Old Fashioned Sex Symbols vs. Modern Male Stars: What’s the Difference? | Girls Chase

Old Fashioned Sex Symbols vs. Modern Male Stars: What’s the Difference?

male sex symbols

I previously said (in this post) my next article would be “How to Be an Alpha Provider”... however, I’m going to switch things up today. Today’s article is about sex symbols: those of the past and those of today. And we’ll get back to the alpha providers again next week. Onwards, then.

Today’s article comes in response to a question from Byron on my article about self-cultivation regarding my preference for older male sex symbols over the more current ones Hollywood has to offer. Here’s what Byron had to say:

I’ve recently come across several comments where you reference Sean Connery and Harrison ford as the epitome of raw sexiness. I was wondering if you could elaborate on this and why not the plethora of modern sex symbols, ie what makes them so different? Or if you could write an article on their appeal or a series on famous seducers/ role models I think that would be very interesting and relevant. Again just suggestions, I realize you are very busy. Thank you for this site!

That’s a fantastic question. Why do I recommend the older guys more than the newer guys? I had a few reasons, but part of me kind of wondered if maybe I just had some kind of nostalgia-bias when this subject’s come up in the past... maybe I’m simply guilty of thinking older is better.

Fortunately, this article’s forced me to really get down to nuts and bolts, and in the process of writing it, I learned a lot. Let’s dive in.

Think about your old school, old fashioned male sex symbols. Men like:

  • Gary Cooper
  • Cary Grant
  • James Garner
  • Sean Connery
  • James Dean
  • Harrison Ford

Compare them to the sex symbols of modern cinema. Men like:

  • Brad Pitt
  • Ryan Gosling
  • George Clooney
  • Ian Somerhalder

Do you notice anything?

I like all the guys in both of these lists. All are masters of their crafts, and there are buckets you can learn from watching the facial expressions, body language, and little nonverbal tics of each, as well as studying the way each man uses his voice and his overall demeanor.

However, there’s a clear difference between these two groups of men (that span about two generations each)... a large enough difference that while I personally suggest you take the time to study all of these men, when it comes to my own preferences, the only ones I ever find myself wanting to model outright are the ones from before.

And I sat down today and the one question on my mind was, “How do I best explain this difference?”

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.


Related Articles from GirlsChase.com


Bond's picture

Hello Chase,

This was brilliantly analyzed and explained! I love the comparisons between the two generations of sex symbols. A nice and super interesting read it was.

As I recall, I used to come off sexier and way more masculine when fully emulating Sean Connery's James Bond than when fully emulating Ian Somerhalder's Damon Salvatore. Now I just go full Sean Connery combined with a couple of my favourite Somerhalder's facial expressions.

And what are your thoughts on Johnny Depp, particularly his facial expressions?


Chase Amante's picture


Depp’s a great one.

Actually, I realized after this article that I’d probably rank Robert Downey, Jr. and Tom Cruise up there with the old-fashioned stars, personally.

Possibly Depp as well – he’s masterful with facial expressions, hand gestures, etc. Though I don’t know that all that many women consider him a sex symbol, but either way, watching him is an education.


Alex 1998's picture

Hey Chase, really good, in depth article. I'd like to suggest to you a character called Chuck Bass (played by Ed Westwick) from "Gossip Girl", that guy has some of the best non verbals and body language I've seen, as well as fashion sense and really strong presence and vibe.

Although he's from our generation, I genuinely feel his raw sexuality, and his lack of guard puts him in a better position than most sex symbols of our generation. When I saw him what you wrote on non verbals suddenly made more sense. The way he moves, pauses, and isn't moved by and distracted by the things around him definitely sets him apart from the guys mentioned (in modern generation). Also how he's got this darkness to him - it's not a depressive broodines, but something intense and really mysterious.

He's got his flaws, but trying to model his raw sexuality and mysterious darkness is something that really helped me (along with this website - he just kinda puts what you and your team write into play) to take my game to the next level. His best performences are definetly around Season 1 & 2, afterwards he kinda loses his character and feels forced.

Again, thanks for the article, and this website - you've helped me turn my life around, when I found this site at 14 and now am 17 - it really helped me mature and become a bettter person and put me on the right path.

Cheers, Alex

Chase Amante's picture


Nice recommendation! His vibe's fantastic for his age - pretty smooth, solid, and in-control. Great example for young guys, and lots of potential to have a legendary vibe if he continues to improve it as he ages.


kristian's picture

Thanks for a great article on this topic Chase.
It also reminds me how important fundamentals are, and the videos are also good examples of that.

I love that you talk about being open, forward and honest. But how can I show feelings and being vulnerable, yet still having the right amount of mystery to keep her intrigued?

I am still relatively new to this, so I dont have any reference points combing these two. Could you please give me an example?

Chase Amante's picture


Have you read this article yet?:

How to Be Vulnerable, Enchanting, and Alluring to Women

The secret is showing emotions/vulnerabilities that make you only look more masculine and strong, rather than feminine/weak. Check out Vicky Cristina Barcelona… there’s a scene where Javier Bardem’s character Juan Antonio gets emotional in a strong way and that precipitates Rebecca Hall’s character sleeping with him. Or one of my favorite movie seductions, Val Kilmer in The Saint showing a lot of masculine, attractive vulnerability seducing Elisabeth Shue’s character. Both are great.


AlluringSpy's picture

Very well written article Chase!
Thank you for taking your time with this one, as I think it's very important for us to learn from men like these.
With that said, society is opressing more and more masculinity from their media. So for us that don't want to get brainwashed, are forced to unplug.
However I still believe there's some good media out there we can take things from.
It would be great if you and your crew could share the little media you consume on some sort of list. That could be films, tv series, music and even video games.
That way when we kick back and relax we'd be doing it by consuming good stuff.

