Female Mind

Not all tests are subtle. Sometimes women break out the big guns. But what do you do when she hits you with a test aimed right at your core?

In today’s Tactics Tuesdays post, we talk about a very specific kind of test. These are what I call ‘core tests’; they test a man at his core, aimed at what a woman dubs likely to be a core issue to a man’s strength or identity. A core test revolves around money, leadership, sexual prowess, and other areas most men pride themselves on strength in.

This is Part I of a 2-parter on core tests. Part I deals with core tests in pickups and on dates.

Women will use core tests on you at any stage of interaction with them. They will use them with you during the courtship. They’ll use them on dates. They’ll core test you in the bedroom as you escalate to sex. They’ll core test you early on into a sexual relationship, half a year into your relationship, or ten years into marriage. Core tests are the most dangerous tests women will use on you – yet they also present the greatest opportunity to set massively powerful frames.

We’ll talk about how to spot a core test, why core tests carry so much force to shake most men so easily, and how to shrug core tests off in a way that will not only make women’s respect for you shoot through the ceiling, but will help you yourself cement your own identity as an unshakeable man.

Core tests serve as a reliable way to show women around you a kind of dynamic confidence most men don’t know how to summon up. And in this way, they can be quite useful to encounter.

You won’t always be a girl’s first choice. Yet there are distinct advantages to being her first choice guy – and drawbacks when you aren’t it.

Sometime back, in “Attraction is Either There, or It Isn’t”, we talked about two sorts of attraction. The first was what I called ‘fascination’, where a woman is attracted to you from the get-go; a kind of instinctive, unconscious attraction that is simply there. The second was excitement: a degree of liking, intrigue, attachment, or arousal you build up with time, even if fascination isn’t there at the outset.

Today’s article is related to this, though slightly different. We’ll talk about a girl’s first choice guy... versus her second choice guy or her third choice guy.

The first choice guy will usually be a guy she starts off with fascination-type attraction for. When you are her first choice, some aspect of you strikes her. You rocket to the top of her list of men she’d like something to happen with: could be a hookup, could be a fling, could be a long-term relationship. She knows she’d like something to occur.

Most of the time, with most women you encounter, you’ll be a second or third choice guy (or lower). This is just how it works – you won’t have insta-compatibility with most women, just like most women won’t have insta-compatibility with you. As your fundamentals get tighter and you get better at talking to women and making things happen with them, you’ll have more smoother interactions and will meet both more ‘first choice’ girls as well as do better with more ‘second choice’ and ‘third choice’ girls.

It’s less important to be her first choice when you’re on the prowl for flings. That said, if you have your pick of women, it’ll almost always go easier and be more fun with girls you’re a first choice for. It’s more important to be her first choice guy when it comes to choosing women for relationships... for a variety of respect, compatibility, and fidelity reasons.

The roiling Harvey Weinstein Hollywood sex scandal was caused by a unique mix of perversion, sexual power dynamics, and the twilight of feminism.

In late 2017, The New York Times broke a story on Harvey Weinstein paying off sexual harassment accusers. A few choice excerpts:

“[A]fter being confronted with allegations including sexual harassment and unwanted physical contact, Mr. Weinstein has reached at least eight settlements with women, according to two company officials speaking on the condition of anonymity. Among the recipients, The Times found, were a young assistant in New York in 1990, an actress in 1997, an assistant in London in 1998, an Italian model in 2015 and Ms. O’Connor shortly after, according to records and those familiar with the agreements.

...

The allegations piled up even as Mr. Weinstein helped define popular culture. He has collected six best-picture Oscars and turned out a number of touchstones, from the films “Sex, Lies, and Videotape,” “Pulp Fiction” and “Good Will Hunting” to the television show “Project Runway.” In public, he presents himself as a liberal lion, a champion of women and a winner of not just artistic but humanitarian awards.

...

