Social Commentary | Girls Chase

Social Commentary

Deconstruction in Cinema: A Corrosive Poison Drip into Men's Heads

Chase Amante's picture
TEXTMore and more blockbusters feature “deconstruction” of established strong characters. This isn’t a good thing – it is harmful for viewers uncritically absorbing this nonsense.

I’ve recently found myself watching fewer and fewer recent movies.

We discussed it on the forum a while back. I mentioned in that thread that:

The way I think of it is most modern movies are being made for someone other than me.

I don't know exactly whom their target audience is, but it's definitely not a guy like me.

Many modern film themes are increasingly puerile. Their cultural revolutionary elements are stifling, jammed into every other scene and made as blatant and jarring as possible, seemingly deliberately aimed at breaking immersion.

On top of that, they all just feel hollow.

When I watch most modern movies, I come out of it feeling like I’ve spent two hours in a brainwashing chamber, and the only way to get un-brainwashed is to watch an old movie. Then a few days later I watch an old movie and it’s a breath of fresh air… the world makes sense again, all is as it should be, and everything returns to normal.

It isn’t every single modern movie that has this “brainwashed” effect I’ve found – it’s just a lot of them.

What, then, is the difference, between modern “brainwash” movies and non-brainwash modern movies plus older cinema?

Recently I began to really dig into the thematic differences between modern vs. older cinema, and it’s become increasingly clear what modern films are doing that, in my view, is just straight up poisonous to the healthy male’s psychology.

I’ve talked to you before about how the media influences thoughts and feelings. I’ve advised you to turn off the screens and limit the amount of time you spend on them.

Today I want to show you just what is going on beneath the surface in some of these “harmless” popcorn movies you are absorbing into your skull.

7 Factors Behind the 2020s Dating Collapse

Chase Amante's picture
factors of the dating collapseDating has been on the decline in the West for some time. There are 7 main sociocultural reasons why. Together, they weave a web of complexity fewer and fewer daters break through.

I want to take a break from tactical articles to talk today about a broader topic.

While this won't contain how-tos, it will contain important perspectives I think will help shape the way you think about the dating landscape.

We've talked for a while about how dating is getting harder for people. We mainly talk about ways it is getting harder for men here, since this is a male-oriented site, but it's actually getting harder for both sexes.

It can be hard to put a finger on gradual changes, and even harder to name specific contributing factors to those changes. Generally what you will see is people who have one pet theory and blame it for everything: "It's due to feminism!" "It's due to porn!" "It's due to Hollywood brainwashing!" "It's due to a decline in morals!"

Social systems are complex systems though. They are hard to understand because they have many moving parts, and all those moving parts interact with each other. There is almost never one single cause for a major breakdown in function within a complex system.

Today we'll be looking at what I find to be the seven (7) most important causes of our contemporary breakdown in dating -- one that's led to an enormous reduction in romantic activity among men and women, and an explosion of bitterness among both sexes.

Status vs. Comfort vs. Genes

Chase Amante's picture
status vs. comfort vs. genesThere are three types of men: those who want status, those who want comfort, and those who want genes. Which type of woman you prefer depends on which type of man you are.

There are three (3) kinds of people in the world when it comes to mate selection:

  1. Those who seek status: i.e., the flashiest, most popular mates

  1. Those who seek comfort: i.e., the coziest, most companionable mates

  1. Those who seek genes: i.e., the most genetically gifted, naturally elite mates

My experience in a decade-and-a-half instructing men in this space is that these preferences appear to be hardwired, whether by genetics or early life experiences. I've never known an individual to switch underlying mate selection paradigms.

The kinds of mates each type of individual is seeking and the most optimal ways to encounter them differs according to the mating paradigm. This introduces some subtle (and some not-so-subtle) differences in what styles of game each type prefers, and each type's opinions on which sorts of mates are the high watermark.

Clashes between the styles occur when a member of one or the other type insists his preferences are the best, and anyone who disagrees must be fooling himself.

