Why Villains are So Sexy | Girls Chase

Why Villains are So Sexy

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.

villains sexy
The bad guy compels because he isn’t afraid to speak truth and break rules. But more than this – he is a product of his zeitgeist.

There’s been a funny trend of late, in film and other media.

The bad guys are sexy. They’re cool. Way, way cooler than the good guys.

Vincent in Collateral. Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men. The Joker in The Dark Knight.

And among the coolest guys in cinema who aren’t out-and-out bad guys? Well, the other cool guys aren’t good guys either. They’re anti-heroes, like Johnny Depp’s Captain Jack Sparrow, Brad Pitt’s Tyler Durden, or Guy Pearce’s Eric in The Rover.

The bad guy hasn’t always been cool. In most older movies, the good guy is significantly cooler, more interesting, and more relatable than the bad guy.

Yet in more recent films, the good guy is often... Too gullible. Too naïve. And he stays that way.

You watch old movies, and if the good guy starts off too naïve, he eventually comes to understand the way of the world, yet remain a strong, firm good guy at the end of it. In more recent films, the good guy always finds a way to remain more or less entrenched in his bubble of ‘correctness’, despite whatever pitfalls befall him along the way.

I propose that in topsy-turvy times, when black is white and up is down and left is right, those men who attack and upend the established order of things are those we most intuitively grasp as those who must be ‘correct’. And because they see fit to buck a powerful trend that has most individuals cowed, not only are they correct... they are powerful.

And power, no matter what the era, is always sexy and cool.

Chase AmanteAbout the Author: Chase Amante

Chase woke up one day in 2004 tired of being alone. So, he set to work and read every book he could find, studied every teacher he could meet, and talked to every girl he could talk to to figure out dating. After four years, scads of lays, and many great girlfriends (plus plenty of failures along the way), he launched this website. He will teach you everything he knows about girls in one single program in his Mastery Package.



BALANCE's picture

Hey Mr. Bad Guy... Quick Question

You seem to be able to predict the Future, and how the behaviors of Males and Females will change with the times as Seduction evolves - and so I ask you this

As Seduction grows and Evolves, so are other distractions in the world, such as video games, porn, movies, and other forms of entertainment... So do you believe that Seduction is going to get to the point where it's well-known and widely practiced, or do you believe it is growing just as other industries (like Porn, Video games and TV) is Seduction

A) leveling the Playing Field - anyone can learn it by Googling it and finding the GC website and Practice, apply the Skills to get what they want out of Life


B) Lovers will still be the rare Top 5% as the mainstream focuses on the Distractions like television and news and video games - and you only get good at this stuff if you're REALLY focused on bettering yourself and putting in the Work

Where do you believe Seduction is headed towards ?

Chase Amante's picture


Well, at this point, knowledge of seduction is 100% in the Western world. Everybody knows what pickup is. We get a million visitors a month on Girls Chase; half of them are in the U.S. (many of the rest are in the U.K., Canada, Australia, Western Europe, etc.). We've had GC authors go on dates and have girls pull up Girls Chase articles on their phones and ask them what they thought of the article, the girl not realizing her date was in the space (and, in one case, was the author of the article she showed him).

There's a big difference between knowledge of a thing and mastery of it, though. Everybody knows gyms are out there, but few guys are really ripped. Everybody knows about kung-fu, but not many guys can execute a rear kick without falling over.

I don't think we'll see a quantum surge in seduction skills no matter how simple we strive to make this stuff for guys until there are risk-free ways to level up. Which means virtual reality training.

At some point, some guy is going to build a pickup simulator that guys can slap on and face tens of thousands of different pickup permutations with all kinds of curve balls and unexpected things and resistance and what have you. And it will train men to be better at seduction.

That's pretty far off at this point. First we'll have fantasy-fulfillment virtual reality, where you go out and pick up a girl at a bar and it's mostly pretty easy, and then the thing turns into the VR porn they're working on where you shag a sex doll with the VR headset on or however it works.

