Dating Without Sex: Why It Usually Doesn’t Work

On Ricardus's post "How to Make Her Want You: Lessons from Marketing," a commenter named Garrett reports being conflicted over a few aspects of what's taught here. In particular, he asks why physical intimacy is needed with romantic partners, and if dating without sex isn't also just as possible.

dating without sex

Here's the part of his comment dealing with this topic:

Out of curiosity, I've spent a lot of time researching this topic, and there are a few things I fail to understand. Firstly, to get a girlfriend, why must you sleep with them? If you can prove me wrong then I'd be interested to know, but I feel indifferent about this. I feel that everything in life requires balance and in order to get a girl to like you, you should be yourself, be mindful of ways to improve yourself, and strike a balance between acting like a jerk and on the contrary, a 'wet noodle' who is no challenge whatsoever.

Garrett also goes on to say that he feels like other aspects of what's discussed on Girls Chase feel to him like "manipulation," though this is a topic already addressed in depth in " Is Seduction Wrong?," the basic premise of which is that people who lack the drive to improve themselves fear others who do who become conscious of their own actions and strive to perfect them, typically working to censor them and stop them to prevent competition and declining options for themselves (e.g., you will rarely have a successful career woman who's had to tooth and claw her way to success and improve herself dramatically stand and accuse you of being manipulative for learning seduction, though you will often have a girl who dropped out of high school and works at the local taco shop fly into a frenzy over how "manipulative" men like you are, presuming of course that she doesn't actually know you and is instead setting you up in her mind as some diabolical "other").

I won't cover whether seduction is manipulation and whether I ought to censor myself here or not again, although I will note that it does partly come down to where you draw the line - there are certain "dark arts" of seduction, like October Man and like Sexual Power Reversal, that I simply don't teach because it's too easy to do harm to women by wielding these clumsily. So, I do have an "ethical limit;" if I really honestly think it's something that can lead to the average man doing more harm than good, I don't teach it.

What I will talk about here today is if it's really necessary for you to have sex with a woman you want to pursue a romantic relationship with. Can you skip this step and get by with just waiting for marriage?

It's a question I've been asked a number of times on the site, and haven't addressed yet... at least on here.

But, as it turns out, this is actually one of the very first questions I had to discuss - and debate - on a public scale that has to do with sex.

So come with me, and let's have a look at what happens when you do not have sex.

dating without sex

One of the things that annoys me a great deal is getting cornered by Christian zealots who try to convert me and assume that they know more about the Bible, and Jesus, and the Christian God than I do. I don't so much mind that they're trying to convert me... I mind that they think they know more about my old faith than I do.

I grew up a devout Roman Catholic in a Roman Catholic town, attended a Catholic kindergarten, primary school, middle school, and high school, and was arguably the most devout believer there. I knew the lyrics to most of the prayer songs in the hymnals, and served as an alter boy as early as they'd let me apply. I felt a very deep connection to God and Jesus, and I'd daily drive myself very deep into prayer, to be fully conscious in my conversations with the Lord, and to not run my prayer on autopilot or "zone out" as most of the "faithful" who are doing no more than punch their cards to get their free pass into heaven do. I felt continual disappointment with these "believers in name only" who said they believed but didn't really. If they really believed in God, they would be joyous, I knew. Even years after I quit religion as a teenager (without telling anyone), I still got voted "Most Likely to Become a Priest" in my senior year of high school.

For a time, when I was younger, I actually did feel certain I would be a priest when I grew up. That was until I fully realized that as a priest, of course, I would not be able to have sex. This was one of the things I struggled with as a believer; I'd been a Catholic since the age of 5, but I'd been obsessed with sex since the age of 3. How could those two views be reconciled?

What I eventually realized was that the only place in the Bible that sex before marriage (fornication) was condemned were in the epistles - letters written by the disciples of Jesus to communities of the devout in various cities like Corinth and Thessalonica. These were not the Word of God or Jesus; they were the concoctions of followers.

And while I had great respect for Jesus and his teachings and parables, I had virtually none for the often mad ravings of the epistles. Here was Jesus, preaching hope and joy and inclusion; and there were his apostles, preaching doom and condemnation and terror. The apostles, at least the ones quoted in most of the epistles, didn't get it; they had no idea what the message Jesus was actually trying to convey was.

Much of the Messiah's message fell on deaf ears and got twisted and reinterpreted to mean whatever best served the agendas of those who picked up his tale. I later learned that this very thing happened too to Siddhartha Gautama, the man who became known as "Buddha;" just like Jesus, his direct followers took his message and altered it dramatically, in many places directly contradicting what he himself had said.

Here was Jesus Christ, preaching warmth and generosity and inclusion and love; and there were his disciples, preaching coldness and horror and expulsion and everlasting damnation. Jesus had nothing to say on fornication; only the crazed, controlling writers of the epistles and the mad Book of Revelation had.

So, even as a believer, I tossed aside the dogma of my church in that regard; I was far more interested in listening to Jesus himself, than all the people following him who presumed to speak for him and reinterpret his Word.

Sex and Religion

As you reach puberty in Catholic school, that's the time that the conditioning to have you believe that dating without sex is the norm and the ideal; and that sex outside of marriage is wrong, wrong, wrong.

In grade 8, I was sent, along with all my classmates, to attend a day-long talk by some woman on the dangers of sex outside of marriage. The woman told a story of a girl who, at the age of 16, lost her virginity to a boy she met down near the seashore. In that one night of passion, the girl both contracted genital herpes, and became pregnant. She regretted ever having had sex.

This story, dumped out onto and downloaded into the brains of all of my classmates and I, who could not talk back, could not fight it, and could not engage in dialogue over it, sent me into a rage. I knew the odds on pregnancy; and I knew the odds on contracting a sexually transmitted disease. I had a fairly good understanding of the odds on genital herpes itself. Had the woman come and presented a balanced portrayal, and said here are 20 kids having sex, and 19 of them love it and here's why, and 1 of them regrets having done it and here's why, I would've said fine, let's hear her side of things.

But when I was only being told one side of the story - the alarmist side, and the most UNCOMMON view of those engaging in the practice (in this case, sex) - I KNEW I was being manipulated to believe something that wasn't true the vast majority of the time.

They were using scare tactics on us... and I loathed it.

I immediately went home, took all the free pamphlets and information they'd given me at the seminar about how sex was bad and wrong and dangerous, and I flushed them down the toilet. These materials didn't even deserve to go in the trash; they deserved to go in the sewer. I didn't just reject what they were teaching; I was incensed at the fear tactics used.

Their argument was so weak, and so non-existent, that they had to shut out the majority and present a small outlier case and distort it into sounding like the norm in order to try to frighten a bunch of children into doing what they wanted them to do.

From then on, for the remainder of my Catholic education, it was war between me and the "dating without sex" people, and it was personal.

The Shoe Theory

In grade 11, I had a teacher for religion class who was a bundle of energy. He was a pretty charismatic guy, but he also spoke with a strong lisp, and the rumor was that he was very gay but trying to convince himself he was not by hiding behind "no sex before marriage." One of my classmates' sisters had dated him for a year, and broke up with him, professing that, "He's definitely gay." In any event, this teacher was still a nice - if very loud and outspoken and dramatic - guy.

One day he brought a priest in to visit from another church in another town, and that priest gave a talk on why sex before marriage was wrong. At the end, he asked if there were any questions from the class, and I raised my hand.

"Yes?" he asked. "What is your question?"

"My question is," I began, "if you're about to buy a pair of shoes that you're going to wear for the rest of your life... I mean, if you're NEVER going to wear another pair of shoes again, and these are the ONLY shoes you will ever wear, forever... PERIOD..." I paused.

"Go on," he prompted, waiting for my point.

"... well," I said, "wouldn't you want to try them on, first?"

The entire class burst out laughing; the priest reached for a counterargument, but couldn't come up with one; and as he fumbled with his words, my maybe-gay teacher exclaimed, in his most emphatic voice, "PEOPLE ARE NOT SHOES!"

And then the school bell rung and class was dismissed, a classroom full of laughing 16- and 17-year olds pouring out of the room.

My shoe theory became the talk of the school for the rest of the week, and people were still reminding me about it a year later. They probably still whisper it in that school, I bet.

Whom You Take Advice From

I've always been a believer in taking advice only from people who really, really, REALLY know what they're talking about.

Why? Because people who take advice from people who don't know what they're talking about usually end up failing at most of the things they do.

Imagine someone who wants to start a new business, and takes advice from anyone who wants to give him advice, successful entrepreneur or not. You probably wouldn't know it if you've never tried starting a business before, but almost everyone you know is going to have reams of advice to give you, and almost all of that advice is horribly, atrociously WRONG.

