I find this interesting because I got a totally different conclusion from that post. I didn't conclude that men who provision automatically get cheated, but rather that men who are not able to satisfy their women sexually get cheated. It just so coincidentally happens that men try to use provisioning as a crutch to avoid needing to learn how to be sexy. As Chase says in the post himself, "these traits may appear to be opposed but they are not mutually exclusive", and "the best seducers have some provider value backing up their focus on lover value".
This is more or less true.
Also the point of "pussy for provision" - that's not really how I'm thinking. I'm thinking of "chastity for provision".
Well, you still have to get there first.
As in, if she can't keep her legs shut and back up her side of the social contract by exercising self-restraint then she can go be with someone else, because there are other women out there who are staying chaste and who are able to control themselves that deserve me in their life more than she does.
It's not so simple. That social contract no longer exists (if it ever did in America).
Ideally, in a culture that practiced early marriage and takes chastity seriously, this would be the case. The general culture of the 21st-century West is not such a culture.
I'll be the first to admit that this may be because of inexperience, but I don't buy the premise that every woman in the world is a cock hopping animal incapable of controlling their own emotions and behavior. Are the vast majority of them? Yeah, for sure. The same is true for men. Not going to argue with that. But I don't believe that the virtues of temperance are unique to men. Maybe that's what it comes down to at the end of the day and the whole chastity thing is missing the forest for the trees: I highly value temperance and consider its virtues to be fundamental aspects of who I am as a person, and want a woman who sees herself in the same way.
The entire reason why I'm here is that my family and religious community have ditched their end of their version of social contract that makes such things emotionally, financially, and otherwise feasible. Otherwise I'd be a paragon of chastity, because I'm still a true believer. I believe that chastity isn't worth the cost imposed by circumstances.
So it's wild oats time for me. My self-imposed RoEs (e.g. no married women, no devil's threesomes) are more than enough restraint; I will not be holding back once I cross the Rubicon.
Also, in women, sexual promiscuity tends to be somewhat less correlated with sex drive.
For instance, chaste and/or religious women often are much less sexually self-aware than chaste and/or religious men, particularly in the 21st-century urban environment. Partly because it's harder for most women to discover their sexuality on their own.
Plus many religious women are in touch with their female energy in nonsexual ways. (It may have something to do with having breasts and a uterus.) Women have outlets other than being a slightly insane genius like Tesla, Lawrence, General Gordon, or my guru (no I'm not a Sikh, I use the term in the Californian sense). None of those great aces were strictly neurotypical to start with by the way.
Something that Chase has certainly written about somewhere, is the idea that to achieve an abundance mentality you need to genuinely believe that your presence in the life of a woman is one of the greatest possible gifts to her. Maybe I applied it in a way that wasn't intended, but I believe in that wholeheartedly. And that is a gift that I only want to give to one person who is truly worthy of it - there is only one of me, after all. So I find it fascinating that there's a lot of talk here about men wanting a chaste woman out of fear, but my motivations are out of arrogance.
Mine are out of arrogance too, frankly. Part of the reason why I haven't laid a girl yet is that my amour-propre requires that my first lay be her first real experience of real intercourse. And when I do eventually marry, I do expect that
if my wife been religious since puberty, that she has been acting in accordance with our shared beliefs.
Note the word choice and phrasing.
So maybe that's why it feels like I'm talking past you guys and you're talking past me, in a way. It seems to be the case that I'm not even thinking about the same women as you. I'm thinking of the ones who are intentionally exercising self-control because doing so is an important part of their identity.
With such women, seducing explicitly and moving fast might not work. Or it might. Or it might work, then backfire, long term.
The skillset and rules of psychology, fundamentals, etc. still apply. But you won't learn anything from Teevster, no offense Teev
I want to reward one of those women with myself so she doesn't have to settle for an unattractive provider, or get her diligence wasted by a player.
A noble goal. In theory.
(I'm sure you've seen guides floating around the internet on using frame control to basically rape women that are protecting their chastity, which is especially insidious because they don't have the experience to know how to defend themselves against it)
Well, no, because SNL and club game don't work on girls who seriously value chastity and don't go to clubs. I know religious girls (not all of whom belong to my denomination) who simply wouldn't, not of their own free will. (One of my sisters is becoming one.) And I know religious girls who appear exactly the same as those on the surface, but who would listen to their hormones, in the right situation. (Another sister might become one, too early to tell.)
And I know guys who know ostensibly religious girls who reportedly know third base intimately.
Look OP, you're still more idealistic than I am. That's not a bad thing, but prepare to get hurt a few times. I was, and now I've had enough.