But they're going to use virtual reality for training of all sorts (military, arts, athletics, etc.), and sooner or later dating will become a part of it too. Anything where the costs are high for real life failure (obviously, mess up in military training and you may just get a hole in your skull; just the same, there are military men who have zero fear of battle but are terrified to talk to a girl), there'll eventually be virtual training for it.

I don't think that'll happen until VR training is fairly advanced, for a couple of reasons: a.) most guys who'll bother with VR will just want instant gratification; get the "pick up a girl and shag her!" VR game instead of the "learn how to be a PUA in real life" one, so that's where all the money and development effort will go first, and b.) it's going to be insanely hard to program a realistic, responsive AI that can respond to a man's game and fundamentals and provide variable reactions depending on a girl's own game, fundamentals, mood, and point in life; throw him curve balls like random other guys butting in and girls' friends cockblocking, and have his girl react in realistic ways to both their intrusions and the guy's reactions, etc. Social dynamics are among the most complex and least understood phenomena we deal with, so it'll be a while before a good VR training program comes along, even after the military / combat ones are well established for home users.

(next step after VR training would be Matrix-style "upload the knowhow" training... though hopefully delivered wirelessly, rather than through a massive metal spike in the brain)

Until that happens, I do not predict seduction gaining anything close to critical mass.

It's not that it's too hard to learn - it's not. Just like it isn't that hard to put on decent muscles or learn to deliver Bruce Lee kicks.

Instead, it's more that most people simply do not have the drive.

Even among guys who do study game, most guys who make improvements only learn enough to get a cute girlfriend, too. As soon as they have her, their seduction journey ends. Maybe they come back here and read articles from time to time, but without practice they're only getting marginal gains (in, say, female psychology, and relationship handling). Or they might return after a breakup, improve a little more, then get another girlfriend. Pretty hard to become an mPUA that way though ;)

So, I wouldn't worry. You should be pretty safe in the B.) category for some time.


Atra's picture

Your analysis rings true and I think you are spot on! I loved your article about "How to survive in a time of moral panic" as well! And yes, that's what going on: accuse the other one of being a witch *first* and then nobody can touch you.

Europe is behind the US in its reaction against political correctness, ecpecially in Northern Europe where I'm from, but I feel the wind blowing in a new direction here as well. Now, close friends of mine admit behind closed doors thoughts very similar to the ones you had in your comments in the article "Mind control: How media influence your thoughts and feelings". It is, of course, unfair that those living in Europe are so much more lucky than those living in, lets say, Afghanistan, but I have a general feeling that more and more people think that we cannot welcome an unlimited streem of refugees at once and that much tougher actions will be needed in the future to protect what we have in Europe.

With regard to women being the laggards...As a woman, I feel much more indepentent in my analyses than many men, and at the same time, I feel that I get more punished for being "bad or "mean" than men do, so that I keep silent most of the time not to get socially shunned and ostracized. Any suggestions for me?

Love from a female fan!

Chase Amante's picture


Europe has been much more insular than the U.S. until recently. The U.S. has been trying to be a multicultural paradise since 1965, and has run up against some of the hard limitations of this. Europeans, stuck in their bubble, were surrounded by homogeneuous folk, and assumed everyone else must be just like them. They'll awaken (and as you note, it is already happening), but it'll take some time.

What's fascinating to me is to watch how quick (or how slow) it happens. Also, how exactly Europe handles its various quagmires... I'm hoping for humanitarian solutions, but that's going to depend on how all the different parties handle this transition.

Yes, the problem women face right now is that progressive multiculturalism/globalism is entwined in female values. Values like helping/nurturing others, being fair to others, showing how much you care about others, etc.

One suggestion is to use ambiguous arguments. Like:


Friend: You don't think we should let in more refugees? But those poor people! Look how much they are suffering!

Atra: I think it is very thoughtful we brought so many people here. And we have helped so many. There are 4 million refugees in Europe right now. But the war has ended and our social systems are strained; how many more of these people can we support?

Very hard for someone to accuse you of being uncaring when you start by showing care, yet end with practical considerations.

This is the strategy I'd recommend; it's easiest, and opens you up to the least social risk (well, outside of just not saying anything at all!).

