Women Do Not Care About Morality | Girls Chase

Women Do Not Care About Morality

Chase Amante

Hey! Chase Amante here.

You've read all the free articles I can offer you for this month.

If you'd like to read more, I've got to ask for your help keeping the lights on at Girls Chase.

Click a plan below to sign up now and get right back to reading. It's only 99¢ the first month.

Already a GirlsChase.com subscriber? Log in here.

female morality
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.

Note: this article is part of a discussion on female morality among experts who view the subject through different lenses. In this article, Part 1, Hector Castillo discusses the perspective of women as existing outside what we typically think of as morality.

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.

Hector CastilloAbout the Author: Hector Castillo

Hector Castillo is the web’s top expert on getting laid in college. In his small town university, he went from World of Warcraft nerd to president of his fraternity in 4 years... And on the way, he bedded close to 50 women. To follow his life up close, follow his Instagram here. His book King of College is due out soon. Listen to the 40-minute interview with Hector on his story and some of his prized tech... and sign up for a 12-week coaching course with him, here:

LISTEN TO WEBINAR & SIGN UP FOR COACHING

Comments

Co-Host 's picture

Hi. Great article. More and more I operate more in the "gray" area of morality by respecting everyone's shortcomings with a mental simulation or some type of profiling to interpret people's behavior.

I see this as a Taoist view on life. The world is broken and it's perfectly fine the way it is. What you've written here IS the truth. Female amorality really isn't some atrocity worthy of punishment. I've spent nearly decade and change in that "red pill" mindset.

Taking this information, is there something actionable here? OR do we just take a learning lesson, let it marinate?

Author
Hector Castillo's picture

Let the insights stew. As someone who understands Taoism, this framework should easily be assimilated into your worldview :)

Hector

Want to make her wet? I'll show you how.

Co-host's picture

Appreciate the encouragement. Run this by me please.

Amorality is just one, ONE lesson in the endless secrets to shovel up. Learning things about women's amorality and biological drive often make men feel like we are not in control of our lives with love and sex.

I don't know if that's even possible and even wondering if should we even try to be in control of women's hearts. Instead of such specific fixations, I have been wondering if there is a global approach to everything by being a timeless man, someone with perception of a LONG living man like a Dúnedain in Lord of the Rings or a Vulcan in Star Trek.

I feel the average homosapien could use an extra 50 years at least in its youthful stages to learn about the world for less suffering. Unfortunately we are forced to work with what's given.

48 Laws of power had this line at the preface.
"But nothing about power is natural; power is more godlike than anything in the natural world. And patience is the supreme virtue of the gods, who have nothing but time."

To a deity, there's no concept of time. A god is not in a hurry or desperation. If I simulate that mindset could I at least hold something more real over a woman's loins? (Not even going for their heart or brains, just straight up targeting the instincts.)

Sadeqh's picture

Bless you Hector!

I truly say you really shoot the moon and cleared it right.
In my observations exactly the same even with the most innocent girls they really do not care about morality No Doubt and it shows how hard is the edge of your exposure to say it like this and you can even witness it in every woman no matter what the reason is..my piece of advice:

Tell tales of wine steward and wine, and seek less of the world's secrets
For no one has found and no-one wil ever, with wisdom understand this mystery

Let's make'm wet!

Forever, Sadeqh

blackthunder's picture

Didn't we have a huge topic about how evil women are. you said that women are not evil. now you post this article about how immoral women can be.

Author
Hector Castillo's picture

There is a monstrous distinction between "amoral" and "immoral." Read more carefully.

Women are not evil. Men are not evil. There is no good and there is no evil. There is only cruelty, kindness, skilfullness, and unskillfulness.

Hector

Want to make her wet? I'll show you how.

Michael's picture

Definitely an interesting perspective, but I personally think the article ignores too many universal truths. For example, you claim women are amoral, but then you also concede that there are ‘rare’ women who do seem to be moral. Both cannot be true! I also don’t understand how you have concluded that there is no good and no evil?

Gil's picture

I don't get the disdain that self-styled "red pill" men have: one moment they want women to stay virginal until marriage yet on the other hand want women to have easy sex with no commitments.

Author
Hector Castillo's picture

Where did you get the idea that I subscribe the false dichotomy you just outlined? Or are you choosing this article to vent frustrations about something that has nothing to do with the article?

Want to make her wet? I'll show you how.

RezznT's picture

This isn't absolutely true 100% of the time, I understand that's a high burden of proof that really isn't achievable, but if someone truly takes on the attitude you're advocating here they will see the world through that lens and feel like it's true 100% of the time, even if it's obviously not... Which is why I bring this point up. It's an attitude so potentially damaging I believe it merits scrutiny.

Sure, some of the examples of empirical evidence you've cited here are true. But the conclusion that women ultimately don't care about morality and everything they do is, in essence, a sexual strategy, really doesn't hold up under absolute scrutiny. There are plenty of cases where this attitude simply is not true.

