Relationships

When a woman’s exclusive to you but you aren’t to her, you see sides of female behavior most men never will. Acceptance, exuberance, and societal convergence are just some of what you discover.

Over the years I've had a variety of relationships where the woman was sexually/romantically exclusive to me, but not I to her.

I learned the techniques to set up and manage relationships like this from an old instructor of mine, who'd often maintain 5-7 girlfriends at once, with 2-3 of them as serious relationships.

This was a lot more common in the early days of the seduction community. Men called them 'mLTRs' then (short for 'multiple long-term relationships'). Many of the guys running mLTRs didn't ask for (or weren't able to get) exclusivity from their girls. But some of them did.

Because pretty much all my romantic experience came post-discovering the seduction community, I dove right in, and went into setting up mLTRs from my very first relationships. I was a young dumb kid, dating women who were a lot more experienced than he was, and I figured it wouldn't work and I'd get laughed out of these girls' apartments and lives... but to my surprise, it did.

I've tended to call this setup 'one-sided monogamy' when I've mentioned it on this site. But since I'm talking about it here, I've realized this term, while descriptive, doesn't sound great, and doesn't really do the relationship justice. (while only one party is monogamous, the relationship itself is not 'one-sided')

So for this piece, we'll just call these women you have in a relationship like this 'consorts' or 'mistresses'.

You can use screens to get women to qualify themselves to you in order to boost rapport. That’s great for investment. But what if you actually care about whether she passes a screen?

I can hear you already:

"But Chase, I thought it was screening and qualifying women? Not screening versus qualifying!"

Ordinarily, yes. This article's about a slightly different tack, however.

In much of usual seduction practice, screening is a tool to get women to qualify. Or a tool to see whether women are invested enough to qualify.

For example, you tell a girl, "There's nothing like a good adventure. Going somewhere new, doing something novel, trying some unique food or experience for the first time. I love it, personally." That's an implied screen.

When you screen her like that, assuming you already have rapport with her, there's a fair bit of pressure on her to qualify herself and answer, "Yes, I like adventure too."

Even if she's the opposite of adventurous, she's going to feel pressure to tell you, "Yeah, that sounds nice," just to avoid breaking rapport.

As she qualifies herself to you like this, she complies with your frame.

If she doesn't qualify herself, it's an indication she may not be that compliant with you just yet.

Either way, this is helpful for your seduction.

But there are certain times you aren't going to want a woman trying to qualify herself to your screens.

Sometimes, you are using the screen to actually screen for whatever it is the screen's about.

And if she starts qualifying herself, instead of giving you the straight truth, she'll be investing, but you aren't going to be getting what information you're after.

Playboys aren’t like ordinary men. Students must realize that while you can adopt the playboy’s material to have more success, his goals will tend to be different than theirs.

Yesterday I wrote an article on having healthier relationships by focusing on turning relationships mutual, rather than adversarial. Not 'compromise', not 'give and take', mind you; mutual.

When I wrote that article, I dove into the research on agreeableness. I thought agreeableness might play a big role in that article, but it ended up with a small part.

However, I did find it relevant for a different conversation I was in. It consisted of a few long-time players I know, both in their 40s, who are in the midst of their wife hunts. The discussion they had, which I joined in, was why do so few playboys and seduction coaches marry beautiful, wholesome wives from their home countries in conventional monogamous marriages?

Obviously there are men who marry beautiful, wholesome wives from their home countries in conventional monogamous marriages. But this is typically not seduction coaches or natural playboys. Instead these men normally do one of the following:

• Marry a (sometimes beautiful) girl from their home country but have a non-monogamous marriage (i.e., they're swingers or they have an open marriage)

• Marry a girl from their home country in a monogamous marriage, but the girl is very unattractive (even if the guy in question historically dated good-looking girls)

• Marry a beautiful, wholesome girl into a wholesome relationship, but the girl is not from their home country (even if the guy has dated more girls from his home country than any other point of origin)

Their concern was, "Maybe the guys who are teaching this stuff and the guys who are learning this stuff are not so perfectly aligned."

The friends I had this discussion with are fairly advanced playboys, who have been in the seduction community for 15+ years, have perfectly respectable notch counts, and have studied under many of the more notable pickup instructors over the years.

Both are in the midst of 'wife hunts' and, struggling with this (i.e., they lay hot girls, but then those girls don't stick around... or they get girls who want to stick around, but those girls aren't hot, or they have problems), have started to question some of their methods and teachers.

The question I'll pose for today is... what is the difference between advanced seducers and ordinary men?

