The Two Sides | Girls Chase

The Two Sides

pua vs. manosphere
Why do some men cultivate themselves to get more dates, sex, and girlfriends, while others become culture warriors? It is the yin and yang of group morality.

I started off writing an article response to a commenter’s question about how to get inside women’s heads and understand what they’re thinking and why they think it. And I’ll still complete that article at some point and post it. But while I was writing it, I branched off into another direction – into this article.

One of the biggest divides you see among readers and commenters on Girls Chase are the guys who want to know how to change to get better results with girls, and the guys who want girls to change to be and do what they want.

Usually my advice is if you’re in that latter category, you’re going to spend a lot of time feeling angry and frustrated until you move into the former category. That doesn’t mean you become undiscriminating about the girls you go for; the more desirable a man you make yourself, the choosier about girlfriends you’re able to be and the more willing those girlfriends become to bend for you. However, it does mean if you choose this path that you seek to adjust yourself, rather than chide others to adjust.

But of course, chiding others to do and be what we wish is an age-old, widespread feature of human societies. It’s ubiquitous, and almost everyone does it.

And when you see a trend like that, that should tell you this kind of chiding and castigation serves some kind of function.

Today, I want to pick apart these two sides for you: what the difference is between those who look inward, and those who look outward.

And it won’t be as simple as the former are the enlightened and the latter are the fools.

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


Liam's picture


Great to see this piece; I recently added The Righteous Mind to my to-read list, and I've been spending lots of time thinking about the difference between my girlfriend (a culture warrior) and me (more self-focused). It really confused me until recently.

The way I summed it up after resolving some of my confusion: there are two kinds of people - one wants to help himself by changing his circumstances (society/cultural norms), the other wants to help himself by changing himself (skills/mindsets).

One question: do you have personal methods for thinking through a topic like this?

On this specific case of conservatives vs liberals, for example, I've mostly come to conclusions by haphazardly observing small numbers of people on both sides, reading some literature/propaganda on both sides, attempting to ascertain their personal and group values, and all with a small mix of book reading about biology/psychology/morality/history.

I'm attempting to be more methodical about it, but mostly it's just absorbing one detail after another in a somewhat random way until a pattern emerges.

Any thoughts?

Also - it's inspiring that you're able to weigh in with a larger, historically-informed perspective. Actually your style of doing so has really influenced the way I think about topics like politics and societal norms and inspires me to be more historical and big-picture, as well as non-judgmental yet realistic; thanks Chase!

Chase Amante's picture


Right, the "change self" vs. "change others" dichotomy.

Well, how I think about how people think... Goes like this. There are essentially two extremes on any dimension. People think about things one way or they think about them another. I'm not sure why it's two, and not, say, three, or four, but on specific dimensions they seem to nearly always just have the two poles.

Between those two poles is an entire spectrum, and people can be anywhere along that spectrum, most of them clustered somewhere around the middle. However, contrasting between a bunch of people clustered around a fuzzy middle is hard, so it's often easier to polarize them for the sake of figuring things out.

So, when I look at an issue, the first thing I'll ask is, "Where do I see poles in this issue?" Often they aren't hard to spot, because as people argue with each other, they polarize each other. So someone who's slightly left on one issue argues with someone who's slightly right on that issue, and in the course of arguing they both drive each other toward the extremes of their sides of the spectrum.

Once you've identified the poles, the next thing to ask is, "How would one need to view the world for this pole to be the most sensible way to respond to and interact with the world?" To use this one, you have to operate under the assumption that people are rational and are not blind, dumb idiots (which is what many people seem to think the other people on the opposite side of an argument from them are). Usually you want to look at what the objects of the person's stated viewpoints are and work back from there. Why would he want to achieve this? Why is this better than the current state of affairs? How does this benefit him?

And then of course the last piece is realizing that the two sides are on opposite sides not because one is good and one is evil, but because they both have different values for what makes something good. For instance, a political conservative might view upholding tradition as stabilizing and safeguarding, and tearing it down as anarchic and suicidal. Meanwhile, a political liberal might view the tearing down of tradition as liberating and progressive, and the upholding of it as stifling and restrictive.