Now, you could say that most perspectives on the world are not absolutely true either, only circumstantially, and you wouldn't be wrong. However, to me that begs the question that if the majority of your worldview is only circumstantially true some of the time, and the other part of the time it's inaccurate, then why not make your worldview one that helps you achieve your goals. Even mindsets that are inherently delusional some/most of the time could be very useful to have, like assuming attraction for instance.

However, personally, for myself, and probably a lot of other guys as well, this attitude doesn't fall into that category. Your conclusion about women, and the mindset that you're offering guys in my view is unhealthy and potentially damaging depending on what the guy's goals are. You yourself even implicitly acknowledge this as a possible outcome in your article when you say:

"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."

I don't think it's hard to see guys reading this from a perceived authority on the matter, taking it to heart, and ending up messed up, always worried about getting cucked, never being trusting in their relationships, etc...

I don't really see anything wrong with acknowledging that women can do some pretty terrible things (in my view) and not to be 100% trusting of a woman you just met, while also not seeing the world through the lens that they're amoral people who pretty much only act on their own sexual self-interest.

Author
Hector Castillo's picture

"However, to me that begs the question that if the majority of your worldview is only circumstantially true some of the time, and the other part of the time it's inaccurate, then why not make your worldview one that helps you achieve your goals."

How does this framework not help men achieve their goals? It gives me great clarity into how women work, eliminates all expectations of "virtuous" behavior when there is no incentive, and frees me from believing that anyone SHOULD act a certain way. Liberation is quite a helpful hand, don't you think?

"I don't think it's hard to see guys reading this from a perceived authority on the matter, taking it to heart, and ending up messed up, always worried about getting cucked, never being trusting in their relationships, etc..."

I'm a teacher, but a teacher can only point the way. I play with dangerous ideas, but they are dangerous, because they threaten worldviews. I never advocate outright cruelty, either.

"I don't really see anything wrong with acknowledging that women can do some pretty terrible things (in my view) and not to be 100% trusting of a woman you just met, while also not seeing the world through the lens that they're amoral people who pretty much only act on their own sexual self-interest."

I value Truth above practicality. Luckily, the more True a framework is, the more practical it is.

Hector

Want to make her wet? I'll show you how.

Anonymous's picture

This is total gibberish. No academic supports these ideas. You need to defer to actual experts on subjects that you are not trained in by protected disciplines. What makes you qualified to elucidate theories on potential differences produced by sex/gender? There is no evidence or serious academic research to suggest that women have less developed morality than men.

The manosphere consists of boys teaching other boys how to be men; this site and its authors included. Unfortunately, men in the manosphere that have achieved a degree of success in dating tend notions of self-importance. Yes, you have sex with women - but, this doesn't change how naive and ill-informed you are on many topics.

There's lots of sensible dating advice on this site, such as improve your self and develop a more interesting lifestyle, or not being needy towards women. However, there are a number of toxic and misogynistic ideas around sex, relationships and women. As men become more confident with women they often absorb these ideas from sites like this.

For more healthy attitudes to women, sex and relationships it's worth checking out Dr Nerd Love:

http://www.doctornerdlove.com/

Author
Hector Castillo's picture

>Claims there's a lot of evidence that I'm wrong and that since I don't have a degree in psychology/sociology/etc, I don't know what I'm talking about

>Presents NONE of the evidence that contradicts my argument and doesn't seem to have the degree he/she/it claims makes one an authority

You don't need a degree in anything to understand women. Casanova was still Casanova and he was a trained priest.

You did nothing but insult me. No arguments from the wanna-be intellectual. Get outta here, cuck.

Want to make her wet? I'll show you how.

Anonymous's picture

"You did nothing, but insult me" - Are you struggling to cope with criticism? Do you feel like a victim? Do you need a safe space where you can post your views, and no one will criticise them? For all of their criticism of sensitivity, right leaning individuals and the manosphere turn out to be pretty big 'snowflakes'.

"Cuck" - This is revealing of your maturity. Anyone criticising you must be sexually incompetent; yeah, makes perfect sense. All of these pseudo-intellectual articles drip of self-importance and pretentiousness. Yet, the moment you're met with criticism, you resort immature insults. Observe how actual intellectuals behave.

http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/cuck-definition

Honestly though, when you called me a cuck I was scared and upset. You're so perceptive, you immediately realised that I disagreed with you because I'm sexually incompetent, and all of the women in my life disrespect me and cheat on me with big alpha men. I'm such a cuck who's scared of your alphaness. You must have sex with lots of women.

"since I don't have a degree in psychology/sociology/etc, I don't know what I'm talking about"

Yes, that's right you need to have training in a specialist discipline (such as psychology or sociology) in order to develop your own research and theories. You have as much business creating grand theories on gender, psychology or sociology, as you do with physics or biology. Protected disciplines exist for a reason.