And does this mean if you are like 98% of men, and you are just an ordinary guy searching for an ordinary wife, you should be doing something different than what these teachers tell you?

Are your romantic relationships mutual… or adversarial? If you want a healthy relationship, you must seek to make yours as mutual (for both parties) as you can.

There has been this rise in what I'd term an 'adversarial approach' to romance.

In a way, the modern seduction community itself came from this. Women were out there, according to the seduction community, with their ' shields', seeking to resist men, to screen them, and test them, and men had to figure out ways to overcome these challenges and cause women to submit to them rather than brush them off.

(I never liked the terms 'bitch shield' or 'shit test', which is why we shortened them to 'shields' and 'tests' here. Even then these terms are still a bit too adversarial for my tastes, but when I began the site those terms were already established and I didn't want to totally reinvent the wheel, so we used them as-is)

It's not only the seduction community. Everything about Western romance has this touch of adversity to it.

Women advising other women say to 'never settle', as if love is this battle for the absolute best man and anything short of that is selling oneself up the river. Men talk about women not being 'worth learning all this', as if to enter a relationship one must learn a form of extreme combat that is no longer worth the reward one gets at the end of it. Women and men alike complain that the opposite sex is no good and not worth being with.

Modern relationship advice often talks about 'compromise', as if the two sides of a relationship are at war, and must come to an accord to move forward on things.

Yet a healthy relationship is not this way.

A healthy relationship is a mutual relationship.

It is one where partners do things together because it is mutually beneficial to do so, and because they enjoy being with and serving each other in their unique man and woman roles.

Ambitious women can be very attractive. They can also be a real handful. But: are they any good as wives and mothers – or are they too caught up in their ambitions to be?

Some time back, a reader commented that he, like me, found himself drawn to ambitious, highly educated, and/or high-achieving women.

Now, I know a lot of guys are really into submissive women and they don't care about education or the woman's career. If you're that way, you can safely pass over this article.

However, if you're the sort who prefers his women smart and driven, you're likely to face the question our reader had for me when he asked about this:

As attractive as these women can be, are they actually any good as wives and mothers?

That's the question we'll examine today.

When people make unilateral actions against you, you must respond unilaterally in turn. Yet there’s a big difference between desperate unilateral responses and strategic ones.

I saw an article a month back about a father-of-three who set his wife on fire, killing her. It was, obviously, horrible. He did it right in front of their kids, too.

You look through the article and there are a bunch of pictures of the husband and wife, looking like two totally normal people, perfectly happy together. The husband looks like a bit of a nice guy, and the wife is always doing this weird shrug with her shoulders and kind of leaning away from the guy, but she's smiling, and it's a genuine smile. They look like a very typical, average, regular couple.

Then you read about the chain of events that led up to this guy going psycho on the wife.

His Australian wife kicked him out, presumably after they'd had a ton of fights. She then filed a restraining order against him, and started the divorce process. He, as an American citizen, believed he'd get deported from Australia, and presumably be cut out of his children's lives. His business was in Australia too (I don't know why he couldn't just get a business visa, but maybe he couldn't, or he was too upset to think of that).

The neighbors said they never heard the couple fighting, and the guy was always friendly, loved to talk, but was also "obviously distressed" when he was in the process of being kicked out.

If you read the article about this, it's clear the guy just went deeper and deeper into a depression spiral after his wife kicked him out. She began making accusations against him, too. Finally he snapped and went back and set her alight.

This article will be about a very important topic: that when people take unilateral action against you, as the wife was against the husband here, you also must respond in turn with unilateral action of your own.

However, you need to understand this, and approach it strategically, with appropriate moves and strategic timing -- well in advance of the point where you snap, and resort to desperate, destructive/self-destructive unilateral action, of the sort people turn to when they feel they have no way out.

Girlfriends with borderline personality disorder can be the sexiest, most intoxicating partners you will ever have. They are also the most damaging ones you can have, and you should run.

Lately I have been hearing from more and more guys dealing with girlfriends afflicted with borderline personality disorder.

The story is always the same: the guy is crazy about this girl, he's never had a relationship this intense, the sex is off-the-charts good, but this girl is completely wrecking his life.

Usually guys know these girls are trouble and are trying to get themselves away. Sometimes they have already gotten themselves away, but they are struggling to keep themselves away. Occasionally they don't want to break up with these girls and just want to know how to fix them (spoiler: you can't).

Today's article is a public service announcement for the Girls Chase audience and the broader general Internet that if you have a girlfriend like this, you probably need to cut the cord sooner rather than later... if only to save your own soul.