Dozens of Mr. Weinstein’s former and current employees, from assistants to top executives, said they knew of inappropriate conduct while they worked for him. Only a handful said they ever confronted him.

...

After she arrived, he offered to help her career while boasting about a series of famous actresses he claimed to have slept with.

...

“She said he was very persistent and focused though she kept saying no for over an hour,” one internal document said. Ms. Nestor, who declined to comment for this article, refused his bargain, the records noted. “She was disappointed that he met with her and did not seem to be interested in her résumé or skill set.””

Not long after, a recording broke of a 2015 NYPD sting investigation, in which Weinstein can be heard trying to cajole a 22-year-old Italian model up to his hotel room:

Weinstein and Ambra Battilana Gutierrez, the model he attempted to get up to his hotel room.

Rose McGowan accused Weinstein of rape. Stories surfaced of him cornering women and making them watch him masturbate (once into a pot in a restaurant kitchen). And then the dam burst. To-date, 91 actors, producers, and other members of Hollywood have been accused of sexual impropriety, courtesy the #MeToo campaign. Women, en masse, have come forward with accusations against men – particularly men who held power over them.

Why this time, though? There have always been sexual accusations against powerful figures. Bill Clinton, Tiger Woods, Michael Jackson, Bill Cosby, Donald Trump... just to name a few of the most prominent ones. Some of the accusations swirling around these figures are worse than anything alleged against Weinstein; Cosby is accused of drugging women to rape them. Many of the varied claims made against Clinton over the years sound like something out of a B-level political thriller, with all the rape, murder, and coverups you can dream of.

Yet despite all the controversies around and accusations leveled at powerful political and media figures, the dam never broke before. But this time it did. Why now? What does this ‘Gropocalypse” and its #MeToo campaign tell us about men, women, and sexual power dynamics in the professional spheres?

Sometimes you go for intimacy, but a girl stops you because she feels slutty. There are 5 major ways to help her past this: adventure, sexual expertise, urgency, and more.

This is an old request from the GC topics queue – it goes back about four years or so. A reader (who happened to have attended my alma mater) had this to ask:

“Hey Chase, this was an absolute mind boggling article, gave a new perspective to things. Anyway, recently I went on a date to a local bar, Cafe 210 in State College if you know it. We stayed there had a few drinks and then I pulled her back to my place. I then made my move. I had her shirt and bra off, and then refused to take her pants off, and I tried everything to get them off but failed. She had the vibe that she was trying not to be slutty/easy, and was could tell she was experienced. This has happened several times to me with other girls. Im assuming I’m in BF territory, but any advice on making girls not feel slutty/easy would be great.”

You might think at first this is just a last-minute resistance issue. And you can treat it as such. However, if it is a pattern, where you encounter this repeatedly when you get women alone, it’s more than just LMR. The LMR is only a symptom of the overall problem. Girls feeling slutty about sex around you is the root.

If you can make a woman feel comfortable being sexual with you, you will not face this obstacle. Sure, a girl may still resist sex with you for any one of a number of other reasons... you may not have turned her on enough, the environment may not be conducive to it, or any of myriad other possibilities may be the case.

However, if you remove the “she feels slutty about sex” issue, this reason for resistance goes away.

And it should be noted here that this goes beyond any boyfriend considerations. That’s because if she does not see you as a boyfriend, but she still feels like it’d be slutty or too easy to sleep with you, she will resist sleeping with you. And meanwhile, even if she does see you as a boyfriend, if she feels like she can hop into bed with you and it won’t affect how you see her or her prospects with you (and she has no other reservations about intimacy with you), she will hop right into bed with you.

The key, of course, is you must remove the ‘too easy’, ‘too slutty’ objection, first.

Morality is a varied field, and we can view women’s morality in quite different ways... depending on which of 5 branches of morality we use.

Hey, guys. I am aware that I don’t usually discuss theoretical stuff that is not directly related to the field, but I decided to take some liberties today.

