argument: the train of migrants talking about how they will make it hard on the women of Europe and Islamize Europe occurred in 2010 on a train into Paris, not in 2015 on a train into Frankfurt. Therefore, this video has no part in a discussion of the effect of third world immigration on Europe and should not be included.

  • Argument: the third world immigrants protesting against the police in the U.K. is from a clip from 2012. Since this is not a clip about the 2015 migrants, it has no part in a discussion about the effect of third world immigration on Europe and should not be included.

  • Argument: third world immigrants talking about out-breeding Belgians and replacing Belgian law with Sharia law is not worth discussing because 'most people' do not take this discussion seriously. It has no part in a discussion of the impact of third world immigration on Europe and should not be included.

And then there's a bunch of stuff saying that any discussion of third world immigration into Europe makes you a Nazi racist Jew-hater, so (essentially) you should shut up, open the gates, open your wallet, and welcome these people in. There are other value judgments throughout the piece as well, such as calling Hungary's border fence with Serbia 'shameful'.

All this criticism is paper thin, and attempts to reframe the message of the video in an extremely limited frame (i.e., exclusively a question of non-Western migration into Europe during 2015; oh, and any reaction of said migrants to being stopped from immigrating or in reaction to criminal migrants being killed by police must be excused or ignored because wouldn't you burn things, attack people, or tear down fences if [fill in your race/ethnicity/national background] criminals were shot or you weren't allowed into some place offering you free stuff?).

What is 'hate' by the way? Is it hateful to not want someone to steal from, murder, or rape you? I don't think so. Normally we call this 'sensible'. Is it hateful to separate oneself from others who actually do 'hate' you? While there are plenty of exceptions, the majority of the individuals who are streaming into Europe from the third world are not coming there because they love the Sistine Chapel and marvel at the history of Charlemagne and Alexander. And they do not hold those Europeans welcoming them in in high esteem.

You forget that Europe does not need these people. It is not a right to immigrate into Europe. Anymore that it is my right to come to your home and demand that you feed me and grant me residency for as long as I like. Europe is not welcoming in the rocket scientists and brain surgeons from these regions; it's taking in the Islamic state fighters, the thieves, and the low-lifes. It's lain out the welcome mat for any who wants to come in. It's madness.

If you want my opinion, there should absolutely be nations that welcome migrants from the Middle East and Northern Africa, and they should be the nations in these regions. Their cultures are far more similar and these migrants will integrate much better. I propose we open the borders of Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, and Israel to the migrants of these regions. Once each of them has taken in 5% to 10% of their population in migrants, perhaps Europe can look again at taking in some more itself.

(also, in my opinion, the constant war in the Middle East - which creates many of these migrant flows in the first place - is utter madness as well. What has the murder of Muammar Gaddafi accomplished? What was the point of the U.S. arming Al'Qaeda in Iraq, which later became ISIS? Why is the U.S. supporting 'Syrian rebels' - who are Islamic state / Sharia fighters - to overthrow the secular government of Syria, which looks a lot more like Europe than what the rebels want to replace it with? Why is the U.S. funneling weapons and money to Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which then funnel weapons and money to ISIS? Why did the U.S. announce its offensive in Mosul far in advance, giving time for ISIS's leaders to leave, before then invading Mosul and broadcasting the token victory as a momentus one in the fight against ISIS? There's a whole lot that stinks in that region of the world; the people fleeing there have my sympathy, but opening the doors into soft, socialist, complacent Europe is not a good idea unless the goal is to toughen up and re-Viking Europe by forcing Europeans into direct conflict with a more savage people - which is I suspect exactly what will happen, and what seems to be happening)

As for the mainstream media... I followed much of it throughout the past year. The Washington Post is an America Pravda - the stuff they post has so much spin in it you get dizzy just looking at it. The New York Times I've followed over the years and even before this past year they had little credibility with me. I used to read them all the time and marvel at how often they'd announce a "new trend in [X]", only for the article to reveal that there were two or three people doing this "new trend". Classic news angle (since time immemorial), but impossible to trust a news source when it runs articles like this. This year, however, the Times fought tooth and nail to prevent a Trump election, and even stated outright that its reporters saw it as their duty to prevent "the next Hitler" from coming to power. Even that would've been tolerable, except that the smugness of these papers in how assured they were of their own correctness, erudition, and self-righteous morality was absolutely insufferable. The Times has never been a balanced paper though - even in the 1930s, it discussed the danger of Hitler's rise to power in Nazi Germany, while glossing over the genocide of millions of Cossacks, Ukrainians, etc. in the Soviet Union and instead writing glowing reports of the region.