As alway's, keep up the good work,

Mischief's picture

I second this :)

Well… one does what one can.

Chase Amante's picture

Alluring Spy-

As you've requested:

Mind Control: How Media Influence Your Thoughts and Feelings

If you're looking for a specific list of suggestions, I have these toward the end, plus my general criteria for sifting through media as well. Hopefully that's helpful.


Paul 's picture

Great Article,
One thing that I don't know if you took into account or not was the roles Connery and Gosling were playing. Gosling was playing a playboy who just slept with new women all the time, so I think that his character was meant to be more guarded and selffish becuase all he's looking for is a quick lay. Towards the end of the movie he met the right girl and he even opened up himself much more( Badboy with the heart of gold I suppose).

And Sean Connery was designed to be physically forward and sleep with heaps of new women. He is James Bond after all. It would be pretty weird if he wasn't so charming and quick to seduce new girls.

Chase Amante's picture


Roles do make a difference! My focus however was on the man overall across various portrayals.

You’ll note that there’s only so much a man can change his character among different roles. I actually looked for a role where Gosling didn’t seem so guarded or aloof but couldn’t find one (except one film where he acts really goofy). Which either means he’s typecast as the guarded guy, or he just is a guarded guy so those are the roles he plays… either way though, for using him as a role model, the effect ends up the same. Good things to learn from him, but you don’t want to pick up his guardedness.


Ángel Roberto Encarnacion Alverde's picture

Gran articulo Chase, sin lugar a dudas tu don innato que has desarrollado es explicar con profundidad temas que agradecemos muchos lo hagas, excelente trabajo amigo, gracias.

Davit's picture

Hi Chase,

It's been a while that I saw your admiration for those actors in your different articles, great to see a much deeper explanation on this!

About "Exaggerating one’s expressions or personality" I would like to share two possible causes that played quite a significant role in my opinion:

First of all the mixed role of humorists/comedians. I sincerely tend to think that most guys take as reverence actors who come more as humorists, with this new social norm that it's better be "cool" than anything else, let's think about Jonah Hill, Chris Tucker, Eddie Murphy, Kevin Hart, Zach Galifanakis, Mike Myers, Will Smith or Owen Wilson. If you ask a guy nowadays about Somerhalder or Gosling they'll just tell you that those are just for chick flics and would rarely think about taking them as examples. They mostly watch funny comedies and take those actors as examples....but unfortunately Hollywood doesn't tell them the sad truth, which is that this kind of character only triggers REACTIONS instead of RESULTS (that's also what usually happens in the movie though, they're playing the role of the entertainer, lose attainability and hope the their so desired belle will give them a kiss on the chick to make them happy).

The second reason I see to this is the extended publicity for "freedom of speech" (which in french is called "liberté d'expression), which pushes guys to be more impulsive and expressive than in the past, taking into account the place they do so: social medias for most. Those platforms are mainly designed to show how cool your life is and how cool your personality is. If you get sucked into that logic well you start actively promoting your personality and exaggerating it's traits.

Actually I think that men's relation to technology has a lot to do with current changes and teaching the social art here in Brussels I see a lot of its consequences on my students, could draft a paper on this as well as other subjects (would be great if you hit me up on e-mail about this ;).

Another difference I would like to point-out about those two kinds of men is what I'd call their "core confidence", referring to the value they trust in. Old actors seems to have their mind strongly entrenched in the core values they believe in, which makes them look like they're even fearing death. They know where they come from, what's their values and goals are, and they're accomplishing what they think is right with boldness and fearlessness. Today's guys steeped in "democratic" ideology tend to see values as personal choices each one makes (about life goal, marriage, sexuality, religion, political opinions and so on), and they fear showing it publicly most of the time, and fear hurting one another by being too strong about its position, its value, its belief. Therefore the passion old days guys showed can't really be done today if you step in the politically correct ideology. The only free place for expression that you have left is your personality (humor, emotions) and your personal choices as a consumer (you see a lot of guys being passionate about a brand, a type of outfit, a tech brand, without it being considered as hurting anyone). Therefore people's interactions tend to remain at a superficial level and they look way less passionate and confident as they used to before.

Warm regards,


Chase Amante's picture


Yeah, I definitely see guys emulating the “funny man” as their default personalities. Does seem to be a reaction-focused adoption – they get big belly laughs when they act that way, so it must be working… might as well keep it up.

And that’s an interesting idea about social media as a diva-maker. I could see something like that having an impact. At the same time, I saw plenty of guys with attention-seeking personalities back in high school when Friendster did not yet exist and using the Internet was for nerds… there are always guys who go the “clown” route. But maybe social media amplifies that to some extent.

I suspect the big values shift that’s occurred has to do with responsibility. Men of prior generations were responsible for taking care of their families, taking care of the women they brought into their lives, and taking care of their communities. They were expected to have respectable jobs and to be respectable men. Men today get told women don’t need them, you should chase down your dreams and do what you feel like, that they’re goofy obsolete Neanderthals; their role models are often on-screen man-children who delay adulthood (responsibility) as long as possible, and there’s just a general attitude of carefree “peace, love, whatever, man” inherited from the Flower Power movement. There are fewer real masculine role models, and masculinity is culturally shamed as a kind of primitive oppression of women and a shield men hide their true, sensitive, emotional selves behind (so better to drop the act and just be soft and sensitive, so as not to come off afraid), or else simply portrayed in female media as largely the domain of dumb, sexy brutes.

There’s a lot of pressure on both sexes to androgynize in the West today: women must be strong, independent, and ambitious; men must be sensitive, caring, and nurturing. I suppose there are cultural reasons for these pushes, but they lead to less satisfying romantic/sexual lives, that’s for sure.

