Friday, February 8, 2013

The Analogy Between Sex and Commitment

A recent post on Hooking Up Smart really grabbed my attention. The first item in the post 7 Reasons Why Women Reject Eager Men reads:

Women understand the male role as the gatekeeper of commitment, just as we [women] are the gatekeepers of sex. In the same way that a man may question the long-term potential of a woman who grabs his junk on the first date, women are wary of men who are “emotionally promiscuous.”

This idea is huge, and it has been on my mind since I read that post. I've practically been able to feel the gears in my head turning as I've considered the various implications, and recalled instance upon instance in which I've seen it demonstrated. It's been eye-opening just thinking about it. I thought I would share some of the ways I've recognized the concept at work in typical inter-sex dynamics:

  • Men are always trying (and failing) to elicit sex from women; women are always trying (and failing) to elicit commitment from men.
  • A man doesn't owe a woman his commitment any more than a woman owes a man her body.
  • Women complain about men being "afraid of commitment" when the men refuse to date them seriously, in the same way that men complain about women being "prudes" or "bitches" because they won't go home with them.
  • Ideally, in a long term relationship, a man freely gives his loyalty to his woman, and a woman freely gives her body to her man.
  • This blog and books like The Rules or Why Men Love Bitches - which all essentially try to help women attract and get commitment from men - are the perfect analogues to the thousands of blogs and books teaching men how to get laid.
  • Men and women are both disappointed by the opposite sex equally: women get dumped (or not called back) by men just as often as men go home from the bar or club empty-handed.
  • Men don't respect women who have sex too soon; women don't respect men who say "I love you" too soon.
  • While neither of these are something either sex looks for in the other, a man is unsurprised if a girl has given herself to many men emotionally in the past (i.e. committed to them), just like a woman is unsurprised if a man has fucked a lot of girls (i.e. given himself to them sexually).
  • Men like that a woman can easily attach to a man emotionally, just like women like that a man can easily attract women sexually.
  • Men get frustrated at women who deny them sex after dating for a long time in the same way that women get frustrated with a guy who won't say "I love you" after dating for a long time.
  • A man feels bad when his woman says "I love you" before he is ready to reciprocate the expression, in the same way that a woman feels bad telling a guy she isn't ready to sleep with him when he tries to have sex with her. 
  • Some women feel drawn towards a man when they learn that he has never been in love before, while some men have fantasies about taking a woman's virginity.
  • Women love to discuss relationships and each others' involvement in them (who has commitment from whom) with the same enthusiasm men have for discussing their sexual escapades.
  • Men usually escalate a relationship physically (towards sex) whereas women usually escalate a relationship emotionally (towards commitment).
  • Women take pride in being able to get a guy to want and commit to her (even if she isn't that into him) in the same way that men take pride in getting a girl to let him have sex with her (even if he isn't that into her).


Related Posts

115 comments:

  1. Good post. I think that many men do need to realize that they shouldn't be emotionally promiscuous or easy.

    I agree that since most men want sex sooner and with a greater number of women than women do that it is safe to say women are the gatekeepers of sex (of course, for a really ugly woman then you might have men being the gatekeeper to avoid sex with her).

    I think your (and others') calling men the commitment gatekeepers needs the strong qualification of it being "the relatively few men that the woman finds desirable for a relationship" are the commitment gatekeepers.

    I think women are as much the commitment gatekeepers as men, if not more so, since women disqualify so many men upfront and never give them a chance for either sex or a relationship.

    Only in the cases where he passes her filters (often hypergamous filters in either status, looks, charisma, or whatever other category) and she wants a relationship with him more than he wants one with her will he then be the commitment gatekeeper.

    Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I think women are as much the commitment gatekeepers as men, if not more so, since women disqualify so many men upfront and never give them a chance for either sex or a relationship."

      This is a really good point. I constrained my thinking of the phenomenon to the situation in which a woman already has approved of the man, and wants him to commit - which is what my readers are interested in navigating. But it is worth recognizing what you point out, that women also have a say - and an equal one - it just comes at a different point in the relationship.

      You could also highlight the converse: men are as much the gatekeepers of sex in the sense that they don't pursue women they don't want to sleep with.

      I also agree that the phenomenon is limited only to "the...men that the woman finds desirable for a relationship." However, I don't think this is always "relatively few," as you suggest. The majority of men might be "the gatekeepers of commitment," for women who are ugly or have bad personalities, since these women will be desperate. They would likely take more men than they would reject.

      Delete
    2. Brief version:

      Women are mostly the sex gatekeepers.

      Both men and women are about equally commitment gatekeepers.

      Longer version:


      Your main point is very important for men to realize, namely that men need to realize that they should be gatekeepers of commitment and not emotionally escalate too soon, until the woman has shown some interest in him.

      How to tell who is more of the gatekeeper?

      Well, whoever wants it less is likely to be the one deciding if they want it.

      For sex, that is mostly men when you consider that probably 80% of men are open to casual sex and will even go down 2 or 3 points in looks if the woman were to come onto him strongly so basically for any given man there are probably way more women he would hypothetically have sex with than for a woman of the same SMV. Of course, the highly-restricted men like some of those that comment at HUS, aren't up for casual but they're a small minority. So, women are mostly the sex gatekeepers.

      For commitment. It's hard to say who wants it less. Here is where hypergamy comes in. I use a general definition of hypergamy, just meaning that the woman would prefer a guy that has overall greater value than herself. So, if the woman is a 6 in MMV and the guy is a 7 then yeah, he's going to be less likely to want to commit to her than vice versa. But the male 6 (not to mention a 5) that wants to be with that same female 6 may notice that she's not so interested in committing to him. I have a lot of chicks that are 1 or more points below me (my perception) that want me to commit to them. Women at or above my level...they come along...but I'm not drowning in them...so they're effectively being the commitment gatekeepers, and then when those few do become interested in me then I start to think harder if I want them and so I often become the commitment gatekeeper but sometimes it's the woman who is less interested and is the comm. gatekeeper.

      Also, with the career/fun/travel-focused women in their 20's, they basically put their price so high for accepting/wanting an LTR (e.g. don't want to settle down with anyone...unless it were with Ryan Gosling) that they are effectively the commitment gatekeepers. Once women move into their 30's and start feeling their value slip then I could grant that men start to be the commitment gatekeepers more and more.

      Thoughts?

      Delete
    3. And I should clarify that I think only a minority of women are hypergamous in the sense of wanting someone out of their league and some of them eventually realize they need to be more realistic and some don't.

      Delete
    4. SMV vs MMV? What are the factors deciding a woman's MMV? I assume by SMV you mean sexual market value, which would just be a woman's looks?

      Delete
    5. Pretty sure SMV is sexual market value. No idea what MMV is.

      Delete
    6. The whole gatekeeper thing is only valid if there is the probability of being interested to begin with. I rather would put it in the terms of "seller" and "buyer"

      "You could also highlight the converse: men are as much the gatekeepers of sex in the sense that they don't pursue women they don't want to sleep with."

      Usually, its women selling sex, and men buying it.
      Men sell commitment, and women buy it.

      Commitment is only worth anything if it is a seed that can grow into money.
      Sex is only worth anything if it is a seed that can grow into children.

      If you got shitty seeds, then nobody wants to buy it. You start to putting it on discount, and if you get desperate enough, you start to throw it on the face of people.

      An ugly woman, who is probably going to produce ugly children, or an old woman who probably cant produce healthy children, if any, wont have many customers, and they start to discount it. (post-40 women were really dead ends in a pre-industrial world, but through technology, they get 10 or 20 extra years of fertility. In a pre-industrial world, a 40-year old would be the equivalent of a 50 or 60 year old today.)

      Same with men, if they are needy losers, there is a great risk that they cant survive and compete between other men, and thus, unable to conquerer a sizable chunk of the world. (computer geeks are kinda exceptional in this regard. An aspergian computer geek would get eaten up among real men in a pre-industrial setting. They basically aren't competing for the same world as "real" men are, the world women are primed to want to access through their proxy, i.e, their husband.)

      And basically, if a seller is too eager to sell, then buyers start to beware. Think door salesmen vs luxury shop.

      They are both selling, but the door salesmen need to put in an extra effort to close the deal, since their items suck.


      "Of course, the highly-restricted men like some of those that comment at HUS, aren't up for casual but they're a small minority. So, women are mostly the sex gatekeepers."

      Some aren't selling commitment to begin with, because they don't got any. They had it, but they sold it to their wifes, and thus, they aren't really in the market anymore.

      Delete

    7. But it's worth considering that commitment isn't really "sold", rather leased on a daily basis. So a man could invalidate a lease agreement for their commitment, and return to the market in order to re-lease it. Or it's even possible that he has such an awesome item to sell, that he can sell only part of it to one woman, and another part of it to some other woman. Of course, if one of the women gets scamed, trouble will likely follow.

      Now, some women have so low valued sex that they agree to a "one shot" trade of only the monetary aspect of commitment for their sub-par and childless sex.

      The fact that prostitutes aren't offering exclusivity lowers the value of what they sell even lower. Non-prostitutes have their hypergamy, causing them to naturally be exclusive with whoever they close the deal with.

      Yes, if we want to be vulgar, this kinda mean all men are johns and all women are... well. This also explain why its the oldest job in the world.

      "Also, with the career/fun/travel-focused women in their 20's, they basically put their price so high for accepting/wanting an LTR (e.g. don't want to settle down with anyone...unless it were with Ryan Gosling) that they are effectively the commitment gatekeepers."

      Those girl have been tricked to sell their sex for... uh... nothing really.

      Yeah. Guess who is the winner in that scam?

