The Reality Method 2.0

What is “Chick Logic”?

In a recent post, I talked about Backwards Rationalization and how women use it to stay congruent with their behaviors (even “accidental” behaviors) — and how you can use that fact to your advantage.

Now I want to talk about concept I have mentioned quite frequently on this blog that is similar to, but quite distinct from, backwards rationalization — “chick logic“.

Chick logic is distinct from backwards rationalization in that it is not restricted to excusing or rationalizing away a woman’s behavior, or providing the valuable “housekeeping” function of allowing the woman to avoid any cognitive dissonance (the function of BWR).

No, “chick logic” can be used at any time, and is not specifically referent to past events (as BWR, by definition, is).

The Quick and Dirty on Chick Logic
Whereas male logic comes in the form A = B, and B = C, therefore A = C, chick logic is essentially X + Z = Y, where X and Z are completely unrelated to Y.

Chick logic is a way to express, in language or behavior, the total logical disconnect women have in justifying their decisions with their thoughts or beliefs.

Chick logic comes about because a woman’s emotional brain doing all the work, and she is trying to explain, in language, her emotional process. Her emotional “rationality” makes no sense to a guy’s rational mind (or other women’s rational minds), so it’s dubbed “chick” logic.

(For more on this concept, read What Women Want or The Sexual Key by J.D. Fuentes ).

Here are examples from the “What Women Want” post that touched on this issue:

Logic
Behavior X + Behavior Y = Result Z (where result Z is an external accomplishment).

Example: “I got this project done under budget and on time, which got me nice bonus at work, which means I can afford to buy that nice new car I want.”

Chick Logic

Behavior X + Feeling Y = Emotional State Z

Example: “I got this project done under budget and on time, and after telling my Grandma this she invited me over for tea, which made me feel really empowered and like I can compete with a man in her eyes, which made me realize that she supports my career and ability to do a man’s job just as well as a man, even if I haven’t gotten married or had children yet, which makes me feel validated and happy.”

Rather than following an objective, external logical path, “chick logic” follows an internal, emotional and state-based path, with internal consequences where are often inscrutable to those outside the woman’s “inner circle”.

Because relationships are essentially entirely emotional for women, “chick logic” comes into play quite frequently in any relationship you are likely to have with a woman.

Chick Logic in Decision-Making
Probably the most important part of understanding chick logic is understanding that it is used quite frequently in female decision-making.

In other words, when women go to make decisions about something (for instance, whether to meet you for coffee like she said she would), her process is internal, reflective, and emotional, and her final decision is not based on any external obligation or abstract concept (such as, “I said I would meet him for coffee, I should keep my word“) but rather on how the idea makes her feel at the time.

If you’ve done your work in the initial interaction properly, attracted the girl, and primed her to experience those good feelings with you again, it’s possible that she will feel *good* about meeting you again, and actually do it.

But I don’t need to tell you how emotionally labile women are; the slightest environmental influence can make them feel “funny” or slightly “off” about doing what they said they’d do, and that can make the decision for them in that instant. This emotional-processing / chick logic kick therefore has profound implications for flaking, relationship compliance, and the seduction process, of which I’ll address more in a separate post.

For now, I want to clear up some possible confusion between chick logic, BWR, and other psychological concepts.

Sour Grapes, Backwards Rationalization, and Chick Logic
Both concepts, but more frequently BWR, are confused with the concept of “sour grapes”. Although this at first seems to be a natural connection to make, it’s not really useful.

Here’s why: the titular example of “sour grapes” thinking goes like this.

1. I see some delicious-looking grapes. I am very hungry and I love grapes.
2. I realize that, for one reason or another, I can’t have those delicious-looking grapes
3. Those delicious-looking grapes are probably sour anyway, so it’s for the best that I can’t have them.

“Sour grapes” is actually what I see a lot of misogynistic men going through. They have been frustrated by early rejections and bad treatment by women, and so now, when they see a beautiful woman on the street, their first thought is not, “How fun would it be to come all over her face!” but “She’s probably a bitch.”

That’s classic sour grapes thinking; because these guys don’t understand the Feminine Mind, “chick logic”, the difference between men and women, and shit tests (just for starters) and therefore have no clear idea how to get this woman in bed, they mentally model her as some ogre of a woman to prevent themselves from feeling any loss associated with letting her pass by unfucked.

Now, I know all this because I went through a pretty severe “sour grapes” period myself. I was so sour grapes that I swore off all sex for a period of about two years. I told myself (and everyone who would listen) essentially that women were so shallow, and men so manipulative, that I was just going to Take my Balls and Go Home. But the reality is I wasn’t doing this from any well-reasoned spiritual position: the reality was I had no idea how to seduce a woman.

Now, ironically this worked to my advantage, as finally one woman was so intrigued by my no-sex position that she began chasing me for sex. I didn’t give in to her, but getting her undying affections for a period of months managed to break me out of my Sour Grapes mindset.

Yes, there is a process of rationalization embedded in Sour Grapes thinking; but chick logic (and Backwards Rationalization) are not the same thing as Sour Grapes thinking.

Hopefully all this explanation has come across as useful, and not semantical pedantry. I really hate semantical pedantry.

===

As always, thanks for reading. I was motivated and inspired in this post by this article, which is not only shorter and less didactic, it also features a cute picture of Kirstin Dunst! Go read it!