The note about free expression only via humor or consumerism is an interesting one. People perhaps attempting to be subversive via humor. The majority of humor I see tends to be aimed at signaling conformity with the established order, under a flimsy pretense of “subversion” (e.g., right now it’s funny to make fun of white Western men and consider this “subversive” when in fact it’s just conforming with the same thing everyone else is doing). Yet, there are always the truly subversive, who can get away with throwing rocks at sacred cows – the guy cracking off-color jokes about societally protected groups, for instance – the kind of jokes the average person will act with mock shock about, but still laugh at.

Seems to be this way in every age though; humor I can find at any period in history seems to largely consist of most people using their humor to signal conformity with the prevailing narrative, while a handful of true subversives attack sacred cows you aren’t supposed to make fun of, to a mix of humorous-to-offensive results (depending on the audience).


Jimbo's picture

"... or else simply portrayed in female media as largely the domain of dumb, sexy brutes."

What movies or shows are you thinking of here? Because I'm not seeing this.

hibye's picture

I feel like the older guys are a little more stiff than the newer guys. You've seen RSD Tyler infield right? He acts like a goof and he still gets laid.

Chase Amante's picture


Yep, they rely more on stillness which, all things being equal, is more attractive.

When you’re meeting women in high energy environments, you tend to become goofier / more animated to capture their attention, so something you will see with pick up artists who’ve trained in nightclubs is quite often wildly goofy energy. Another reason for this is the need to keep up approach momentum… it’s much harder to do lots of approaches if you let your energy settle down more.

The majority of the naturals you’ll meet will tend to have somewhat lower (more sexual, less entertaining) energy in-field, though typically higher close percentages because they use more targeted game and they’re focused on attracting women in a seductive state rather than women in a party / have fun state.

A big part of the reason I started Girls Chase in the first place was because the pickup artist industry was so dominated by guys who were really good at making girls react really well to them, impressing the socks off of students who couldn’t believe how these girls were reacting, yet who had far lower pull rates than the guys running much simpler, subtler game. So I launched this site with foci on things like results rather than reactions, simple stuff like moving faster, etc.

That said, I don’t know Owen personally and anything I’ve heard about him has all been secondhand, so I can’t speak to his results myself.


Ángel Roberto Encarnacion Alverde's picture

2 comentarios breves Chase:
A) El juego old & new se pueden combinar (eso lo sabes) dependiendo del set que trabajes
B) La energía masculina como bien lo comentas (estilo Sean Connery) tienen mejores resultados con chicas de mas alta gama (de tu misma edad) o con mujeres de mayor transito sexual (MILF/COUGARS)
El implementar lo que comentas de las estrellas old da increíbles resultados en el campo que dependen de la pura masculinidad.
Saludos & excelente articulo

Skid's picture

Chase ,

I definitely agree with your comparisons of the first 2 sex symbols for the most part. The way Gosling moves his head is quite off-putting but at the same time I found I could relate to him more than I could Cooper (Probably because I'm a much younger guy and more used the the modern male sex symbols). Although I had some red flags go off in my head when you started criticizing Clooney's goofy and easily excitable facial expressions where if you look at the comparison beforehand Cooper has several clips in his video where he comes across as quite goofy and un-masculine. Yes , you could argue he was doing it because he was portraying a character but you could say the same for Clooney. It definitely does hold true that in the first 2 comparisons the older guys have a closer proximity to people in general than the more recent stars.

I think my favourite of these first 4 was definitely Connery , since he seems to combine the best of all the others into a one - lots of witty remarks , but calm and in control and physically aggressive.

Now onto the younger guys which for me are the most relevant ones. Personally I did not like James dean at all! He just seems to be whining all the time. I don't know how much footage there is out there of him but pretty much every scene here is him whining about something and pretty much nothing of him interacting with girls (one clip) which does make for an unfair comparison. I totally understand that that as younger guys we are often lost and not sure what to do its totally fine to be clueless. I guess a lot of these movies he's done have to do with the difficulties a young man has while growing up , however what I don't like is the way he expresses all of these emotions : mostly with tantrums kicking desks and crying which to me is not the signs of a young man with an open mind that's wanting to improve and grow up.

And then there is Somerhalder with "smarmy self-confidence, which seems forced" , which I can agree with you definitely have to feel as though this guy goes though these periods of super arrogance and confidence then when one thing goes wrong , he breaks down and becomes a baby in comparison to the the guy that's displayed in many of these clips. But he does hint at vulnerability : "my unflinching ability to listen to taylor swift" , "sweaty palms , wish me luck" and handles it in a WAY more attractive way than Dean does - miles better if you ask me. While like you said a lot of it may be fake , you have to fake it till you make it. And if you put these two guys in front of women and ask them who they would want to sleep with more , that'd pick Somerhalder any day of the week.

Byron's picture

Thank you! As a younger guy still (always) working on fundamentals, I found this fascinating. Currently watching Rebel Without a Cause as I type this. Pretty much exactly what I hoped for and more.
Many thanks,

Agent's picture

Somerhalder has got those super quick varying facial expressions whenever he's interacting with someone.
Are those fast changing facial expressions sexy are you're better off sticking with a few and changing the less frequently?

Chase Amante's picture


Generally speaking, you do not want to change your facial expressions too quickly.

Rapid facial expressions changes are used to startle or amuse; think Jim Carrey or Will Ferrell or any other great funnyman. The reason they’re funny is that they communicate reaction… the man is reacting to the situation, and it’s amusing to us to see men reacting in surprised, disoriented ways.

