Sexual Relationships 
Sexual Health 
in response to: https://www.girlsaskguys.com/dating/a34123-why-you-should-let-the-man-chase-you
Like all good humor, half of this is intended in jest and just to be funny, and half is being serious. If at any point you feel offended and wondering which part you're reading, then you're probably just reading the part that was intended in jest and just to be funny ; )
1. You will never validate how truly interested she is in you.
Non-sexual affection, attention, emotional closeness, emotional investment, caring, being open and honest, displaying commitment (in order to later have pressure applied to you through the "consistency principle"), these are to women what "sex" is to men. A guy doesn't just do these things for any girl unless he's serious about her and she's special to him - kind of like a girl doesn't just let any guy go for anal or threesomes unless she's really serious about this guy or he's very special to her. Now, here's the rub. If you do all these things, you've basically polluted her emotionally. You can go on your whole life never really knowing if she's having sex with you out of "reciprocity" or if she's doing so because she genuinely wants to on a purely sexual level. The same is not true in the reverse. After having sex, you're free to leave. If you go by the female mantra, "unlike women," men don't get easily emotionally attached after having sex. So, any displays of affection that follow afterwards, those are actually "more genuine" than displays of affection that are made "prior to" having sex. So, if you really want to analyze the situation and make a normative "should" statement or constructivist moral reasoning argument, "Sex 'should' precede displays of affection."
2. Your relationship will basically amount to "trading" or prostitution.
This is just another way of fleshing out the "reciprocity" principle. We are all familiar with paying for things with money. You walk into a store, you order something or pick something out that you like, put it on the table, and without uttering a single word, you put your money on the table and the cashier lets you walk out of the store with the goods. Yet, we are also aware of paying for things with "favors" or "political capital." You have always been a good "friend" to Marry and Kyle, helped Marry with her PhD thesis, helped Kyle find a job, paid for your lunches and dinners out together, invited them over for the holidays. When you tell them about the new business you opened up, you see that you received your first 5-star review on Yelp! just a few days later - and it's from Marry and Kyle. They each have very nice things to say about you. You technically didn't pay them in cash for this favor. Yet, you can't help notice how a little "over the top" their praise of you seems to be, almost as if they wrote it out of a sense of obligation or duty. You don't really know how to take it. You start questioning whether Marry or Kyle meant any part of what they wrote, or whether any part of what they wrote is objectively true about you.
Within the context of a sexual relationship, imagine having to doubt whether: (a) your partner actually and genuinely wants to have sex with you or desires you sexually, (b) enjoys having sex with you, (c) enjoys pleasing you sexually, (d) gives two flying shits about your sexual happiness and how sexually satisfied you are in the relationship, or (e) really means it when she "complains" about how "big" your penis is. All jokes aside, you get the point. Not too many men want to be in a situation where they can't trust their parter sexually and have those kinds of doubts about the sexual aspect of their life and relationship. More importantly, no man wants to feel as if his sexual satisfaction is "conditionally dependent" upon the value he transfers over to his female partner. By "chasing," that's exactly what you're reinforcing in your relationship (in fact very early on) to serve as the foundation.
3. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I've had to train 4 dogs in my lifetime. It would have made for a more dramatic story if the very first dog I had was run over by a car, but fortunately, that was not the case. My first dog was a rescue. My second dog was a gift intended for someone else who said "no" to a puppy, because it wasn't an "ideal" hunting dog. My third dog, however, was entrusted to my parents one weekend (as was usually the case when my wife and I would go out of town or on vacation somewhere). The problem with my parents is that they were irresponsible. The doors would be open, the dog would go out, and they would "chase" after it. So, this weekend was no different, only that the dog ran into the street and got ran over by a car (and the car just drove off). The dog died in my mother's arms as she was driving to the animal hospital.
Now, the reason dog trainers suggest (or strongly recommend, practically demand of you) that you "never chase" your dog, is because "being chased" is psychologically addictive. Yes, "addictive." You should always condition your dog to "chase you," and never make a game out of "being chased by you" (because of exactly the situation described above). Further, it may take you 3-6 months to condition your dog to "chase you," but it can only take 1-2 times of "chasing your dog" to completely undo that training and make your dog "addicted" to the game of "you chasing your dog."
In people, who we would like to believe are more intelligent and emotionally complex than dogs, the force of "addiction" is magnified. This is particularly the case in women, whose "amygdala" is 20% larger compared to that of a heterosexual male, and especially liberal Democrat women who continue to feel systemically "powerless" compared to men in 2017 (something the Trump Presidency hasn't exactly helped with). When a man "chases" a woman, he is obviously putting her in a position of control and power - something that women consistently and generally complain they lack (compared to men) in society. It should come to no surprise then why women are very vocal about announcing strained logical reasoning to support or justify "why" men "should chase" women, and "why" women "should be chased" by men. But this goes a step further.