Today though, we'll clear away the bullshit and look at things straight.

How to Deal with Opinionated People

Chase Amante's picture
opinionated peoplePeople have all kinds of aggressive, often ignorant opinions. About everything! To deal with this without losing your head, you must first put things into perspective.

Decidedly on the rise is the profusion of aggressively opinionated people.

You know, those people who will get in your face, flaunt their opinions at you and, with little manners or decorum, do their very best to bait you into either agreeing with them or outing yourself as one of 'the bad ones' who believes not as they do.

Regardless of your set of beliefs (on any of a range of items), you can probably agree that there are many of both the people who agree for the most part with you and those who really don't agree with you who hold rigid, inflexible opinions about a great many things.

If you're a critical thinker, you can probably also admit that most people -- even most of those who agree with you -- hold only shallow understandings of the positions they purport to hold, and are far more emotionally attached to their positions than they are logically secure in them.

This is a human tendency, to form emotional attachments to views, often with only a superficial eye cast toward any kind of objective underpinning of said views. Opinionated, impassioned, yet superficial arguments are annoying to everyone, but they're especially annoying if you're a critical thinker.

There's little worse for critical thinkers than to find oneself in a debate with someone demanding he unquestioningly accept the veracity of a flimsily-supported position or else be forever damned as evil incarnate (or perhaps just stupid, brainwashed, or uninformed).

This article won't be about any particular current events or hot button issues, and if you comment I'd urge you to keep to the spirit of that here too.

Instead, its focus is on dealing with opinionated people: both avoiding pointless entanglements with them as well as preserving your own sanity despite maddening insistence you agree to the unreasonable or be damned.

Seducing Women to Sex vs. Guarding Daughters from Sex

Chase Amante's picture
lovers vs. daughtersHow can a seducer view sleeping with women as morally correct… while knowing he likely wouldn’t want his daughter to sleep around? A deep dive into sexual morality.

On Alek's recent piece showcasing three new sex talk gambits, a reader posted the following provocative comment:

Hello Alek.

I've noticed something about Girls Chase and the seduction community at large.

There seems to be a lot of cognitive bias and intellectual dishonesty in this space Re: "Sluts".

See, in this space we teach that women are human beings just like men and should therefore be free to engage in sex freely w/o judgement.

Additionally, the concept of "high body count" is a non issue to us "lovers" unless seeking an LTR.

However, the facts show that "most" women are NOT in fact built for casual sex. Most high n count women either have personality disorders, histories of child abuse, poor impulse control or high sex drives.

For the most part women barter sex for relationships and constant hookups for the average chick without committment damages her psyche. That's why FWB chicks sometimes get jaded and tired of empty sex.

Here's a thought, if women like sex so much, why cant they hold down an FWB arrangemnt in perpetuity like men would prefer?

Chase has also countered the argument that older seducers do not corrupt younger girls by fucking them young 18/19yo) because women have agency and can think for themselves.

Yet we also go on to say that women are cute little smurfs who need guidance and direction. They aren't the best decision makers particularly when young.

In short all these axioms we have here seem to be rationalisations for "lovers" to be able to fuck girls without suffering from guilt.

And one way I can prove this is to request an article titled "A Letter to my 18yo Daughter" or sth along these lines giving her advice on how to manouver sexual relations as she goes off to start her first year in college.

Would you still tell your daughter that its okay to fuck a smooth talking guy on the first date if she feels the vibe?

Would you still tell her that body count is a social construct used by prudes and puritans? One nightstands are perfectly okay.

Would you still allow her to be fucked by older dudes (30s) while in her first year of college because older man + younger chick is a completely normal thing to do?

I find it hard hard to fully embody the lover archetype because it frequently clashes with the patriach archetype inside me who thinks he might have a daughter one day.

And I understand that this site does not give womens advice because it is a mens site for MEN but in this case saying that might be an easy cop out from addressing the disingenious nature of the things we teach here Re: Women and Sex

Is it possible to be a lover and a patriach without experiencing cognitive dissonance?