So when I was in high school, listening to a priest, who's likely never had sexual relations in his life, tell me that sex is wrong and I shouldn't do it, I threw it out as garbage.


Take hard drugs, for instance. Most people who've never done hard drugs will tell you they're really, really wrong and you shouldn't do them. I didn't care about those people though. What I cared about was what were the people who'd done them saying, and what did their lives look like. And what I found was, some of them said hard drugs are great, and you can enjoy them without any bad effects, and these people seemed to have normal lives. And some people said hard drugs are the best thing in the world, and they seemed to have terrible lives that revolved only around getting their next fixes. And some people said hard drugs are bad, they screwed up my life, don't get involved with them.

So, my final opinion was, some people can do hard drugs recreationally and not get addicted. Some people get addicted and it wrecks their lives. Some people manage to crawl out of addiction to hard drugs, but it's never completely gone and it's always sort of there, stalking their minds. So, for me, I said okay, based on those people who actually have EXPERIENCE with this, it seems like hard drugs are a risky proposition and something it's better just to steer clear of.

No great benefit to your life aside from a boost of pleasure, but scads of potential downside. Not worth doing.

That's how you assess advice based on experience. The same with business success; if a guy's telling you you need to this and this and that, and he's been running a business for 20 years that barely makes enough money to cover his bills, you'd be right to be skeptical of his advice if it goes against what, say, Steve Jobs does in business.

If you've got to choose between running a business like Steve Jobs, and running a business like Uncle Larry who needs to borrow money from your dad every so often just to keep the lights in the sandwich shop on, you probably want to go with Steve Jobs, not Uncle Larry.

So what about dating without sex though? Where do you find an expert on that?

dating without sex

My last year of high school, I had a small study hall period with only three other students. It was an odd time of the day for study hall, so there weren't many of us. Just us four students (the other three and me), and the study hall monitor, one of the coolest and most likable teachers in school.

This teacher was around 30 years old, but he seemed much younger. He was funny, energetic, charismatic, and handsome; most of the girls in school had crushes on him. He'd been, as he told it, a star soccer player in college, and was likely to go on to the professional leagues; but, he'd blown out both of his knees, and now he couldn't play anymore. I asked him if he tried; maybe he could work his way back. And he said he could go out and play fine on any given day; but the next day, he'd be in agony and almost unable to walk. His shot at professional success was over.

He made light sometimes of his faith, and was a frequent user of the phrase "High five Jesus!" whenever something good had happened. But he was a tremendously devout guy; one of the few people in that school who actually knew as much about the Bible and Christian history as I did (or perhaps even a bit more).

This teacher was a believer in the "no sex before marriage" philosophy, and refused to budge on it. And he told me and the other students there, at my urging, the story of him and his long-term girlfriend.

The two of them had dated for two years. He loved her, he said, and she loved him. He'd proposed to her, and they were weeks away from being married, when suddenly she said to him, "We have to have sex before we get married."

She insisted; he refused. She threatened to call off the engagement if he would not have sex with her... and he was conflicted.

One day, sitting under a tree, he asked God if he should make love to his fiancée or not. Then, like Isaac Newton, an apple fell out of the tree and hit him square on the head. He looked up, took it as a sign from God, and decided it was God's way of telling him to stop being a fool and to do what he knew was right; which, of course, was NOT having sex with her.

dating without sex

So, he told his fiancée this was something he simply could not do, and she called off the engagement.

He lamented that girl after girl he met, "It always seems like we make it to the third date, and I tell a girl that I don't believe in sex before marriage, and then I never see her again!" He laughed sadly as he said this, as if resigned to his fate. "Should I just have sex with these girls? Should I just say, 'Sorry God, but I've got to do it?'"

I asked him why, if God forgives you for your sins, and he really believed this was a sin, why could he not just sin, and then ask God for forgiveness in the morning?

He asked, "Is that what you do? You just go have sex with everyone you see... 'Oh hey, you look nice... want to have sex?'"

And I said no, of course not - you can be as picky about whom you want to sleep with as anything else. But if you really like someone, and you want to be with her and you don't want her to leave, then yes - you should probably be intimate with her.

And he just shook his head and said he just didn't know.

One day he went back to see his ex-fiancée, and she told him she still loved him, and she would still marry him, but that he knew what she needed from him first. She just needed to know if they were actually going to work as a couple; they needed to be intimate, and she needed to know if they were sexually compatible.

And they dated again for a few weeks, and again, he simply could not give her what she required of him, and that was that. They went their separate ways.

Why on Earth Do We Have Sex (or Relationships)?

3.8 billion years ago, according to the latest research, an amino acid formed in the primordial soup that had just the right combination of proteins that it was able to both absorb new amino acids required to grow and expand, and to replicate itself. Chances are, there were billions of combinations of other amino acid chains forming and breaking apart; some that could absorb more amino acids, and some perhaps with the ability to replicate, but likely only a few, or even only one, that happened to have just the right mix of aminos that it was able to take in nutrients, and produce copies of itself.

Sometime later, as life became more complex, single-celled organisms began to swap DNA. This DNA-swapping - similar to a technology swap between organizations or nations in today's day and age - let individual microbes upgrade themselves with the latest and greatest biological tech on the market, stumbled across through happenstance by one particular microbe, and quickly dispersed (provided it was an advantageous mutation, and not a deformity or a detriment, as the majority of mutations turn out to be) to the rest of the population.

As organisms became eukaryotic - multicellular - it became more difficult to trade DNA, and eventually largely impossible.

So, to keep evolution happening quickly enough, and to stave off parasites and disease by swapping and mixing up immune genes, organisms began to create copies of themselves not as perfect clones, but from half the genes of one of them, and half the genes of another.

These organisms were the first sexual organisms, and this method was so superior to cloning that it would come to dominate the reproductive practices of almost all higher life forms.

The earliest sexual organisms were hermaphroditic; that is to say, they had both male and female sex organs. Even today, most plants remain hermaphroditic, and some simpler forms of animal do too.

Later on though, animals found it advantageous to separate out the sexes; instead of having two hermaphrodites compete to see which one could inseminate the other first (as in sea slugs), some animals would be exclusively male, and others exclusively female. This strategy proved superior to the animals that had to devote some energy to male parts and behaviors, and other energy to female parts and behaviors, and this specialized approach to reproduction held sway and grew and expanded.

Once males and females had split, they formed their specialized roles. The females, in all cases except a few (e.g., seahorses) had the far higher investment in reproduction; they watched the young, guarded them, taught them. In mammals and some reptiles and even a few insects, they gestated the young and secreted nutritious fluids from their bodies that young could drink early on in their development.

Males had far less devoted roles, depending on the species; in some species, the males stuck around and played the role of father and partner, increasing the odds of their young's survival; in other species, the males immediately struck out in search of new partners after mating, pursuing a "quantity over quality" approach - the more offspring produced, the better the odds of their genes surviving, went the strategy.

Due to the vast amount of investment and risk associated with mating with a male for her, the female needed to be certain that the male she was mating with was the highest quality one for her; that is to say, that he could aptly provide everything she wanted him to provide, be that strong children, able protection for her and her children, support, resources, training, or anything else.

Thus, because of this need for females to be picky, a courtship process evolved - a way for males to show females how worthy of them they were, and for females to force the males to work hard to do so... because the harder a male had to work to prove his worth, the more opportunity the female had to identify and screen out the males who didn't actually pass muster, leaving her with only the highest quality mates remaining to choose from.

Thus, dating: your audition as a male for sex.

Wait, What About All the Romance?

As someone who scores very high in emotions and empathy, I was a very emotional child, and a very romantic one. I often had sweeping visions of the great romances I'd give to women when I was old enough to do so; I would be her savior... her lover... the greatest man of her life.

And, to be honest, I still have some of these ideals, and I carry them out... to an extent. I am viewed by my ex-girlfriends as the great love they lost; these women who've been pursued by their ex-boyfriends, only to repeatedly brush them off, now find themselves pursuing me, only to be told that I cannot go back. What's finished, for me, is finished.

But romance is nothing but emotions and chemicals in your brain and hers, designed by evolution (or God... whatever you prefer) for exactly ONE thing: to get you to mate.

When is the easiest time for a woman to be made pregnant by her lover? During the first weeks or months of being physically intimate with him - when passion is at its height.

And when do their emotions drive men and women to spend the most time with one another, touching, kissing, and making love? During the first weeks or months of being physically intimate with one another - making the chance at pregnancy and reproduction go up dramatically.

For as much as a romantic as I may be at heart, I will not lie to myself, and nor should you: emotions exist because they serve a purpose, and the purpose of the emotions that rush in about dating and romance are to get you to mate.

