The Good King | Girls Chase

The Good King

good king
The funeral of Phocion.

In the late 4th Century BC, Athens executed its statesman and de facto ruler, Phocion. Phocion served Athens with distinction throughout his political career. His leadership was one of extreme care and justice. His was a frugal life, lived in a simple home, and he refused bribes of all sorts, no matter how grand – everything from small fortunes to his own city-state to rule as he liked he refused.

The Athenians chose him to lead them into battle 47 times as general, the most-selected general in Athenian history. Yet he was not a militaristic man – he argued vehemently against wars he thought were bad for his city-state. And he saved Athens from unwise action repeatedly, as when the Athenians wanted to war with Alexander the Great after Alexander had crushed an uprising in Thebes. “Foolhardy man,” Phocion said to Demosthenes, leader of the provocateurs, “why provoke one whose temper is already savage? Why provoke this Macedonian who is full of limitless ambition? When there is a holocaust on our borders, do you wish to spread the flames to our city as well, by provoking him further? My whole object in taking up the burdens of this office is to prevent this, and I shall not allow my fellow citizens to destroy themselves, even if they wish it.”

The Athenians eventually sent Phocion to intercede with Alexander on their behalf, after he had rebuffed all the other emissaries they sent, and he quickly became one of the men Alexander trusted and respected most, even over most Macedonians. Phocion inspired Alexander to look beyond Greece, challenging him that if his goal was to show the greatness of his armies, why not show it by the conquest of the barbarians? Phocion made necessary compromises to the Athenians’ Macedonian ruler, but he negotiated hard to keep the Athenians mostly free.

Yet, after Alexander died, against Phocion’s warnings, the Athenians rebelled against Macedon, and forced Phocion to lead their armies, contrary to his personal desires. He agreed to serve his people as they wished of him, and crafted a resounding victory against the armies of Macedon. Yet Macedonian reinforcements arrived from Asia, and the Greek army was crushed.

Phocion negotiated a lighter reprimand against the Athenians than there otherwise would have been without his intercession. However, many Athenians were still exiled, and Antipater, the new leader of Macedon, still punished the city-state. Many non-citizen Athenians blamed Phocion for their plight. And this set in motion the political intrigue the next leader of Macedon after Antipater would eventually use to have the non-citizens and exiles of Athens overwhelm the citizens and condemn Phocion to death, while the citizens looked mournfully but helplessly on.

In prison, an executioner administered poison to the accused, but ran short when it came to the last man, Phocion. The executioner then refused to prepare more poison until he was paid 12 drachmas. Phocion summoned one of his friends and asked him to settle the amount, observing that, “A man cannot even die in Athens without paying for it.” After a life spent serving Athens, those in charge of the city now ordered Phocion’s remains buried outside its limits.

I tell you this story (and will tell a few more) in the interest of a simple question I’d like to pose: is it worth it to be the good king?

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 CHASE’S MASTERY PACKAGE

Related Articles from GirlsChase.com

Comments

Alexander Abraham's picture

I'm not sure of other people, but these are my favorite articles on this site.

I consider myself more wicked than good (or perhaps it's a wish?). I see movies and watch other people's lives unfold and can't fathom why they don't choose personal happiness over being 'good'.

I want to add to other people's lives, but honestly, I've seen a lot of wickedness in my life and it's difficult to see others as any different. I'm sure others have seen more than me, but it's hard to believe that the 'good' wind up anywhere other than people like Phocion.

In truth, nobody is actually 'good' or 'wicked'. We are all animals on this planet operating under Psychological Egoism.

Following what I believe to be my nature of being good is only because it makes me feel good to help others. All the while regretting my nature, which is the opposite of being selfless. It's opposite of being good which means that I am in fact very wicked...

Being a Phocion means that you're remembered fondly, though die in agony well before your time. It means selfless servitude to the masses that will throw you under the bus the very moment it becomes convenient.

