Social Commentary

Note from Chase: this is a guest post from Sarah Williams of Wingman Magazine. In this article, Sarah shares the features in gay men that women find so alluring, and why women keep gay men in their lives and around them. If you haven’t spent much time in gay bars, you might be surprised how cute and sexually available the women who hang around gay men can be; if you’d like a peephole into why this is, this article’s a solid primer on the subject. Take it away, Sarah.

Imagine the scene: a bar, a pretty girl or even a group of good looking girls, all hanging out with just one guy in their circle. He doesn’t seem to be a Dan Bilzerian playboy type either. He’s just their friend, laughing and having a great time with all of them. This lucky guy is simply surrounded by hot females, who all get along very well with him, instead of hanging out with a bunch of dudes talking about football. He doesn’t seem to be doing anything special, but the most beautiful chicks stick to him like bees to a honeycomb... They all have so much fun together!  He treats the presence of beautiful girls around him as a naturally comfortable situation. Why couldn’t that be you who so easily enters and enjoys a group of beautiful girls without being completely awkward?

There is one major different between you and him – you’re not gay.

You’ve probably seen at least one pretty girl or even a group of pretty girls laughing and having fun with a gay guy. I personally love to hang out with gay guys even though I’m looking for straight men. As a single woman who lives in a big city, I have quite a bit of choice with whom I hang out with. I love going out with my girlfriends, and I’m friends with guys both at work and outside of work, but most of my very best male friends are gay!  And I’m definitely not the only female who appreciates their company…

What makes gay guys so special that women love to hang out with them?  What makes so many females choose gay guys as their best friends?

The answer is more complex than just sexual orientation. It touches on certain common characteristics and typical behaviors gay guys display towards women. When it comes to conquering women’s hearts, straight guys could learn a lot from gay guys.

It is taken for granted, as well it should be, that women respect strong men and detest weak ones. There is no way around it, and no amount of pretty, eloquent fluffiness will detract from the impact it already has on your life.

You see it everywhere: women throwing themselves at men with spines while trampling on those without and laughing in their faces.

Today’s article is not a discussion of strength in the physical sense – you can find articles on how to get in great shape elsewhere on this website. Instead, this is about a topic that I don’t often see discussed: being a man of conviction.

Some good Hollywood examples of men with conviction are James Bond and Han Solo; classic archetypal males who get the job done and get laid doing it.

This is the first in a three-part series on regional sexual selection pressures. This piece introduces the concept of “game imbalance”, defines it, and posits it as a contributing cause of men’s difficulties with women.

I have an alternate theory why certain classes of men struggle with women far more than certain other classes do, on average. Alternate from what most guys cite: looks discrimination, racial discrimination, height discrimination, income discrimination, etc.

The one we’ve been seeing the most complaints from on the discussion boards lately are men of Indian descent. Asian and Arab guys struggle a lot as well. Of course, men of all races complain about their inabilities to succeed with women (and I’ve heard plenty of success stories and known personally plenty of successful guys from all of these racial groups), but some of these race-level complaints are far more ubiquitous than others.

So what makes the difference?

I have a theory. Actually, a hypothesis. I’d like to call it “game imbalance hypothesis.”

And if you’ll walk with me a moment, I’ll show you how I think the effect the hypothesis describes is hampering certain men and favoring others in the sexual marketplace.

This post is Part 3 in my Next Level Seduction series. This series is dedicated to illuminating and breaking down the most advanced concepts, processes, and subtleties involved in the highest level of seduction. It’s about discussing ideas that most men may not necessarily think about, and identifying the nuances of living your life as a highly sexual and desirable male. So if you’re new to the game, you can either ignore this... or try not to be intimidated. You can read Part 1 here and Part 2 here.

Greetings, my fellow men; this is Colt Williams, and this is the State of the Game address. Today I want to talk about where the game is today: what’s working in the seduction world, what trends I have noticed, what’s not working so well, and where this is all headed.

An interesting thread, I noticed, had popped up on our discussion boards the other day, with guys hashing around about the “manosphere” and its various merits or drawbacks.

There were some comments about how a guy started out here on GC but went over to the “manosphere” because it suited him better. There were others from other guys talking about how they started out in the “manosphere” and ended up here and found this site to suit them better. And then there were some rather balanced posts discussing the various similarities and differences and strengths and merits of each.

I, though, would like to take a brief foray into exploring some of the mentality behind much of the most vocal and grating “red pill”-esque thought you will encounter, and that of its predecessor, “Fight Club”-esque thought; if you know what I’m talking about, then you either can’t stand it or you think it’s the best thing since sliced bread.

If you’re not too familiar with the pickup community or the manosphere, this’ll be new but hopefully still interesting for you, from a “social dynamics within social hierarchies” standpoint. If you are familiar, it might give you something interesting to chew on.

Welcome back for more sexual ethics. In this post we won’t be analyzing what is right or wrong, but instead why things are the way they are.

As this website primarily discusses sexuality, relationships, and seduction, this post will cover why certain moral attitudes around these topics are the way they are. We will also try to understand why many religions and societies advocate rather asexual behavior.

In this post we will see that the reasons for why conventional (i.e., the common way of doing things) morals are dogmatic without good justification, and then we will discuss the real justification for those morals.

As a matter of fact, we might say that, conventionally speaking, having a lot of sex is immoral. We might ask the moralist why that is so and they might answer that “it just is” or something along the line of “It’s dirty; it’s important to have some self-respect.”

These are very circular and dogmatic arguments. This is the case for many other conventional moral principles and we must expect similar types of responses when we ask someone why things like polyamory, homosexuality, prostitution, and public sex are bad.

But we are still left with the question: why do people believe these things to be bad; why are people so stuck up and anti sex? Why are the conventional morals around sexuality so restrictive? The main reasons that you never hear of will be laid out in this post.

A reader on the article about girls with boyfriends writes in with a sentiment I’ve noticed popping up increasingly often on GirlsChase.com:

“But what really saddens me is the feminist undertone that lurks all around this thinking that on the other side look like male dominance. And the question is: Why is it men that have to become perfect? Why is there no such a need for women? Leadership, selfish genes, everything I already know. But I want a higher standpoint. Why are men the only ones that have to step up, and not women?”

This is one that in fact I’ve answered repeatedly in the comments sections of various articles... but I realize not everyone reads those, they’re kind of hard to search / keep track of, and new people roll in and wonder the same things, especially if there isn’t a single place strictly for answering a particular question. So it’s time for it to get a dedicated article.

Why don’t women have to improve? Why don’t women have to step it up? How come they get a free pass... while men have all this pressure to “be perfect”?

It doesn’t seem very fair.

The fact is though, there is TONS of pressure on women to step it up and be perfect – including, indirectly, on this site.

However, this is a men’s site for men, and asking GC to write chastisingly-worded “You better shape up your act, ladies – or else!” articles for women misses the point – that we are here to instruct men who want to up their results, rather than to be just another shrill voice haranguing those who don’t want to “follow the rules” and tell them that they’d better get their acts in gear.