If you want to be more direct, the best way is by painting yourself as the true champion of feminine values, and the opponent as the one in violation of them.


Friend: You don't think we should let in more refugees? But those poor people! Look how much they are suffering!

Atra: What I think is so very cruel is how all these heartless Europeans are using refugees like pets to try to boost their virtue signal points. When what they're doing is terrible to these people. Bringing them into societies they can't fit into, but pretending they do? And then all the people who vote to bring them here don't want to live near the refugee centers. They shun these people and are afraid of them. There is no home for them here, but the people who bring them here don't care - they just want to use them to make themselves look good. Well it doesn't look good to me. It looks very, very selfish. There are so many ways we can help these people, but look what we do instead. It is madness.

Though what I'd really recommend you do, from a pure self-interested social standpoint, is mostly keep tight-lipped about these kinds of views around your liberal friends until others push their way into the national spotlight and make these arguments for you.

At that point, once the arguments for your side are out there, the cultural tide will be turning, and you'll receive a lot more social support when you give voice to arguments like these.

I'd consider, especially from a woman's perspective (since women are punished more harshly than men for not conforming to social norms), that it's probably best to wait until your side attains the social high ground before being openly pro-European. e.g., wait until European nationalists are 60% of the population and antifa / etc. are roundly mocked as backwards-thinking anarcho-communists. At that point you can talk more freely and be seen as a good person instead of blasted as a bad one.


Atra's picture

I'm impressed about how you answer everyone posting here, from some many different places in life, in a supportive and respectful way, like your answer to me!

I usually use either some version of answer 1 or stay silent, like you suggest. I guess that in some time I can say what you suggest in answer 2, which is a reply I really like! And yes, when a majority of people get scared and want the situation to change, they will be happy hear arguements supporting their new point of view and not blast me as a bad person anymore.

Reason's picture


Please use less American jargon and needlessly complicated words; you alienate some readers that way. Readers should focus on the message that the words convey, not the words themselves. Science also says that people who use complex words are seen as less intelligent (this statement can easily be verified on the internet).

Regarding the ten free articles per month, does reading an article two times count as two readings?

T's picture


I don't know where you come from but you can consult a dictionary ;-) . Ok, joke....... :-)
Let me make a shot in the dark..... I think one of your criticism is the use of the word "zeitgeist".
This is a common German word that obviously found its way into the American language (like e.g. kindergarten = playshool or the prefix "uber" what LITERALLY !!! translated simply means "above" )
I COULD translate the word "zeitgeist" with "spirit of time" but that would not meet it exactly.
The word "zeitgeist" comprises the way of thinking at a certain time as well as the behavior and acting at that time. So it makes absolute sense in the context of this article. Hope this comment helps.


Reason's picture

The following words in this article are uncommon to someone more familiar with British English: topsy-turvy, upend, buck, cowed, beaver, sheen, hick. More people know the word intimidated than the word cowed, and overturn more than upend, for example. And this is coming from someone who did very well in British law (you had to be excellent in English to do very well).

You are right than we can use the dictionary (and we do use the dictionary); but, the more breaks we take from the article to use the dictionary, the more the article’s message is lost or more time is spent to read the article. Concerning the latter, I partly read girlchase’s articles to relax (dating should be fun right?!). I do not want to feel like I am reading my university textbooks.

Regarding American jargon, Chase should remember that non-Americans may feel alienated if they think that the articles are more catered to an American audience.

T's picture

Ok, depends on the point of view......
As far as I am concerned as a German who likes it to read English texts to improve his Englisch skills I don't mind to consult a wordbook and hence it makes no difference if it is british or amercan English.


Man-E-Faces's picture

You pose an interesting question which I'll presume stems from your fears and insecurities... Fear of competition, and insecurity over not being special and unique. Well, you are not special BALANCE? Do you wish to hoarde your Game all to yourself?

It was the fear that drove you to Game in the first place. What you fear most is inside of you. You fear your own power. Now you must go inside yourself and face your fear. With Game You have learned to disappear, now you must become truly invisible. Face your fear, embrace it, become one with the darkness... to conquer fear you must become fear... and Men truly fear most that which they cannot see.

