Does with worth to become good with women?

[Big Daddy]

Hello Gentlemen,

I know the title may sound strange and many of you who are reading this may think "well, of course; why wouldn't it be worth it?", but that's exactly why I decided to share a little bit of my story tonight. I'm approaching my 20s, and I can't recall any situation in my life where I had an intimate moment with a girl before, besides when I was 11 - but it was for such a brief time that it doesn't even count.

When it comes to talking to women to lead them to a bed at the end of the night, I simply fail. I wanted very bad (for quite a long period of time as of this writing) to approach girls on the street whenever I saw a cute or interesting one, but then occupied my mind with some other thought, 'cause I'd probably end up like one of those clown of "American Pie" who never pick-up any girl.

I like to the idea of partying, clubs, house music and horny girls dancing. But every time I go to a party I end up talking the entire night to other "I-don't-know-what-to-do" guy there. Plus, I don't have any dancing skills (even though I'd like to), so I can't enjoy the music; I can't talk to girls because... well, I kinda don't know what I want from relationships, and from life in general. Therefore, I can't enjoy club-like environment.

But, at the same time, I'm afraid to dive into this get-good-with-women-stuff. I've been a active reader of GirlsChase for a long time, but I haven't put in practice what I read around here. The reason is because I DO plan to have have a wife and children, and this Rasputin thing is so empowering. Lincoln's maxim illustrates it well, "If you want to test a man's character, give him power"; and that said, I don't think I'll have interest in marry someone after sleeping with dozens of "wonderful women". Is too much power for me to handle. So let put this philosophical part of the equation aside for a moment, while I present you the other half:

There's this girl, a friend of mine since we were kids. I saw her the other day, and just as I predicted, she's doing very well in her academic career. Harvard-intellectual type, very intelligent, reads a lot, talks very warmly... and has a boyfriend. She's also very cute, but she's not the girl you'd see on a catwalk. I'd love to spend lots of time with girls like this and have them - this one as my girlfriend. It's magical, and I don't want it not to be. Chase consistently talks about his memorable relationships, but as anyone who is as experienced as he is in relationships, he makes me feel like his relationships are not magical anymore.

I mean, there are no possibilities on earth that I end up with this girl in my current state. She has a boyfriend and I don't have the skills necessary to become man enough to her, giving her no other choice other than dumping this guy and come running and begging - chasing - me to be with her. I know that building these skills mean talking to loads of women that I don't really care about, just to develop knowledge about conversation patterns in order to have a chance of being somewhat interesting to this or any other girl I end up liking.

Please, share your thoughts about my story and feel free to tell how does it feel to be good with women, what's your opinion on your "before and after" transformation? If you could provide a brief background in your post about your transformation, it'd be enlightening.

 

[Franco]

Hey BD,

I understand some of your concerns here. A lot of what Chase preaches can be tough to swallow, especially if you don't have a lot of experience with women. I definitely want to cover the point you mention here:

I'd love to spend lots of time with girls like this and have them - this one as my girlfriend. It's magical, and I don't want it not to be. Chase consistently talks about his memorable relationships, but as anyone who is as experienced as he is in relationships, he makes me feel like his relationships are not magical anymore.

You're relatively young and inexperienced (as you mentioned), so a lot of things about women are probably still idealistic to you. Movies like The Notebook or dramatic, romantic comedies probably give you a warm fuzzy feeling that you are just "waiting for your turn" for this to happen to you. However, there is a reason that these are "movies" and not the way real life works -- if everyone's story was as dramatic as these movies, then they wouldn't be interesting and no one would want to watch them! Unfortunately, the truth is, the "magic" that happens in these movies is just not the way reality is, and it especially isn't the way that women actually act in real life.

