(4) Advanced

If you’ve ever been stuck in a rut – and got out of it – you may have noticed your emergence came with a change. Here’s why to embrace change rather than stagnate.

Trial and error is an essential process in learning about and developing yourself. It can apply to many aspects of life, especially with women and dating. It can be hard to admit that something you’re doing when it comes to dating may not be working in your favor.

Obviously, if you knew that, it wouldn’t be a problem, so to process this, it’s beneficial to think about your past relationships or hookups. If you realize that your current method in whatever you are pursuing isn’t benefiting you, then the natural response should be to change your method to get different results – ideally positive results.

This change can happen on many levels: your appearance, social circle, or daily activities. Change may even occur on a more personal level that could, in turn, shape your perspective on what type of women interest you. More importantly, know that you have many resources available to help you make the change necessary. In changing something about yourself, know that you don’t have to be a guinea pig.

Picking up girls in groups can be tedious (male competition, bitchy friends). These hit-and-run tactics soften up defenses and set you up for when you re-engage.

Hey guys. Welcome back. Today I decided to write a follow up to my group theory post and also reference my post on screening (sniper game) that I wrote two weeks ago. The reason is that both these subjects are related in that they cover the early phase of male-to-female interactions, namely the opening and the hook.

Screening for inaccessible girls will affect the dynamic of how you deal with a group. Those subjects are somewhat related. For example, if you screen for a group and one girl seems bitter, that will affect the way you deal with that group. Similarly, if the vibe of the group seems closed-off, that could also affect the dynamic of the group.

But I will not repeat myself too much, as this has already been covered. Today I want to review a technique that I've discussed before. Let’s talk about how to deal with groups and difficult groups.

Hit-and-run means going up to a girl, delivering some good material, and quickly getting out of the interaction. The idea is to:

• Create intrigue (by leaving, you create the “who is that guy” effect)

• Create comfort (by leaving, you communicate that you are not needy or pushy)

• Handle resistance – for instance, if you deliver a very direct sexual line and you leave before they are allowed to react, the effects will stick but the resistance will be dodged

• Create tension and stimulate her mentally by the fractionating effects

In a previous post where I wrote about hit-and-run, I discussed how you can use this technique to dodge the approach shield. This is when a girl acts bitchy when you approach her. By leaving a girl after you approach her, you communicate that you are not needy and pushy, which makes her more likely to accept your presence. Add intrigue to this, and you get a good mix.

In another post, I discuss how to use this concept to deliver very powerful sexual lines. Go in, deliver something juicy, and leave before she can resist. Enjoy the effects without the resistance.

And lastly, by doing lots of hit-and-runs to build social proof quickly via many quick interactions, you become perceived as the man who knows everybody – and more importantly every girl.

I will not be discussing many new ideas in this post but instead tie it all together in light of how to deal with groups, particularly those that pose a challenge (less-accessible groups).

So let’s discuss how you can use this hit-and-run strategy to deal with common but difficult scenarios.

agency [ey-juhn-see]

noun, plural a·gen·cies.

the ability to make your own choices and act independently, free from the influence or pressure of others.

The subject of women's agency is one both feminist circles and the manosphere have debated almost since each movement's inceptions. Although these two movements approach things from different perspectives, and arrive at their conclusions via opposite routes, they both reach the same conclusion: that no, women do not have agency.

From the feminist side of things, here's a "veteran advocate, activist and educator" who pushes for "genuine sexual liberation and self-acceptance for women" (bio) who declares most women have no sexual agency. And here's the World Bank, a global financial institute and progressive spearhead organization (which has "promote gender equality" as one of its signature 'development goals'; it's also focused on, for instance, fighting manmade global warming), claiming that "girls and boys, and later women and men, have unequal capacity to exercise agency."

The consensus among feminists and other progressives is that women are deficient in agency. The reason they're deficient, feminists and progressives tell us, is because oppressive patriarchal systems and brutish, insensitive men sideline women from decision making -- even within their own lives.

The manosphere side arrives at the same conclusion as progressives and feminists -- that women are lacking in agency -- yet deduce this from a different set of clues. In the manosphere, examples of depraved, seemingly immoral behavior by women and the reliance of much of the modern female lifestyle on contraceptives, as well as the dearth of women who aspire to "higher values" as opposed to men, are pointed to when making the case that "[a] woman’s lack of agency is something neither to celebrate, nor despise. It is something to accept."