I find myself trying to do good things because it's in my nature while bitterly wanting to go the other way. I do my best to keep from hurting the women that walk into my life and end up hurt myself as a result. I try to make friends with people in my life but perhaps I expect too much? At first, I can be apathetic and they seem to chase me; to love me. But when I try to make people my friend they abandon me.

I've saved two people from suicide and they no longer speak to me. Trying to process how and why makes my head spin, and the accompanying pain just irritates me further. I am forgotten.

Emotionally, I'm still trying to come to terms with my past and these realizations. These broken illusions of a good society. Which means I am bitter.

I am learning, I'm improving and still moving forward. But still far short of where I want to be.

How are you supposed to be powerful and happy while still being good? Power corrupts.

With men and women's sexual goals in such opposition of each other, how are you supposed to be remembered fondly when it all comes crashing down? All without experiencing the crushing pain of what once was whole is now broken?

I've never been good with loss. With the ever revolving door of friendships and relationships. One out, one in, three out, none in and on and on. Since childhood everyone that I've ever loved has either stabbed me in the back, abandoned me or died before they had the chance.

As an adult, I realize I'm still searching for what I never had as a child. I don't believe it even exists. To feel loved you have to love. To love is to be out of control. To be out of control is to be controlled by the whims of whoever happens to be nearby. To be loved is to be in control.

These conclusions of mine are influenced by my nature of being a nihilist, I suppose. But if it's true: it's a cruel fate for humankind, I think.

What do you think? Do you lean more towards the path of being 'good' or are you closer to being 'wicked'? Why?

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Alexander-

Difficult stuff, yeah. It's hard to say what you'd need to work on, because it depends on how accurate your view of yourself is. I've seen men who said they've tried hard to be good to people but gotten abandoned, and it was because the guy either didn't provide enough of the right kind of value, or provided too much white knight value (where once the damsel in distress is no longer in distress, she doesn't need you anymore and thus moves on); however, I've also seen men who said this without realizing other aspects of their behavior drove people away, and the value wasn't the problem in and of itself.

Either way, if you're dealing with people abandoning you, the question top-of-mind I think needs to be, "Are they leaving because I don't provide enough of what they value? Or am I driving them away with a certain kind of behavior or with something I am doing that other people find too grating?" Sometimes the people who work hardest to save others also have the most domineering personalities, and eventually that gets to be too much for almost everyone (although domineering personalities can work great in the right positions).

The key to wielding power with minimal corruption seems to be knowing you're doing so in the service of and at the pleasure of the people you wield power on behalf of. The perspective of being both father figure and servant I think is a good one. The father knows more and looks out for those in his care; the servant knows his role is to serve. A father is both an authority and a servant to those he cares for; and a good servant is both servant and confidante and advisor as well.

I'd differentiate between 'love' and 'in-love'. What I'd call passionate love and old love. Passionate love is loss of control; it triggers the same parts of the brain as narcotics do. But old love you can feel without giving up control. Very easy to love a girl (old love), and still walk away from her because you know it's not a good fit. In this case, you hope and trust she'll find someone who's a better fit for her, and you let her go to find a better fit for yourself.

As for me, I aspire to goodness, but I've always been more or less in the 'chaotic good' camp. I had a recent experience that moved me out of the 'chaotic' column and led me to view doing good as a sort of ultimate driving purpose. Of course, 'good' is subjective, so what that means (and whether anything I do actually is 'good' or not) is always going to be open to the interpretation of the viewer. That's not to say I haven't at times slid into some degree of wickedness, but usually my stay there has been short, and largely unintentional (and regretted, once I'd realized any harmful effects I'd caused). Most of us guys writing "don't hurt a girl" articles on GC are talking from experience... for instance.

