How to Control Your Girlfriend or Wife (in a Society that Frowns Upon That) | Girls Chase

How to Control Your Girlfriend or Wife (in a Society that Frowns Upon That)

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.

71

control girlfriend or wifeThis Yuletide season, at a time of family, let's talk about maintaining a firm, guiding hand on your own relationships, so they do not slip away from you.

Because that is more difficult to do in our day than it has been at many points in history.

First off, let's address this: being 'controlling' in any sort of direct, overt way is completely forbidden in the modern West.

You aren't allowed to be controlling with friends. You aren't allowed to be controlling with employees. You aren't allowed to be controlling with children. And you especially are not allowed to be controlling with women.

Controlling women in any way is viewed at a societal level as the turf of weak, jealous, insecure men, who are unable to inspire devotion, and instead must use coercion.

Being 'controlling' is the domain of uneducated roughnecks, red necks, and ghetto hoods who lack the ability to communicate or empathize, who don't respect women, and who are, or inevitably will be, 'abusers'.

This article is not really about that kind of jealous, insecure attempt to control. Instead, it is about how to manage your girlfriend or wife in a way she benefits from and responds to, that makes your relationship healthier, and that meanwhile attracts as little social opprobrium as possible.

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 One Date System.

GET CHASE’S ONE DATE SYSTEM

Comments

U's picture

Hi,

Phenomenal article chase. Thought I'd get your take on something that baffles me.

I don't drink. I also feel like I don't want my partner to drink because it goes against the values that I hold. Am I right that obviously I can't expect this of someone just because we choose our own values? Yet i meet lots of women who do drink and because I don't drink I keep these as casual encounters stating that there's fundamental differences between us eg I'm Muslim, value modesty and non alcohol, whereas they are different.

So I guess this is a problem which I'm running into, I suppose it goes along the line of this. If I want someone to share my values, but then ofcourse I can't simply blatantly say that ... Can I?

How would one go about handling this challenge of differing values, religions - do we just wait and find the right person who we do match on, or do we adopt the rogue approach as advised? Or do we fundamentally accept that we can't reasonably expect others to change the way they dress and the things they do just to be with you in a serious relationship?

What's the go in situations like this?

21 and confused,
U

Thanks!

Bran's picture

Hey U,

In my experience, a lot girls will cut out most of the drinking and will dress more modestly once they are in a relationship with you; provided they value the relationship, are not party girls, and are not being constantly pressured to do so. Your are correct, in that a lot of women do drink, however, depending on where you are meeting these single women (clubs, bars, and at college), they may not be representative of whole population’s behavior. However...

Now I not sure about the Islamic faith, but I know that in the Christian faith, you are warned about being “unequally yoked”. This just means that if you are Christian, you will have a much easier time keeping to the Christian values (and so will your partner) if you are in a relationship with another Christian. This would be the same with your faith. Plus, while women will change some, many will never reach total abstinence from alcohol or complete modesty: people rarely change that much.

So yes, if you wish to date girls that drink and such, you’re going to have to be the “Rogue”; or you could screen out girls that engage in those behaviors, reducing your dating pool size but allowing access to girls who you don’t have to rely on changing themselves.

Factually Challenged's picture

Hey Chase, very well thought out article. I do quite enjoy your work, mainly because I know that your down take the time to track down studies to support your points. However, in this case, your link has either been re-routed, or there been a misunderstand. In your paragraph explaining how mens’ main function to society is to work, produce a product (money), then give it to women (as taxes), your link to support your point of women be less productive, actually takes you to a study (with a very small sample size) that proofs opposite, that females are actually more productive because they work more arduously: unless your point is that women below the study’s nominated “Step V” are generally less productive, relying on information the study has omitted. Would love to see a study that proofs women are less/just as/more productive than men, (that study’s sample size leave a large gap for error), so if you had originally linked to something else, would love to check that out.

Oh, and not particularly attached to this comment being posted with the article, just wanted to give you a heads up.

Keep up the good work.

Nipernaadi's picture

A scandalous article, some juicy bits for thought right here, thanks!

Would you be able to elaborate on the productivity claim? I don't see linked article supporting that statement.

What is said in the articles is that at the higher reaches of faculty women produce more work to advance at their careers. No concrete inferences are made on productivity, one way or another. Even if they were, it would be a dubious thing to do as the sample size in the study is really small and no assessment of the quality of the produced work is made.

Interestingly, the vibe I got from the article is as if they are looking to demonstrate that women are being discriminated against. No such direct statements are made, though. 

A curious choice this article. Or am I missing the beat here?

Anonym's picture

Hi Chase,

Thanks for an interesting article. I have a few points about your interpretation of current Western society.

1. You wrote: „You aren't allowed to be controlling with friends. You aren't allowed to be controlling with employees. You aren't allowed to be controlling with children. And you especially are not allowed to be controlling with women.“
Friends – of course, but why would you control your friends? Employees – it is absurd, employer-employee relationship is hierarchical and while employers want to look like they treat employees well, they are still controlling, even coercive sometimes (or do you believe they never tell employees something like „Do X or look for another job!“ – this is coercion and it is at least in some situations legal). Employers still have a lot of power, no matter how much they complain about regulations and unions. Hierarchical relations in workplace are based on law and cannot exist without some form of control. Children – as a parent you should not be overly authoritarian, but you have legal responsibility for them so in fact you have to in some extent control them (it is impossible not to control your children when you are responsible for them and raise them). Ïn fact if your children die or get hurt because you neglect some danger or risk then you are blamed for lack of control. Actually many Western parents who raise millenials are overly protective which is kind of control as well. Women – yes, here you are right, but the Rogue way of controlling is allowed (in fact it is basically setting boundaries, which women do as well).