My goal in pointing out the migrant crisis situation is not to breed hate against these people. It is to prevent it. Because I assure you, the more Europeans feel they are under siege by a foreign people that does not share their values, the more they will come to 'other' the people of these backgrounds, and the more they really will hate. Importing huge numbers of young, sexually frustrated men from savage cultures into a soft, wealthy, complacent society has never been a recipe for good things. I would hope the leaders of tomorrow studied history more and made statecraft more carefully, to avoid unnecessary struggles, suffering, and possibly war, like what's begun brewing in Europe over the last half decade.

Chase

Pistol's picture

Propaganda is defined as “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.” The Vice article attempts to humanize the refugees, and points out the blatant spin on “With Open Gates.” But I don’t want that article to make my argument for me, because as you’ve pointed out it is weak in empirical substance.

"Donald Trump is quoted that migrants are mostly 'strong, fit men.' This isn't true [no statistics are given by Philip Kleinfeld, author of this article, to support his assertion; however the official statistics are that 66% of migrants into Europe are male. Among 'accompanied minors' - a number which includes a great many men in their 20s, 30s, and some in their 40s posing as teens to get easier entry into Europe and more free stuff - the number is approximately 90% male. So, in fact, Donald Trump is correct, and Philip Kleinfeld is the one who is misinformed]. Therefore it should not be included in a discussion of who these people are and whether Europe should welcome more of them in."

You use 76% in your article above (Men are Penetrators women are Receivers), here you say 66%. Where are you getting these statistics?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/14/donald-tr...

"All this criticism is paper thin, and attempts to reframe the message of the video in an extremely limited frame (i.e., exclusively a question of non-Western migration into Europe during 2015; oh, and any reaction of said migrants to being stopped from immigrating or in reaction to criminal migrants being killed by police must be excused or ignored because wouldn't you burn things, attack people, or tear down fences if [fill in your race/ethnicity/national background] criminals were shot or you weren't allowed into some place offering you free stuff?)."

You point out their value judgments, but in the article above you call the refugees savages. This is equally paper thin criticism. So let’s look at statistics involving populations, not individual or anecdotal representations.

According to the Migration Policy Institute, “The United States has resettled 784,000 refugees since September 11, 2001. In those 14 years, exactly three resettled refugees have been arrested for planning terrorist activities—and it is worth noting two were not planning an attack in the United States and the plans of the third were barely credible.”

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/684679

“There is a heated debate on whether immigration is associated with domestic and transnational terrorism. As of yet, however, we lacked rigorous evidence that could inform this debate. As a contribution to address this shortcoming, we report spatial-econometric analyses of migrant inflows and the number of terrorist attacks in 145 countries between 1970 and 2000. The results suggest that migrants stemming from terrorist-prone states moving to another country are indeed an important vehicle through which terrorism does diffuse. Having said that, the findings also highlight that migrant inflows per se actually lead to a lower level of terrorist attacks. This research significantly improves our understanding of international and domestic terrorism and has critical implications for the scholastic approach to terrorism, as well as for countries’ immigration policies worldwide.”

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/11/donald-tr...

Please check out the above statistics when you get the chance. This isn’t cherry picked data. This is systematic analysis.

"What is 'hate' by the way? Is it hateful to not want someone to steal from, murder, or rape you? I don't think so. Normally we call this 'sensible'. Is it hateful to separate oneself from others who actually do 'hate' you?"

Hate is defined as “intense or passionate dislike.” The rhetoric in your article may not reflect your internal feelings, as I am sure you genuinely do sympathize with these people on some level. But you are “othering” them, by calling them wild savages. According to the data above, you are demagoguing an entire population. This incited hatred.