While this can be saddening to hear at a younger age, it is something that be quite an asset to understand as you become older (and more socially aware). Women have a lot of fears and concerns, often based on their history with men, that can cause them to act in ways that seem almost impossible to comprehend and just downright frustrating. But once you understand the core reason that women begin to act this way, you can handle it appropriately, and most importantly, you can still learn to be happier than you have ever been.

You'll eventually find that the "magic" that you see in movies isn't something that is all that important -- women can bring happiness in SO many different ways, but unless you know how to properly handle their emotions and their fears, then you will also end up with lots of sorrow and heartbreak.

So all in all, it can be difficult to undertake a task as challenging as becoming great with women. And by no means do you have to forgo the idea of marriage -- even some of the men who become great with women also still manage to find one girl that provides them with everything they are looking for. And as Chase mentions, no matter which path you choose to go down, it can still be one of the most rewarding experiences you can have in your life.

I hope this provides you with something to think about. =)

- Franco

 

[Big Daddy]

Something? You just gave me a lot of topics to think about!

Probably yeah, all things about women I can think of are, in fact, idealistic to me. But I'll take your word you when you say they can provide so much in ways I didn't even think about... maybe the magic just changes. But still, this womanizer lifestyle doesn't seem to be very compatible with most people's lifestyle. After sleeping with hundreds of different girls, would you still consider every girl unique? Is it really possible to find a girl to fall in love with, that you could marry, build a family and have children with without thinking about that attraction "has an expiration date", and in the worst case scenario you could easily dump your wife and get to know other girls, just like you used to do?

It's funny that you mentioned happiness in your post, because I wrote and entire paragraph about this topic, but decided to delete it - it'd make the post gigantic. In summary, I said that I think very intelligent people tend to be unhappy, forever thinking about the sad, boring and disgusting universal truths of life, and that ultimately, ignorance may be bliss. If you wasn't good enough with women, you'd make your marriage work in difficult times. You may be completely right when you say that "it can still be one of the most rewarding experiences you can have in your life", but, I have to say that keep changing wives every seven years doesn't give me a sense of fulfillment.

Do you think you are happier now, compared to the "old you"? That could be possibly the case for me, considering I like to feel what falling in love, marrying and have kids is like (and of course, be happy because of it)?

Thoughts are really welcome.

 

[Garrett]

Something? You just gave me a lot of topics to think about!

Probably yeah, all things about women I can think of are, in fact, idealistic to me. But I'll take your word you when you say they can provide so much in ways I didn't even think about... maybe the magic just changes. But still, this womanizer lifestyle doesn't seem to be very compatible with most people's lifestyle. After sleeping with hundreds of different girls, would you still consider every girl unique? Is it really possible to find a girl to fall in love with, that you could marry, build a family and have children with without thinking about that attraction "has an expiration date", and in the worst case scenario you could easily dump your wife and get to know other girls, just like you used to do?

It's funny that you mentioned happiness in your post, because I wrote and entire paragraph about this topic, but decided to delete it - it'd make the post gigantic. In summary, I said that I think very intelligent people tend to be unhappy, forever thinking about the sad, boring and disgusting universal truths of life, and that ultimately, ignorance may be bliss. If you wasn't good enough with women, you'd make your marriage work in difficult times. You may be completely right when you say that "it can still be one of the most rewarding experiences you can have in your life", but, I have to say that keep changing wives every seven years doesn't give me a sense of fulfillment.

Do you think you are happier now, compared to the "old you"? That could be possibly the case for me, considering I like to feel what falling in love, marrying and have kids is like (and of course, be happy because of it)?

Thoughts are really welcome.