You’ll see this a lot from younger guys especially, simply because they’re still developing their personas and as Davit points out above they’ve taken a few too many cues from comedians.

Slowly changing facial expressions (e.g., the slow-spreading smile), on the other hand, communicate power and sincerity. It feels real, and it’s clear the man considers himself to be in charge.

So, with Somerhalder, he’s a good reference for learning facial expressions, just don’t mimic the speed at which he renders them / switches between them.


Ryan's picture

Hey chase ,
Have you seen drive ? The movie with Ryan gosling? If not you don't need to buy I admired something about his work there which is his impeccable stillness, it looks like the movie is paused most of the time
Just saying, Are there any specifics on mastering stillness. It looks like a really sexy trait for men ....at least on Ryan gosling

Chase Amante's picture


I did see Drive. It was a few years ago and I don’t remember too much about it now (a few snippets of the plot still floating around in memory), but I remember liking it.

Stillness is, like all fundamentals, eminently learnable – all it takes is practice:



SZ's picture

Chase, what I am dealing with right now is worst than when you keep thinking about a girl, I keep thinking about getting revenge. I want to get revenge on people who have done me wrong, and I also think of this one person mostly. I think about hurting this person all of the time, when I hear violent rap music, I think of that person receiving the violence, when I'm doing combat sports I think of that person as the bag.

It's gotten to the point where I think of this stuff 24/7, it is taken me over and I want this person out of my head, it's like ruination, or whatever it's called.

Just keep having thoughts over and over again about hurting this person. I just want this person to leave my mind.

I have tried your techniques of saying stop over and over, but it has gotten really bad.

I would appreciate all help.


JoeBN's picture

Chase and the authors don't respond to individual situations like this. He's a busy guy. Per GC protocol, go to the forums section if you wanna discuss individual situations. This is not the place for it.

Chase Amante's picture


What constructive outlets have you started using?

Which of the suggestions I’ve given you have you begun to follow?:

  • Taken up martial arts?
  • Taken up an artistic pursuit?
  • Changed your location/routine and gotten away from negative influences?

Take positive action to resolve the situation. It is the ONLY thing that works.


Anonymous's picture

Ya know what's funny, Chase, is that I really don't understand the male sex symbols you mention. Maybe it's because I'm a straight guy but I just don't see any of those men as particularly interesting. They're not men that I want to know or emulate. They all seem very one-dimensional: too stoic and unfun. Just a pretty face and nice hair, a few one-liners. I've never watched a James Dean flick but he sure does seem awkward as hell.

Ever since I first saw Iron Man though I've always wanted to be Robert Downey Jr. He seems like a fun guy with a well-rounded personality, a guy you admire and want to party with. Most of the "pretty boys" in film are loved by women but dismissed by men. Rob's the only guy in Hollywood that I've seen who has a seductive effect on men and women alike. Justin Timberlake is pretty admirable and fun too and the women love him, but men aren't man-crushin' on him. Liam Neeson is a man's man but he seems a bit too stoic at times. Personally, when I approach women I try to think like RDJ. It's been a pretty handy tool. It's helped make approach more fun.

As for your conclusion on modern social awkwardness: I couldn't agree more. I think you forget to factor in the effects of entertainment on the public as well. People are spending enormous amount of time in front of the TV watching unnatural actors portray badly-written parts. People are learning social skills and social expectations through these bizarre fantasies on screen. As a result, people are becoming more cartoonish and clownish. I've noticed that a lot of the women I meet try way too hard to be funny and quirky. I find it really annoying and distasteful. They just chalk it up to "guys not liking funny/witty women". If the pickup videos on the internet are any barometer the men are contributing too. Everyone's an entertainer expecting to be entertained. Problem is: no one wants to fuck a clown.

I've been studying pickup and reading your site for quite some time and as time goes on I'm finding it more and more difficult to tolerate socially awkward women. Even when the girl is physically attractive the awkwardness just kills my sex drive instantly. Call me "sexist" but I've always expected women to be more social adept than men. It's a huge turnoff when they can't handle a conversation with a flirty stranger. I've noticed that foreign women are a lot more put together in this area which has made me seriously considering going abroad to escape the entertainment culture to meet some feminine, sociable women.

Anyway: Love your stuff, Chase. Keep up the good work.

P.S. You really nailed me with that April Fool's article. Totally believed it until the end. Haha!

T's picture

I think, everybody likes the actor that suits him best.
Me e.g. I love Cal Lightman from "Lie to me" (played by Tim Roth)
Apart from my interest for the topic of "Lie to me" he is the epitome of a Byronic Hero. A strong, confident and - outstanding in his job - man who goes his way. Even his strong ex-wife (very good played by Jennifer Beals) has to surrender because of his strength and missions he beliefs in. Yes, he also has his weaknesses. But women love him or at least respect him.

Chase Amante's picture


Good point on RDJ – he’s among my favorite modern male actors.

Actually, were I doing this post over, I’d probably include RDJ, Tom Cruise, and Johnny Depp, and we’d have a lot more of a toss-up than with guys like Ryan Gosling and George Clooney, if you ask me. Might still do a follow-up piece with those three in it… just kept thinking “George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Ryan Gosling” as modern sex symbols when I wrote this article for some reason.

As for social awkwardness in women, yeah, it’s an English-speaking world thing, from what I can tell. I suspect it’s largely due to discomfort with male-female sex roles… I’ve noticed it with Canadian, English, and Australian girls as well as American girls. Scandinavian and German girls have it a little bit, but pretty much every other nationality has women that will simply act shy or girly or a little aloof if they don’t know what to say or don’t have anything TO say or even if they don’t really like you. English-speaking women often do this weird thing where they get awkward/uncomfortable (even if they like you) – I suspect it’s them finding themselves in situations where they’re compelled to act girly, but instead they’re pulling themselves back and saying, “No! Don’t act girly!” You’ll notice it doesn’t happen much with, say, girly girls from the American South, or American women who’ve learned how to flirt. Typically any time you see awkwardness, it’s someone feeling like they should act one way internally, and then policing themselves to not act that way externally.