Uneducated people shouldn't be posturing, debating and disseminating their views to audiences that perceive the author to be a reputable source.

https://www.ft.com/content/e08af560-184c-11e7-9c35-0dd2cb31823a
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2017-02-13/how-ame...

Author
Hector Castillo's picture

"Are you struggling to cope with criticism?"

What criticism? You haven't provided any criticism.

"You have as much business creating grand theories on gender, psychology or sociology, as you do with physics or biology. "

Wrong. If it works, it works. Srinivasa Ramanujan came into the "protected discipline" of mathematics and, besides a few of this theories that didn't work out, downright skullfucked the mathematicians at Cambridge with new theories and solutions in quite a few sub-fields, all with no formal training :)

If it's right, it's right.

If it's wrong, it's wrong, no matter what degree you have. Here's Liz Harman, a Ph.D in philosophy at Princeton, giving an absolutely retarded argument on abortion - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5SQnQjryzI

I have a BA in Philosophy. Franco has no training in philosophy. And yet, he can see the huge holes in her argument.

Authorities are wrong all the time.

For such an intellectual, all you did was come in here and posture with false claims to authority, and STILL haven't presented a SINGLE direct criticism to my arguments here from these supposed authorities who hold dominion over the sacred knowledge of sociology, psychology, or gender.

Impressive.

Want to make her wet? I'll show you how.

An's picture

"Srinivasa Ramanujan came into the "protected discipline" of mathematics and, downright skullfucked the mathematicians at Cambridge with new theories and solutions"

I know, you're like the seduction version of Srinivasa Ramanujan. Your ground breaking ideas on women and psychology parallels his work in mathematics.

Jokes aside, his work was evaluated and respected by academics and experts. Your's is just nonsense on a manosphere blog that disregards the social sciences as "cultural Marxism".

If your views actually have value then why don't you submit them to the relevant academic field so they can be peer reviewed, instead of posting them on a manosphere blog? Oh wait, yeah the social sciences are just a bunch of liberal Marxists that have taken over academia. Real men like yourself know the truth. Trust you, you have lots of sex, therefore you must be right.

Interestingly I never stated that I regarded myself as an 'intellectual'. I'm just someone that realised that this is none sense. Yet you attached that label to me. Honestly, you're the one with pretensions. You postulate grand theories with no evidence, disregard actual experts in the social sciences, then defend yourself by comparing yourself to Srinivasa.

This is total gibberish; women have no morality? Where is your evidence?

RezznT's picture

"I value Truth above practicality."

What you're ultimately saying in this article, that women are amoral and everything is a sexual strategy is not universally true. If something isn't universally true, I don't think arguing to accept it on the basis of truth alone is a good enough case being made. With that said, I'm not advocating completely discarding what you're saying here because you citied a number of instances of things that women do which are true. Rather I'm saying that your conclusion is bad because it's something that is only circumstancially true being passed off as universally true, which for a number of guys, maybe not yourself, is going to lead to a damaged world view, plus potentially long term negative outcomes, which I give examples of further down.

Also, just to clarify, I don't think it's necessarily bad to implicitly say something is universally true, when in fact it's only circumstantially true. Almost every seduction/dating coach/PUA does this at least a little bit as a way to build their brand as a figure of authority on the matter. In my view, It's only really bad when it has a high probability of damaging the student to a large degree. To further emphasize, the degree of damage that could be done matters a lot.

For example, say you're giving guys outer game tech to use. Even if it was straight up bad advice, and you knew it was bad advice, what's really the worst thing that's going to happen if he tries it? The student gets ignored/blown off/possibly an angry fuck off maybe. I mean, unless it's REALLY bad advice, the potential for real long-term damage is probably relatively low. Anyway...

"Luckily, the more True a framework is, the more practical it is."

Not really the point I'm trying to make, but I don't agree with this either. Something could be true a majority of the time, but that doesn't mean that it is necessarily practical. This is one of the biggest points you make in your video about the 4 levels of romantic strategy. Certain types of Grand Strategy might be true most of the time, but that doesn't make them practical without proper guidance. But again, not really the point.

"How does this framework not help men achieve their goals? It gives me great clarity into how women work, eliminates all expectations of "virtuous" behavior when there is no incentive, and frees me from believing that anyone SHOULD act a certain way. Liberation is quite a helpful hand, don't you think?"

I feel like I already answered this in my earlier post, but I'll elaborate further if I'm not being clear:

"I don't think it's hard to see guys reading this from a perceived authority on the matter, taking it to heart, and ending up messed up, always worried about getting cucked, never being trusting in their relationships, etc..."

Will this attitude help guys in certain ways? Yes, as you yourself pointed out. Maybe I didn't make this point clear, but I believe the long term negative outcomes to this world view outweigh the positive gains to be had for most guys.