      And when they do want to close a deal when they are 30 or 40, they have only decaying wares. You know, like you go to a grocery store and they got this old flowers who are past their sell date, and are only getting older and uglier by the day, and are on discount?

      You rather buy them, or fresh flowers, having 2-3 days left before they reach their prime? Yeah, you pay a premium for the fresh flowers. It wold be really shameful to buy one of the old flowers for valentines day, wouldn't it?

      Now, imagine this guy coming to the flowershop and trying to convince the owner that it would be awesome if he just lent away the flowers for nothing, and only started to sell them one week after the flowers have hit their prime.

      He would argue that the flowers are not to be treated like some shitty item to be sold, and that the flowers have a right to see the world and experience multiple homes.

      Never mind that each time a custom took one of these flowers home and back, some part of the flower would be damaged. It would be totally worth it for the flower.

      This guy would call the this brilliant idea the "flower revolution".

      In fact, he would love to inaugurate it by borrowing 5 of those flowers to start with.

      Delete
    8. SMV, yes. MMV is marriage market value, i.e. the value you have for marriage or similar very-long-term relationships. I'll try to avoid vague acronym.

      A woman's looks will be probably about 80-90% of her sexual value though skills in bed, flirtiness and other things that turn a man on and make him want to have sex with you would be a part of it too.

      A man's sexual market value will likely have many more factors and vary more from woman to woman: fame, charisma, dominance, humor, looks and wealth are several variables that could go into the formula.

      Delete
    9. MMV is marriage market value?

      Delete
    10. BONUS: guess who the owner of the flowershop is in the analogy?

      Previously, the father would be the legal guardian, tending for the the daughters needs, and making sure the buyer payed adequately for the transaction.

      But thats old and antiquated , now that we give it away for free. Isn't it?

      After all, love rules supreme, it's the only thing that counts, and the prinsess always gets the knight in shining armour and marriages never end. So who needs the flowershop owner to give a shit anyway.

      Delete
    11. Yaser, men controlled their daughter's sexuality but in many cases historically, marriages were business contracts that had nothing to do with love, sexual attraction or whatever. Contracts between men and enforced by the church or daddy's armies. Rich men gave their daughters away in return for alliances, political and/or military. Poor men gave their daughters away because they could not afford, or preferred not to feed them beyond puberty.
      Now women decided whether or not to give themselves away, and they now usually give themselves away for nothing and call it empowerment.

      Delete
    12. Agreed, Adreinne.

      In the historical cases you cite, the focus was on politics, and less on the individuals. When the individuals have stronger vote on the issue, then love and sexual attraction plays a bigger role.

      Neither the present situation nor the overly political historical examples are optimal for the individuals.

      One reservation: I'm not to sure they had the luxury to give the individual a say in the matter. Remember that those were harsher times for everybody, including the king, who lived a had a shorter lifespan to expect than the peasants.

      Delete
  2. Now this is an analogy I can better get behind. I was skeptical at first but you made some fair points that can be comparable. Men value sex highly, and women value commitment highly, generally speaking. Of course there are exceptions, one being that I have found a change in the positions of men and women as they approach their 30s, a time when men are more willing to settle down with one woman for the rest of his life while unmarried women simultaneously are hitting their sexual peak and become a little more uninterested in whether or not he wants to commit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Andrew:

    Which one, in your opinion, is better girlfriend material: an outwardly promiscuous/sexual woman a la Rihanna or Megan Fox (both of which have been with the same guy for years), or a woman like Taylor Swift, who has a relatively wholesome image but dates a new guy every other month? Seems obvious to me that girls that get emotionally attached to men easily have more sexual partners than the ones who commit to one guy for a long period of time, but it seems like the majority of guys would answer Taylor Swift

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha, I like this question...

      I would avoid Taylor Swift like. the. plague. That girl has a serious victim syndrome and a huge ego (judging from the way she addresses her fans). Megan Fox strikes me as kind of a bitch and boring. I'd go with Rihanna, she seems cool.

      I don't think you can group (or divide) those women based on anything substantial though. They are all pretty different.

      Delete
    2. There is a difference between Taylor Swift the person and the image Taylor Swift projects. Most men would pick the Taylor Swift image.

      Delete
    3. Do you think the above comment is true, Andrew, that most men would pick the Taylor Swift image, because in another post about looking sexy vs cute you use her as an example of almost always looking cute, not sexy, while arguing that men respond positively to looking sexy- promiscuity is a behaviour, not an outfit? (I think she's beautiful, btw, but doesn't sexualize herself much, though she would rock it.) I'm a bit confused, now, about how men respond to a sexy image- is it sexy vs wholesome after all? Or is it her love of romance, which is very feminine, that is appealling (provided she didn't "love" a new person every month)?

      Delete
  4. Andrew, excellent post as usual.

    HanSolo makes a great point! I recently came to this realisation too, and made this point on TPM in a post about short guys.

    In addition to HanSolo's point, the other problem men have nowadays is that, in fact fewer and fewer women are looking for commitment (hence the high single mother rate).

    So, because sex is still very much wanted by men, (and that will never change, lol), women's provision of sex becomes more valuable than men's provision of commitment. Feminism has encouraged women to not value commitment, you see (actually by encouraging them to not value sex first - hence the need to lose the vignity ASAP after puberty).

    So, for men's commitment to become a valued commodity once more, women have to be taught to value it.

    Which would be hard, given that at least 3 or 4 generations of women have been taught that wanting a man's commitment is akin to sea creatures wishing for land vehicles...

    Women now really only want men for sex...until it is too late for commitment. Which is a shame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There used to be an approximate symmetry of women needing men for providing and protection and the man needing a woman to be willing to have his babies (eggs rare, sperm readily available) but with technology largely obliviating the value of physical strength now women can earn as much as men and don't really need a man for protection (at least in safe parts of the world, or she can buy a gun, learn to use it and be more deadly than a tough guy w/o a gun).

      In all truth, men's value has been diminished because now women still have the eggs (or the sex that men want) but they don't need men as much as before for providing and protection. Men still want sex but their historical and evolutionary roles beyond sperm provider are not needed as much in rich/safe countries.

      It makes sense that women are able to be more picky now and choose to be. They can either go for the guy with out-of-her-league genes (looks, charisma, intelligence) or a guy with more money than she would have been able to get when everyone paired off with someone roughly at their same level of marriage value.

      However, the thing is, girls, if you actually do want to realistically find a good match then you'll need to realize that even though you can get a higher value guy for sex (and possibly to get pregnant from if you want to improve the genes of your kids) you will need to focus on guys at about your level for commitment. Because, why would a male 8 want to commit to a female 6 if he has quite a few other 6's that either want to sex him up or commit to him? However, male 8's don't have tons of female 8's wanting to commit to him so he would likely be happy to commit to a female 8 (assuming he's not looking exclusively for casual).

      Delete
    2. "In addition to HanSolo's point, the other problem men have nowadays is that, in fact fewer and fewer women are looking for commitment (hence the high single mother rate)."

      This is because the government is stealing money from men at gunpoint and giving it to the single mothers. The single mothers have the commitment of the government, the guy gets nothing. Well, almost nothing the gets...

      "So, because sex is still very much wanted by men, (and that will never change, lol)"

      It actually does. When men are given porn, they lose interest in real women. The reason men agree to the government stealing their thunder is because they agree to becoming numbed by porn.

      Imagine a generation of men who refused porn, or didn't have access to porn, living in a country were the government would take their money at gunpoint, and redistribute it to single mothers.

      (I got tired of writing it out every time, so i invented this: Nara = everything women have to offer men in the sexual marketplace. The female currency. Yamo is the male currency)

      Feminism and socialism are two heads of the same anti-civilisation dragon. Socialism devalues yamo, feminism devalues nara.

      After having devalued yamo and nara, marriages become much less stable, since they exchange of yamo and nara is what glues together the nuclear family.

      And we all know what happens when the nuclear family started to crumble, don't we?

      Crime chart, Canada, from the 1960s onward:
      http://www.thefreeradical.ca/images/Violent_crime_stats_chart_2001.jpg

      Oregon:
      http://oregoncatalyst.com/uploads/crime-chart.png

      England:
      http://www.parliament.uk/ImageVaultFiles/id_11178/cf_578/olympic-crimeanddefence-crime-chart1-standard.jpg


      This coincided with the sexual revolution devaluing nara in the 1960s

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_revolution

      I'm not too familiar with it, but it wouldn't surprise me if socialism got a boost at about the same date.

      "So, for men's commitment to become a valued commodity once more, women have to be taught to value it."

      No Spacetraveller. It doesn't work that way.

      That remedy is as futile as a prescription of "wtf man up ffs" to a porn addict. A porn addict will never properly value a real womans body until he quits porn.

      And as long as government is there to facilitate the cuckolding of men, women will never regain the appreciate of male commitment.

      Its that easy folks! If you are a single mom on welfare, you are by proxy cuckolding the men of the country, at gunpoint. And you are the same a porn addict, a man who via proxy supports the horrible treatment of the women in the porn industry.

      "Women now really only want men for sex...until it is too late for commitment. "

      And men know this, and therefore refuse to offer commitment. As if it wasn't bad enough that the government is giving her incentive to break your heart (women initiate divorce twice as often as men), leave you and get social benefits, she STILL gets the house, the children AND childsupport and alimony!

      This is toxic to civilization. It cant be sustained with this rules. Men lose their incentive to do great deeds if they can't buy nara for it!

      Delete
    3. "but with technology largely obliviating the value of physical strength now women can earn as much as men and don't really need a man for protection"

      HanSolo, this is not true!

      The contribution of men to the society has not shrunk in value due to technology. If you think about it, which gender is upholding the high-tech society we live in?

