Are these articles realistic?

[JimmyB]

Ok, there's some stuff in this article (and similar stuff on this site) that I'm beginning to question. I don't doubt the validity of what Chase has to teach on this site. A lot of it is useful, but I'm beginning to believe it can make you into pretty much a player and nothing beyond that. There doesn't seem to be much room for actual intimacy.

The reason this is so is that when you are weak - even for just one moment; even in just a mildly compromising situation - what you communicate to a girlfriend is, "I can be gotten this way - you just have to find the right angle and stick the right rib."

I feel like the thing with a real relationship is you CAN be gotten by a girl. You're choosing to let her be the one girl who actually does have an affect on your life. She's going to know the ways you can be gotten. If you never show some weakness, you remain to difficult to crack and a woman will move on eventually.

There's some other similarly worded stuff about relationships that in reality seem way too distant for any girl who respects herself. I'm no expert on relationships, so I could be off here, but it sounds like he's trying to say a relationship lasts until you slip up and then you lose ground you can never regain. Which is not a great way of viewing a relationship; it sounds like a you vs. her, rather than a together type of dynamic.

 

[trashKENNUT]

JimmyB,

That's the thing with men and women relationship. They are 'violent', emotionally. Those who tell you otherwise is a liar. You noted that if the guy never shows weakness, she will move on eventually. This is true, for most strong women in the 21th century because they need control, power.

p.s: Her job is to take. That's her nature, to take. I can go deeper and say her nature is to find power because she doesn't have it (penis envy). I don't think you mean that any girl who respects herself is going to take Girlschase article word seriously, but isn't it rather go to that fundamental principle of provider vs lover vs friend, which Chase noted all along?

It is a you vs her, at least some of the time. If it is a "crazy" girl, it is most of the time! The "husband" (i called it the placeholder.) is the most important jigsaw puzzle in the women's life. Husband not around? Boyfriend. Boyfriend not around? First son.

She can't have power, even if she wants to.

Zac

 

[ray_zorse]

You are right, but it is not so bad -- like riding a bike, you hardly ever fall off, and if you do you won't be seriously hurt unless you are very unlucky or inept or taking huge risks. Also, weakness != vulnerability, you can show vulnerability in a high value way. Renee Wade "The Feminine Woman" has a bit to say about this, although it is aimed at women rather than men.
Ray

 

[Thedoctor]

Jimmy,

You`re confusing being weak (which is bad) with being vulnerable (which is good if done properly):

https://www.girlschase.com/content/how-b ... ring-women
https://www.girlschase.com/content/why-v ... tive-women

You never want to become weak or overly emotional. It`s hard but that`s the price paid for being a high value man.

-John

 

[Bboy100]

I think everyone else pretty much covered everything in terms of the article itself.
Having said that, yes, there are some articles which seem to go a bit too far. They take dating and make it this calculated, premeditated, completely planned out procedure. It's almost like you're trying to solve an equation. Also, a lot of the stuff here is taught in a way which makes it seem like a date is some sort of fight or competition, instead of a cooperative effort to build something together.

Examples of such things:
- "Frame Control"
- "Shit tests"
- "Being more dominant than her"
- "Overcoming LMR"
- "Handling objections"
- "Disqualifying yourself as a BF"
- "Persisting (even when she sincerely doesn't want to do whatever you're asking her to do)"
...and so fourth.

I almost feel like there MUST be a better way. And some of this does seem deciteful if not straight up manipulative. Having said that, it definitely does work. So I think its worth sticking to this stuff until we can find a better more cooperative solution

 

[Smith]

I agree with BBoy. Dating and relationship is chaotic because you're dealing with other human beings. While GC is pretty spot on about most things, sometimes you still need to go with your gut feelings about what to do. There are exceptions to rules and you'll be amazed when you're coming from a good frame of mind, almost everything can work. I certainly have learned a lot more from going out there talking to girls than from the articles.

 

[ray_zorse]

Thing is Bboy, women WANT a bit of conflict and non cooperation, it's a chance to show what you are made of. Remember they like EMOTION and DRAMA, negative variety just as much as positive. As a dude who is very LOGICAL and historically a NICE GUY, this is REALLY HARD for me to deal with and I constantly struggle. The cooperative approach will only work if she is NOT SUPER FEMININE and she is very kind and nice and conservative and believes in cooperation and treating you well (fortunately often the case in my demographic), PLUS you provide super value in your body and other fundamentals (or you are rich, famous etc -- my fundamentals need work but some girls consider me high value and therefore do not test quite as hard). Otherwise you had better consider dating to be a battle until proven otherwise. Luckily it all changes after you lay her
Ray

 

[Bboy100]

women WANT a bit of conflict and non cooperation, it's a chance to show what you are made of...

I think we're confusing "conflict" with standing up for your own beliefs and values. I'm not saying I'd like to find a method of attracting women in which I'm "nice" (i.e. a pussy and a doormat). There is no such method. And frankly, I never was and never want to be that guy anyways.