Without sex, romance is purposeless. Without sex, you might as well have a romance with a puppy dog, or a goldfish, or your best guy friend. Take away the aspect of mating and reproduction, and you don't have a romance... you have a friendship.

Romance and relationships ARE about SEX. That's why every single romance you read about - yes, even the ones in the Bible - culminates in consummation.

Has Dating Without Sex Ever Been Common?

It's common in my home country, the United States, to think that past generations were almost totally chaste, and only our recent society has become so "hedonistic."

Au contraire, mon fraire. History shows us otherwise.

You may not know it, but the flappers of the 1920s were more sexually unrestrained than the women of the 21st century, and they spent just as much time venting about men, too (engagement rings were frequently referred to as "handcuffs" or "manacles").

Casual sex was the order of the day, and the films shown in Hollywood before the Christian moral codes of the 1930s were imposed (by the Jewish heads of the Hollywood studios, oddly enough) would be shocking to modern audiences for their sexual debauchery. We're virtual schoolchildren in modern America compared to what was going on in the '20s and early '30s.

Well, okay, that's the 20th century. Let's go back further... how about the Puritans - surely, they were more observant of, well, PURITY... right? They're the penultimate moralistic tightwads! Nobody was more conservative than a Puritan... scarlett letter, Salem witch trials, all that jazz - right?

As it were, in the mid-1700s in Colonial America, and hold onto your socks on this statistic: fully 40% of American brides were already pregnant by the time their wedding days rolled around.

40% pregnancy rates prior to marriage! We're not even close to that in the modern world... the fornicating of our ancestors puts us all to shame. The men and women of today are virtual prudes by comparison.

I've talked to my grandparents about the dating in their days - maybe the history books have it wrong, and casual sex wasn't so common in the 1920s, and '30s, and '40s. Nope, they confirm for me, it was - things today are not so different.

Humans are doing what humans have always done. The same thing as all the other animals, and plants, and fungi, and bacteria, and protozoa, and archaea, and all other forms of life on Earth do; we are reproducing, in our own odd, unique way that involves two organisms making a new one together.

Life just keeps going on, and it keeps making more life. It is designed to do so... driven to do so. And that life that does not produce more life simply disappears from history; like the Essenes of Jesus's time, those organisms that do not leave descendants have minimal impact on those organisms who come after them, for they have no part to play in the life that is to come. And once they are dead, there is no one to take their place.

dating without sex

When you're on the outside of a society, looking in, frequently the cultural contrivances of the society you're observing look a tad... ridiculous.

For instance, in some parts of Africa, males are not circumcised until they reach the age of about 17 to 20 years of age, at which point they undergo a ritual circumcision, the foreskin cut off the penis with no pain medicine or other relief. At this point, the male screams, "I am a man!" and he has completed the initiation to manhood. Sometimes things go a little wrong though, and the penis becomes infected and self-amputates itself from the body. Other times, the penis does not roll off, and instead the infection spreads to the rest of the body, and the young man dies. But, men who do not go through this process are ridiculed; they are considered cowards, and are regarded as "not real men." So, despite the dangers, pretty much everybody gets cut.

To most of the readers on this site, this seems like madness. Why would you DO something like this, especially somewhere without good anti-infection or pain medicine? It's insanity; it's not even necessary. But in that culture, it is accepted that this is simply how things are done.

You run into that as you travel; strange culture clashes. Ricardus tells me that in Thailand, it's understood that if you have sex with a woman, either you will pay her after, and that's fine, or you will enter into a serious relationship with her, and that's fine too. So long as you either pay her, or commit to her, either of those is fine; but if you don't pay her, and you don't commit to her, the woman will feel as though she's been cheated. But, to a Western male visiting Thailand, paying for a woman is often insulting, and he doesn't know or understand that a woman expects either money or commitment in return for sex. In fact, if he were to hear that those were her expectations, he'd probably think she was crazy, just as she thinks he's cheated her for not giving her either one.

This is culture; there are traditions in a culture, and to people in that culture they of course make sense, and they of COURSE are what you SHOULD DO, and if you DON'T do them then you are a BAD PERSON or an outsider or a rebel.

And marriage is another one of those cultural practices, exactly like these.

Marriage: For Society

Most people in a marriage-based society - which, to one extent or another, is most of the world, although marriage is declining in significance in the West (though still rather significant) - see marriage as this penultimate event: "Once I reach marriage, everything else in my life will change!"

Traditionally in Western society, men wanted marriage desperately, as it was considered a rite of passage into manhood, similar to the circumcisions of those African boys. Meanwhile, women somewhat wanted marriage, but also feared it, as a loss of freedom. Today, marriage is by and large no longer considered a rite of passage for men, and most of its benefits (a wife who cooks, takes care of the household, supports the man at his farm or after he returns from work, etc.) have largely disappeared, replaced with increased responsibilities and liabilities (e.g., financial risks via divorce).

As a result of this, most men have lost most of their interest in marriage in the West - while 50 or 60 years ago marriage was something nearly every man wanted with passion and determination, now it's become something that men try to avoid, and women try to drag men to, kicking and screaming.

The exception for this, of course, is among the minority of religiously devout individuals who believe in dating without sex; for them, marriage remains the ideal, as it lies on the path to sex.

dating without sex

Typically you'll find that people will do what they need to do to get to sex; having grown up in Catholicism, I've watched how quickly the devout tend to marry... they have the earliest marriages, and often the bride is pregnant by the time the honeymoon is over. Why? Because people do what they need to do to get to sex. If they believe they can't have sex without marriage, they'll simply marry a lot sooner (and, often, be divorced before they're out of their 20s, much of the time, too).

So what's the point of this whole marriage thing, anyway? Why's it useful?

Marriage is a social construct that endures because the societies which support it are stronger.

Imagine a society where no one gets married, and everyone stays single all the time, constantly competing for partners, and most men are depressed and fatalistic because a few powerful men monopolize all the women. How much gets done?

Now imagine a society where everyone gets married by age 25, and settles down after that and focuses on producing, producing, and more producing, to provide the best life possible for one's offspring. How much gets done here?

The society that favors marriage leads to greater amounts of production, and thus greater technological and military and economic advances, eventually leading that society to conquer and overtake the other societies with less productive social norms.

Anyway, that's marriage on a bigger scale. How about marriage on a smaller one?

Is marriage for you? Is it for your girl? Do things actually, you know... change now just because you're married?

I've been married. And I can tell you for a fact... no. No they don't. You don't wake up the next day and now she's someone different, or you are. You're still the same exact people, and your relationship is still the same exact relationship.

Nothing changes.

But if nothing changes when you get married for you... and if nothing changes when you get married for her... then who's the marriage for?

The answer: society. It's for other people. You're doing it to please them.

It's for her friends and her family, so they can stop giving her a hard time and can now say, "Okay, GOOD. I am now CERTAIN that she will be fine forever."

Marriage is a way of giving people a false sense of certainty. It is a promise that you will be together forever, no matter what happens.

And more than 50% of the time now, that promise gets broken.

And every single person thinks that THEIR marriage will definitely be different. Because they are not going to get divorced.

Nobody gets married thinking he or she will ever get divorced.

Yet, the majority of them do. Their marriages end, and they leave each other.

This ritual - this promising of "forever" - this pledge of "certainty" and "absolutes" - is nothing more than a little white lie to oneself and society at large that, because we have dressed this way and done these things and said these words, it is now certain: it is no longer in doubt.

Yet it still IS in doubt, because there is no certainty in the world.

And no amount of manipulating one's own emotions, or one's partner's emotions, or the emotions of friends and family around you, by making a promise of fidelity, when you can never know with any certainty what the future holds, can change that.

dating without sex

So on the one hand we have marriage, a social construct that's existed for a few thousand years and is venerated by certain individuals from certain societies as an ideal to be striven for, similar to the rite of passage that African males undergo with ritual circumcision at ages 17 to 20.

And on the other hand we have sex, the entire reason we having dating or marriage or romance or relationships at all in the first place, whatsoever.

Do we really need sex?

There are a select few individuals out there who identify themselves as "asexual." They comprise approximately 1% of the population at large; these individuals have no sex drive to speak of, or do have a sex drive, but it is only directed at ideal images (e.g., cartoon characters, figments of their dreams or imagination, etc.) and not at real, flesh-and-blood people. They honestly, legitimately do not want sex, and have zero interest in it.

Often asexuals remain interested in romance, despite a lack of a sex drive. They find sex confusing, and often disgusting, and wonder why on Earth the other 99% of individuals on Earth are so obsessed with it.

Just in case you're reading this and that seems to strike a chord, I recommend checking out AVEN, the forum and support group for individuals like this:

The Asexual Visibility and Education Network

But for everybody else - those of us with sex drives - yes, we need sex.