      Which gender is working in the mines? Collecting the wood? Bringing in the oil and plastics? Forming them to industrial standards? Defining the industrial standards? writing robotic blueprints? Building robots? Operating robots? Writing software? Putting the LAN and WWW in place and upholding it? Designing and building skyscrapers? Designing and building energy stations? Bringing the electricity to the them? and on and on and on...

      If socialism hadn't been there to make all of this guys cuckolds...




      Delete
    4. Yes it is! lol I don't dismiss the necessity of men working in the oil field and similar. But what percentage of work requires physical strength today versus 100 or 300 years ago? Much, much less. I didn't say completely obliviating, only largely obliviating. Look at how the % of people working in farms and mining (the part that requires physical strength as opposed to just driving a truck or combine) has gone from the vast majority of people living on farms to now only maybe 1 or 2% in developed societies. Now machines do all the work. My aunt and uncle were ranchers and come harvest time my aunt (not nearly as strong as my uncle) was out there driving a combine. Why? Because she was able to and was needed.

      All the rest of the stuff you mentioned such as writing blueprints, designing skyscrapers and (I would add) generally inventing new technology has nothing to do with physical strength. It's true that it was primarily men who invented the vast majority of technology and science so men basically invented themselves out of being needed as much as providers and protectors. But with it all invented (and not talking about future inventions) there are enough women that could maintain things. Likely, future inventions and discoveries would suffer somewhat though.

      As long as we have cheap energy going forward (debatable) to fuel all the technology we have then more and more physical labor will be done by robots and this will continue to allow women to live in a rich society where provider/protector men aren't needed as much on an individual level and even collectively. Notice, I said "as much" because some men are still needed for their physical strength. But a lot of that can be provided by some "anonymous" group of men in the army or on the drilling rigs that she won't come into contact with often or ever. So for the typical woman in the safe/rich society, she doesn't need to have a man as a provider/protector as much or at all because she can get a job that pays enough to live on or she can get welfare and charity to avoid starving.

      Delete
    5. @yaser

      Think about it. Why did roughly equal rights for women come along in just the last 100 or so years? Do you think there were never groups of women in the past that would have liked to have more of a say? (And I'm not saying that women were just mercilessly oppressed all the time like a lot of radfems claim.)

      It was because of technology that made their labor in the house less valuable (washing machines, cheap clothes, vacuums, etc. lessened the value of the historical female labor in the house, though their raising kids is still valuable) and created jobs that they could do outside of the house that just required a brain and not strong muscles. Less economic need to be at home and more opportunities/need for their labor outside the home gradually led women to work outside the home.

      Plus, with the relatively safe society we live in, women didn't need to fear violence as much anymore and so they don't need a man to live with them as much. And they can buy a gun too if they want to.

      It's probably for the same reason that slavery died out as technology improved. Yeah, there were moral reasons but the value of slave labor probably just diminished so much that it wasn't worth it anymore.

      Delete
    6. @Yaser

      I agree that socialism contributes to women needing men less on an individual level as providers. Also, socialism started before the sexual revolution but did have a big boost under Lindon Johnson with all the enhanced welfare that really screwed over the black families. Look at marriage rates amongst blacks before and after.

      Delete
    7. I'm beginning to find the frequent posts from the manosphere mildly disturbing. The majority of readers of this blog do not sleep around, are looking for commitment and are simply looking for a few tips to increase our chances at obtaining this. Please tone it down a bit...

      Delete
    8. I agree that technology, more than ideas, emancipated women- that and the concentration of brute force in the hands of the state, ie the police, which makes normal life safe and free for women in that we don't have to rely on individual men who like them to protect us; we can be solo, yet protected, and that really is liberating (go for a run in the evening, care-free, etc. Unlike in Central America, or the Carribean, or lots of places...). One consequence, relationally, is that a lot of us can now ask for what we need most in a close relationship, which is love and affection, not a paycheque or bodyguuard. I hate feminism- so much (for reasons I won't get into)- but the changing power dynamic due to wealth and technology, reproductive and household chore wise, etc, that women have the power to leave, is something I'm happy about. Yes means more now, though I think a lot of men find it difficult to naturally elicit that yes... like romance, while maintaining masculinity, is hard. ... I think that men and women are fundamentally the same now as hundreds of years ago, but with different options and incentives. ... I find this conversation interesting, though it is deviating from the focus of this blog (which I love, by the way. I must say, a lot of it is probably "obvious", in that Andrew is just describing what most thoughtful men know about themselves, but who does describe it, really? I have bettered myself as a result of dating self-help for women, including this site). It maybe isn't deviating that much, though, because the changing incentives in the social landscape means people have to adjust their "strategy". ... For example, on college campuses, a lot of women can't find good men because there are so many sexually available women there. Or, a lot of women eventually want to work part-time while raising children, but that might be more difficult now than in the past, etc... This social stuff can give background to individual interactions and help explain patterns. For example, I find foreign men to be way more masculine than North American born men, and of the latter, I find the children of immigrants to be more masculine. However, a lot of them are misogynist assholes, too. There is an association between masculinity and asshole-ness that is interesting and I think it goes beyond mere confidence. But I don't really understand it. I am dating a guy who is Portuguese and numerous people have commented in the past about how Portugues guys are assholes (particularly the daughters of Portugues immigrants, two of whom told me their mothers forbid them for dating Portuguese North-American born men). The guy I'm dating a sweetheart, but he also is unusually masculine... I don't know how to describe it, but it's not normal. Maybe it's just his personality, but maybe there are cultural influences there... I find the same thing with Eastern Europeans, even Europeans in general, as well as Arabs (that is, the men being more masculine, in attractive ways, but also more likely to be assholes)... But Arab women and Portuguese women, I don't find more feminine, at all... At least not authentically feminine, though they might be more inclined to be housewives. East Asian women are more feminine, but I think that's biological. ... Maybe North American men have lost a combination of romantic chivalry and proud-to-be-a-man masculinity, somehow... I like friendship in a relationship best, and would be so sad to have all interactions in a close romantic relationship made to be to romantic and sexual ones, but it's really gone too far away from male-female dynamics in dating for my liking.

      Delete
  5. I think you're on the ball with this analogy, Andrew. Makes sense!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I mostly think this is all true. Except I have a question about this statement:

    "Men like that a woman can easily attach to a man emotionally."

    But what about the Stage 5 Clinger phenomenon? It seems to me that men can be easily scared away by girls who fall in love too fast (a la Taylor Swift).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a difference between being needy (falling in love uncontrollably) and being able to fall in love. The latter is attractive - just like a guy who is ABLE to get women at will, but doesn't chase them uncontrollably.

      Delete
  7. I agree with all the points made in the post.A friend of mine proposed to her bf last year after 7 years and a kid together,she wanted commitment in the form of marriage whereas he wasn't too bothered with the need to commit. He accepted but it hurts her that he did n't initiate the proposal.This is how much women want commitment even when it essentially does n't change her circumstances.

    Women value commitment as much as men value sex but to secure a guy many will tell you they don't mind living together,having kids together without getting married etc but when I talk to friends in these situations they are DESPERATE to marry.

    Its self deception but sometimes they feel this is the best way to hook a guy by pretending they are okay with it all.

    If I was a man getting a steady supply of sex I probably would n't commit either unless I found someone worthy of it or I wanted to become a father by a certain point.

    If women actually only slept with men in the context of an LTR, then men would HAVE to be less promiscuous and women would be stronger gate keepers.
    This appears to be the case in more traditional societies,where men may only have casual sex if they pay for it.Feminism has some good ideas in terms of work and pay etc but not in the romance/rships arena.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's slightly exaggerating but men will do whatever they have to (within reason) to get sex. So, if women (and society) demanded they marry the girl first then that's what they'd do for the most part (and did 100+ years ago).

      Once women start having sex before marriage or relationship with (some) men (especially the charismatic or hot guys) then many men will put less value on a relationship.

      I think women have been really influenced by the infiltration of feminism and have sex much more easily than they did 100+ years ago. Many reasons for this that I won't go into.

      As Dave Chappelle said with exaggerated humor, "If a man could fuck a girl in a cardboard box, he wouldn't buy a house." That line is found in this excellent video of his about how chivalry is dead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymNdfdQvdVc

      I don't agree with everything he says but a lot of it is pretty funny and insightful.

      Delete
    2. Women have sex more readily because its socially acceptable,moral or religious considerations are no longer relevant to most people.
      Premarital sex is no longer taboo and is in fact encouraged by a more sexualised society.
      100+ years ago women were much more likely to die in childbirth than today and birth control was n't available so the concept of safe sex didnt exist.

      Delete
    3. And a smart and self aware woman will not commit to sex until the guy first commits to her for this very reason. Once you start having sex with a man, you lose all your bargaining power. Just like once a guy commits to a woman, ie marriage, he loses all his bargaining power.

      A girl sleeps with a guy and he stop wining and dining her. A guy marries a girl and she stops looking and being her best to win a proposal.

      Of course, people who are very clever will not stop "trying" so they don't lose the person they won but very many do.

      Delete
    4. Yes, but how does society get this to happen now that those that set the tone for women and education (heavily influenced by feminists) are saying the opposite?

      I think there is some partial though significant explanation power in that women are more herdlike and follow what the lead (alpha) mares say (in real life this would be pop stars, slut-friendly movies, feminist-influenced teachers, parents and others that say that women should be free to do as they like sexually but don't really point out the consequences).

      In a different though related realm, look at how girls are told they have to have a career and how successful girls have been in getting about 60% of college degrees now. (I'm not saying anything about girls not getting education, just giving it an example of how they followed what society expected of them.)