What I was saying is that it seems like in terms of dating, the way this site frames a lot of the things that happen, it's almost like in the short term, we as men are trying to achieve a goal which is directly opposite of the women's (i.e. the women is trying to stall out sex for as long as possible, and the man is trying to make it happen as quick as possible). But ironically enough in the long term, we all (usually) want the same thing- some sort of relationship (whether its casual dating/fuckbuddies or LTR, it doesn't matter...it's still a relationship of one type or another). So it feels like instead of working together and figuring out what one another's needs are and trying to form some sort of compromise, we instead just try to shove our goals and agenda down their throats and hope they submit (oftentimes, we'll do this via manipulative/deceitful methods). And they're (supposedly) doing the same thing to us.

I'd like to avoid this. But like I said before, I'm not sure if that's entirely possible.

 

[JimmyB]

Bboy, I'm going to side with you on this. I feel like this site advocates a lot of over-the-top stuff in order to break you out of nice guy mode. The material is certainly better than being nice. I used to get some girls, but I was pretty much clueless HOW or WHY it was happening. And so I wasn't able to be consistent, which led me to Girlschase. This site cleared up a lot of unknowns for me. But now that I am pretty solid with women and closing, I want to have somewhat of a meaningful relationship. Some stuff on here certainly does feel manipulative/deceitful (and is) in order to sleep with a girl. And there are some girls who I actually respect and want to take things slower with - which this website pretty much exclusively goes against. There are some girls who I don't want to sleep with right away, because it also makes ME too easy. For the same reason women don't want to sleep with a guy too fast. I really do want to take it slower with some girls and all this site will tell me is I'm wrong.

I do want more of a committed relationship. I'm at a point where that sounds appealing. If I were to have pursued that without information like this website, 4 years ago or so, I'd probably be in rough shape. I'd probably be pathetic and weak. But now that, thanks to Girlschase, I have improved so much of myself, I realize think it takes its own material too far.

I've come to realize that pretty much all high-quality girls will only sleep with you if you take the slower route and actually go for the relationship. I feel like most of you on here are going to disagree with me on this point and say "if you were better, that wouldn't be true". But the reality is that girls have way more selection in who they sleep with than guys do. They are the ones who let us sleep with them, and so if you're not willing to bend to her frame at least somewhat, she'll just move on. Girls love to play games, and my view is that high-quality girls will win in the end if you never give in to their version of a relationship dynamic. Maybe I'm in the wrong place, but I've been reading this material for several years and that's my conclusion from personal experience. What confuses me is how this point of view doesn't seem to exist on this website. Is this not accurate?
JimmyB

 

[Smith]

I recommend reading "The Alabaster Girl". The author has a very loving and cooperative view on women and seduction. I think you'll like it BBoy. Although sometimes I feel like he's sugarcoating certain things, I would still adopt some of his mindsets.

 

[ray_zorse]

I'm not sure I really agree.

I would summarize the female reproductive strategy as:
1. Girl wants to know if you are lover or provider or friend material. Therefore, observes you in the date, and possibly tests you somewhat as well.
2. If you are lover category the process ends here because you dominantly lead her to a seduction location and fuck her, establishing it beyond doubt.
3. If you are provider category she spends a month(s) trying to put you in friend category and if she fails she sleeps with you and tries to use your value.
Then, having slept with you on basis of lover or provider she continues the relationship for some months, trying to downgrade you to provider or friend.
The best that can happen here is, if you're a lover and you really like her, you'll accept a dual role of partly lover, partly provider (synonymous with boyfriend).
The middle course is, if you were a provider or you're a lover who she converts into a provider, she uses your value while fantasizing about other men.
The worst that can happen here is, you fuck up and become a friend, she tells you "I don't think we should see each other, it's not you it's me, blah blah".
If you were genuinely a lover and you didn't want to accept the dual role, then you probably ended the relationship yourself, so above does not really apply.

As to the male reproductive strategy it seems much simpler:
1. She's low value. Fuck and forget. Any effort put into a relationship will distract you from your principal reproductive strategy of impregnating lots of women.
2. She's high value. Impregnate repeatedly whilst guarding her from other males. Assist her in bringing children to adulthood and imparting her value to them.

It seems to me that the dating game simply reflects the steps that both parties take in executing their respective reproductive strategies. Of course evolution doesn't know about condoms and so forth. What you're regarding as competition and conflicting objectives is the result of conflicting reproductive strategies.

Ray

 

[Bboy100]

I like to avoid writing such long-winded replies these days. But I see a lot of pretty misogynistic views like these thrown around on the boards. I even bought into them for a while. But if you think about it, they're all questionable at best. Some of them are downright ridiculous. And they probably make it seriously difficult for guys to build loving and trusting relationships with women.

Ray, I'm not writing this specifically to convince you that you're wrong. I just feel like this is a good opportunity to address or at the very least challenge a lot of these ideas which seem to be taken for granted.

Lovers & Providers:

This concept might hold it's weight. But accepting it as an absolute truth is a bit much. The reason being is that there is no actual research to support it. See, the problem with this is that every time we have sex with a girl on a first date, we say "well, she obviously put me in the lover category!". And every time we fail, we say "Ok, obviously my game isn't good enough to lay this girl as a lover". In reality, the reasons for both those things could have nothing to do with you.

