The "It's Cruel When Men Don't Stick Around After Sex" Argument | Girls Chase

The "It's Cruel When Men Don't Stick Around After Sex" Argument

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 subscriber? Log in here.

stick around after sex
Men don’t always stick around for a relationship after sex. Is this wrong and is there anything bad about it – or not?

On my Friday/Saturday night date post, a female commenter took issue with my advice to a male commenter that he take advantage of rebound sex to get over a harsh relationship he just came out of.

To her point, I was perhaps a little indelicate in how I suggested he do this (it was guy-to-guy talk; this is a men’s site, after all). However, she took the occasion to launch into a moral argument that casual sex hurts women, takes advantage of them, and uses and discards them like unwanted objects. Her comment arguing this is a bit long to quote (you can read her full comment here), so I’ll just quote what is the most important part to me:

I have had conversations with girlfriends who have told me that a guy won’t go out with them if they don’t sleep with them. Women have been conditioned to feel they have to have sex, much much sooner than they would feel comfortable. We know from studies that men don’t develop the feeling of love until at least 3-6 months into the relationship, even while sleeping with a woman. What they develop are lust emotions.

Most women have given up on the idea of a man protecting them and *actually* loving them. Valor and honor and real love for another is almost absent in most dating. What you describe in your post is not love at all. It is using people for sex, using people for the thrill of feeling desires, of entertainment, but it is not love. You are incredibly insightful with how to manipulate women to get to your ultimate goal. What I am saying is that this is the opposite of what a man of valor would do. He would protect his woman from physical exploitation, not be the one to exploit her. And he is exploiting her, even if it’s with her permission, when he is trying to extract sex from her when he doesn’t even genuinely love her--- care for her best good.

It doesn’t much matter if rebound sex helps a person feel better. That doesn’t make it right. Maybe we can just numb our conscience to the point that it is dead so that we can pursue feelings of lust and pleasure without caring what is actually loving to others?

First off, her science is wrong. Men are more romantic than women are, heal less completely from breakups than women do, experience love at first sight at nearly double the rate of women... and that immediate in-love love-at-first-sight feeling men get is not infatuation – relationships that spring from immediate in-love feelings are every bit as stable and likely to last as those that develop from slow build-ups.

But that’s beside the point.

Our commenter’s argument is that to sleep with her, then not see her again, or not engage in or want to engage in a long-term committed relationship with her is damaging to her. You hurt her, you injure her, and you just generally make her feel bad.

So is she right? Does sex minus commitment lead to a trail of broken hearts and cynical women?

The answer I’ll give you is “yes, but.” And the ‘but’ is quite important.

But we’re not ready for the ‘but’ yet. Let’s talk about the ‘yes’ first.

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.



Neal's picture

So much for the "women need sex too" article(s) and related from years back.

Chase Amante's picture


Seriously though. Here are the articles you're talking about:

There is nary so much as a turn of the phrase in this article that contradicts these.

Women being choosy about sex partners or desiring good sex with sexy men is not the equivalent of "women don't want sex."

Any more than an obese chick telling you all the stuff people told her claiming that men liked sex was bullshit because Neal turned her down for a 69 session.


Neal's picture

If women like sex so much, why won't they offer to pay for it?


Chase Amante's picture

Same reasons I don't.

One, it's an insult to one's vanity to think that as a highly desired human being, you would need to pay for sex.

Two, when sex is easy to get, there's not much point to paying for it. Especially when the tail you get without paying is superior to any tail you could get by paying.

Three, the thrill of the hunt is just as crucial as the act itself. Without the hunt, what's the point?


Neal's picture

Chase, regarding #2, there's something lacking there.

There's plenty of women out there whom men will not pay for sex, compared to some women out there that men will pay or sex. The kind of women men will pay for sex are most likely not the ones women will give in easily.

I think this argument could also be used on women. Yes, why should a woman pay for sex if she can get it easily. But not from men she finds attractive. What about men who she does find attractive and aren't willing to do it so easily. So I think it is a mentality that women are lacking.

Chase Amante's picture

The kind of women men will pay for sex are most likely not the ones women will give in easily.

Not sure how many hookers you've been around, Neal... but a goodly chunk of them are women who were already nymphomaniacs and simply decided to get paid to do what they love! They are by definition "women who will give in easily."

Some are gold diggers (especially in the high class / call girl / escort world) and use prostitution to build their connections and meet their future husbands. Though again, they're having sex with men they'd sleep with anyway, only now they get to do it in a way that makes them look "higher value" (since the guy has to pay to get it), and allows them access to men they wouldn't have a good way to access otherwise (since these usually are girls coming from poor or middle class backgrounds).

But among hookers in general, most are either gold diggers, nymphomaniacs, or junkies (the third category... they hook to make enough money to get their next fix). And for every attractive-enough hooker, there are dozens of old, ugly, and/or fat ones who still make money because men still pay for them (for reasons that are beyond me). 99% of hookers are far from womankind's best though, I will tell you that (there are a few diamonds in the rough... but they're few and far between. And even those chicks are screwy in the head).

Yes, why should a woman pay for sex if she can get it easily. But not from men she finds attractive. What about men who she does find attractive and aren't willing to do it so easily.

There are lots of men with near-zero standards out there. Plenty of good-looking and/or wealthy and/or whatever other qualities you want to rate a man's attractiveness along men who are happy to hook up with some chubby, ugly chick, then laugh about it with their buddies the next day. Free of charge.

That said, your scenario does in fact exist. When women reach a certain age and physical size, it becomes almost impossible for them to find studly young men willing to grace them with sex for free. Thus, you get a bunch of fat women in their 60s and up who travel to Africa and the Caribbean for an 'exotic vacation', where they meet young African and Caribbean men who sex them up in exchange for meals, money, and gifts.

Until they reach that age though, women are able to find men who can serve as good enough substitutes for the sex partners they want. If you've ever rejected a fat girl for sex, the odds are much better she went and found some other guy similar to you who did not reject her (and instead gave her all the big girl lovin' she needed) than they are she decided to go pay for some guy who looks like you instead.


Mischief's picture

This female writer goes to great lengths to elicit feelings of guilt among men for desiring sex without a relationship. "How dishonorable… where is your valor, you heartless men!?" Overtly speaking, her words clearly imply that sex is some despairing experience women must endure only for the chance of getting to something worthwhile down the line.

Personally, I find it sickening whenever a woman attempts to appeal to the concept of honor, an exclusively male concept, in context of intergender relations. Honor holds about as much intrinsic meaning to a woman as abstract thinking does to a fish. I know that sounds extreme, but the dots do connect. Also, don't take this to mean I find women inferior to men. In fact, I genuinely envy women for their inate ability to be so detached with so little effort.

