You must be both a lover AND a provider

[Bboy100]

DISCLAIMER: EVERYTHING I'M ABOUT TO WRITE COMES FROM A STRICTLY EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE. In other words, everything I'm about to say is only true if we accept the premise that the only reason we exist is to survive and reproduce. However, this is not the case. Humans are complex creatures. As such, the evolutionary perspective is only but one piece of the puzzle. We as human beings have culture, are capable of higher cognition, have a sense of moral right and wrong, and have interests other than copulating, eating and continuing to exist. Moreover, even within the context of mating, our strategies are based on more than just "what is most efficient way to ensure that our genes survive and move onto the next generation". There are many other considerations for why we might choose to have sex (or not) with a particular partner. As such, this evolutionary perspective is NOT the entire picture. But it still is an important piece of the puzzle to consider.

Now that we have that out of the way...onto the good stuff.

So on GC, the concept of "lover" and "provider" is talked about extensively. In evolutionary psychology terms, a "lover" is basically communicating that you have good genes and will therefore create healthy, sexy sons and daughters (regardless of weather or not you choose to stick around). Whereas a "provider" is a man who is not necessarily as genetically fit, but shows that he would make a good father and a good partner to the women (which indirectly increases her offspring's chances of survival). This is why oftentimes, women will quickly hook up with a lover, whilst requiring providers to show more romantic proof (signals that he is willing to commit time and energy to the women) before she even considers sex with him. Btw, I've also posted about how I think this does NOT mean that you should treat every women like she will put out on a first date if you act like a "lover". This is not true. In fact, women have almost ZERO interest in "lover" qualities towards the start and end of their menstrual cycles because they are very unlikely to get pregnant at those times. Therefore, the lovers good genes are almost worthless. One study I read showed that women are actually LESS interested in lovers than they are providers at those times. Isn't that interesting? So in the end, remember that context and reading and understanding how she feels is more important than anything else. I wrote more extensively on this topic a while back: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15270 and viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15350

Still, if you're interested in nothing other than a string of one night stands, or very very short relationships (i.e. 1-2 weeks), then going a strict "lover" route is by far your best bet. Yes, there are times in her cycle wherein this is not attractive to women, but 9/10 times, especially if you know which women to talk to, you'll be more successful at hooking up as a lover than as a provider. And in the long run, it will save you a lot of time and energy because women who are looking to fuck are likely to choose you over other male rivals. And you'll have to invest little or no time into any individual women before she's willing to have sex with you.

HOWEVER, if you're interested in anything even remotely substantive, you'll also need to develop some "provider" qualities (hint: you probably will be sooner or later. Boning random slootz is fun, but once you've done it enough, it becomes a very shallow and meaningless experience). Why? Because if you're a strict "lover" in that you're very sexy, but you have no good dad nor good partner traits whatsoever, girls will basically treat you like a walking penis. That means they'll fuck for a while, but won't emotionally invest in you at all. And they'll more or less look for other guys who show promise of being good boyfriends to eventually replace you (remember, from an evolutionary perspective, she only has to fuck you ONCE to get impregnated. As soon as she's done that, she no longer has any use for you, because she already has your good genes).

Moreover, if you're interested in landing a TRULY topic quality women. Then you will need to EXCEL in BOTH. This is because women who are top quality do not need to trade off. See, most women are not attractive enough to get a lover to commit to her. Therefore, she has to use the strategy outlined above (i.e. she'll fuck the lover, and find a provider who is willing to commit to her). But this is not the case for women who almost all men want. Why? Because these are the women that even other lovers are willing to commit to. And some of those lovers also happen to be great boyfriends. In other words, these women can and will get the whole package from one guy (pun intended (; ). She gets all three needs met (good genes, good partner, good father) from one man.

Soo...if you waltz in with ONLY lover qualities or ONLY provider qualities, she won't even look at you. Because she's capable of attracting men who have BOTH. So the only way you can compete is to level the playing field. You too must develop both sets of traits within yourself.

Just an interesting observation I recently uncovered in some of my personal research. Hope this was interesting to yall

 

[Sandman]

I think you hit the nail on the head. You might fuck a top quality woman as a lover but if you want to have a relationship with that woman you better bring more to the table than just bomb dick.

This is my sticking point at the moment. Retention. I want to continue fucking all the women I want in polygamous relationships. My retention game is not where I want it to be So I have to incorporate some bf game too I guess.

 

[Drck]

Excellent comment

IMO there is way much more to it though than just being lover or provider, or both. We have to look at the society as a whole, we have to look on desirability of woman for men in general. Let’s compare two different societies:

Society A:
There is lots of slut shaming, mostly because religion. Times are bad, not enough jobs, lots of crime, not enough food supply. No technology, no social media. In this kind of society, provider is on very high demand. The women need protector, she needs white knights so she can have at least some basic rights. She will not survive on her own. She is also very limited to chose a male from local area as she cannot travel or communicate otherwise. She is ‘forced’ to be faithful because of slut shaming, perhaps because of severe punishment. Men in general also have to work hard in order to survive. There are mostly physical jobs, eg hunting or farming. There are no office jobs, which in essence means that men have overall higher levels of testosterone as they have to do physical jobs, they are more masculine, and thus more attractive. Men cannot show weakness, femininity, because no sane women would chose weak men in hard times. The women need to focus on raising children because nobody else will do it. She needs the man to bring home food on regular basis. She has to be faithful because she would be punished, she could die if she were on her own. In this kind of society men are in high demand.

Society B:
Virtually the opposite of the above. Religion is diminishing, there is no longer slut shaming, nobody even cares whether she sleeps around. Women can do as they want, date hundreds of men with no punishment, it’s easy to meet lots of males through technology. Not only she is not shamed, now she has lots of power -she can accuse many men of rape. Crime and food supply are regulated, she can easily survive on her own. She can achieve great office jobs and support herself fairly easily. If she has problems, the state will help her. Men also don’t work hard anymore, they adjusted to sedentary and safe lives. They sit all they long behind desks. They don’t do physical jobs, they no longer hunt. Therefore, the overall testosterone levels in males are dropping. Men are less masculine, they are less attractive, they are more feminine... Women don’t need men at all, and if she has a man she can easily replace him with somebody else, with swipe of a finger. At the same time, it is the men who usually ends up paying for the woman in forms of alimony and child support. In this kind of society men are in low demand. You can be lover or provider, you can be both, but you are simply not in high demand. Women are choosing to be single mothers because it is more convenient for them than to live with men...


... see where I am going? There has been a huge shift in society in the past couple of decades, and the shift from Society A to Society B continues. You (we) as a guy have to work very hard to attract women, get them talk to us, get them for a date, perhaps keep them as GF or wife. Yet they can dispose us anytime they want anyway. Even you as a seducer have to work very hard, yet getting minimal results. Just look at your title, now you have to be lover AND provider to keep some interest of women...

So it is all nonsense. We men still have mindset from Society A because that is how we were raised, but we already live in Society B. We cannot just bash classical providers, because it is not really their fault. There will soon be a time where even lover will not be in demand, or lover and provider as you say - it is simply because we men created society in which we men overall have very little value. That is also a reason why many men chose not to contribute to this kind of society, consciously or unconsciously... Many just feel they got screwed by the system for valid reasons...

It’s not really you as a guy, it is the whole societal setup that makes it very difficult to get a cute girl...

 

[Drck]

As a matter of fact, ‘Lover’ is actually just another provider. All you really do is providing the women with good emotions and conversations.

You are still putting her women pedestas - this time not with cars, money or house, but rather with emotions.

But it is the same story, the more you do for women, the lesser value you as a men will have... Men do everything, yet women do nothing...

 

[Smurf]

Bboy interesting points, makes sense thinking more long term with game (10+ years).

Drck, women do contribute, just not with as much tangible value that a man usually brings.

Jake.

 

[mindful]

Interesting topic. Something I've been thinking about with a few girls I bedded this year.

When you catch girls when they are at the height of their ovulation cycle or on their period for the month they are definitely more horny. I hooked up with a girl over the summer that blatantly told me after we had sex that she wasn't trying to hookup anymore and wanted something more substantial however since she was on her period and really horny she couldn't resist and said "I'm a freak at heart and have needs". I also moved the escalation process along to get her to this point but her biological needs trumped her logic for "holding out".

It's in these situations that I do question how much "game" I have as opposed to knowing how to move forward with a girl so that she barely throws resistance and has sex with you.

 

[Bboy100]

This is my sticking point at the moment. Retention. I want to continue fucking all the women I want in polygamous relationships. My retention game is not where I want it to be So I have to incorporate some bf game too I guess.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Expecting top shelf women to have polyamorous relationships is mostly unrealistic (from an evolutionary perspective). Because if a women can get all her needs from one man, there is no evolutionary benefit to her continuing to mess around with more than one guy.