Big Daddy,

Here's the deal man, and it's good news. As you know, getting good at getting girls is a skillset. The point of developing the skillset is different for everyone. There are some men who will use it to sleep with 100s maybe 1000s of women even. I'm on the same page as you though. You have to understand that it's okay to be in a committed relationship, to get married, have kids, white picket fence (as Chase says), and to live a luxurious lifestyle if you want with a smoking hot wife . What Chase is saying though is, while in that committed relationship, it's healthy if the girl knows that you aren't 100% hers. So what that means is, while you are with her, you should be meeting other women. More specifically, if you want to maintain a monogamous relationship with your wife, the least you should be doing is going out and talking to girls, at most you should be escalating till you get to sex, then stop (don't hurt other girls though!). You could also date other girls, that's your choice. I don't think I'll do that personally, but I'm in no way going to get into another one of those 100% committed relationship because the girl will basically cage you in and get whatever she wants from you - it's an uncontrollable/dangerous/frustrating place! You should go out still and keep getting phone numbers as backups just incase things flop with your wife. Yes, you technically can stay committed with her then breakup then go out and find a new girl eventually, but you'll be a mess, and I'm telling you from my own experience, Chase is right. I don't think you have the experience under your belt to truly realize the kind of shithole you'll be digging yourself into once you breakup with your first girlfriend, oftentimes it ends on poor terms and you'll be crushed while she gets over you in a week and starts sleeping with other guys. Girls keep guys on the backburner incase things don't workout with their boyfriends, which is smart. They will flirt with guys just to know that they still 'got it', and you should be doing the same with attractive girls - that's what Chase is trying to say. You don't have to sleep with girls while you are with your girlfriend or wife, but don't throw out options/opportunities because you never know when you'll need them...

As Chase says, hope for the best, but plan for the worst. Show the girl some of your cards (layers) over time, but don't give her absolutely everything. Yes you should become more vulnerable as the relationship progresses, but don't give her absolutely everything or you'll get really hurt and attraction will plummet!

How do you apply Chase's life motto? Simple. Date the girl, and hope that everything works out great. At the same time, make sure you keep some backup options lined up, incase things go south, that way you aren't showing her all your cards . Not only will this help you TREMENDOUSLY, but you'll get more attraction from your wife, so it's a win win!

Hope I helped,
Garrett

 

[Big Daddy]

Hey Garrett,

Nice to see your insights as well. I agree that the right thing to do while you are in a relationship is to reassure your girl that you're not 100% hers. You made me remember something I completely forget to comment. Whenever I read an article on GC, my attention, sometimes, gravitates toward the fact that Chase says he doesn't believe in monogamous relationships anymore, which is quite normal for someone who slept with probably hundreds of women at this point.

That what I meant when I said that "this womanizer lifestyle doesn't seem to be very compatible with most people's lifestyle," that after you sleep with lots of girls, chances are you'd probably ending not marrying or not having children, or anything out of the "get-married-have-children-build-a-family" model simply because you don't have any interest in it after meeting loads of girls. Losing faith in monogamous relationships is, to me, almost identical to saying one does not consider a specific girl - that would be the girl "of your dreams" - as special anymore.

What do you guys have to say about this? I'd really love to read your comments.

 

[trashKENNUT]

That what I meant when I said that "this womanizer lifestyle doesn't seem to be very compatible with most people's lifestyle," that after you sleep with lots of girls, chances are you'd probably ending not marrying or not having children, or anything out of the "get-married-have-children-build-a-family" model simply because you don't have any interest in it after meeting loads of girls. Losing faith in monogamous relationships is, to me, almost identical to saying one does not consider a specific girl - that would be the girl "of your dreams" - as special anymore.

What do you guys have to say about this? I'd really love to read your comments.

Actually most people do want to date a lot of women. Given a nerd ten beautiful women who plays games, he will be in love with all of them too. The most common misconception of why dating a lot of women is deem 'wrong', because the ego, a self defence mechanism that everyone, including you and me, have to protect the person himself their safety and vulnerability first. The problem here, lies lack of social, dating skills that this people are facing, and not trying to turn it around for themselves. The absolute here is lacking.