      So, somehow influencing the overall narrative of what a girl should do does have a big impact on girls.

      Delete
    5. Obviously birth control had a huge shift too and removed much of the consequences of casual sex too. But the feminist narrative that women should have sex promiscuously, or at least not be shamed for it, had a huge impact too. The slut shaming of yesteryear worked in conjunction with fear of pregnancy. Now the chaste-girl shaming or pro-slutty behavior promotion seen in a lot of popular culture plus b/c have swung the pendulum the other way and now the restricted girls feel shamed/pressured into needing to slut it up a bit more than they'd like.

      Delete
    6. @HanSolo You're wrong that women went for education because society expected it. Look it up. In the past, whenever the doors to education were opened, women flooded in and were there in higher proportions than men. Those societies weren't feminist. Women haven't changed. It's just that now we can stay in school longer. Even in muslim countries where women are treated like shit, women are flooding into higher ed. It has nothing to do with societal encouragement and being a follower. I bet the women who enter medicine love it, for example. Women are more resistant to pressure than you think. I am an engineer and it's right for me. When the doors were openned decades ago, the number of women increased. Then, it hit a number, where it has stayed. In exit surveys, more women than men report entering engineering because they felt pressured, so some were pressured, but not that many more. It indicates that the demand has been met- the doors were openned and now people are choosing. The "encouragement" to enter engineering, etc, is enormous (though I was oblivious to it and most everything in highschool; I just loved math). The money put in is huge. The rhetoric is almost religious in fervor and intolerance of differing opinions. And yet, the percentage steadied. Because only a fraction of women want to be engineers. They aren't submitting to pressure. In conclusion, the large numbers of women in other higher ed programs, like anthropology, psychology, healthcare, English, etc are because that many women want to study those things. Show some respect, mother fucker. Women are mostly being themselves. The reason their mating behaviour has changed is because knowledge of how men work has changed. Women are ignorant about the opposite sex and ignorant about how they'll feel in the future, when they want a family, say. A book Marry Him: Settling for Mr. Good Enough, or something similar, by Lori Gotleib, describes it. She didn't know what was coming, when she wanted a child and looked back at her mistakes in decision-making.
      Show some fucking respect. Just because you don't understand female behaviour doesn't mean women aren't being authentically themselves. Asshole. Although, I do think that women are more credulous and accepting of authority. Nonetheless, you radically underestimate how willing women are to make themselves unhappy and how well women see themselves, look inside themselves, and know what they want. Show some respect. If it's not this, it's feminists telling women we don't know what we want- magazines brainwash women to want to be thin and pretty- or men telling women that sex is special to them because of societal brainwashing. It's always women who are the ones being brainwashed, as far as people are concerned. Always girls, not boys. Honestly, it's so disrespectful, if I had to hear this all the time, I'd live on an island by myself. I'm lucky I happen to be authentically into sports and engineering or I'd be even more annoyed by people than I already have been because sex is special to me, I like to date traditionally and my appearance is one of my highest priorities. Feminist women scorn you for expressing aloud who you are in those ways, deny your authenticity, agency, understanding of myself, and this is the popular, accepted view. You're no different, really. ... I bet in the past, men were just as patronizing. But now, women are free to be ourselves, even if some people are rude.

      Delete
  8. Yaser, your blog and the blogs that you share/comment on (besides Andrew's blog of course) are petrifying to me. The world of PUAs - these men vilifying and objectifying women only for their sexual gains. Rating women even once you're in a serious relationship/marriage with them to consider if they're still good enough?? It's putting me off the dating world completely. I can't live my entire life worrying about when my man will decide I'm no longer good for him. Maybe I'm just better off single than playing all these games.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Teresa, why are you assuming most men are PUAs? Fallacy of logic to decide to stay single based on the behavior of a small % of men.

      Also, not related to Yaser, there is a difference btw objectifying people and trying to objectively talk about a subject like relationships and sex in an economic way (where it makes sense to say that those women or men who can attract more people hold a higher value in that sense.

      You implicitly place values on the men you interact with. Either you're attracted enough to him to want to marry him eventually or you're not. And once in a relationship nearly everyone has some threshold that the crossing of would end the relationship.

      So, the issue isn't whether people place value on others and what conditions they require to get in or stay in a relationship. The issue to focus on should be what those conditions are and whether the people one finds attractive are realistic or good for your goals.

      Delete
    2. I am not having an argument, not giving advice to others, nor forcing others to see things my way. I was sincerely upset over the other blogs because before reading those, I had a more positive outlook on meeting a match.

      Did you even read the blogs and related comments sections of those blogs? Also, I think I would be okay with this values game when finding someone to settle down with - not several years down the road analyzing if your wife is still up to our level/value. That is the part that really put me off.

      Also, I take minimal risks and I avoid any situations where I may be hurt. Everyone is different, I suppose.

      Delete
    3. Haven't read his blog but I wouldn't base my view on men just on that. I mean, you've lived how ever many years so you have first hand experience around men. You can read Andrew's comments and other males' here. Basically, why jump to the conclusion that all men are PUA or hyper-critical of the women they're with based on one or more blogs?

      There are a lot of good men out there. But women are too often choosing the losers, a-holes or guys out of their league.

      I agree that you (should) place more emphasis on whether the person measures up before marriage and then once married you should each continue to put in effort and be more tolerant of the other. But just because you become more tolerant doesn't mean there isn't a line that can't be crossed by either men or women where the other says, "enough" and gets divorced.

      You only think men do that, of thinking if their partner is up to snuff? Nope. Women too but likely not as much with looks but more along the lines of whether he earns enough or has not become too much of a pushover.

      Delete
    4. "Yaser, your blog and the blogs that you share/comment on (besides Andrew's blog of course) are petrifying to me."

      My wife reacts the same bad way some times when bring her up to date with the latest awesome insights have learned about the nature of men, women and their interactions from the PUA world. I get honestly surprised every time she gets this hurted voice... i don't get it.

      Maybe its the man-language that bothers you gals, maybe it's the nerdish atomization, categorization and scientification of it all that doesn't go well with the female brain.

      I don't get it.

      "The world of PUAs - these men vilifying and objectifying women only for their sexual gains."

      Mate, first of all, we vilify everybody and objectify everybody and everything. Heard about "Beta of the Month"? The Omega categorization of men? The shaming language used against White Knighting, female supplication and other behaviors that men engage in?

      To that, i add that extramarital sex is sinful and detrimental to society.

      I have learned a lot from the PUA's, and I am no player by any stretch of imagination.

      From them, i learned how women are, what women find attractive, and how to be a man that can attract women. What i have learned from them, i have applied to my marriage, and it has made it stronger and better. Before PUA, i had no idea about what it meant to be a man. I was a silly boy who didn't even see how much of a shitty company i was to my wife in times. Now i see it, and can correct it.

      Sure, there are men who use that knowledge to seduce women and use them for their own gains. But thats human nature, and if you think about it, you can only become a victim to it if you let them.

      Don't forget that there is also the female equivalent, were they use men for their own gains. You need to be open to that. The manosphere isn't just a place were sour losers hang out, they have legitimate complaints. There is a real reason men shy away from marriage. If you can't see why, chances are you are going to have problems understanding someone who otherwise could very well had become your husband. Take a look:

      http://www.alimonynightmares.com/Story5A.html

      http://y4ser.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/alimonywifesuicide.png

      http://preview.tinyurl.com/79n4vcz

      http://deadlydivorces.blogspot.se/2010/03/male-suicide-and-family-court-system.html

      http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/court-knew-man-jailed-for-a-year-for-non-support-w/nQHxY/

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZAuqkqxk9A

      (angry man-speak on the following youtube videos, be warned)

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JA4EPRbWhQ

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXv5HXgS40M

      For videos from a female who is into Men Rights Activism:

      http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=UUcmnLu5cGUGeLy744WS-fsg

      Delete

    5. "Rating women even once you're in a serious relationship/marriage with them to consider if they're still good enough??"

      Again, we do the same with ourselves. I took a test, i got -9 on a -25 to +25 scale. Basically, i suck. My wife would prefer me to have +10 or so points.

      And it doesn't matter if you choose to be blind to it, or you look the fact in the eye: if there is to wide of a difference between the sexual market value of a man and his wife, there is going to be tension, and if it's not corrected, divorce will follow. This cuts both ways. Being aware of it will cause you to make sure it does not happen.

      "It's putting me off the dating world completely. I can't live my entire life worrying about when my man will decide I'm no longer good for him."

      This is what i am talking about. If you are going to marry, you BETTER think about being good enough every single day, or you might wake up one day and wonder why you are fat, bitchy and divorced.

      This is a fact of life, and no matter how ugly the truth or bitter the pill is, IT IS THERE. Why do you think so many people divorce this days? I'll tell you this much: it is NOT because people pay to much attention to being good enough.

      And by the way. Just so you don't get too upset. Men usually don't divorce women, its women who divorce men, when the men get too comfy. And with "usually" i mean "twice as often".

      http://divorcesupport.about.com/b/2012/06/24/why-most-divorces-are-initiated-by-women.htm

      And this is the real reason we nerds got or brains together and started to put numbers on our women and ourselves, so we could see it before it hit us. I assume you read the articles i linked to, so you know what awaits the man who doesn't crunch the numbers.


      "Maybe I'm just better off single than playing all these games."

      Nah, you don't need to worry. Really. The only rule women need to keep is to not give sex before marriage. If you keep to that rule religiously, no man who is playing games is going to bother you. And the only man who marries you is going to be so invested in you marriage that he will never ever consider divorce.

      And then he will start to feel comfortable. And then you are going to wish he was more aware. And then he will risk to end up in one of those articles i linked to.