Again, I'm not saying to ignore the points you're making in this post. As you said, being aware of women's ability to behave in these types of ways is helpful and leads to a more accurate understanding of the world. Rather, what I'm saying is that the conclusion itself has a lot of potential to do lasting damage to a student and has holes in its logic. Passing it off as "Truth" leads to absolutist ways of thinking which can lead to negative outcomes.

I think it's more helpful and accurate to say something akin to "these are behaviors that some women engage in and you should be aware of". Rather than just outright saying that women are amoral and pretty much everything they do is a sexual strategy.

"I'm a teacher, but a teacher can only point the way. I play with dangerous ideas, but they are dangerous, because they threaten worldviews. I never advocate outright cruelty, either."

In my view, there's nothing wrong with threatening a world view as a teacher if the outcome is beneficial to the student. Also, just to be clear, I'm not trying to posture as if I'm more experienced or know more than you about women/game/fundamentals. Admitedly I don't. I'm just saying I think you're a little off base here and to consider the long term ramifications of fully embracing this mindset you're telling guys is the Truth. Most guys in my experience just want to date around a bit, get a girlfriend and possibly/eventually get married. In the long term, fully embracing this mindset is probably damaging to that end-game.

Author
Hector Castillo's picture

"If something isn't universally true, I don't think arguing to accept it on the basis of truth alone is a good enough case being made."

Yes, it is. It's more true than any other framework I've seen. The default nature of women is amoral. Give me a compelling counter-argument that can take its place and I'll consider not advocating this. Your comment isn't really saying anything.

"In some cases this isn't true, " you say but then don't provide any argument to the contrary.

If you want some 100-page Doctoral thesis that covers every single instance where something is true and isn't, you're not going to get it. The burden of proof isn't up to me.

"Also, just to clarify, I don't think it's necessarily bad to implicitly say something is universally true, when in fact it's only circumstantially true."

Okay...so what's our issue?

""I don't think it's hard to see guys reading this from a perceived authority on the matter, taking it to heart, and ending up messed up, always worried about getting cucked, never being trusting in their relationships, etc..."

Will this attitude help guys in certain ways? Yes, as you yourself pointed out. Maybe I didn't make this point clear, but I believe the long term negative outcomes to this world view outweigh the positive gains to be had for most guys."

Ah, that's more clear. It'll make guys more paranoid and hurt them in the long-run.

Well, that's certainly a risk. I've gone through it myself and still do on occasion. Oh well. I plan on writing on article on this subject, "How to Handle the Dark Side of Women," but it's really quite simple: if you want to play on a higher level, he difficulty settings are turned up.

To put it very bluntly, quit being a bitch. I'm sometimes a bitch and I call myself out for it. Find yourself getting scared, recognize it, then fix the problem.

"Also, just to be clear, I'm not trying to posture as if I'm more experienced or know more than you about women/game/fundamentals. Admitedly I don't. I'm just saying I think you're a little off base here and to consider the long term ramifications of fully embracing this mindset you're telling guys is the Truth. "

Then there's a chance you don't know what you're talking about, right? You keep telling me I'm "off-base," but have provided no counter-argument. You're concern trolling, even if you don't realize it (you probably do).

If you were really concerned about other readers but aren't knowledgeable enough to provide a good counter-argument (which you admitted you're not), then you would have asked for clarifications in a humble, non-confrontational manner. Instead, you chose to argue. Unfortunately, you haven't provided anything resembling an argument, only "you're off-base" arguments without any clear example of how I might be wrong.

You have, in very many words, said nothing at all and have only expressed concern. Impressive.

"Most guys in my experience just want to date around a bit, get a girlfriend and possibly/eventually get married. In the long term, fully embracing this mindset is probably damaging to that end-game."

Then don't read this article. Close it and move on. Be a fucking adult.

Hector

Want to make her wet? I'll show you how.

RezznT's picture

"If you were really concerned about other readers but aren't knowledgeable enough to provide a good counter-argument (which you admitted you're not)"

Nice straw man dude, that's not what I said. I said that I'm not as knowledgeable as you about Women/Game/Fundamentals (I should have added the word OVERALL, which is what I meant, but I didn't). Anyways, that doesn't mean I can't provide a counter-argument and it doesn't mean that you can't be challenged on certain things that you're teaching which are either somewhat inaccurate or downright wrong. Again, I'm not saying you're completely wrong in this article, just that your conclusion is not accurate and thinking in such a black and white way is not helpful and probably even harmful to most readers.

If you were talking about probably anything else, quite frankly, I WOULD ask for clarification if I needed it, just have shut up and not said anything if I wasn't sure I knew what I was talking about, or even thanked you for teaching me something I didn't know.

However, on this topic, in particular, there is no "must have stuck your dick in X number of warm wet holes" requirement in order to speak knowledgeably. Most mentally sound adults could knowledgeably argue with you on this.

