Read the Comment. :) I like some notes

[trashKENNUT]

I think Anon was more of a bad debater and Chase is good at making it look like he knows his shit when he talks even if he doesn't.

The situation is this: In Evolution, conflict and competition is costly. Ethics exist in human societies to minimise conflict and their costs. Whether they are legal or moral laws, both serve to alleviate the amount of harm that comes from warring countries, religions or even two guys competing for the same woman.

If we follow what Chase said, it's simple: survival of the fittest, period point blank. Then what happens when the boyfriend who got cheated on follows this logic and decides to beat the shit out of said guys with 'game' (pua from now on)? PUA gets beat up, he says survival of the fittest and competes even more. Then what you have is two grown men killing each other over a woman who could have been just confused or is weak minded and is easily deterred or worse she isn't even worthy to wear the label of a woman. And the world loses two perfectly functioning people because 'it's all about survival of the fittest'. And because thousands of men are reading this, imagine the free-for-all literal WAR that will come as a result.

The problem with Chase's thinking is the same as with today's contemporary indinvidualistic mindset. Break the status quo, take what you want, fuck the weak, circle of life, hakuna matata. The underdog is praised to point where he is now the problem. The anarchist view Chase takes is worrying at best.

Ethics were created to bring us out of the dark ages, to remove the constant 'need for competition' and allow people to live in relationships without constantly looking over their shoulders for one of us guys with 'game' trying to steal their girls.

Being someone who also studied game (I don't claim to be a master or anything), I have had thougts about getting with attached women and like anyone with game and presence have had attached women almost literally throw themselves at me. And I didn't do it. Not because of ethics, or mine or anyone else's feelings, I did it exactly because of what Chase said in one of his comments, I was being the superior one taking care of the emotions of the less dominant ones, men and women.

If you really were a true boss like you say you are Chase, this post would have gone like: 'How to get a woman who has a boyfriend? You don't. You have the tools to get single women and to find the same type of woman the attached girl is. You don't need to break them up, because with all the PUA skills, you go daygaming for a day or two and will likely find a girl similar in looks/personality or whatever reason you like that girl for.'

...and yet you helped the needy ones, the jealous ones with menvy, or the self-absorbed manlets who just want to hurt other men. In fact this post makes you look like a weak little scared man who is desperately trying to heal your weak little ego by getting other guy's girls. A real boss doesn't need to go for attached women, case in point.

Once again, Chase, you might beat a lot of guys with your 'game' and there is no denying that, you should teach it, more power to you. But it is clear that when it comes to being a real leader of the pack, a genuine man and the real boss you aim to be and looking out for your people, you have very little strength of mind to stand on other than your game. I suggest you start blaming your selfishness and greed on 'Hakuna Matata' and redefine your values and what legacy you want to leave behind.

Don the ex-reader

I like to hear something because i like to see how people think. This is for notes.

Zac

 

[Franco]

Zac,

I believe one of the points Chase made in that article (Girl Has a Boyfriend? 3 Things to Do and 7 Things Not to Do) is that EVERY guy feels like a girl is "his." As a matter of fact, you can go as far as to say that no girl is really "single" -- there are always men who are courting her, even if they don't own the title of "boyfriend" or "husband."

In reality, I think once you recognize this fact, you realize that no man ever really "owns" a girl. Just because he has the title of "boyfriend" doesn't make him any more entitled to a woman than a man who doesn't have the title of boyfriend. If a man really wants to keep a girl around, it is his responsibility to keep her attracted to him so that she WANTS to be with him. If you're doing that correctly, then you don't really worry about the possibility of your girlfriend cheating on you -- she's too deeply in love with you to even think about the possibility of it. As a matter of fact, she's USUALLY more worried about you cheating on her.

So if I were to summarize what Chase is actually referring to in that article, it's that titles really mean nothing. I don't go after a woman because she has a title of "single" or "taken;" I go after a woman because I find her very attractive (usually in more ways than one) and I let her make the decision if she wants to return that attraction and come after me. The reason I do this is because I know that a woman who is TRULY in love with the man in her life will not return that attraction. However, if she feels unsatisfied or unhappy with her partner, then I'm the one giving her the opportunity to experience something better.