Recently, Hector Castillo wrote a post on “women not caring about morality” that some of you may have loved, hated, loved to hate, or hated to love. There is no doubt that subjects related to morality may be seen as controversial, triggering a variety of feelings in different people. Chase also weighed in on the subject with his own article in response to the heated debate brewing in Hector’s comments section.

In regards to ethics and the philosophy of morality, there is no such thing as full-blown truth. Ethics is a subfield of philosophy, meaning it is less likely to contain the types of truths you’d find in science – as philosophy is not science. Philosophy is the process of discovering truth, and for this reason, we have decided, in light of good old Socratic tradition, to learn through debate. By presenting multiple takes on the matter (Hector, Chase, and now me – so far), we hope to give you more arguments to fuel your reflections and hopefully contribute to your reaching a (more) solid conclusion – if you ever reach one at all.

What Hector points out (that descriptive ethics is more fact based compared to normative ethics) is very true. However, there is still some normativity within descriptive ethics. As mentioned, descriptive ethics devotes itself more to “how people act” rather than “how people should act” – the latter going into the field of normativity. However, in order to discuss how people actually act (what kind of moral sentiments and drives they possess), we need to define one of the key variables. Namely, what is “morality”? If we want to discuss the observed morality of women, how we define morality will have a key impact on our discussion.

Now, how we define this variable will have a crucial impact on our observations. This is where my critique mainly flourishes.

I will cover my criticism step by step, and like Hector, I will add references to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is considered a very credible source. This way, you can read more on the different theories if you happen to find this interesting.

Before I get to my arguments, I do want to make it deadly clear that there are no rights and wrongs – only good arguments. Hopefully, my arguments will be as convincing as Hector’s and, in the end, help you solidify you own.

Female morality can seem alien to men – and men fear what they do not understand. Yet the moral woman can be man’s greatest lover and supporter… if he is willing to be a moral man.

We published an article by Hector this Monday that ruffled a lot of feathers. Its title was Women Do Not Care About Morality. The premise of the article was that women’s morality revolves around what is best for their biological strategy – their morality comes in service of S+R, in other words. Survival and replication. Hector did not intend it as a dark piece, but many readers got that out of it. I wrote this article to cover the same subject – yet in a slightly different light.

--

Since I started dating, over the past dozen years, I have seen women do crazy things.

I had sex bareback with a very sexy girl in a white, ornate dress on our first date. She was already a little buzzed when we met up and was carrying a cup filled with wine when we met. The white dress was odd, but nothing unusual about it struck me... until I got a phone call from the husband I didn’t know she had, and discovered her wedding to him had been, well, roughly sometime right around the night I had sex with her. I deduced I had been intimate with her in what I then realized must have been her wedding dress. The husband lived across the country and I guess flew in for the wedding then flew back out that day. Did I hike up the bride’s wedding dress and take her from behind on her wedding night? I didn’t ask the guy for specific dates; he was clearly in a lot of pain (again, I had no idea this girl was married, and it did not register to me she was in a wedding dress – just not something you expect a girl to show up in on a date, so it doesn’t really even process). But it seemed like, yes, that was probably her wedding night.

Later on, I reunited with an ex-girlfriend. She had already begun to date another man while we were split... yet when we reconciled, she neither told me about her new boyfriend, nor broke it off with him. Yet I suspected there was someone else. A few months in, she grew pregnant. I immediately expressed doubt the child was mine; she swore she had been with no one else. “We’ll see what the paternity test says,” I told her. She became deeply stressed, then miscarried; we split back up. I got the full details on her other man – and that she’d slept with both of us on the likely date of conception – when I happened by chance upon her journal months later. Which man fathered the child? I doubt I’ll ever know.