For the most part, I think whether or not she's down to fuck you (or anyone) on a first date is mostly dependent on where she is in her life rn. Sure, maybe we have some (or a lot) of influence over it. But it's certainly not as simple as "qualifying myself as a lover= first date sex".

Ex. I have a group of female friends who seem to have no interests in LTRs and who shamelessly hook up with a different guy every weekend. They effectively place every guy they have interest in into the "lover" category. And btw, most of them are 20 year old guys. They're certainly not experienced enough to have naturally developed a "lover" persona. And I've seen a lot of them. They're either completely normal, average college students. Or they're downright morons. Absolutely none of them behaved the way GC would advocate.

On the other hand, there are other girls who I doubt would (under normal circumstances) sleep with a guy on a first date. Regardless of how he runs it and how sexy he is. Case in point, there was a girl I met a while back who didn't even live in the same state as me. We had no mutual friends, she barely knew anything about me. I ran the date almost perfectly. By the end of the it, she was very attracted to me. And she was leaving the next day. It's almost certain I will never see her again. And still, she was not DTF. I couldn't get past second base with her. It's not because I failed to qualify myself as a "lover". Cause there was definitely no long term future. And she definitely saw me as sexy, dominant etc. Its merely because it really wasn't in her interest to hook up with men at that point in her life.

Just like there are some men who can't be roped into LTRs regardless of who the women is, there are women who don't do hookups, regardless of who the man is. Even Chase probably can't and doesn't close every single girl he goes on a date with. Even if he has a 90% close rate, that's still not good enough to prove that women biologically desire lovers at all times in their lives. Why? Because given that he's a master at this (and he is), he should be able to trigger those "biological buttons" every time. Ergo, his close rate should be 100%.

Admittedly, there are some women who are open to BOTH an LTR and hookups. And in this case, the whole lover/provider conundrum might come into play. But generalizing this to mean that ALL women are looking for "lovers" and "providers" is a very bold claim which frankly, seems to lack research based evidence. So far, most of what I've seen to support the concept is merely anecdotal. What's wrong with anecdotal evidence you might ask. Good question. The answer is that we often attribute the reason for our successes and failure to our actions, when in reality, they had nothing to do with us.

Here's an example from my life to illustrate this:

I met my most recent fwb about a month ago. I fucked her on our first date. She explicitly told me that she isn't looking for a hookup before I met her. Later on, I found out I was literally her second partner ever. She's 22. So I thought to myself: "Damn, I must be really getting this down if girls like her are giving me first date sex".

I met her back at my place and we fucked a few more times. Eventually, she started to flake on me. So I scheduled a dinner date with her to talk it over. I found out that she was just getting out of a messy divorce, and that she actually doesn't really like the idea of just hooking up with guys. And what we were doing wasn't really that fulfilling to her. She was visibly embarrassed about the fact that she hooked up with me on a first date (despite the fact that she's still attracted to me!). So as it turns out, the fact that she hooked up with me had nothing to do with me being in a "lover" category, but rather, she was simply emotionally vulnerable and unsure of her identity at that point in her life. And yes, she does still want to see me. So I know for sure that I didn't mess anything up. It's just that under normal circumstances, she's not that type of person. Funny thing is, a lot of guys wouldn't have ever figured this out. They would have just stopped texting her and moved onto the next girl. They would have just continued to believe that she fucked them cause of how they ran their date and their behavior, and that her life circumstances had little or nothing to do with it.

I want to note that I'm not saying I'm 100% sure that there is no such thing as a "lover & provider" I'm just saying that it's questionable. And taking it for granted and basing our entire love lives on the concept is a very risky gamble. Especially since as of right now, there's no way to verify for sure that its true.

The middle course is, if you were a provider or you're a lover who she converts into a provider, she uses your value while fantasizing about other men.

This is where it gets seriously problematic for me. What does this mean exactly? That all women who are in LTRs are gold diggers (or maybe in this case, "value diggers"...lol)? Are you saying that no women who are in relationships are attracted to their man? I mean...this doesn't seem to line up with the real world. Cause there are lots of women who absolutely won't shut up about how great their bfs/husbnds are. Even when they've been in a relationship for a long time.

If you are provider category she spends a month(s) trying to put you in friend category and if she fails she sleeps with you and tries to use your value.

This also seems great on paper, but incongruent with the world. Most failed courtship processes result in the man and women not seeing each other anymore, not in the man becoming the women's friend. And even if he does become her friend, this still makes no sense. Because his resources and value won't be as accessible to her as when he's her BF (i.e. Men don't usually buy their female friends gifts, pay for their dinners, raise their child etc.). Additionally, if this really was their mating strategy, it wouldn't make sense for women to ever push for marriage. Cause marriage would only lock the guy further into the provider category, thus making it even more difficult to move him into the friendzone.

Additionally, if her endgame is to put everyone into the "friend" category, why not do that from the start? Wouldn't it be easier and better for her to just go find male friends from the get-go?