Think of it like this...say a women meets you. Then she meets another guy who brings the same things to the table as you AND he's looking for a relationship. You're both interested in that women. Who is she gonna pick? Well...9/10 it's gonna be the other guy. Because he's willing to commit. Which from an evolutionary standpoint, increases the chances of her genes being passed on by 2-3x. So the only reason she would take a gamble on you is if you're WAAAY more genetically fit than all her other options.

But if she really is the type of girl who almost every guy wants, that's impossible. Because there will always be guys who signal the "good genes" (i.e. lover) quality just as well as you do or better. So you see...your only real option is to also be open to the idea of committing to her.

Or...you can hope you run into a high quality women who is currently not looking for a serious relationship for other reasons (e.g. just got out of a serious relationship, doesn't have time to seriously date etc.). But in my experience, that's fairly rare. Because most of the time, women who are looking for flings are either 1. emotionally damaged 2. Using said flings as a way of measuring their own mate value. That is...she knows she can get any guy to sleep with her. But who can she get to commit to her? She doesn't know until sleeps with a few guys and measures how willing each individual one is to commit to her (ofc this is all a subconscious process. She has no idea that's why she's sleeping with guys. The reason she would give you will be completely different).

Thing is...most women who really have their shit together also usually already have a pretty good idea of their attractiveness or "mate value". And they're obviously not going to be too emotionally damaged. So the main reasons for PREFERING short term flings to long term relationships are mostly off the table (Again..this is strictly from a evolutionary perspective. There are definitely other social and cultural reasons for why a women might still be interested in polyamory.).

Although...your definition of a high quality women might be different from mine. So for you, maybe its not as rare. I don't know. You'll have to figure that one out on your own.

But in general, I don't think its a matter of improving your "game" in any way. It's a matter of realistically assessing the situation. If you want polyamorous relationships, you're typically going to have to trade down in terms of quality. Not always. But most of the time.

 

[Big Daddy]

@Bboy

I was going to point out that your original point was maybe too simplistic, but this second post made it more complete.

I will say though, that using evolutionary biology is a somewhat loose approximation (unless you're 35 and looking to settle down where it comes way more present and precise) of what happens in a per situation basis. Sure, it's a good north, but a lot has to be taken into consideration - as you've done in the last post which, again, made the whole point more complete.

However, it does not explain how some men are able to simply bypass all of these hurdles. There are disproportionate rewards for being the best as opposed to being second; in some instances, in a girl view depending on her society, experiences and group of friends you may look like that. For example, just to point a concrete one, in your analysis it's a given that all high value girls have slept with 20+ men which is simply not true.

I guess I'll have to restrain myself to observations like that because once you get to a certain level of abundance, it's like you see the impossible i.e. I can't yet find girlfriend-caliber girls at will and maintain them. I suspect having that ability and knowing it would chance severely the worldview of anyone as girls like this wouldn't be so rare as you point out. I've had flashes but it's worlds apart knowing something and knowing something.

 

[Bboy100]

However, it does not explain how some men are able to simply bypass all of these hurdles.

Which hurdles in specific are you talking about? Also, when you say that there are men who can bypass them, how do you know this is true? Examples of guys like this from the PUA/dating advice industry do not count, because you don't actually know what the women they date are like (and you therefore don't know how attractive these women are outside of physical appearance). You only see brief glimpses into their lives, not a complete picture. Especially since its in their interest to craft the image of having the most attractive dating life possible...because this will directly track to getting more sales for their products. And celebrities don't count because well...they're famous. Fame changes everything. Even guys you personally know are questionable because you probably don't know the women they date all that well. So the idea you have of what their relationships are like is incomplete at best. The only people you could confidently cite are yourself and men who's dating lives you're very familiar with. Outside of that, it's difficult to say with even a modicum of certainty what the women they're with are truly like. Because men like to brag. Twist the truth. Make their lives seem better than they are. Especially when it comes to what kind of women they can pull.

There are disproportionate rewards for being the best as opposed to being second; in some instances, in a girl view depending on her society, experiences and group of friends you may look like that.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. Can you rehash this?

For example, just to point a concrete one, in your analysis it's a given that all high value girls have slept with 20+ men which is simply not true.

You've misinterpreted what I wrote. I'm not saying ALL women who can accurately assess their attractiveness have done this. I'm saying that this is a potential reason for why a women might be open to short-term mating. But there are definitely other ways to accomplish the same goal. Namely, they pick up on other cues from their environment (e.g. the amount of attention they get from guys, who the guys they think are attractive choose to date and how they match up to those women, how successful they are at winning guys over in female-female competition etc.). Moreover, some women simply choose not to participate in this for non-evolutionary reasons. For example, they might have an upbringing which discourages hooking up, or they might have other cultural/personal reasons for not hooking up (e.g. society tells women "sleeping with lots of guys is bad". A lot of women internalize this message enough that they don't hook up with as many guys as they otherwise would). So this is true. Not all women go through a "hooking up" phase to figure out their value.

I will say though, that using evolutionary biology is a somewhat loose approximation

Having said that...yes, I do agree that in the end, using EP will only give you an idea of what women in general are like. It doesn't always translate well to every specific situation. Because as I mentioned before, there is a lot more that drives our behavior and preferences than just our evolutionary goal of surviving and procreating.

 

[Sandman]

This is my sticking point at the moment. Retention. I want to continue fucking all the women I want in polygamous relationships. My retention game is not where I want it to be So I have to incorporate some bf game too I guess.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Expecting top shelf women to have polyamorous relationships is mostly unrealistic (from an evolutionary perspective). Because if a women can get all her needs from one man, there is no evolutionary benefit to her continuing to mess around with more than one guy.

I do agree that you need to have some boyfriend qualities but that doesnt necessarily mean you have to commit to a monogamous relationship, it can be things like providing good feelings, being a team, helping her with her dreams etc. Yes women want security as well (not boring security, just security) But expecting top shelf women to have polyamorous relationships is not unrealistic. Because you forget one thing that's crucial. Investment. If a girl is invested in you heavily they will be okay with almost anything including sharing you as long as you do everything else right.

 

[Big Daddy]

@Bboy

Haha, but then what are we discussing?

On your first reply quoting me you're saying that guys on the Internet should't count as examples because it's hard to asses the quality of their relationships; oh, famous people are out too. In fact, even my friends are out too. So there's only me left (and perhaps my father). If this is to be taken into consideration, the same holds true for you, in which case our sample size is ridiculously small and basically what we'd be arguing would be merely personal opinions.

Plus, I'm not sure that celebs (as "high status person") can be ruled out, and this is what I meant with:

There are disproportionate rewards for being the best as opposed to being second; in some instances, in a girl view depending on her society, experiences and group of friends you may look like that.

For example, someone who is very famous locally yet completely unknown out of the state (maybe even town) probably still reaps benefits without necessarily being reported by the national media. I'll give an example using an A-list celeb and bring it down to a local, more feasible reality.

Let's say a girl wants to fuck and date Brad Pitt. She knows she doesn't have what it takes to make him monogamous, so she turns a blind eye for his other girls. You're arguing that this is only possible because, well, he's Brad Pitt. Yes, but to a lesser extent, this can happen with, say, a well-known local DJ or "famous" business owner. A girl will correctly asses that her chances of even meeting Brad Pitt are severely slim, so in her eyes, you're the "local" Brad Pitt.

This can be worked down to every level of groups you could possibly have (college QB -> HS QB -> class "bad boy"), though each time you go down the "famous" guy loses some leverage, of course, because he's more easily replaceable. So at some point there is a drop-off where the guy wouldn't be able to assert his polyamorous will with almost no resistance by the girl. So we agree on this; what I'm arguing that I think this drop-off point is higher than what you are suggesting.

By this point we can probably broaden the example back to a guy "who has worked himself up to levels of desire that women crave," meaning, could be a cool guy who colds approach without NECESSARILY being the center of the attention (most likely he will be in his immediate groups, though). If said high status guy were to sweep a girl off her feet and after she presses him for monogamy, he says he loves spending time with her and his connection with her, but just can't be with her in a monogamous relationship and he'll understand if she wants to walk away... well, I think you'd be surprised how many girls will be OK with this.

How do I know?

Well, now we'd run into the problem in the beginning, since I have never run in that situation before personally; granted, it also does not mean it doesn't happen because neither me or you experienced it personally before. You suggest drawing references from someone you know the love life enough, so it seems we'll have to use Chase as both of us are familiar with the majority of what he puts out there.

So, going back: how do I know? Well, Chase said it. And I think of it in the following way: he's a decade older than I am and was heavily involved in the community for way longer than I was, way more intensely than I was. Statistics say that probably (I'll say certainly) he have met way more people who are thoughtful about girls than I have, and probably more advanced guys too and for longer as he's older. Almost all of his views are closer to reality than what I originally had on my mind; some were challenging, but as I lived I realized reality was way closer to his take than my original one. Thus, from a logical point of view, it makes much more sense to believe he's closer to the truth than I am for now.

