Social Commentary

Some men argue that to learn game is to be a “slave to pussy”. Is this argument valid? Or is it a flawed argument that misses the big picture?

If you’ve been working on your game for any not too-short period of time, you’ve probably heard the Slave to Pussy™ Argument. That argument goes something like this:

“Don’t waste your time on girls, you’re just being a slave to pussy. Instead you should be hunting, fishing, working out, stacking money, and making something of yourself. Let the women come to you.”

I suppose you might also call this the Field of Dreams Argument: if you build it, they will come.

Get rich enough, jacked enough, and masculine enough first. Then, girls will begin to pop into your life all on their own.

Obviously, if you know me, or this website, you know I’m going to tell you this argument is bunk. The idea that you don’t need to learn game to do better with girls (or put in the practice to solidify that game) is one we’ll tear apart here.

But before we even dive into these arguments, I’ll point out one simple flaw of this argument. That is its setup of game (learning to do well with girls) and fundamentals (turning yourself into a man with attractive passive value) as two opposing, mutually exclusive forces – when the truth is, these two forces are complementary. That is to say, learning game does not stop you from working out or stacking money; and you should develop yourself in multiple ways (yes, learn game, but also lift, and improve your financial prospects too. And read a lot of good books). We’ll dive into this further below... But first, a comment on the men who don’t even think your fundamentals are worth improving.

What is masculinity? Who defines it – who makes the rules? Is it intrinsic, or culturally determined? And is it even “real”?

Sometime back, I came across an intriguing double bind.

I found it in the comments section of some feminist website, on an article written by a man about his enjoyment of pegging (i.e., when a man lets a woman shag him with a strap-on). Some male commenter had insulted this writer, and called him less than a man.

But then, the feminist readers of the website piled onto this commenter. And they all had the same attack line for him:

“What’s the matter, are you not man enough to take it up the butt?”

It’s a fascinating rhetorical device. Either you agree to receptive anal sex, which has profound effects on the male psyche (anecdotally, men who receive anal sex become more feminine, moodier, and bitchier), effectively making you no longer a full ‘man’... Or you don’t agree to receptive anal sex, in which case you are ‘not man enough’.

This double bind got me thinking: what is masculinity, anyway? How do we define what is or isn’t masculine? Who in our society holds the right to craft these definitions, women or men? Is masculinity decided by the society, by the man, or by something else?

The answers will intrigue you, I think.

And don’t worry – in the end, we’ll address that feminist double bind attack too, and show how a firm concept of masculinity makes attacks like these run off you like water.

To pay for sex or not? What are the benefits to your game (and life)... And what are the risks?

A few years back, on my article about pornography addiction, a reader named John Jones asked about prostitution:

“Chase,

Great article. I do have a major problem. Every few months I get a prostitute. I find that paying $300 for an hour of a blowjob and sex is a good deal but I know I shouldn’t be doing this.

Can you please write an article about prostitution? Or give me some advice. I read a lot of your writings, and I gotta admit, I aspire to be like you and think the way you do. You really do have it together, brother.

Thanks.”

All right.

So, let me say before I get into this, there are a lot of men with entrenched, emotional opinions about this issue within the manosphere on the Internet.

Some of these guys love prostitutes, and view any advice against using prostitutes as a personal attack. They see it either as an attempt to undermine their freedom / control them by taking prostitutes away or making their patronage unacceptable (or illegal)... Or they view criticism as a personal attack that undermines their personal value or status as men.

Others of these guys hate prostitutes, and view them as dirty, degenerate, and/or disgusting, and/or view the men who patronize prostitutes as pathetic or weak.

I’m going to come at this article from a different angle.

I’m here neither to condemn nor absolve. Instead, I’m going to talk with you about what I have seen, again and again, repeatedly, among the various groups of men who use prostitutes, and the effects (both good and bad) prostitution can have on men.

The bad guy compels because he isn’t afraid to speak truth and break rules. But more than this – he is a product of his zeitgeist.

There’s been a funny trend of late, in film and other media.

The bad guys are sexy. They’re cool. Way, way cooler than the good guys.