 

[ray_zorse]

Hmm well it's getting quite debate-like. I can only make a quick reply because I'm doing some work at the moment and trying to finish stuff up for the year. I definitely appreciate your point that there is a confirmation bias (with the lover/provider/friend idea) and that these are incredibly broad brush-strokes, to the point where my theory outlined on the previous email can be next to useless for predicting outcomes in individual cases. On the other hand... I see it a bit like quantum physics. Particles do very weird stuff, they can spontaneously change positions, they can randomly appear on "borrowed energy" and then disappear later giving their borrowed energy back to space/time... so, for instance "ghosts" are not impossible, a person could spontaneously appear and move through a wall... but just very unlikely. Zooming out a bit we see much more predictable behaviour, but still some weirdness due to wave/particle dichotomy (Michelson Morley screens experiment for example). And then moving to macro scales standard Newtonian physics works just fine... F = ma and so forth. But on mega scales general relativity comes into play (warping of space/time due to masses being present at various points, causing the illusion of gravity and so forth). Seduction is a bit like that... saying there are lovers and providers etc... it doesn't explain micro scale behaviour in individual cases. It's more a broad average. And when you know nothing about the girl, you can say "well all other things being equal... she will like me more if I disqualify myself as a lover..." et cetera.

Having said that, I'm not sure you 100% appreciate what I meant by saying "she tries to turn you into a provider/friend"... but here is an example:

I met her back at my place and we fucked a few more times. Eventually, she started to flake on me. So I scheduled a dinner date with her to talk it over. I found out that she was just getting out of a messy divorce, and that she actually doesn't really like the idea of just hooking up with guys. And what we were doing wasn't really that fulfilling to her. She was visibly embarrassed about the fact that she hooked up with me on a first date (despite the fact that she's still attracted to me!). So as it turns out, the fact that she hooked up with me had nothing to do with me being in a "lover" category, but rather, she was simply emotionally vulnerable and unsure of her identity at that point in her life. And yes, she does still want to see me. So I know for sure that I didn't mess anything up. It's just that under normal circumstances, she's not that type of person. Funny thing is, a lot of guys wouldn't have ever figured this out. They would have just stopped texting her and moved onto the next girl. They would have just continued to believe that she fucked them cause of how they ran their date and their behavior, and that her life circumstances had little or nothing to do with it.

This appears to fit the theory perfectly, she was attracted and she slept with you as a lover despite its not being what she "normally" does... because "normal" guys in her life court her like a provider. Now, she's in a relationship with you and she's trying to turn you from a lover into a provider. She does this by saying a lot of stuff about how she "is embarrassed about this", "doesn't normally do this", "was emotionally vulnerable", "is looking for that" and so on... look at ACTIONS. She's testing how much you really value the relationship between you and her (and you do value it quite a bit if you met her for lunch to discuss)... to see if you would be willing to compromise by taking on more of a boyfriend role. This is what I mean by turning you into a provider. If you were a real lover you'd listen to her concerns, address them where possible but basically explain that you won't accept the boyfriend role and wish her well if she doesn't like it. You might find that this spikes attraction quite a lot, done the right way. If you don't, it appears she's in any case still very attracted (even if you accept her terms, you still have some lover value). So if you enter into a relationship with her, then you'll be accepting the combined "lover/provider" role that I described.

This is where it gets seriously problematic for me. What does this mean exactly? That all women who are in LTRs are gold diggers (or maybe in this case, "value diggers"...lol)? Are you saying that no women who are in relationships are attracted to their man? I mean...this doesn't seem to line up with the real world. Cause there are lots of women who absolutely won't shut up about how great their bfs/husbnds are. Even when they've been in a relationship for a long time.

Isn't everyone a value digger of some kind or another... but in answer to your question what you've described is dudes in relationships who still have lover value as well as boyfriend value. Probably because they're confident, don't take shit from their girlfriends etc... maybe they haven't studied seduction, maybe they pass (some of) her tests "by accident"... but basically they might just be the real deal, i.e. confident guys who put themselves first and her a close second.

I guess my overall point here is I've FUCKED UP A LOT... and nearly all of my fuckups I can fit into this model. That's one thing that makes it a useful model.

Ray

 

[JimmyB]

Bboy, I'm going to agree again with you and Ray, you sort of support this point

I think whether or not she's down to fuck you (or anyone) on a first date is mostly dependent on where she is in her life rn

This is the point that this site needs to put more focus on. Assuming you do everything correctly, this point is entirely true. It is NOT ABOUT HOW YOU ACT that determines where things go - once again assuming you're on point and an attractive guy.
I would say that not adopting this view would make all of your encounters inherently manipulative. You're trying to get her to do something based on your actions. I do not view seduction that way, and I think that it's a detrimental way of viewing an interaction. You will not be a "genuine man" thinking like this.

Ray you say

This appears to fit the theory perfectly, she was attracted and she slept with you as a lover despite its not being what she "normally" does... because "normal" guys in her life court her like a provider.

Again, it's not that you show yourself as a lover, it's that she was down to have sex that night because she was emotionally vulnerable and you're allowing that to happen. You steer things in that direction, but she is willingly headed towards sleeping with you anyways. It doesn't have to do with you acting like either a "lover" or a "provider". Acting platonic would certainly not end with you sleeping with the girl, but, again, I'm assuming you have your fundamentals down and know what you're doing around women and aren't taking the nice guy route.