Become more than just a man

Mischief's picture

…hoping to conceal it's true identity with the voice of a guardian angel — or the genie in a bottle, desperate to be freed and unleash chaos.

What if game is truth, and we indeed use it to disappear from the black hole that would otherwise consume us with emotional terror?

Agreed, one must become fear in order to conquer it — such is mastered by the dreamweaver. Yet, the power of the dreamweaver lay not in darkness, but the light of simple logic.


Well… one does what one can.

Bolt's picture

I think you're right that the Rebel with a cause is going to gain the popularity and be charismatic but in your example I think you have the wrong villain. Trump is the most disliked President ever, and has historically low favorables wheras Bernie Sanders has been the most liked politician for a long time and still is and he's also anti establishment.
Nice theory but wrong villain. Also, in seduction how would you go about saying you're pro Hitler or some other largely negative historical figure and still making that work, unless you're going for a girl who believes in a similar ideology?

Chase Amante's picture


Well, let me ask you this: what do you think The Joker's approval rating was among the citizens of Gotham? Or how popular do you think Tyler Durden would've been had the country known in advance he planned to blow up the credit card system? He would not have been a well-liked man. Even Neo - pretty likeable guy, if you ask me - found himself dealing with almost everyone still plugged into the Matrix trying to stop him.

We're talking 'villians' here - not winners of popularity contests. I think I got the right guy ;)

As for disliked presidents, I suspect Abraham Lincoln might've given Donald Trump a run for his money. He went to war with half the country. Trump is, essentially, doing the same thing... though I hope (and expect) this war will be a far more 'civil' one than the last one was.

All that said, according to Rasmussen, Trump is actually at 55% approval (45% disapproval), right now (38% strongly approve vs. 36% strongly disapprove, so about even there). Despite being an anti-hero (or villain; depends where you're sitting), he's not as unpopular as the MSM might have folks believe.


Mischief's picture

I love this topic – could go on with endless enthusiasm about the the sexy traits of various male hero's and villains! I enjoy attempting to emulate bits and pieces of all of them (both good and evil) to suit each circumstance and my own whim. This can be a LOT of fun!

I'm intrigued by your inclusion of Captain America in the list of anti-heroes. Although he technically rebels against the system in the current story line, he is ironically still a white knight (albeit a special brand of one… or perhaps the truest version). He's super good guy who lives so strongly by his moral code that his goodness comes full-circle back to sexy.

Most white knights (as we call them, or call them out!) only "knight" as a flimsy facade that cows to a female frame. Captain America actually white knight's in a truly masculine imperative. He is mission-driven (but in a selfless manner), non-needy (apparently celibate with very little female experience), and he always stands firm in what he believes. I find this refreshing. A man does not have to be bad in order to be sexy, and he can even be a rebel while still being a good guy too.


*edit* He might even be extremely sexy in spite of having little experience with women…! (supposing he possesses enough other sexy qualities)

Well… one does what one can.

Chase Amante's picture


Good point; I use anti-hero wrong here. "Good rebel" is more fitting.

I had a definition in my head for anti-hero as "hero operating from outside the system", but a quick check makes clear that anti-hero rather means a "morally ambiguous hero" - which Captain America clearly is not.

So, yes, wrong term. "Good rebel" would be better here! I think I'd still include him in the piece as an example of a likeable guy who takes on the system, largely because were Captain America simply in service of the system in his films, I suspect he'd be a lot less likeable. It's the 'take on the system' element that lends him an air of pluck some of the other Marvel characters lack.


LoverBoy's picture

This is a well-timed article for me. I was just thinking a couple wks ago of the Joker in the Dark Knight and literally how cool he is. Like he's super cool. He owns himself, plays life funly & is free/aware. If it wasn't the makeup/different effect, & just off his persona & badassness, he'd be a hit w/ girls I think.