CaptainHenley's picture


loved every word of your article! My question is, what should a man do?

Should he be more like the old ones, even though their behaviors are not widely accepted?

Or the new ones, taking a hit on thei attractiveness, but behaving like they are expected?

I know the answer might be a spontaneus one, like of course its the first choice, but are the advantages really on your side, since we are playing the numbers game, and you want to appeal to what MOST people expect?

Another thing is about appearance. Should you strive to look more that the "older" men? Short hairct for example? Or it doesnt matter, just use their character with whatever you got? But on the other hand, a lot of the expressions and body language may seem quite of with longer, more feminine hair.

Would love to hear your answer,


Chase Amante's picture


Couldn’t tell you. It’ll simply have to be an individual decision!

Personally, I like to mix and match – a little of the old school guys like Sean Connery or James Garner, a little of newer guys like Robert Downey, Jr. or Johnny Depp. Every man’s got his own leanings, and certain things from certain guys will appeal to you more than others.

I will say it’s quite possible to combine more solid, masculine mannerisms with long hair. See Tom Cruise in The Last Samurai as just one example (doesn’t play up his sexiness in that role, but it’s a nice solid masculine showing with long hair); I’m sure there are plenty of others but none are coming to mind at the moment. You can certainly do the rocker/eccentric Captain Sparrow/Keith Richards deal with long hair too… all just a matter of preference


Vegeta's picture

Macaulay Culkin is the poor man's Ryan Gosling

Chase Amante's picture

You know, I've got to say, his appearance has always kind of creeped me out... he was bad as a kid, and he looks like one of those "after meth" horror stories now as a 35-year-old... but he's had no trouble pulling some cute Hollywood tail even though he's done, what, practically nothing since Home Alone 2, right?

Culkin's girlfriends


Normal guy's picture

Hi Chase,

This has been really really interesting, as usual! So congrats for that.

I was wondering whether you could do a post about how to pick up celebrities. I mean, many times I've come accross (in many different places such as bars, street, congresses, shopping...) with women that, rather than being celebrities, they are well known 'cause they are more often than not on the news or the TV. That has an effect on the way the interaction takes places, 'cause if you cold-approach them, they most likely will assume that you're just talking to them because they are famous (and not because we find them attractive).

So how to avoid coming out as a stalker or a fan when cold approaching famous (or just publicly known) women?

Thanks in advance and congrats again

Chase Amante's picture

Normal Guy-

I’ll add it to our topics list!

Although for now, I will say just “Treat her the same as any other girl.”

I’ve had girls I’ve picked up and everything went as usual, then at some point one I’d find out she’s been in this magazine or that video or she’s a local news reporter, etc.

I’ve also had girls I’ve met up with for the date already knowing up front that she’s a news anchor. Either way, you just treat her like normal and she’ll be ready to go home with you like any girl.

Just because you’re some kind of celebrity doesn’t mean you walk around expecting special treatment or anything. And most TV news reporters have terrible hours and worse pay… the news industry just milks the life out of them until they get married and leave the industry around age 30. Some guys might flip out about her being on TV, but those aren’t the guys she’s excited about. The guys she’s excited about are the ones who aren’t going to dismiss it like it’s nothing (“Oh, you’re a reporter? Well, I don’t watch TV!”), yet aren’t going to freak out either (“OMG, you’re on KGTYN? No way!! I KNEW I recognized you! Here, sign my arm…”).


lao che's picture

very good read. well done, chase. and thank you

J.B's picture

Forgot Don Draper. Out of this world fundamentals. I try to emulate his mannerisms when im at a bar.

dantee's picture

I have met an awfully rich woman in her late thirties on a good position, head of a company. Very attractive and sexually forward. She fases me a bit. I know she's seeing someone but she is open to explore her options anyway.
Is there any way of keeping her around? What could possibly make such a woman subdue?

Alexander's picture

It seems that people often post comments that are unrelated or barely related to the article. Plus, it requires time to moderate them only to later answer them for free. Also, old articles seem to be receiving comments all the time, but aren't answered, since people come from search engines or recommended articles to read them and you only answer comments on newest articles(for free).
Plus, people are posting on your forum and many other forums, but are getting answers from amateurs & trolls or when you're answering, you are doing it for free. Not good either way plus forums are difficult to maintain and moderate.

It's time to start making money out of it! :)

I think all this shows there is a demand for Q&A section on the site. A premium (i.e. paid) section where people would be getting good answers from competent people. For example: answers on specific situations in a relationship, analysis of their approach/lay and tips for improvement, tailored behavior/fashion tips, beginner/advanced troubles, recovering from mistakes etc. Even if there is an article that is close to their question, it might not address it fully(e.g. You write "don't pay for a date" in an article, but there are some exceptions to this, so when someone asks a question about paying, you analyze them and give a tailored advice) - don't just link to an article they will read for free when they are willing to pay to have a question answered and you can offer higher quality, tailored answer.

When people are paying:

  • They value the service more.
  • No moderation of negativity & trolling.
  • It leads to higher profits for the company.

At the bottom(or maybe even middle or top) of an article, you could for example, instead of comments, have a banner link to a Q&A section. Maybe put an ad on a forum and tell senior members not to answer for free, so that a newbie who wants a quality free answer will see an ad, click on it and pay for an answer if he wants to get a quality answer.

You time is valuable, don't give it away for free so easily.