      Delete
  9. Regarding women not liking overly eager men. Shy guys who become overly fixiated on a woman after only a short while remind me of little kids. The way they get fixiated on a woman is similar to how a kid is fixiated on its mother. Maybe it's just me, but I don't really view guys like that as adult men and have problems imagining them as sexual beings. Sexual thoughts seem off limits.

    I suspect that our mothering instinct also programs us to not have sexual feelings for humans who behave in certain ways (because otherwise that would be awful), like following us, craving our attention and projecting the general image that they need our approval to do something. I have met more than one adult man who acted like this. Maybe this idea is silly, it came into my head the other day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tell me about it...

      The last (semi-serious) man I dated had to be nexted because of his clingy behavior. After our first date he went out and bought a new pillow for me so that I could sleep comfortably in his bed. I hadn't even mentioned sleeping over.
      Also bought new curtains because I had made a comment about liking thick curtains in the winter. For our second date he invited me to his boss' summer home, some kind of work party yeeesh. I was so turned off.

      Delete
  10. "Women understand the male role as the gatekeeper of commitment, just as we [women] are the gatekeepers of sex. In the same way that a man may question the long-term potential of a woman who grabs his junk on the first date, women are wary of men who are “emotionally promiscuous.”

    I would not be wary of a man who was "emotionally promiscuous" in the same manner that a man would "question the long-term potential of a woman who grabs his junk on the first date"..I mean, if a man comes on too strong, too soon with "I love you" you either question his motives or his emotional stability..either way, all is not good in the hood. A man with a woman who gets sexual too quickly will maybe just think she's a "slut" but of course 9 times out of 10, 1 time out of every 100..he will still help himself to what's on the offer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right, he'll help himself to what's on offer but the point is that he won't date her. She won't give him what he wants (sex) if she feels like he is being insincere or emotionally unstable by saying "I love you" too soon, and he won't give her what she wants (commitment) if he feels like she is going to go sleep with some other guy at the drop of a hat.

      Delete
    2. Exactly, if the its offered for free, then its accepted for free, and nothing is given in return.

      A man might accept free sex from the overly sexual aggressive woman, but will not commit to her.

      A woman might accept free attention from a "emotionally promiscuous" by friendzoning him, but she will not offer him any sex.

      I got a few videos and pictures about being friendzoned:
      (never mind the non-english)

      http://y4ser.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/lets-just-be-friends-ljbf/

      Delete
  11. I read your post, and the other article. I understand what the other one is saying, but I don't necessarily agree with yours. I had a guy tell me he was falling for me after 2 weeks, but he didn't actually give me a commitment until 3 months later. Love is not always hand in hand with a commitment right away. I think men who rush into a commitment might weird me out. I am not into men who have never fallen in love, I think there's something wrong with them. I'm not into men who are not open emotionally, that strikes me as emotionally unavailable. There's a difference between just being desperate for any woman, and really being taken by one woman. I don't know, I don't agree with this post. If I have a real connection with a man, and he pushes forward in the progress of the relationship, I'm much more open to that than a bunch of dead beat men who have no feelings of amour. In other words, I'm much more attracted to men who are in touch with their emotions than men who seem to have a wall up when I first meet them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " had a guy tell me he was falling for me after 2 weeks, but he didn't actually give me a commitment until 3 months later. Love is not always hand in hand with a commitment right away. "

      A healthy man in a healthy environment is emotionally available. He will easily fall in love with the first mature and feminine lady whom he finds attractive (the reason they kept the girls hidden. This was pre-porn, mind you.). This emotions of love will cause him to want to be close to the women (courtship), and eventually claim her officially (marriage).

      "I'm not into men who are not open emotionally, that strikes me as emotionally unavailable."

      In the current unhealthy culture, men see how committed men get thrown under the bus by the feminism legal system. Females have kept reasonable benefits from older time when women were not expected to support themselves, such as alimony and child support, even though they now are expected to support themselves. And even if women weren't able to support themselves, the state will anyway take money from the other men of the nation with the threat of violence, and give it to the women.

      But it really gets too much when she gets to keep alimony even if she starts dating other guys and even live with some other dude, as long as they aren't married, something that would be unthinkable in older times. Not only this, she in most cases gets all the children, and the house. And half his assets.

      Read this:

      http://www.mensdefense.org/STM_Book/MenDrivenOver.htm

      Men see this, how the law allows women to do this, and women actually do it.

      Bill Burr comments on this, to the horror of the audience.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXv5HXgS40M

      But we don't care, because we as humans are not programmed to care for men.

      Read this:

      http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/court-knew-man-jailed-for-a-year-for-non-support-w/nQHxY/

      The events described in above article would have been totally unthinkable if the person was a female.

      Delete

    2. Both men and women are hardwired to presume female entitlement, so even when legal injustice is obvious, we humans still shy away from wanting to create justice, simply because we are not programed to have equality. We are programed to have men benefit women.

      But now, we have a system were women are supposed to be able to have all the rights of men, but in practice, none of their responsibilities. And still keep their previous female rights.

      Listen to Girl Writes What go through this, in a lengthy response:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZsKdEl0-dg

      Then also, men are instinctively repulsed by the thought of a woman having had previous sexual partners, but they repress those feeling, since it's expected of men to do so.

      All in all, this creates a situation were men become jaded, emotionally damaged, and their healthy responses stop to work properly. So they won't get in love as easily, they wont offer commitment, and then wont offer as deep a commitment.

      Again, this behavior of not offering commitment is a result of perceiving women as less loyal and more sexually experienced, and a legal system that will ensure that you get totally screwed over on the whims of your wife.

      As a man, if you get married in the western world, pray to God that your wife remains emotionally sane.


      "I am not into men who have never fallen in love, I think there's something wrong with them."

      Well, I'm sure this depends. There is a difference between a highly successful 18 years old man from a good family, who hasn't really met a lady whom he think is worthy, and if he is a jaded and emotional damaged 32 year old.

      A woman would have her need of feeling *special* satisfied by being able to instill love in the younger guy. The older guy would not be considered worthy of having in the first place.

      "There's a difference between just being desperate for any woman, and really being taken by one woman."

      Of course. A healthy man will get totally engulfed by the first woman he feels in love with and exeptionlessly approves of her entire being. It will take over his entire though process, he will not be able to think of anything else. He will sacrifice his entire lifes work and his own life in order to protect and care for the object of his love.

      That is a healthy response in a healthy environment. This would ensure a strong bond between holding together the nuclear family. This male predisposition has been celebrated in all cultures all over the world.

      But put a man in the current environment, and see how it will serve him. And we get the current practice of men calling this instinct as "one-itis". That is truly a sad state of affairs.

      I still remembered feeling such emotions. They got crushed alright, crushed really good.

      A healthy man will push for claiming the woman, owning her and taking care of her to the best of his abilities, even sacrificing his property, health and life in the progress. The woman will submit to his strength and give herself freely to him.

      That has been the ideal in most parts of the world, because its in our nature as humans. And we are far, far, far away from it.

      Delete
  12. Great knowledge
    great post bud

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Men like that a woman can easily attach to a man emotionally,"

    really? Why don't I ever hear this from men in real life?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably because many woman no longer act in a feminine way. If a man is after a short term relation, or if the man is scared of being legally raped after engaging in a LTR, then he will hesitate to claim women.

      Delete
  14. Interesting. Never thought about this before. Nice and something to be aware of I think, even later stages of a relationship. I'd imagine if I pulled away sexually from my boyfriend, he would feel similarly to how I would if he stopped saying he loved me.

    I have just come across your blog and read almost every article. Don't necessarily agree with everything, but most of the time, spot on. The bit where you advise *dont withhold sex* was an eye opener for me, as was the pie-chart around female attractiveness.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I went to a club last night and there was this good looking guy there that I was checking out. He was there with a group of male friends and he was also checking me out. Think however that he had pre-arranged to meet a girl there as when she arrived, they started holding hands and kissing shortly after meeting up. Obviously, I started ignoring him.

    She left later and I noticed he was checking me out again but then I wasn't interested after seeing him with the girl. I noticed him a few times during the evening and he was talking to another girl. At the end of the night when I was getting ready to go, he exchanged numbers with this second girl and they kissed for a while. They said their good-byes and she walked off with a big radiant smile on her face. He was smiling too.

    I just thought then, that they both probably thought that they might get something that they both wanted; she probably thought that there might be a possibility for a future relationship with this guy (dating to start with), and he possibly thought that there might be future sex with this girl.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think women are more concerned with the title of "girlfriend/wife" and the idea of a relationship than an actual relationship. This is why women chase and stay with men who are clearly not into them. They figure any relationship is better than nothing at all. The thought of being single is terrifying for a lot of women. That's why women look down on single women, and will brag about having man. Meanwhile, she's nagging the crap out of her man, because she's trying to turn him into her Prince Charming. Women think loving yourself is setting yourself up for a life alone. Loving yourself means you don't need a man to make yourself feel good. This allows you to figure out what you want, and stop settling for any guy that comes along. You also have to take an honest look at yourself, and know what you're bringing to the table. Too many women want the high quality men, but don't realize they aren't the kind of woman a high quality man would want to be with. It takes time to learn how to be a good partner. All these books are telling women to be bitches and play games. A decent emotionally healthy guy wants a woman who is nice, no drama, fun to be around, and doesn't bust his balls all the time. I know this, because I had to take a look at myself and work on some things.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Tiffany Victoria:

    I agree with all of what you've got to say. I was in a relationship for a long time.

    I would like to highlight this:

    Men hate nagging. Stop nagging him! Ask him once, but not again.

    There are probably other ways to highlight that some things need to be done. Google and find out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A really important point made right there.