I get the point is that you want to be a "lover" instead of a friend or provider. But you can be a lover to all girls, pretty much always. I don't think it has to looked at just from the point of view of having sex with a girl. I think it's just a way of acting and being a sexual "genuine man".

She's testing how much you really value the relationship between you and her (and you do value it quite a bit if you met her for lunch to discuss)... to see if you would be willing to compromise by taking on more of a boyfriend role. This is what I mean by turning you into a provider. If you were a real lover you'd listen to her concerns, address them where possible but basically explain that you won't accept the boyfriend role and wish her well if she doesn't like it.

Here's the point that is starting to bug me. If you want to pursue a relationship with any girl, you have to take her route. Call it the "provider" role if you will, but that's not accurate. All if means is you have to cater to her a bit more and be a boyfriend. This is necessary to progress with a girl if she values herself at all or she will move on. You can't say "sorry babe, I don't swing that way, and if you don't like it have a nice life" with a girl you actually DO want a relationship with. And so if you're consistently taking this route, then you would just never end up with a relationship. Ok you can take this route, but I'm pretty sure we all (yes, us men) eventually want more than flings. That's all you will get with the "lover" approach. One night stands and short, casual relationships
So, since Girlschase advocates being the lover, it essentially preaches staying out of relationships. Like I said, the material IS good for sleeping with girls, but this website talks about relationships without discussing this conflict. It bugs me because I actually follow a lot of this material and it left me in a spot where I didn't know how to progress with girls I actually liked. I felt like going into a relationship was taboo and becoming a "provider" essentially makes me a pussy and that I'm giving up. To some extent it does, but that is part of being in a relationship. You're giving up some of your freedom and strength to a girl in exchange for companionship. And I think there is something valuable in having a strong relationship with a girl where you both care about eachother.

 

[Franco]

JimmyB,

So, since Girlschase advocates being the lover, it essentially preaches staying out of relationships. Like I said, the material IS good for sleeping with girls, but this website talks about relationships without discussing this conflict.

I'm not really going to go into a huge discussion about this here, but the topic of being a "lover" and bringing women into relationships is definitely covered on this website. As a matter of fact, one of the "highlight" articles of this website even discusses it right here:

• How to Get Girls: The Last Post You'll Ever Need

Sleeping with a girl on the first date is not necessarily a "requirement" to get a girlfriend, nor does it rule you out from getting one. However, it is definitely fact that the guy who is sleeping with her has the best opportunity to make the girl his "girlfriend" if he so desires. So regardless of how you run things, you should always be aiming to sleep with a girl as soon as you possibly can because it actually greatly increases the chances that you can keep her around.

Have their been occasions where girls have slept with guys after 10+ dates and then became boyfriend a girlfriend? Of course! But we're not teaching guys about the "exceptions" to the rule. We're not teaching guys about the 2% of girls who really are going to sleep with you if you court them on 3+ dates and then take them home. We are helping guys target the other 98% of women that will sleep with you if you present yourself correctly because it will also allow you to move those women into further relationships should you choose to do so.

NOTE: If you type "relationship articles" in the search bar on the main page, you can find dozens of articles related to both moving girls into long-term relationships and managing those LTRs as well.

- Franco

 

[JimmyB]

Yes, Franco you make good points and I respect what you have to say on these boards. I certainly agree that you need to be the one sleeping with a girl. And if you're not that guy, some one else probably is.
Here's my point: What if I want to take a few dates to get to know a girl? One night is not a lot of time to be deciding what I want from this girl. A few dates is a more reasonable amount of time to decide what I want from her. I've had sex with enough girls that I don't just want to find a girl to quickly hook up with and move on.

you should always be aiming to sleep with a girl as soon as you possibly can because it actually greatly increases the chances that you can keep her around

I want to sleep with a girl because it's something we both want - not so that I can biologically entice her into liking me. And I don't mean to say this in a bad light. Yes, I understand the release of oxytocin and how sleeping with a girl makes her more attracted, but I'd like to find a girl that will stick around not just for sex. Of course sex is an integral part of a relationship and that's a huge part of it. But I mean doing essentially what girls do - make them wait to see if they're actually interested before having sex. I feel like it would start a relationship on a better foot. Is this thinking incorrect? What confuses me is that if you were really a super high-value guy, you'd be very selective about who you sleep with, and the screening process would take a bit of time, not just 15 minutes in a bar and then back to your place.
I'm not trying to argue, I'm just a bit conflicted and trying to work through all this by discussing it with y'all.

 

[Franco]

Jimmy,

I want to sleep with a girl because it's something we both want - not so that I can biologically entice her into liking me. And I don't mean to say this in a bad light. Yes, I understand the release of oxytocin and how sleeping with a girl makes her more attracted, but I'd like to find a girl that will stick around not just for sex. Of course sex is an integral part of a relationship and that's a huge part of it. But I mean doing essentially what girls do - make them wait to see if they're actually interested before having sex. I feel like it would start a relationship on a better foot. Is this thinking incorrect?