Chase

Alexander Abraham's picture

People -
That makes sense.
I’d say it’s probably the right kind of value that I’m not providing. Though it begs the question, how do I find out what kind of value they want from me?
Though it’s not impossible that one of my quirks drive people out… though I’m not domineering so if it is the case of being driven away I would have to figure out what exactly it is…

Power –
That’s actually similar to what I’ve come across when reading about dom/sub relationships. So that makes a lot of sense. After that it’s all about political games and staying powerful if it’s that arena or just staying personally powerful in a relationship.

I can understand the differences between your old and new loves, or passionate vs compassionate but I would counter with https://www.girlschase.com/content/relationship-control-and-female-domin.... That’s the article that Ricardus talked about the Passion Trap (which I read and is a damn good book, highly recommend to anyone reading this comment) and how there’s always a one-up and a one-down.
Being a one-down seems to me would create much more ‘new love’ for sure, but I think it also creates more ‘old love’. Because when you’re out of control you invest all of your emotions into this person and you want them to be happy. Which naturally creates a cycle of investing and then doing and then investing and then doing. Creating emotions that go higher and higher.
Meanwhile, as both Ricardus and the book argue, this creates the feelings of wanting more space for the One-Up. Which keeps them from really loving the other party in my opinion.
Which reminds me, whatever happened to Ricardus?

Chaotic Good Camp –
That’s interesting! I’d put myself as more in the Neutral Good/Chaotic Neutral Camp myself.
And as for not hurting people, I respond pretty well to one of your other comments on here about proximity to wickedness and trying to avoid it. It’s something I’d like to think I understand quite well.

But thanks for the dialogue! It’s interesting!

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Good question on knowing if you're not providing enough of the right kind of value. I'd have to really sit and think about it; it's instinct for me and completely unconscious. I suppose it's an awareness of the kinds of things people look for, value-wise, and the kind of value in particular a given individual responds to.

For instance, you might know a lot about history, which makes you a favorite conversation partner for one friend who loves history. But for another friend who doesn't care about history, the value of this side of you is nil. You could know a lot about history or nothing about it, and it wouldn't change his impression of you (at least not directly. If it makes you wise in ways that matter to him, then it may impact your value indirectly). Maybe that other friend loves to check out new drinking establishments, and you're the guy in the know on those. So he loves to hang out with you because in addition to being a cool guy, you also know all the cool places.

Usually it's a fusion of value. For Friend A, you're fun to hang out with, you're plug into the skiing scene and that's cool because Friend A really wants to learn to ski, and you make him look good when he goes out with you because you're sociable and cool. For Friend B, you're down-to-earth, and not many people around him are, so he really values this; you're usually available to go out on the weekend; and you're a wonderful drinking companion. For Friend C, your sense of humor is hilarious, you're an excellent wingman when the two of you go out to meet girls, and you're both interested in travel to exotic lands.

I might do an article to explore this topic more in-depth. Might benefit from a write-up.

On love, yes, investment (and powerlessness) leads to deeper emotions. The thing to bear in mind with the one-up one-down dynamic is there are varying extremes. You can be one-up on her by an inch or you can be one-up on her by 10 yards, and those will have differing effects. There's also a strong element of emotional transferrence involved in love; when I was younger and I used to get deeper in-love feelings to girls and really attach myself to them and have these close, affectionate bonds, they'd fall wildly in love with me. When I grew older and decided I didn't want girls to fall as in-love (because I didn't want the drama and expectations that go with it), and I wasn't as new to relationships and busy with work and so not falling in love myself either, I began to have much more relaxed emotions where I did not allow girls to fall so wildly in love.

It's rare to be the detached guy with girls who are passionately in-love with him, and usually you need girls with certain personality disorders for this (or you need to be an expert manipulator who's really going to work on her). If she's emotionally healthy, there's a limit to how in-love she'll feel with a man who remains largely detached. You can be both one-up and 'in-love', and in fact you have to be if you want to experience her loving you back at its strongest. I'd suggest having this experience once or twice just to know what it's like. You can go back to always being in control after, with future relationships.