"While there are plenty of exceptions, the majority of the individuals who are streaming into Europe from the third world are not coming there because they love the Sistine Chapel and marvel at the history of Charlemagne and Alexander. And they do not hold those Europeans welcoming them in in high esteem."

I’m sure some of them are as enthralled by European culture as you and me. But yes their primary reason is not tourism, it is escaping persecution and providing a life for their children. The ones I’ve met do hold Europeans in high esteem, far more so than the Gulf Countries that have turned their backs to them, for what it is worth.

"You forget that Europe does not need these people. It is not a right to immigrate into Europe. Anymore that it is my right to come to your home and demand that you feed me and grant me residency for as long as I like. Europe is not welcoming in the rocket scientists and brain surgeons from these regions; it's taking in the Islamic state fighters, the thieves, and the low-lifes. It's lain out the welcome mat for any who wants to come in. It's madness."

The whole premise of international law is to evolve past antiquated realpolitik mentalities. The 1951 United Nations Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees reflect this. Of the 145 states that have ratified the Convention and the 146 that have ratified the Protocol, Europe is a willing participant (as is the US).

Europe is also definitely welcoming refugees with professional backgrounds. Here is another interesting article, although I will not claim it is enough to represent the entire population.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/08/professional-refugees-lawy...

As far as the mat being lain out to anyone who wants to come in, I feel that is an exaggeration, but I do believe Europe needs a more cohesive, safe, single migration system.

"If you want my opinion, there should absolutely be nations that welcome migrants from the Middle East and Northern Africa, and they should be the nations in these regions. Their cultures are far more similar and these migrants will integrate much better. I propose we open the borders of Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, and Israel to the migrants of these regions. Once each of them has taken in 5% to 10% of their population in migrants, perhaps Europe can look again at taking in some more itself."

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/02/syrias-refugee-crisis-in-...

• Turkey hosts 2.5 million refugees from Syria, more than any other country worldwide
• Lebanon hosts approximately 1.1 million refugees from Syria which amounts to around one in five people in the country
• Jordan hosts approximately 635,324 refugees from Syria, which amounts to about 10% of the population
• Iraq where 3.9 million people are already internally displaced hosts 245,022 refugees from Syria
• Egypt hosts 117,658 refugees from Syria

Indeed, the Gulf States have acted shamefully (sometimes value judgments are justified) in helping their neighbors out, in spite of their proximity and incredible wealth. But in many countries, your percentage demanded has been achieved (especially in proportion to their own size and native population). According to your criteria, it is time for the West to look into taking some more in.

And what is the alternative? If your statistics were correct, that would leave a bunch of unemployed, uneducated, impoverished young men out to dry, and an easy scape goat for radical Imams to channel their disillusionment towards (the West). Sounds like the recipe for terrorism.

The Times isn’t a monolithic entity. It is an outlet for a variety of writers. Indeed, there are shameful omissions in their history such as the lead up to WWII and the way they covered the Arbenz affair and other CIA coups during the Cold War. But their crusade against Trump (in spite of all its smugness) has been totally vindicated in light of his cabinet choices. Comparing him to Hitler isn’t entirely applicable since Hitler was a dedicated ideologue and Trump changes his rhetoric to reflect his audience. But Trump has repeatedly mentioned developing a Muslim registry. Flynn, his pick for national security adviser, said he wouldn’t rule out killing the innocent families of terrorists. Pompeo, Trump’s pick for director of the CIA (as well as the congressmen who has received the single most donations from Koch and has called to execute Snowden), portrays the War on Terror as an Islamic battle against Christianity.

This is the mentality that will be in control of the most powerful surveillance apparatus in the world. This Manichean view, propagated by false Christians, will continue to fan the flames of this unending war. Especially if Trump is successful in his quest to bring back torture.

Once again, climate change, under our new head denialist Scott Pruitt, will only exacerbate the refugee crisis. After all, it is already impacting third world countries.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2007.00678.x/full

On a geopolitical level you understand how bad this makes us look right? The conference in Marrakech this year was pervaded by the terrifying consequences of a climate change denying president (no other leader in the world denies it). China has ironically become the world’s champion of clean energy, further undermining our hegemonic legitimacy.