Even more than that though, is that BECAUSE romance, and relationships, and dating, and all the rest COME from sex, and CULMINATE in sex, what you'll find is that, as we've discussed amply on this site, and most specifically in "Attraction Has an Expiration Date," when you do not get to sex quickly enough, you lose a woman.


Because dating and romance and courtship is just the mating dance; and a mating dance that is not followed by mating leads to the male dismissed as impotent.

There are countless examples in natural literature of how quickly females of a species move on from males that conduct their mating dances but are unwilling or unable to mate; the male gets a short escalation window, and that's it. Window missed, window closed.

Why's it work this way?

Well, which woman is more likely to pass on her genes - the woman who waits and waits and waits forever before breeding with a man, or the woman who assesses mate value and then mates?

In the ancestral environment (or even the modern environment), a woman who waits for a man to mate for too long introduces all kinds of problems: he may be killed, he may end up mating with another woman, and she throws away precious time she could spend mating on assessing over a long period of time, instead.

And remember that the clock is always ticking on women; the older she gets, the lower the quality of mate she can get. If she waits for you for a long time and nothing comes of it, she now has to settle for a man who's 85% of what she wants, instead of one who's 90% of what she wants had she gone for him when she was younger and more sought after. And now she's got to assess someone else all over again.

Women who are better at assessing mate quality and can do it more quickly have a better chance of reproducing at all, and a better chance of producing a higher number of offspring. That means that, if ever there existed women who preferred to wait a year or two years or five years naturally before engaging in sex... those women were outcompeted long ago.

Cultural Constraints

In societies that place a great deal of social and sexual constraints on their members, it's common to see more hesitancy around sex (though, again, think of Colonial America's numbers on pregnancy at time of marriage and don't go thinking this is all-pervasive). This changes the views of individuals somewhat.

For instance, if you travel to India, where the average number of lifetime sex partners for a woman is 1.6, something close to majority of women only ever have sex with the man they marry. That's because the society is so restrictive, and marriage is such an economic necessity, that the norms there are to wait until marriage, and men want to marry virgins and women want to make sure they preserve their virginity to make sure they get a husband.

But even in India, which man do you think a woman will fall in love with more quickly: the man who is sexlessly courting her, or the man who is making passionate love to her? Which man has a better chance of "keeping" her? Which man has a better chance of wedding her, if he so desires?

Of course - the man who has actually consummated his attraction to her, and with whom she has consummated her attraction to him.

Even in India though, where they probably wait for sex longer than anywhere else on the planet, how long do you think a woman is willing to wait for a man? There is a famous Bollywood movie where a man is wrongly imprisoned for 20 years, and his fiancée waits for him, never knowing if she will ever see him again, and finally, after 20 years, he is released from his incarceration and the two lovers are at last reunited, to finally be wed. It was so famous because it was so fantastic - fantastic here meaning the original meaning of the term, as in "of or like a fantasy." That is to say, this is something that does not happen in real life.

The horror, right? That pure true selfless undying love does not exist!

Well, sure. It's horrible that aliens with advanced technology who want to come bring us world peace and eternal life don't exist either, but they don't (at least not in this arm of the Milky Way Galaxy, so far as any of us has seen). Oh well, you move on, figure out how the world actually is, and maximize your happiness and the happiness of those around you within it.

And the fewer social constraints there are on individuals, the fewer social constructs there are to limit and direct and guide their movements, the more people tend to do what they evolved and are programmed to do.

Speed and Mating

If you take a 16-year old girl who's a virgin and ask her how long it will take her to have sex, you'll get anything from, "Instantly, with the right guy," to, "Not until marriage," to, "I don't really know."

But if you take a 26-year old girl who's a virgin and... wait, no 26-year old virgins?

That's right; you simply won't find 26-year old virgins in the West.

Okay, there are a few of them; they will probably post in the comments section of this article, mentioning how they are virgins and proud of it. But the ones commenting here are probably around 50% of the total virgin population of the Western world... something around 97% or 98% of people out there have had sex by age 30, either inside or outside of marriage.

And what happens when a man meets a woman who's sexually experienced and he doesn't want to perform?

Game over.

dating without sex

Okay, let's talk younger girls though. Let's say a guy meets a conservative 20-year old girl who's still a virgin. What if he starts dating her, and doesn't want to perform?

Either he's going to marry her fast, then perform, or... in a little while, game over too.


Well, perhaps it's "unfair" for men (but you know how I feel about words like "fair" and "unfair"...), but it is the man's role to chase, and the woman's role to resist.

If the man is not chasing sex, he has denied his nature.

Just like the hermaphroditic sea slugs, cousins of man's ancient ancestors, that spar with their penises out, each trying to inseminate the other first, males are the aggressors in sex. They are the dominators, the penetrators, and the inseminators. Crude? Perhaps. But "crude" is often the term used by those who wish to elevate themselves above animals; to make believe they are superior. The universe does not care if you think you are better than a sea slug though; we are all just somewhere between starting out as ashes and dust and ending up back as these again. This is what it ultimately comes down to.

A man is trying to gain access to a woman's body to inseminate her with his seed; she is trying to resist, to give herself more time to assess him, to get him more invested, to make him value her more.

But if the MAN does not want sex... if the MAN does not want to dominate, penetrate, and inseminate her... what DOES he want with her?

A woman will call him a nice guy... but in her heart, she will view him as impotent, weak, and not a man.

He is not someone who can help her to reproduce. He is not a sexual creature. Her genes will not survive with this man, who is without desire to do what males must naturally do. He will give her sons who are impotent, and he will give her daughters who are weak.

Remember that women don't care what men say, because they've evolved not to trust words. It's easy to lie with words, and women are very intelligent on most things lie-related. If a man promises that someday he will do this or that for her, a woman's a fool to believe him... women only listen to your actions.

And if you are not sleeping with a girl, or trying to sleep with her when you have the chance, that communicates volumes more to her than anything you can possibly SAY about how you feel or what you want to do.

She cares about your actions, not your words or your promises. These things mean nothing by comparison.

Move Fast with Women

My grandfather was a devout Catholic. He met my grandmother one night in a bar. She was the wild one; they went on a few dates, but he would not take her to bed, and soon she lost interest, driving down to Florida to meet a man who could better attend to her womanly needs.

But my grandfather knew what he wanted, and he insisted; he sent my grandmother a letter, asking her to come back home and marry him. She thought about it; and she said "yes." Her mother tried to convince him to marry one of her other, more... conservative daughters, assuring him they'd make much better wives, but he knew which one he wanted, and soon they were wed.

The one exception I see to the "wait for marriage destroys a man's image as a sexual man" argument is when the man is BURNING WITH PASSION for a woman, and cannot WAIT to tear her clothes off and take her, but he is deferring that until marriage because of strong religious convictions. Many women can understand this, and tolerate this if they really like a guy... so long as the man is making the marriage happen as quickly as possible.

If it's long... if it's drawn out... if it's delayed, however... the passionless man who refuses a woman physical intimacy suffers the same fate as those men I've seen in sexual relationships whose sex drives did not match those of their partners - the woman grows tired of being underserved, and moves on.

Because the longer you draw things out, the more you communicate to a woman that you cannot give her what she seeks; that you are not willing, that you are not able... that you lack the drive and fire and passion women most desire in men... and that you will give her sons who similarly struggle to mate, thereby endangering her legacy... the more you erase, nullify, and negate your chances with her.

And whether you subscribe to Darwin or Deuteronomy, one thing's for certain: the emphasis, again and again, is placed on passing on your genes (or, in the Bible's case, on having "descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky" - Genesis 26:4).

My old religion teacher was right, of course: people are not shoes. It is foolish to think that, like a shoe, a human will sit quietly by and wait for you to decide if you want to try her on, or not.

Women are not shoes; they are living, breathing, sentient biological organisms, with wills and drives of their own. And if you think that you can bind a woman to you without the ties of sexual relations... without giving her what she needs and wants and demands out of a romantic partner, and not a man she is "just friends" with or neutral with... you still have much to learn about sexual relations.

I don't know what ever happened to that charismatic teacher that women loved but who couldn't get them to stick around. I don't know if he ever decided that sex wasn't some horrible thing after all and decided to take his woman to bed; I don't know if he managed to find a woman with the same views as him, in this world where so few people share those views; and I don't know if he's still out there somewhere, still adamantly holding onto his views, and still wishing he could find a girl who wanted what he wanted and nothing he didn't.

But whatever the case may be, remember this: it isn't just what YOU want that's important - it's also what SHE wants, and what SHE responds to.

And if what you want is a committed relationship with a girl, it's extremely important that you know what 99% of girls need from you in order to have that - and it's extremely important, if you really want what you want, that you give to them what they want too.