As for Ricardus, he left to launch his own business in 2012, made more money than GC's made in 6 years of business in just a couple of years, and without GC-level expenses, either (so he got to keep a lot of it... unlike me), and then went into a mini-retirement in early 2015. He's now traveling the world and living off his windfall earnings; read somewhere around 400 books in 2016 (he listens to them on audio at 2x or 2.5x speed). Right now he's trying to figure out what he'll do next, but isn't quite sure. He's a brilliant guy though; whatever it is I'm sure he'll do great with it.

Chase

Alexander's picture

Value Write Up -
Seems like I’m in need of it so that’d be awesome and I’d appreciate it :P
Because for me, it is not at all instinctual. Because I’ve spent so much time researching personality typing I can easily guess how someone will react to different things, and even what some of their core needs are. But when it comes to providing a friends value it seems that I’m not very compatible with many people.

For the most part I was isolated in my childhood so I find it very difficult to relate to people. Even when it comes to understanding them it's more of a mental understanding than an emotional one.

I try a lot of the same things with friends that I do with women; like deep diving them and whatnot. But with friends it's usually not in a 1on1 setting so I tend to fall on my face a lot. But when I do get people 1on1 I tend to shine because of how much effort I've put into women. A lot of the things do tend to rollover. Though I have many more female friends than I do male and quite a few older (like 40's+) friends than people my own age.

Luckily I have a great sense of humor and timing so I can avoid the dreaded "He's just weird" description. Though I still get odd and eccentric, which I've always taken a little pride in for some reason. So people tend to like me but they don't connect with me, if that makes sense.

Emotional Transference -
I just can’t see that happening, in regards to emotional transference. It seems that women always seem to like me more when I’m more detached. It’s when I start to catch feelings that they then get bored of me. Though maybe it comes back to long-term value or something, I dunno. I just turned 25 today so I’m more or less still dating teenagers even though they’re technically my age. So maybe that’ll change down the road. But at the moment, I just can’t see it that way because all of my personal observations have gone in the opposite direction.

That’s cool for Ricardus -
As for GC stuff, that’s why I still recommend SmartBlogger. In addition, I feel like your consultations need to be given more of a spotlight. For example, I didn’t even know that you guys gave consultations until I got bored one day and explored the site a little more.

I love the idea of different people giving different consultations, but I feel like you need to promote it a bit more.

Another reason why I was glad to hear you announced a course. I think that the course will help GC out tremendously! I’ve already started putting a little back to save for it.
I remember you saying you did it in the past and aren’t much into it anymore, but there is still the option of doing live coaching. I haven’t explored that option much but other guys seem to do alright at it.

And as far as consultations go, you don’t have to always do phone coaching. Email coaching can work just as well. I just think that your consultation page is a little hidden and feel like that hurts the site.

-Alexander

KuroiAkuma's picture

Yo I am a little bit nefarious and love the story of Di Xin and Danji. We all could use a little decadence sometimes. The universe is beyond duality. Planets get destroyed while babies are made. You have Nero and Jesus in the same millennium. Great article. Also would you be able to be a guest blogger?

Privet91's picture

Hey Chase. Great article. My question is: What do you think about using the Myers-Briggs personality test to find compatible girlfriends?

Alexander Abraham's picture

The MBTI is a hugely watered down pseudoscience. Yes it can help you understand people better but if you really want to understand how it all works get into Carl Jung's Cognitive Functions. They tell you a lot more than the MBTI can as the MBTI is based off of Jung's CF.

Now, as far as compatibility goes, that's a crapshoot. Any type can get along with another as getting along with certain types of people is more of a nurture thing than a nature thing.

Instead, what I would do is learn about the Enneagram. The Enneagram is a much older system and is full of much more information, though it's usually a little more difficult to type other people as well as yourself because it's such a big system.

But it will tell you what your partner needs and is therefore a much better system to use to get along in any kind of relationship. Because it's like a love language on steroids.