Essentially, I see this woman's post as just a shit test: appeal to male instincts of protecting women via inciting guilt over male sexuality. The men who buy into her schema are the betas. Those who call her bluff are the alphas.


P.S. I should also mention that I do not believe this woman or any woman who writes or speaks openly on this topic is consciously manipulating men. I for one believe she really does see her point of view as the epitome of humane behavior, which leads to why I still harbor deep fears of what women are truly capable of beneathe the surface…

P.P.S. Consider the term alpha as sexy attractive man and beta as regular guy.

She enters your world… not the other way around.

A-jay's picture

"which leads to why I still harbor deep fears of what women are truly capable of beneathe the surface…"

Care to elaborate? Just what do you "fear" women are capable of?

Mischief's picture

For one, she basically states that a woman seduced into sex by a man is "exploited." That thought right there is scary, especially in context of a feminized legal system.

Even when things do not go as far as court, white knights abound every corner who eat up the "call to honor" women, for no other reason than that they are female. Also known as betas, these men are champing at the bit to vilify the men who get it, and women such as this commentator all too happily employ their services at such time as they may suit her. This is a particular issue for beginning to intermediate level guys (like myself) who are not yet suave enough to practice their seduction craft under the radar.


She enters your world… not the other way around.

Chase Amante's picture


Yes, 'honor' and 'valor' are not womanly values. I've never heard a woman use them except as an attempt to cajole a man into doing what she wants. They thus serve as a sort of danger sign that a woman you hear uttering them does not have benevolent intentions toward you - her intentions are sneakier than that.

Though to be fair, a lot of men use 'honor' and 'valor' in dishonorable ways. Any time a man asks "Where is your honor?" you need to be careful about whether he is legitimately trying to defend some righteous cause, or whether he is simply trying to shame you, silence you, or otherwise bring you into line with whatever he believes you should do. Not to mention the fact that in our fractured, unmoored societies we hardly have a cohesive idea about what is honorable and what isn't anymore... which makes it all the easier for anyone who wants to position himself as an arbiter of value to try to decide what is and isn't honorable for everyone else.

Honor is a powerful concept. As with any powerful concept, there are always plenty who are happy to exploit its power to serve their own ends.


Mischief's picture

Women simply use a counterintuitive method (certainly, obfuscating by way of male understanding) with which to get sex. Their priorities are different: secure as many providers/orbiters as possible and then, when horny, fuck the hottest alpha her attractiveness can command, keeping in the meantime the attention of as many orbiters as possible.

For men, our priority is the opposite: fuck as many cute/hot chicks as our alphaness can command and then pick the hottest one we can manage for a committed relationship. Of course, I am leaving religious men out of the picture here, as I believe they only attempt to distort their own hind brain desires with moralistic reasoning.


She enters your world… not the other way around.

stefxxxyyy's picture

morality such a complex topic, how many perspectives and unstated assumptioms or axioms people start from, and even hidden/unconcious motivations for stated beliefs about what is right or wrong...!

Chase Amante's picture


Yes indeed!

The deeper you get into it, the easier it is to see how so many great philosophers have whittled away entire lifetimes unpacking and trying to understand morality.

Confucius, Plato, Hobbes, Descartes, and a thousand others.

Before you let anyone pass moral judgment on you, the first thing to ask them is where those moral judgments they make come from and what foundation they're based upon. If they cannot answer that, they are probably not very well morally educated...


Jimbo's picture

Great stuff, Chase! You hit it on the head with the market forces explanation. I was led to this article after reading the 'Friday' and your back-and-forth, so I wrote a comment response to her last comment. But not that I read your own article response, I see you basically covered the same points, much better, and with much less vitriol, and props for that.

Anyway, since I'd written my response to the girl's comment anyway, here it is:

"Valor and honor are the bullshit arguments used to sucker men into doing stuff that aren't in their interest.

If you don't want to be part of the hookup culture, don't hook up, don't have casual sex, simple as that. If a girl tells me she's not having sex until marriage, I'll respect that. I won't be dragging her by the hair to do it. If I'm really into the girl and want her for long term, I can wait a little, that's cool. Other than that, I'll move on and she'll get a guy who's into her enough to wait -- win-win.

So I don't see what's your problem. Just don't have casual sex, period.

Also, you said men should be your defenders. What did you do to deserve free-of-charge defenders? Just because you exist and you're female, a guy has to selflessly come over your rescue and look after you? What does he get in return? Empty, intangible titles of "valor" and "honor" and "man". That's what you say when you don't have anything to pay the guy with. And stop having casual sex if it causes such emotional damage."

Chase Amante's picture


Aye. And I'd say market forces are the answer to your comment as well!

Our commenter's problem is namely that the other women have broken the social contract and reduced the value of sex. When other women are willing to offer sex to men casually and early on, it erodes all of women's bargaining power in the dating game.

Men have different things we can offer women. If a bunch of men want to throw commitment at women, white knight for them, offer them marriage in exchange for sex, and whatnot, that's fine for you and me. We can be the attractive, sexy, strong, aloof men those men can't be (when they pursue that strategy anyway) and offer a different kind of value to women. And there are a variety of different strategies men can pursue, even beyond the needy provider and the sexy lover (a guy could be the strong provider, or the authority figure, or any of a number of other options).

When a woman goes the "pure and reserved" route in a market flooded with much more sexually receptive competitors, there are still men who will value her and pursue her. But she's forced to draw from a much reduced dating pool, since now there are a variety of men who will look at her and, unless she is exceptionally beautiful, be unwilling to wait around for her or put the work in she demands to get to sex.

Our commenter's most critical error is in appealing to me, a teacher of dating and seduction, and to our broader readership in general, of men who want to date women and have sex and relationships, to be the sex police. At no point in history have women's suitors ever been the ones who encouraged her to abstinence. It is the other men in women's lives who perform this role. Fathers, brothers, cousins, uncles, priests. Or in the case of married women, husbands. It is men who have ownership of or responsibility for (depending on the social setup) these women who enforce no-sex on them. And the ones they are trying to protect them from are us! (and of course we, once husbands and fathers, then become responsible for protecting our wives and daughters from their would-be paramours)

I will say I have been with a number of women who have confessed to me that many 'good' men around them had encouraged them not to hook up or have fast sex. Of course, they did not choose to sleep with these men. They may have gone on a date or two with them. But nothing happened. And instead they ended up in bed with me.

If you are her brother or her father or her uncle or her priest, then yes. Encourage her to wait. But if you're the guy who wants to be with her?

Do as all men at all times in history who wanted to be with women always have done. Encourage her to run away with you, give into her passion, and love.