(unless, that is to say, you happen live in India. In that case, all bets are off)


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 Your FREE eBook on Texting Girls

how to text girls pdf

Sign up for our email insights series and get a copy of our popular ebook "How to Text Girls" FREE. Learn more ...

Related Articles from


Vaughn 's picture

Chase I totally agree with your post man! I've been trying to slow myself down while talking and articulating my words, but I feel like I'm moving too slow and I feel like I take too long to speak. Am I suppose to feel like that? What's the right way of doing things slow without it feeling like your a "slow" person? if you catch my drift. Thank you!

Chase Amante's picture

Hi Vaughn,

It's possible you're actually too slow and have swung in the other extreme, but it's more likely that you're just adapting to a new way of doing things. Often when you change something in how you present yourself to the world (posture, voice, movement speed, etc.) it can feel like it's REALLY obvious and you must stand out like a sore thumb.

Much of the time though, if you actually stop and get people's opinions, they'll end up telling you still aren't doing it enough yet.

If you feel like you're being too slow, get a good friend you can ask to assess you and say, "Hey man, what do you think of my movement and talking speed lately? Good, too fast, too slow, what do you think?" Don't give him any hint of what YOU think (i.e., that you're too slow) so as not to influence the opinion he gives you, and just let him tell you the impression he's getting. You might be surprised.


Sulagna Dasgupta's picture

Great post Chase...very well-researched & makes the points clearly.
I run India's first relationships & marriage blog -
My mission is to facilitate more openness regarding the subject in our country.
I didn't quite understand why you said all bets are off if you happen to live in India. Could you explain?

Chase Amante's picture

Hi Sulagna,

Partly I've heard from friends who've traveled to India that pickup is quite difficult except in foreigner-friendly places like certain parts of Mumbai or Delhi. Partly I've seen the statistics on how few lifetime sex partners Indian women tend to have. And I've had a lot of Indian guys tell me that "Indian women are not like Western women... they will not just sleep with you!"

Of course, I've also heard this about other countries and found it not to be true (South Korea's a good example; I was repeatedly told how cold and aloof the women are, and instead found them very warm and friendly and even pretty aggressive in each of my visits). Personally, I like Indian women, and I've had some exceptional Westernized Indian women in my life in the past, so I'm withholding any actual judgment until I have a chance to visit the country myself.

Mostly, in that final comment, I was just being facetious ;)


M's picture

Wow, great post Chase. I wasn't expecting that at all - I somehow imagined that you couldn't be religious at all.

But in your story about the guy dating the girl without sex for 2 years, she was still in love with him the whole time, even after she called off the engagement. I agree that it's just much more natural to have sex earlier, but it's totally possible to make a girl quickly fall in love with you (and you with her) without sex, right? Otherwise, why would that girl still have feelings for that guy?

I don't know anything about the quality of their relationship, but I just don't see why one can't create a deeply loving and enjoyable relationship with a top-caliber girl while waiting, say, a week or a month before having sex. If the girl decides to wait, shouldn't the guy respect that, or does it mean that he's not presenting himself sexually enough? And if the guy decides to wait, the girl can surely be understanding enough to put off her desires for a while. Basically what I'm trying to say is that people can fall in love over the course of a couple weeks, say, without either of them having felt the need to have sex after their first meeting or date. Besides, without sex, isn't there still a difference between love and friendship?

After reading your site and book, I'm not nearly as firm about my answers to any of these questions as I used to be, but am interested to hear your thoughts.


Chase Amante's picture

Hey M,

Some great questions here.

With the former teacher of mine who dated the girl for 2 years - you've got to remember, people get into all kinds of things, relationships included, and then they get comfortable and don't change anything until they reach a point where they need to decide.

My guess with her is that she did love in terms of affection... but not in terms of sexual, reproductive love. That likely died a long time ago. My guess is that she pushed for sex because she knew he wouldn't give it to her, and she wanted to get free and look for a man she regarded as more of a "man." She wanted to be free. I suspect that even if he did give her sex, she'd decide something else was wrong a few weeks or a month later, and the marriage still wouldn't have happened. That's usually how these things go at the end of relationships; the woman starts listing her demands, the man starts racing to fulfill them, and even when he does so to perfection it still ends anyway.

On girls waiting for sex: you CAN indeed have a great relationship with a woman if she holds out on sex for a while, so long as she feels like you're still a sexual man and still will take it the moment you get a shot at it. If the man has opportunities and doesn't take them though, her perception of him changes dramatically.

You can essentially think of there being two kinds of ways a woman can love a man: one is loving him as a powerful, potent, sexual man; and the other is loving him in an affectionate, warm, sweet way. Generally speaking, the faster intimacy happens, the more it'll be the former and the less the latter; the slower it happens, the less the former and the more the latter.

Advantages and disadvantages of the two types? Well, affectionate love actually makes for more stable relationships, as it leads to the woman being in control, and these relationships last longer. The woman tends to be more nurturing and considerate of the man's emotions. When she loves you as a powerful, sexual man, she's not as warm or nurturing, but she has a greater degree of respect for you, a far greater degree of attraction for you, and she's a lot less likely to cheat. She'll also tend to hold you in higher regard than the other men she's dated, as most men fall more on the "affectionate" side of things than the "throbbing hunk of man" side of things.

You might still say there's a difference between love and friendship without sex, but it's pretty hazy. I've seen plenty of "couples" who supposedly were in love without sex, and then suddenly the girl's got a boyfriend and she's telling the guy they were only ever "just friends." Sex changes the dynamic dramatically between a man and a woman, like we talked about in the article on commitment points. The longer it takes to get there, the lower and more subdued a woman's emotions towards a man generally become.


Franco's picture

I'm in a hurry, but I'd like to throw in an additional comment to what Chase has said here:

On girls waiting for sex: you CAN indeed have a great relationship with a woman if she holds out on sex for a while, so long as she feels like you're still a sexual man and still will take it the moment you get a shot at it. If the man has opportunities and doesn't take them though, her perception of him changes dramatically.

Like Chase said, waiting CAN work... nothing is concrete science involving women's emotions. We can only analyze the common patterns and take advantage of the fact that we most likely know what's going to happen if you do not sleep with her quickly.

However, ANOTHER reason why you should push for sex is that you want to solidify her attraction for you as quickly as possible because, if you don't, it's always possible that another sexy man (possibly "sexier" than you are) can be JUST sexy enough to convince her to sleep with her before you do. Once she has made that decision, all of a sudden you're the shopping guy from The Sad Tale of Shopping Guy

Moving quickly has many more benefits than moving slowly. It's not always the way it NEEDS to be, but it usually has better results in the long run.

- Franco

M's picture

Very cool - thanks a bunch! It seems that the most important thing, regardless of which kind of relationship you want (actually, I guess it's more of a spectrum than an either/or - and I'd also guess that aiming for the middle might be a good strategy for relationships), is developing yourself into a sexy man. It gives you the chance to be the leader of the relationship regardless of how long your girl decides to wait for sex.

Chase Amante's picture


Absolutely. It's worth remembering that a woman's rating of you as a sexual man is relative to her experiences - e.g., if she's always been a virgin and always intended to wait until marriage, and she sleeps with you after 3 months of dating, you'll still be the sexiest and most powerful man of her life up until that point (and maybe forever, if the two of you end up staying together indefinitely).

Conversely, you could sleep with a girl an hour after meeting her, but if she's slept with a guy 20 minutes after meeting him before, you'll still only be second or third best in terms of raw masculine potency.

All is relative...


Zac's picture

Hi Chase,

I am devout religious guy myself. I studied in religious schools, remember most of the things they teach me but somehow i notice something is wrong. Most of our preachers have forgotten that in true religious context, too, they EMPHASIZE not spending too much time with women, moving fast, marriage and have sex. I would not elaborate much.

I am glad to actually say that we are somewhat grow up something a lot familiar. Reading how you grow up with anxiety, people putting you down with fear, religion, I hope to reach that level of your dating skills, and see the world from a mountainous view. I might not reached there, but i'm pretty confident in my desire to achieve.

Thanks for your religiously expertly FUN, truth BLOG. XD


Chase Amante's picture

Hey Zac,

Yes, you're completely right, most people who teach religion lose the true context of it.

The thing with religion is the same thing as politics or anything else; the original leaders tend to be warm, charismatic, inviting, yet still firm and certain, and that's what makes them have such widespread appeal and have a message that spreads so fast. But most people do not ever achieve this style of leadership, and so the ones who come after them use fear to enforce, rather than love.