Chase Amante's picture


I appreciate the thoughts here.

I tried not writing / not responding to comments last year for about 6 months, to focus on business development, and it ended up pulling me away from the business and I got little done on Girls Chase during that period. Ended up being anti-productive.

Comment replying largely serves the purpose of keeping me in touch with the business and on top of what guys’ biggest questions are. It’s one thing to read what guys have to say; it’s another to have to analyze their questions, pick them apart, and respond. All the best (and most financially successful) offers in the pickup marketplace right now come from instructors who spent years coaching – there’s a good reason for that. No shortcut to deep / thorough coaching expertise other than to tackle all the issues, often multiple times.

We could build a pay-for-advice business, but I’ve yet to see one that’s all that profitable. The issue with that would be limited volume, and limited rates. Sort of like charging for a Reddit AMA – start charging to ask questions, and you’ll turn it into a ghost town, no matter who’s speaking. People don’t place too high a value on that kind of thing. Plus, it turns it into a job for me – right now, I just answer comments when I have time to spare, and when I feel like doing it. Gives me ideas for new articles, keeps me in touch with the readers, and prevents me from wading into the Land of Abstract Theory, which is where most guys who’ve been teaching PUA for too long and fall too out-of-touch with their bases eventually drift too.

Anyway, I’m done with the new course fairly soon – we schedule this week and shoot next month. Once that’s up and we can rebuild the site around that, we should be doing well enough that I can focus on training new writers in writing for the site properly (my mistake the first time around) and start taking a back seat from the day-to-day. I likely won’t be writing or commenting much by the end of this year.

For now though… it’s a *fairly* efficient way for me to keep my pulse on the site, that isn’t demanding on my time… if I don’t feel like answering comments, I simply don’t answer comments!


Sam2's picture


I found this article very interesting and thought-provoking, mainly because I disagree, not with your findings, but with how your favouring of the "Old Sexy" serves the masculine model you want us to be, namely, the fast-moving, sparkling, sexy lover.

If we accept the assumption that most men want to have as much sex as possible with hot, young women between 20 and 25, then I don't see how a Connery-style man would get that without trapping himself in the "ideal-whole-package-husband-candidate" type of man.

My assumption is that Connery-style, strong, silent guys would:
1) Receive less approach invitations from women (especially hot and young)
2) Be considered intriguing and mysterious, but highly unattainable
3) Be considered charming and suitable for something long-term, but "too heavy" for something short-term
4) Attract women by being so different, but alienate the great majority of them, sending them to autorejection

Where do I get these assumptions from? Just personal experience with actually leaning myself as a man towards that very type of man and seing my more jerky, boyish friends doing actually better with women, especially the younger ones and especially in the short-term.

Overall, I think any sexy, smart bartender with a t-shirt would make a killing in terms of fast sex with hot, young women compared to a Connery type of guy.

In terms of sexual effectiveness, therefore, I would pick Goseling anytime over Connery, because while the latter would surely be the protagonist of a young woman's fantasy, the former would actually be the one who would bed her.

Chase Amante's picture


Some great points here.

Younger women do need a more energetic, more aggressive approach. Or at least a more rebellious one. A 40-something Connery, laid back and subtle, simply looks too aloof and is too hard to read for an inexperienced younger woman who needs more blatant signs.

Gosling’s advantage in a matchup here would be on the initial approach; because he has a more active energy, it’s much easier for me to envision him doing, say, a street stop or a nightclub cold approach much more congruently, which lets him get a lot of volume going. Connery’s style lends itself better to opportunistic sniper-style game; pick a good target, elicit an approach invitation, go in for the kill.

As for the approach invitations, yeah, that’s a tossup. Sometimes girls won’t give the more active guy (Gosling) an AI, because they figure he’s active already so they’d rather just wait for him to approach and keep all their cards in their hands. Whereas a more relaxed Connery type will get more invites to try and prompt him into gear. On the other hand, the more active guy is better at getting himself noticed, particularly in noisy/crowded environments, and particularly for less confident women, a girl can be more confident her approach invitation will be received and acted on if she’s already seen the guy do other approaches (like a Gosling likely would be doing), as opposed to the guy who’s just standing at the bar eying the crowd sipping his drink (like a Connery likely would be doing).

Personally, when I’ve run more active Gosling-like game, it’s tended to get me more but shallower approach invitations. I get more of them, but the women I approach this way aren’t as sold – it seems to be a “Well, so long as you’re approaching women, you might as well come over here and let me see what you’ve got” kind of thing. Whereas when I’m running more targeted Connery-like game, it’s tended to get me fewer but stickier approach invitations… in this case, the girl seems to be more outright intrigued than she is mildly curious, as with Gosling-game.

I’ve seen a lot of smooth/playful-vs-bouncy/energetic style matchups by various guys over the years, targeting younger (18 to 24 y/o) women, and I’ve seen it go both ways repeatedly. What it really boils down to more than anything is not the guy’s style so much as whether he goes for the close. She might like the one guy more than the other, but if he doesn’t get compliance and move things along, and the other guy does, she’ll go with the action-taker every time.


Breeze's picture

Hi Chase: my request /question is unrelated to the article.