I don't think it's possible for anyone as a real human being to emulate his persona completely caz then one wouldn't have a job or anything, like to do whatever one wants & just play, because that wouldn't fly long-term in our society. But some of his mentalities & the way he operates in a letting-go-of-the-outcome-in-a-fun-way is something I really like. I wish more people would let go & play life like that.

The world would be better free, even at the expense of society progressing through all these rules, conditioning, systems, etc. people would be happier on a personal level if things were simpler.

What do you think of the Joker, Chase? His character, his mindsets, the movie in general, etc.

Personally he's my favorite movie character of all time & the Dark Knight is my favorite movie caz of him. Ironically, in complete contrast, Juno is my 2nd favorite movie character. I like how real she is. I feel like a lot of guys in seduction might like Tyler Durden in fight club but the Joker is more fun/playful to me. He's a real badass too tho.

Are there any movie characters you really like & have/do strive to pick up qualities from?

- LoverBoy

Jimbo's picture

I don't know if he did this intentionally, but Chase's style and stress on the devil-may-care attitude seem to be derived, almost meticulously, from Hank Moody. Especially if you take into account his advocating the genuine love of women which Hank naturally has and his penchant for literary and good writing*.

So Chase, were you actually inspired by this guy or did you just happen to have similar styles and proclivities?


Chase Amante's picture


Fun clip!

I liked David Duchovny in The X-Files. Never explicitly modeled myself after his performance there, though. Californication didn't come until five years after I chucked my TV, so I never got to see it. That might've been the first clip I've ever seen of it (or maybe the second; have a vague memory of a reader or forum member linking another clip from the show years ago).

So I'd lean more toward similar styles - and/or, perhaps some similar influences.


Chase Amante's picture


If you ask me, the single most attractive quality of the Joker is the fact that he is continually meta. He meta-frames everyone - that is, he tells them what they are thinking or dealing with in colorful ways that cause them to realize things they were not fully aware of before. As such, he seems incredibly perceptive, and someone who's likely already thought of your next move before you have.

The second most attractive quality he possesses is his ability to leverage the Law of Least Effort. One great example comes down to what a good planner he is, without showing it. He serves as an unreliable narrator, of sorts, in that he lies about various things; "not being a planner" (when talking to Harvey Dent in the hospital) is one such example. His plans are the most elaborate in the entire film, and doubtless took hours (or days) to plan out and orchestrate, but he presents himself as someone who impulsively runs around and yet wildly succeeds at whatever he does regardless. Zero planning effort, huge success (in reality, lots of effort for those huge successes, but the effort is "invisible" - partly because he masks it). Other things he does look effortless as well, though again, the appearances are deceiving.

As for me and movie characters, I like parts of Depp's Jack Sparrow, anything with Sean Connery or Harrison Ford in it, and have long been a fan of Val Kilmer's performance in The Saint. I talk about sex symbols some more in this article, if you haven't seen it yet: Old Fashioned Sex Symbols vs. Modern Male Stars: What’s the Difference?.

And here's a breakdown of some of what Kilmer does in The Saint: How to Be Smooth with Girls Every Time.


Bond's picture

Loki is the ultimate villain. I was sincerely surprised when girls in my class always talked about how sexy Loki is.
After this article, it makes more sense. It's not just his spot on fundamentals.

Cheers Chase,


Chase Amante's picture


Oh, yes - he's another great one.

Really is Tom Hiddleston's best role, too. He's the best villain the Marvel movies have had to offer yet.


Anonym's picture

Hi Chase,

thank you for an inspiring article. As a person who is more left-wing than right-wing and in most issues more liberal than conservative I say that your critic of these ideas is one of the best I read on the Internet. However I have a few points:

You described dynamic of social consensus (or dominant ideology/establishment/the System if you want) and its crisis and some consequences. However, the concept of the System is a bit fuzzy and everyone understand it in a different way. For example, Trump proved he is great at making political campaign presenting himself as an anti-System fighter and defender of common workers. It is too early to evaluate his policy. However, what is clear, he is against social-liberal consensus, but his government is totally establishmental (corporate leaders from Goldman Sachs or Exxon Mobile are essence of the economic establishment). We can hardly expect from corporate billionairs that they would particularly care about common workers. Their disillusion is likely.