Trillion Dollar Question.

I love this question, and I'd love to answer it... so, while it may be addressed to Alek, I'd like to weigh in with my thoughts on it too.

How Did Direct Game Pickup Grow So Popular?

Alek Rolstad's picture
direct game pickupIt seems like every guy runs direct game on the girls he meets these days. But how’d direct get to be so popular? It wasn’t always so…

Hey guys.

So today I wanted to share some clarifications on a subject I have discussed in-depth in 2021: namely the whole “direct versus indirect game” subject.

If you have been following my posts over the past year, you should know by now that I am a strong believer in indirect game – namely the type of seduction where you do not reveal your cards (your interest) until she has shown some interest first.

This entails that you must keep her knowledge of your interest in her ambiguous until you manage to build some compliance (or call it “build attraction”). Once you have managed to do exactly that, you will get signs of interest in return, at which point you can reciprocate and show interest back. The amount of interest you show in return depends on how much interest she shows you; you more or less calibrate accordingly at all times.

There are forms of indirect game that are more passive (indirect) than others… yet in strong opposition comes this new trend of neo-direct game, which is all about expressing your interest in her right away. The cat is out of the bag – she knows you want her, and you’ve just got to try to make it happen by convincing her that you are a great potential lover.

Already there we can see how the frame is totally off!

She is now in power… since you are clearly the one chasing her.

She has a higher perceived sexual market value and therefore she gets to dictate the terms. Here she can set very high expectations in terms of her standards. This is how you end up facing highly inflated standards – or rather, that is when you become a guy who gets to deal with those high standards, since men who did not give her all that power will not be facing those high expectations because they never allowed the other party (her) to set them in the first place.

This is exactly what I discussed in my previous post. There I discussed how this neo-direct game, where you constantly show interest from A to Z without ever keeping your level of interest in her ambiguous, without ever showing any mixed signals, and sometimes without ever using compliance-building techniques… or if those were used, they were only used sparingly.

It is easy to conclude from my previous post that indirect game is the solution to the problems that stem from simping and dealing with women’s inflated standards (which we saw only come fully into play when you allow her to express them by setting a frame that gives her the power to do so).

I wouldn’t rush to such a conclusion though. Now, I have in the past been very harsh towards direct game. This is due to two reasons:

  1. The surge of poorly done direct game or this overly direct form of direct game (neo-direct game) leading to cringe interactions between men and women. These cringe results led me to wanting to debunk it fully.

  2. I personally still believe indirect game is better – that is… (and I may be biased here) because it gives you a better meet-to-lay ratio, since you will have a chance to get some girls you wouldn’t get otherwise (that is, compared to using a non-indirect form of game: that is, direct game).

But this does not mean that direct game used the right way is necessarily bad. This may seem contradictory to things I have said about it in the past. But I need to do a mea culpa. Everything I said in those posts still holds true, in the sense that keeping your levels of interest in her ambiguous is the way to go because it gives you:

  • More compliance
  • Smoother interaction
  • A more solid frame – thus more control

All this still stands.

But this does not mean all direct forms of game contradict all these aspects.

This post is meant to give you guys a clarification on this issue.

In this post, I intend to discuss how this trend of neo-direct game came to be, going through the history of the seduction community. I want to tell you why and how direct game came to life and why and how it eventually turned into neo-direct game.

In my next post, I will pay homage to the good old school direct game – the one that truly worked. If you are a fan of direct game, you will love my next post.

Neo-Direct Game, Simping, & Women's High Standards

Alek Rolstad's picture
neo-direct gameGuys who try ‘gaming’ women with this new-style “neo-direct” game aren’t gaming girls. They’re simping IRL. Which explains the harsh rejections neo-direct gamers get.