Fear is the poor man's style of leadership. It gets results, but they are temporary results, and they're grudging results. Whereas, religious leaders like Jesus or Buddha or Moses or what have you typically compel people to action and belief with primarily love and very little fear. People will move mountains when they do so because they are inspired; the motivation is generated internally, and that's the most powerful sort. When they are impelled to do things by threats and fear, however, they only do enough just to not catch the stick.

A great deal of religious instructors breed resentment in their students, rather than inspiration, and that's where much of religious instruction goes wrong (the same can be said for a lot of politicians and political campaigns, office managers and CEOs, and the like). If you've ever had a great teacher, or manager, or any other form of leader who led through inspiration and inclusiveness and compassion, you know how powerful that style of instruction and guidance can be.


Greg's picture

I must admit, this is one of the best "virgin" articles I've read. You thoroughly researched both sides of the debate, and while advocating for one side, you didn't berate the other.

As a 24 year old male virgin, I admit it's very difficult to date and find women who share this moral value. My previous girlfriend of 2 years shared this with me, and she is 26, and I now realize the rarity. In my increasingly frustrated dating search, it seems much like you stated, that I have to go for younger women if purity is important to me.

I firmly believe in this though, and will remain steadfast in waiting for marriage. Relationships can work without sex, it just takes two individuals with ironclad resolve and shared dedication.

Chase Amante's picture

Hey Greg,

Yes, that's part of the solution if you wish to maintain those ideals. You also need to look at how you can put yourself in the best situations to meet those kinds of women; for instance, you're far more likely to meet a woman who's still a virgin in some more devout parts of the American South than you will on either of the coasts or even in the Midwest. South America also used to be home to a lot of more conservative, religiously-devout women; I had a girlfriend from Peru who did not lose her virginity until age 24. But from what she tells me, it's now as open in much of South America as it is in North America.

The other aspect is simply moving quickly to get marriage happening with a girl you like. You have an advantage over many other Western men in that you know exactly what you want (i.e., marriage, a family, etc.), which makes it relatively more easy for you to screen and move through the courtship phases with clear objectives and metrics for a woman in mind (as opposed to most Western men, who hem and haw their ways through relationships, uncertain, unsure, and unguided in their desires). So optimally, you should be spending a lot less time on the courtship phase; I'm sure you've met women you clicked with immediately before - with these women, your best bet is to simply consider this divine inspiration, and get marriage in place so the girl is yours.


Estate's picture

Hey Chase,
So I read in an earlier article how you said starting out, you averaged meeting one good girl you clicked with in about 10-15 approaches, but that figure improved as you got better and were able to spot the right targets. That all makes sense.
The thing I've struggled with lately is similar, picking the right girls. I guess I'm looking for girls with relationship material. The last girl I dated started out great but it turned out she had a boyfriend so I quit it. Thats just not what I'm looking for. The previous several girls were similar or had been sleeping around.
I know some will say I didnt create enough attraction to make her choose me, which may be true but at the same time I'd rather meet someone with some potential rather than competing with her long term boyfriend, its just not a situation I personally am looking for.
Do you have any advice on looking for the type of girl you want?

Chase Amante's picture

Hey Estate,

There are a few articles on this site about choosing girlfriends:

... although it almost sounds to me that your problem isn't what to look for, but the kind of women you're meeting.

Typically, this comes down either to how you've designed yourself and designed your approach with women (i.e., you're attracting the wrong kind of woman by default), OR it's that you're meeting women in the wrong places (e.g., nightclubs instead of day game, etc.).

If you look at how you're meeting these women, do either of those strike a chord (you've geared yourself toward meeting a certain kind of girl who isn't what you want, or you're meeting women in places not conducive to meeting quality girlfriend candidates)?

The answer's going to tend to be one of those two. Once you know what it is, you know what you've got to change.


Maxz's picture

Totally right on Chase.

All the girls I have lost are girls I moved slow with, and did not give them what they wanted meaning sex. After I discovered this site, I learnt my lesson in the move fast department. Every girl I meet these days I'm trying to move fast with. From getting them out on a date and so on.

But a question I had for you Chase is I'm still having trouble in the sexual escalation part. How do you get intimate with a girl on date number one and not prolonging dates to two or three before you bed a girl?

Chase Amante's picture

Hey Maxz,

Good question. There are a bunch of scattered articles on the site covering this, but I'll get a wrap-up / comprehensive post on this up.


The Tool's picture

Excellent Chase, one of my favorite reads thus far (even though every read of yours is extremely insightful.) Although I am cathololic -not devote- I did quite enjoy the bit of destruction of the catholic arguments its about time it was discussed and called out.

Chase Amante's picture

Cool to hear it's one of your favorites, Tool. Yeah, if you look at Jesus's message, it's intuitive and all the parts lock into each other nicely, but the folks who came after him spent a long time constructing dogma that did not have anything to do with anything he said or taught. This annoyed me to no end in Catholic school, but I've been out of the religious environment for so long that it isn't anything I give much thought to in a long time.

Funny to see this old conversation I used to have with Catholic school teachers dredged up again here on GC...


kneek0's picture

Again very interesting article. One of the best I've read on your site, and that is saying a lot since they are all great. I grew up in a similar environment to you, but took me a little longer to figure things out than you did.

I admire your view on life, and right now you are my biggest role model. Just wanted to let you know that.
Keep doing what you do!

Thanks again for all the great resources,

Chase Amante's picture

Thanks Kneek! Great to hear you enjoyed the article so much... and I'll do my best not to let you down as a role model; big responsibility, I know.


fox21296's picture

You've really outdone tons of dating concepts out there.

It's funny too, I was passionately making out with a girl on Halloween who is really good friends with my friend, "the sweet guy", and she was flirting with him. I showed up, she began kissing me and more, and he was puzzled beyond belief and thought she was a slut now and that she is now "not his type of girl"

But what's funny is that he's known her for years, I only knew her for 15 minutes, and yet I found a side of her he didn't ever see... He didn't want that side of her to exist.

This article brings up problems of sexuality in America. Men who believe that sex is taboo, or shows a girl is a slut... Hell, hearing guys reactions to hot girls can be disturbing.

More importantly, your article brings up the manipulation to keep this image in the minds of people, such as the people speaking of that girl who caught herpes and so sex is bad for everyone. Just incredibly eye opening, imagining the scale such manipulation of facts or putting facts out of context can do.

People who talk about things they do not know about seems more than annoying now... it seems dangerous. Just follow one wrong piece of advice like gospel and your whole life is changed...

One must watch who influences them I guess. Thanks Chase, a very awesome article!

Chase Amante's picture

Howdy Fox,

That problem is not limited only to North America; you see it all over the world. I saw it just as much in Asia and South America, and I know it's all over the Middle East, and even in Europe. In much of Africa they only want to marry virgins, so I'd imagine it's just as bad there too.

There's a lot of misinformation about sex, and a lot of individuals with expectations that they project onto other individuals, which often leads to women putting on a front and being for a man whoever it is they think that man wants or needs them to be. Women waiting until they're on their periods to have sex with their boyfriends for the first time, to convince them they were virgins; women having hymen reconstruction surgery to be "virgins" again; women "forgetting" most of their past lovers to keep their partner count down; women telling men, "I would NEVER...!" and, "Oh I cannot BELIEVE that girl just...!" when they did the very thing in question a week ago. All this happens because a woman thinks a man will judge her and condemn her if he knows the truth; and often, she's right.

Getting wrong opinions or beliefs about anything can be very harmful for your life; I've long disliked emotional or one-sided arguments for this reason - you know you're not getting the full picture. A good question to ask whenever someone tells you someone is "bad" is: what's the other guy have to say about this? And a good response to someone telling you something is "wrong" is: well, what are the total real consequences for everyone involved if this thing happens and is done?

This is when you get into bucking social / moral / ethical norms, and you need to bear in mind that if they're pervasive and have a lot of advocates, they usually serve some kind of cultural purpose that you may not have figured out yet. In that case, it's best to sit down and figure out what purpose they serve and why so many subscribe to them in the first place.

For instance, in the case of no sex before marriage, this belief system leads to more stable families, which lends itself to greater levels of production, and more successful societies. Once sex is freely available before marriage, you begin to see a breakdown in the family structure, which is what happened in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, and we're seeing it right now in the West, too. This breakdown tends to lead to disorder and decline, until the civilization is either toppled by better-organized outside forces, collapses from within, or reaches enough of a crisis point that it demands order, and a new, more rigid system comes into place again (until, one day, some generations down the line, the young begin to question why such strict controls are needed, and the cycle begins anew).