The consensus among red pill and manosphere thinkers, just like feminists and progressives, is that women are deficient in agency. The reason they're deficient, red pill and manosphere thinkers tell us, is because they are simply biologically incapable of freeing their decision-making from emotions, from accepting blame for mistakes they've made, or from hewing to any ideals higher than the most base, primitive necessary to run a life in a society.

It would seem that, while feminist, progressive, red pill, and manosphere thinkers might argue about the source, they all agree on the outcome: women lack agency.

So it might appear the debate is settled. Now we're just arguing about who's to blame: Mother Nature, or outdated, patriarchal men.

But I have another perspective on female agency.

Because I've seen all the things these thinkers talk about. I've also seen a lot of other things. And I've spent a lot of time up close with women, digging deep into their thinking and behavior beyond what they are even typically consciously aware of themselves doing, and beyond what most outside analysts believe they are doing too.

It's led me to the conclusion that women do not lack agency at all. Not in the feminist way, and not in the manosphere way, at least.

Instead, women beguile -- something they're exceptionally good at -- as part of how they act with agency in the world.

A woman uses the cloak of lack of agency as part of her real agency. Feminists further the agenda because it furthers theirs; male progressives and manosphere men alike push this female agenda (coming at it from different start points) because they buy it and believe the performance.

But a performance is what it is.

In a non-monogamous relationship, is it ethical to keep your partners in the dark about each other? Let’s explore the reasons why it is – for you and for them.

Girls Chase reader Damien asked me a question about a relationship he had with a woman that lasted two years in a non-monogamous setup. He noted that his girlfriend was mostly drama-free and easy to manage, which is the way it should be.

However, Damien also mentioned that he felt like he was lying to her at times by withholding information about what he was doing with other girls. I thought this was an interesting topic to explore in the context of this system and non-monogamy in general.

Damien writes:

““I had a non-monogamous relationship for two years where I ran things exactly like described in this article, but it always felt like I was lying to the girl (even though I was just not telling her the details). Also, that girl was low-drama and easy to manage.”

So, should a man tell his partner about all his activities, or is it better for him to protect his partner by withholding certain information that he knows could be harmful to their relationship? It’s a tough question, one that is worthy of an article because it’s the central concept of understanding how the harem system works – and all implicit systems.

We’re going to explore the ethics and philosophy behind the harem system. As you’ll see, the system was not designed to enable men to lie to women – quite the opposite. It was designed to protect and sustain women and to look out for their interests.

It’s a non-monogamous system, so it does largely cater to men. After all, it’s an innate male desire to have sex with many different partners, and there’s no getting around that. For women, the system holds a different promise, and most of it is dependent on the man.

Even monogamous guys who have been with the same woman in a loving relationship for many years feel a desire for other kinds of pussy. Not every guy gives in to their desires, but I do know many men and women in monogamous setups who do, which might make it the most dishonest agreement of all. It’s not just men that have a desire to sleep around. Often, women share the same level of horniness as men – or even more so.

Emotionally, women always desire to be with the strongest man in the pool and seek commitment and security with that man exclusively. Sexuality, however, can be very different.

Most times, a woman won’t cheat on her man or even consider sleeping with other men if she’s sexually satisfied by her main partner, because there’s no reason for her to. With this in mind, let’s talk about the implications of the system.

You can't win every fight. But how you handle the situations where you must back down a bit determines how those you're in the fight with treat you.

Jimbo commented in my article on meeting girls while staying safe in a paranoid dating society, asking me to review a recent, controversial article on the Washington Post. The article was titled "Thanks for not raping us, all you 'good men.' But it's not enough."

The article itself is a screed against the male sex, both the 'bad men' who aren't conciliatory and inclusive enough toward women, and the 'good men' who are, but who lack the spine to put the bad men in their place and don't in any event ever really change things to make the world a sufficiently female-inclusive one.

I don't want to comment much on the argument itself... I don't think I need to, given our audience. The positions and arguments are nonsensical; the beliefs hyperbolic. The vast majority of commentators in the comment section of the article take the author to task for her abusiveness toward her cowed, yoked husband.

And I'll comment only briefly on the dynamic. It looks like the dynamic you get in a long-term relationship with a strong-willed, opinionated woman, and a quiet, acquiescent man. The woman becomes increasingly emboldened, abusive, and sometimes vampiric over time. The man, with his quiet acceptance of her behavior, serves as her enabler and as a source of narcissistic supply. You can have this dynamic with the sexes reversed too: domineering husband, codependent/enabling wife, or domineering wife, codependent/enabling husband. It's an unhealthy dynamic for both parties, and it's created by both parties. A domineering partner cannot domineer without the retreat and acquiescence of the codependent one. You're only seeing one blowup fight in this article... but in my experience looking at the woman's writing style, how she frames the fight, and her pride in putting it out there and expecting to be patted on the back for her righteousness (rather than ashamed at this uncharacteristic explosion, which is how most women are when they do something nasty that is truly out of character), all that fits the pattern of a domineering partner enabled to the point of delusions of grandeur ("Fighting the good fight -- for all womankind!") by her codependent.