Vincent in Collateral. Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men. The Joker in The Dark Knight.

And among the coolest guys in cinema who aren’t out-and-out bad guys? Well, the other cool guys aren’t good guys either. They’re anti-heroes, like Johnny Depp’s Captain Jack Sparrow, Brad Pitt’s Tyler Durden, or Guy Pearce’s Eric in The Rover.

The bad guy hasn’t always been cool. In most older movies, the good guy is significantly cooler, more interesting, and more relatable than the bad guy.

Yet in more recent films, the good guy is often... Too gullible. Too naïve. And he stays that way.

You watch old movies, and if the good guy starts off too naïve, he eventually comes to understand the way of the world, yet remain a strong, firm good guy at the end of it. In more recent films, the good guy always finds a way to remain more or less entrenched in his bubble of ‘correctness’, despite whatever pitfalls befall him along the way.

I propose that in topsy-turvy times, when black is white and up is down and left is right, those men who attack and upend the established order of things are those we most intuitively grasp as those who must be ‘correct’. And because they see fit to buck a powerful trend that has most individuals cowed, not only are they correct... they are powerful.

And power, no matter what the era, is always sexy and cool.

A review of The Rational Male, a book focused at upending fem-centric thinking in men and teaching them to think like men again.

Rollo Tomassi’s book, The Rational Male, is an amalgamation of essays from content on his own website, The Rational Male, and other dating advice forums where he frequently contributes. I came across this book by chance on Amazon and found the content interesting enough to warrant a look.

This series of writings tunes men in to the dynamics of the human sexual marketplace through an exploration of human behavioral and evolutionary psychology, and demonstrates how such concepts show up culturally and politically. Tomassi’s intent is to educate the average man about his sexual potential, options, leverage, and strategies in his general relationship with women while exploring women’s sexual strategies, relationship strategies, and social conventions that we see commonplace today. Rollo summarizes this himself near the end of his book:

“My intent with all this is to illustrate how the reality in which we find things ‘normal’ is rendered by fem-centric influence. Across ethnicities, and encompassing all manner of social diversity, this influence is so insaturated into our culture, laws, media, entertainment, from our collective social consciousness to our individual psyches that we simply take it for granted as the operative framework in which we live. I realize this is a tough pill to swallow, because male imperative does in fact intersect with female imperative depending on mutual goals. However, the point is that of operative framework, the reality we function in, is primarily defined by the feminine.”

– p. 266

The now well-known men’s self improvement community, which includes the “manosphere,” consists of many trains of thought and communities devoted to understanding the masculine-feminine dynamic. Rollo’s background consists of what he terms a “rock-star” 20s that led to pursuing a university degree in behaviorism psychology at age 32. This, coupled with his intense life experience and his near decade use of forums as a testing ground for ideas on sexual dynamics and attracting women, led him to be a critical author in the manosphere and men’s rights community.

This book is based on many psychological concepts, and also ventures deep into the darker elements of the masculine-feminine dynamic and human sexuality. I caution readers toward its content and suggest reading with a curious mind. I consider Rollo’s book more appropriate for intermediates looking to advance their skill set to the next level in their relationship with women, as it is critical to develop healthy mindsets about women and sexuality in order to use that power responsibility.

Power is power, and we have a responsibility as men to use it ethically – as seen in the core philosophies of Girls Chase, we always practice from a mindset of love and adventure, never from one of hate, revenge, or negativity. However, for many men who find this community on their own, they see a world that bitterly challenges deeply rooted beliefs. From the book:

“Game was a wondrous tool set of skills, but without the insight or foresight to deal with what these tools could build, it was potentially like giving children dynamite.”

– p. 113

With that in mind, let’s explore.

The women of the 1910s and 1920s had a lot more in common with the women of the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s than you might suspect.

I’m usually anathema to making predictions, since these so often turn out wrong. However, the pendulum seems to be swinging in earnest, so at this point I think I am more pointing out a shift that’s already started and probably isn’t able to be derailed. So let’s get to it.