I've gone on a few first dates in the last couple of months, and some of these women I've talked to recently mostly (with a few exceptions) seem to have a belief that the first date is the man's audition for him to prove why she should give him a second chance. And apparently what I'm being told by some women (without them directly stating so) is that they kinda expect (based on their experiences) for guys to show off and showboat on first dates, and bring alot of energy, which would in turn allow them to warm up and be swept off of their feet. I am generally a low energy person by nature, especially with people I don't know very well. It's not a fear of people but more of a situation where "system at rest stays at rest unless acted upon by an outside force." That outside force for me is: wonder, amazement; I need to know why I should care about their existence to stop being bored. If a woman isn't particularly good looking (i.e. 6 or 7) I necessarily have to be in a certain mood and state in order to just let go (i.e., stop thinking/analyzing/learning/pattern recognizing) to get in a state of mind where I just improvise and go on auto-pilot to crack jokes, have witty banter, tease. I like to tell myself that women are so much more than their looks, but my emotional system doesn't react much at all to women that aren't the most attractive. So I'm trying to see (empiricist) if it's possible to get around this barrier. Trying to bring energy with someone who I don't vibe with yet is draining to me. Maybe because I don't know how to do it well with new people that I don't really know or care all that much about. I just don't want to be tryhard. And so I tend to stay aloof but it seems like I'm in a quandry.

The problem is that as we know, women are always looking for a reason rule men out. Bringing energy and making women have a good time is very important to make them feel a desire to have a man continue to stay in their lives. And in a city with alot of male competition with highly educated women (that make up a majority of the dating pool), many women I've met apparently have astronomical idealistic standards for male partners, and you usually don't get too many second chances with these women. Not that any one woman's opinions of me matters to me because there are so many other women around, but alot of guys have learned either by trial and error or otherwise to be bringers of energy and to show off on first dates. And some women seemingly have gotten used to this kind of behavior. They don't want BORING!! However, some women perceive low energy or aloof (or bored until I have a reason to warm up) as not particularly exciting (i.e., boring). But I can't help being bored or aloof if I see no reason not to be.

Bringing the energy is an important skill in "game" that I feel I should hone. But it's impossible at the moment for me to just "turn on" and go high energy on any crowd or any woman. I usually need to react to someone first and then play off of their energy. But in the dating arena, it's the man's responsibility to lead, and as such I need to figure out a way to bring energy that suits my personality, but also to be able to do so without first needing to warm up to a woman.

Bringing energy however is difficult for me when I'm bored and see no real reason to be excited by a woman yet. And by not being highly energetic (until I have a reason to) has led to recent dates where some women have made subtle commens like: "you're not very talkative" (this is because I spend time getting them to talk more than I talk, and I respond: "I'm the strong silent type"). Other women have said things along the lines of: "I've met alot of men that overcompensate on first dates" (thus drawing an unstated contrast between those other higher-energy men and I... to which I respond along the lines of: "I need to check out the goods prior to jumping in"). But what I think I'm hearing women say to me is: "bring more energy, sweep me off my feet, I don't want to think, I want to lose control and FEEL good and let you lead the way!" They want to be seduced.

But for my personality, I need a woman to seduce me first, to make me feel desire to bring energy, to want to want to persist, to want to lead them toward sex. I would feel fake (and tryhard) in bringing energy to an interaction with a woman I'm not yet sold on or if I'm bored. But I'm starting to think that a lack of bringing energy (without first being seduced by a woman) may be hampering my progress a certain percentage of the demographic. Why? Because some women may also be hanging back and themselves aloof, in need of male energy to crack them open (so to speak) so that their inner personality (among other things) comes out. Thus far in my life, I wait until I'm sold on a woman before I bring energy, I turn on and push for sex, etc. However, this dynamic means that I have to meet women that have bubbly extroverted personalities that makes interaction with them very easy.

Not all women are like that.

The challenge that I want to undertake now to improve my social skills is to take women that I'm neutral to or even mildly bored with, and to use my energy that I bring to crack them open and then let their personality shine out, which (if I like their personality) would allow them to feel desire to warm me up further and expose their interesting side.

Any thoughts on how to bring energy (even when a woman hasn't seduced you yet)? I don't want to have to wait any more on whether a woman is a 9/10, or whether she is super extroverted, or some other factor beyond my control. For example, check out Steve Harvey. He seems to have the ability to bring the energy in almost any situation. If check out Steve, he doesn't wait on others...he has the ability to cause others to react to him. It is a talent that he's honed, and he makes it appear effortless, but this is what I mean when I say I want to be able to bring the energy without first having to wait on whether I strongly like the girl...

Any thoughts?

Chase Amante's picture


My big thought here is “Why do these women see this as a date?”

If you can get girls to quit viewing their first date with you as a “first date”, you avoid having to deal with their expectations for what a first date ought to be like.

Your challenge here – where it’s “Here’s what these women expect out of me for a date; geez, now how do I compete at the same level their OTHER first dates have done it?” is a losing mentality, because now you’re competing against unknown opponents on a dimension that’s not to your advantage according to rules set by the girl. Those are deeply unfavorable conditions.

I assume, since these women are viewing their meetups with you as “dates” or “auditions”, you’d benefit from making your initial approaches and how you set up your dates more casual. The aim should be for her to be ambiguous on exactly what this is… yes, you’re a guy and a girl meeting, but you’re not auditioning to be her boyfriend.

The aim should be for her to say to herself, “Ooh, this guy I like wants to see me. Is it a date? Is he just being friendly? I don’t know! But I’m excited!”

As soon as you are taking women on dates like this, now it is no longer about whether you are checking off the items on her checklist or how you compare to her prior dates, but instead it’s simply about a girl meeting up with a guy she finds alluring. Then, you can approach the date in a position to make things happen.


Lawliet's picture

Hi Chase,

Thanks for these articles that are related to fundamentals (somewhat).
I have been trying my best to work on my fundamentals and your articles on who's a good model helps!

Re: Modelling
The commenter asked a question I had in my mind for a while too: Why use old models in your articles? I want to add more confusion to the pile: How to tell who's a sex symbol and who's not?