It sounds like you still have a few misconceptions about how women think and what they actually desire.

Yes, sex is a "biological need," but it's not the only thing that's enticing a woman to want to be with you when she has sex. In order to actually seduce a woman (in the capacity that she wants to stay with you), you have to make her desire you physically AND emotionally as well. Women grow up in an environment envisioning strong, sexy men (princes, heroes, secret agents, etc.) to wistfully take them away in the night and give them the passion that they desire. Essentially, this desire goes much deeper than just a "biological" need. It's a deep, social and emotional one as well. When a girl chooses to sleep with you quickly, she's giving her entire soul to you -- everything within her is telling her that you are a man that she desires. Yes, there are occasions where women sleep with men because they are horny and the guy is "good enough," but that is also the exception to the rule. And this also means it was the woman who was looking for a fling; it wasn't the guy "seducing" her biologically into a fling. She very well knew what she wanted, and she found a guy who would give it to her.

As far as the "wait until I get to know her" aspect... there's really no reason to wait. However, there are a few reasons for NOT wanting to wait. First, when you're interacting with a girl that you haven't slept with, you are never really getting the "real" her. A woman is always changing the way she appears to individuals to make them perceive her the way she wants to be perceived. So it actually can do you a disservice to try to get to know a girl before you sleep with her -- you might think you're getting one thing, but then once you actually enter into a relationship with her, you start to get the "real" her. In some cases, the girl doesn't have many other caveats and she's mostly the girl you thought she was, but it's never 100% the same girl from my experience. That's not to say that she's hiding all of her "bad" qualities, but it's more likely she's hiding the aspects of her that she would be worried about if you found out -- and these are things you obviously want to know about as soon as possible.

The second reason for this is that, the "longer" you take to get to know a woman without sleeping her, the more you get pushed into a "Provider/Boyfriend/Friend" area where your chances of sleeping with her go way down. And this has mostly to do with her seeing you as a valuable man who values women that don't put out easily; so, with that in mind, guess what she does? She puts off sex for as long as she possibly can. And while you're continuing to court her, she's dating other men on the side; if one of those men sleeps with her before you do, your value is basically "zero" compared to that other guy if he decides to take her into a relationship.

To build on the previous reason, the next reason for not waiting to sleep with a girl would be so that she can view you as the most dominant, sexy, powerful man she has ever been with. There is an element of attraction that (somewhat subconsciously) comes into a play for a woman depending on how long it takes for a man she knows to sleep with her. If she meets guy and sleeps with him the same night (barring her being one of the "exceptions" to the rule about looking for a fling above), then that guy is forever one of the sexiest and most dominant men she has ever been with. If she dates that guy for awhile, then he leaves her (heartbroken) and she starts dating you (who might have slept with her on date 5), and then he comes back into her life at some point, even if you're still dating her... there's a strong chance she'll want to go right back to him if he makes himself available. While she might "care" about you, her strongest attraction was to the man who swept her off of her feet and slept with her immediately. This resonates with her for the rest of her life.

Finally, I'd say the last reason that you don't want to wait is that NOT waiting actually gives you more time to decide whether or not you want to keep the girl around. Once you've slept with a girl, not only will you get to see her "true" colors, but she'll also be readily available to spend more time with you (assuming it was not a one-night stand ordeal). During this time, you can begin to categorize her into the role that you want to see her play in your life. If the sex is great, but that's the only thing that's great, then you two can see each other on a "friends with benefits" basis. If the sex is great and she has a few enjoyable qualities that make you want to see her often, then you can bring her into a casual, non-monogamous relationship. Or if after dating this girl for a few months you realize she's really a special girl who provides you with a ton of enjoyment and fulfillment (both sexually and otherwise), then you can take her as your girlfriend if you desire to do so.

So, there's a long list of reasons supporting sleeping with a girl quickly; there are hardly any cons to doing so, but there are many pros. And those pros still coincide with getting a girlfriend (if you want one).

EDIT:

What confuses me is that if you were really a super high-value guy, you'd be very selective about who you sleep with, and the screening process would take a bit of time, not just 15 minutes in a bar and then back to your place.

A super high-value guy that sleeps with lots of women also knows exactly what he wants. That means, within 1 hour of conversation over drinks, he already knows that this is a woman he desires at his core; a woman's core desire is to BE desired, so if she can sense this from the guy, then it increases her attraction to him as well.

(As a matter of fact, women hate guys who seem like they DON'T know what they want. If a guy dawdles around, a girl assumes he's just a "boy" and doesn't know what he wants, and she'll spend her time looking for a "man" who does know what he wants -- specifically, HER).

- Franco

 

[Bboy100]

Franco, I definitely completely respect your opinions when it comes to LTR/relationship building type material. Especially because as I understand it, you've historically been pretty good at starting and keeping such relationships. Having said that, I too have some questions about what you just wrote:

Essentially, this desire goes much deeper than just a "biological" need. It's a deep, social and emotional one as well. When a girl chooses to sleep with you quickly, she's giving her entire soul to you -- everything within her is telling her that you are a man that she desires. Yes, there are occasions where women sleep with men because they are horny and the guy is "good enough," but that is also the exception to the rule. And this also means it was the woman who was looking for a fling; it wasn't the guy "seducing" her biologically into a fling. She very well knew what she wanted, and she found a guy who would give it to her.