Long story short; ignore personality typing until you already have a girlfriend. Then have her take some Enneagram tests. Research her type as well as yours and then you'll have the keys to help make each other happy as well as make yourselves happier whether you stay together or not.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Privet-

I'd second Alexander.

Myers-Briggs is a whole lot of fun. Everyone enjoys typing themselves. Personality tests are a blast.

That said, Myers-Briggs is built on a pretty loose foundation, and in my opinion somewhat needlessly complicated.

I'd suggest a look at either of these two simpler models - my TR/FT/EX/IN model, or Social Styles:

Chase

Eccletheist's picture

Very interesting write up. Do I smell a book in the making?

Sadly I fall in the Sociopath/Bad King category. Really trying to break that mode. I just believe every man/woman creates their own path be it successfully or a drop in the bucket. I kind of prey on the bucket dweller. Your article hit home! Just wish I had the balance to be that positive net on those lives I touch as opposed to the Vampire mindset of draining them for my wants and needs.

Good read nonetheless.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Eccletheist-

Nah, no book on this. I think Plutarch and Confucius both covered moral leadership as well as anyone needs to cover it. I doubt I'd have much to say there that hasn't already been said.

Wish I could advise you on how to make the switch. Most of the stories I've encountered of men switching from preying on others to having that positive net effect seem to revolve around realizations, epiphanies, or enlightenments. Saul riding on the horse on his way to persecute more Christians when he suddenly gets hit by divine light and it completely changes him, for instance.

Seems to be that when it happens, it's the mind suddenly and immediately flipping to view the world from the other perspective. But exactly what leads to it or causes it I'm not sure. If you read Confucius, it's pretty clear how frustrated Confucius gets at how difficult it is to bring about this switch in various students who sign up to learn moral leadership but can't get out of a self-centered worldview.

Might just be one of those things you have to want, and if you look for it long enough, eventually you find it.

Chase

Hum's picture

Very pleasurable read. However, I don't think you need to have a wicked phase in order to truly understand the good. You just have to experience the wicked in very close proximity. Either have some wickedness inflicted upon you, or watch the consequences of wickedness being perpetrated by or received by those with whom you have some sort of personal connection. Levels of empathy and sensitivity will dictate the intensity required. Sort of like when you meet people who had alcoholic parents, its not uncommon for them to be keenly aware of virtues of sobriety and the character of intoxication.

You're right though, you need to face the darkness in the world to appreciate the good, we only perceive through contrast.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Hum-

Sure, I'll take that revision.

Some kind of firsthand experience with wickedness can do the trick.

I think the one danger of proximity to wickedness, without dabbling into maybe what you'd call the 'chaotic' realm (chaotic good, neutral, or chaotic wicked), is the man who aims to be good from there does so in reaction to the thing, without necessarily having had the experience of feeling the 'why' of the thing.

So you can get empathetic men who've merely had proximity to wickedness, and understand it without partaking in it, and become 'good'. Though there's the danger too of men who go the opposite way and in their quest to rid the world of wickedness become wicked themselves. Some of the men history considers the worst of the worst were men reacting to wickedness they saw, who took their reactions too far to the opposite extreme.

Chase

Dranky97's picture

Hi Chase I have read a lot of articles.... They are really good, however I am finding it tough to get any girls. I only have a few friends and find it tough to get any girls attention. To add more, I have been reading some of the red pill stuff from the manosphere and I have learnt about Alphas and beta males it is starting to make sense. I have also read up on 80 per cent of women chasing 20 per cent of the guys. It is starting to make sense why girls are only chasing alphas. What do you make of this and what are your thoughts on these articles.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/3pgppp/alpha_fux_beta_bux_2...

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/09/14/hookinguprealities/sex-and-the-...

Many Thanks

Frenchi

Keep those articles coming

Clitorio's picture

Did you read the article you've linked to?