As your question to losing faith in monogamous relationships, There's a lot of guys, a lot of stories, a lot of quotes, that writes loving one women is much more fulfilling than loving all. I believe that everyone tends to settle down in monogamous relationships later in their life. Ask Chase, He have seen people who say they won't settle down, because there's a lot of great women out there, and IT IS. IT IS REALLY.

The key here is, when you settle down with the 'girl of your dreams', will you have learned the dating skills and knowledge and apply, so to know if she is actually what you want? and try not end up in divorce, like what is happening almost everywhere. something i feel i need to work on this.

Just my thoughts,

Zac

 

[Chase]

BD-

Whenever I read an article on GC, my attention, sometimes, gravitates toward the fact that Chase says he doesn't believe in monogamous relationships anymore, which is quite normal for someone who slept with probably hundreds of women at this point.

I'm not certain I've said that on the site (maybe I have), but if so it certainly wasn't meant in a straight black-and-white way if I did. I think monogamy works fine for most people, and it's the default relationship style (with perhaps the odd fling or affair mixed in once a decade or two by the more powerful partner) that nearly everyone short of emperors and kings falls into. In the modern Western world, you're simply fighting too much ingrained cultural belief in favor of long-term monogamy if you want to try to build any kind of relationship with multi-year legs, and most guys playing the field tire of it eventually, no matter how vehemently they tell you they never will while younger.

Ricardus has said he doesn't believe in monogamy anymore repeatedly however - this may have been where you've seen it. Me personally, I tend to stay away from any "for" or "against" judgments on monogamy... my feeling here is, give you the tools to live whatever life you choose to live, and the path you take with it after that is no one's business but your own, though I will try to influence you as strongly as possible to be a force for good in the lives of others and not a force for harm.

That what I meant when I said that "this womanizer lifestyle doesn't seem to be very compatible with most people's lifestyle," that after you sleep with lots of girls, chances are you'd probably ending not marrying or not having children, or anything out of the "get-married-have-children-build-a-family" model simply because you don't have any interest in it after meeting loads of girls. Losing faith in monogamous relationships is, to me, almost identical to saying one does not consider a specific girl - that would be the girl "of your dreams" - as special anymore.

What do you guys have to say about this? I'd really love to read your comments.

Believe what they do, not what they say.

Most of the guys who were the biggest in the field when I got involved in the whole dating / pickup / seduction field are now either married or have children. A great number of the guys who entered at the same time I did who went on to be bigger names left the scene to get married, move in with settled, monogamous girlfriends, or have kids. Even among my friends, guys who are naturally talented with women and have been since their youths, and think the whole pickup / dating advice scene is hogwash and silly and all you really need to do is go talk to girls and stop making it so complicated, most of those guys are in settled mostly-monogamous relationships now or married / engaged, or have kids.

You can't fight biology. Human biology is centered on reproduction, and the longer a man pushes it off, the more likely he becomes to "crash" emotionally and cave into the demands of a girl who's demanding commitment and exclusivity. This pattern happens with most normal guys, and it happens with most of the guys with really high levels of experience with women and really high partner counts, too.

The biggest difference that occurs over the long-term for men talented with women is that the relationships are less stable because the guy becomes less willing to put up with unhappiness. Men less talented with women are more likely to suffer through an unhappy relationship, let women dominate them, or pretend not to notice when they think she might be cheating. Guys who are very experienced tend to call these things out right away, try and fix them, or get out if they can't be fixed. That makes their relationships inherently less "stable" on average... when the going gets tough, they'll insist on a fix, or they'll get out. You don't see them hunker down and becoming a floor mat too often.

Other than that though, you'd be surprised how little difference there is between the relationships of former ladies' men at 40 and a guy who was never all that skilled with women at 40. Both of them tend to have wives / kids, although the former ladies' man's wife tends to take better care of herself as a response to feeling like she needs to continue pursuing and interesting her man, and she treats him more respectfully, than the other man's wife does to the other man. Aside from the difference in the appearance (better, for the ladies' man) and comportment (better, for the ladies' man) of their partners, ladies men don't really seem to be all that different in how their relationships play out. Somewhat higher divorce rate, I'd presume (and the research upholds; relationship where the man is in charge are more likely to end in divorce), but those are the unhappy relationships that can't be fixed that are ending, and I'd bet the ones that don't end are a lot happier and more enjoyable on average than the other side's are.