That out of the way, what I'd actually like to focus on in this article is the husband's reaction. Because there's a telling passage in the article about how this fight went:

"My husband of 50 years did not have to stifle a laugh. He took it dead seriously. He did not defend his remark, he did not defend men. He sat, hunched and hurt, and he listened. For a moment, it occurred to me to be grateful that I’m married to a man who will listen to a woman. The winds calmed ever so slightly in that moment. And then the storm surge welled up in me as I realized the pathetic impotence of nice men’s plan to rebuild the wreckage by listening to women. As my rage rushed through the streets of my mind, toppling every memory of every good thing my husband has ever done (and there are scores of memories), I said the meanest thing I’ve ever said to him: Don’t you dare sit there and sympathetically promise to change. Don’t say you will stop yourself before you blurt out some impatient, annoyed, controlling remark. No, I said, you can’t change. You are unable to change. You don’t have the skills and you won’t do it. You, I said, are one of the good men. You respect women, you believe in women, you like women, you don’t hit women or rape women or in any way abuse women. You have applauded and funded feminism for a half-century. You are one of the good men. And you cannot change. You can listen all you want, but that will not create one iota of change."

This fight could've been over in three minutes instead of 30, the screed avoided, and this clusterbomb of an article the author wrote never written, had the husband done the one thing his wife and I both agree he failed to do:

Grow a pair of balls, straighten his spine out, and stand up for something for once.

The only thing his wife and I disagree with is what he must stand up on -- but as we'll see in just a minute, even then, we don't really disagree.

It's grown trickier and trickier for bachelor men to navigate the dating world… without getting snared by a scorned woman's revenge. Here's how to stay safe out there.

"Every man is a potential rapist."

So goes the pop culture wisdom sweeping the West right now. 'Rape culture' hysteria has built to a fevered pitch throughout the 2010s, to the point where hiding under every bed, lurking inside every wardrobe, a Rapist lies in wait... eager to pounce on his hapless victim and ravage her with his Weapon of Oppression, the penis.

I try not to go into culture-specific issues too much on Girls Chase. Same with era-specific issues. "This too will pass"; and once it's over people will find it insane and unrelatable. "Was it really that bad?" they will ask.

We've talked about all this stuff on Girls Chase before in different articles. Today's is a bit of a tie-up article though, because as the West hits peak hysteria, Western men's paranoia is peaking as well. I see more and more and more stuff from men who are freaking out that talking to women or sleeping with them is going to land them in a penitentiary, with the 'sex offender' label slapped to their backs forever when they get out.

So let's talk about staying safe meeting girls in a hysterical, paranoid dating society.

“Let’s head back to my place.” – a suggestion we wish girls would agree to more often. With this technique, you can drastically increase the odds that she’ll comply.

Hey guys. Today, I will get technical again. I know some of my posts may occasionally be a bit scary for beginners, but this one should be pretty easy to grasp.

It covers an issue many men struggle with, beginner and intermediate alike. Advanced players may also benefit, as they might not already use the technique I am about to share – perhaps they do, but they may like a recap or a new perspective on it.

So, here’s the problem we’ll be discussing: have you ever struggled to isolate a girl you like? Have you experienced difficulties moving her somewhere else in the venue, to a new venue – or, even better, back to your place?

In other words, have you ever had problems getting the girl to say “yes” to those yes-or-no questions like “Shall we go to the bar together?” “Can we go somewhere else? I know a place nearby with better drinks,” or “What do you say we go back to my place and continue this conversation with some good wine? I don’t live far away.”

If the answer is yes, then read on. The issue you are facing often relates to a lack of compliance. It could be that resistance is working against you as well. We will not discuss that here, but it is something you should take into consideration and read up on. We have many posts covering resistance here on Girls Chase.

Nevertheless, whether it is a lack of compliance (“attraction” is usually used instead, but I find “compliance” to be a better term) or simple resistance is kind of irrelevant because an increase in compliance – our focus today – can benefit you in every case.

Sometimes, if she is resisting, you can raise the level of compliance so high that you bypass the resistance. A combination of building compliance and removing resistance is the ultimate seduction weapon. I will also discuss how you can use this solution as a seduction technique.