Here's a summary:

I. The numbers do not support the claim that most women have casual sex with impunity through their 20s, then seek a sexually inexperienced male to settle down with. Rather, the data supports the idea that the numbers of promiscuous men and women are similar, though there are more promiscuous men than women. Most likely, this population is sexually active with one another. For the vast majority of Americans who do not have a high number of partners either lifetime, or within the last year, the numbers are also similar, though again, men are more promiscuous.

...

III. A relatively small number of promiscuous men is having sex with a relatively small number of promiscuous women.

---

Also, there are certain traits women who engage in risky sexual behavior (hookups with strangers) have. Not all women have those traits!

Men who are promiscuous and do cold approach pickup as loser-lovers (PUAs/naturals) will find women who are willing to engage in risky sexual behavior.

This is why Alek Rolstad writes that most women under 25 he's around have had at least 20 sexual partners. Only about 3% of young women (under 25) in the general female population have had 20 partners or more. So, it's obvious that Alek and other PUAs and operating under a selection bias.

lux7's picture

This is a VERY interesting point.

I have noticed a lot of women I end up, while not always promiscuous, are often, in some way or another, a bit crazier than the average girl.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Frenchie-

Focus on your fundamentals first:

After that, worry about the rest.

As for the articles you posted, yes, exactly like Clitorio posted. There is a lot of selection bias in the pickup community. Most pickup artists are not aware of it, either. Most men dating any kind of girl are not aware of their own selection biases.

Many of the big-name PUAs do a lot of club pickup. You will invariably find high-novelty-seeking, outgoing, high partner count women in nightclubs. Guys who exclusively do nightclubs in my experience tend to think that an inordinate amount of women are extremely sexually open... Because all the women they happen to hook up with are extremely sexually open.

Even if you run day game, there is selection bias. You'll meet plenty more non-thrill-seeking girls during the daytime, but it's harder on average to get somewhere with more closed women, and just probabalistically you are less likely to hit it off with a girl who is closed to strangers than you are with a girl who is open to strangers.

So if, for instance, you have a case where 25% of the female population is open to meeting strangers 30% of the time, and 75% of the female population is closed to meeting strangers 90% of the time, your average day gamer (assuming he's approaching women evenly, and not going off approach invitations) is going to meet 7.5 girls from the open-to-strangers population for every 100 girls he approaches (100 x 25% x 30%), and exactly the same number of girls (again, 7.5) from the closed-to-strangers group (100 x 75% x 10%). So to him, it looks like half of all girls are pretty open-minded and half of all girls are a little reserved. When actually, the open-minded girls are only a quarter of the population, not half.

(in reality, I couldn't tell you what the actual numbers are, and whatever they are they'll fall on a spectrum rather than be just two camps. i.e., Girl A is 3% more open to strangers than Girl B, who is 9% more open to strangers than Girl C, who is 5% more open to strangers than Girl D, and so on and so forth)

Much of the hooking up is happening with a select group of men. But, like the article you cite states, much of the hooking up is also happening with a select group of women, too.

Which is not to say you can't meet the more reserved girls via cold approach. Just that a.) certain venues are terrible for meeting them (like loud clubs and parties), and b.) you're going to have to sift through a larger chunk of unreserved women than actually comprise the population to get them, just because the women who are more open to meeting people are going to comprise a larger number of the women you ultimately meet.

Chase

Dick McSquirt's picture

Is this good/wicked similar to fishers/pirates scenario Richard Dawkins was talking about in a nice video about evolutionary stable strategies?

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Dick-

Interesting handle.

It could be, and quite possibly is.

You will notice historically goodness and wickedness tend to follow each other cyclically. Great societies filled with good people eventually get invaded by the wicked, who take up shop, then take over.

But then eventually the good tire of rule by the wicked and overthrow them, boot them out, or otherwise remove their power.

They then create a society of goodness, which lasts for a while, until enough generations go by that the population becomes complacent and an easy target for the wicked to take over.

So probably a part of the same cycle of those who do the building, creating, and orchestrating (fishers/good) versus those who leech off those others for their own personal gain and to no gain of the others (pirates/wicked).