On top of that, it's just more a productive mindset to believe it's possible until proved otherwise. I know, you could argue I still can't use him as example as he may have an agenda and is pushing his products to his audience (which I doubt).

But OK. I have another example; a very strong anecdote coming directly from the source: my closest female friend. Some time ago she was in a LTR for some years already and I asked her whether she'd be mad if her boyfriend cheated on her. She looked at me and asked, "what do you mean cheated? Just fucked or had another full fledged girlfriend?" I explained to her that I meant just fucking. She looked away for a while, then shrugged, said she wouldn't care as long there was no emotional involvement.

This has since been told by some girls for me -- those who more readily recognize their boyfriends as rare finds justifying that "men are men" and "people get drunk sometimes." The ones who have less valuable boyfriends, which are the majority, will say they'd be enraged. The ones who say they'd NEVER forgive him are the same girls who say they'd call the police if a guy, whomever it may be, slapped her ass on the street... but we know it'd be the case only if it's a guy that she doesn't like.

(Same way guys say they'll NEVER marry or when people say they'd do something only to do the complete opposite when shit happens. What I'm saying is humans are horrible estimating what they would to in an hypothetical situation so you can't take what these girls say at face value.)

So, to conclude this whole story: I think you can probably be in a polyamorous relationship as long you are head and shoulders above other men and retain yourself to one main girl and smaller flings on the side. The higher you go on the high status scale, the less slack you'll get from it. My main point is: I think a normal guy who works himself up can reach a level where at least partial polyamory is very possible.

 

[Bboy100]

@Bboy

Haha, but then what are we discussing?

On your first reply quoting me you're saying that guys on the Internet should't count as examples because it's hard to asses the quality of their relationships; oh, famous people are out too. In fact, even my friends are out too. So there's only me left (and perhaps my father). If this is to be taken into consideration, the same holds true for you, in which case our sample size is ridiculously small and basically what we'd be arguing would be merely personal opinions.

Yeah. It's pretty limited. That's why nowadays I only take advice from two sources:

1. Research studies or people who empirically study this stuff for a living. Not "dating coaches" not "PUAs". Only those who are directly involved in controlled experiments and research. Also, studies I read on my own time.

2. My own personal experience, and the experiences of a few of my close friends who are at least somewhat like me AND I know almost everything about their dating lives.

I'll read some other stuff which is less empirical too. But I won't take it all that seriously unless their core premises are things I've already confirmed through one of the above methods.

I will admit that this is a rather stringent criteria, and I would understand if you disagree with me/think it's a bit much. The reason I adhere to this is because in the past, I've been pretty screwed up by following advice from people who seem like they know wtf they're talking about, but actually don't. Or at the very least, their advice won't get me where I want to get. There are 1000000 ways to get laid and get relationships. But they're not all built equal. Some of them are very inefficient (e.g. for most guys, cold approach is not an optimal strategy. It works, but there are faster ways of achieving the same result). Also, most of them are very bad at finding and creating healthy and functional relationships. I mean, think about it...even The Mystery Method and other old school PUA stuff will get you laid and lay the groundwork for a relationship. Doesn't mean that stuff will get you anywhere near a flourishing, empowering and fulfilling dating life.

Conversely, so far, relying on personal experience and research has been working MUCH better for me. In the past year, I've pretty much had zero troubles with women other than certain emotional issues which come up in relationships. Which has very little to do with how to get girls, and has a lot more to do with my own personal baggage and learning how to manage my weaknesses better. And the type of girls I do pull have skyrocketed in quality and quantity.

 

[Bboy100]

Edit: Also, your concrete example here is Chase. Here's the thing about Chase...I've never met the dude. Never met a girl he's dated. I'm not saying he doesn't date great girls. I bet he does. But the nuts and bolts of his dating life is largely unknown. And that's the point I'm trying to make here. Imo, details and context are very very important. Important enough that they can change everything.

You might have an image of what Chase's dating life is like which is completely different from what its actually like. Does he get girls. Probably. In fact, almost definitely. But what do his relationships actually look like? We don't really know all too well. At best, we have a very snapshot, surface level look at them. And btw, his relationships might be great in his eyes. He might be very happy with what he has. I'm not saying he's lying or deceitful in any way. But here's the thing...just cause he likes his relationships doesn't mean YOU would like his relationships. You don't really know what he's like. You don't really know what his girls are like (sure, he might list off a bunch of qualities they have. But that almost never encapsulates the experience of being with them, nor does it capture how well they function in a relationship). And most importantly, you don't know what his relationships are actually like nor do you know how they function. Therefore, you don't know what results you will get when you try to use his anecdotal advice.

Yes...he does use examples of his relationships in his articles. But that is not NEARLY enough to get a good idea of what the experience of his relationships is like. Case in point...even MFTs (Marriage and Family Therapists) take a few hour long sessions to get a good grasp of what a couple's relationship looks like. Before that, an MFT usually won't have a very good idea of what a treatment plan would look like. And they're trained professionals. And they are literally sitting there, observing the couple and asking them very specific questions designed to help develop an insight into what the relationship is like very quickly.

And if that's how long it takes a professional to understand a relationship, how in the world would we... readers of his blog have any idea of what his dating life is like. With no information other than just a written anecdote here and there.

 

[Hector Papi Castillo]

Edit: Also, your concrete example here is Chase. Here's the thing about Chase...I've never met the dude. Never met a girl he's dated. I'm not saying he doesn't date great girls. I bet he does. But the nuts and bolts of his dating life is largely unknown. And that's the point I'm trying to make here. Imo, details and context are very very important. Important enough that they can change everything.

You might have an image of what Chase's dating life is like which is completely different from what its actually like. Does he get girls. Probably. In fact, almost definitely. But what do his relationships actually look like? We don't really know all too well. At best, we have a very snapshot, surface level look at them. And btw, his relationships might be great in his eyes. He might be very happy with what he has. I'm not saying he's lying or deceitful in any way. But here's the thing...just cause he likes his relationships doesn't mean YOU would like his relationships. You don't really know what he's like. You don't really know what his girls are like (sure, he might list off a bunch of qualities they have. But that almost never encapsulates the experience of being with them, nor does it capture how well they function in a relationship). And most importantly, you don't know what his relationships are actually like nor do you know how they function. Therefore, you don't know what results you will get when you try to use his anecdotal advice.

Yes...he does use examples of his relationships in his articles. But that is not NEARLY enough to get a good idea of what the experience of his relationships is like. Case in point...even MFTs (Marriage and Family Therapists) take a few hour long sessions to get a good grasp of what a couple's relationship looks like. Before that, an MFT usually won't have a very good idea of what a treatment plan would look like. And they're trained professionals. And they are literally sitting there, observing the couple and asking them very specific questions designed to help develop an insight into what the relationship is like very quickly.

And if that's how long it takes a professional to understand a relationship, how in the world would we... readers of his blog have any idea of what his dating life is like. With no information other than just a written anecdote here and there.

What exactly is your point?

You use his advice and if it works and gets you the results, then it's "good." How does the details of his relationship matter? Your dating life is about you. If what we teach helps you, then it's "good."

If you want some doctoral thesis on the details of Chase's relationships, you're asking for a guy to post the details of his ongoing private life on the internet. Not exactly a reasonable request. For past lays/relationships, sure,we do that, but posting about a relationship that is ongoing is just too private a thing for you to ask for.

Also,

Yeah. It's pretty limited. That's why nowadays I only take advice from two sources:

1. Research studies or people who empirically study this stuff for a living. Not "dating coaches" not "PUAs". Only those who are directly involved in controlled experiments and research. Also, studies I read on my own time.

2. My own personal experience, and the experiences of a few of my close friends who are at least somewhat like me AND I know almost everything about their dating lives.

Yes, I saw this coming. When you started becoming anti-PUA and pro-natural (even though there is no distinction), I anticipated this. However, you can see how it comes off very socially strange that you would no longer trust PUA/pickup, and yet you are using the forum of a pickup site as your house of discussion and have learned a lot from Girls Chase. That's fine that you're on your own now, that's the goal of any teacher to help you become self-sufficient, but it doesn't look good to sow dissent in the home that taught you (the concepts at GC led you to where you are, whether you want to admit it or not). I'm not saying you need to be some zealot of GC, no, that's a bad thing, but when you're openly claiming that GC is not trustworthy, you're getting into some shitty territory.

Furthermore, everything you're saying could be turned back on you. I've received a few screenshots from your conversations with women over Instagram, but how do I know those are not select cases? How do I know the details of your relationships? How can anyone reading this forum trust your newlyfound "natural" and "scientific" perspectives when you don't have any transparency of your own? Your kettle seems black as well.