Ok, I can buy the fact that women desire such a man. But based on what evidence are you suggesting that the nature of her relationship changes just based on how quickly you slept with her? You just said she gives her entire soul to you, and that everything within her is telling her I would be a man she desires etc. But based on what? Just personal experiences? Or is there research to support this? The distinction is important to me because of the aforementioned confirmation bias.

In fact, take your GF or a past GF as an example (I dunno what your relationship status is at the moment haha). Could you imagine her leaving you just because some other guy from her past who was more of a "lover" than you suddenly became available?

Normally, I wouldn't ask you to "prove" something to me. I'd just go out and test it myself. But the issue is that this seems to be a very difficult concept to empirically test. And I don't know how I would go about doing so.

The second reason for this is that, the "longer" you take to get to know a woman without sleeping her, the more you get pushed into a "Provider/Boyfriend/Friend" area where your chances of sleeping with her go way down. And this has mostly to do with her seeing you as a valuable man who values women that don't put out easily; so, with that in mind, guess what she does? She puts off sex for as long as she possibly can. And while you're continuing to court her, she's dating other men on the side; if one of those men sleeps with her before you do, your value is basically "zero" compared to that other guy if he decides to take her into a relationship.

Admittedly, this does seem mostly true. But again, is this a biological truth? Because I have a great counterexample to this.
The first girl I ever slept with (I slept with her 1.5 hours after meeting her), I dated for about a month or so. After about the third or fourth week, she started making excuses for why she can't see me. Then one day, out of no where, she her FB status changed to "in a relationship with [Name of some other guy].

I'll admit, I made a lot of mistakes managing that relationship, and I'm sure she lost some of her initial attraction for me. But overall, if this concept is true, especially since it was still the early stages of our relationship, I feel like she shouldn't have been looking at other guys at all.

I don't know anything about this other guy. But let's be real. We're both 20 yrs old. What are the chances that he's also a "lover"? I just feel like it's unlikely that the speed at which I slept with her had anything to do with it. It makes much more sense that she simply found the guy more attractive overall, so she chose him over me.

Note: I know it wasn't a "fling" type situation like what you described above. Because she herself mentioned that she hadn't had sex in two years (without me asking). She seemed very sexually inexperienced (based on her skill in bed and how queasy and uncomfortable she was about the topic of sex in general). Additionally, the first time I had sex with her, she was really really tight. So it feels like she was telling the truth. And also, I wasn't just her "FWB". We went on real dates almost every time I saw her, and we actually talked about each others lives and made a real connection with each other etc. In fact, it was very close to becoming a committed monogamous relationship.

To build on the previous reason, the next reason for not waiting to sleep with a girl would be so that she can view you as the most dominant, sexy, powerful man she has ever been with. There is an element of attraction that (somewhat subconsciously) comes into a play for a woman depending on how long it takes for a man she knows to sleep with her. If she meets guy and sleeps with him the same night (barring her being one of the "exceptions" to the rule about looking for a fling above), then that guy is forever one of the sexiest and most dominant men she has ever been with. If she dates that guy for awhile, then he leaves her (heartbroken) and she starts dating you (who might have slept with her on date 5), and then he comes back into her life at some point, even if you're still dating her... there's a strong chance she'll want to go right back to him if he makes himself available. While she might "care" about you, her strongest attraction was to the man who swept her off of her feet and slept with her immediately. This resonates with her for the rest of her life.

As mentioned above, I can accept the fact that in general, she likes dominant, sexy, powerful men. But based on what do you say all the rest of this stuff? Going back to the girl I was talking about in my previous post...I definitely slept with her way faster than her ex-husband (her only other partner). Cause she literally told me that they knew each other since kindergarten. Also, they dated for 6 months before they slept together. I had sex with her 1.5 hours into the date. I feel like if I was the greatest thing that's happened to her since the vibrator, she would NOT start to push me away like she did. Not unless I SERIOUSLY mistreated her or made mistakes (didn't happen in this situation).

 

[JimmyB]

Franco, what you're saying I agree with.

When a girl chooses to sleep with you quickly, she's giving her entire soul to you

I've been the guy to "sweep a girl off of her feet" and I can tell that's what you should shoot for, because the girl falls madly in love. I think I've been trying to avoid this, so I've only ended up in flings the past few years. I move a lot, so I'm never around long enough to turn it into anything further. It hurts. I suppose I've tried to not let a girl fall in love with me (not entirely consciously), because I know I can't follow through on a relationship and don't believe in long distance. I'm graduating school and likely going to be in one place indefinitely for the first time in years. Maybe my situation will have an effect on how I view the whole thing.
That's something that I wrestle with - if you know you can't have a lasting relationship with a girl, or even more than a one night stand - is it right to go all out and make her fall in love with you? And for yourself it can be taxing because you form this strong attachment with a girl and then never see her again. Am I looking at this the wrong way? I just feel like that's a bit reckless behavior and toying with emotions.