Years after that, another ex-girlfriend of mine befriended a then-current girlfriend I had. On the surface, my former girlfriend masqueraded as a very good, loyal friend to my then-current girlfriend. But she whispered all sorts of things into my girlfriend’s ear: Chase is not handsome. Chase does not have good career prospects. Chase is a selfish lover. Chase this. Chase that. You should break up with Chase. Chase is completely wrong for you. Chase will destroy your life. According to my girlfriend, 90% of what this ex-girlfriend told her about me was bad. It caused drama to spike in the relationship and brought us very close to breaking up. At the same time she whispered terrible nothings into my present girlfriend’s ear, this ex-girlfriend sent me secret messages to meet up, kissed me when I met her, cried over me, and invited me home to her apartment to renew our relationship. It was clear what her game was: get Chase’s current girl to break up with him, and get Chase all to herself. She had always been the sweetest, most warm-hearted girl in the world, and to see her lie and manipulate my girlfriend to separate her from me, so this ex-girlfriend could have me to herself again, surprised even me... and I was quite grizzled in the ways of women at this point.

You may be thinking “Chase must date low class women.” Or perhaps Chase’s women are sluts. Yet, each of these girls had a post-college education. Each had a well-paying professional job. Each of the girlfriends had relatively low sex partner counts when we started dating. These were normal, quality, classy girls (well, the first chick – the bride – she was a little kooky).

To men, this stuff can seem shocking. It may seem like women are rough, depraved... immoral.

Yet there is another side of female morality. A side that is downright pristine.

A side that, once you get past the shocking aspects of women not being Disney princesses, can hearten them to you, with all the warmth, affection, and care a man outside the Matrix can muster.

This side is the true beauty and goodness of the real female moral nature.

Female morality revolves around one central tenet: is this good for her sexual strategy? If yes, do it / agree with it / subscribe to it. If no, don’t.

Defining morality is tough. Even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which begins with a statement about how it’s simple to define, winds up incorporating an entire dissertation on the various details that go into defining morality.

This particular comment from the entry jumped out at me:

“This is strikingly illustrated by the fact that both C.H. Whiteley and Neil Cooper took themselves to be revealing the important ambiguity in the meaning of “morality” when they distinguished the sociological sense from the psychological (Whiteley 1959) and the social sense from the individual (Cooper 1966).”

This perfectly sets up the context of this article on the amoral nature of women.

Let me be clear. I’m not arguing that women don’t have moral standards. Of course they do. Even sociopaths have a moral framework, though it is devoid of sympathy and concern for others if it doesn’t also benefit them.

The most basic definition of normative morality is “what a person ought to do.”

The operative word here is “ought.”

For many people, their “ought to do X” revolves around duty. This is called duty ethics, for obvious reasons. “My family, my tribe, or my culture demands that I do X, thus X is my duty.” Of course, at some level they have to accept this duty, but this is meta-ethics, and a digression.

Others argue that we should be utilitarian, that our actions should benefit the greater happiness of society. This might also be classified as a duty ethic.

For some moral frameworks, morality is absolute. In others, it is relative. In some scenarios, you should act according to “good,” in others, you should act for yourself, even if it means doing something “bad.”

The usual response to this is some pseudo-intellectual form of “Well, who can define good and bad, huh? It might be bad to one person but good to another,” and it’s left there without an actual foray into meta-ethics.

This response, if anything, is an implication of normative moral relativism, which states that “Because we can’t come up with a good definition of good and bad, we should tolerate everyone’s definitions.”

How that works out in practice, you can judge for yourself.

Fortunately, this isn’t an article on normative or applied ethics. It’s an article about descriptive ethics.

I am describing the observed amorality of women. Nothing more, nothing less.

What you do with this information is up to you. Any anger or spite you may cultivate as a result of this article is your responsibility alone. If anything, I respect women for their savagery. They may not be as violent as men, but they can sure inspire violence, socially and physically. If you want to truly become a lover of women, you need to understand and accept the amoral nature of women. Any remnant of false idealism, and you are loving a false ideal of women, not women themselves.

Let us begin.