The political liberal is not a "suicidal anarchist" who wants to sow destruction, like the conservative may view him; he doesn't sit there rubbing his hands and saying, "Mua-ha-ha, let's see what traditions I can destroy today, as we move toward a world where nothing makes sense and all is chaos!!" He thinks he is freeing people from needless restraints and enabling progress into a new golden era. Meanwhile, the political conservative is not a "stick-up-his-butt jailer" who wants to wind the clock back to a lost past, like the liberal may view him; he doesn't sit there going, "We're going to force everyone to live in suffering silence, following senseless rules and living in a static, unchanging society!" He thinks he is giving order and meaning to life, and staving off the nihilistic decay he sees in a too-progressive world.

So it comes down to finding the poles, then teasing out the key values of each side, and asking how each side sees itself, why it views itself as righteous and the other side as ignorant, confused, or morally bankrupt, and also being aware of my own biases (any time you get that feeling of, "Well, this one actually IS the right side and the other side is just horrible," you're in danger of mischaracterizing the other side, and thus not actually getting them and what they're about. And until you understand your opponent, you usually won't beat him, and you definitely won't reconcile with him).


Nate's picture

Fascinating topic Chase. I’m going to give my thoughts, as well as challenge you on a few things.

You split this into two sides, Seducers vs. manosphere. I would say that I definitely started off as the former; I was only interested in doing well for myself. I am definitely a liberal, I’ve never like the whiny manosphere types, and I was not interested in any culture war, especially since liberals seemed to be "winning."

But then, despite not seeking it out, a great awareness of the ongoing war started to gradually make itself known in bits and pieces as the fighting got closer and closer to me: a campus kangaroo court here, a twitter mob over a scientist’s shirt there… Then things started to really explode.

“Affirmative consent” laws which make sex rape by default are being considered as the potential law of the land. (

Basic freedoms like speech and assembly have begun to be curtailed. The US made talking to any woman on campus a potential incident of “sexual harassment,” no matter how subjective. The EU added “anti-feminism” to a list of hate-crimes to be “eliminated.” A Canadian man faced criminal trial for disagreeing with Feminists on Twitter. It went on and on.

And it hasn’t slowed down. You posit that “the momentum does seem to be on the manosphere side of things right now.” I would disagree. I think you’ve detected a trend toward sexual conservatism in the female population and mistaken it for a swing of the general political pendulum back toward conservative-traditionalism, when, in fact, this is the result of a concerted effort by radically neovictorian, anti-sex feminists to control sexual norms… an effort that is wildly succeeding. I don’t think we’ve seen anything yet.

Sexual harassment now includes such offenses as “unwanted attention,” “someone coming up to you when you’ve given no signal you’re interested,” and “‘creepy guys who stand too close.” (

I realized two things. The first is that the battle was not between liberals and conservatives. It is between actual liberals and genuine radical extremists who are not only interested in sexual control for the power it brings, but are wholeheartedly opposed to every principle Liberalism stands for ( And they are winning. So I think your battle of the sexes narrative is far too narrow; this is much bigger than that.

British police are now patrolling the streets looking for crimes of “Misogyny” such as “‘unwanted or uninvited verbal contact or engagement,” and “unwanted sexual advances.” (

Do you want to be trying to daygame in that environment? It may soon become not just taboo, but a crime.

So the second is that, as much as I wanted to just be a free individual, you can’t remain free if someone is trying to deprive you of your freedom. Like sometimes happens in war, I realized that I couldn’t remain neutral, that if I did nothing I was liable to wake up in a world I would not want to live in -- a world, in fact where the very things I wanted to do instead of fight a culture war would be impossible. I also felt like, as a man, I had to take some responsibility for more than myself at some point (see: your article on dominant men).

It felt a bit like the famous poem by Niemöller, except something like:

First they came for the Conservatives, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Conservative.

Then they came for the Frat Bros, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Frat Bro.

Then they came for the Old School Feminists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an Old School Feminist.

You get the idea.

Anyway, that’s how the front shifted and I found myself on one side instead of the other.

