Articles by Author: Hector Castillo

If you want respect, you must be able to demand respect. The first part of this, however, is to realize you will never destroy your ego – so you might as well work with it.

There is an undercurrent of pseudo-philosophical thinking in the manosphere and the seduction community that needs to be revealed for what it is.

I have also been guilty of allowing this false thinking. This is as much a self-correction as it is a monumental criticism that strikes at the heart of many a grandmaster’s conclusion.

I call it the Egolessness Fallacy.

It is the fallacious thinking that having no ego is the best way to succeed with women.

The thinking goes as such: “Without an ego, where is thy sting, rejection?” There is no one there to be rejected.

This is *very* close to truth, but that which is closest to truth but not truth is the most devious lie.

I reckon this is how the falsity was woven.

If you go far enough in any skill, you will learn how to learn. You will learn how you learn, which means you’ll come to know how emotions affect you, stick with you, and how your thinking works.

The journey of seduction is perhaps one of the most direct paths to learning oneself, save for meditation, since you are the subject who is both acting and being evaluated. In any sport, you are the one carrying the ball or kicking the ball, yes, but the end goal is something impersonal. The other team or your team gets scored on. You are somewhat detached from the loss or victory (though it doesn’t always feel that way, of course).

With game, however, the woman has to accept you for there to be victory.

Furthermore, victory is mutual. You get pussy and she gets cock. You both win.

This means you are not so focused on the other person losing as you are with a traditional sport; you’re instead focused on two paradoxical outcomes.

You need her to want to submit to you.

However, the paradox is revealed when you consider that a woman does not submit to her equal or subordinate. It doesn’t make sense. She wants to submit, but she doesn’t win by submitting to a man who can’t make her submit.

One could be equitable and argue you need to be more dominant than her, but in practicality, this is going to look and feel like you are greater than her. Philosophize all you want, you must be her superior if you want to have sex fast.

You > her.

Don’t see the paradox yet? Alright, here it is.

Female morality revolves around one central tenet: is this good for her sexual strategy? If yes, do it / agree with it / subscribe to it. If no, don’t.

Defining morality is tough. Even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which begins with a statement about how it’s simple to define, winds up incorporating an entire dissertation on the various details that go into defining morality.

This particular comment from the entry jumped out at me:

“This is strikingly illustrated by the fact that both C.H. Whiteley and Neil Cooper took themselves to be revealing the important ambiguity in the meaning of “morality” when they distinguished the sociological sense from the psychological (Whiteley 1959) and the social sense from the individual (Cooper 1966).”

This perfectly sets up the context of this article on the amoral nature of women.

Let me be clear. I’m not arguing that women don’t have moral standards. Of course they do. Even sociopaths have a moral framework, though it is devoid of sympathy and concern for others if it doesn’t also benefit them.

The most basic definition of normative morality is “what a person ought to do.”

The operative word here is “ought.”

For many people, their “ought to do X” revolves around duty. This is called duty ethics, for obvious reasons. “My family, my tribe, or my culture demands that I do X, thus X is my duty.” Of course, at some level they have to accept this duty, but this is meta-ethics, and a digression.

Others argue that we should be utilitarian, that our actions should benefit the greater happiness of society. This might also be classified as a duty ethic.

For some moral frameworks, morality is absolute. In others, it is relative. In some scenarios, you should act according to “good,” in others, you should act for yourself, even if it means doing something “bad.”

The usual response to this is some pseudo-intellectual form of “Well, who can define good and bad, huh? It might be bad to one person but good to another,” and it’s left there without an actual foray into meta-ethics.

This response, if anything, is an implication of normative moral relativism, which states that “Because we can’t come up with a good definition of good and bad, we should tolerate everyone’s definitions.”

How that works out in practice, you can judge for yourself.

Fortunately, this isn’t an article on normative or applied ethics. It’s an article about descriptive ethics.

I am describing the observed amorality of women. Nothing more, nothing less.

What you do with this information is up to you. Any anger or spite you may cultivate as a result of this article is your responsibility alone. If anything, I respect women for their savagery. They may not be as violent as men, but they can sure inspire violence, socially and physically. If you want to truly become a lover of women, you need to understand and accept the amoral nature of women. Any remnant of false idealism, and you are loving a false ideal of women, not women themselves.

Let us begin.