The list above is small, but I'm sure they are more sexy men out there in the common life and also in celebrities world, South Asia Celebrities, Bollywood, Hollywood, KTV etc.
Don't get me wrong, the list has exemplars!
But if people can recognize a good model that's someone they're more familiar with on TV (not everyone watches Connery sadly :( ) or even sex symbols in their life, it'll help people find models attuned to their own style and the process becomes natural.

If there's some pointers for "How to tell he's a sex symbol?" so people don't end up modelling Justin Bieber (don't quote me on this or legions of fan girls will be after my ass, "he might be just cute?") or a non-sexy friend, that'll be great!

His hair, muscular body and clothes look good, so I assume there's more to fundamentals than these to make a man truly sexy.

Re: Finding the spanner in my fundamentals
Continuation with the coat change and fundamentals.
Ever since that experience, I get the feeling "casual formal coats is good fundamentals" but it's not; it's everything.

Strange enough, the receptivity goes up and down. One day it's on, and reception is super warm. Girl who I commented on her hair offhandedly excitedly says thanks and continues giving me her attention. Same with the girl I asked for the time because my phone died, continued to give me a :3 look, still looking behind to meet my eyes as she walked away.

I was getting glances from many people walking past me and guys and girls who walk out of my way when coming from the opposite direction which I mentioned last time. But the next day, same outfit, no one looked. It was as if all of a sudden, my fundamentals are non-existent; point zero! Whatever reception I had before was gone as if something changed, some glow was gone and I wasn't as outstanding as the day before. One day fully on; the next fully off.

What's going on? It feels like there's a spanner in the gears somewhere and has a massive effect on my fundamentals and appeal all of a sudden.

Side note: That coat gets me more reception but I get more results (and more failures) with the hoodie. Strange.

Re: Knowing what to tweak
As you said in an article, guys who want to get better with girls go after cars, and good clothes, but that's not it.

You can't see me unfortunately to verify where I'm at right now, but I'll try to list what I can so I can get the vibe down right.
I've worked on walk, posture, slow and deliberate, eye contact, what else should I work on to make myself top fundamentals? Should I work on muscles? I hear girls don't like too big ones and say it's gross.

Re: Parting words
It's funny how many things are out there for women to improve their fundamentals but not as much for men. Despite of being born ugly, they can improve many things to top their value.

Just walk down the women section at a shop and there's numerous things: cosmetics, hairstyling, hairclips, ear rings, hair bands, make up, feminine wear for enhancing illusions etc. Countless!

But if you walk down the men section, you see a couple of jackets, pair of trousers, and a couple formal shoes. All screaming : "Become a provider by wearing these good clothes!"

Even in some TV shoes, we see men in a fantastic 1000$ outfit with some upbeat music to cue a sexy character as they walk slowly in $500 loafers toward the heroine.

As I see more of this, I'm affected too by this, whether it's media or what we see everyday and somewhere in the back of my head, a belief that fundamentals is all about good clothes and haircut lies there. Clearly, that's not the way for lovers to roll and there's more than just expensive high tier clothes. Or it might not be about expensive clothes at all! Need to get that casual coat as fundamentals idea out of my head.

Expensive clothes and shoes does not equal fundamentals!
Well...if they are, I'll hit a huge wall in my progress haha!

No wonder so many men go after the wrong things. It's because things that are advertised and accessible aren't the right things. Cars? Money? Clothes? A 100$ haircut?
But then...what is the answer?

Thanks Chase,

Chase Amante's picture


The easiest way to figure out who’s a sex symbol and who isn’t is to watch movies with girls and see how they react to various actors. You’ll notice some actors get very strong reactions from myriad girls, while other actors get no real reaction from girls, or even dislike/distaste/disgust.

As for reactions to different things you do, it largely seems to be due to randomness. Look up the “hot hand fallacy” if you want more detail on that. Much of the time when you think you’re on a hot streak, though, it’s really just you randomly having a bunch of good things happen in a row. And a “cold streak” is just a bunch of random bad things happening in a row. To get around this, you want to focus on your averages and try not to be swayed too much by the outlier days.

For fundamentals, check out the categories page on these. Any of these are fair game. All help. Pick something you want to work on, then work on it.

And clothes, they don’t have to be expensive, but good-looking clothes are always good. I suggest you look for places to get inexpensive-yet-attractive clothing – there’s a whole board devoted to fashion on the forum with posts on doing exactly this.


JasonVL's picture

Hi Chase

What a fun article! Can you suggest any movies in particular with these guys so I can observe their body language and that sorta thing?


Jake's picture

Crazy Stupid Love(Ryan Gosling), Dr No, From Russia with Love(Sean Connery), Oceans Eleven(Clooney), Rebel Without a Cause(James Dean). There are plenty of movies, just search em up. But the ones I mentioned are pretty good as well.


kingdavid's picture

Interesting article. I didn't find the Connery/Clooney comparison entirely relevant though, I can't really see any similarity between the two. Clooney has always seemed rather effeminate to me, and I've heard several women echo that feeling. He's very charming and smooth but in a gay way almost. Perhaps a more appropriate comparison would have been Cary Grant or any of the great charmers of old Hollywood -- Don Ameche, Jimmy Stewart or Charles Boyer amongst others.
As for Connery, he has always been an enigma, as Bond at least. You can't deny his tremendous charm but at the same time, he's not warm and doesn't seem particularly generous. Not the kind of guy who would have many friends and actually he never really has a significant relationship with anyone except maybe Moneypenny. There's always a distance. All that makes him very difficult to emulate which annoys me because I'm his greatest fan.
I'd love to see more articles like this, and especially one in which you could shed more light on Connery's character, and perhaps also analyze other great seducers like Richard Burton.
All the best, David

Add new comment

The Latest from GirlsChase.com