Eugene's picture

I think the fundamental issue with her comment, that I don't think you addressed(maybe wasn't as relevant to the article) was her basically putting herself, her friends , and all women into the "victim" role. Basically a complete lack of personal responsibility as an adult. It has nothing to do with them (her friends), it's the men. They are responsible for the weak and helpless women who "have no choice" but to put out, lest these big bad controlling men decide to say no and move on and not date her. Because we all know that two consenting adults deciding to have sex never happens .. it's always the guy forcing her to put out because she has no other choice. There's so much wrong and disappointing with that statement that it makes it hard for me to take her entire comment seriously. Because we all know women never decide to have casual sex with guys and not stick around after. Oh wait ...

Mischief's picture


She enters your world… not the other way around.

Jimbo's picture

Right. Some women will cry coercion no matter what.

In former times, when fathers had more authority over their adult daughters, women (or the feminist sections of them) used to cry that women had to put out to men they didn't choose themselves just to please their fathers or parents. And now that they can choose, they're crying that they have to put out to exploitative men because of the market forces. You can't win.

I mean I understand part of female sexuality is to feel like you don't have a choice, like you're being made to have sex, but fuck me this is sometimes taken to creepy extremes!

Chase Amante's picture


Yeah, it was kind of weird framing.

I suspect partly in reaction to my indelicately worded comment to another reader. Which to someone who is not sex-positive probably came across as some kind of cynical "just use other people for sex, haha!" remark.

I think that's what she was actually reacting to. The idea of soulless men who pick up trusting, warm-hearted women for sex. Then discard them after the act is over like old deli meat. I don't like guys who do that either.

But then after I explained that wasn't my meaning, she was sort of locked into defending her stance, and it just ballooned into this whole "men need to be women's protectors" thing. Of course, if women need protecting, it is from other men. So really it's "I need you to be this type of man to save me from that other type of man", which is really just more female projecting of sexual fantasies. And then so often the woman thanks the man who is 'protecting' her, doesn't have sex with him, and goes and shags the naughty bad boy anyway.

Also, coming here and saying what she said is sort of like wandering onto a pirate ship, then telling the pirate he needs to be a good pirate to protect you from all the bad pirates out there.

Well. Girls, what can you say?


Mischief's picture

I had simply written off the female's comment as typical fem-imperative screeching to meta-masculine push-back. I.e., "you evil men will not give us whatever we want and more…"

Then you come along with this brilliant piece, backed up by mountains of data… hooray!

I found her comment to be extremely well-written as well, with the exception of glaring oversights like, "he is exploiting her, even if it is with her permission…" . . . WHAT???

Personally, I have resolved that women are incapable of making sense by any male-defined metric, and that's OK -- actually, a big part of what I like about them so much! Women in-love will go to bat for me over some pretty crazy ideas and/or activities I have entertained, and then I think, "hmmph, that's nuts, but I'll take it (and the pussy)!"

As you pointed out at the end of your article, the female commentator expresses zero concern for rejected men. I doubt she is even marginally aware of this. Gentlemen, that is female solipsism for you, right there. A woman only pines for the alphas that got away, and as for the rest… they do not even exist to her.

In the end, alphas who sleep with her and leave (as well as those she does not sleep with at all), well… none of them care anymore for her than she does for all the betas she has rejected. Funny how that works, huh?

*NOTE: I use the terms alpha and beta contextually speaking -- relative to that woman's perception.

I continuously admire how much scientific backing you put into your articles, Chase. You fleshed out some good scientific evidence reinforcing the dichotomy of male/female reproductive strategies. The success of one gender's imperative necessitates the thwarting of the other's. There is no happily-ever-after, but that is why the mating game will forever be exciting.


She enters your world… not the other way around.

Alexander Abraham's picture

Especially the amount of DATA you put into your articles; it's just staggering. And like Mischief pointed out, when women talk about this kinda stuff she doesn't even SEE the men that have it tough. Though I'm pretty sure that you talked about this as well (which the same holds true for men as well).

We, as humans, just see what it's like for people at the top and get pissy when we notice the lack of what we have. Though it's also a cautionary tale to not get too sucked into it, at least, that's the lesson I choose to take from it. That somebody is in a position that's below me and they're mad at me! Hard to fathom but that is exactly how it works.

But ya, to repeat what I commented in that other article: your patience is honestly remarkable. And I certainly thank you for it (as I'm sure others do as well).

You change lives for the better, even when assaulted by well-meaning lies (seriously, I find it very difficult to even bother with them). And that is a true testament to your character as a human being.

Bravo [/end ass-kissing lol]

Mischief's picture

"Women’s sexual strategy is very schizophrenic – ideally women want a Man that other women want to fuck, but in order to assess his sexual market value to other women he’s got to have exercisable options for her to compete against, or at least display indirect social proof to that effect. So, she needs to limit his options while simultaneously determining he has those options." -Rollo Tomassi

She enters your world… not the other way around.

Old Mate Steve's picture

Found this site from google advice on girls. I've just had to break up with my first ever girlfriend, who'd I'd been with for 5 years (high school sweet hearts) after finding her cheating on me. This is the first article on your list, so I started here, and at first, reading through the comments linked, I must say that I thought this site was going to be just a silly verbal jousting arena, where people congregate to let off steam/validate themselves by spouting shit about internet strangers. Then I read the article...

I must say, I'm glad to have found someone in you Chase who, from first impressions at least, seems to be able to deliver sound advice on women with out the bias/ego-boosting/naïvity of some of he other websites I browsed before this one. Obviously, I yet to read the content of your actual advice-giving post, but I doubt they will have the generic (and pretty BS) advice of 'just be yourself', or the focus on impressing other men such as the sites claiming "you just need to be ALLLPPPHHHAAA!!!". Of course, I'm relatively new - no actually, to be honest, I have no experience in picking up women as I have just left a relationship that took pretty much all my high school then some - so I'll have to take the advice with a grain of salt first, because for all I know, maybe one of the other websites' approaches where the best way, (though I highly doubt it). However, I hope the you continue to impress, and if so, then you probably found yourself a loyal customer.

Cheers mate

Chase Amante's picture

Cheers, Steve. Sorry to hear about the girlfriend. Lots of guys get serious about learning game after incidents like that... you have plenty of company among our readers and forum members.

The alpha chest-beating is something I've railed against for over six years now (and to be honest, it's not as bad these days as it used to be). So if that bugs you too, then you'll probably get on with the material on this site just fine ;) Welcome!


Sadeqh's picture


I hope you are pretty well doing things you do.

