Lovers vs. Fighters: Who's Your Target Audience, Women or Men? | Girls Chase

Lovers vs. Fighters: Who's Your Target Audience, Women or Men?

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.

lovers vs. fighters
Lovers seduce women; fighters intimidate men. But why do men choose the specializations they do – and which should you choose?

I was probably about 20 years old when I accepted what was to me a weird fact at the time. That fact was that the toughest, manliest, most utterly male, intimidating men usually only dated girls who were just okay. They didn’t get gorgeous girls... not usually. They’d get girls with ordinary faces, ordinary brains, and maybe okay bodies.

I’d seen a similar trend in myself. In midway through high school I’d switched images: from nerd chic to the leather jacket bad boy look. And though I was unquestionably cooler and tougher looking, the fevered pursuit I’d had from popular, pretty girls over the previous four years died down. Men, however, respected me more than ever. I’d gained more male respect, but at the cost of female desire.

Fast forward a few years. I’d internalized the lesson that men who acted über manly had focused their efforts on appealing to male measurements of power and dominance... and cost themselves in women. It was a hard decision at the time, but at last I said “I will no longer live my life for other men.” And as I reinvented myself again, this time with an emphasis on what attracted women, I became more attractive to women once more, with some small cost to the respect other men held for me. I stopped being a fighter, and became a lover.

Ultimately, I’d say it was a good move for me, in many ways. Ultra maleness is not so conducive to being a writer or a business owner. Nor is it so good a fit for a man who wants to travel around and network with other people. Taking my foot off the masculinity gas somewhat freed me to not have to be a caveman in everything I did. And of course, the women... they’re much better for the guys who aren’t male caricatures.

Lovers vs. fighters is something Hector delved into with last week’s “A Feminine Man, Done Right, Can be Wildly Sexy to Women.” In that article, he discussed how a certain degree of femininity in men can trump overdone masculinity when it comes to success with girls.

Today, I want to go into the science and the psychology of it: why men choose the paths they do, and which one is actually the more fruitful path to choose.

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.

GET CHASE’S MASTERY PACKAGE

Comments

JJ's picture

Hey Chase, quick question: could you provide an example from popular culture of a man who, in your opinion, has gone overboard with the sexuality aspect? Also, if you have any tips for how to calibrate the sexual vibe that would be aweomse!

Author
Chase Amante's picture

JJ-

Any guy who is too forward sexually in a mystery-free way without building up to it, with a kind of über male sexuality.

If you've ever seen how gay men or transsexuals hit on other men, that's a great example. They will often just walk up and pinch your butt or caress your arm with zero buildup. I have had transsexuals grab my crotch or flatly proposition me. This is stuff that works on men who are into men. But you won't get laid if you just walk up to girls and grab them by the pussy (unless you are a well known media/political figure).

I guess on both sides of the U.S. political aisle, we can use Bill Clinton and Joe Biden as examples on the political left and Donald Trump on the political right as overly male sexuality. Bill Clinton's unattractive over-directness, as reported by many women, and Joe Biden's grabbing women, touching them too intimately, etc. (plenty of photographs of that). Trump's "grab 'em by the pussy" remark - no idea if he actually grabs women by the pussy, but even if it's an exaggeration odds are he probably still does/gets away with stuff most ordinary men could not because it'd be too much for women.

Chase

Jimbo's picture

The manosphere types, although masculine, strike me more as puritans than as fighters. They don't want to marry women with past experiences, and since they're not the type to womanize that much themselves, they'd like to restrict the ability of women and those who pursue them to have many premarital hookups. They're conservatives who want a certain social order.

I'm also not sure about the combative types being more popular among men. While they may not risk being bullied by other guys, the quarrelsome, high-T types are very often shunned by the average Joe. It's not just out of fear, it's just that they tend to be unpleasant to hang out with, in the same way guys of the other extreme of the spectrum -- the awkward, uptight, or boring types -- are shunned. When I see a guy who's either hot-tempered or always trying to prove himself, or buttoned-up and awkward, I don't even consider hanging with him or befriending him.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Jimbo-

That's a good wrinkle.

Although I'd ask... isn't that what fighters do?

The fiercest mate guarders and most jealous guys I've known have been big, jacked guys who get in fights all the time. And who ruthlessly police their girlfriends' sexuality.

The average fighter doesn't understand women as well. His brain is too male, perhaps. So all he can do is try to control them - control attempts are what you switch to when efforts to understand, negotiate, and influence through softer channels fail you.