Note: I will be criticizing super-direct (neo-direct) game in this post. However, I want to emphasize that I am not attacking direct game. I have previously been harsh about direct game, but those posts were mostly a criticism of super-neo direct game that I intend to criticize here. I will clarify further in my next two posts. I have a post on direct game coming out soon and will explain how to run it properly to get maximum efficiency and consistency. Stay tuned.


Hey guys.

Today I want to add my take on women and high standards in the era of social media and simping. I want to link this phenomenon with the surge of neo-direct game.

Direct game has become more popular lately.

However, the new form that has become more popular (which Chase calls “neo-direct game”) mostly teaches men to spam-approach on the street, show interest, and hope for the best.

These techniques have done nothing good for men, aside from giving them the balls to approach girls.

Girls with inflated egos from social media, plus the high amount of simping, only leads them to hunt for more validation. With this new form of direct game, you give her exactly what she wants. But now, you are not of much value to her—that is, unless she is looking for sex. Your odds are low since it is more likely that she would just call an F-buddy to satisfy her needs rather than going along with a stranger from the street.

Never have men obtained such bad results as they have using this approach to pick up. I have read reports on forums (some are from our own forum) of guys doing 100 approaches and only getting two lays. Those numbers don’t shock me, considering the style they apply.

What shocks me is that these results are considered normal. They are not. These men have been misled.

Such a ratio is not normal for someone who has made hundreds of approaches. The number of guys sharing these numbers may seem like outliers, but they are not; it is common. They do have one thing in common: they all used this super-direct approach.

Some guys are stubborn and stick to this bad routine because that’s how some of us are. (I have been guilty of this myself). Others just give up. The latter guys come to our forum or post in our comment section that women have too high standards. Chase wrote an amazing piece on the subject. I am not adding anything to his brilliant post.

It makes sense that many men think that women today have high standards. If you opt for super-direct game (neo-direct game), you will often get rejected. From there, it is easy to assume that you are not enough for her and that women’s standards have gone up drastically.

And in all honesty, in some ways, they have gone up. I will add a different perspective to Chase’s theory that doesn’t really conflict.

This “neo” super-direct game is no different than simping on the internet. Women indeed get plenty of attention from hungry, desperate men online. Just look at the surge of “sexual” services on OnlyFans.com, and all the attention-whoring on Instagram. Even Tinder is now used primarily as a tool to gain new followers on Instagram.

What we see coming out of neo-direct game is brutal. It is simping. Most beautiful women are used to such behavior. Even those who are not completely histrionic on social media will get some level of simping from different dating apps or elsewhere.

All this is because the internet facilitates two factors:

  • Male simping

  • Female attention-whoring

The internet motivates simping because this behavior in real life (especially night game) often results in a harsh rejection.

Why?

In real life, women have to reject to get rid of such men so they don’t annoy them or follow them around. There is also the danger of some men becoming sexual harassers.

Yet harsh rejections are not needed on the web because everyone is behind a screen. The men who follow a beautiful woman online either live far away or have no way of finding out where she lives. If an online fan goes too far, she block him, report him, and have him banned. So she does not need to reject harshly.

Men can stick around online since it does not pose any danger to her, and it can benefit her social status and validation. Instead of harsh rejections, women may give men a “like” to their comment as a pitiful reward, and if they are lucky, they even get an “Oh, you are so nice :D” comment.

However, once back to real life, women reject a stranger’s approach as a safety measure, especially when he is too pushy and forcing her into a corner. Remember that women have a risk-averse nature. (Read my theoretical post on female state control for more information.) A woman will usually choose the safe option, to reject, even if she considered you cute or interesting. She doesn’t know you and wants to play it safe. Smiling back and playing along will signify that she accepts your approach, which could potentially drag her into something she may later regret.

This fact has always been true. The club served as the main ground for attention-seeking behavior in the past,. (This still happens in clubs today, but the web now outcompetes it.) It’s why women have their shields up in clubs. Constantly dealing with frumpy and bitchy women, leading to plenty of harsh rejections, demotivates many men from using simping-like behavior in clubs. This is the reason why indirect game was revolutionary back in the 2000s. It was the opposite of simping behavior. It was a countermeasure to the harsh rejections men would face in clubs.