 

[Franco]

Bboy100,

Ok, I can buy the fact that women desire such a man. But based on what evidence are you suggesting that the nature of her relationship changes just based on how quickly you slept with her? You just said she gives her entire soul to you, and that everything within her is telling her I would be a man she desires etc. But based on what? Just personal experiences? Or is there research to support this? The distinction is important to me because of the aforementioned confirmation bias.

I'll be honest: I don't really care for posting "research" on any of the things I've discovered. Everything I say and do is based on my personal experience and the personal experiences of those around me. I could care less for any research pertaining to anything having to do with women (since women mostly control the media and "lie" about anything having to do with men and sex anyway), and I consider it a nice thing that Chase does to go out of his way to find actual, scientific evidence to support most of his claims. In the meantime, I've been extremely happy with the results I've had with women based on the knowledge that I've aggregated. So anything that I say to help guys on this board is with the faith that either one of two things will happen: (1) they'll trust my claims and implement my advice or (2) they'll go the real empiricists route and test it out for themselves.

In fact, take your GF or a past GF as an example (I dunno what your relationship status is at the moment haha). Could you imagine her leaving you just because some other guy who was more of a "lover" than you suddenly became available? Especially if he hurt her in the past...

I can't take MY GF as an example because I believe I AM that guy. A better question for me would be: do I think I could leave my current/previous girlfriend and then get her to come back at some point even if she was dating a new guy? My answer to this would be: most likely. But I have enough abundance at this point that invoking old feelings from a prior girlfriend while she's dating another guy just sounds like something that would be emotionally stressful for her, and it's something I wouldn't really want to put her through unless I was sure she was single again and willing to see me on the terms that I would like to see her on.

The first girl I ever slept with (I slept with her 1.5 hours after meeting her), I dated for about a month or so. After about the third or fourth week, she started making excuses for why she can't see me. Then one day, out of no where, she her FB status changed to "in a relationship with [Name of some other guy].

I'll admit, I made a lot of mistakes managing that relationship, and I'm sure she lost some of her initial attraction for me. But overall, if this concept is true, especially since it was still the early stages of our relationship, I feel like she shouldn't have been looking at other guys at all.

You still have to not make mistakes (or at least mistakes greater than the other guy) in order to achieve this goal. Sleeping with a girl quickly gives you the opportunity to become the strongest and most amazing man she's ever met; but if you start doing things wrong as your relationship continues, then you essentially give up that opportunity.

I'll admit that the situation you mentioned seems uncommon for me. Nothing in seduction is 100%, so it's possible that she might have been the exception to the rule, but if I were to make my own guess without any further knowledge, I would assume that you messed things up somewhere in that one month you spent with her. It may not seem like it, but relationship management is actually even more nuanced than actual pick-up itself; while there are many ways to "pick up" a girl and bed her, there are very few ways to manage a relationship in a way that keep you as the man she's still chasing while simultaneously keeping the drama in check. A lot of people tend to overlook the relationship advice on this website, but I would say the relationship advice is the most valuable part of this website. Many (workable) techniques for meeting and picking up women can be found on other websites.

I don't know anything about this other guy. But let's be real. We're both 20 yrs old. What are the chances that he's also a "lover"? I just feel like it's unlikely that the speed at which I slept with her had anything to do with it. It makes much more sense that she simply found the guy more attractive overall, so she chose him over me.

I'd actually be less interested in what your guys' age is and more interested in what the girl's age is. I generally tend to not attempt to take any girls under the age of 24 into relationships these days for two reasons: (1) they are generally still too immature for my taste; they can make fun FWBs, but that's about it. And (2) they don't really know what they want, and they are still trying to find that.

That being said, if you end up sleeping with a girl at any age, the same rules generally apply and you can still cause her to want to chase you into a relationship if you're framing things correctly.

The rest of your comments are pointing back to that same situation with the girl. One thing I would probably take note of is that you do most of your dating from online, if I'm not mistaken? Unfortunately, there is an inherent "downgrade" in your "manliness" from meeting girls online; if this was a girl you met on Tinder, then even if you slept with her super quickly, you're still "lower" than the guy who approached her in person and took her to bed. Every girl's dream is to meet the man of her dreams offline; no girl dreams about finding her soulmate on Tinder. So that's an inherent disadvantage that you're going to encounter if you're looking for girlfriends on Tinder. Also, a lot of girls are on Tinder for rebounds or quick hook-ups -- it's much better if you can just be that random amazing guy she met in the store and swept her off her feet. It's a bit more difficult to sweep a girl off of her feet when she's already on Tinder with the purpose of looking for a quick lay.

When you get better, you can tend to swing more Tinder girls into wanting to stay with you for the long haul. But, for example, if "Online Bboy" meets girl and sleeps with her on the first night, and "Offline Bboy" meets the same girl (in person) and sleeps with her on the first night, then "Offline Bboy" is the more "amazing" man in a woman's mind. So when all other things are equal, offline still makes you the more "dominate" man in a girl's world.

- Franco