      Men forget, and men hate nag. This puts women in a hard situation if they only know nagging as a way to make men do things. There are other ways.

      Delete
    2. I agree. If after asking once, nothing changes, either shut up about it, or move on.

      Delete
    3. Ill list an alternative to nagging. For example, showed my wife a project that occurred to me, and it really exited her, since its realization would bring benefits to the entire household.

      However, halfway, i got distracted and lost the motivation to continue. My wife really wanted me to end it, so she asked me about it. I said something along the lines of "yeah, ill do it".

      But i didn't find the motivation to go back to it. "So, are you... ", "yeah, ill do it"

      "But you haven't worked on it..." "no, i haven't"

      "you aren't going to?"

      finally i told her that i am not getting motivated by the nag, on the contrary, i get this bad feeling every time she brings it up. ffs, it was my project to begin with...

      I told here that what she needs to do is to ask me to show her what i have done with the project lately, get her up to date with it, and she needs to be genuinely interested in my latest progress and make me feel good about what i have established so far.

      That, and the fact that delving into the project again just to tell her what i did as of last time, will bring it back into my conscious thoughts, my focus, and after i have told her everything, i will be glad to just continue by myself.

      That is one alternative.

      Men have huge egos. Feed them and they will ask for more, hurt them and they are gonna shy away from you.

      Delete
    4. This is a good example. Never thought about it that way. Thanks!

      Delete
    5. It's the art of female manipulation. It has undeservedly received a bad reputation. The forgotten art needs to be rediscovered for the benefit of mankind.

      Delete
  18. You have mentioned many times that if a guy says he "doesn't want commitment" that you should drop him and move on. But - actually - isn't the guy just playing the game correctly by doing that? Being emotionally "hard to get" makes him more attractive to the girl... do you think some guys know this and use it to their advantage?

    My guy told me he didn't want commitment after only dating less than 2 months. At first I acted like it didn't bother me. But then, after a couple weeks, I ended up spilling my guts to him telling him how important he is to me and how much I care about him. He faded out for a week or so, then came back in force. Now he's super loving toward me and our relationship has grown a lot (five months in at this point).

    Could it be he was into me all along and just didn't want to be too "emotionally easy"...? I feel like the whole "i don't want commitment" thing was kind of a ploy for me to tell him how I feel about him, without seeming vulnerable or needy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My guess is that he got shocked, and pulled back... only to realise how much he loved you, and changed his mind. He was honest when he said he didn't want it, and also later when he discovered he did want it.

      Its the womans role to advance it. Just be careful to not bring it up too early, just the same way that its creepy for a man to bring up sex to really, unless he is really hot.

      It can always be brought up indirectly, like talking about that you would love to have two children after you settle down or something. I guess you could bring up that you expect a relation ship along the line, and let it up to him to decide if he wants to be the guy who will commit to you. In that case, your job will be to make sure he views you as girl worth committing to. a kind of gender reversal, the same way that a really hot guy would let girls chase him.

      My basic view is still that no sex should be given until some kind, any kind, of commitment is given. Being a Shia Muslim, i regard a Mutah marriage as sufficient commitment for a girl to give sex and still remain in honor.

      A Mutah marriage is a marriage contract for a fixed time (1 hour to 5 years). At the end of the period, the marriage is automatically dissolved. Any children conceived are legitimate. Basic pre-and post-marriage waiting periods apply just as to a normal muslim marriage, meaning, a girl may not engage in a marriage (permanent or fixed time) unless he hasn't been with a guy for three mens periods. A marriage gift of the womans choice is necessary. No inheritance apply, and no responsibility to support the other mate apply, unless agreed to beforehand. Child custody and financial responsibility goes to the father, who may not deny the mother from seeing the children. Consent from the womans legal guardian is required if she is a virgin. Male sexual exclusivity must be negotiated, female sexual exclusivity is assumed. The married couple are encouraged to re-enter into a new agreement before the old one expires.

      When it expires, nothing happens. Its just as if they were never married to begin with, expect that she needs to wait for a three mens periods until she can engage in a new marriage.

      I honestly think that westerners could benefit in accepting this marriage form into your culture. It will give the woman some the option of extracting a limited amount of commitment, in a culture where a man is not likely to give in to a permanent marriage right away. It will give the woman a sense of honor in giving sex without having accepted a permanent marriage. It frees the man from the nag of "lets get married", because he can offer a two month marriage and not feel it's too big of a sacrifice. Both will be relived to have that out of the way, the rules are set, but they are still not offering eachother eternal love or anything.

      If they regret it and decide the other one isn't good enough, they don't need to be all dramatic about a breakup, nor do they need to play hide-and-seek. They just need to stay in there for the rest of the duration for the honorable voidance of the marriage to kick in. Failure to re-enter a new contract is all the break-up that is needed.

      What is so awesome about it is that the guy can keep the marriage contract and show it as proof of being able to honor a fix-time marriage for future girls. Specially if its accompanied by a "he did great"-receit given at the end of the period.

      Also, the girl wont have to feel like a slut just because her parters count is going up, because they are all entered in honor.

      This would be a natural escalation from a simple hook-up to the actual sex.

      Would love to hear what you non-muslims think about this.














      Delete
    2. This is not a forum for talking about muslim marriages. You are alienating me with this discussion.

      Delete
    3. Let me get this straight, based upon your explanation:

      Guy gets to bang/knock up girl.
      He gets bang other girls, but she can't bang other guys.
      She has to bribe him with a "gift".
      She gets no support or inheritance from the guy.
      The guy gets custody of the kid if she gets pregnant.
      When the duration ends, so does all responsibility.
      The girl must wait a reasonable amount of time to bang another guy.

      This is basically exclusive dating. We non-muslims already have this, more or less. This is like monogamy sluts who only have sex with their "boyfriends", but have a new "boyfriend" every week.

      "a fixed time (1 hour to 5 years)"

      One hour? Really?

      At what point does the word become irrelevant? This practice is referred to as a marriage, yet it covers the spectrum of LTR to a public bathroom hookup. It adds a veneer of respectability, but there is almost zero substantive change from what we have already.

      I don't mean to be a dick, but I'm actually curious how this is substantially different from girls being serial monogamist sluts.

      Delete
    4. @Lala

      Actually, given that this thread is about sex and commitment, referring to another culture's sex and commitment isn't out of place. If you're feeling alienated then *gasp!* skip over the comment.

      @Sally

      He might have meant it, but maybe not. I think a pretty standard initial response from guys is that they aren't looking for a relationship. I've said that to girls and meant it. I've also said that to girls that I would have committed to. I don't think I'd ever admit to wanting commitment, or actively go for it. At the same time, if I really liked a girl I would want her to ask for it, if that makes sense.

      Delete
    5. @ Brenden

      Wow, thanks for defending me. I don't understand the repulsion, it's not like I'm preaching theology here...

      In fact, time-fixed marriages pre-dates Islam, and is currently up for debate among Candian and Mexican law makers.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/30/mexico-city-fixed-term-marriages

      http://www.news.com.au/opinion/why-not-get-married-for-a-fixed-term/story-e6frfs99-1225702968616

      The only reason i brought up that I'm a muslim is because i didn't think it was such a big deal, and assumed people might like the added background information.

      "Guy gets to bang/knock up girl."

      Or the other way around. Its mutual.

      "He gets bang other girls, but she can't bang other guys."

      Okay. let me go back to the basics. Lala can skip this comment, since i truly do not want to have her alienated. I only wish to add value, and feel bad that i have made such a poor job of doing so.

      Considering that marriage is about having sex, and it can result in pregnancy, the rules are set primarily to ensure parenthood in case of pregnancy. Thus, the sexual exclusivity and waiting period on the female. Remember that the rules I'm quoting are from more than a thousand years ago. Unless I'm wrong, post-menopause women are not forced to follow those two rules.

      If the couple desires the man to be sexual exclusive, it's not any more complicated than to include that in the marriage contract. My bad for trying to convey the original idea, instead of making it politically correct to the western mind.

      "She has to bribe him with a "gift"."

      I have had two women in my life, the first one i had a Fixed-time marriage of six month, followed by a series of extensions resulting in one year. On the last day of the last extension, we said goodbye in tears, knowing it we were not compatible, no matter our feelings.

      The second woman is my current permanent wife. I have never have never seen a naked woman IRL outside of marriage... disregarding accidents.

      I know for a fact that my first wife did not regard the gifts as bribes. I gave her golden ring worth about 1000 dollars (worth more fiat dollars now due to inflation), chocolate and fruits. I gave them a few at a time, so it was more like 12 gifts. The day after she wrote on her social media diary about it, and she told me it was the best night of her life. Fact is, the wouldn't had accepted the golden ring if had given it, but i was lucky in that i kinda pranked her. I gave her a silver ring worth 20 bucks, and during the night, when the light was dim and she had taken it off, i changed it to the real thing. At first she didn't notice and sought it was just the light... lol.

      But tell me, isn't it a "bribe" to give a girl a drink so you can have a talk with her?

      Sure it is.

      But that is okay! It's in the very nature of our being to change sex for commitment, and commitment is just another way to say "what men offer", and men offer... yes, money. Men offer the drink. The magical night. They pay for the house and food.

      It's not a "bribe", because bribe is corrupting somebody into doing something they are prohibited by law. If you regard women as capable of having agency, then the entire notion of "bribe" is nonsense.

      Delete

    6. "She gets no support or inheritance from the guy."

      Unless they decide so. Whats great is that its stated and agreed upon in advance. No dirty surprises. Yes, it's not Disney. Yes, prenuptial agreements are not sexy. Put it will save you a whole lot of headache.