Hell, I bet there are advanced guys or senior posters on GC who would disagree with you on this. Just because they haven't posted anything doesn't mean that they agree with you.

"Give me a compelling counter-argument that can take its place and I'll consider not advocating this. Your comment isn't really saying anything."

I am saying something, you know I'm saying something, you even acknowledged the risks that I pointed out in adhering to this way of thinking and said it's something you've dealt with. You acknowledged risks that come with it in the article itself, that I pointed out in my original comment.

I didn't list concrete examples because quite frankly I thought the idea of needing them to disprove your conclusion was laughable. However, for the sake of making my point ultra clear, I'll induldge you.

Examples:
-Women who work for non-profits
-The peace core
-Charities
-Women who have joined the armed forces and died for their country.
-All historical women figures who have spent their whole lives fighting and in some cases dying for a cause they believe in.

Yes, Hector, I'm sure those women all did it because they were amoral by default and just wanted to increase their sexual prospects.

Now, you're probably going to say something like "these women are outliers", but even if that were true, that isn't even the point (I would argue there are many more examples, I'm just too lazy to go find them and these were the most obvious ones that first came to my mind) . The point is what you're telling guys here isn't some red pill manospheric TRUTH (I mean really, this article looks like it belongs more on RoK than on GC).

Anyways, It's just a mindset, a perspective, backed up by random anecdotal/empirical evidence. But it's certainly not THE TRUTH of the matter. No more than "assume attraction" or "everyone woman wants to fuck me" is the truth. They're mindsets/affirmations that are intended to be helpful if taken to heart. If you want to see the world the way you're describing in this article, no one is stopping you, but I don't think readers should be taking this to heart as if it's completely true because doing so will probably end up hurting them more than helping them.

Here's a more practical, accurate, and helpful conclusion: "Some women are capable and willing to do amoral things sometimes in order to increase their perceived sexual value."

I know I know, It's not as much of a click-bait title, but it is more accurate than saying "Women Do Not Care About Morality", that being amoral is their DEFAULT STATE and acting to increase their own sexual prospects is their primary concern.

"Then there's a chance you don't know what you're talking about, right?"

There's always a chance, no one knows everything, but in this specific case, I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about. As I already said, on many other topics regarding seduction, I'd probably not be so critical if at all.

"You're concern trolling, even if you don't realize it (you probably do)"

https://i.imgflip.com/1dxet4.jpg

Okay, that was a troll, but otherwise no.

"You have, in very many words, said nothing at all and have only expressed concern. Impressive."

I really don't understand why you're being so intentionally obtuse here. You've already acknowledged that you understand what my concern is and admitted that it's something you've dealt with.

"Then don't read this article. Close it and move on. Be a fucking adult."

I fully intend to. If the only thing that you got from this discussion was that this mindset is the truth and to stop being a bitch and accept it if you want to play on a higher level, then there really is no point moving forward with it.

Author
Hector Castillo's picture

"Nice straw man dude, that's not what I said."

In the absence of an argument, I am going to start unraveling your motivations for your arguments. Plus, me picking at your motivations doesn't negate anything else I've said. It's a tangential argument, but since you didn't, until now, bring up some situations that challenge my argument, it comes off as the main argument, since we had no central argument, except for vague discussions about the effects of my article (which are technically irrelevant to the moral arguments presented in the argument).

Furthermore, I read people. If I read someone is being silly, I'm going to tell them they're being silly. It's called rhetoric. If this was a purely intellectual debate, you would have plainly presented your arguments in the most mechanical fashion you could with concrete examples. You didn't. You engaged in rhetoric. I simply parried and struck back at your exposed kidney.

"However, on this topic, in particular, there is no "must have stuck your dick in X number of warm wet holes" requirement in order to speak knowledgeably."

True, but you still haven't presented an argument yet. We could cut through a lot of this if you just got to your point.

"I didn't list concrete examples because quite frankly I thought the idea of needing them to disprove your conclusion was laughable. However, for the sake of making my point ultra clear, I'll induldge you."

Uh huh.

"-Women who work for non-profits
-The peace core
-Charities
-Women who have joined the armed forces and died for their country."