Also, you should know that Chase uses 1,000+ scientific citations in his upcoming product One Date. If you want to truly criticize GC, then you need to get that product and dissect it yourself, as everything he teaches there is GC tradition, except in a clear, elaborated, and very thorough singular package, plus LOTS of new stuff that all fits cohesively with everything that he's taught. Yes, the social science literature agrees with Girls Chase. I was involved with the filming of One Date and personally saw enough studies to make my brain hurt and they all agree with Girls Chase. Like, over a thousand of them.

If you don't properly engage in a debate with that material when it drops, then you are not really saying anything substantial. In fact, you haven't for some time. For a while now you've been harping on PUA and replacing it with all of your "natural" arguments, except ALL of your natural arguments can fit within a PUA framework. You're just using different terminologies.

For instance, Chase has talked many times about being a lover AND a provider, exactly what this thread is about. I'm not sure if at this point you're simply not even reading articles on the website, but let me say this - you're way behind the ball on what GC teaches and what it doesn't. We're in 2037 and you're stuck in 2017.

Want an example?

In fact, women have almost ZERO interest in "lover" qualities towards the start and end of their menstrual cycles because they are very unlikely to get pregnant at those times. Therefore, the lovers good genes are almost worthless. One study I read showed that women are actually LESS interested in lovers than they are providers at those times. Isn't that interesting? So in the end, remember that context and reading and understanding how she feels is more important than anything else. I wrote more extensively on this topic a while back: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15270 and viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15350

Chase has SPECIFICALLY talked about this in an article before. Here you go - https://www.girlschase.com/content/whats ... ooking-you

I suggest you get your arguments on track, engage the material concretely, and I would also recommend showing some respect while you're in this house. You weren't intentionally disrespectful, but it bordered on it, enough for me to see it and feel it and feel the need to point out the line I see you almost crossing. There are many different ways you could have gone about asking questions and being skeptical of material, and I wouldn't have suggested the one you chose. For someone who is as advanced as I suspect you are, I'm sure you can see the social calibration in my recommendations (because this thread does clearly show you're upgrading to a new caliber of girl).

If that doesn't sit right with you, I might suggest you go to a social science forum, a social science subReddit, or maybe start your own site.

Hector

 

[Bboy100]

Yes, I saw this coming. When you started becoming anti-PUA and pro-natural (even though there is no distinction), I anticipated this. However, you can see how it comes off very socially strange that you would no longer trust PUA/pickup, and yet you are using the forum of a pickup site as your house of discussion and have learned a lot from Girls Chase. That's fine that you're on your own now, that's the goal of any teacher to help you become self-sufficient, but it doesn't look good to sow dissent in the home that taught you (the concepts at GC led you to where you are, whether you want to admit it or not). I'm not saying you need to be some zealot of GC, no, that's a bad thing, but when you're openly claiming that GC is not trustworthy, you're getting into some shitty territory.

Woah...I do not think GC is untrustworthy. Like we've discussed before. I think it has some extra fluff which it could do without. But definitely not bad. I was making a point about dating advice in general. I never targeted GC in specific. There is some good content out there which is not empirical (including lots of GC material). What I'm saying is that there's no way to verify what exactly it will get you, therefore I personally choose not to rely on it. That doesn't mean that its objectively "bad" or "untrustworthy". I even said in my last post that I admittedly set the bar very high, and it would make sense if you disagreed with me.

And btw, the only reason I brought Chase into the mix is because Big Daddy used him as an example. Otherwise, I would have just stuck with "PUA's/Dating Coaches". Because lets be honest...even though Chase's stuff is solid, most PUA/dating advice stuff on the internet is absolute shit.

Also, like you said...this is where I started. It's my home. Even if I no longer agree with some of the principles here, I will ALWAYS have a place in my heart for you, Chase and others who have helped shape who I am. Which is a big part of why I'm still here. I want to help out. Not everyone has to buy into everything I'm saying. But at the very least, I hope (nay, I KNOW because of some Pms I've received) that it gets people thinking.

What exactly is your point?

You use his advice and if it works and gets you the results, then it's "good." How does the details of his relationship matter? Your dating life is about you. If what we teach helps you, then it's "good."

The point is that if I don't know if Chase's relationships are "good" for me, then I can't afford to waste time implementing advice which may or may not work. Actually I can. If it was just casual advice which I could go out and test in a week, it would be fine. Buuut, once it becomes something as large as GC (or anyone who comes up with a whole system for dating. Not singling Chase out here), this inevitably involves a change of mindsets. Even your entire worldview will change. I think you're a good example of this Hector. Your entire view of how women and dating works is fundamentally influenced by GC and any other sources you might have for dating advice. Which is not a bad thing if you're getting what you want.

But unfortunately, most guys who run into dating advice don't get what they want. Not because they're incapable. But because the system they're introduced to is
1. Not geared towards their strengths.
2. Is not capable of producing the result the desire.

But they don't know that. How could they if they have no experience and are completely clueless with women?

Furthermore, everything you're saying could be turned back on you. I've received a few screenshots from your conversations with women over Instagram, but how do I know those are not select cases? How do I know the details of your relationships? How can anyone reading this forum trust your newlyfound "natural" and "scientific" perspectives when you don't have any transparency of your own? Your kettle seems black as well.

Well...some of what I post is grounded on research. So some of it is actually verifiable. But you're still right. Some of what I say is my own interpretation of it/my own experiences. But I never said this wasn't true. I should have clarified that from the start. Even what I say could very well be wrong...or at the very least inapplicable to some people (e.g. if you want to have a relationship with a hardcore party girl...I can't tell you shit about how to do that. I've never done it. Therefore, my advice may very well be inapplicable). I will never claim to know everything about dating/getting women. That would be ridiculous and arrogant lol.

BUT what I do think I'm right about is my original statement: The only two sources which are almost guaranteed to bring success are personal experience (and experiences of people who's dating lives you know) and academic research (because if done correctly, is done in a controlled setting). Everything else is questionable. Even the stuff I consider "mostly good" like GC. Hector, all I'm doing is setting the bar for acceptable to "almost 100% guaranteed to bring results" instead of just "pretty good or okay chance that it will bring results".

Also, you should know that Chase uses 1,000+ scientific citations in his upcoming product One Date. If you want to truly criticize GC, then you need to get that product and dissect it yourself, as everything he teaches there is GC tradition, except in a clear, elaborated, and very thorough singular package, plus LOTS of new stuff that all fits cohesively with everything that he's taught. Yes, the social science literature agrees with Girls Chase. I was involved with the filming of One Date and personally saw enough studies to make my brain hurt and they all agree with Girls Chase. Like, over a thousand of them.

If you don't properly engage in a debate with that material when it drops, then you are not really saying anything substantial. In fact, you haven't for some time. For a while now you've been harping on PUA and replacing it with all of your "natural" arguments, except ALL of your natural arguments can fit within a PUA framework. You're just using different terminologies.

For instance, Chase has talked many times about being a lover AND a provider, exactly what this thread is about. I'm not sure if at this point you're simply not even reading articles on the website, but let me say this - you're way behind the ball on what GC teaches and what it doesn't. We're in 2037 and you're stuck in 2017.

Want an example?

Bboy wrote:
In fact, women have almost ZERO interest in "lover" qualities towards the start and end of their menstrual cycles because they are very unlikely to get pregnant at those times. Therefore, the lovers good genes are almost worthless. One study I read showed that women are actually LESS interested in lovers than they are providers at those times. Isn't that interesting? So in the end, remember that context and reading and understanding how she feels is more important than anything else. I wrote more extensively on this topic a while back: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15270 and viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15350


Chase has SPECIFICALLY talked about this in an article before. Here you go - https://www.girlschase.com/content/whats ... ooking-you

I suggest you get your arguments on track, engage the material concretely, and I would also recommend showing some respect while you're in this house. You weren't intentionally disrespectful, but it bordered on it, enough for me to see it and feel it and feel the need to point out the line I see you almost crossing. There are many different ways you could have gone about asking questions and being skeptical of material, and I wouldn't have suggested the one you chose. For someone who is as advanced as I suspect you are, I'm sure you can see the social calibration in my recommendations (because this thread does clearly show you're upgrading to a new caliber of girl).

If that doesn't sit right with you, I might suggest you go to a social science forum, a social science subReddit, or maybe start your own site.

I feel like all of this is based on the premise that I think GC is "bad" or "untrustworthy". I'm sorry if you feel that way. But it's simply not what I was saying. I think you may have interpreted it this way because of past discussions and critiques I had of GC. But I do not think this post by itself suggests that I think GC is not credible. Having said that, it seems that you feel that I have disrespected you/Chase. And I definitely did not mean to do that. SO I apologize. I'll be careful to be more explicit in who/what I'm critiquing in the future.

My only intention was to point out something I thought was interesting about the "lover/provider" paradigm because I thought it would be a relatively safe topic. In fact, I refrain from posting a lot of stuff nowadays because I know a lot of it would blow up into a discussion like this one.

