Social Commentary

Despite the trappings of civilization, we’re all animalistic savages at heart. In Part 1 of this series, we’ll explore just how central to humans is sex.

We live in a brave new world.

Our hunter-gatherer days came to an end with the advent of agriculture, which allowed us to settle permanently in one location and call it home. This escape from the daily struggles of travel and hunting allowed us to build and to think.

Humanity gained the time to erect tall structures and new philosophies. These ideas seeped their way into every citizen's mind, and our animalistic natures began to shift into something different.

Eventually, this cohesion of custom and habit we call culture brought us to the next great leap – the Industrial Revolution. With new forms of power in our hands, modern technology was born.

Technology quickly evolved into what it is today, granting us the power to unleash our animal instincts with the touch of a button by sending some random girl across the sea a picture of our dick.

We may live in civilization, but we are still animals.

Our entire lives still revolve around the most basic of desires – to fuck, to eat, to kill, and to survive.

Despite our evolution, we still rely on leaders. We need someone to tell us what to do and how to think. And we choose the most powerful leaders (or at least the one who makes us feel more powerful). This was Donald Trump’s trump card in the U.S. election. With slogans like “Make America Great Again” and his focus on buzzwords like “winning,” he energized his base to feel like winners. Hillary Clinton, while very popular and persuasive in her own right, relied on victim mentalities and moral superiority. These make people feel safe, but not powerful. Whether it's through fear, respect, or love, we tend to choose the more powerful force to guide us.

We only value what is useful. If you are not creating, leading, or destroying on behalf of a culture, you are relegated to the bottom and given only the meager scraps of the resources. At the heart of all this is the “givers vs. takers” dichotomy. Those who provide value are, not so ironically, given the most in return. Powerful people are given passes for crimes and moral indignities that lower-value people are not. Whoever is useful to the herd survives. Whoever is not is left behind.

We pretend to act on logic or virtue, but this is an illusion. We act because of emotions. You cannot “logically act.” It’s an oxymoron. Logic isn’t a fuel for action, it’s the glue that binds thoughts together. You can want to do something then logically decide it’s not the optimal move – if you have good self-discipline – but even that “better, logical” decision is still based on emotion. You are sacrificing one desire that is recognized as short term or too dangerous for a long-term desire that will ultimately provide more pleasure. Nevertheless, the action is still motivated by emotion and feeling. Even the grandest philosophies and most noble virtues are inspired by emotion. We are forever animals looking for the greatest pleasure and the greatest resources of pleasure.

This is what civilization is – a big game in which we argue, fight, kill, and steal to achieve the greatest pleasures available.

There can be virtuous notions behind our killing and stealing, but it’s impossible to separate our desires from these acts.

And at the heart of this grand game we play?

Sex.

Men don’t always stick around for a relationship after sex. Is this wrong and is there anything bad about it – or not?

On my Friday/Saturday night date post, a female commenter took issue with my advice to a male commenter that he take advantage of rebound sex to get over a harsh relationship he just came out of.

To her point, I was perhaps a little indelicate in how I suggested he do this (it was guy-to-guy talk; this is a men’s site, after all). However, she took the occasion to launch into a moral argument that casual sex hurts women, takes advantage of them, and uses and discards them like unwanted objects. Her comment arguing this is a bit long to quote (you can read her full comment here), so I’ll just quote what is the most important part to me:

“I have had conversations with girlfriends who have told me that a guy won’t go out with them if they don’t sleep with them. Women have been conditioned to feel they have to have sex, much much sooner than they would feel comfortable. We know from studies that men don’t develop the feeling of love until at least 3-6 months into the relationship, even while sleeping with a woman. What they develop are lust emotions.

Most women have given up on the idea of a man protecting them and *actually* loving them. Valor and honor and real love for another is almost absent in most dating. What you describe in your post is not love at all. It is using people for sex, using people for the thrill of feeling desires, of entertainment, but it is not love. You are incredibly insightful with how to manipulate women to get to your ultimate goal. What I am saying is that this is the opposite of what a man of valor would do. He would protect his woman from physical exploitation, not be the one to exploit her. And he is exploiting her, even if it’s with her permission, when he is trying to extract sex from her when he doesn’t even genuinely love her--- care for her best good.