From 2015 into 2016, we in the West experienced what a lot of writers on the Internet have dubbed ‘peak SJW’. Victim mentality hit its shrillest levels, the concept of certain groups as ‘privileged’ and thus ‘the enemy’ reached boiling point, and efforts to censor, outlaw, or subjugate target groups hit their apogee.

This phenomenon, of ‘peak SJW’ (Social Justice Warrior), followed the trend all movements follow in the ‘boiling point’ period. That is, they rise to a fevered pitch, then one of two things happen:

1. They use this momentum to topple over and completely crush their enemies, or

2. They spin themselves out against an indomitable foe, run out of gas, and enter decline

Movements work the same as tests or challenges in this regard. So long as the movement is able to gain concessions from its adversaries, it becomes more and more powerful. But as the movement begins to run into walls, or see its efforts backfire, it begins to lose steam. It loses, and the negative momentum of being on the losing side piles up. A reverse winner effect takes hold within the movement.

Why the Social Justice movement was ultimately unsuccessful in crushing its opponents in the West is beyond the scope of this article. However, I will note that successful Social Justice movements at other points in history that eventually achieved more or less full suppression of their enemies have been more careful to incorporate majority groups in their ranks, rather than target said majority groups as the object of their offense.

That aside, the point of this article is to give you a few predictions about how to expect women’s behavior to shift over the next couple of years.

The funeral of Phocion.

In the late 4th Century BC, Athens executed its statesman and de facto ruler, Phocion. Phocion served Athens with distinction throughout his political career. His leadership was one of extreme care and justice. His was a frugal life, lived in a simple home, and he refused bribes of all sorts, no matter how grand – everything from small fortunes to his own city-state to rule as he liked he refused.

The Athenians chose him to lead them into battle 47 times as general, the most-selected general in Athenian history. Yet he was not a militaristic man – he argued vehemently against wars he thought were bad for his city-state. And he saved Athens from unwise action repeatedly, as when the Athenians wanted to war with Alexander the Great after Alexander had crushed an uprising in Thebes. “Foolhardy man,” Phocion said to Demosthenes, leader of the provocateurs, “why provoke one whose temper is already savage? Why provoke this Macedonian who is full of limitless ambition? When there is a holocaust on our borders, do you wish to spread the flames to our city as well, by provoking him further? My whole object in taking up the burdens of this office is to prevent this, and I shall not allow my fellow citizens to destroy themselves, even if they wish it.”

The Athenians eventually sent Phocion to intercede with Alexander on their behalf, after he had rebuffed all the other emissaries they sent, and he quickly became one of the men Alexander trusted and respected most, even over most Macedonians. Phocion inspired Alexander to look beyond Greece, challenging him that if his goal was to show the greatness of his armies, why not show it by the conquest of the barbarians? Phocion made necessary compromises to the Athenians’ Macedonian ruler, but he negotiated hard to keep the Athenians mostly free.

Yet, after Alexander died, against Phocion’s warnings, the Athenians rebelled against Macedon, and forced Phocion to lead their armies, contrary to his personal desires. He agreed to serve his people as they wished of him, and crafted a resounding victory against the armies of Macedon. Yet Macedonian reinforcements arrived from Asia, and the Greek army was crushed.

Phocion negotiated a lighter reprimand against the Athenians than there otherwise would have been without his intercession. However, many Athenians were still exiled, and Antipater, the new leader of Macedon, still punished the city-state. Many non-citizen Athenians blamed Phocion for their plight. And this set in motion the political intrigue the next leader of Macedon after Antipater would eventually use to have the non-citizens and exiles of Athens overwhelm the citizens and condemn Phocion to death, while the citizens looked mournfully but helplessly on.

In prison, an executioner administered poison to the accused, but ran short when it came to the last man, Phocion. The executioner then refused to prepare more poison until he was paid 12 drachmas. Phocion summoned one of his friends and asked him to settle the amount, observing that, “A man cannot even die in Athens without paying for it.” After a life spent serving Athens, those in charge of the city now ordered Phocion’s remains buried outside its limits.

I tell you this story (and will tell a few more) in the interest of a simple question I’d like to pose: is it worth it to be the good king?