The fighter doesn't mess with finesse things like dialogue and openness. He just does what he can to impose his will on everyone he reasonably can.

True that average guys shun the quarrelsome types socially. But they do seem to look up to them quite a bit. But it might be the case that different groups of men lionize different types of men. Guys who look up to Sylvester Stallone vs. guys who look up to Steve McQueen, for instance. It seems to me like fighter types are usually better liked among men in general... e.g., I suspect you'd find Ryan Gosling and George Clooney have at least as many female fans as male fans, whereas Vin Diesel and Duane Johnson have just as many fans, but a higher proportion of them are probably male.

Although I guess without any formal statistics, hard to say for sure. Then you're just guestimating based on what you see socially, and sometimes that's subjective.

Chase

Jimbo's picture

I kind of like Sly actually. I've only watched three Rockies, and from what I remember, he isn't exactly the quarrelsome type. His job involves fighting but that's it. He was actually pretty shy with that romantic interest of his.

But the reason these characters are liked, I think, has more to do with them facing adversity and coming triumphant out of it, of having a good purpose. Sly and Tony Montana and their rags-to-riches stories, or Arnie or Bruce Willis seeking justice against the people who murdered their families. But I mean, can you imagine a Schwarzenegger going to Bolivia to kill some government employees just for the fuck of it? Who would like that, or look up to that?! Or a movie about a guy who "just does what he can to impose his will on everyone he reasonably can"? No I'm pretty sure those guys would be hated on- or off-screen. The guys you're thinking of that other guys admire are badasses who are also good guys. The quarrelsome, bullying types, I have a hard time imagining them being widely liked.

Jimbo's picture

I have another theory as to why the most desirable women don't go for the most masculine guys. It stems from casual observation, and you tell me Chase if it matches your own observations or not.

What I see is that women tend to go for men who are a little more masculine than they are, but not too much. They don't want men who are shorter/wimpier/softer/poorer/weaker/dumber/less skilled/less assertive/etc than they are, or even as much as, but those who have a little more of those attributes of strength and vigor and social power than they do. Too much and the couple will look dissonant, and the relationship will be hard to handle. Kind of like how you said you didn't go for girls who were too soft because you felt you were about to break or something like that. Or how most guys don't go for girls who are bigger than they are.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Jimbo-

That's a good alternative theory, Jimbo.

Some different directions we could take that, too. The guy who's always at the gym hits it off with the girl who's always at the gym, even if she's a little chunky. But she's there, she's friendly, and he sees her a lot, so they start to date. And that guy is also less likely to put himself in situations where he'll be in contact with a lot of pretty, desirable girls... unless he also works as a bouncer or a lifeguard or some other position where he can use his muscles to maximum mate-attracting effect.

Chase

Someguy's picture

Masterpiece. Perfect timing. :-)

Dave w's picture

Hey, recently I've notice that my lone wolf mentality is holding me back socially. In retrospect I understand where it came growing I grew up in a rough neighborhood (chicago) around gangs and drugs the lone wolf mentality kept me safe. However, I'm older now (30) and I realize how it's holding me back. Do you have any suggestions on outgrowing this mindset and what to replace it with. Thanks for your time

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Dave-

Sure, there's a lot you can do to get more comfortable with people.

Although I will say to a certain extent this seems to be more genetic predisposition than environmental conditioning. e.g., you can probably identify other guys who grew up in the same hood as you but are extremely gregarious, always hang out with big groups, love to be around people, etc. To the extent it's hard-coded into you, you won't get away from it.

Anyway, what I did myself was to push myself into attending all kinds of parties, group events, activities, classes, etc., as I could, wherever I could find them, and socialize with as many different people as I could from these places, for a good 3 years or so. The benefits were great - it makes you much more socially comfortable, in all manner of social situations. You get very natural, get rid of most awkwardness you previously had, learn how to navigate social situations to get what you want, etc.

If you're a lone wolf now, you'll likely find in the end you become kind of a lone wolf+. Once my improvement kick on socializing ended, I stopped doing group events incessantly and gradually insulated myself from too much group stuff. But whereas I was isolated before I went on that kick, now I have various small groups of guys I have great relationships with and connect with both online and in-person. You don't need social circle for women if you cold approach. Don't need social circle to meet new friends, either; you can still be outgoing in public and put out feelers for quality people, and you'll meet people through your friends too, some of whom you'll hit it off with and roll into your friend groups.