I couldn't make the time to read this article though I know it is something I must return on.
My questions something about the way the mind works, I mean there are things in life some physical abuses that passed, things that happen that makes me say I am not a man of valor( destroys my self esteem), like not answering back a fight (because it is not one or two..there are many people like that around me in camp) , threatening situantions, although i could've easily hit them back, which hurts my mind so hard in the times that thoughts of myself doing nothing about it hurts me mentally too hard.
I am trying constantly to get out of Iran with high skills meanwhile doing military period I must pass to enable my passport.
Living here has become a Matrix, uneducated people around, too many bullies to stay away from, religious people around, specially in miltary camp.
I think of myself so high because It's a Big Nightmare for me not to achieve my dreams and have a professional job in America.
I am living because I hope I can forget the past once I am out though I dont still know how to forget.
is there anything you could tell me to continue my way with less damage to my mind?
What should I do to regain my self esteem, honor, real manliess?

yours truly, Sadeqh

Chase Amante's picture


Sounds like you didn't fight back when surrounded by enemies? I don't know if I'd call that lacking in valor... more that you were not lacking in prudence. Valor is not charging into unwinnable battles and being beaten, unless that defeat serves some greater purpose.

The best tacticians know how to use secrecy and guile every bit as well as they do strength and valor. See Sun-Tzu's The Art of War and Machiavelli's The Prince. Saul Alinsky puts it this way in Rules for Radicals: that when direct confrontation is a legitimate channel open to you to effect change, you can use it. But when this is a channel that will lead to you getting crushed, you do something else instead.

Plenty of figures throughout history who avoided direct confrontation yet became revered. You might read about Fabius Maximus, who waged war against the powerful Hannibal Barca by avoiding direct confrontation. At first the Romans though Fabius was a coward, but after Hannibal crushed other Roman generals, they realized Fabius's "discretion is the better part of valor" approach was in fact the more prudent one.

So I would advise you to busy yourself with your pursuits, and pay no mind to the critics about you. When you have left them in your dust, you will be glad you did not stop to let them drag you down into brawling in the dirt with them instead of carving out your own path elsewhere.


Sadeqh's picture

Yeah that's exactly what I'm thinking about to do.
I'll have a read on those historic subjects as soon as I find time and thank you alot, and I think as you said the one who sees a great value gain in his future will not risk losing it to little gains.
I was so much hunted, my situantions like Amir Hekmati right now they kinda treat me like that.. the same people.
Again thanks.


Jimbo's picture

My two additional cents to what Chase said: Win. Get your way. And let your enemies and haters see you getting your way. That will be your best revenge. If that means making money, then make it your primary goal. If that's coming to the US as you said, then jump through whatever hoops to do it and do it. Believe me that's the best way to regain your self-esteem and honor and all those things you're worrying about vis-à-vis those assholes tormenting you. Chin up, power through, and have the last laugh.

Let me tell you, four years ago, a couple of dudes told me I shouldn't procreate because of some of my pro-business political positions. And ever since that day I made the vow that I'll end up having at least ten kids, probably ten more than he'll ever have. And I'm stacking money for that very purpose right now. The next generation will have more of my stuff and your stuff will just die off, what do you make of that!

Sadeqh's picture

I'm definitely starting right now to get some serious degrees in acounting, think its the best to start with..
I am getting out of this country's stupid military though I still do not have permission to get out of Iran..I'm working hard on that too, doing it legally.
I really adore to have alot of kids around and I guess you're a high energetic and athletic father for your kids and that's awesome!

Brett's picture

Hi Chase,

let me first appreciate your work and thank you for sharing your experience and ideas.

I have been taking inspiration from your work for quite some time and I especially appreciate your pragmatic approach and practical focus.

I can follow a lot of your ideas and also have a very similar taste for women (shy-excited, inquisitive and influence-resistant that can sometimes challenge you intellectually, etc.). I am however a bit suspicious regarding some of the very premises some of your thoughts and arguments are based on – namely: To what a degree economic principles really play role in human (romantic/partner) relationships? Can it be that you take the implementation of economic principles into human (romantic) relationships to an extreme? *

I know that (some) women can be rather cruel and I like how you can generally dismantle (their) honesty and (other’s) virtue and moral based arguments as arguments with self-serving purpose. In the response of the reader mentioned at the beginning of the article, I have however found a few thoughts that resonate with me deeply:
„[…] real love for another is almost absent in most dating. What you describe in your post is not love at all. It is using […], but it is not love. You are incredibly insightful with how to manipulate […] to get to your ultimate goal.“

„You are representing the prevalent western view today which is as good as the breeze in the air, here today, gone tomorrow. It's not objective reality of people's core needs nor how they are wired to thrive.“

I personally do not see that you would claim somewhere that you are talking about “love” (“love” in [initial] dating to me is questionable concept in general anyway). Rather than love and relationship building, you and your business seem to be focused on the very first step before relationship even occurs - “seduction” - to make relationship happen at all. So your work is then logically more about attraction (as some sort of pre-requisite of romantic relationship), attraction building and how to turn it into sex rather than about “love” (that’s also how I understand the point of the reader’s comment: authentic feelings of interest and care vs. rational manipulation just to get what you want). Agree?

Chase, have you read The Art of Loving (50s; in the USA) by Erich Fromm (Freud’s disciple; partially classified as Frankfurt School of Thought)? (excerpt only)

In here Fromm essentially (a.o.) claims that love that has become a subject of value exchange is not “real love” (and also does feel differently). Basically your reader’s words I selected and quoted above would be consistent with Fromm’s ideas.

I am trying to find out if there might be some link and how the two “philosophies” relate to each other but I have to admit I haven’t come to a conclusion yet. My assumption tends to be that you describe what works (at least short-term for the initial phase before relationship) especially in the current capitalist West while Fromm talks about what is valuable, rewarding (long term) and universally valid (even though extremely rare – as in his view it’s an Art) for all times.

Would you be willing to give it a thought and explain what the relation of your ideas and his might be? I (and possibly other readers) would be very much interested in how you would argumentatively cope with Fromm’s ideas.

One more question here:
I am aware and acknowledge that the bigger picture (e.g. demographics-market) does influence dating and relationships so it’s a question to what an extent you can act independently from it with success. You will probably agree with me that the first few steps in the relationship influence the set-up and further development of the relationship. Don’t you then think that the manipulative nature of game has the ability to poison the ground from which love is expected to grow later? (e.g. how can you trust a manipulator? At times I (have) enjoyed gaming but no matter what the outcome, in the end (especially woman's) gaming /apart from showing me she's not naive and knows the game/ has always been a turn off for me while sincerity on the contrary has boosted attraction.).

* to me (as a European; Europe tends to be rather socialist) it really seems this is an extreme business based (raw American capitalist) view of relationships and a result of what society you’ve been living in. To quote Fromm: “In a culture in which the marketing orientation prevails, and in which material success is the outstanding value, there is little reason to be surprised that human love relations follow the same pattern of exchange which governs the commodity and the labor market.“

Thanks for your time and effort.

P.S.: Just came back from a vacation in Ireland. A beautiful country with very friendly and warm people. I guess you must be more Irish than American. ;-)

Chase Amante's picture


Interesting questions.

