[Huey]

Note: I'm not in any way affiliated with Chase Amante or GirlsChase. I wanted to share this article because it's about a topic that often comes up here. It's a long piece - beautifully written, too - but I think it's very thought-provoking.

Quote:

We published an article by Hector this Monday that ruffled a lot of feathers. Its title was Women Do Not Care About Morality. The premise of the article was that women’s morality revolves around what is best for their biological strategy – their morality comes in service of S+R, in other words. Survival and replication. Hector did not intend it as a dark piece, but many readers got that out of it. I wrote this article to cover the same subject – yet in a slightly different light.
---

Since I started dating, over the past dozen years, I have seen women do crazy things.

I had sex bareback with a very sexy girl in a white, ornate dress on our first date. She was already a little buzzed when we met up and was carrying a cup filled with wine when we met. The white dress was odd, but nothing unusual about it struck me... until I got a phone call from the husband I didn’t know she had, and discovered her wedding to him had been, well, roughly sometime right around the night I had sex with her. I deduced I had been intimate with her in what I then realized must have been her wedding dress. The husband lived across the country and I guess flew in for the wedding then flew back out that day. Did I hike up the bride’s wedding dress and take her from behind on her wedding night? I didn’t ask the guy for specific dates; he was clearly in a lot of pain (again, I had no idea this girl was married, and it did not register to me she was in a wedding dress – just not something you expect a girl to show up in on a date, so it doesn’t really even process). But it seemed like, yes, that was probably her wedding night.

Later on, I reunited with an ex-girlfriend. She had already begun to date another man while we were split... yet when we reconciled, she neither told me about her new boyfriend, nor broke it off with him. Yet I suspected there was someone else. A few months in, she grew pregnant. I immediately expressed doubt the child was mine; she swore she had been with no one else. “We’ll see what the paternity test says,” I told her. She became deeply stressed, then miscarried; we split back up. I got the full details on her other man – and that she’d slept with both us on the likely date of conception – when I happened by chance upon her journal months later. Which man fathered the child? I doubt I’ll ever know.

Years after that, another ex-girlfriend of mine befriended a then-current girlfriend I had. On the surface, my former girlfriend masqueraded as a very good, loyal friend to my then-current girlfriend. But she whispered all sorts of things into my girlfriend’s ear: Chase is not handsome. Chase does not have good career prospects. Chase is a selfish lover. Chase this. Chase that. You should break up with Chase. Chase is completely wrong for you. Chase will destroy your life. According to my girlfriend, 90% of what this ex-girlfriend told her about me was bad. It caused drama to spike in the relationship and brought us very close to breaking up. At the same time she whispered terrible nothings into my present girlfriend’s ear, this ex-girlfriend sent me secret messages to meet up, kissed me when I met her, cried over me, and invited me home to her apartment to renew our relationship. It was clear what her game was: get Chase’s current girl to break up with him, and get Chase all to herself. She had always been the sweetest, most warm-hearted girl in the world, and to see her lie and manipulate my girlfriend to separate her from me, so this ex-girlfriend could have me to herself again, surprised even me... and I was quite grizzled in the ways of women at this point.

You may be thinking “Chase must date low class women.” Or perhaps Chase’s women are sluts. Yet, each of these girls had a post-college education. Each had a well-paying professional job. Each of the girlfriends had relatively low sex partner counts when we started dating. These were normal, quality, classy girls (well, the first chick – the bride – she was a little kooky).

To men, this stuff can seem shocking. It may seem like women are rough, depraved... immoral.

Yet there is another side of female morality. A side that is downright pristine.
A side that, once you get past the shocking aspects of women not being Disney princesses, can hearten them to you, with all the warmth, affection, and care a man outside the Matrix can muster.

This side is the true beauty and goodness of the real female moral nature.

THE ROOTS OF FEMALE MORALITY
In his piece on female morality, Hector argued that women are inherently amoral. That their morality is more a cloak to be used as they pursue their sexual agenda.