      Of course i didn't my first wife to inherit me. We had an agreement for six month in order to get to know eachother, there was no reason to have her inherit me at that point, nor for me to support her considering she had her own job.

      however, i do fully support my current permanent wife - it's in or permanent marriage contract that i have a duty to do so.

      "The guy gets custody of the kid if she gets pregnant."

      Sneaky Brenden! You just mentioned in one of the three points about kids. He also needs to pay for their support and let mommy have access to them.

      But heck, write whatever you prefer, i don't care.

      "When the duration ends, so does all responsibility."

      Except in case she gets pregnant.

      "The girl must wait a reasonable amount of time to bang another guy."

      Two menses, specifically. To make sure she isn't pregnant.

      "This is basically exclusive dating. We non-muslims already have this, more or less. This is like monogamy sluts who only have sex with their "boyfriends", but have a new "boyfriend" every week."

      When you have agreed to not having a new boyfriend for two periods after, and you haven't had a boyfriend for the last two periods, it kinda makes it hard to be a raging slut.

      Mate, you get me wrong. I'm not introducing some sneaky way to get around some prudish laws so you can fuck your boyfriends. It's not some fucking loophole, because you don't need any loopholes, you can do whatever you like to in the west now that you have devalued sex to almost nothing.

      I'm offering a stepping stone between casual hookups and dating, were you don't have a fucking idea of whats going on, whats on the table and were you are heading on step one, and permanent marriage on step 2.

      It's a step 1.5 were you can try to see how it feels to be married, without necessarily being forced to in that commitment for ever. It's much easier to demand a two month commitment from a boyfriend were the rules are set in print before giving any sex, than to demand a full blown marriage before giving sex.

      And no, being engaged is not the same thing. Being engaged means that you basically have agreed to a permanent marriage in the future, while this comes into play before any such decision is made.

      Also, the rules are much clearer in this kind of arrangement than during engagement. Before the sexual revolution, engagement didn't mean anything really, cus' you were still expected to wait for sex until after the marriage. You can't pop to a guy on the third date that "I'm not having sex unless we get engaged", but you can tell him that you expect a two month marriage to start with before giving any sex.

      I proposed this to a western friend of mine (Buddhist), and he thought it was great and married his girlfriend for half a year. They thought it was great to be able to call eachother "wife" and "husband" from then on, and to be able to get to know how that kind of commitment felt. It didn't work out for them, so they didn't talk about extending it after the six month period, and that was it. No drama, completely by the book, no surprises. When nobody takes up the topic of extending the period after three month, both know were this is going.

      He did the same with his next girlfriend, and they married permanently before the term ended.

      Delete
    7. "a fixed time (1 hour to 5 years)"

      My bad. I should have written "(up to the couple, more than 5 years is discouraged)"

      "It adds a veneer of respectability, but there is almost zero substantive change from what we have already."

      To quote Tiffany VictoriaFebruary 9, 2013 at 6:40 PM

      "I think women are more concerned with the title of "girlfriend/wife" and the idea of a relationship than an actual relationship."


      The substance:

      1) Females value the explicit nature of the agreement.
      2) fixed date make for less drama.
      3) Rules are spelled out
      4) Stepping stone to higher forms of explicit commitments
      5) You know what you get before offering sex
      6) If the marriage is registered in a site I'm gonna build, the man has a greater incentive to make the woman feel honored. Specially if all women get into the habit of demanding a fixed time marriage before offering sex. This way, the mans historical and current account of relationships become transparent, forcing him to up his game.

      Gals, this is for you, it's not for the men. Why would they need this when sex is so devalued this days? With this, you get to claim something for sex, instead of hoping to see were it leads.

      "I don't mean to be a dick"

      You aren't, you are giving me a chance to redeem the idea instead of just writing me "muslims are scary, me dont like manosphere."




      Delete
    8. "Mate, you get me wrong. I'm not introducing some sneaky way to get around some prudish laws so you can fuck your boyfriends. It's not some fucking loophole, because you don't need any loopholes, you can do whatever you like to in the west now that you have devalued sex to almost nothing."

      This is true. I've been thinking about this system and it seems to me that it's a more codified and straightforward method of shorter termed relationships. It would likely be much clearer and simpler that what we do now.

      This is actually not to different that the general christian approach to marriage. (These days, anyway.) It's basically a marriage that assumes annulment after a specified time.

      My concern is that it wouldn't really fix the general abomination that is western marriage and dating. It's still more or less cohabitation absent a lifelong commitment. It would treat some of the symptoms, but not the cause.

      Personally I think we should (not that it's even possible) go back to a sort of 1800's thing without popularly accepted premarital sex and no divorces.

      Delete
    9. "Personally I think we should (not that it's even possible) go back to a sort of 1800's thing without popularly accepted premarital sex and no divorces."

      That would be better than what is now, for sure. And you are correct, this would not fix the underlying problems. Those are, as i explained in previous comments above: socialism, the sexual revolution and feminism.

      (Lala can stop reading here. No really, stop reading.)

      My personal stance is... well, sharia based. I was brought up here in the west with Oprah, Disney, a heritage of Christian monogamy and feminism. I was thoroughly shocked to find out that my branch of Islam proclaimed fix-time marriage to be legal and even beneficial. How could this be?!

      It took me several years of research, but now i feel totally comfortable with the concept and view it as necessary given human nature. A system were divorce is forbidden would work for many people, but it's to rigid for some. There are people and situations that require more flexibility. However, the total sexual anarchy that we see in the west is not the solution. Its detrimental to all women and most men. The only ones who benefit from this anarchy is... surprise! the top 10% of the hottest guys.

      A system were extramarial sex is outlawed, fixed time marriages are allowed, virgins need their fathers permission (because he knows how men are. She has no clue. If the father is unreasonale, she can take it to court and they can overule the father), and permanent marriages are the goal.

      That is the sharia way (according to shia islam), and after contemplating it for a long time, i find it to be the perfect middle ground. Hey, sure, might be just rationalizing, but then it should be easy to point out what im missing.

      Delete
    10. Ha ha! Think there are at least three Lala's, in case you're wondering.

      And who said men are all the same? :D

      Delete
    11. What about my original question: Should you stop seeing a guy if he says he doesn't want commitment early on and you do? (Assuming that otherwise the guy seems to be really into you).

      Thanks to Yaser and Brenden who addressed my personal situation. But I'm interested in the more philosophical question: If guys are the gate keepers of commitment, should a woman necessarily give up on a guy who says he doesn't want commitment in the early stages? Isn't it OK - or even expected - for a guy to say he wants "his freedom" when he first starts dating you? Isn't commitment something that comes later?

      Putting the analogy in action -- If a guy likes a girl and she won't have sex with him in the early stages of the relationship -- should he move on even though she seems to be interested in him?

      This question is mainly for Andrew because I think this post (about the sex/commitment analogy) potentially goes against some things he's said before about not wasting your time on a guy who won't commit.

      Delete
    12. I'm interested in the guys' answer as well, but my friend faced a similar situation as well. On the first couple of dates, the guy said that he didn't want a relationship - and the girl just shrugged and said, that's cool. I think they continued to date but the girl obviously dated others.

      Then another few dates in, he then said that he decided he wasn't going to date others - that if she wanted to, that's fine, but that that was his own decision for himself. So over following week or two, she let the other guys know that she was only going to date this one exclusively.

      Now they are happily married with 2 kids :)

      Delete
    13. Women offer sex, men offer commitment. Neither should ever offer first, asking nothing in return. That makes you a slut/creep.

      If you offer on the promise of a payment, then you are gullible. If you are lucky, then you will receive payment for what you are giving. A woman should not give sex until a formal commitment that pleases the woman has been announced and signed. A man committed to a girl who refuses sex should immediately cancel the commitment.

      Andrews tip about "not wasting your time on a guy who won't commit" makes sense in one of two scenarios.

      One, if you are having sex, and even so, after several month, he still doesn't offer any kind of commitment, then just cut your loses.

      Or, don't have a one night stand if you expect a commitment.

      Andres suggestion falls apart only if the woman refuses sex until a formal commitment has been forged. However, my take is that Andrew tried to be realistic, and being so means assuming all women will offer sex after dating for a month or so.

      If the woman is holding back sex, then there is no transactional loss at risk while waiting for a guy to commit. However, even in that case, keep in mind that each years you wait is a year of your sexual market value top that you are investing, so take care on what you invest your top years in.

      The man on the other hand can afford waiting for much longer.

      Women start losing their optimal dating market value after 25, men get ten extra years, and stay on top until they become 35. On the other hand, the man has a pressing urge: the need for sex.

      But in yet another twist, that urge is not as incentivizing for men as it used to be, since porn and sluts take of the edge, if not sating him altogether.

      So basically, if your man is watching porn or dating sluts on the side, don't waste time on him, being chaste while he makes up his mind. If you trust his word to keep away from those things, then it's safer to risk a year at the very most waiting for him to make up his mind, since his natural urges will force him to buy what you offer, or leave, with as little delay as necessary.

      @ victoria

      "not intressted in commitment AT ALL (even if we have sex)" = "not intressted in sex AT ALL (even if we start a relationship)" = not even worth considering given sane circumstances.

      On the other, we live in a crazy world, and the poor guy maybe needed a few dates to get the crazy out of his head.

      An acceptable proposition at first date woule be "I'll offer commitment when i find a worthy woman"/"I'll have sex within the context of a relationship i find sattisfying"



      Delete
    14. Btw. A man can hardly last more than a few weeks, at most a few month if he abstains completely from masturbation.

      When masturbation is considered a sin (as it was before), then what females offer increase greatly in value.