Also, I completely disagree when you say that my ideas can fit into the framework of PUA. Even if the actions are the same, PUAs promote very different mindsets than what I'm suggesting at beginner and intermediate levels. It's only once we become advanced that the two merge. Which is very important. Having said that, since these boards are ultimately your realm, if you really believe I'm not posting anything substantive, out of respect to you (and any other admins who might feel the same way about me), I'm happy to call it quits if you feel that is appropriate

 

[Hector Papi Castillo]

But definitely not bad. I was making a point about dating advice in general. I never targeted GC in specific. There is some good content out there which is not empirical (including lots of GC material). What I'm saying is that there's no way to verify what exactly it will get you, therefore I personally choose not to rely on it. That doesn't mean that its objectively "bad" or "untrustworthy". I even said in my last post that I admittedly set the bar very high, and it would make sense if you disagreed with me.

Okay. Fair enough. But you can see how with almost every one of your posts, it's about how you see it differently than pickup or the seduction community. I mean, even an Aspy can see the connotations and implications of saying something like that in a pick-up forum. I've seen you do this for a long time now and have been pointing out how you're coming off "Anti-PUA" and that you probably should check what you're saying before you post it, but it's come to this now. Which is fine. It excites me but I'm not sure you're ready for it.

What I'm saying is that there's no way to verify what exactly it will get you, therefore I personally choose not to rely on it.

What study will ever tell you that you can exactly have X type of relationship that lasts Y years with Z benefits? I don't know what kind of super-science you have access to, but any study like that would be impossible. It's too large. Too many variables.

Also, evolutionary psychology/biology is NOT a hard science. It's mostly confirmation bias.

This is how you do social psychology - http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10. ... 17.1395791

And guess what they're doing? Surveys and observations. It's either self-reported or it's observed. Those are the only two ways to get information. That's what pickup is. Just because we don't have government funding or stringent double-blind studies doesn't mean our procedure isn't strict. We have variables like value, attainability, etc. These are all variables that the social sciences use with different names.

You're getting way too caught up in style, not substance.

But at the very least, I hope (nay, I KNOW because of some Pms I've received) that it gets people thinking.

That's why I'm having this discussion with you. People are going to you for advice so I'm making sure you're doing it right and clarifying some things for anyone lurking. It sucks that I have to do it publicly but I've been droppings hints for some time now and telling you how everything you're saying is GC material but you keep insisting it's not, despite me offering concrete examples of you use X term and we use Y term, then you rebrand it as something totally new. This sows distrust in Girls Chase and when it comes from someone who's respected in the community, the distrust is amplified. We're all for disagreements, but I can tell you that almost every disagreement you'll have with GC is either

1. You're wrong

2. You're right and GC is arguing for it

If someone reads this and argues, "Oh, you're so dogmatic," that's fine. They can think that, but they're also going to have to present to me a situation where GC is wrong and it's methodology/framework doesn't explain why something is happening.

ctually I can. If it was just casual advice which I could go out and test in a week, it would be fine. Buuut, once it becomes something as large as GC (or anyone who comes up with a whole system for dating. Not singling Chase out here), this inevitably involves a change of mindset

Again, you're getting lost in terminologies. Just because this is a website called Girls Chase and has a general flow of information doesn't mean it's advice is rigid. What we teach at Girls Chase is a *PROCESS* by which you analyze a situation and then get what you want from it. It's really that simple.

Your entire view of how women and dating works is fundamentally influenced by GC and any other sources you might have for dating advice. Which is not a bad thing if you're getting what you want

Sure, but I challenge and test everything I learn from Chase. He'll teach me something in private, I go out and do it, and it works. Then I look at the explanations he gave for why it works and see if it can be explained with that. I also do it backwards, to try and avoid confirmation bias. I have an experience and I see if it can be described in some of the ways we teach at Girls Chase, and if it properly explains what went wrong, and then the next time i'm in a similar situation, using this framework, I change one of the variables, and it works, then it's a solid system.

I'm being concrete here. You're not. The two concrete examples you gave, I showed you that we already cover it, yet you didn't admit that in your next response.

Show me some concrete examples where the framework we use here doesn't adequately explain what went on.

It has to be mechanical.

No, "Well, it's the spirit of Girls Chase that I don't agree with." That's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing efficiency.

The spirit of Girls Chase is, "We love women. Beyond that, have the relationship and lifestyle you want, here are the tools to do any of that."

I'm a natural. I was fucking chicks way before finding GC and had a pretty good system going. All GC did was give me terminologies and expand my framework. We fuck pussies and date women. that's it. That's all this entire website is about. If you're concerned with the mentalities of Girls Chase, that's a moral disagreement, not a systematic one, and thus completely and utterly untouchable by half of your criteria for good advice (scientific literature).

But unfortunately, most guys who run into dating advice don't get what they want. Not because they're incapable. But because the system they're introduced to is
1. Not geared towards their strengths.
2. Is not capable of producing the result the desire.

But they don't know that. How could they if they have no experience and are completely clueless with women?

Give me an example. Concretely. If you simply make a philosophical argument or an argument about the spirit of Girls Chase, you lose. This is, again, an efficiency discussion.

Well...some of what I post is grounded on research

Evolutionary psychology/biology is not legitimate research. It's nice and a lot of it is right, but it is not verifiable via the scientific method.

The only two sources which are almost guaranteed to bring success are personal experience (and experiences of people who's dating lives you know) and academic research (because if done correctly, is done in a controlled setting). Everything else is questionable.

Where did Girls Chase ever disagree with using personal experience? That's like our biggest advocacy. Go out and test. Approach women. Get experience.

As for academic research in controlled setting. Dude. Okay, show me a journal of social science, and show me the process by which they make their judgment, and let's go through their process, because it seems like you have some mythological idea of how science works. Then, I'll show you how you analyze an anecdote with the advice we teach her at GC and how it's pretty damn controlled and accounts for a lot of variables.

Seriously, let's get concrete. If your next reply doesn't contain some references to non-evolutionary psychology/biology journals and an extended analysis of their process and findings, you lose. You want to play science, let's play science. Otherwise, we're just jerking off, by your argument, since everything but that and personal experience is suspect.

Also, personal experience isn't scientific. It's just an experience. By your argument, you need a system by which to accurately interpret the results. There are tons of guys with shitty love lives who have lots of "personal experience" with rejection, but it doesn't mean they know jack shit about how it works. Also, I know tons of dumbass hot guys who get laid all the time, but they're not really conceptually conscious of it all, but they still get results. A guy can have a lot of experience but be shitty at explaining it.

You argue that scientific literature is your system and only personal experience is your sandbox. That's fine. Let's play under those guidelines.

My only intention was to point out something I thought was interesting about the "lover/provider" paradigm because I thought it would be a relatively safe topic. In fact, I refrain from posting a lot of stuff nowadays because I know a lot of it would blow up into a discussion like this one.

But I showed you how it's already been covered. You came at it like it's some new idea and that GC doesn't cover it. You actually wrote in your original post something along the lines of, "GC teaches you to be a lover, BUT look at this study on why being a lover isn't always going to work for high quality girls and for girls who are menstruating."

Here. I'll quote you exactly

So on GC, the concept of "lover" and "provider" is talked about extensively. In evolutionary psychology terms, a "lover" is basically communicating that you have good genes and will therefore create healthy, sexy sons and daughters (regardless of weather or not you choose to stick around). Whereas a "provider" is a man who is not necessarily as genetically fit, but shows that he would make a good father and a good partner to the women (which indirectly increases her offspring's chances of survival). This is why oftentimes, women will quickly hook up with a lover, whilst requiring providers to show more romantic proof (signals that he is willing to commit time and energy to the women) before she even considers sex with him. Btw, I've also posted about how I think this does NOT mean that you should treat every women like she will put out on a first date if you act like a "lover". This is not true. In fact, women have almost ZERO interest in "lover" qualities towards the start and end of their menstrual cycles because they are very unlikely to get pregnant at those times. Therefore, the lovers good genes are almost worthless. One study I read showed that women are actually LESS interested in lovers than they are providers at those times. Isn't that interesting? So in the end, remember that context and reading and understanding how she feels is more important than anything else. I wrote more extensively on this topic a while back: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15270 and viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15350

When you structure it like this, do you see how it comes off?

Also, a provider is NOT genetically unfit. You're getting lost in sub-par evo-psych terms. Later in the paragraph, you get more specific by saying "lover qualities" and "provider qualities," which correctly implies that a singular human male can have some of each qualities, all at the same time.

Also, women don't have ZERO interest in lover qualities when they're menstruating. They'll SEEK OUT men with "provider qualities" sure but they'll still be interested in hot guys. i've fucked tons of girls on their periods while seducing them like a jackass lover. So, by your criteria, my personal experience trumps that bullshit study, huh?