Chase

Jimbo's picture

Good read, Chase.

This confirmed a few patterns about female and human nature I had a vague understanding and suspicions of through my own observations.

However, I disagree with the part that you have to be wicked first to appreciate the good. I think people who appreciate goodness just do, innately. Unless you meant that the best way to becoming wiser is to get burnt by the consequences of your own mistakes -- as in, 'once bitten, twice shy;' -- in which case, I guess it's true and effective for most cases.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Jimbo-

Glad to hear it.

I didn't necessarily say an individual has to be wicked before he can become good. More that he has to flirt with the grey area in the middle.

What I've seen again and again with 'upstanding' individuals who've never made a mistake their whole lives is that they tend to be tied to this reputation and fearful of messing up. This leads to 'good' men whose actions are controlled by the court of public opinion. As soon as public opinion shifts and starts telling them that what was good is wicked and what was wicked is good, they shift too, out of fear of being now called wicked.

The man who's spent time in the chaotic zone has been able to look into both sides, and chose goodness not out of fear or image or what he was told to believe in, but because it was what he ultimately chose to believe in. That belief withstands attack from prevailing opinions of others, simply because it isn't based on the appearance of good or a belief in what others have told him to believe in, but rather is based in a real belief in it.

(I've known a few guys you could probably say had never done anything even chaotically good, and had always been lawful good - I'm thinking of one very religious friend I used to have. Great guy, full of a zest for life, really magnanimous, and had more or less always been that way. Strong will and frame, and I have no doubt he'd stick to his convictions even if the winds started blowing another way. However, even in his case, I know he faced down his own doubts and demons at one point, and I'd reckon that's where his true strength of conviction came from)

Chase

Mischief's picture

Speaking of movies, when you got to the part, "and 700 other Greeks not included in the movie," I had a good belly laugh!

This article blew me away. I've never imagined a "playboy" could also be a well-read and highly educated (strong) man. Please, do not take this as a personal knock in any way – actually, you are lifting what was once a cognitive disonant mindset for me. The term "playboy" immediately conjures an immature image: a "boy" who "plays" around (with girls – presumably with negative consequences). Here I am, using a pop-culture reference for my wisdom versus your solid historical reading – hopefully it works.

I got my first whiff of female moral ambivalence by my third lay (early last year), and it scared the shit out of me… having ventured into the world of women and seduction as a 35-year-old male virgin probably played a hand in this shock. I suddenly viewed female sexuality as a scourge that would roll over the earth…!

Funny thing is how this discovery affects different men. From a healthy perspective, a man learns to become stronger in his conviction and personal values, realizing that women are incapable of doing this purely on their own. This power is a great responsibilty (and freedom) for the strong man: the women in our lives can only be as sexual as we want and need them to be. As we are the natural born leaders, the desctrucive potential of female sexuality actually rests in the hands of… us men!

With this realization, I almost sympathize with "white knights." Consciously or not, they fear the potential of female sexuality let loose (in it's most extreme potential, not realizing the slim chance of this). Like most things we fear (needlessly), unleashing female sexuality to it's absolute potential is quite likely impossible, definitely unsustainable, and therefor a silly concern outside of small-scale interactions (i.e. boring boyfriend afraid of losing his girl to a more exciting man). It would simply be too much work for men to make this happen on any sort of grand scale (i.e. global orgie taking place while the whole world burns – probably never going to happen for all of time).

From the unhealthy perspective (my own initial reaction to female sexuality), a man shocked by female morale ambivalence may become twisted. Think the Joker – a man who willfully denies any moral code. I wonder how many men out there become "wicked" simply in response to their discovery of female moral ambivalence. I know I did to an extent. To this day, I proudly sleep with two married women while lurking excitely (with them) in the shadows, using the convenience of these two desperate housewives to broaden my own sexual capacity.