You wrote: "By the 2000s, resistance was building against a new system – the now-entrenched system of cultural Marxism, centered on silencing the dissent of any who disagreed with the philosophy through the use of labels like ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘misogynist’, ‘xenophobe’, or ‘homophobe’. "
While you are right that these labels are sometimes used to silence opponents, opponents of the proggressives use as well labels like "socialist/Communist/Marxist/neo-Marxist/cultural Marxist" often without distinction of the those different concepts (and sometimes without actual knowledge - like labelling Obama as a Soviet style Communist). The difference is that now in the US liberals are louder and maybe more scared. Mostly labelling is not a conscious political strategy, but just emotional reaction, when people of some worldview with certain consensus feel their values threatened by some group of the Others (i.e. racists, sexists, Communists, cultural Marxists). What is called political correctness is mostly motivated by this fear – and its opponents behave in similar way, they have just less influence these times. While I strongly disagree with labelling all Trumpians as dumb racists, it is clear that truly far right wing and neo-Nazi groups were enthusiastic about him and see him as their man. And there are some reasons for it.
I am afraid you fall a bit into trap of labelling as well, at least with using a term “cultural Marxism” which is label par excellence (see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism ). Or am I wrong?

Good points about the herd mentality, I have always wondered how easily some people change their views, how can they make abrupt radical changes. However if you have strong frame, you should be more resistant, whatever your worldview is.

Anyway it is interesting, how you can connect social development with sexual relationships.


Chase Amante's picture


Absolutely; there will always be shades.

Trump's corporate picks are generally supposed to be anti-establishment as well. Mnuchin, the Goldman pick, for instance, supposedly knows where "all the bones are buried" in Wall Street, which means Trump may be poised to take the banks on at some point. Which of course he wouldn't talk about now if he was, since as soon as presidents start talking about that, they invariably end up shot by lone gunmen. However, if we're talking 'from the establishment', then Mnuchin is going to be a lot more 'establishment' than, say, the founder of Bitcoin.

So it's going to depend on how you define 'establishment', and what is or is not 'establishment' (or anti-establishment), too.

Obviously, Trump would be a lot more establishment than someone who wanted to get into office, tear up the Constitution, and turn the U.S. into a communist state or a bloodline monarchy. Either of those would be a lot more anti-establishment - so degree matters too.

Great point about labeling being an unconscious emotional reaction, rather than a conscious political strategy. What looks like manipulation is often knee-jerk reaction.

I use 'cultural Marxism' to identify anyone who seeks to apply Marxist theory to the sociocultural realm. i.e., the belief that there are different classes, with a parasitic minority unfairly oppressing a productive majority, and that the oppressed, united majority must rise up in class struggle against said oppressive minority. Often this is feminists, homosexuals, and racial minorities rising up against white male oppressors, but not always.

If someone does not believe women, gay men, racial minorities, etc., are engaged in class struggle against oppressive cisheteronormative white males (or any other class),I would by no means consider him a cultural Marxist, even if he might be progressive . Working to improve one's lot in life is the natural order of things. Viewing oneself as a victim of oppressive white male patriarchal (or whatever) class control is something else altogether!


Lawliet's picture

Hey Chase,

I didn't know why, but I always felt villains in movies and media, have a way that the "good guys" don't.
Maybe it's the way they carry themselves?
Or maybe it ties back to "Bad boys".
But it was always there.
Maybe I was suppose to be one ;)

Re: Observations
I noticed that in some social situations, the moves we make aren't necessarily wrong, but a matter of wrong timing.
(exactly described in your "Why it feels off for her")

A good example is "She isn't hooked yet, and we follow with many compliments".
One compliment to open the conversation is good, but continuous showing more interest than her, can come on too strong. I experienced this myself when a guy wanted to be my friend and he showed interested more than me.
If he waited until I was hooked by whatever it is, I would probably not feel weirded out. I honestly thought he was gay (he's not).