I don't concern myself too much with love. I leave that to readers to decide if they want it or not. All I teach men is how to get together with women, and how to stay together with them. This website has arguably the most advanced information available online on building, maintaining, and sustaining long-term relationships:

There was a time before I got too involved with running Girls Chase when I was much more known for my relationship advice than for any other type of advice. Relationships have always been my biggest human specialty; seduction I had to learn.

I encourage readers to select in particular for women they experience strong initial emotions toward; 'love at first sight', if you will. Some articles on this:

I have never personally had a girlfriend I did not experience this emotion toward. And I am skeptical how satisfactory a relationship can be that does not start off with feelings of love, excitement, and admiration from the very outset. But in any event, it is not my place to lecture men and tell them relationships without this are 'bad'... only that I suggest they pursue love as a principle ingredient in any long-term relationships they pursue.

You're correct I don't recommend 'love' for hookups. At least not in the traditional sense of romantic, in-love love. Rather, I encourage men to feel empathy for women, to understand them, to appreciate their girlishness, and to love them as fellow human beings.

I've not read Fromm. Love is of course a value exchange (all social exchanges are value exchanges). But if it feels like a value exchange, or becomes a conscious value exchange, then I would agree - it has stopped being 'real' love. It has become a trade.

The way I differentiate the type of relationships Fromm is differentiating is between relationships based on giving versus relationships based on trading. Both relationships are value exchanges. However, both are based on very different approaches to a relationship. A giving relationship is based on giving freely of the self, with the confidence that this value one gives is an investment in building something mutual (the relationship, which provides value back to both partners - often a greater amount of value in return than either partner individually enters in). A trading relationship is based on tit-for-tat; I give you X thing, you give me Y thing of equivalent value. No relationship is built; you lose the amplification a giving relationship provides. A giving relationship can become a trading relationship if trust is broken; trading relationships rarely become giving relationships, though. Some low-trust people exclusively have trading relationships, and are incapable of having giving (loving) relationships. Which is very sad.

I talk about giving vs. trading a bit more here, albeit in a somewhat different context.

Don’t you then think that the manipulative nature of game has the ability to poison the ground from which love is expected to grow later? (e.g. how can you trust a manipulator? At times I (have) enjoyed gaming but no matter what the outcome, in the end (especially woman's) gaming /apart from showing me she's not naive and knows the game/ has always been a turn off for me while sincerity on the contrary has boosted attraction.).

Depends on the nature of the game. When it is based on lies, deception, and obfuscation, absolutely, yes. When it is based on flirtation, teasing, and fun, and otherwise is honest... then no, of course not. When you run your game that way, as I do, and as I do my best to teach men to, you build healthier relationships based on a greater degree of honesty than most other men and women out there do.

Women's gaming can be a turnoff if it is clearly guarded. When a woman cannot drop the act and be real, if you are sensitive to this sort of thing (as I am, and as you apparently are), then yes - it's a huge turnoff. Likewise, if you are dealing with a woman who wants to cut the crap, and you cannot be sincere, you'll turn her off.

When you learn game, you will go through a period of insincerity. This is unpleasant and not fun, but more or less necessary because you will be doing a bunch of things you wouldn't normally do. I talk about this in terms of the Jester/King dichotomy. You start out totally sincere, but largely unable to achieve the results you want. You then become insincere, and look and feel silly and fake. Eventually you reach a point, if you keep at it, where you can be completely sincere again, and yet get outstanding results. All things are like this. Pick a new martial art and start going to class around the advanced students, and you will feel like a faker, trying to keep up with them and making your clumsy moves and trying to understand what they so easily do.

This is the primary reason why most people who become very good at one thing never become very good at something else. They get too used to the feeling of being calm, natural, and sincere, while also getting excellent results, in the thing they are good at, to bother with the pain of being a beginner doing something they suck at and feel like a faker doing and still not get any results with that thing anyway.

* to me (as a European; Europe tends to be rather socialist) it really seems this is an extreme business based (raw American capitalist) view of relationships and a result of what society you’ve been living in. To quote Fromm: “In a culture in which the marketing orientation prevails, and in which material success is the outstanding value, there is little reason to be surprised that human love relations follow the same pattern of exchange which governs the commodity and the labor market.“

Europe follows market forces too. Just because one hails from a country that leans more socialist than another does not free one from these forces. Market forces are not some invention of economists. Economists are not even very good at what they do (trying to understand, model, and predict the markets). Supply, demand, trade, and exchange are economic terms for forces of nature.

If you believe otherwise, see how much money you can get on a classified site in your country offering your sperm to women looking to have children. Then post an identical ad offering the eggs of one of your country's supermodels. Why are people willing to pay so much more for one of her eggs than they are for a cup of your sperm? Now ask yourself what would happen if every man in your country went sterile, except for you. What would the price of your fertile sperm be versus the price of that egg?

We call these 'market forces', but you can call them whatever you want. They are universal forces that go beyond the marketplace. We only use marketplace terms for them because that's where the original thinking that went into these concepts took place at. Similar to how we use terms from sports games about sports concepts in non-sports contexts (did you really 'score' when you got laid? Was there anyone with a scoreboard in the room with you?), and concepts from biology in non-biological contexts (pretty much everything is subject to 'survival of the fittest' these days... even markets! This despite the fact that listed corporations are not exactly analogous to biological organisms in all ways).

P.S.: Just came back from a vacation in Ireland. A beautiful country with very friendly and warm people. I guess you must be more Irish than American. ;-)

I haven't visited yet (have heard different things... one Irish-descent friend called it 'depressing', which has kind of kept me away lest I have the same experience)... but genetically, and behaviorally... yes, probably.

What gave me away - was it the drinking, the arguing, the storytelling, or the philandering? ;)


Jimbo's picture

Great stuff. That explanation about market forces is one of those things we all instinctively get, but have a hard time expliciting in words, but you laid out a great basic explanation that I think should be taught in every Economics 101 class. Btw I think Basic Economics should be taught from junior high on, because we're basically have a country of economic illiterates.

On the "what could give you away as Irish" part, I'll vote 'the redhairing'! :)

Brett's picture


Interesting answers. Thanks.

I’ve been traveling on business so it took me a while to sort out my thoughts and get back to you.

Thanks also for navigating me through your website with some article hints and pointing out the positives. A lot of practical stuff really.

Now, your answers let some questions arise. If you feel like answering them, I’d be happy to know your perspective:

1. You said you teach men how to get together with women, and how to stay together with them. You might agree that man and women relationships are (even though not always) about love. Then, what is the reason you don’t you concern yourself so much with love? Also from a business point of view – e.g. Fromm, probably without that intention, sold 6 millon copies of his book..

2. You titled your response as “Love, Market Forces”. How are these two related in your view? Do you suggest (e.g. by the examples you gave here with eggs and sperm) that the path leading to love is by following the market forces? I understand demand more as the information about ‘what other people want’ rather than as information that object/subject x has is of y nature/quality/value (for me).