Non-Profits/Charity/Altruism: these are not counter-arguments for the same reason that the sororities at my college were infinitely more involved in philanthropy than the fraternities on campus. They're doing a few things for their image, reputation, and sexual supremacy, largely based on their nature. Women have an innate desire to nurture. This is compulsory. Women have also had this desire to nurture conditioned and reinforced, not because nurturing is a social construct, but because it is in their nature, it is continually reinforced throughout their life. Just like how men are born with testosterone, therefore testosterone based activities are developed and create a feedback loop (e.g., men like to fight, we create sports/activities that involve fighting, this makes us like fighting more and ingrains it in our culture. It's a feedback loop. The nature creates it and society sustains it). Women are born nurturing, with nurturing instincts, and are taught from a young age to follow these instincts, as they should. Because they feel a compulsion to do it and it is expected of them, this pollutes the altruism of anything that they do. We are slaves to our emotions. We do things either for the short-term or long-term dopamine hit of enjoying the process or fruits of our actions. The strength and practical help that it provides is irrelevant to the means to drive it. Because of that, it's impossible for an action to be truly altruistic. One might argue this is 'ethical egoism' and then argue that because of that framework, any actions that help the 'self' are good, because helping the self (providing self-satisfaction of helping others because of your nature) is 'goodness' within that framework, but this is a meta-perspective and is outside of what's actually going on in a person's head, in this case, a girl who is involved in philanthropy work. She is acting on her nature and also looking good for everyone around her - this is why the sororities were always making such big deals out of their charity - they want to show everyone how nice they are. They also want to virtue-signal to men how more nurturing and cute they are than all the other girls who aren't involved in the charity. It is sexual strategy. All of it.

Of course, remember that I'm arguing for "amorality," not "immorality." So it's net neutral in the meta-perspective (although I've already established that the *motivations* are egoistic, and thus not altruistic, which is my benchmark for goodness). The kindness (the effects of charity) and the 'negatives' (the egoistic motivations) balance out. There are great effects of people broadcasting their kindness, too. It makes others feel guilty for not being kind and motivates them to be kind, and eschews non-kindness, again motivating kindness. As I said, I'm not denying the *positive effects* of philanthropy. That's not what this article was about and in fact I made this thoroughly clear in the introduction, if you check it again.

As for the armed forces, I'm not sure if you've spent time around military women or heard the stories of what goes on in Navy ships, but I suggest some googling or discussions with a servicemen. These women are naturally aggressive and wanted to be surrounded by their male equivalents - beefy, war-driven men. Did they also want to fight for their country and kill some enemies of their country? Hell yeah, but the motivations were all as egoistic as the next. The drive was propelled by a desire to satisfy an inner obligation to the self and the self's ideals. Does this mean that there is no honor, goodness, etc, in what a serviceman does? Hell no. What they do is necessary and good, even if it's sometimes muddled with extraneous motivations on the macro-scale (e.g., weapons manufacturer profits). However, we're, again, not talking about the societal goodness of one's actions, we're discussing micro-scale (i.e., THIS ONE PERSON) motivations and they are entirely amoral - they are sexual.

Which is not a bad thing, again. It keeps the species going.

"Everything is about sex; except for sex, sex is about power" - Oscar Wilde

Unfortunately, being mired in this debate forces me to focus on a position that makes me look distrustful of women. I'm not. Men are as guilty of all of this as women are. We're all amoral sons-of-bitches at our heart, but it's not a bad thing. It just IS. This argument doesn't negate the good of kindness and altruism, but it does reveal the motivations for what they are.

"Now, you're probably going to say something like "these women are outliers", but even if that were true, that isn't even the point (I would argue there are many more examples, I'm just too lazy to go find them and these were the most obvious ones that first came to my mind) . The point is what you're telling guys here isn't some red pill manospheric TRUTH (I mean really, this article looks like it belongs more on RoK than on GC)."

I did nothing of the kind, as you can see. There is one demographic that you would have gotten me on, kinda, because my argument that fits them into this analysis is a bit whacky. But you didn't bring up nuns/monks, so I'm good.

Look, this isn't RoK. Some of what they write is good, some of it is angry drivel. You should go read my other articles or meet me or even my girlfriend and ask her how I feel about women. I love women and guys at RoK don't. They prop up men as holy humans and women as evil wretches. I say we're all holy and wretched, thus I think everyone is equally lovely and equally shitty. The difference between me and RoK is as large as the ocean. That I happen to be tackling the darker subjects like they do only tells you that we're both walking around in Hell. They get so lost down there that they think Hell is reality. Me? I walk through Hell, check out the sights, tell you what's cool and what's weird, then come back to Earth and compare it with Heaven and give you what you can use and what's helpful.

My mistake was bringing back artifacts from Hell and showing everyone Hell's nature in graphic detail. A lot of guys aren't simply ready to see something from There and let its influence blind them to Heaven's delight.

"“Heaven and hell are within us, and all the gods are within us. This is the great realization of the Upanishads of India in the ninth Century B.C. All the gods, all the heavens, all the world, are within us. They are magnified dreams, and dreams are manifestations in image form of the energies of the body in conflict with each other. That is what myth is. Myth is a manifestation in symbolic images, in metaphorical images, of the energies of the organs of the body in conflict with each other. This organ wants this, that organ wants that. The brain is one of the organs.”

Joseph Campbell

"Here's a more practical, accurate, and helpful conclusion: "Some women are capable and willing to do amoral things sometimes in order to increase their perceived sexual value."