George Orwell said, "Giving power to a man is like giving meat to a dog, the more you give it, the more it wants." Recall the medical truth about the amygdala being 20% larger in heterosexual women (as compared to heterosexual men). Anything a man feels and experiences is "amplified" in women. So, if you believe George Orwell's words, proceed cautiously at the thought of giving power to a woman (particularly one that has absolutely zero loyalty to you yet).
4. Because if she wants you, why is she running away?
My favorite gender engineering propaganda line on the Internet is, "Men value what isn't easy to acquire," or its variant, "Men love a challenge." No, actually, men are human - you may have forgotten that. People don't appreciate, value and respect a company that was "very difficult to get in to." People appreciate, value and respect a company that provides excellent compensation and benefits, is reasonable, and treats them well (regardless how "difficult" or "easy" it was to "get in to" that company). Yet, that just takes us back to the core reason why girls iterate the "chase" script.
For anyone who has read up on "script theory," it's basically the belief that people are nothing more than biological machines (computers) programmed with and executing "code" ("scripts"). A key female social script is the "gatekeeper" script. This script goes something like this: "All men want sex, 100% of the time of 99.999999% of women. Yet, any activity that involves two people 'needs' the consent and cooperation of 'all' people. Sex is one such activity. So, that means that if one person says 'no,' that activity cannot occur or proceed. In other words, either one of the participants has 'veto' power. So, a woman 'should' be the 'gatekeeper' of sex."
That's literally the gatekeeper social script, in a nutshell. I know what you're thinking, "Umm, that's quite the leap of logic to get from (a) In other words, either one of the participants has 'veto' power, to (b) So, a woman 'should' be the 'gatekeeper' of sex." You're right, but who said we're talking about logic? We're not engineering a wind tunnel here, we're trying to capture and observe "emotional reasoning." Recall the social "purpose" and "motivations" behind the birth of this social script. Don't think 2017, think 1532. Women were generally "powerless" compared to men in society. If you believe in "equilibrium" and social abstractions such as "fairness" or "equality," then what do you expect people who feel "powerless" to try and do? That's right, they will try to "feel powerful" or somehow "manufacture power." Why just "give in" to your biological urges when there are benefits and gains to be had by "denying and suppressing" your sexuality?
Of course, we don't actively teach our girls to be White House politicians, intentionally "abstaining" from a vote they would otherwise cast or a bill they would otherwise support, "until and unless" the lobbyists offer a little something towards their next campaign, or to their constituents, etc. That kind of message would be rejected by small children. Instead, it's "reframed" and repackaged and sold to them in the form of guilt, shame, and pride in their personal and gender identity (e.g., don't be a slut, men don't like girls who are easy, but they love sex, nobody will ever marry you if you are not pure, sex is something you can only do with someone very very special - and preferably married to ... otherwise you are an easy slut who nobody will ever love or marry!).
So, the "chase" script is simply another flavor of the "gatekeeper" script that girls have been indoctrinated with ever since they were little girls. Both scripts play on the same social and emotional forces generally afflicting women. Yet, for any man that has some scintilla or punctilio of experience with women who genuinely "want" him in a purely sexual sense, they have experienced first-hand rather personally and directly what it looks and feels like to have a woman "want" you that way - what genuine sexual interest looks like (and how it can pierce through any inhibitions or emotional hold-ups or set-backs). If you're with a woman who is "able" to still be in the "I want him to chase me" or "gatekeeper" mentality, all that means is that she just doesn't want you that badly and isn't that sexually interested in you.
5. Because if she wants you, why isn't she running towards you?
At the end of the day, do you want to be the guy who goes on GaG to complain about ... or searches the Internet for advice on how to cope or deal with or magically change your SEXLESS MARRIAGE? Do you really want to put a ring on it or have her take a bite of that wedding cake to later serve your life sentence of a sexually miserable and unsatisfying marriage? Do you really want to place your loyalty and commitment to this one single woman for the rest of your life, relying and trusting her to fulfill that aspect of your desires in life ... and instead having to deal with avoidance, excuses, rationalizations, justifications, red herrings, or personal attacks ... rather than enjoying a relationship with a woman who "wants" you sexually, "respects" you sexually and as a man, and "cares" about how "you" as a man assign meaning to sex and its role within your life and your relationship?
If that's not something you really care about, then by all means, chase until you catch whatever it is you're chasing after. Otherwise, however, be weary of the woman who doesn't feel a strong irresistible urge to chase after you, but instead spends her time calculating ways to have you continue to chase after her.
Most Helpful Girl