3. This one’s extra: How do you see the relation of love and fear? In some of your articles you keep suggesting that a man and woman relationship actually is basically some sort of a fight for power and if you do not want to lose attraction, you must behave in such a way (keep more power) that your partner must actually fear the possibility of losing you. So you think then that healthy and fulfilling man and woman relationships are partially based on fear? How does that go together with trust? Or how is this to be understood?

4. Trading vs. giving. In that you and Fromm are one. There’s however another aspect. Him diving deep into the underlying concepts, it seems he would have some concerns regarding the concept of ‘humans as products’ to be sold by themselves on the dating market. I have finally found the respective paragraph. Seems to be in stark contrast to your philosophy. Maybe you can say why his view is so different. As if he would be coming from a totally different world:

„Closely related to this factor is another feature charac-teristic of contemporary culture. Our whole culture is based on the appetite for buying, on the idea of a mutually favor-able exchange. Modern man's happiness consists in the thrill of looking at the shop windows, and in buying all that he can afford to buy, either for cash or on installments. He (or she) looks at people in a similar way. For the man an attrac-tive girl—and for the woman an attractive man—are the prizes they are after. "Attractive" usually means a nice pack-age of qualities which are popular and sought after on the personality market. What specifically makes a person attrac-tive depends on the fashion of the time, physically as well as mentally. During the twenties, a drinking and smoking girl, tough and sexy, was attractive; today the fashion demands more domesticity and coyness. At the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of this century, a man had to be aggres-sive and ambitious—today he has to be social and tolerant—in order to be an attractive "package." At any rate, the sense of falling in love develops usually only with regard to such human commodities as are within reach of one's own possi-bilities for exchange. I am out for a bargain; the object should be desirable from the standpoint of its social value, and at the same time should want me, considering my overt and hidden assets and potentialities. Two persons thus fall in love when they feel they have found the best object available on the market, considering the limitations of their own exchange values. Often, as in buying real estate, the hidden potentiali-ties which can be developed play a considerable role in this bargain.“ /E. Fromm – The Art of Loving/

Ireland. I experienced Ireland as a beautiful country. We rented a car in Dublin and went south-west to Count Kerry. The inland might be a bit boring (flat; grass and cows everywhere) but closer to the coastal parts and mountains it’s incredible and exciting. People seem to live a rather simple (agriculture – sheep) and modest though a content life there. Moisture climate, fresh green plants and a lot of stones and raw stone buildings. I also met also some old Americans who came to investigate their family history. When did your ancestors left for US? Anyway, I can only recommend it to you, especially in spring and summer time. Irish pubs with (traditional) live music – anytime.

Oh, and what gave you away? Well, except for looks, let me simply say it was the spirit ;)


Lawliet's picture

Just from reading the title, I can't help finding myself chuckling at that complaint from women...

Women usually think ahead waaaay more than men... a comment like this comes off rather silly and cute

Try to consider this perspective, ladies...

If we ask them this instead, they will probably give a much clearer answer:
"Would you prefer a man who lied to you about being together and starting a family with you, whom you then imagine and fantasize a future with, only for him to vanish?

Or would you prefer a man who you shared a lovely moment but was honest with his intentions from the very BEGINNING, and you had the choice to choose what to do before wasting your time?

I'm almost certain all would say preferring the second.

Re: Approach grabs

Hey Chase I reviewed some of your articles lately and I found that approach grabs are pretty useful for me in the past year.

Thanks for the article, but can you make a longer list of approach grabs?
I'm still not getting as much approach invitations (for whatever reason most of the time I get them is when I'm rushing to class or hands are tied).

Can we get more grabs to nab more ladycrabs? ;D

Case Example:
I'm specifically thinking of situations like transit where she's seated far away...
And came up with "what if we just stared?"
I know it breaks protocol and can come off creepy, but what we did the chin tuck to use "shyness" to numb the predatory frame?

Ideally, it would match the same way when girls look at us and just keep staring until we notice, and then they look down and smile shyly...

Once a woman has noticed you, if she likes you, she will keep her eye on you and wait for a chance to give you an approach invitation. from Attention Grab by Chase

I'm guessing you meant the same thing here. What if we used the same tactic and "keep our eye on her" to get her attention ?


Mischief's picture

She is thinking ahead. I am almost certain at this point that this a post-wall woman looking for male provisioning. Her strategy goes something like this: appeal to the male concept of valor and romantic love, attract a flock of orbiting chumps, and choose one for the long-term.


She enters your world… not the other way around.

Chase Amante's picture


I think the female commenter in this case would insist she would prefer a man who claimed he wanted to be with her and start a family with her - and meant it!

And then of course left it up to her to decide whether she wanted that with him or not. So like Mischief's idea of her as a girl who just wants a lot of options, and the ability to choose freely from among those options, at her leisure.

Attention grabs... well, other than the ones in the article on attention grabs, here are a few more:

  • Humming / singing
  • Nodding your head slightly (can be side-to-side or up-and-down)
  • Flashing your eyebrows up as you stare off into the distance a bit past her
  • Drumming your fingers to tap out a beat
  • Stroking your beard area as you stare off into the distance
  • Staring at the ceiling with your chin up, exposing your neck
  • Glancing slowly about, eyes above everyone else's heads

I know some guys who do the "stare at her until she's looking" thing and claim it works for them. I don't like it, personally. I prefer to look by a woman and wait until she's noticed me and had a chance to check me out and is looking in my direction. Then make eye contact. But try out different things and see what works better for you - maybe my way works better, or maybe the laser-eyes-till-she-looks way does (seems to work just fine for some guys).


SZ's picture

Hey Chase, I had a few questions:

1. So I realized why I haven't done much in those past years, I burnt out, I was tired of failure and tired of women's shitty attitudes, i would be so happy to see these girls with attitudes and think to myself how great it is to be stress free and not have to deal with it, then time just flew. I guess I gave up without realizing it, but my problem is now that I regret it immensely, and I still don't understand how time went so fast? How did those years go by so fast? I also remember some chicks i hung out with all of the time, I remember girls i hung out with from 3-6 years ago and it felt like only a year or two. I dint want to think about these chicks, and I want to stop everything from feeling like it wasn't long ago when it was, 6 years is a very long time and I remember this girl and our whole hang out very vividly.

How did you ever get over wasting so much time and years if that ever happened to you before, and how can I do it? It will always eat at me that I wasted those years because I was just fed up with failure.

2. Kind of random question, but maybe ypu might know, How can make time feel normal again? I can remember stuff so clear and recent, it scares me when I realize something was 5 years ago instead of 2.