Climate change, closed borders to refugees, a potential Muslim registry, a massive youth bulge in sub-Saharan Africa, the potential return of torture, and a Manichean point of view that pits Muslims vs. Christians. Not a very good combination.

So basically I find your acceptance of the radical-right to be bizarre. I feel your inner contrarian impulse must be overpowering the higher-thinking empiricist. I understand if you don’t respond, but if nothing else please consider that your impressive knowledge of history doesn’t give you a clear-cut reference point for this particular resurgence of nationalism. Never before has the climate threatened our species’ existence, and never has our government had this level of surveillance at its finger tips (in combination with a justification for limited transparency- the never ending War on Terror). All these elements unified, under the direction of our radical new administration, make for unprecedented danger.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Pistol-

Your comments on 'inciting hatred', motives for refugees, the New York Times as not liberal, the nation-state as an 'antiquated' relic of hoary old history, Donald Trump's cabinet choices as vindicating the New York Times's doomsaying, subscription to anthropogenic global warming as unequivocal science fact, and appeal to how this 'makes us look' all reflect deep liberal worldviews.

If this was a more focused comment on the specifics of non-Western migration into Europe and its effects, I would get into the trenches for another comment and, for instance, correct my statistics on male migrant numbers (is it 66% or 76%?) and congratulate you on citing sources pointing out some of the countries I mentioned have taken their fair share of migrants (then mention the others in that region that still need to step up their game).

And were we in-person, perhaps we could sit down and spend half a day going through all of these varied other issues you've raised, and you could cite sources and show me things and I could cite sources and show you things. And perhaps neither of us would convert the other to his view, but we'd both leave with a better appreciation for the other's point of view. But as it stands, right now, you've unfurled a complete political belief system, and it's neither in my personal interest nor, perhaps, the interest of either of our emotional well-beings, for us to further devote the time to crossing belief systems in the comment section of an Internet article.

So I will bid the discussion adieu at this point. However, if I ever decide to start a politics-centered YouTube show (God, I hope not; there are enough of those along every inch of the political spectrum as it stands already), I'd be happy to get into these sorts of debates at that time ;)

Chase

Jimbo's picture

Interesting discussion.

Hey Pisol I'd like to ask you something. You said you were told you were something out of a romance novel. What behaviors (perhaps GC-inspired) was this description based on? Thanks.

dracir's picture

"The invaders are penetrators; the native men have forgotten how to penetrate"

Syrian refugees are really shy if you talk to them :D if they want to ask for a direction they only ask young guys because they are too nervous to ask older people or women. At one party I talked to Ethopians and they were a little awkward but also nice (nice guys?). Refugees are not assertive, but second-generation immigrants typically are.

If someone says male immigrants are getting all the women because they are "real men" or whatever than he is probably afraid that he will not be able to get girls anymore. Its difficult for immigrants to get girls here. Second-generation immigrants are better off but they sure have to put in more effort. They tend to work out more often, have a better style and are maybe more cocky. They dont do it because they can evrey girl they want...

Chase this sounds too much like manosphere...and this people will see what they want to see and they never have spoken to one of those manly, manly immigrants ;)
Black Americans are very dominant and extrovertive I´ve heard. Do they get all the girls?

Gruß
dracir

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Dracir-

Oh, I wouldn't argue refugees get many women in Europe! This seems to be one of the fearmongering pieces from the right. The huge influx of largely male migrants into Europe certainly contains a number of men who hope to get women in Europe. And I've met a few migrants in Europe who were pretty cool guys and actually did get laid reasonably well there. But they seem to be a very small minority. Considering the sea change in European mentalities toward migrants, it's probably only going to get harder for them, too.