Chase

 

[Big Daddy]

I'm not certain I've said that on the site (maybe I have), but if so it certainly wasn't meant in a straight black-and-white way if I did. (...) Ricardus has said he doesn't believe in monogamy anymore repeatedly however - this may have been where you've seen it.

It may have been Ricardus. Actually, probably was Ricardus... but still, some topics you choose to talk (e.g. attraction expiration date, and other saddening truths about relationships) leave me under the impression that you at least have no problem with polygamy. Like you said on the article "Your mental model is flawed", I tend not to click on articles I think I may not enjoy reading (e.g. articles saying that polygamy is the way to go), and the fact that you have no problem considering it made me assume that you don't have anything against the thought of polygamy, whereas I don't want to think very hard about it. Like you outlined in that article, why would I, if I don't have any interest in that particular topic? I'd better focus on something else.

The biggest difference that occurs over the long-term for men talented with women is that the relationships are less stable because the guy becomes less willing to put up with unhappiness. (...) when the going gets tough, they'll insist on a fix, or they'll get out. You don't see them hunker down and becoming a floor mat too often.

Other than that though, you'd be surprised how little difference there is between the relationships of former ladies' men at 40 and a guy who was never all that skilled with women at 40. (...) ladies men don't really seem to be all that different in how their relationships play out. Somewhat higher divorce rate, I'd presume (and the research upholds; relationship where the man is in charge are more likely to end in divorce), but those are the unhappy relationships that can't be fixed that are ending, and I'd bet the ones that don't end are a lot happier and more enjoyable on average than the other side's are.

So, based on your experience, you're saying that even though ladies' men have slept with hundreds of women throughout their life, their marriage tends to be happier, if compared to the marriage of men who lack ability with woman? Why would the divorce rate of more skilled men are higher, then? It's like I said, once you know you have the power to leave women because you know that you can find a cute and interesting girl while walking in the streets by next day, you'll do it more easily. But doesn't that contradicts the sense that relationships of a ladies' men is healthier because he knows how to deal with woman and therefore they should last longer / the divorce rate should be lower?

Forgive me if I misunderstood anything you said, but referring again to mental models, you keep telling your readers on GC that they won't go very far if they think that women are evil and just want to dominate men for fun. If that's the case, the reader's mental model is flawed, because women aren't devil messengers or anything like that. But just like you advise your readers to be dominant men and get women in order to provide good feeling and memories to their partner (men's point of view), the same could be said about relationships where the man is less powerful than the woman, because she's being dominant while providing him good feelings, memories, etc (woman's point of view). On the second case, if the woman had any problems being more powerful than men, she'd leave him; but she doesn't (at least the rate is lower if compared to powerful men leaving women, just like you pointed), which defies the common sense that women ultimately like to be dominated. My point here is that if both sides are equally dominating, they'd be happier. And I don't know why, and I may be missing something, but I'm the impression that while rare, this happens more often when the man isn't very skilled with woman.

I'm obviously not a scientist, and I may have missed something. If that's the case, let me hear what you have to say.

 

[Chase]

BD-

Like you said on the article "Your mental model is flawed", I tend not to click on articles I think I may not enjoy reading (e.g. articles saying that polygamy is the way to go), and the fact that you have no problem considering it made me assume that you don't have anything against the thought of polygamy, whereas I don't want to think very hard about it. Like you outlined in that article, why would I, if I don't have any interest in that particular topic? I'd better focus on something else.