2. I'll admit, I prefer to relax than work. And after years of shitty jobs, I guess I gave up on caring about that too, and now it is extremely hard for me to work, I hate going to my computer ever, I have no focus and can't sit longer than 30 mins until I get bored and want to lay down again. I'm trying to learn skills and make businesses, but I just zone out and don't want to do anything.

3. I keep hearing to start a business, it's good to work on it for 100 hours a week. I don't even want to do 10. It's sad. It's like I hate anything work related and it mentally exhausts me.

I know you work many hours a day, and sleep little.

You have any idea at all how I can change from my lays ways to do that? Even half of that? I want to love working.

3. What should I do about the constant thoughts I have of women I've had in my life? From rejections to lays? I want to get them out of my mind because I know their sleeping with whoever they are with and here I am thinking about them. It's good to think about lays and rejections here and there, but not 24/7.

All of these scenarios repeat in my head over and over again, so maybe that's why I feel everything was not so long ago, when it really was. I still think about this girl I slept with from 3 years ago, her sex wasn't phenomenal, but I think about it.

Anyway to combat this?

SZ's picture

Questions about the article:

1. Why do women care less than men? I'm referring to your beginning paragraph about women being less in love and stuff, why are women so cold and how do we become the cold ones?

2. What can we do about women getting more suicidal? I would think that means that they will only get crazier, is it to worry about, how will we be good if many women become more crazy by the day?

3. I've literally read all of your articles, but wanted to know what so you exactly say or how do you act to let girls know you're not gonna stick around? I tell girls I'm not a one woman man and stuff, but I feel it also makes it harder to sleep with them because I'm throwing it out there. I'm just looking for quick tips on how to convey you won't be around after sex without hurting her.


Chase Amante's picture


Those 'wasted years' become irrelevant once you're living life.

At this point, I mean, I guess it would've been cool had I done something with my high school and university years. That's eight years 'gone', more or less. But then again, had I done something with those years, I would've led a very different life. There would probably not be a Girls Chase. I would not be in the café I am in right now, living the life I am living. I would be somewhere else, doing something else. Maybe that would be better or maybe it would be worse. But in any event, I am quite confident that I am right where I need to be.

If long-ago stuff feels recent, it means you haven't done enough new stuff, met enough new people, or had enough life change in the intervening time. Start living your life, man. People tell me about stuff now and I'm like, "Damn, when was that, like three years ago?" and they're like no, that was last year. But there's so much going on it all feels like ancient history. A month ago feels like 3 or 4 months ago. But that's just because I'm busy. Get busy, and you'll compress a lot into the time you've got.

If you don't want to work 10 hours on a business, haha, then business is not for you. But then again, before I had a business, I didn't want to work on one either. Girls Chase started out as something I intended to spend a minimal amount of time on and generate a living wage off of. It turned out to be a lot more work to get it where I wanted to get it to, but by that point I was committed (and also didn't have a lot of other options after my other business ideas had crashed and left me with massive debt).

I would suggest you work on building skill sets first. You will have a much shorter path to business success if you already have good skills to start a business with. If you don't have anything you're good at yet, you are going to have a very hard struggle in business (and probably fail a lot more than you need to).

As for thoughts about women - think about other women. If you don't have any fresh women, I guess you'd better go meet some. Get out there.

why are women so cold and how do we become the cold ones?

Because women get pregnant. When you have to carry a child for 9 months, are physically weaker, and need to nurture and raise children, you need to be ruthless in cutting out unfit men and screening for strength, sanity, and provision.

Not sure how men can become "woman cold" - estrogen maybe? They just had an announcement that they ought to be able to implant uteruses into men within the next 10 years - that may be the ticket :) But I guess any way to make yourself weak enough that you become reliant upon provision by the mates you date might make you woman-cold. When I knew a guy who had borderline personality disorder, he basically had woman-levels of stone-coldness (masked beneath the same level of superficial sensitivity, feelings, and emotions). I don't know if you can become borderline past childhood though - usually you need to undergo extreme amounts of abuse and neglect, and it's probably hard to structure an environment where you go through that as an adult. Maybe incarcertaion where you are kept in isolation or raped or something? Dunno. I don't think there are any pleasant ways to get there though.

What can we do about women getting more suicidal? I would think that means that they will only get crazier, is it to worry about, how will we be good if many women become more crazy by the day?

Nothing. Screen out the crazies; takes steps to keep away from broken women. It's unfortunate, but social problems have social fixes. All you can do at an individual level is keep away from the nuttier chicks.

I've literally read all of your articles, but wanted to know what so you exactly say or how do you act to let girls know you're not gonna stick around? I tell girls I'm not a one woman man and stuff, but I feel it also makes it harder to sleep with them because I'm throwing it out there. I'm just looking for quick tips on how to convey you won't be around after sex without hurting her.

Telling Women You're NOT Boyfriend Material

^ anything from there will usually do the trick.

You can also mention how girls always get hurt with you. And/or that you don't do relationships because you're tired of hurting women and it just sucks watching women cry. But I would stick with the stuff in that article. That + nonverbals... the sexier you are, the less women expect you will stick around post-sex.


ANONYMOUS's picture

Can fundamentals beat racism, color struck people, and favoritism?

I'm black btw

Perfect example: For some reason light skin men get treated way better than dark from where I'm from, and I've actually noticed all over now. I've even heard a guy say, "not everyone is blessed to be light skin". Really, dude?

I have a light skin friend, I've known him all of my life, he's not a natural or anything, so he doesn't have many fundamentals at all, no muscles, game, I've been in the game way longer and actually read this stuff as well.

When we go out he never has to say anything, the girl leads, these girls aren't the best looking, but they're decent, me? I have to work for mines a majority of the time. I observe him very well and he doesn't do anything special at all, so I know it's because of his completion and race because some of these girls are his race as well.

The problem is they treat me like crap because I'm black, his race of girls include him in and help him get a girl, while I get no type of attention, no hello or anything, its just rude as hell to me. I'm always looking stupid because I have to work hard for mine, and im tired of it. Ive even heard girls ask his race before to make sure they are the same race, i even had black women do the same.

So, this is definitely a race or color struck thing. Should I be angry at him? I always had to work hard for mines and it's hard not to be angry and bitter.

I wanted to know how I can beat this? I've tried to ignore it and be calm, but it hasn't changed.

What do I have to work on to make me defeat this? Do I need bigger muscles? Something else?

Chase Amante's picture


Can fundamentals beat racism, color struck people, and favoritism?

I'm black btw

Yes. Article on this. Also this one. And this one.

The problem is they treat me like crap because I'm black, his race of girls include him in and help him get a girl, while I get no type of attention, no hello or anything, its just rude as hell to me. I'm always looking stupid because I have to work hard for mine, and im tired of it. Ive even heard girls ask his race before to make sure they are the same race, i even had black women do the same.