BR's picture

You're right, but I call it liberalism gone cannibalistic, when it comes to women, and I have to say cause I was once a liberal, that yes liberal guys get laid less. Reason: most of those men care too much about a women's feeling. By you're post you appear to be a young guy in school. I can tell you this, don't talk to campus girls. Out in the real world, you're too busy working, you'll have more money in your pocket, and you can pay for sex. You'll meet all kinds of different women and they won't all be in night clubs. You'll find that most of these women will be lonely and desperate for attention and they will try to get your attention if they see a man with a head on his shoulder or money in his pocket. The you're dealing with or inexperience college girls. Who either want attention or lay their own insecurities on men. Once out of college, they can blog on their computers and whine about why the world isn't going their way. In a nut shell, liberalism is only fucking over women like it did men in the 60'same. Don't worry about it bro. Women are nowadays are trying to play a man's game created by men, but the problem is they aren't men. So leave the college girls alone. Go to a grocery store and you'll notice that the clerk maybe checking you out and lay some mad skills on her. I always hit on chicks while they working (not who I work with very bad) why? Their guard is down and at that point and time you are the customer; so the nanny police won't get you. They need a job to pay bills not social justice, because if she pisees off the customer, she may loose her job - so she'll put up with my shit.
If you want to bed a lot of women, depends on what you want quality or quantity. If you want quantity, should be no problem of bedding a women at least 3 times a weeking minimum. Single mom's are the best they don't want to date - don't have time. They just want you to come over while the kids are asleep and fuck there brains out, but if you are looking for quality - then keep fighting your culture war bro. As you get older you find out pussy isn't everything. Just part of one of the many pleasures of life.

Chase Amante's picture


Post-U.S. presidential election, what's your read on the situation now? I'd be curious if it changed.

My suspicion was that Donald Trump would win since when he announced back in 2015. The reason why was the increasing backlash against the authoritarian left.

When you see a group working overtime to make things law, that's your #1 indication that their hold on society is on the wan. There's no need to make a lot of new laws when the people are with you. You only need informants, spies, and tribunals when the people are not with you and oppression is the only way to keep the lid on dissent.

Had Trump not won, I believe we'd have seen a momentary pronouncement of triumph by the left, followed by even sterner repudiations in the elections immediately following. As it stands right now, the Democrat party (home of liberals and SJWs of all stripes in the United States) has its lowest number of state and federal seats since 1928. This is a backlash that has been quickly unfolding since 2010, and shown little sign of abating. The reason it's getting its butt kicked so bad is because it's turned itself into the party of shaming, moral policing, and smug self-satisfaction, and everyone who's tired of that has been rebelling against it. There are exceptions, of course (like California, which is so divorced from the rest of the U.S. at this point it's discussing possible secession; maybe it would rejoin Mexico?), but for the most part the trend is holding steady.

But yes, as these individuals clamp down and work harder to wield increasingly Orwellian control over the masses, it forces people to pick sides and align themselves for or against that control, even if they'd previously preferred to remain neutral. That's how these things go. The more one side presses (in this case, the until-quite-recently increasingly-authoritarian left), the more everyone is forced to decide if he stands with that side or against it.


Att Hension's picture

We are all at the mercy of our times, unfortunately. I know that game, self-improvement, and all of that matter but we all have to play according to our times.

I've noticed a change in just 8 years, about 8 years ago we were all going crazy over Barack Obama being present. Here came a man who inspired his base and won landslide victories with ease, a part of me does wonder how he would do in this election against Trump. Now, the internet is going strongly for Donald Trump, the same right wing views that would have made you a social outcast in 2008 make you normal or edgy in a good way in 2016.

We've gone from full blown political correctness to it being cool to challenge and make fun of political correctness.

I am hopeful yet scared at the same time when it comes to the future and our culture, this as someone who has aspirations of getting with tons of different women.

Chase Amante's picture


Yeah, it's fascinating, huh?

Obama and Trump tackled many of the same issues, actually, from different angles.