No sex before marriage also benefits average men, in ensuring a mate for everyone. In a more natural environment, like the one of the modern West, women revert to natural mating behaviors, and gravitate toward the most attractive men. This means the most attractive men get lots of mates, while the average men get few mates, and the below average men get nearly none. It also leads to greater mate competition among women; instead of each woman having her own man, suddenly women finding themselves competing with other women for the few exceptional men and having to work constantly to influence those men's thoughts in their favor, instead of being able to focus on their own concerns, content in their security.

I'd say, question your beliefs and be careful whom you listen to, but understand where the other side is coming from too, and why its beliefs have survived as long as they have. If the belief system has been successful, it must be beneficial in some way.


Saturn's picture

Dear Chase,

I really appreciate your blog. I was a virgin a few months ago & making the same mistake of 'moving slow' with women. Then I came across your blog here and life simply changed after that (for the better). Thanks for your wonderful advise of moving fast with women, I am not a virgin anymore. I think this is a very good testimony of your work.

I need your inputs on the relationship of marriage with financial success. You have mentioned in this article that societies which favor marriage are more stable & successful societies. How does this work out at the individual level ? Dont you think guys who are married and are in a stable relationship with their wives would be doing better than unmarried guys (in terms of wealth, career etc.) ? I mean these married guys would focused on building wealth. They wont be spending time competing with other guys for beautiful women. In other words do you think there is a direct correlation between marriage and financial success ? I will appreciate your inputs regarding this.

Ashutosh's picture

Hey chase in your post 'better than the jerk you mentioned that for becoming a geniune man every guy has to go through the jerk phase. Now what i want to ask is can a beginner guy become a genuine man without passing through the jerk phase.? btw @ sulagna me too fro india.nice to meet you :-)

Chase Amante's picture

Hey Ash,

I honestly haven't seen this, and I don't think you can - I think you've pretty much got to go through it.

The reason why is that you don't learn where the limits are until you push them too far, and until you know where the limits are you will always be playing somewhere below them or somewhere beyond them, and never right on them - but the best results come from being right up against them.

That means, you'll have to go through the phase where you push things to far with women, and get thought a dick and a jerk, and then reel it back in. Otherwise, your brain won't get to know the signs that a woman is close or not that close to you going too far and putting her into auto-rejection, and you'll always play it too conservatively and won't be able to maximize your results.

So, when you decide you're tired of being the nice guy, you do have to swallow the pill and go too far to the extreme and be a jerk for a little while - but just keep in mind, that's only one step in the journey, and it isn't the destination.


Knight's picture

Chase, Wow!
So much is making sense lately through your words. I never expected you to be religious, I can understand though, with my own views. You really taught me so much about Jesus, biology and life in general. This article changed so many of my views.

So much respect.

Chase Amante's picture

Hi Knight,

Glad the article made sense! Maybe the religious background is responsible for my propensity to preach...

All kidding aside, cool to hear you learned a lot - hopefully it's useful stuff.


Ciab's picture

Definitely one of the most important articles to date, Chase. In the 30 minutes it took me to read it (to fully digest it, and to meander around in my head on it), it took me on a journey.

I went from "What's he getting at, I don't really understand?" to "Oooh, mixing religion and sex, this point of view actually makes sense!"

And then, boom! Marriage, culture, and society. The more I read, the more I started to get the bigger picture. I realized how small the world I'm living in really is. The further I read, the more clicks I encountered. Click, click, click.

To finish it off, there was something I've been wondering. People that are successful, rich, or powerful, people like you, they've got this...way about them. They've got such strong feelings, emotions, opinions on things. It especially comes out in your writing, the way you can make the reader feel as if they're there, and that's the way they feel, the way they think about it.

As an average guy, I don't have nearly the same way about me. My opinions aren't that aggressive, intuitive, detailed, or expressive. Heck, I probably don't even have as many opinions in all as you do on one or two things. I want to know how you developed that way of thinking and expressing (unless it's the way you've always been?), and how I could develop it too.

Great article Chase, keep up the good work


Chase Amante's picture

Howdy Ciab,

I remember sitting there back when I was in college listening to some Tupac thinking, "Man, he has got WAY stronger opinions than me... I feel like I don't have ANY opinions!" It seemed to me that the most compelling and charismatic characters all had these really strong opinions, and they were constantly setting the record straight or "laying down the law" on challengers.

I actually did have some reasonably strong opinions then, but most of mine weren't formed. If I had to put a finger on what solidifies opinions, it comes down to two things: a predilection for not believing anything until you've seen it / done it / tried it yourself, and then getting your findings out there and being made to defend them again and again.

When I hear something for the first time, my reaction is always, "Hmm, that SOUNDS good, now let me go try it and see if it works." And then maybe I find it does, or maybe I find it doesn't. If it does, I'll tell everyone it works, even if that's not the popular opinion, and if it doesn't, I'll tell everyone it doesn't, even if THAT's not the popular opinion.

You'll find that most of the general advice you get is wrong, or weak, or naive. I don't know where it comes from, or why it endures so long, but eventually you just come to the belief that most people never try out anything, and most teachers and preachers about anything and everything are talking out of their butts.

If you look at someone who's successful, he's someone who's in action and DOING stuff. And someone who's in action and doing stuff is getting a lot of hard lessons taught to him by life and experience. So when he brushes up against mainstream advice, which often is wishy-washy and comes from some guy sitting around thinking that this is how it should be instead of a bunch of people going out, trying things, and saying this is the way it actually is, you end up looking at the mainstream advice and saying, "Uh.... no. That's not correct at all."

And then people look at you like I looked at Tupac and say, "Wow, his opinions are strong and well-thought out. Where's that all come from?"

I'd say, success and strong opinions CAN be one and the same: most successful people have loads of real-life experience that forms their opinions for them.

Of course, there are also the "believers" who take the word of one teacher or another as law without having much or any actual experience themselves. These people can appear to have very strong opinions as well, though their opinions often are not very nuanced or detailed, and don't hold up well under argument and pressure - these people often revert to anger and desperation when their arguments are contested.

Mostly, if you want the strong, aggressive, detailed opinions, there's only one way to it, and no shortcut: get experience. The more experience you have, the more complete and comprehensive and sure your opinions generally will be.


Eric Reeves's picture

To add to chase's comment... look at obesity and america.

We didn't even NEED dentistry until recently. I can imagine it was the same with weight loss diets as well. We simply didn't need them until we started having issues with processed foods and the like. Most cavities are formed by sugars, or lingering carbohydrates. Most obesity problems are caused by sugars as well because it's hard to moderate them.

And yet people still advocate low-fat diets. Really? Do we need to get into the 40% obesity range for people to change? We'll be there before the next decade unfortunately.

Strong opinions and deciders make all the difference. The government with their economic budgeting (bread = cheaper), and sugar companies (sugar is addicting.. fat not so much), and pharmacuticals (pushing cholesterol medication).


Sulagna Dasgupta's picture

Hey Chase,
What you've said about Indian women is completely true in SOME STATES (I don't know if you know - like the US, India is divided in several states, and these states have entirely different languages and cultures!), whereas in some others it's not completely true.
Anyway, all in all your post is detailed, informative, and really thoughtful.
Do visit sometimes...I'm trying to think a bit differently there! :)

Chase Amante's picture

Hi Sulagna,

That's good to know, actually. I'd imagine the more modernized states are more inline culturally with more modernized parts of the world, too. I've been meaning to get to India for a few years now - I'm certain it's going to be a lot of fun to check out when I do.

Thanks for the link to your site, I'll check it out.


Anonymous's picture

This is one of the best articles i ever read..scratch that this Is the best article ive ever read.
I related so much to this and truelly understood everyword.

Sam's picture


The more I was reading forward the more I enjoyed it. Partly because it really concerns me and partly to make the devil's advocate, I would like to raise a question.

Two seemingly contradictory ideas appear in the article:

A) Women are desirous creatures who appreciate men who move fast, show their erotic interest in them and seek sex with them.

B) Women are hardwired to resist, women filter men, women delay sex.

Most men, whether beginners, intermediate or even advanced, could relate with the second idea. After all, this is why we read religiously your blog; to overcome women's delays and obstacles in our way to intimacy. In particular, some men might have lost women, not because they were slow, but because they were too fast.

How can the aforementioned ideas on women be reconciled?

Eric Reeves's picture

Hey Sam, I actually did a little write-up a few days ago on a topic similar to this. It's almost done so expect it soon.

Your question is more on dealing with resistance while moving fast, while my article is more on preventing it before it occurs.

- Eric

Chase Amante's picture

Hey Sam,

As Eric noted, he's already got an article on the way here.

But here's a quick way of thinking about this:

Just because you make a challenge doesn't necessarily mean you want the person to fail. For instance, you may say to a group of people, "I'll be NONE of you can solve this problem I have," and tell them they're wrong on every half-assed effort they make to give you a solution... because what you're LOOKING for is someone who's going to breakthrough the challenge and give you the PERFECT solution. That's a good way of thinking about women's resistance vs. desire... they want a man to succeed - but they want to make sure he's strong enough that he can overcome the obstacles laid before him on the way to success.