Migrants in Europe are somewhat of a tragedy, if you ask me, more analogous to the Chinese railway workers in the late 19th century in the United States. Large numbers of mostly male migrants, just like the Middle Eastern and North African migrants, came to the U.S. from China to work on the railways and make money. However, the U.S. barred more Chinese from coming over, and barred these men from bringing their families (which seems likely to happen in most European states with Europe's third world migrants as well). Some of these men went home, and a few of them found local women to marry, but for the most part many of the men lived out the rest of their lives as lonely bachelors in a strange land, then died. I suppose in these third world migrants' case, it's probably easier for them to return where they came from, but humans are apathetic, and if they don't sense much opportunity in their homelands, and Europe doesn't force them out, they may face a similar fate to what the Chinese railway migrants did in North America 130 some odd years ago.

The trouble Europe is having with migrants is not with individual migrants. The trouble is with groups. Groups amplify the worst characteristics of their members. For instance, I've had Europeans tell me that an American by himself is great to get along with, but put a group of them together and they're loud, ignorant, and destructive. I've heard multiple Southern Europeans complain that groups of English are the worst, rowdiest, most intolerable European tourists there are, no matter how much they might like an English person by him or herself. Likewise, if you meet one or two migrants in an area that is not migrant-heavy, you will find they are relatively quiet, and relatively polite. Should you venture to the no-go zones in Paris, Brussels, Malmo, and other places like this, however, I suspect you will encounter migrants of a different variety.

Environment is king, and there is strength in numbers. So long as Europeans encounter migrants in areas where Europeans are the majority and migrants are a small minority, migrants will continue to seem polite, respectful, and even meek to them. Yet as more migrants stream in and take over more areas, you will continue to see more and more parts of Europe yielded to groups that Europeans will not be around, because when individuals from the cultures they come from are in the majority they do not extend the same level of tolerance and acceptance the natives extended to them on first arrival.

Chase

dracir's picture

your points are good...

I didn´t know that there are parallels to chinese immgrants, but we have to see if its stays peaceful, because immigrants are not always allowed to take their families after them).

I really like that you give well thought arguments. Most people do not want to talk about this rationally. It is very emotianally heated and you basically have to choose a side - far right or far left.

Thanks :)

Drexel Scott's picture

Really profound and insightful material for those "with the ears to hear." Next-level wisdom gentlemen, I hope you're paying attention.

Motiv's picture

Hey Drex,

I bought your Casanova program! One aspect of it in particular changed the way I think of my new business, and my burgeoning team has started to thrive recently.

I am planning to leave a comment on your article related to demons, because I believe I have first-hand experience of the nightmare and how even a limited commitment to seduction (and penetration) took me to a place of stability and peace.

Cheers,
-M

nolimits's picture

Hi chase, great article on being aggressive and alpha.!

Something can't help but crossing my mind now though.

it's been a year now since donald trump has been succesfully running his campaign.

Love him or hate him, the guy is a master persuader, really alpha, entertaining and never boring. He's also extremely concise and repetitive in the way he speaks.

Exactly what robert greene would define as charismatic in his art of seduction

The funny thing though is I've noticed that he does a lot of things that you advocate not too do. ( explicit qualifying is the bread and butter of his persuasive effectiveness and constant repetition is another one. Plus, he's got this essential quality of being brutal and effective when being under attack - an approach that is probably going to revolutionize politics world forever. )

Love him or not, what's obvious is that he CAN persuade

Can u deconstruct his main strenghts and maybe reccomend some sources to how one can master verbal attack and , mainly, DEFENSE, like he does? I guess you could call that frame control.

Never stop insipiring great chase!!!!

Author
Chase Amante's picture

No Limit-

Thanks for the article idea! Hope this measures up...

How to Use Donald Trump-Style Persuasion

Chase

Danny's picture

Love the article Chase thank you! I just had a question about how can we erase the social conditioning and be more penetrative I understand we need to penetrate and be penetrative but what action does that entail and how do you know if you are successfully penetrating? I understand the words to view men as penetrating and women as receiving but I can't understand the concept how exactly do I penetrate life other than putting my penis in a woman?

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Danny-

Only with time and conditioning.

I suggest starting here:

How to Be an Asshole – and Become Adored by Women

Chase

R's picture

I wanted to mention I understand the article content and words but I can't seem to intuit deeply how to be penetrative and effortlessly work as a penetrator of life? How do I understand and take more penetrative action?