Well, no, because I see past the minor disagreements. Attraction is a spectrum. She's probably more attracted to me if she were ovulating, and I probably have to show MORE provider qualities to get her in bed, but it doesn't NEGATE my lover qualities, like aggression, etc. Arguing that women on their periods don't go for hot aggressive guys is just mindnumbingly retarded to anyone with experience with women. Girls on their periods have gotten hot and horny when I'm an aggressive bloodhound on plenty of occasions.

But like I said, GC covers this. You're not saying anything new, which is why I advised that instead of framing your arguments as "GC says this, But THIS IS MORE TRUE," maybe you can instead say, "Hmm, so i have this idea/made this observation, and I think GC says this, but I'm not sure how it fits into the whole framework. What do you guys think?"

Do you see how MASSIVELY different an approach that is?

As I've been telling you over and over again for like the past year, you're stumbling on higher level thoughts here, and you're going to express them in your own unique way, but you can do this WITHOUT SAYING PICKUP IS GARBAGE. Because most pickup is not garbage. Maybe they present it wrong, but the system isn't wrong.

Also, I completely disagree when you say that my ideas can fit into the framework of PUA. Even if the actions are the same, PUAs promote very different mindsets than what I'm suggesting at beginner and intermediate levels. It's only once we become advanced that the two merge. Which is very important

Give me. Concrete. Examples.

Having said that, since these boards are ultimately your realm, if you really believe I'm not posting anything substantive, out of respect to you (and any other admins who might feel the same way about me), I'm happy to call it quits if you feel that is appropriate

That's not at all what I said. I'm testing you. You're putting out big boi ideas and I'm giving you big boi treatment. You said you know how to box, so I'm putting you in the ring without headgear and we're going 5 rounds. If you don't like it, don't try to say big boi stuff. I'm getting defensive and aggressive, because you are smart and you do have influence and I'm testing to see if you're simply trying to make your own brand and show you if it's good or not OR I'm seeing if you are simply expressing your new ideas in a less-than-optimal fashion (i.e., you're coming off like you know better and are, whether you mean to or not, throwing GC/pickup under the table).

Also, you seem to be ignoring me when I give you concrete examples of where GC uses your criteria of scientific literature, because Chase LOVES to reference science, so each time you ignore a point I make on this, I will remind you, since that's, you know, your criteria.

If you're ready to box pro, then look at the challenges I've given you and get ready to argue with your dick out.

Hector

P.S. If I'm coming off like i'm angry, that's just how I am. I'm sure you understand. I'm more excited than anything.

P.P.S. I suggest using sites like SAGE (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10. ... 01503010.x) for your references. Again, no evolutionary biology/psychology.

 

[Rain]

Also, a provider is NOT genetically unfit. You're getting lost in sub-par evo-psych terms. Later in the paragraph, you get more specific by saying "lover qualities" and "provider qualities," which correctly implies that a singular human male can have some of each qualities, all at the same time.

Do you mean literally not genetically unfit, or metaphorically not genetically unfit? Eg if a skinny or fat guy has a full time job, would that be geneitcally unfit in the literal context? In the metaphorical context would it mean he has a full time job and is caring of her and would look after offspring, regardless of if he is skinny/average/fat and therefore is seen as genetically fit? Did you mean it the literal or the metaphorical way?

Is geneticaly unfit seen as a negative thing when trying to get women, in the context you mean above?

 

[Bboy100]

First, I'd like to address something from your last post which has become relevant now. You're actually right, I haven't read GC articles in a long time. So if within the past year or so, everything has completely changed such that everything I say is irrelevant, than fine. Which also brings me to the next point...you've brought up that Chase's new product has citations. Good. That makes him better than lots of the other dating advice out there.

BUT...he's not the first PUA to use citations and get it wrong. Even some guys who clearly got it wrong like The Mystery Method technically had scientific citations. Problem is, they completely misinterpreted the science. They filtered it through their worldview and made it fit into what they already believed, not vice versa. It's actually really really easy to do that. And its very HARD to get it right if you're not a trained researcher. There's a reason PhD students require as much school as they do. Chase is an intelligent guy. But unless he hired someone else to confirm or deny if he used the research correctly, I just don't trust that its right. Again...no disrespect to him. I would probably be even less qualified than he is to accurately assess research (Hopefully not for long. Taking a class on it as we speak!).

Some of the researchers have said it themselves (e.g. David Buss) that no one in the pua community interpreted their research correctly. Thing is...I don't want to say that about Chase. Especially not on his forum. Because it's really disrespectful and arrogant. I'm assuming Chase is guilty till proven innocent. I do it because like I said before...I can't afford the time, money and emotional investment into stuff which won't work for me. I didn't want to verbalize it though. Which is why I was avoiding addressing this. But now, I feel like you've kinda cornered me, so I have to say it.

What study will ever tell you that you can exactly have X type of relationship that lasts Y years with Z benefits? I don't know what kind of super-science you have access to, but any study like that would be impossible. It's too large. Too many variables.

Also, evolutionary psychology/biology is NOT a hard science. It's mostly confirmation bias.

This is how you do social psychology - http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10. ... 17.1395791

And guess what they're doing? Surveys and observations. It's either self-reported or it's observed. Those are the only two ways to get information. That's what pickup is. Just because we don't have government funding or stringent double-blind studies doesn't mean our procedure isn't strict. We have variables like value, attainability, etc. These are all variables that the social sciences use with different names.

You're getting way too caught up in style, not substance.

Here we go...

Yes, as we've discussed before EP is not the best science in the world. So I agree. It doesn't necessarily give you clear answers. And for the most part, no science does. BUT, I would choose EP over NOTHING (and like I said above, I'm just not sure how Chase applied the studies he cited. So I'm skeptical. And I don't have the time nor qualifications to go dissect it myself). I will look into social science. The link you gave me at the end seems interesting!

But what you're doing vs what they're doing is DEFINITELY NOT THE SAME. I'm actually taking a Research for Psychological Professionals class in my Masters program as we speak. And the experiments in Psychology are faaar more controlled and weed out waaay more confounding variables than just going out and testing shit in the open world. Are they perfect? Ofc not. But do they say a lot more than just a dude going out and testing stuff. With a bunch of variables which are uncontrolled for? Absolutely.

The reason why Psychology experiments seem to be the same to you is because you don't understand them. Looks like they're just doing surveys right? That's definitely a part of it. But they control for a bunch of other factors. Just as an example...if we looked at a study which measures say...how stress at work correlates to family disputes.

They wouldn't just go out and ask any family vague questions about stress at work. No. They would control for as many factors as possible such as income, race/ethnicity, composition of the families, what jobs they work, if it's done well they'll figure out a way to empirically define stress...and so on. Yes...there are plenty of bad studies out there which don't do this stuff effectively. But most of them do at least a little bit of it. Which already makes them more credible than the personal experience of someone else.

If you're concerned with the mentalities of Girls Chase, that's a moral disagreement, not a systematic one, and thus completely and utterly untouchable by half of your criteria for good advice (scientific literature).

No, it's not a moral disagreement. It's a disagreement on the practicality of the mindsets. Here's are two examples, one technical and one which is not just Philosophical, but paradigm shifting:

One of the biggest problems with GC is that it doesn't really emphasize the main point of meeting women, dating them, and getting relationships. And that is emotionally connecting with one another. That is the bread and butter. Nothing else matters as much as this. Not having first sex with her on a first date, not being dominant, not having tight fundamentals, not getting investment, nothing. Granted, I understand that some of those things are necessary in order to create a connection with a high quality women. I get that. But the problem is that you've presented the information in terms of external actions (i.e. when a women does x, respond by doing y). Or, take on the mindset/philosophical standpoint of z. It'll help you with women. Instead, you should be addressing emotional issues which prevent people from NATURALLY doing the external actions and taking on those mindsets. You miss the whole point of dating. Dating is framed as "if x happens, do y". It's mechanical as opposed to emotional. And once you frame it that way, not only do men begin to misunderstand women (because what if something happens which GC didn't cover. Oh noes!) but also, they miss the whole reason they're there. They think its to have sex with her. Or to get her in a relationship. Or do whatever result they want out of the date. By doing steps 1,2,3,4. But really...that's not the point. The point is to be a normal human being and emotionally connect with her(even if it's only for one night and on a strictly physical level). Once a person understands how to do that, they will do all the steps GC advocates naturally. AND, they will do it in a way which is authentic to who they are instead of trying to copy what you or Chase do.

This is important because weather we know it or not, connection is the reason we date. Even guys who only want sex and nothing else. See women as walking vaginas. Still...they want to connect with women (otherwise why not just buy a male sex toy. It's much less costly and easier than getting good with girls). They just usually don't know it because they're not in touch with their emotions and have a lot of emotional healing to do. Connection is what we crave as human beings. It's one of the things which gives our lives meaning. So even if we get the results without the connection, the entire experience becomes less meaningful. And if you don't buy all that, even from a practical standpoint, if we don't understand how to connect with our emotions, we won't understand the women's emotions and social context. And without understanding those two things, a lot of the advice here will be terribly terribly misapplied, creating disastrous results (as I did in my earlier days). This is the real reason I say GC doesn't fit into my framework and you disagree.