It sounds to me like this comment was made by a reader who's been stung by a woman who left him for another man. To that, all I have to say is, "learn what you did wrong, and improve yourself so that it doesn't happen again."

- Franco

 

[Hector Papi Castillo]

In Evolution, conflict and competition is costly. Ethics exist in human societies to minimise conflict and their costs. Whether they are legal or moral laws, both serve to alleviate the amount of harm that comes from warring countries, religions or even two guys competing for the same woman.

Holy mother of reductionism. Haha, this guy is trying to straddle ethics, evolutionary biology, economics, philosophy of law, and a host of other fields. Without any immediate sign of worth, like a Ph. D in any of those fields, I wouldn't take this guy's argument seriously. When he writes his dissertation entitled, "The Foundations of Ethics Within The Sexual Market," then I'll give this claim serious consideration.


This is the only response that this guy deserves,

- Anatman, the Masterdebatur

 

[Drck]

We have to be careful in interpreting words like "survival of the fittest". In classical scenario, the perception is that if two men fight in nature with each other (or against some predator), the one who wins is usually the stronger and/or smarter. He then has the classical strongest offspring because he's the winner.

But from evolutionary point of view this is not always true. For example, much smaller and more intelligent man can win over stronger and bigger one just because he invented better weapon (bow and arrow) or is able to setup a clever trap. Or, all strong and skilled men can go to war, but they are killed. The weak and sick who were never able to fight then impregnated all females because they simply had no competition. As far as evolution is concerned, they are the "survivals of the fittest", while in reality the DNA of the weakest is being passed down the line...

Ethics are IMO important. If you as a guy love woman, you don't want any other guy to take over your woman. You want to respect other guys and their girls if they are in relationships, because you want to be respected yourself. So you as a PUA/Seducer should avoid girls in TRUE relationships. On the other hand, if any PUA or some guy is trying to take over your girl, you should beat the shit out of him right there and with no hesitation. That's as far as ethics goes, and that's why you should always lift weights and learn to fight, LOL. Do your pull ups, do your 300 pounds deadlifts, add some bench-press and heavy squats, learn some fighting, and you are almost guaranteed that fights won't happen because today there are not so many men are willing to challenge muscle guy, and even if they do you still have 90% chance to win... That's right, 90% of "men" out there are just pussies, don't be one of them...

So why would a guy want girl that is attached? Such guy doesn't have enough of self respect. Have some self respect for God's sake, find a girl that is not attached...

But there are also fake relationships. She just keeps an orbital as her BF till she finds a guy who she really wants, once she finds such guy she will dump her BF in no time. Or, she just got a great provider but miserable lover, she is bored. She won't get rid of that guy but she is also seeking satisfaction outside the relationship. It is in benefit of such guy to recognize his position in that relationship because chances are that he will eventually be replaced anyway. As far as seduction is concerned, he is already dumped. This time the girl behaves little bit differently though, she flirts, she hints that she wants to sleep with other men, she is rather open or even active in seeking another guy and so on...

 

[trashKENNUT]

I love the responses!!!

I didn't expect a tornado. Yea it is hard to unwire for most of our species unfortunately.

People don't really know how much experiments and test that Chase done, to come to that conclusion, though the best conclusion. But if the best advice isn't good enough, he either comes out with something better or he lies to himself that she didn't do anything.

Zac

 

[Chase]

Notice he didn't say much new that Annus (the commenter I had the original debate with in that thread) said before him:

https://www.girlschase.com/content/girl- ... t#comments

The major concern this reader has is that I'm not upholding prevailing social conventions (i.e., "stay away from attached women") and am not serving as a social leader seated firmly at society's governing table. Which is silly... even if I flip-flopped on my views there, the entire rest of the site prevents me from ever being socially accepted in Western society, at least right now. There's no place for me at the West's leadership table.