Anyway, this tied well into forming my calibration for "To pull her home OR have traditional route".
This was a huge eye opener for my past dating experiences. I'm not expert on this, but it's starting to become more apparent. Intuition, signs? whatever you call it.
She isn't ready (whether it's comfort, connection etc.), then it makes sense to have the latter.
If she's beaming up "OH FUCK ME ALREADY", I couldn't agree more ;)

Thank you for everything Chase! I'll keep thanking you til I've harnessed the top skill.
I am a little disappointed at myself. I had a change in july, but then I didn't improve as much as I wanted.
I have to put more work!

Re: Types
I made a reply on your "Game and types of girls you get" article. Not sure if you saw it.
But it matched the question I had: There are different types of personality in girls and much of the time they show in their appearance and way of talking. What are the things they like? Look for in a guy?

A list of these would be a great guide in maximizing our skill capability!

Re: Covering up
I had a girl in class who sat casually and had her clothes slump, revealing a nice cleavage.
However, when I casually approached (through class discussion), she started to straighten her clothes and pull them over to cover herself.

Makes me wonder, is this a sign of "I shouldn't give this guy wrong ideas" or "I need to make the best impression".
With that said, it's strange. I wasn't looking at her chest and was looking at her eyes, yet she pulled her dress up to cover it while keeping eye contact with me. I decided to chat with her more, and then number exchange. Looks like a dead lead.
Makes me wonder more if I screwed up, or was it lack of interest from the beginning...


Chase Amante's picture

Lawliet- Splendid to see you noticing more of these things. It's a great sign! Noted on types of personality, signs, and preferences. We've done a few installments in the "Girl Types" series; I'm sure we'll do more in the future. Yes, covering up legs or breasts or whatever exposed body parts she has is usually not a good sign. It may be an autopilot response to a random man approaching (e.g., she senses a man approaching, realizes she's dressed to revealingly, and instinctively covers up), but not good, and sets some negative precedent right off the bat ("Oh! I'd better cover up for this guy!"). Can't say I've dealt with that one enough to have a standard response to it. Best I've found for things like this is to just ignore them and pretend they didn't happen (which it sounds like you did). Pointing it out just makes her more uncomfortable and cements the emotion of covering up when you came over in her mind. Chase
James 's picture

I admit, I used to be a nice guy, and I got stepped on. Fortunately, the internet has provide me with many resources to learn from, including this one, where I can become the person I really want to be. Someone who uses fundamentals and game, not only to attract a lot of women, but to become a leader. That being said I can't help but point out the great irony I find in this post. You are saying that a lot of liberals are generalizing conservatives by calling them racists and xenophobes, yet you seem to endorse the idea that the majority of liberals are cucks and white knights, when in reality the majority of liberals want people to be treated equally. Is this why we deserve to be called "uncool" because we stand up for what is right? Are there some that take it to the extreme? Sure. But for every Huffington Post article there is one from Breitbart. Chase, stop shaming people for supporting the rights of the marginalized. Last I checked this was a site for self-development not for political propoganda.

Chase Amante's picture

yet you seem to endorse the idea that the majority of liberals are cucks and white knights

Where in the article (or anywhere else) did I say this, or anything remotely close to this?

when in reality the majority of liberals want people to be treated equally. Is this why we deserve to be called "uncool" because we stand up for what is right?

I don't think anyone has any bones with what you'd call 'true liberals' - people who want equal treatment for all.

The major point of contention in Western civilization right now is between those on your side, who want equal treatment for all, which includes most true liberals and most true conservatives, and the folks who oppose you and everyone who wants equal treatment: those who want equal outcomes for all - the radical feminists, the communists, the forced redistributionists, etc.

These are the folks we're talking about when we're talking about the present System... the folks who run the media, academia, and the like. This is where the battle lines have drawn up in the West: between those who want equal treatment for all (like you)... and those who want to take resources and opportunities from some groups, and give these preferentially to others (unequal treatment, in the service of trying to achieve equal outcomes).

Chase, stop shaming people for supporting the rights of the marginalized.

This entire website is dedicated to turning marginalized men into men who command respect and live lives they want. You seem perhaps to have missed the point.


Add new comment

The Latest from GirlsChase.com