And this is correct – yet it’s not quite the whole picture. The whole picture is this: women are amoral about male morality. Yet they are deeply moral about female morality.

The female moral nature does serve the woman’s biological imperatives, of course (as Hector noted). Yet so too does male moral nature serve the man’s biological imperatives.

In 509 B.C., a conspiracy came uncovered in Rome, to disband the republic and reinstate Lucius Tarquinius Superbus as king. Had the conspiracy not been found out, it likely would have succeeded. The Roman Republic would have been lost in its infancy and returned to being a kingdom again. Had Rome not remained a republic, who knows what would have become of it? And we can be quite sure all the nations today that were modeled on it – such as the United States of America – would not exist in a form remotely like what they are now... if even they existed at all. The success or failure of that conspiracy led to a split in the timeline that reverberates down to today.
Lucius Junius Brutus had been elected one of two first consuls of Rome – effectively, one of the two leaders of Rome. And when the conspiracy was uncovered, the senate brought the conspirators before the consuls. Highly ranked among those two conspirators were two of Brutus’s adult sons.

Brutus then faced a choice: grant leniency to his sons, yet in so doing sully the new Roman Republic with petty nepotism and corruption right from the start, likely dooming it. Or stand and watch two of his beloved sons be tortured and executed before him for their role in attempting to overturn the Republic. His sons would die terribly, but he would set a striking example for his countrymen to follow, and help to cement his nascent city-state.
What, here, is the nobler thing to do? Sacrifice sons for country... or country for sons?

The choice stabs at the heart of the divide between male morality and female morality: women, almost without exception, put their kin and any group they have decided they must protect above all else. Men aspire to ideals of city and nation, but often to the detriment of those closest to them.

And without the morality of either sex, the soul of mankind would be forfeit.

THE WOMAN'S CONCERN
History is filled with women who ruthlessly pursued the interest of their progeny above all else.

Olympias, fourth wife of Philip II of Macedon, bore Philip his son, Alexander, who would one day conquer much of the civilized world. But before he could do this, he had to overcome a greater challenge: the battle for the throne. Olympias was not a Macedonian – she was from Epirus – which meant when Philip at last took a Macedonian wife, many Macedonians hoped this wife would produce a ‘legitimate heir’ to the throne... one to supplant Alexander in the role Philip had groomed him for.
Olympias did what she had to do to ensure her son had no competition for regency: after Philip’s death, she had her dead husband’s Macedonian wife and young daughter burned alive, and poisoned Alexander’s half-brother. Alexander was furious, and his relationship with his mother soured – but she had secured the kingship for her son.

Brunhilda of Austrasia used manipulation, treachery, and assassination to start war after war to keep her most loyal children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren in power in ancient Francia, between the years 575 and 613. Her career ended when the nobles at last turned against her, and she was “tied to the feet of wild horses and torn apart limb from limb.” Yet she had succeeded in maintaining her descendants’ ascendency for a time, against all odds, in a violent, unstable, and brutal age.

You will find few men throughout history who so feverishly protect the prospects of their children. But Olympias and Brunhilda are just a few examples in a sea of women like this.

Men aspire to higher ideals, it is true: city, country, civilization. Without such aspirations, we would all still live in huts.

Yet it is women who ensure the continuation of the species. The woman is the fierce defender of her progeny. She is the one who raises them, nurtures them, and protects them. Her entire life revolves around the nurture, protection, and advancement of her offspring. This is the source of female morality.

Lucius Junius Brutus chose to allow his sons to suffer the fate of their co-conspirators, and stood stoically by to watch his children be stripped, beaten, and beheaded. He cracked at the end; his emotions broke forth. Yet he did not stay the execution. His choice saved a nascent Rome – just as George Washington’s decision to step down from the presidency and decline kingship saved a nascent United States from becoming just another monarchy – yet sent his own sons’ heads to roll on the floor.