I know I know, It's not as much of a click-bait title, but it is more accurate than saying "Women Do Not Care About Morality", that being amoral is their DEFAULT STATE and acting to increase their own sexual prospects is their primary concern."

Yeah, that's just bad marketing. Look at how much attention this article has gotten :)

"I really don't understand why you're being so intentionally obtuse here. You've already acknowledged that you understand what my concern is and admitted that it's something you've dealt with."

I'm not sure how you can read my writing and be surprised I'm this obtuse :) Although I do enjoy that word...obtuse..it's so...I like it.

"I fully intend to. If the only thing that you got from this discussion was that this mindset is the truth and to stop being a bitch and accept it if you want to play on a higher level, then there really is no point moving forward with it."

Okie dokie, schmokie.

Want to make her wet? I'll show you how.

Motiv's picture

I am forced to admit my own level of amorality in face of enough deeper thought. The difficulty for us men (as opposed to women) is that we seem to internalize great (sometimes extreme) emotional turmoil over our inability to be 'good' or even be able to define what 'good' is. I like to think of myself as reaching a more evolved state to move beyond emotionalism over morality.

I've been following you on the GC YouTube channel lately. It's cool to see the real man behind so many vivacious articles.

Cheers,
-M

P.S. I am curious: who figures out all those clever links to other GC articles? Does Chase do that after the fact?

She enters your world… not the other way around.
Tweak your way to the top ;)

Jimbo's picture

These stories of fake rape claims happen way too often, I don't know why so many dudes keep falling for it. Just these last months: one girl who got double-teamed by two football players cried rape and almost got them imprised in Connecticut, and in Russia a girl got into some kind of threesome as well then told her boyfriend she got raped so he killed the "rapist" and ended up in jail. You have to be really stupid to do something as drastic as killing someone based on mere shady allegations without even bothering to dig deeper.

Anonymous's picture

False Rape accusations are massively exaggerated, and are in fact rare.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jemma-beale-woman-lie-about-rape-ten...
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/13/rape-investigations-beli...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/13/false-allegations-...

People that purport these lies and unaware and uninterested in prevalence of rape, and the sexual harassment that many women endure. If you want to understand women better, you should start listening to them.

Jimbo's picture

None of these mostly opinion pieces give any statistics on false rape claims. They give statistics on conviction rates, on reporting rates, but none of the actual rate of accusations that turn out to be false or made up.

On the other side of the debate, there are actual studies on exactly the rate of false rape claims, many cited here on this site. And guess what, they all turned out fairly similar numbers:

According to a 1994 study, a full 41% of forcible rapes reported turned out to be false allegations. And the cases here were deemed false if the accuser herself admitted that no rape occurred, not simply when the complaint was deemed suspect or unfounded.

A 2008 paper titled "False Rape Accusations" replicated the 1994 study at two large Midwestern universities. Findings: 50% of forcible rape complaints over a 3-year period were found to be false. And an analysis of 1,218 reports of rape in the US Air Force between 1980 and 1984 found that 45% of the allegations were false (same source).

And it's not just an American or First-World thing; India's rate of false rape claims is 53.2%.

But say all these studies that happen to corroborate each other are off the mark, let's supose that. How much could the margin of error be? Double? Say it's been grossly exaggerated so much that it's been doubled. That would still leave the rate of false rape claims at 20-25%. That's still freaking huge! Huge enough to make anyone raise an eyebrow at any "I was raped" allegation, because that's all it is: an allegation. And at the end of the day, what I advocated is caution and getting to the bottom of things instead of taking allegations and "experiences" at face value.

And from all those anecdotes where many were caught redhanded doing it, in addition to the ones I mentioned in the above comment, we know it's not just some abstract thing. It happens, and the caution is warranted.

Jimbo's picture

Nah, Donald knew exactly whom he was wifing up. Though as we learned from that movie Idiocracy, if there's anyone who can turn a hoe into a housewife, it's the POTUS.

Author
Hector Castillo's picture

You sayin' Melania is a hoe, because she's posed nude before?

Want to make her wet? I'll show you how.

Jimbo's picture

Well yeah. Posing naked is a hoe's way to make money. I'm not even saying I'm above that, because if I could snag some hot chick from Hustler (I know she wasn't in Hustler), like real hot, who happen to not be so much a pain in the ass to be around, I'd wife her up real good.

John Greco's picture

Dude,

The article you just wrote is phenomenal. I believe it to be one of your best. The reason I say that, is because you made me experience huge cognitive dissonance but simultaneously I feel the Truth behind your mental model.

This article punches you in the face, but just like you say in the Beast series, a real man embraces the pain and grows. I'll embrace the hit, let time and introspection dampen my mental oscillations, and hopefully be one step closer to the Truth.

Kudos to you and your mentor Chase.
Cheers, John.

DL's picture

This chick just came out saying the guy that plays Chuck Bass "raped" her three years ago. The story is completely sketchy and looks like she wants her 15 minutes of fame since her career sucks.