When I first came to this site, I thought of seduction as a purely dark art (as the dark side seems the most efficient means to breaching the sexual barrier for a man – possibly the only way). Interestingly, now somewhat beyond this "barrier," I am currently experiencing the great boon of female devotion: one year (and couting) of an endless stream of free food, clothing, and more emotional support than I know what to do with. No matter how I choose to focus my energies (from perfectionist odd-jobs around my apartment to day-long music practice to enjoying comic book movies to World of Warcraft), they back me 100% in all of it (often wishing to participate)! They even respect my decision to be non-monagomous (knowing of each other as well as believing I frequently bed other women – which I do not… I lie about this to promote the image I want them to see). I once thought I was a man of virute, and while I have purposefully flushed my old notion of virtue down the drain, I may yet discover a deeper, meaningful sense of such thanks to the journey I started here.

Apologies for this comment being overly long. It is my genuine wish to give back to GC for what I feel I have gained from your great work.

M

Well… one does what one can.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Mischief-

No apology necessary. That's a fantastic comment.

[A] man shocked by female morale ambivalence may become twisted. Think the Joker – a man who willfully denies any moral code. I wonder how many men out there become "wicked" simply in response to their discovery of female moral ambivalence. I know I did to an extent.

Spectacular way of stating it. That gives a level of clarity to that phenomenon - by naming it - I've been lacking.

Guys come on here, and they're bitter and jaded because they've just been red-pilled on female nature, and you spend all this time telling them, "Dude, seriously, too far to the extreme. Accept female nature and learn to work with it. Girls aren't evil. They're just not the same as MEN, that's all."

But your phrasing cuts right to the quick of it. Bitter men are bitter because they've discovered female moral ambivalence. When previously they believed women must be just like men... Just like they are.

That's probably the biggest differences between most naturals and most guys who've had to learn this later. Naturals usually never had any illusions about female nature. For one reason or another, they understood it early on. The guys who didn't, though, didn't.

I'm confident you'll arrive at a new virtue paradigm, yes. Your progress from frustrated bigger to cynical recently-red-pilled guy to, now, increasingly positive man who's made his peace with female sexuality means you're accepting how people are, which is a key part of finding a stable moral niche to occupy within the world.

Chase

SZ's picture

I read your newsletter about confidence and winning.

1. I wanted to know more things we can do everyday that we can win and get Gains from?

I want to keep winning, I'd like to know a few things I could do everyday to keep my winning up.

2. What could I do about standing up for myself against people and fearing confrontation? I always have doubts of what they have up Thier sleeve or who they might know. They might be rational thoughts, but I can't live life like this. I feel very unsure of myself, i have trained to fight too, but there is always the thought of, what if they know something i don't know. Do I just not give a fuck and talk shit anyway?
What can I do to fight these doubts to stand up for myself? I feel I can gain a lot of wins with this.

3. How would I know a place is good in a town to pick up women ? What should I look up on Google to see if this is a spot that's good?

I'm thinking of going to Tampa, FL, I have been out there a few times, and it's just seems like I get no love out there, I don't know if it's because of the race thing or places I'm going.

Don't know if you been, but I'd appreciate it a lot if you could look up a few spots you'd think would be good to pick up in as a black man or in general.

4. There's not a worse feeling than when a year passes by so fast and you haven't progressed much. Think you could give me some quick tips and an article on how to make your new year efficient and not let time pass you by?

Thanks

Author
Chase Amante's picture

SZ-

Check out this article (there are a few items listed out near the bottom):

On standing up and fearing confrontation, buy Geoff Thompson's book Dead or Alive: The Choice is Yours, and sign up for a practical martial arts class (like Krav Maga or Wing Chun) that involves sparring.

On your question #3, check out these articles:

Also, I have never heard anything about Tampa, FL being somewhere worth going to meet women. I guess if you're in the suburbs near there and it's the biggest city around you'll have to make do, but if you're in Florida and it's within reach, go to Miami.

As for New Year:

Chase

Add new comment

The Latest from GirlsChase.com