Would Olympias or Brunhilda have chosen country over progeny? Almost certainly not.

But who is to say who is more morally righteous – the one willing to kill his children for his country, or the one willing to kill her countrymen for her children?

THE COUNTERBALANCE
It is vital to note the female role to the male role; the two roles counterbalance each other.

Male morality, centered on sweeping principles and ideals, has allowed men to build grand civilizations. From a reproductive strategy standpoint, male morality has allowed the civilized man’s genetic heritage to thrive; through technological and cultural developments, he has mastered the world, and created a safer world, and a world better able to support a tremendous and burgeoning population.

Yet without female morality to nurture and safeguard the children, to fight for the small gains and conduct the palace intrigues, where would man be? Children do not look after themselves; they are vulnerable. While the man is off on grand military campaigns, or building and leading a country, or working long hours at the office, the woman fights to make sure her children are not forgotten or shortchanged – either by their high-minded father (driven men rarely make attentive parents), or by anyone else.

Everything about female morality centers on this desire to protect and advance a woman’s young, sometimes at the expense of everything else. In modern society, think of:

• Soccer moms
• Helicopter moms
• Tiger moms
• Overprotective moms
  

... all these are mothers deeply invested in their progeny’s success. Yes, there are men invested in their children (think the fathers of Mozart, Michael Jackson, or Tiger Woods; Alexander the Great’s father, for all the effort he put into training Alexander as a general and king, qualifies here too), yet they are rarer, and their focus is on imparting skills and discipline in their children, not in fighting all the small social battles for them a mother fights.

It may seem insignificant to a man to worry about whether the child is included or excluded from another child’s birthday party, or the attitude the teacher expresses toward the child in class, but to the mother, each of these events is a battle of enormous proportions to be fought and won for the sake of her offspring. And from what we know of the influence of early childhood experiences on the men and women children later become, we must acknowledge how vital the mother’s role is here, on things that – to men – usually seem irrelevant. To the woman and her child, these things are not irrelevant at all.
What of women without children? When they are younger, their morality centers on finding the best man, and producing offspring with him. When they’re older, if they’re still childless, you see how that energy gets redirected:

• The pet Chihuahua they dote on and dress like a baby, and whom they overreact to any disrespect toward from anyone
• The refugees they fight for, and whose indiscretions (like gang rape) they brush away as inconsequential, the way a mother does her child’s
  

Female nature – while it might seem ugly when misdirected toward protecting annoying critters that yip and yap, or destructive vandals who do not respect their role as guests – does one thing, and it does that one thing very well: it protects the woman’s children and allows them to thrive.

And, so long as your goals are aligned with her goals, you will find women become just as fiercely, ruthlessly devoted to you as they do their present or future offspring.

TAPPING INTO FEMALE DEVOTION
Devotion, I would argue, is a moral domain for women. A woman treats devotion to her kin and those she has devoted herself to as a sacred duty, the way a man treats devotion to his country.

While men know loyalty to those they care about, and they know love, and they know affection, they do not know nor experience devotion the way a truly devoted woman does. Her devotion is a binding of herself to family, progeny, lover, or spouse; she fuses her identity to them.

Is the defense of self a moral act? I do not know. I am not a moral philosopher (Alek has written a detailed piece on female morality, and he actually is a highly trained moral philosopher – so to those of you looking for the academic perspective, stay tuned). Yet for a woman, anyone she has bound herself too becomes as if a part of herself – and she defends this person as she defends herself. Or even more so – I have watched girlfriends countless times who might not normally defend themselves so furiously turn into pit fiends in their defense of me. I have watched mothers do this with children. I have watched women do this even with their ‘adopted’ children (animals, refugees).

Once she binds herself up with someone or something, her life becomes bound with that person or creature’s defense and advancement.

Yes, devotion can fade, and women can flip – particularly with those who are not kin (like you, her lover; much less likely to flip with her child). Just as men who were patriots to one country may become part of a rebellion, or defect to another country.