So at least for me, there was a transition period from lone wolf --> super social guy --> lone wolf+ (with various tight groups of cool, likeminded lone wolf-type friends at similar levels to me or on similar wavelengths; + student and mentor relationships with various people, where I am either student or mentor - again, those are mostly lone wolves too... most ambitious people tend to be fairly lone wolfish).

Seems like this is a general pattern a lot of people go through. Come out of the shell, go into social overload, then eventually settle into a comfortable fusion of "on your own" plus "tight group of quality friends."

Chase

Daveee's picture

That's pretty interesting and makes a lot of sense. I can relate because I do have a lot of small groups of friends that I am pretty close with. Also, I easily do make lasting friendships in more intimate settings pretty easy. My sticking point those is more open settings. I notice I kind of just stay quiet and observe everyone. This has not helped me meet a lot of women.

Reality's picture

Chase,

For a long time I wondered why I was increasing my masculine presence, becoming more independent but still not having the results I wanted. I was a fighter. I'm a long time reader and sometime ago I added some "redpill" tactics because it made me feel more like a man.

Is it possible to be a mix of both a lover&fighter?

Some examples off the top of my mind would be Mr. Clooney. Women love him but men respect him. Maybe you can explain if this is an optional 3rd pathway for a person aiming to both date the best women, but have the ability to conquer other men if the need arises.

Great article, and until next time!

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Reality-

Yes, definitely. I think I'd classify Clooney as closer to 'lover' than 'fighter' on a sliding scale. e.g., if you're a fighter-type guy with a decent build and some martial arts training, he's the sort of guy you'd expect to probably de-escalate things and look for a win-win social resolution (lover solution) rather than push back and try to start something (fighter solution). But at the same time he's still masculine enough that you expect if push came to shove he'd suit up and fight too (though might not be as good at it as a Vin Diesel or a Sly Stallone).

There's a lot that goes into respect... I talk about it here:

One items I glossed over too much in that article is the threat that needs to be behind the risk of going up against you. That might be a social threat, or a physical threat, or a financial threat. If someone knows you will mess him up if he makes problems for you, he will respect you.

So like with a Clooney for instance, he might not be a physical threat to you, but he often has well-liked and/or powerful characters he plays. If you were in one of his movies with him, there's an implicit threat of social ostracization or other consequences if you pick a fight with him and don't totally destroy him. He'll socially outmaneuver you and otherwise wreck your day.

I'd also note that lover ≠ pacifist. Women can be quite aggressive in going after people, and they have anywhere from a quarter to a tenth of the testosterone of the average man. Even if you're more on the lover side of things, you can be quite threatening in your domains with the power you wield. e.g., the lover who maybe is not as physically big as his opponent, but can socially outmaneuver him and leave that guy mocked by and excluded from the group.

So, you can tone down from fighter closer to lover, yet remain respected.

And of course, there's a spectrum there. You can go halfway, or 75% of the way, or whatever, toward lover, while retaining some fighter characteristics. Really depends what lifestyle you're after.

Chase

Jimbo's picture

I'd also note that lover ≠ pacifist. Women can be quite aggressive in going after people, and they have anywhere from a quarter to a tenth of the testosterone of the average man.

That's correct. I remember reading a Psychology Today article about testosterone, and they had a bunch of chimps or bonobos or some species like that. And what they did was that they changed their testosterone levels, and studied their behavior accordingly. The results were that when their testosterone was higher, so was their aggressiveness. But then what they did was lower their testosterone to zero, they inhibited it completely. The researchers thought they'd end up with a bunch of pacifictic bonobos, except they still found some hostile and malicious behavior coming from them, except this time not as overt or direct or harsh. The conclusion of that study was that testosterone doesn't create aggression, hostility, and malice; it just modulates its intensity and ferocity.

SZ's picture

I want to start day game Chase.

I'm having a hard fuckin time tho, I go out during the day and the places I go I don't see many women.

When I do see that one girl, I have extreme expectations, then my anxiety and doubt, doubles , and I'm like fuck this.

I don't understand why day game is so fuckin hard, it's take so much effort and energy from me to get dressed, and go out to try it, it's a real though mental battle, then when It comes to approaching it's a whole other world.

Saying hi only gets you so far, it's the rest of the stuff.

It's been like this for many years and I don't know why it's so hard for me to start doing this.