Women don't actually sit there tapping their fingertips together, wry smiles dotting their lips, thinking about how carefully constructed their challenges are and how only the finest men will make it past them, but it's the easiest way to think about desire and resistance if you're unacquainted with the juxtaposition of the two.


Balla's picture

Hey chase, this article was really deep! I have a question though. It's like this, I always think about sex 24/7 it actually kills me now because Im not getting it like I use to. I moved and the girls are much harder to get to sleep with where I'm at now than where I was before. Why is it different?

I wanted to say the only time I got lays was from girls who came to me and I mean from the approaching to texting to setting up dates. It was like a reversal role, but I never did anything no approaching at all but I got laid by the girls who came up to me. I'm not getting laid by the girls I approach though. I'm thinking that it's because I show them I like them but with the other girls they chase me to make me like them. I don't want to wait for girls to approach me! It takes too long and sometimes their not what I want. Anyway the question for that is how can I get the same results I got from girls approaching me to me approaching them?

And is me thinking about sex all the time chase the girls away? It's like the more I think about it the more it's going out of my grasp, like some magic force is like "I will torment you with these thoughts and urges but you won't be able to get them".

Thanks chase,


Chase Amante's picture

Hey Balla,

Could be you need to get your approach suited to a different style of women in your new area... e.g., while I could talk about travel a lot when I lived in Washington, D.C., and every girl over the age of 23 or so found it gripping, most women I mentioned it with in San Diego would go into auto-rejection because it's a much more insular, less worldly community and it was too much. Or, I had a very cool Chinese jacket from Shanghai that women were fascinated to learn was from China when I wore it out in D.C., but when I wore it in my old college town and told girls it was from China, I'd get a blank stare and silence in response. There's a lot of tailoring that has to go on to get things tweaked for women in different regions.

With interest... it's certainly possible you're showing too much interest. Interest is very attractive from a man when it's subtle and when his fundamentals are very handled; that way, it's welcome interest. If it's from a man who's still working on being sexy and suave, however, it's more "cute," like what we talked about in the "women taking you seriously" article. So, check yourself there to see if you're being too forward for where you're at - you might be killing your intrigue.

Thinking about sex is good if you're living in abundance and are confident you can get sex when you want it and are NOT feeling needy. It's very bad if you're feeling needy about it and get needy with women you think you've got a shot with. Essentially, think of it as good if your emotion is, "Oh yes, this is great... I'm going to make this girl so full of desire she won't be able to take it," and bad if your emotion is, "Oh, I hope I don't mess this up... come on, girl, we've got to make it happen!"

If it's the latter, you'll want to get your mind off of it until you can relax a bit more and stay more in control and more steady with women when sex-crazy.


Balla's picture

Hey chase I was just reading your article on being smooth and it's over after beginner it doesnt show intermediate and advanced.

Chase Amante's picture

Thanks Balla, glad you told me - all fixed now.


Vaughn 's picture

I just finished reading the articles you put for me to read on your last article In the comments. I read that you got more girls being low key and non energetic. How can I pull that off without being a boring person or stand offish? Thank you!

Chase Amante's picture

Hey Vaughn,

See the stuff on conversation to make yourself more interesting:

Those should get you set.


Anonymous's picture

Hi Chase I been tall for as long as I can reanonmember and girls always tell "anon you're so tall " and I normally say yeah I know.I know it takes a lot of courage for a girl to walk up and say that ,so how can I stir this towards something profitable?

Chase Amante's picture

Hey Anon,

You can put your hand on top of a girl's head and say, "And you're tiny!" That's a fun way of teasing them back a bit. I used to use this one quite a bit (and I'm not even all that tall).

But what I more prefer in those situations where you get some girl randomly approaching you these days is to smile warmly, look her in the eyes, and say, "Nice to meet you too! I'm Chase." She'll introduce herself, and then you'll ask her how her day or night is going. Next, ask her why she felt so compelled to come over and say hello. When she says it's because you're tall, you can say, "I see. And do you tell EVERY tall person you see that they're tall?" She'll laugh and say no, and you'll say, "Huh... well, why me?"

At that point, unless she's super confident, you'll probably need to take some pressure off her, so be nice and ask her somethings about herself after she answers you that aren't too challenging.


Anonymous's picture

Mindblowing what an insight!chase how would you recommend on giving girls compliments I don't want to sound fake but at the same time I don't want to sound inconsiderate how to do that?

Chase Amante's picture

Hey Anon,

Simply follow the rule of effusive praise, bored voice tone.

So, "You have a really nice style about you... very well put together. Good choice of colors and items," all said as if you're mildly bored. You can praise this way without seeming over the top or overly impressed, while still paying solid compliments and communicating sincere interest.


Mark's picture

Another great article Chase. I really appreciate being able to read your opinion on this subject. I mostly get it from one perspective. One thing to mention is that although Jesus did talk mainly of love, He did speak a certain amount of condemnation, such as in Matthew 5 (yes I had to bring that one up). But anyway one thing I have noticed is that out of all of the religious leaders who have had sex outside marriage that I have heard talk about sex, I only remember two actually saying they wish they hadn't done it. And none of them said they didn't enjoy it. I am still trying to figure out where I fall so I really like seeing both viewpoints.

Anonymous's picture

Hey chase,

read like all your articles before, and bought the books etc. Going through it all again, idk how many times i've read the things you say, but I'm reading thinking, using trying, practicing etc. I have a girlfriend now, she's a virgin, she says she's not ready for sex, so I'm not sure how else to approach the topic to her. We've dated for about a month, and things are great, she really is in love with me, same goes for me.

I just want to keep her, and as you say, i would want to make me her special person soon. Quick question though, i want to know that she isn't lying about her virginity, how can i tell that its her actual vriginity and not her on a period?

Secondly, what would you do to escalate the relationship into sex? I'm not going to guilt her into sex, or force her into any of that. i want to make her feel comfortable and have a memorable first time.

Thanks Chase,
your friend -

Robert Kirby's picture


This was an awesome post, and it is of special interest to me as it strikes very close to home for me and many of my friends. I live, as you did, in a very small traditional Catholic town in the Midwest, and when I traditional I mean like old school, Latin liturgy and everything.

First of all, I would like to say that I think your post was very insightful and your resentment of your early upbringing is justified, as I believe the Catholic religion is often very poorly presented.

I like how you broke down the actual, biological need for sex and why women actually need men to move fast. It all makes perfect sense.

I would however, like to take a moment to point out that I think that the true Catholic position on the subject has been misunderstood. The reasons that were taught to me were very practical and logical. The reason behind the laws governing purity in Catholic morality stem from the actual purpose of marriage itself. There are two ends to marriage: First, the procreation and education of children; and Second, the conjugal love between partners (including sexual pleasure). In the natural hierarchy of needs, if there is ever a conflict of interests, the first end takes priority over the second. (Since special preservation outranks self preservation). So you could say that the idea of marriage, monogamy and purity as portrayed by the Church and society are in conflict with the actual needs of all individual humans, and I would agree. However, imagine if every single male human on the planet followed your (indisputably) superior model of seduction and simply procreated with every female he found attractive. This would be great for the individual males and for the sheer number of humans conceived. However, human reproduction is not just about quantity, but about quality, since we were created (or evolved) as a superior species, with an intellect and a will. In short, we actually care about the quality of the upbringing of our children. So imagine what the above model will do (and has done) to the development of a child. Would it not be better for that child if he were raised by two parents that were committed to being being spawned by an alpha male father who may or may not see him again, and raised by a mother who may in fact resents him for taking away her "liberty"? I think that it has been proven by history that the family model works best for the child. And in this situation the children are the priority, not the parent., even from an atheistic, evolutionary standpoint.

I take the time to say this because even though I fail miserably at upholding the standards of Catholic morality in this and every other way, I know many people who have upheld this standard, gotten married, and are more blissfully happy than any of us ever will be. Because, really if you are just running around satisfying yourself, how can you be truly happy? All men thirst for immorality more than anything, and the only way you can truly achieve it (unless you are Achilles) is through your children.

Admittedly, the people I refer to probably followed something resembling your process and moved fast. acted passionately and married soon. So I think we both you are and the Catholic Church can be right. I just hate to see one of the greatest minds I have ever been educated by at odds with a beautiful ideology, just because it was presented badly.

I really appreciate the post and all the work you do to help other people become better. If only all Catholics were half as Catholic as you, we would be in a far better place. I remain your devoted fan.


Add new comment

The Latest from