But while her devotion is yours, a woman’s defenses, her abilities – and her ruthlessness, as the case may be – are at your complete disposal.

THE BINDING OF THE SELF TO HER MAN
When a woman achieves orgasm, the emotional centers of her brain shut down, and she enters a trance-like state. While some areas of the male emotional brain shut down during orgasm as well, the extent is not nearly the same as in the female brain. The male brain remains alert; you, as a man, continue to scan the environment for threats. You are tuned in, but not fully. She, on the other hand, at the point of orgasm, is wholly immersed. Her entire being becomes lost in the sex.

Women’s devotion works in a similar way to their sex. A devoted woman is an immersed woman – the objects of her devotion are all that matters in the world.

The health and survival of her nation do not matter.

Abstract moral ideals do not matter.

A woman’s devotion is not like a dog’s devotion, because women are not dogs, and they have much more to test you on and be mindful of. If your prospects dim, she may need to abandon ship – for her own survival, and the survival of any children she has (or will have). A man who expects a woman to grant him the same unwavering loyalty a dog does will always be disappointed. Yet a man who understands woman’s great-yet-conditional devotion to non-offspring can understand her, appreciate her, and marvel at her.

Her role is not to be a dog, always supporting her man. Her role is to support, protect, and advance her offspring – the future of the human species. Where devotion and support of her man contributes toward this moral goal, she will be fiercely, ferociously loyal – and moral.

But when his agenda risks the safety or future of her children, she may turn on him the same she would any enemy of her young.

“I’m young and single, and so are the girls I date. What does this have anything to do with me?” you ask. Well, here’s the thing. Just because she does not have children yet – or even because she thinks she doesn’t want any children – does not mean her biological programming lies dormant. Before children, she operates under the “I must find the man who will give me the best possible children” paradigm. And her morality operates in service of this.

Let me give you some examples:

• When you first start to date her, if she respects you and values you very highly, and sees you as both a dominant man and a prospective husband, she will completely submit to you. You will notice she is giddy all the time, deeply in love, and sexually insatiable. She has, at some level, deemed you the man she wants to father her children, and given herself over to you. If someone attacks you, she becomes enraged; she may get brutal or vindictive toward this attacker (to levels that may surprise you). If another girl is a sexual competitor that she fears may peel you away from her, she pulls out all the stops to undermine that girl. Her morality functions along the dimension that you and her are what is right and good, and anything in defense of you and her is right and good, and anything that stands against you and her is against what is immoral.
• A friend who stabs her in the back – as female friends are wont to do – may instantly switch from being someone she was fairly devoted to, to someone she will throw under the bus at any opportunity. Why do women get so vicious with their competitors? Because these competitors are threats to their reputations and abilities to find and secure quality mates, which makes them threats to women’s abilities to produce high quality offspring and secure a high quality mate to help guard and rear those offspring, which makes such competitors the enemy of sacred moral good – the production and rearing of the woman’s offspring. Women treat their competitors as immoral foes because they are... their foes are risks to all that is good in the world.
• If your relationship reaches the point of the two-year drop, you will see her emotions shift toward you. Devotion fades, cynicism rises, resentment grows. She falls out of love. She flirts with breaking up. She may stray with another man. What happened to your once madly in-love, ferociously devoted dream girl? The relationship stalled out, she stopped believing it was the road to her future (i.e., children), and it began to become an obstacle to the moral good of offspring, rather than a vehicle in service of that good. As soon as the relationship becomes morally wrong – because it no longer leads her anywhere; it has become a static relationship where you get sex and she gets nothing – she must be against it; to be anything other than against the relationship would make her morally wrong herself.
  

Can you see this morality?

Can you see how elegant and beautiful it is?

So long as man and woman are united toward the same goal – to share a great, rewarding relationship, where the man is strong and attractive and thoughtful and dominant, and the woman is beautiful and devoted and nurturing and submissive; then, later, to produce offspring, and to rear them – the union is a moral one, and the woman devotes the whole of her being to it.