Obama campaigned against the special interests, as the candidate who was not bought and paid for (his campaign resources came from individual donors). Trump campaigned against the special interests, as the candidate who was self-funded and in any event didn't need that much money to run his campaign (instead, he manipulated the media for billions of free advertising).

Obama campaigned against division, by promising to heal the divide. Trump campaigned against division, by promising to be for the people who'd been forgotten by the media and by Washington.

Obama campaigned as the anti-war president who was going to pull us out of Iraq. Trump campaigned as the anti-war candidate who was going to call off all the saber rattling we'd been doing against Russia and Syria.

Obama campaigned as the hope candidate, the one bringing "Change You Can Believe In." Trump campaigned as the hope candidate, the one who was going to "Make America Great Again."

Obama campaigned as the orator, giving magnificent speeches with overflow attendance across the country. Trump campaigned as the orator, giving magnificent speeches with overflow attendance across the country (although his weren't nearly as well covered).

Obama campaigned as a relative outsider. Trump campaigned as a total outsider.

Obama was the "cool" candidate in 2008. Trump was the "cool" candidate in 2016. Both were also despised by the other side (I was in favor of Obama in 2008, and had conservative friends constantly tell me how disgusted they were with him; and I was in favor of Trump in 2016, and had liberal friends constantly tell me how disgusted they were with him).

And of course, both ran against Hillary Clinton, and both had some similar complaints about her.

My suspicion is Trump was America's last chance to stave off rampant racialism. If Clinton got in and continued pushing the left's divisive policies, you would've seen everyone continue to close ranks along tribal affiliations. Trump's an opportunity to dial things down a notch.

Historically, racial tensions come to the fore as economic conditions worsen. All job growth in America since 2000 has gone to immigrants, and the American worker hasn't had a pay raise in something like 25 years. There are 94 million working-age Americans out of the labor force right now (they largely go uncounted by the unemployment numbers). Around 105 million Americans are on some kind of food stamp / EBT / housing assistance / welfare program. If Trump can rejuvenate the nation's economy (as Wall Street seems to think he will right now, judging by stock market performance), we'll see a backing away from the cliff of racial tensions boiling over the pot. If he can't though, things might risk boiling over.


Jimbo's picture

The people you describe as opportunistic and individualistic like PUAs, seducers, and self-improvement-oriented folks, or those who advocate for such an approach in life, would be more accurately called libertarian rather than liberal. The liberals of today are mere leftists and are just as society-oriented as conservatives are; they just want a different type of society and a different order of things (one that's more based in equality, etc.)

Chase Amante's picture


For sure, yeah. That's the trouble as words shift meanings.

Here I'm using "liberal" and "conservative" in the classical sense, as opposed to the American party / society affiliation sense. Both American "liberals" and "conservatives" have become pro-globaliztion, pro-free trade, pro-carbon tax, pro-mass immigration parties who differ only on a few "distraction issues" like abortion, gay marriage, etc. Which really is a hodgepodge of policy positions that fit within neither a classical liberal nor classical conservative framework.


James R's picture

Hey Chase,

I never thought of the liberal vs conservative side of things. You do make a very well laid out point. This would make me assume women would, in general, be more liberal in their mindsets. This makes sense because I'm often shocked when I find out a woman is a conservative. I often think, "Why would they side with conservativism? That's such an old, fat white guy mentality. Why wouldn't you be more in tune with a mentality that allows for females to be sexual?" Also, being liberal is in line with that secret society of sexuality we talk about here and other things along those lines.

Chase, I'm curious what you think of woman who are "gamey" vs women who are not. I've noticed some girls are very gamey with their texts (i.e., taking a very long time to reply), while others are not at all. These ladder types will reply to a text right away.

Is this a function of how socially savvy they are or how into a guy they are?

I've had girls who were very into me be gamey via text and some not at all, and I bed both types. I can't seem to wrap my head around why some girls are generally gamey and others aren't.

Thanks, Chase!


Chase Amante's picture


"Gameiness" generally means she's at an intermediate level with guys. She's experienced enough to not be sweet and naïve enough anymore, but not so experienced she's able to handle things in a natural way that doesn't show.