Are you going for women of his race? Or women of yours? Most guys of most races have homefield advantage going for girls of their own races. You can beat that once your fundamentals are sharp enough, but depending on the venue and the type of girl they may need to be fairly outstanding.

Also keep in mind that especially if going outside your race, your level of conformity with that race's stereotypes versus your own can have a big impact. If you're an American black guy who acts like an American black guy but goes for Latinas from South America you will have a tough time. But if you're an American black guy who acts like a cool American (white?) guy and goes for Latinas from South America you will have an easier time. There is a dominant 'cool guy' culture in America... we usually think of it as 'cool white guy' but I have had black, Asian, etc., friends who do this guy as well as anyone. So it really is just 'cool guy' rather than 'cool white guy'. But this guy is different from 'regular white guy' or 'regular black guy' or any kind of regular guy. You have to really be the cool guy to escape from race with a lot of girls. Some girls will fetishize particular races, but if you want to get away from the fetishists you need to broaden your appeal.


Franco Lombardi's picture

Great article, Chase. It was well-explained and thoroughly thought out.

And yes, the female argument here is very low empathy. I also don't believe this happens because women are cruel either -- they're just genuinely, completely unaware of the struggle when it comes to romance for most men. They are completely focused on themselves and their own goals (which they should be), but that also means they shouldn't blame men for things they think they understand well but don't really have a solid grasp on at all.

Basically, everything is a two-way street, and you need to have driven on both sides of the road before you can come to solid conclusions!

As always gentlemen: don't take dating advice from women. ;)



Varoon Rajah's picture


Loved the article too, a real pleasure to read and a great breakdown of concepts.
I find that people who victimize themselves (much like the female commenter) rarely take time to think about or understand the other side - specifically the struggles of men in romance as Franco mentioned.




Anonymous's picture

"Three, the thrill of the hunt is just as crucial as the act itself. Without the hunt, what's the point?"

How do I make myself the Hunter and enjoy this? I hate hunting, I want them to come to me, so I know it's guaranteed pussy.

But I can get more if I become the Hunter.

It's gotten to the point where I haven't had chance to get with a girl all year because none have came to me to give me some, plus I don't meet many women at all.

Let's change this!

So how can I enjoy the hunt and want to ravish even more women than I wanted to before?

I don't want to look thirsty, but I want to have the motivation and drive to want to hunt and fuck women so bad that they will love my energy and want me to ravish them too.

Become a Hunter, I will.

Chase Amante's picture


Hmm, well. I can't say I consciously learned this. Just years of going out, looking for and meeting and sleeping with women, and over time it goes from "scary" to "stressful" to "routine" to "enjoyable." I suppose after a certain part there was a part of me that romanticized it as this great adventure, and that probably helped teach me to love it more.

Aside from "do it enough and let it sink in", I might suggest this article to help with part of the mindset:

The Natural Mindset: Taking More Pleasure from Hook Ups

With enough time and elbow grease, you can get there.


Mischief's picture

Most of us who frequent know well enough not to take dating advice from women. We know that female advice poses the opposite of what actually works.

However, I think the more interesting question no one seems to have addressed is, why? Why do women give this advice, such as it is? The "girls are silly and cute" meme just doesn't cut it for me--
not that I don't think they are, but there is more to it than that.

Unraveling the why leads to some painful truths of female psychology most men have a legitimately hard time accepting. Most women are not consciously cruel, yet that is what makes this woman's comment all the more frightening to a guy like me: she really does believe that men who desire only sex have no valor or love. Why is she trying to tell us this?

For one, I will hazard a guess this women is at least in her very late twenties or older and facing the rapid declination of abundant male attention she used to enjoy during her peak SMV years. I'm guessing she fears not being able to lock down long-term male provisioning with a man she also finds attractive (those men are too busy enjoying their well-earned fun with hotter, younger girls).

The average "plugged in" guy who reads this cannot wait to rush to her support and enter the circular hell of being her orbiter, thus proving his valor and true love. This is the dark side of female psychology right here (or at least the start of it). Those men who call her shit test for what it is, well… we are just mindless neanderthals. Either way, every man ends up in some form of loser box. Obviously, most of us here at GC know better than this, but few probably know why.

Chase, I think it would be great if you wrote an article on the why with more break down of female psychology.


She enters your world… not the other way around.

Chase Amante's picture


Different motivations. When the advice is genuinely aimed at helping the guy, it's often due to the reasons I outlined in my article on mainstream dating advice: it's assumed if you need help, you aren't the kind of guy women are exactly lining up to date, and furthermore that there isn't much hope of you BECOMING this guy. In that sense, it's eminently practical: let me just give this guy something that might help a bit in the context of his limited capacity to succeed with women.

In the case of this reader's advice, where the request/advice is clearly self-serving, then it's of a different nature, more designed to shape and enforce social norms to help push the culture toward a paradigm more favorable to what the woman herself wants. Most people engage in this sort of pushing and advising. Men in the manosphere do it every time they scold women for not doing X thing they want them to do or for doing Y thing they don't want them to do. And feminist websites do the same thing to men. All this advice is self-serving. None of these people are sitting around cackling and rubbing their hands over how well they are manipulating the opposite sex. Instead, they are just frustrated and annoyed the other sex doesn't do or be what they want them to do or be.

There are also other reasons, such as virtue signaling. When you talk about how bad it is for the opposite sex to do X thing, you reinforce that you yourself of course would never like or approve of X thing. Even in an anonymous place like an Internet comment, this has value to the commenter, because it allows her to prove to herself that she really does hold these values - else she would not spend the time to fight with random people on the Internet over them! And reassuring yourself of your value system is the most important battle; the better you believe it yourself, the better you can make other people believe it, too.

Anyway, I'll note it down for an article. Would be an interesting psychological foray...!


BMontana's picture

The simpliest answer I can come up with is this:

Women tell SOME men to slow down when it comes to sex, to be a gentleman and nice. They do it in order to indirectly reject the guys they don't want to sleep with, kind of like a shit test. A nice guy will wait and won't rush things with her, yet he will never sleep with her. A player won't care about being a gentleman, he will either rush things and sleep with her or leave. Women obviously sleep with the latter type of guy and then complain when he leaves. By telling you to be a gentleman she is actually saying, are you man enough to bed me or nah?

Jimbo's picture

Nice breakdown!

Mischief's picture

…which is why I see this female comment as a shit test.

The sucky part is that from the white knight's point of view (most men in Western society), we are inhumane brutes for thinking this, let alone discussing it openly in a forum such as this.

I would even go so far as to posit that most women are comepletely unaware of what actually turns them on, hence they genuinely believe their own bullshit.

This leaves a frighteningly small minority of "unplugged" men to navigate the chaotic waters of the sexual marketplace (including moralizing men and a feminaized legal system, to name a few of the whirlpools out there).


She enters your world… not the other way around.

Add new comment

The Latest from