Absolutely - while there's something to be said for expanding your views on your topics of interest, you do also need to be managing your own piece of mind, too. Unless you need to be engaging in debates or making important decisions related to the matter, you're fine skipping things you don't want to read and may not benefit from reading.

As far as telling anyone that anything is the way to go, you'll never find an article with me talking that way. The articles you'll see written by me are articles rather in the vein of, "If you want this, do this. If you don't care about that, or want this other thing, then you're fine with this." I don't presume to know what any individual reader here out of the 3/4 million stopping by every month wants or needs in his particular life... all I can tell him is what is options are and what the likely results of those options will be and why.

So, based on your experience, you're saying that even though ladies' men have slept with hundreds of women throughout their life, their marriage tends to be happier, if compared to the marriage of men who lack ability with woman?

Precisely.

Why would the divorce rate of more skilled men are higher, then?

Imagine two situations:

1. A dominant man, and a non-dominant woman

2. A dominant woman, and a non-dominant man

Now, imagine two sub-situations for each:

1. The dominant person takes great care of the non-dominant partner and sees that her/his needs are met

2. The dominant person fails to take sufficient care of the non-dominant partner and fails to see that her/his needs are met

We can totally ignore the situations where the dominant partner takes good care of the non-dominant partner; those won't divorce, normally. The non-dominant partner is happy and satisfied, and has no need to leave; and if the dominant partner ever becomes unhappy and unsatisfied, he/she will stop taking care of the non-dominant partner's needs, and then we default to the next scenario regardless.

So we only have two important scenarios for thinking about divorce:

- Dominant man, failing to take care of non-dominant woman's needs

- Dominant woman, failing to take care of non-dominant male's needs

Statistically, we know that women initiate around 70% of divorces. Anecdotally - just look around your friends - we notice that women are nearly always the ones doing the breaking up in unmarried relationships. But why?

Reproductively, it doesn't make much sense for a man to break up with a woman, so long as the two of them are still mating. Whether she's unhappy with him or not, he can still impregnate her, and whether he's dating 20 other women or she's his only woman, his chances at reproduction increase if he simply doesn't break up with her and keeps mating with her. He's more likely to pass on his genes.

However, it does make sense for a woman to break up with a man, reproductively-speaking, if she's unhappy. She can only bear one man's child at a time, except in the (rather rare) case of fraternal twins fathered by different men, and if her current man isn't getting it done (he makes her unhappy; she's come to view him as weak; he isn't giving her sex, or isn't satisfying her during that sex; she begins to feel insecure with him; etc.), it makes perfect sense for her to leave and find a man that will.

That's the background. Now let's take our hypothetical male and female partnerships and put them into some hypothetical situations. Let's say the dominant partner is feeling fine, and likes the non-dominant partner right where he or she is, but the non-dominant partner is miserable, because he/she knows or suspects that the dominant partner is cheating, as dominant partners are more likely to do (han non-dominant partners. How will each respond?

- In dominant male, non-dominant female pairings, the woman becomes increasingly unhappy until dramatic explosions occur regularly, and she eventually revenge-cheats to force change or outright breaks up with him. This is spurred on by a monogamous woman's continuing choice with men; even if she's fully committed, she's still being approached by men fairly regularly who let her know that they have interest with her, reminding her that she has options and allowing her to assume she has better options than sticking with the partner who's making her miserable.

- In the dominant female, non-dominant male pairings, the man becomes increasingly unhappy, but drags on in uncertainty and self-defeat, constantly debating within himself what to do but never doing anything. This is spurred on by a monogamous man's total lack of choice with women; particularly for non-dominant men, once he's fully committed, all options with women other than his partner vanish. Women do not pursue him, do not proposition him, and his ability to get new women falls apart rapidly as his old social circles deteriorate and all the women he formerly knew or dated enter into marriages of their own, reinforcing to him that he does not have options and leaving him stuck in an unhappy relationship (for him; but his partner's fine with him still putting bread on the table while she lives her life of freedom outside the home).