If she's being gamey, that typically means she likes you enough to put the effort in. If she doesn't like you, she's not going to bother jumping through those hoops.

You'll sometimes meet gamey girls who are trying to use you for conversation or connections or status, etc. But much of the time if she's taking the time to be gamey, she thinks you have potential a lover or a boyfriend.


TheOneRob's picture

Hello Chase,
this is my first comment on this site. I've been lurking on here a ton for half a year and I've got to say this the most inspirational site I know. Thank you for that, I really appreciate your content.

I have a question and I don't know who else to ask because I trust nobody as much in regards to women as you. So it would be really kind if I got an answer. What does it mean when she strongly tries offends you although she flirted heavily with you quite a long time? This girl I'm speaking of touches me and gives me a lot of eye contact, so I thought she might be into me but she repeatedly said to me that I'm really short for a guy (I'm 5'8, she should be around ~5'2), weigh way to less and that I've no muscles. That hurt a lot and made me reconsider approaching women for a while because my confidence really took a hit.

Could it be because I flirted with lots of girls in front of her and she got defensive? I didn't intend that. She made clear that she was somewhat jealous: "Why won't you date her?/You have something with every girl on here."

Now, I could go to the gym again (I think I'm in good shape ATM) but then I would feel like girls only would want me for my muscles.. but otherwise I can't be too sure they really want me. This cycle somewhat depresses me.
I'm a 20 yo kissless virgin.

I've read on girlschase about tests, social calibration and competition among women but that doesn't seem quite to fit my situation. So, what does it mean when she outright offends you?

Thanks for reading, I hope it was understandable. English isn't my first language.

I would really appreciate an answer.


Catalin Simina's picture

Man, I was a 20 yo kissless virgin too, you can go to gym but that wont do you any good she will steel find something about to drag you down the only solution is to stay untouched by her insults, calm and in control, I know its hard and you fill youre loosing youre ground when you are insulted, but with practice You will be desensitised and when you mastered this you can start insult her back with more force and than she will stop and will be very atracted to you but dont start insult her right away cause you're gonna do it from a place of hatred and she will be very much turned off by you, and sometimes she can go irrational and it;s very likely that youre gonna be hurt

Jimbo's picture

That's a classic shit test buddy.

Because, see, some girls are willing to get with short guys (who have other attractive features), but they first need to know how these guys feel about their below-average height: does it make them socially uncomfortable and unconfident or do they still stand tall regardless? If it's the former, if it's obvious that your height makes you feel insecure and a not-so-capable man, then it's a no-no; if on the other hand you show that it doesn't bother you at all, that you're cool with your height and you can carry yourself smoothly and confidently in spite of it (especially next to taller people), then they'll remain attracted to you.

So next time she tells you you're really short for a guy, your response should be: "Yeah so what?" And if she keeps hacking on it after that, say, "If I don't have a problem with it then neither should you." And if she still brings it up after that (highly unlikely) tell to fuck off.

Chase Amante's picture


Yes; if she likes you and you run too many jealousy plotlines in front of her / she sees you go for too many girls, she'll auto-reject. If she starts lobbing insults at you, that's auto-rejection.

An example of this:

This is a tough situation to recover from. Doable, but tough. I'd suggest you check out this article, and see if you can apply it to your situation:


Lawliet's picture

Hey Chase,

Question, when she giggles at you, does that mean attraction up or down or anything around you know?

In my umbrella days, a girl asked why I was holding an umbrella.
Me: Gotta protect my skin [from the sun]:)
Her: (giggles)

Would that be attraction + or down?

But I also know some girls giggling together while they talk about a cute guy also.
Which would be attraction +. I think

Your thoughts on girl mentality ?
Secret secret!


Chase Amante's picture


Hard to know for sure without seeing the exact context... But giggles are signs of attraction 98% of the time, in my experience. Girls who aren't attracted will give you more of a head nod / eyebrow shrug / skeptical smile combo, rather than giggles... usually. Exceptions for everything, of course. But usually giggles are a good thing. Cute and girly, right? ;)


Add new comment

The Latest from