Yet when you cease to serve the cause of being a great man and, later, providing her with great offspring and enabling the success of those offspring, the relationship ceases to be a moral union. It becomes immoral, from the point of view of female nature.

And an immoral relationship must be fought against, and made moral again... or else destroyed.

A DECADENT SOCIETY UNLEASHES ‘IMMORAL’ WOMEN
In times like ours – times which have occurred again and again, throughout history – women have seemed to men to become ‘immoral’. Endless volumes have been written by the great men of the world on women’s treacherous, duplicitous nature. Women are the corruptors of all that is good, many of them say.

It is important to understand the position of men who say this and why the women around them behave the way they do. And the reason why is because the man ceases to provide a sound moral option to women.

A woman does not have an affair because she is devoted to her man, views him as strong, and has faith this relationship will produce and rear quality offspring. She cheats because of one of the three reasons women cheat:

1. The man is or has become weak (he has attached himself to use her to produce inferior offspring – this is an immoral act)
2. The relationship is not secure (she is not safe with him, or her offspring will not be safe with him – he is failing his duty as a mate, which, again, is immoral toward the woman and her young or future young)
3. She has lost faith the relationship will progress (the relationship has stalled out, and he may only be using her for sex or as a placeholder until he meets someone he likes more – again, immoral)
   

Women often blame the man when they cheat. Yet very often, infidelity is a result of something the man has done – some immorality, from the woman’s moral point of view, he has committed toward her. He has broken the contract and betrayed her faith.

There are of course women who cheat due to reasons that are not these. Women high in sensation seeking may have sex for the sake of sex. Women with addiction or compulsion problems may put themselves in situations where temptation is rampant and infidelity happens. In this case, the only thing the man did wrong was to choose the wrong girl. The man has done nothing immoral; the women has behaved immoral, by her own standards. And she knows it.

Yet much of the time – most of the time – female infidelity is a response to male immorality.

A man may not view it as immoral for him to start acting weak. Or to deny a woman progress in the relationship. But to a woman, these are immoral acts. She chose him to be strong for her; she bound herself to him and devoted herself to him because she trusted him to lead her forward in the relationship. When he fails to uphold these few responsibilities, she is betrayed.

So too with decadent modern women. Modern men have two great problems:

• They are feminine and weak, and/or
• They are uninterested in progressing their relationships
  

You cannot keep a woman if you are weak. And you cannot keep a woman long in a relationship that goes nowhere (you can extend the relationship’s lifespan somewhat, but sooner or later it’s put up or shut up time).

To be sure, many Western women are boorish and not good at pushing the buttons to make a man want to stick around. But the biggest reason for this has been their being surrounded with weak men all their lives. When you date a girl with a more masculine personality, yet are strong and commanding yourself, in time she adopts a feminine demeanor (never as girly as those women who are girly by nature, of course; but women do adapt themselves, once you are providing them with strength, security, relationship progress, and skull-shattering orgasms).

Any time you hear a man complain about the immorality of women (not amorality – which is simply usually the man’s observation that women do not care about the morality of men – but immorality, where the man believes the woman is evil or bad), examine the man and ask yourself these questions:

• Is this man strong? Does he command the respect and admiration of women?
• Does this man’s romantic agenda align with women’s? Is he interested in selecting a girl, giving her progress in the relationship, and eventually putting children in her?
• What women does this man choose to date?
  

What you will find, across the board, is that when a man believes women are immoral, it is invariably because he lacks strength, or because he wants women to date him forever yet never move beyond the dating stage (and gets angry when they demand more, stray in frustration, or move on), or he chooses women to date whom are not suitable for relationships.

The other tragedy of decadent times is that when men stop taking women as wives and giving them children, the female moral imperative to ferociously guard helpless offspring misfires and gets redirected toward sometimes destructive ends – the migrant invasion in Europe being the most obvious example. (imagine women’s reaction if, instead of legions of European women welcoming in millions of young single Middle Eastern men, it was legions of European men welcoming in millions of young, single East Asian women!