I read posts from people who have it way harder than me, they have no social skills and are virgins and they're doing day game. Why am I having a hard time doing this? People are actually saying it's easier to do it than night game.

I feel like I'm wasting my time and will get rejections and flakes and ill look weird to them.

It just seems like it's a guarantee rejection, what woman wants to sleep with me from this?!

Plus I'm black in a majority white town.

I see that one decent girl and then, im like fuck! I can't do it!

I want to know why I can't do this, but guys that are way worse than I am are doing it?

I want to love this , I want to change, I want to love day game, I feel if I can do this then it'll make everything so much easier.

How can I do this?

JasonH's picture

Hi SZ,

Try starting with social circle; I can tell from your writing that you're either placing white people on a pedestal or you lack the social skills to engage girls in normal everyday conversations. First question to ask is are you friends with girls? have you got white girls/hispanic/asian/black girls as friends and can you flirt with them, be playful, banter and have a good time?
If not start with that and develop those social skills and relationships and you'll see your vibe change, your skills grow immensely, then it's a matter of application into day game.

Cheers,
JasonH

SZ's picture

I definitely don't put white people on a pedestal at all; they're no better than me.

I just know a majority want their own type and I happen to be in a white town.

I've had female friends of different races. I don't really count those as anything because some see past the color because they know me from social circle and some have said they do not like black guys.

All I have are white women because that's all my town has to offer.

I'm not used to dating white women like that.

Thanks tho

Lawliet's picture

Hey Chase,

Great article, just a quick comprehesion check, so how exactly do we strike a middle balance of Lover and fighter apart from growing not that long of beard and not that deep of a voice ? ;P

I read Hector's article already but it didn't click for me.

Looks like usually your draw it out in plain sight style works best for slow learners like me XD
What are your rule of thumb in setting this balance and applying it to all aspects of our lives beside beard and voice?

Re: Girl doesn't understand English...

SO I somehow managed to ask a girl out and we exchanged numbers with hand signals...
Don't ask me how, or what the heck, it just happened... XD

Now I'm thinking, what the heck am I suppose to do on the date?

Since travelling is one of my goals down the road, what if I travel to another country like Asia or South America and I don't know their language, how are we suppose to date or first date sex?

*excluding becoming the next epitome of ASL awards*

Well, wish me luck xD
There's potentially good logistics with this one so might finally land on the next plateau...

Best,
Lawliet

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Lawliet-

I do not have any rules of thumb for total personality/behavior shifts! It's something I've only done myself a few times. I guess I'd suggest you make a conscious effort to model yourself after a couple role models who already have the energy you're going for, and ask yourself if you're behaving in ways they'd behave or if you aren't. And if you aren't, then adjust.

As for the girl who does not speak English... it's all here:

Nonverbal Attraction and Getting Girls Without Words

But to sum up: playful, flirtatious, playfully insistent, lots of eye contact and subcommunication, touch, fast escalation. Use misunderstandings to laugh and touch more. Make it a fun, silly thing, you two people who can't talk, and just continue to escalate. And make sure you end up somewhere alone once it gets hot enough.

Chase

pp's picture

I think it applies to many areas. It's all about whom you want to please, once I got on article written by a girl:
https://www.theodysseyonline.com/why-girls-chase-jerks-not-gentlemen
and I thought why the hell she writes about it, when it's not nice to be a girl and talk these things, my conclusion is that she learned to speak in a way that doesn't trigger sensitive girls, yet is appealing for men too - she wants to fit both audiences.
But from your experience, who gets more success, the one who has one priority audience yet works on pleasing the other too, or the one who puts all his focus in single one and discards other almost completely?

Author
Chase Amante's picture

PP-

Yes, there is an audience dilemma, that's true.

I try to walk the middle ground as much here as possible, and present things in ways that'll be understandable to all sides of the spectrum, from regular guy to lover to fighter. The easiest way to do that is to stay away from "shoulds" ("You SHOULD do this!"), absolutism ("The ONLY thing that works is X"), and in-grouping ("Anyone who does Y is a chode/beta/blue pill/tryhard/a fake alpha/a poseur/wants to act like he's hard").