Author
Chase Amante's picture

R-

Perhaps a few examples might help. A man:

  • Penetrates to the heart of the issue. He doesn't waste time arguing pointless semantics or nitpicking irrelevant details

  • Stabs into whatever market he operates in. He doesn't dally around on the edges. If he's in real estate, he plunges in and becomes an effective realtor. If he runs an accounting practice, he dives in and soon gathers up a list of loyal clients

  • Sees past the haze and confusion of women's mixed messages and all the mixed messages coming from society - advertising, various ideological, philosophical, racial, political, and myriad other groups competing for social influence, etc. He knows what he's about and makes no bones about going for it

For taking more action, see these two articles:

  1. How to Be a Dominant Man: What You Didn't Know About the 'Winner Effect'

  2. How to Be an Asshole – and Become Adored by Women

Chase

jeff's picture

How very sad and shameful that you are portraying and supporting these biased and misogynist views of the "roles of" women and men. Clearly you have not done your research and are a perpetrator of the brutal negativity, lack of emotional intelligence and intellectual development witch continues to perpetrate our society.
Your post is a disgrace. I suggest taking a good look at yourself and challenge your own narrow beliefs as a means to make this world a better place for everyone not just for the Alpha hetero male that is unevolved.

Danny's picture

I am asking this advice not to be misogynistic but to be dominant for the mutual benefit of woman's and myself. I am talking about sexy dominance that women find alluring not me screaming at her and making her do everything I say like the stereotype of an alpha male so I don't understand why you are upset

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Jeff-

Did a strong man hurt you?

  • Sad
  • Shameful
  • Biased
  • Misogynistic
  • Perpetrator of brutal negativity
  • Lack of emotional intelligence
  • Lack of intellectual development
  • Disgrace
  • Good look at yourself
  • Narrow beliefs
  • Alpha hetero male
  • Unevolved

And I believe you meant 'perpetuate within our society', not 'perpetrate our society'. The latter is a non-sequitor. But otherwise, a pretty good coverage of ad hominems in there. If you can't beat the argument, might as well attempt to tear down the man, I suppose.

Chase

Motiv's picture

I actually remember watching this tragic story on a Sunday afternoon news program as a kid. Back then, we did not yet know his wife would leave him and that he would commit suicide.

I know I am happiest when I have just emptied my sperm into a woman (even if it is just a returning regular). My mind is more centered, and my whole day just feels better (one married gal likes to hit me up for a morning dose 2-3 times weekly). Say what you will, but ever since taking on two married women as regulars, a once deep depression has faded from my life… both a year running now.

On the subject of penetration in areas outside of sex, I thought I might share a short video clip of the world-famous Cleveland Orchestra. I'd like you to check out the concertmaster (first violinist sitting directly left of the conductor—hard to see clearly, but I think you'll get the picture if you just watch for a minute). I realize this probably won't apply to most of you in any literal sense, but I think you'll agree that he penetrates his own musicality via some peircing body language (even as a subordinate to the conductor). You can see exactly what I mean here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy9LxIj99K8&t=1m45s

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Mischief-

Yeah, that's a great example. He's moving with a very self-assured, direct, "put it right where it needs to go" level of, well, penetration, that you really only see with masculine men (and a few very masculinized / penetrative women).

As an aside, it looks like the video is sped up. However, the music still seems to be in-tune with the violinists' motions. But the music does not sound sped up to me (maybe it is, however). Kinda threw me off...!

Chase

Motiv's picture

The video was definitely edited to some degree, as that piece is around 45 minutes in entirety. I have also noticed other YouTube videos tend to lose sync with sound, which is more noticeable with classical music given the meticulous movements of performers.

Corny as this may sound, the concept of penetration now plays a vital role in how I strive to excel in all things. No more beating around the bush. Take stabs, measure the results, then stab again. Rinse, repeat. Ironically, experimental methodology appears to be beating around the bush to most people… that is until the beater successfully zero's in on his target, at which point people suddenly become amazed at his "overnight" success. *smirk shrug*

I give you and this site credit for inspiring me to take on this attitude. There is even a feeling of serenity that comes from the reliability of this process – a deepening sense of self-trust.

Thank you!

-M

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