When women become destructive to men’s civilization, it is a case where women are engaging in pursuits that men consider immoral – tearing down the societies men have built on pillars of male morals and principles. But women only do this when men have ceased to give women the strength, security, and offspring they need – women only rip down men’s moral structures after men have first torn down women’s.

This is an essential point.

No one individual or group of individuals is at fault for this. These are social forces, they happen at scale, and they recur again and again throughout history. Many have tried to prevent them, but they are in all likelihood inevitable. A decadent, immoral civilization is the inevitable end result of a safe, powerful, moral one, just as a feeble aged man wracked with ailments, huddled upon the doorstep of death, is the unavoidable future of all mighty, virile youths.

Always remember though: women follow men’s lead. When a man gives a woman strength, security, and progress, she follows. Only when he yields on these does she rebel. So it is with relationships, so it is with civilization.

Yet, likewise, just as the sun sets, then too does it rise. And even as societies descend into their periods of moral decay, where the men tear down the women’s moral worlds by slackening their strength, commitment, and production and rearing of offspring, and the women tear down the men’s moral worlds by ripping at the cords of civilization, so too does the rebalancing occur, and men again come to honor women’s morality, and women again come to honor men’s.

THE BRIGHTNESS OF FEMALE MORALITY
Female morality is bright, it is mission-oriented, and it is a beautiful thing that grounds male head-in-the-clouds thinking with raw pragmatic focus on the survival and flourishing of offspring.

And while civilization may be the domain and creation of men, I have long maintained that, during the good times, women are civilization’s most ardent defenders. Because women are defenders of men, when they are devoted to those men, women also adopt the moral positions of their menfolk during times when men are strong, when those men create families and rear children, and when those men’s goals are aligned with women’s. And women are far more ferocious in their defense of what they consider moral than almost any man can be.
It is female morality that provides the pillar upon which male civilization rests. Weak men and uncommitted men can be destroyed by female morality gone awry; and in decadent times, female morality can become unmoored and destructive. Yet even in this destructiveness, there is the seed of rebirth. When female morality turns destructive, it is only in response to an abandoning by men of their own morality; by a relinquishing of strength, a descent into infantilism, where men whine and complain and retreat from the responsibilities of life. And as a result of the chaos born of women’s rebellion against weak, decadent men, men harden their spirits, straighten their backs, and become, once more, the strong, focused, resolute men women so wish them to be.

We need each other, you see.

We may feel frustrated with each other, at times. The weak man may sob when his woman cheats. The soft girl may shatter when her man refuses once again to allow the relationship to progress. Women may stab at each other’s backs, men may go to war with one another; morals may seem shredded beyond repair.

And yet, in the end, men guard their civilizations, as women guard their young.

Without men, we would live in huts and dress in skins and aspire to nothing grander than this. Without women, we would lose ourselves in noble pursuits, too busy on grander things to invest much in children, and the species would fade away.

So, even in decadent times, when so many around you seem to have shed their morals, I would tell you, still, celebrate the morality of your fellow man, and woman. That morality is there; if it reacts in destructive ways to destructive times, trust that once the sun dawns on civilization again, so too will morality, in its most supportive forms, return.

And in the meantime, if you want devotion, adoration, and morality from the woman you are with, then give her the moral relationship she needs to give you it: strength, security, and progress.

Your friend,
Chase Amante

Source

[heavy]

Excellent.

It's why I've said so many times, when someone posts about some dumb 20 something chick doing something dumb socio-politically, that she just needs to have babies. Then all those talents and strengths, her morality, will be focused on her progeny.

[BortimusPrime]

I guess you could call "anything that benefits me or my offspring is good" a moral framework, but it's exactly the same as the instinctual behavior of any mammal. If your principles only make you a better person than an alligator that's not exactly a high standard of behavior.