The problem with the middle ground approach is it does not polarize as much. It is significantly easier to build a loyal, excited following when you do not just present information and perspectives, but actually serve as the leader of a movement/cause. People just don't feel as strongly about the guy with the balanced approach as they do the guy who breathes fire at this or that enemy and swings the sword of righteousness and absolutism. (I occasionally have to write "tough love" articles or "let me set the record straight" articles in part to avoid this balanced-guy-apathy you get from hewing too close to the middle line. I will probably do another one of those very soon, actually)

In my experience, the single focus guy sees faster short term success - often EXPLOSIVE short term success. But his career is usually shorter lived. He gathers too many enemies who work to hobble and destroy him, which is both logistically and emotionally tiring. Meanwhile the balanced perspective guy has a slower build, but if he is consistent ends up with better long-term results.

There's actually a third path, which you can see a lot of male music stars use... like Elvis, Tupac, and Eminem. Basically the guy starts off super controversial (and anyone who is controversial is someone who is taking a strong position against some other position - he is picking a side), and uses that to elevate his star. Then once he's at peak cultural prominence, but before he'd start to be crushed under the weight of his opponents, he softens his views (and usually the Overton window shifts in his direction at the same time), and the other side forgives him. Doesn't always work out - you have to soften in the right way (usually just small tokens here and there; not a total reversal / surrendering of views / claiming that you now believe you were wrong - otherwise you look weak, and rather than your opponents accept that a strong enemy has mollified himself, they say, "Wow, I though he was a strong enemy but it turns out he's just a flimsy coward who was pretending to be strong." So this is an effective path, but... fraught with peril if you can't hack it / aren't actually sincere about it). If you can pull this off though, it's arguably the best path out there: cause controversy to rocket to the top, then soften your views to stay at the top.

Chase

drvipul@outlook.com's picture

Hey Chase, Hector told guys become a hulk like intimidating personality (in his article-becoming beast part 2) to attract women and get respect from other men around but you in the article- lovers vs. fighters- say that women don't much like overly muscular fighter kind of guys like Arnold Schwarzenegger and women feel lusted for lover kind of personality like that of- Marlon Brando and Marlon just have lean and fit body and not the intimidating overly muscular one. Can you please explain this contrast between you and Hector ?

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Dr. Vipul-

Sure thing.

In a comment above, I note there is a continuum of masculinity a guy can position himself on. All the way on the left and he's flamboyant and effeminate. All the way on the right and he has nightly bar fights and beats the crud out of women. Most people are somewhere in between.

Hector has himself positioned somewhat between lover and fighter. Which is a pretty good place to be and a lot of guys want to be in that place. If you notice on his articles, he gets a group of readers who repeatedly note that his style is their favorite and his stuff is the best for them on Girls Chase.

Further, there are girls with preferences all along the continuum. Fewer girls choose the guy who's a fighter than choose the guy who's a lover. But even if 10 girls go for the lover and only 6 girls go for the fighter (or whatever; those numbers aren't based on anything), those 6 girls who go for the fighter will tend to be girls who love fighters and wouldn't want to date a lover or an Average Joe. Each group thus has its own types of women it appeals to.

In Hector's case, he's still close enough to lover he isn't really sacrificing much in terms of appeal by going a bit more fighter. He could probably go more lover and up his appeal a bit (and he's talked about how the best naturals he knows are very feminine - these are guys who've gone all-in on the lover role). However, I can tell you from knowing him personally he's only a third to maybe 40% of the way from lover to fighter... closer to lover. I'd still expect to see him use charm and wit to defuse most situations, rather than turn into a rage monster and berserk his way out like fighters are more inclined to.

I think also to a certain extent Hector does not realize how literally some guys take every thing you write in an article. So he can fall prey to too much hyperbole sometimes. It takes a little while of writing to large audiences before you realize how variously readers will interpret what you write, and learn to get specific enough about it that it's impossible to take out of context. e.g., when Hector says you should turn into a hulk, I suspect he means something closer to "Get strong, be imposing, and be tough-minded" than he means "Fill yourself with rage, be gigantically muscular, and use your fists to resolve any problem that gets in your way." As he matures as a writer, I think you'll see him either scale back the hyperbole, or take extra pains to make sure what hyperbole he uses is not misinterpreted by readers.

Chase

drvipul@outlook.com's picture

You're awesome Chase! With your efforts I've been able to overcome the biggest challenge in my life and got the answers to most questions I had i my mind but never got the real answers. You're great!

Vipul

lux's picture

Great article Chase!

I'd be curious to see how did you get those statistics or how did you get to your mental image of Vancouver and Australia.
Is it like a gut feeling you got while traveling, heard it from friends or..

Add new comment

The Latest from GirlsChase.com