It doesn’t much matter if rebound sex helps a person feel better. That doesn’t make it right. Maybe we can just numb our conscience to the point that it is dead so that we can pursue feelings of lust and pleasure without caring what is actually loving to others?”

First off, her science is wrong. Men are more romantic than women are, heal less completely from breakups than women do, experience love at first sight at nearly double the rate of women... and that immediate in-love love-at-first-sight feeling men get is not infatuation – relationships that spring from immediate in-love feelings are every bit as stable and likely to last as those that develop from slow build-ups.

But that’s beside the point.

Our commenter’s argument is that to sleep with her, then not see her again, or not engage in or want to engage in a long-term committed relationship with her is damaging to her. You hurt her, you injure her, and you just generally make her feel bad.

So is she right? Does sex minus commitment lead to a trail of broken hearts and cynical women?

The answer I’ll give you is “yes, but.” And the ‘but’ is quite important.

But we’re not ready for the ‘but’ yet. Let’s talk about the ‘yes’ first.

Lovers seduce women; fighters intimidate men. But why do men choose the specializations they do – and which should you choose?

I was probably about 20 years old when I accepted what was to me a weird fact at the time. That fact was that the toughest, manliest, most utterly male, intimidating men usually only dated girls who were just okay. They didn’t get gorgeous girls... not usually. They’d get girls with ordinary faces, ordinary brains, and maybe okay bodies.

I’d seen a similar trend in myself. In midway through high school I’d switched images: from nerd chic to the leather jacket bad boy look. And though I was unquestionably cooler and tougher looking, the fevered pursuit I’d had from popular, pretty girls over the previous four years died down. Men, however, respected me more than ever. I’d gained more male respect, but at the cost of female desire.

Fast forward a few years. I’d internalized the lesson that men who acted über manly had focused their efforts on appealing to male measurements of power and dominance... and cost themselves in women. It was a hard decision at the time, but at last I said “I will no longer live my life for other men.” And as I reinvented myself again, this time with an emphasis on what attracted women, I became more attractive to women once more, with some small cost to the respect other men held for me. I stopped being a fighter, and became a lover.

Ultimately, I’d say it was a good move for me, in many ways. Ultra maleness is not so conducive to being a writer or a business owner. Nor is it so good a fit for a man who wants to travel around and network with other people. Taking my foot off the masculinity gas somewhat freed me to not have to be a caveman in everything I did. And of course, the women... they’re much better for the guys who aren’t male caricatures.

Lovers vs. fighters is something Hector delved into with last week’s “A Feminine Man, Done Right, Can be Wildly Sexy to Women.” In that article, he discussed how a certain degree of femininity in men can trump overdone masculinity when it comes to success with girls.

Today, I want to go into the science and the psychology of it: why men choose the paths they do, and which one is actually the more fruitful path to choose.

Women and lying go together like ice cream and sprinkles. But do women chronically lie? Can they not tell the truth – or do they do so strategically?

“I’m going to the bathroom. I’ll be right back.” – Doesn’t come back.

“I’ll let you know when I’m free.” – Never texts you.

“I will love you forever.” – Dumps you a week later.

“I hate liars.” – Lies.

When a man faces these blatant contradictions hundreds, if not thousands, of times in his life, he will inevitably ask himself a question.

“Are all women liars?”

You would really hate if I gave a response of “Yes and no,” wouldn’t you?

Don’t worry. I won’t. Here’s the bottom line.

Yes, women lie. A lot. The majority of the time. Except only when viewed from a male perspective of truth.

See what I did there? I lied. I said I wouldn’t give you a “yes and no” answer, and I did. But it had value to it. I used it as a literary technique. I think it’s funny (maybe you don’t). But there was a purpose behind it.

Same with women. They lie with a purpose. They also lie by omission. These are their two fundamental modes of truth manipulation.

First, however, let’s go into how women view truth itself.

The nightlife scene has changed. But it hasn’t necessarily gotten harder to sleep with women at night… It’s only gotten different.