Dominant female / non-dominant male pairings are more stable because non-dominant men will not leave when their needs aren't met. Instead, they'll just wallow in misery and self-pity. Even with very high quality dominant males, though, non-dominant females frequently will leave when unhappy, simply because they seem to have better options. Non-dominant men, by nature of their lack of attractiveness to other women due in large part to their non-dominance, do not have these same options.

With non-dominant women able to escape unhappy relationships, but non-dominant men unable to, relationships where men are non-dominant are more stable on average because non-dominant men have no other option but to remain in an unhappy marriage.

It's like I said, once you know you have the power to leave women because you know that you can find a cute and interesting girl while walking in the streets by next day, you'll do it more easily.

That's assuming it's the man leaving the woman. But in 70% of divorce cases, it's the woman who's initiating the divorce; and I'd wager in many of the 30% initiated by men, the man initiates it only after finding out the woman has begun seeing another man.

Relationships are not ending because men decide they don't need women and leave. Relationships end when women decide they're unhappy and leave.

But doesn't that contradicts the sense that relationships of a ladies' men is healthier because he knows how to deal with woman and therefore they should last longer / the divorce rate should be lower?

What I've seen anecdotally is that dominant male / non-dominant female pairings are healthier, and both partners are happier.

But no matter the partner mix, you're going to have some relationships that don't work. Usually these are the cases where the dominant partner has selected an incompatible partner for him/her, and has begun to withdraw emotions and not satisfy the non-dominant partner.

When this is the case in dominant male / non-dominant female pairings, the females refuse to suffer and leave.

When this is the case in dominant female / non-dominant male pairings, the males stay and suffer.

I'd guess that the rate of unhappy relationships is probably about the same between the two (for different reasons; dominant males are more likely to act less empathetically, doing a poorer job of taking care of partners' needs; dominant females are more likely to be unhappy with non-dominant partners by default, feel bored, and treat them at times contemptuously). In the case of divorce rates, the response of the non-dominant partner - different for non-dominant males than it is for non-dominant females - is skewing the statistics.

But just like you advise your readers to be dominant men and get women in order to provide good feeling and memories to their partner (men's point of view), the same could be said about relationships where the man is less powerful than the woman, because she's being dominant while providing him good feelings, memories, etc (woman's point of view). On the second case, if the woman had any problems being more powerful than men, she'd leave him

I've talked to, gone on dates with, and slept with a number of dominant women with non-dominant boyfriends or husbands. I sometimes ask them why they don't simply leave the guy; clearly they're having plenty of fun without him, and he's sitting at home, quietly waiting for her to return home to him, obviously not the guy they spend much time dreaming about anymore. I ask them if they don't think it'd be better for HIM to be free to go find a girl who's more interested in the kind of commitment he no doubt wishes he could have with them.

The responses are that they have a soft spot for the guy, or they couldn't "do that to him," or they kind of shrug and can't explain it, or they say that this is just for fun, but that - their marriage to the non-dominant guy - that's love.

It's not that women have problems being dominant; in every male-female relationship on the planet, the woman will fight to attain the dominant role.

The problem is what happens to attraction once she gets it; hers for him plummets, and she often begins to seek the genes of a more dominant male naturally. Women's bodies want to reproduce with dominant men that are attractive; however, if a man is busting his back to take care of her and provide for her and keep her in good trappings, she'd be a fool to throw that away.

In a way, you could say that the dominant female / non-dominant male relationship is ideal for many women; they get to have a non-dominant male providing them resources and security, who turns a blind eye (it seems to them) while they seek insemination from dominant males on the side.

but she doesn't (at least the rate is lower if compared to powerful men leaving women, just like you pointed), which defies the common sense that women ultimately like to be dominated.

Again, a woman doesn't need to divorce a man to be dominated. She can keep him there providing for her, and seek other men to dominate her. In practice, this is what seems to happen.