"Women Are Worshipped & Men Are Disposable" Is a Fantasy

Chase Amante's picture
men are disposableSociety doesn’t care about men. Women are worshipped. For this reason, men can’t get women. Is this true? Or is it… fantasy?

We had a guy register on our forum and derail a thread to talk about how if you're "not in the top 1% of men" women don't want you and you can't get girls.

Needless to say, this is a guy who admittedly does not get girls. So he must know all about what it takes to get girls, eh?

Am I in the top 1% of attractive men? I suppose it depends how you determine that. I tend to think I am, so long as you're taking into account charm, social abilities, resolve, and whatnot. But I can tell you I definitely was not when I started out on this journey... and I still got girls. Some of them quite hot, too.

I shagged a fashion model when I had a beer belly, baggy clothes, mumbled talk, and a little boy haircut! I got a beautiful, vivacious girlfriend who was the niece of the former Secretary of Defense of a Latin American country around the same time! (she didn't want to date me at first, but persistence paid off!)

Our Field Reports Board on the forum is filled with lays from guys who aren't yet in the "top 1% of men" (as well as some guys who probably are!).

But this isn't about "do you need to be top 1% to get girls" (I've already addressed that elsewhere).

This is about this particular excerpt from one of this user's posts in his forum thread:

But it is true though.  Women are propped up and worshipped by society.  Men are disposable and basically thrown away like defective toys.  The only ones with any real power, control or lasting effect over women these days are the 1 percent.

There it is, isn't it?

"Women are worshipped. Men are disposable. Only the top 1% of men can rise above it."

Let's talk about that mentality, and how guys get it... and also why it's a sack of over-ripe mainstream media brain-slave cow manure.

PSA: Don't Chide Girls/Society; Stay Sane

Chase Amante's picture
stay saneWhen things are getting crazy, you can let the crazy get you, or you can keep a cool head. Don’t give in to the weirdness; keep your head screwed on straight.

I am seeing guys increasingly having trouble dealing with some of the social weirdness going on right now.

There are a couple of parallel mass hysterias happening at the moment. Almost everyone has been driven into one or the other of them at this point. That's what hysterias do... they push people to extremes and force them to pick sides.

We have been having guys vent on the forum about women buying into the mass panic. Others are debating whether they should relocate (to avoid lockdowns/lifestyle restrictions) or comply with various measures (or, if not, risk losing their livelihoods). It's rational to have concerns... any time anyone is pushing something on you, trying to force something on you, it's wise to be careful and move prudently.

However, no matter what is going on around you, if all the world's gone mad, even if people are forcing you to do things at gunpoint, whatever it is, you've got to keep a cool head.

You've got to keep a cool head for your own sake, and you've got to keep a cool head for the sake of anyone dependent or reliant on you in any way.

You will find, if you can keep a cool head, things rarely turn out as bad as you fear.

Zero-Sum Power Dynamics & Empowering Others

Chase Amante's picture
zero-sum powerWhen people want power from you, they may pretend it’s in your interest, too. But is it? Power grabs may be cooperative, competitive, or competitive masquerading as cooperative.

I'm going to give you a way to think about power that will make many things in life clearer to you.

It is the perspective that contests of power are always zero-sum games, where anytime one person gains power, another loses it. There is no 'free creation of power' from nothing into a kind of power void. Power is always either seized or yielded by one person or group from/to others.

However, it is possible for individuals or entities to work together against external competitors to increase power jointly, at the expense of some external opponent.

You have probably been taught to not think about power this way.

You have been taught that power is 'inclusive'; that you can have power, and someone else can have power, and everyone can have power!

But the actual fact of the matter is power is exclusive; the more power one person or entity accrues, the more someone or something else loses it.

This is necessary to understand for interpersonal dynamics, and understanding societal power dynamics as well.