My question is, how does that decision increase her sexual value?

For 1, if she really was raped, men would likely stay away from damaged goods.

2, if they find out she lied, men won't have anything to do with that crazy woman.

My guess is, she got pumped and dumped by Chuck, and is still pissy about it.

But what she just did overall lowered her sexual value. How do u explain that?

Vale's picture

Depsite not being who you asked for, I'll post my answer and we shall see how it differs from the authority's if he responds.
The most likely reason in panic. The girl feels there's a great risk of her status being shuttered, and she undergoes a desperate move to save it. Upon a more calm and rational thought, she would now that unless the circumstances are grately in her favour, her move is far too risky and clumsy to be succesfoul: the guy(s)'s friends would greatly doub their fella being able to do such an act, and if she is proven wrong if the case is taken to a court she risks jail. Also, she would take into consideration that, in case she is proven (or just there's some doubt) wrong, officialy or informally, the damage on the reputation would be tenfold than the one if she had said nothing, becouse of the added interest and talk on the "rape" that the rape accusation created.
Cheers, Vale

Jimbo's picture

I guess it depends on the case, but in the two I mentioned in my above comment.. the one in America, the girl followed a couple of football players to the bathroom or something, but at the same time she had her eyes on some boyfriend prospect dude, and the story was probably going to get out, and she didn't want him to think she was going around banging athletes, so she claimed she was forced. Same for the one in Russia. When they feel the story might get out, they cry rape preemptively, "I didn't fuck them, they made me". Some also try to make their boyfriends jealous. Some like the attention they get in the process. Some like this pretty white chick feel so disgusted with themselves that they banged an Indian dude, which they'd like ugh totally not give him a second look eww Becky, that they cry rape to make the SOB pay.

Sam 's picture

Let me start by saying this article was amazing! You are one of my favorite authors on this site and I love your YouTube videos.
My question is, how does radical feminism benefit a woman's mating strategy? I've been reading GC long before I went to college, but now that I'm here it's sometimes hard to understand what's going on. Many of these girls preach feminism like Zealots and will publicly shame anyone who disagrees. However I'm experienced enough to know that this is some kind of game but not experienced enough to get around it. So really what I'm asking is why do they do this and how can a guy be successful in this kind of seemingly anti male environment?
Thanks!

SH's picture

"I have a definite opinion on this... I don't care." That's what I say when chicks bring up stuff like that (I actually stole it when I was 15 from 'That's 70's Show :P) and it works for me great, but friends of mine who have a different style of game have tried it and it doesn't seem to work for them.

I would say you need three things to make this work:
1) You need to honestly not care about the topic.
2) You need to honestly not care if the girl leaves because you don't care
3) You need to be generally low-key, and have a no bullshit demeanor.

The reasons:
1) Chicks can tell when your trying to act like Mr. Cool. And if you have to act like Mr. Cool, you're not Mr. Cool. In college, chicks dig the cool guys, and the guys aren't pussies. So if you care, your better off trying something else. But if you truly don't, let them know, and watch them try to be Mrs. Cool as the try to blow it off with something like, "Oh, I don't really either. It's just something I read on FB, etc."

2) Most of the time, chicks only spout out feminism because the "cool" girls do, or they want to see how you react. Call their bluff and watch them go Dow-eyed. Some girls however, actually care about this crap, and will leave (that's fine though, it's generally not worth sitting through their BS, so it's better that you piss them off early and stop wasting your time on them). No matter, you can't be a looking for reactions and changing your views because of them, cause this makes the girl the boss, leading what is good and what is bad; which should be your job. You will do this if you care if they leave, so you have to train yourself not to care. Once you don't give a shit, you can voice your opinion on something anyway you'd like (provided you're not a total clueless dickhead) and it will make the chicks wet.

3) This is more about being congruent. I have a friend who get as much tail as any good looking guy, but he's super high energy, too the point where he often gets mistaken for gay, and when he tried this just to see if it worked, he looked like a complete idiot. Is just wasn't congruent. I'm more laid back, and tend to call chick on their bullshit, (or stuff I think may be BS) and this is my go to line.

Oh, and if you're in a group, unless the chick says something specifically to you, don't say this. It will just make you seem try-hard.

And don't forget to pause. Should be delivered like 'I actually do have an opinion on this...[pause so they get curious if you'll agree with them or not]... Oh no wait, I don't give a shit. Best of luck bro.

mike's picture

Got divorced about 15 years ago --  As I get older the women get hornier and don't care ... They want to phcuk more often than I do as the years go by.     After the 1st time,    I make clear we are phcuk buddies and can go out have fun once in awhile if they want.    No complaints,  they keep coming back for more  as long as I meet their need in bed.      If I get bored or sense they want something else I move on.     Life is easy that way.

Add new comment

The Latest from GirlsChase.com