My point here is that if both sides are equally dominating, they'd be happier.

It's nice to imagine that people can be "equally dominant," but it doesn't happen. If you talk to two people in a partnership separately and ask them who is more dominant, and they answer honestly, the one who says, "We're about equal," is always the non-dominant one. No plateaus in life... you're either getting better, or getting worse; you're a bit above someone (or a lot), or a bit below. If you're not sure which one you are, it's never the "good" one.

And I don't know why, and I may be missing something, but I'm the impression that while rare, this happens more often when the man isn't very skilled with woman.

I'm obviously not a scientist, and I may have missed something. If that's the case, let me hear what you have to say.

Well, I hope this clears it up. I think the main thing you were getting hung up on here was thinking "unhappiness = instant divorce" or "woman with non-dominant male = unhappiness."

Unhappiness only tends to equal divorce when the unhappy partner is female, not male; and women with non-dominant males aren't necessarily unhappy; they often keep these males as providers of resources and security while they seek out dominant, sexually attractive men elsewhere.

Chase

 

[Big Daddy]

As far as telling anyone that anything is the way to go, you'll never find an article with me talking that way. The articles you'll see written by me are articles rather in the vein of, "If you want this, do this. If you don't care about that, or want this other thing, then you're fine with this." I don't presume to know what any individual reader here out of the 3/4 million stopping by every month wants or needs in his particular life... all I can tell him is what is options are and what the likely results of those options will be and why.

Oh, you never said is the way to go; I must apologize for that. I was tired and about to go to bed, and I didn't review my post before submitting it. But by no means I think you're influencing us and saying that you way to living life is the best. I actually respect your ideals to the point that even if I disagree with something you might say in a particular article, I still skim through it. I tried to say that I wouldn't, by no means, click on a article about a topic I'm not fond of and an author whose ideals I'm not aware of. I read the articles here on GC for quite a time now, and neither you, Ricardus or Eric are that radical when writing around here. I do realize that you know you're writing to 750k readers, and that that requires precaution when providing your valuable insights.

PS: actually, I realized that you could think that I was talking about you when I said that "polygamy is the way to go" - but there's no option to edit the posts. I think its a very useful tool for updating, correcting, etc. Have you ever thought on implementing that on the boards?

@rest of your post,

Wow. I think you gave me something to think about very seriously. But for the sake of discussion, let's say I'm 100% convinced about everything you said. Wouldn't you have to consider personalities? That just like there are basically two types of girls ("soft" and "strong"), may be two types of men as well? Not necessarily all shy girls want to be super-confident top models - some of them are OK with not being it, actually.

Did you ever feel the need to be the super-confident leader alpha-male, leading a group and always caring about their welfare? I think that being an alpha-male defeats the purpose of being mysterious. It's not that I don't like alpha-males; it sounds cool to have all the attention gravitating towards you, etc, but I'd rather not be. I don't have that burning desire to be a leader and have all the attention I could possibly get. I'm more comfortable sitting quietly in the shadows with everything I want while all the lights are pointed to someone else. Lincoln says it better: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." It just suits my personality better.

 

[Big Daddy]

I got some time to think about the posts on this topic since my last comment around here and I'm very convinced that in near future I may have a complete different mindset. One thing that still intrigues me though, is that are different (male) personalities. Is true that I'm not very comfortable being the center of attention in social situations, and I realize that I'd have to work on some skills that I not comfortable with right now, but I'd have to change my personality to "attractive-to-woman-personality"? That doesn't feel right yet.

There are skills that are vital for one to develop, and I consider being able to handle group situations is one of them; but aren't we supposed to focus on developing our strengths (which are based on our persona)?

Zac, you commented about nerds liking wonderful girls who also liked to play games. But what if they didn't like? Would you have to tell her that you don't like to play games, in order to advance beyond a specific point in the future, and thus, "not being yourself"?

BD