...Actually, now that I think about it, I think ^^^ is the most important critique I have. I just didn't know how to put it into words till now. If this seems nebulous, unclear or unimportant, ask me to clarify. This is the most important thing. In fact, it's even possible that all of Chase's citations are right. But if he's missing this, he's still not getting to the core of what dating really is and how it functions. In fact, I'll give you a parrellel example. Let's say you're trynna run a business. ...What's the most important thing? TO HAVE A HIGH QUALITY PRODUCT. Nothing else matters as much. Not your website. Not your sales pitch. Not the networking that you do. Nothing. Your first job is to create a product which others want. Well in dating...your "product" is your ability to emotionally connect with a women. And that is NOT done via a step by step program. Its done by understanding your emotions, which in turn, helps you understand hers and react to them.

Having said that...does the sales team, website, and networking matter? Of course it does! That stuff always helps. Similarly, mindsets, tech and philosophies can help. But they are supplementary to the ability to connect with women. Not vice versa.

Yes, some of GC's stuff helps with connecting with women. No doubt. But without that being the overarching mindset, many men get lost in the nuts and bolts instead of keeping their eyes on the prize. If connecting with women was emphasized more (NOT AS A PROCESS OR TECHNIQUE LIKE DEEP DIVING. AS A PHILOSOPHY AND A GOAL), the context and audience of Girlschase would be much much different from what it is.

And here's the technical example which is actually an instantiation of the Philosophical example I just gave:

GC advocates that beginners go out and set goals.
Approach 5 girls.
Ask 2 girls for their numbers.
Hook 3 girls.
etc.

This is a very very toxic mindset because it hinders success. It leaves the guy in his own head. Nervous. Because now, his night out is all about this big thing..."approaching girls". It makes the whole center of his world talking to girls. That's a very very anxiety provoking experience. Instead, it would be more effective to go out and just have the mentality of "have fun". That way everything he does is for him. Its for the purpose of self-amusement. Which makes it easier to get out of our heads. And its attractive to women because it's easier to appear less needy (cause if you're just having fun, you won't be stuck up on the result you get from talking to 1 specific women. Which is otherwise very easy to do if you're new), rejection won't hurt the ego as much, and you'll seem more positive and outgoing. Which is attractive. Whereas if you're going out for the specific purpose of going out and meeting women, (which they smell and hate), all of those benefits are gone. Instead, we become a nervous wreck. Which makes the whole experience awful and takes away all the fun. Which makes it less likely that the person will ever try again. There's a reason most guys quit before they even overcome AA. It's because the mindsets they go in with when trying to overcome it destroy them.

The only time he should be thinking "I gotta approach" is once he already sees a girl he wants to talk to. But making THE WHOLE NIGHT about that. Going out SPECIFICALLY TO HUNT FOR GIRLS. It's very burdensome on the psyche which directly decreases efficacy....and it misses the point. Connect with a girl on an emotional level through honesty and authenticity. Not approach a girl in hopes of getting sex or a number or an opener or whatever he wants. Especially for a 19 year old virgin who doesn't have a clue with women.

Where did Girls Chase ever disagree with using personal experience? That's like our biggest advocacy. Go out and test. Approach women. Get experience.

Right...but as I said before...once it becomes a big system like GC, it takes YEARS to test everything. Because there are a lot of moving parts to it before you can understand and grasp the whole picture. And anytime someone says "x didn't work", the reply they always get is "you need to do more approaches before it works for you". Which is totally true. Not wrong technically. The problem is that you're asking for a very huge investment on something they don't know will work for them.

Which brings me to the next point...

Also, personal experience isn't scientific. It's just an experience. By your argument, you need a system by which to accurately interpret the results. There are tons of guys with shitty love lives who have lots of "personal experience" with rejection, but it doesn't mean they know jack shit about how it works. Also, I know tons of dumbass hot guys who get laid all the time, but they're not really conceptually conscious of it all, but they still get results. A guy can have a lot of experience but be shitty at explaining it.

Exactly! That's why like I said before...I rely only on the experience of
1. Myself
2. Others who are close to me who's love lives I completely grasp. That way I can accurately analyze them through the lens of my own experiences.. I don't want them explaining it to me because they're probably wrong (at least based on my experience. Maybe they're right in the context of their lives, and maybe there's an uncontrolled variable at play which neither of us see). Or at the very least, it won't work for me because there is some factor which is inapplicable to my life.

It sucks that I have to do it publicly but I've been droppings hints for some time now and telling you how everything you're saying is GC material but you keep insisting it's not, despite me offering concrete examples of you use X term and we use Y term, then you rebrand it as something totally new. This sows distrust in Girls Chase and when it comes from someone who's respected in the community, the distrust is amplified. We're all for disagreements, but I can tell you that almost every disagreement you'll have with GC is either
1. You're wrong

2. You're right and GC is arguing for it

If someone reads this and argues, "Oh, you're so dogmatic," that's fine. They can think that, but they're also going to have to present to me a situation where GC is wrong and it's methodology/framework doesn't explain why something is happening.

There are quite a few fundamental points with which I disagree. Most importantly, the above one I mentioned about connecting with women. But here's another example just for shits and giggles:

Advocating cold approach is the main method of meeting women- Yes...it works. And it's good. Especially if you have a certain personality type. But most guys have to invest YEARS of their lives in order to get good enough at this to be successful. It's just not that efficient. Almost regardless of the result you want. Want to bang as many slootz as possible? Use online. Want to meet a girl for a relationship? Go sign up for a place where there is context for meeting her For example, if you're both volunteering at the same place, she's going to be a LOT more open to talking to you, take a lot less "skill" to get into bed, and is a lot more likely to be the type of girl you want to date (because presumably, you both like volunteering for that cause, which naturally screens for certain traits). It's not a numbers game. It's a matter of finding your niche (not a niche to COLD APPROACH a niche with SOCIAL CONTEXT), then creating a social circle from there.

Compare that with going out and approaching god knows how many women before you find one who's interested in you (assuming you're a beginner or intermediate), then god knows how many more before you find one you'd actually like to date. Not to mention...social circle reaps a variety of other benefits. Including actually having friends. And making it a lot easier to get started and see small wins (which therefore increases the chance that the guy will stick through the tough times. Cause he can see he's getting better).

Yes, GC doesn't necessarily oppose this framework. In fact, it has a few articles on how to do exactly this. But it's the main premise it teaches, and it's now what its content is geared around. If it was, I think a lot of the articles would look totally different. And like I said.... cold approach is not BAD advice. Just not optimal.

Ofc, once you become advanced and have your life together, you can somewhat easily do both cold approach and social circle. Your only hurdle if you started out as social circle is that you'll have to overcome AA and get used to the novelty of talking to strangers with no context for meeting them other than a mutual attraction to one another. But beyond that, they do eventually merge like you said.

I think this example in of itself fundamentally changes how we would approach our dating lives, and the process we use for getting better with women.

Another example is the conversation we had a while back about how we approach dates. You say we should approach it as "be a lover and it's always possible to sleep with her on a first date". I say that's a toxic mindset because people will misinterpret it to mean something totally different from what you're actually trying to say, which will thereby fuck up a lot of dates which otherwise could have gone well. But let's not open that can of worms, cause I think we've both already said our pieces on it

Show me some concrete examples where the framework we use here doesn't adequately explain what went on.

P.S.

You definitely didn't have to do this publically if you didn't want to. At least not at first. You could have sent me a PM letting me know that this is a problem. Not that I mind. I always enjoy these discussions with you. Just felt like I had to point this out

It has to be mechanical.

Again...opening a can of worms here which has already been discussed. But I disagree with a lot of the fundamentals of relationship management here. For example: https://www.girlschase.com/content/faile ... leadership

The whole idea that the man must lead in a relationship is a ridiculous outdated patriarchical idea. It's simply not true. Not saying it's unaccepatable. If that's how you want to have your relationships, and she's down for that, that's totally fine. But once you tie in the idea that "men must lead or the relationship is likely to fail"...that's when I have a problem. If you read that article...you'll note that its framed as a zero sum game. That is...it assumes that men and women have different goals in relationships. Therefore one person will usually "lose".

This is actually true a lot of the time. Oftentimes, you'll find two people in a relationship who want different things out of it. If that happens, yes, the dominant person wil usually get what they want. And the submissive one will end up heart-broken.

But the issue here is NOT "bad relationship management" on the man's end. It's simply picking the wrong partner and failing to openly and honestly communicate expectations with one another.

It's totally possible for a women to be "dominant" and for a relationship to be very fruitful for both parties. There are plenty of other things which matter more in the context of a relationship than the man remaining dominant. It's nice, don't get me wrong. But I wouldn't even say its in the top 10 most important qualities.