Last week, I shared a post about how the nightlife has changed in most of the Western world (can’t say too much about the world outside of that, as I have not visited it lately). I explained how girls are dropping the club as a hook-up spot for quick sexual satisfaction, and heading for Tinder, an app that allows them to do their business in more or less total secrecy.

For finding quick and available dick, girls have found an alternative to going out – so when you see girls out these days, it’s probably not because they’re hunting dick. Those were the freebies back in the day – girls you would spot (if she didn’t spot you first) who seemed to be available for quick, NSA penetration. They’d sometimes even open you and touch you in provocative ways, or seem very sexually available from get-go. Those were the freebies, and now they are gone from the clubs, only to be found on Tinder.

The nightlife has therefore changed – typical meat market places have died off (they have become sausage fests), and all the girls there have turned into purely status hunters, going out only to have fun, meet “cool” people, and get male attention to validate themselves. Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing, as pointed out, because this means all the girls are more or less stuck at the same places, and the girls in those places are hot. Only these days do I seem to find venues packed with only hot women – those did not truly exist back in the day (except super high-end, invite-only clubs).

But apart from this small positive aspect, my previous post seemed a bit negative, and things were presented as rather pessimistic. Are things really so hopeless these days? Is there any hope for aspiring night-gamers? I would say so.

However, before I get to my reasoning, I think that men these days have a tendency to cry and make excuses and blame external factors for their lack of success instead of trying to figure out how to solve their problems. The nightlife has changed, but in my humble opinion, it hasn’t become that much harder, overall – it has just changed. Some elements have become harder; others have become… easier… way easier. Don’t blame the changes for your lack of success; focus on how to change things up to match the changing environment.

Everything in a woman’s life wields some degree of control over her. The big question is, do you control your woman – or yield control to others?

College tells her feminism
Is what she must embrace.
Her boss says that it is “career”
What wins in the workplace.
Nightlife tells her status
While friends tell her “fun” too.
So who controls your woman
The environment, or you?

At some point, you will find yourself with a girl you like, and decide you want to hang onto her a while. You may not want to keep her forever. You might want a short relationship. Or perhaps you do want her forever.

The man sets the pace and trajectory of the relationship. The woman agrees with his direction and submits to it, or she will disagrees and rebels. If she rebels, she does so to force change to the pace and trajectory of the relationship, not to destroy the relationship or take control herself.

You won’t have women tell you, “We’re doing it my way now.” Well, not usually. Instead, she acts up, pressures you, whines, pouts, complains, and does everything she can to get you to change. She does not want to lead. She wants to influence the leader. Influencing, rather than directly leading, is how women control.

We talk about control in this article. Not control in the sense of unwilling control. Nothing here we’ll discuss will be anything against anyone’s will. The kind of control we will discuss here is leadership, influence, attraction, seduction, security, comfort, and power. It is about who wields the greater control over the mind of an individual. Will it be you, her partner? Or will it be the many other forces in the environment that wish her to do as they will – and not as you do?

Nightlife is not the same as it used to be… the font of easy lays has dried up. But there’s a silver lining to this, and it’s not as bad as you think.

Alright guys, after going kind of overkill with my technical posts these last weeks, I have decided to make a theoretical post.

Even though I believe it is key to put a lot of emphasis on technical stuff, as it is most crucial when it comes down to getting direct results (i.e., getting laid), one should not disregard theory, which can give us deeper insights into our field of battle.

This post will be another of my sociological observations of the meat market. The purpose here is to give you an idea of the status quo regarding the dynamic in nightclubs. Things have indeed changed in the last 10 years. I started reading about seduction and joined the old mASF forums 10 years ago (which is where I first encountered our dear Chase). I was very young, so I did not go out clubbing right away. But two years later, I started clubbing, which gives me 8 years of clubbing experience – and I have gone out almost every weekend, with the intention of meeting women.

And I can tell you this: things have changed. This post will cover the changes of which I speak – and their causes. We will also discuss the pros and cons of the changes and see whether things have become more difficult. A new generation is taking over the night life, and they’re having an impact on the dynamic.

Either way, enough fluff – shall we begin?