In any event, I'm also still a young man; I'm still in the rogue/bandit/pirate/adventurer/swashbuckler stage I talked about in "The Civilized Man." Expecting me to come in from the cold, renounce my knave-like ways, and step up to the podium to lead society is premature... I don't have the clout or prestige to assume a role like that. No one wants me in this role (except perhaps this commenter), and I haven't built my base yet. I'm still in the expansion phase where I'm taking what I've learned and trying to build business, reputation, bank account, etc. I'd be another faceless voice in the crowd telling everyone to do as they're told, and get ignored because there's no added value there.

The other consideration this reader seems to have missed is whether the social conventions he thinks are important to uphold are as necessary to the well-being of social order as he thinks they are. The Spartans encouraged men to sleep with other men's bored wives, for instance. This commenter would no doubt be horrified at the social implications of such a tradition, but Sparta was an unbeatable military power right up until it reached the point where it ceased honoring the precepts of Lycurgus every which way.

Additionally, were he to apply himself to his studies, he'd find that periods of feminism and sexual liberation (including the breakdown of monogamy) are extremely common throughout history. Fighting against social trends, like those we see in the West today, is about as effective as grabbing a couple of buckets and moving water about to divert the incoming tide and save sand castles built by people too close to the ocean. Far better, in my opinion, to teach a man to swim, and then teach him that if sand castles are important to him, make sure to build his with some forethought and not place them so close to the sea.

Chase

 

[Gonzaleth]

I think the commenter has a misconceived notion of what evolution is: evolution does not equal survival of the fittest (or at least not in layman's term... with most layman thinking of "fittest" in the literal sense).

The term "fittest" is subjective; it depends on what trait is selected for at a given point in time. Fittest = Have a trait selected FOR by the environment and thus have a higher chance to reproduce (reproductive success) -> Pass on the selected genes.

Beating someone' face into the ground but not able to impregnate women is a poor example of "survival of the fittest" lol

Besides, individuals do not evolve, a population does. So it is totally irrelevant to talk about evolution concerning only of 2 individuals cracking their skulls over a girl....

And this all-out war he talks of.... well yeah sure if we are living in a Mad Max-ish kind of world where men get into the ring and battle it out, and winners get to impregnate women, I guess there is a selection pressure for fit men. But in the real world, these guys are going to get their ass thrown in jail and the closest thing resembling a vagina is the butthole of the guy showering next to them.

 

[trashKENNUT]

Franco.

then you don't really worry about the possibility of your girlfriend cheating on you -- she's too deeply in love with you to even think about the possibility of it. As a matter of fact, she's USUALLY more worried about you cheating on her.

I will probably tell people what you say, but my real opinion will stay with me, most of the time. Because women will always find some guy just as men. I don't know why i say this. but deviation is a norm.

I even see people in this forum do this, to deviate. Then i realize, i am doing it too. A power struggle, sadly.

DrexelScott,

Women are opportunistic and always looking to trade up. If your girl leaves you for someone else, it means he had more to offer her than you did. Likewise, if a woman leaves her boyfriend for you, that is her DNA's way of trying to maximize its investment. Personally I don't treat girls with boyfriends any differently because most of the time it's irrelevant--she's going to fuck you if she wants to, and not fuck you if she doesn't.

One of the reasons your articles and Chase articles are always something i note of. Very blunt.

Anatman,

Yeap, he's mad. (HAHA!!!!)

Drck,

So why would a guy want girl that is attached? Such guy doesn't have enough of self respect. Have some self respect for God's sake, find a girl that is not attached...

I had a friend who once wanted me to escalate on her, and she has a boyfriend that she loves. That's something Chase noted before, and he probably doesn't do it a lot, because most people freak the fuck out.

Chase,

. I don't have the clout or prestige to assume a role like that. No one wants me in this role (except perhaps this commenter), and I haven't built my base yet. I'm still in the expansion phase where I'm taking what I've learned and trying to build business, reputation, bank account, etc. I'd be another faceless voice in the crowd telling everyone to do as they're told, and get ignored because there's no added value there.

Very real.

Gonzaleth,

But in the real world, these guys are going to get their ass thrown in jail and the closest thing resembling a vagina is the butthole of the guy showering next to them.

HAHA!!!!

Zac