Which brings me to a second example...it's all about being "dominant". You see this theme of dominance and leadership all across the website. And while yes, dominance, decisiveness, leadership skills etc. are all things which get women wet. They are still only but one of many many traits which matter. It's totally possible to take on the more submissive role (as long as you're not a pussy/doormat!) and be successful with women.

But I showed you how it's already been covered. You came at it like it's some new idea and that GC doesn't cover it. You actually wrote in your original post something along the lines of, "GC teaches you to be a lover, BUT look at this study on why being a lover isn't always going to work for high quality girls and for girls who are menstruating."

Yep. Sorry about that. I hadn't read the article. If I had, I never would have posted this. I understand how it comes off as condescending now. I was still assuming the paradigm is "be a hardcore lover. That's all you need to get girls". I apologize for that.

Also, women don't have ZERO interest in lover qualities when they're menstruating. They'll SEEK OUT men with "provider qualities" sure but they'll still be interested in hot guys. i've fucked tons of girls on their periods while seducing them like a jackass lover. So, by your criteria, my personal experience trumps that bullshit study, huh?

Again...as I said at the start of the post...this is from an evolutionary perspective. The evolutionary perspective not encompass every possible reason for why a women might hook up with you . There are plenty of other potential reasons which have nothing to do with evolution (e.g. if a girl is consciously and actively looking for short term mating for whatever personal reason she might have...all of this gets thrown out the window). I emphasized this over and over again throughout the post.

P.P.S. I suggest using sites like SAGE (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10. ... 01503010.x) for your references. Again, no evolutionary biology/psychology.

I will look into this. Looks interesting

 

[lostnumber]

Edit: Also, your concrete example here is Chase. Here's the thing about Chase...I've never met the dude. Never met a girl he's dated. I'm not saying he doesn't date great girls. I bet he does. But the nuts and bolts of his dating life is largely unknown. And that's the point I'm trying to make here. Imo, details and context are very very important. Important enough that they can change everything.

You might have an image of what Chase's dating life is like which is completely different from what its actually like. Does he get girls. Probably. In fact, almost definitely. But what do his relationships actually look like? We don't really know all too well. At best, we have a very snapshot, surface level look at them. And btw, his relationships might be great in his eyes. He might be very happy with what he has. I'm not saying he's lying or deceitful in any way. But here's the thing...just cause he likes his relationships doesn't mean YOU would like his relationships. You don't really know what he's like. You don't really know what his girls are like (sure, he might list off a bunch of qualities they have. But that almost never encapsulates the experience of being with them, nor does it capture how well they function in a relationship). And most importantly, you don't know what his relationships are actually like nor do you know how they function. Therefore, you don't know what results you will get when you try to use his anecdotal advice.

Yes...he does use examples of his relationships in his articles. But that is not NEARLY enough to get a good idea of what the experience of his relationships is like. Case in point...even MFTs (Marriage and Family Therapists) take a few hour long sessions to get a good grasp of what a couple's relationship looks like. Before that, an MFT usually won't have a very good idea of what a treatment plan would look like. And they're trained professionals. And they are literally sitting there, observing the couple and asking them very specific questions designed to help develop an insight into what the relationship is like very quickly.

And if that's how long it takes a professional to understand a relationship, how in the world would we... readers of his blog have any idea of what his dating life is like. With no information other than just a written anecdote here and there.

Bboy, everything you say here is true and logical. We really CANT know anything about Chases lovelife, or anyone else's beyond what they post, and without being in the bedroom first hand we cant verify scientifically the accuracy of what they say. I think where your argument breaks down is when you try to jump from there to saying "so therefore everything they say is worthless." Essentially you are saying "I don't know which techniques will work with women, therefore I will listen to no one and try nothing"

That's an awful mindset.I think a more healthy view, which most on this site would share, is "I don't know which techniques will work with women, therefore I will try the advice of people who SEEM credible and see if their techniques and lessons work for me. If they don't I will seek out someone else and repeat the process, until I find a method that works"

Having gone with option #2 I can tell you that this shit works. Of course, you don't know me, or my relationships, so under your theory I'm not credible or worth listening to, which is going to bring you back to conclusion #1. So your mindset will have you treading water and getting nowhere forever, because you'll never listen to what anyone else brings to the table.

One of the biggest problems with GC is that it doesn't really emphasize the main point of meeting women, dating them, and getting relationships. And that is emotionally connecting with one another. That is the bread and butter. Nothing else matters as much as this. Not having first sex with her on a first date, not being dominant, not having tight fundamentals, not getting investment, nothing. Granted, I understand that some of those things are necessary in order to create a connection with a high quality women. I get that. But the problem is that you've presented the information in terms of external actions (i.e. when a women does x, respond by doing y). Or, take on the mindset/philosophical standpoint of z. It'll help you with women. Instead, you should be addressing emotional issues which prevent people from NATURALLY doing the external actions and taking on those mindsets. You miss the whole point of dating. Dating is framed as "if x happens, do y". It's mechanical as opposed to emotional. And once you frame it that way, not only do men begin to misunderstand women (because what if something happens which GC didn't cover. Oh noes!) but also, they miss the whole reason they're there. They think its to have sex with her. Or to get her in a relationship. Or do whatever result they want out of the date. By doing steps 1,2,3,4. But really...that's not the point. The point is to be a normal human being and emotionally connect with her(even if it's only for one night and on a strictly physical level). Once a person understands how to do that, they will do all the steps GC advocates naturally. AND, they will do it in a way which is authentic to who they are instead of trying to copy what you or Chase do.

This right here makes it clear to me that you don't read the site. This is just patently false. Chase focuses way more on on fundamentals, principles, and underlying truths then he does on specific steps and techniques. Sure there are articles about opening lines or eye contact, but a lot of it is about mentality, fundamentals, how to have a conversation and connect with people. I've been able to emotionally connect with people in ways I never even thought possible because I took the things I learned here and applied them.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt on some of your first posts and was going to play devil's advocate to hector, but I read your last post and just shake my head.

Advocating cold approach is the main method of meeting women- Yes...it works. And it's good. Especially if you have a certain personality type. But most guys have to invest YEARS of their lives in order to get good enough at this to be successful. It's just not that efficient. Almost regardless of the result you want. Want to bang as many slootz as possible? Use online. Want to meet a girl for a relationship? Go sign up for a place where there is context for meeting her For example, if you're both volunteering at the same place, she's going to be a LOT more open to talking to you, take a lot less "skill" to get into bed, and is a lot more likely to be the type of girl you want to date (because presumably, you both like volunteering for that cause, which naturally screens for certain traits). It's not a numbers game. It's a matter of finding your niche (not a niche to COLD APPROACH a niche with SOCIAL CONTEXT), then creating a social circle from there.

Who says you have to cold approach women? I don't. It's something Chase advocates because its been an avenue of great success for him, but its only one way of many to meet girls. I've cold approached exactly one girl in the past 2 years and gotten double digit lays and multiple LTR because of the things I learned here. I just entered into a serious relationship last week because I was dating someone casually and we really fell for each other. It sort of seems to me like you don't actually read the articles here by the way you are talking about things. And that doesn't exactly put you in a great position to argue against what they are teaching.

 

[Sandman]

-Bboy

I'm writing from my phone so quoting the right paragraphs is hard. But I want to point out two things.

In debate, you never want to attack an opponents example but always the underlying argument. Because taking away the example doesn't detract much from the argument. But two things you said really bothered me.

You say setting goals such as "go approach 5 girls" is toxic. First of all, Chase acknowledges that there is no one path to have success with women. He talked about it the article regarding what to do if his advice doesn't work for you. He said that listening more and having the girl talk is the correct approach for many men by some men who are talktative by nature it's the exact opposite. In the same vein, saying "go have fun" is not a real advice and setting goals is (for most men). If you tell a guy to "don't worry about it bro, just go and have fun". He'll do anything but approach. Because approacing isn't fun, especially in the beginning. A lot of my friends go out to have some fun, do you know how many of them approach girls? Zero. But I set goals just as Chase advised and gotten laid. Cold approach still isn't my niche. But it is now an option for me. And I learned the valuable skills to have conversaton and connect with people who I didn't know.

Second thing is, you say being submissive can work. Yes, it is one of the traits which matter. But oh boy, you are definetely on the wrong with this one. Being dominant is absolutely key in any relationship. This ties directly to respect. How can a girl respect and fall in love with a guy she dominates? I have come across this countless times with friends. If he is not dominant, he gets heartbroken period. You say yourself that it gets women wet. Do you want Chase to teach what gets women wet or what gets them bored? If you elaborate more on the difference of being submissive and being a pussy I can give a more detailed answer. Remember Chase doesn't advocate being a caricature and trying to control women. He advocates being the leader and leading well, giving women what they need and desire. In fact he does talk about not trying to change a person but instead screening better and finding a girl that is more aligned with what you want from her.

Peace^^