2. You wrote on single mothers: „You can have sympathy for people in situations like this... though personally, the sympathy I have for them is sympathy for their mistakes, rather than sympathy for their situation. They've made their choices, though it's a shame they don't like where those choices have taken them.“
Why it is shame they do not like consequences of their choices? Sometimes people make mistakes and do not like its consequences (it is perfectly normal, if they like it, then it is not really a mistake) or face two bad choices where they do not like consequences in both cases. Is it better to be in bad marriage or to be single parent? Sometimes hard to decide.
Women apply for divorce more, but it is partly because they are better than men at seeing that their relationship sucks. Some causes of divorce are mostly done by men (domestic violence, alcoholism...) so naturally women are those want to leave the relationship. Others like infidelity can be done by both sexes. In unmarried couples women break up more often partly because they want progress in relationship, while men prefer stability and maintain status quo so women decide not to waste their time with this men and find someone who is more willing to give her what she wants.

3. You wrote: What good is a man for in today's society, except to go to work, pay his taxes, and support the state that supports the women? Man today exists to make enough money for his company that the company can afford to hire women (who are generally less productive than men, and require a host of laws on the books to get employers to hire more of them)... to pay enough money with his taxes to sustain public schools, subsidized housing, rent assistance, food assistance, energy bill assistance, grants for single mothers, state-backed small business loans to female entrepreneurs... to make the required money to pay child support and spousal support to his ex-wife (who probably initiated the divorce herself). Much of the discontent among men today is due to this growing awareness of their sole function as workers, told to keep their noses down and the dollars flowing, to support people who take their money, then look down on them, and discard them or want nothing to do with them in the first place. There is this increasingly feeling of alienation, from a system that is a raw deal for men... especially for men whose primary talent is what they can produce.

This perspective is interesting and important to take in account since many people think this way. But its understanding of the system is strongly oversimplified and misleading. Even if men are more productive than women, still there are bigger differences inside both groups than between them so there are many highly productive women as well. Moreover, companies still need women since there are not enough men for all positions and some jobs do not require that high level of productivity anyway (it is diffiult to measure productivity in services, for example).
Most of taxes are used for other than welfare expenditures you listed here (think about security, legal system, police, army, infrastructure, state administration etc.), which is used by all people. Most of welfare policies you listed is used by both men and women, so male wage earners do not subside them through their taxes that much as they believe. F.e. public schools are visited by boys and girls, by children of both mothers and fathers. Day care facilities mean that wife of male wage earner can have paid job which brings to the family more money then lower taxes for the male in case of not financing welfare services by government and having full time housewife (alternative private day care centers are more expensive than proportional part of taxation used for public day care centers for most workers). Many welfare benefits are conditioned by previous working experience so receiving is conditioned by previous contributing and it is misleading to call receivers as pure takers (those remaining benefits based on needs tests are usually very low).
Moreover, people go through different periods in their life. Sometimes they take more (childhood, long disease, disability, unemployment, parental leave, old age pension etc.) and sometimes give more (economically active age). Almost nobody except severely lifelong disabled people is pure taker and nobody is pure giver, although some people give more and others take more (even people on welfare benefits contribute to the system through consumption or VAT taxes). This black and white distinction between takers and givers is strongly misleading and probably comes from libertarianism (maybe Ayn Rand?).
This is especially US problem. Think about Sweden: there is even higher level of gender equality and also higher taxes and welfare expenditures (including those on women) and in both countries there is high level of female employment so there should be even bigger alienation of male wage earners than in the US if above mentioned interpretation is correct. But unlike Americans most of Swedes support high taxes and welfare expenditures. The legitimacy issue is not caused by size of taxes and welfare benefits, but rather by its design since in Sweden (mostly) universal social policy covers both working and middle class. So everyone gives more and receives more. It also explain why in continental Western Europe with higher taxes there was in the 1980s weaker tax payers revolt compared to Anglo-Saxon countries with lower taxes.
Another thing are views on role of the government and the State. In the US many people, especially conservatives and libertarians tend to see government as oppressive and have deep seated fear of government being too big and are obsessed with taxes. In continental Europe (especially in Scandinavia) people tend to see government more as a support structure for individuals. While Americans may complain about public financing of schools, have you ever heard French or German male complain about it (education system is seen mostly as governmental responsibility)? Even anti-mainstream parties here like Swedish democtats, National Front in France or Alternative für Deutschland are not against welfare expenditures including those on women (except those on immigrants and refugees). So I believe in some extent this alienation is specifically American rather than Western problem. Because of particular brand of conservatism and libertarianism some men tend to resent taxes and welfare expenditures and suffer from special kind of victim mentality. The problem is that many libertarians have been using state services all their life (if you live in a country with working government it is impossible not to use it), but they do not want to pay taxes to finance it (though in their own business they want others to pay for their services, of course). It is truth that there are system problems (like divorce rapes) and part of the feminist movement is too radical and anti-male and do not have empathy and recognition for men, but it is wrong to see it like that male wage earners are givers and women takers since most of taxes are used on things used by both sexes, women are still needed on labour market and still many women want to have family with working men. It is not a raw deal for men, while problems certainly exists.

Sorry for the length of my post, but is a complex problem..
Thanks for your reply

Anonym

Add new comment

The Latest from GirlsChase.com