      If a man REALLY makes an effort, then he might last for 6 month if he is about 20 years of age. If he lift weights, then his body will produce more testosterone, making it even harder for him to wait.

      So if you want to make a man to make up his mind really fast, make him promise to abstain completely from masturbation while he is seeing you, even after you marry.

      I abstain completely during normal circumstances, and it greatly strengthens the bonds of my marriage. However, such a demand must be placed very early, while he is still considering the buy. An after-the-fact demand is likely to have a negative impact on the relationship, unless a great measure of the honorable and forgotten art of female manipulation is employed.

      Delete
  19. http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/comment-of-the-week-precision-analogies-edition/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That takes the analogy to another level, and I completely agree with it. Well said. Thanks for the link.

      Here again for those who don't know how to copy and paste: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/comment-of-the-week-precision-analogies-edition/

      Delete
    2. Don't know how to copy and paste? That was cheeky.

      Delete
  20. What do you think of Courtney Stodden?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2276661/Courtney-Stodden-gyrates-pole-red-lingerie--posing-dress-light-crotch.html#axzz2KEMBjGW8

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She's hot, but then a lot of girls would be if they wore so little. Why?

      Delete
    2. Her marriage to a man three time her age is another example of what this article is about.

      Are there examples of successful 50+ women wanting to marry 18 year old boys?

      Delete
    3. Eww she's trashy as hell. And looks really worn and used in the face.

      Delete
    4. @Andrew. I was just wondering. I kind of admire her because she is living life and going against the grain. She is married to a 50 year old man who will and is taking care of her financially and protecting her. Also, when he dies she'll get all his money, and he will die at least 30 years before she will, so she can easily remarry a man her own age. I just feel like she has reached womanhood earlier that most and it's not necessarily a bad thing... I'm a 22 year old woman by the way, to put my comment into context. She seems glamorous to me.

      Delete
    5. She doesn't seem very mature to me. My guess is that her mom sat her down at some point and told her "Listen, you can marry this guy and be rich immediately, then divorce him in 10 years and find someone else because you'll only be 26."

      It sounds like she's been trying to get into the limelight from an early age, so I wouldn't be surprised if this ambition carried through to her financial/romantic life.

      I am not saying relationships like this can't work (it was normal 250 years ago for a 40 year old to marry a teenager), but it is the opposite extreme from women who accept or pursue younger men. You should avoid both ends of the spectrum. I'd stick to guys less than ten years your senior.

      Delete
    6. Don't you think you can expand that gap when you've reached a certain age? I've always found older men attractive but am afraid they ONLY pursue me for my looks when I'm very young. However when I'm 25 or so I wouldn't mind dating a guy in his forties.
      For example Rosie and Jason Statham, 25 and 45. I don't think it looks extreme. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2267559/The-look-love-Action-star-Jason-Statham-gazes-adoringly-Rosie-Huntington-Whiteley-attend-screening-new-film.html
      Maybe I am biased because my dad is 17 years older than my mum, but that's worked perfectly for them.
      Men will check out younger women anyway, I can only imagine it to be a plus that his own wife can compete with so many other women.

      Delete
  21. Yaser says above: "The only rule women need to keep is to not give sex before marriage."

    Yup, that's it folks. Never mind all the nuances of detail about how to behave/how to get a commitment in all the dating advice out there (and on this excellent blog, don't get me wrong, the subtleties of understanding the male mind are invaluable) - if the majority of women in the Sexual Marketplace stopped giving it up before marriage, as it was before the sexual revolution, most of our dating problems would be insanely improved.

    The pendulum will swing back around to this as women are obviously already frustrated with their inability to get the commitment they are looking for, and are looking for the right answer to this problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That will actually never again happen. The only reason women used to be chaste by and large is because of the massively negative consequences of sex before marriage. Every one has been removed in our society. Risk of pregnancy is small with contraceptives, plus there's always abortion. Single mothers are taken care of by the government and not looked down on too much. There's no massive risk to sex nowadays for women.

      The reason this matters is the same reason why competition lowers the price of a good. Women offer sex and the price is commitment. As soon as some women start undercutting how much commitment men need to give, they get more male attention, which leads more women to do so and soon that's the norm.

      Delete
    2. "Every one has been removed in our society."

      I disagree, not every one has been removed. There are still the consequences of damage to reputation and "what men think of your sexual history" (post on this blog), as well as the glaringly obvious RISK TO HEALTH due to STD's, as well as my point - the lack of achieving the commitment/love they desire.


      "Single mothers are taken care of by the government"
      "plus there's always abortion."
      "There's no massive risk to sex nowadays for women."

      Wow. Spoken like a man, alright.

      I'm not a single mother, nor have I had an abortion but I was raised by a single mother (who became pregnant due to the "small risk contraceptive" you speak of failing), and I know many women who have had an abortion, and let me tell you, neither is an easy option. Far from it.

      To think that the consequences of sex before marriage/outside of a committed relationship for women have been removed or are at best small consequences is very naive.

      Delete
    3. "I disagree, not every one has been removed. There are still the consequences of damage to reputation and "what men think of your sexual history" (post on this blog), as well as the glaringly obvious RISK TO HEALTH due to STD's, as well as my point - the lack of achieving the commitment/love they desire."

      None those is massively negative. I didn't say that all consequence had been removed, but the worst of it has been. Women aren't sent off to nunneries or disowned by their families anymore if they get pregnant. Guys will marry non-virgins. Single mothers living a life of abject poverty and disgrace is not a given. These are huge changes in western culture throughout history. These are what I'm talking about.

      Furthermore, there has been a huge, huge trend of increasing single motherhood and divorce that's run rampant through the west. And what do you know, children of single mothers and divorced parents are more likely to do the same.

      Aside from those horrible consequences women no longer have to face, the only major factor in promoting chastity was religion. It's pretty clear that absent religion morality is greatly diminished, and that's what has been going on for decades now.

      "To think that the consequences of sex before marriage/outside of a committed relationship for women have been removed or are at best small consequences is very naive."
      "Wow. Spoken like a man, alright."

      Instead of being sexist and trying to be patronizing, maybe you could give your thoughts on why there is suddenly an epidemic of single-motherhood and public advocacy of promiscuity?

      Delete
    4. " why there is suddenly an epidemic of single-motherhood and public advocacy of promiscuity?"

      Because somebody is benefiting from the causes of that advocacy.

      No, its not the women. And no, its not the beta men who get nothing. And no, there is no PUA cabal who can afford that kind of propaganda.

      Tip: it has something to do with money and power on a societal level.

      Delete
    5. @ Brenden

      sluttiness is huge contributor to divorce rates:

      http://socialpathology.blogspot.se/2010/08/defining-slut.html

      That's something that is embedded in our hardwiring and no amount of technology will change it (except hormone based tech, but we aren't talking about that).

      So as long as men dislike being cuckolded and divorced, there will be an incentive for women to refrain from sex outside of commitment. However, only refraining oneself will not be enough to raise the value of sex on a societal level, and thus forcing men to pay more commitment.

      Good old slut-shaming will need to be re-embraced by women. Enough men will not do that, because there is a significant amount of men who appreciate sluts, for the simple fact that sluts enable men to receive sex with far less commitment. Not to mention that men will be labeled misogynistic sexistic pigs by the feminists if they do engage in slut-shaming, while women can not be character assassinated as easily.

      Delete
  22. "Yup, that's it folks. Never mind all the nuances of detail about how to behave/how to get a commitment in all the dating advice out there"

    I should have written 'The most important rule'

    "and on this excellent blog"

    It's great, and one of a kind.

    "The pendulum will swing back around to this as women are obviously already frustrated with their inability to get the commitment they are looking for, and are looking for the right answer to this problem."

    People react heavily on their environment. A basic human truth is most people are unable to act against how their environment incentives, thus, no societal change will occur until the rules are changed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yaser, I'm agreeing with you that it is the most important rule. Tone is lost in black and white text. :)

      I think that you are right that the environment is limiting, but I think the dating environment is changing back to more traditional styles that used to work. Will it be like the 50's and 60's? Of course not. But girls letting guys sleep with them without any kind of commitment is a behaviour that's not serving them anymore (if it ever did), and it will change.

      Delete
  23. I have a close friend who's a complete trainwreck when it comes to men. She has had a ton of ONS, FWBs, STRs and LTRs. She's beautiful and funny, but she constantly dates losers. The only real requirement is that a guy is unavailable and contacts her sporadically. It can be his only "asset", and she's hooked. They are not guys out of her league, they are guys who either just play the game, stop caring about her after a while or perhaps realizes she's the type to get hooked that way.

    I was wondering if you had any wise words to say to a girl like that in order to jinx her out of it, and make her realize how hopeless that is.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Men are sexually promiscuous; women are emotionally promiscuous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And it bothers each sex about the other.

      Delete
  25. Marriage is supposed to be special. Dating is for people who like to fuck around aka fuck buddies.

    ReplyDelete
  26. There is no science of value, my friends. When you sell something that means something to you, no matter what you get for it, you will always feel cheated at some point. To some, physical intimacy and commitment is pirceless, and when something is priceless it cannot be sold, it can only be given away from the heart.

    ReplyDelete
  27. What do you think about an analogy between the "friendzone" and casual sex in terms of compromise?
    I recently had this discussion with a male friend. He struggles to get girls and claim women are "lucky" to get casual sex so easily. I tried to convince him that this is not something women consider a "privilege". Sex is always available to a woman and the idea of having sex with a man we don't like, is repulsive. To try and explain this I said that to tell a woman she is lucky to be able to have casual sex is like telling a man in the friendzone he is lucky to be friends with the girl. He couldn't care less if they are friends, because it's not what he wants. Women couldn't care less if they are able to get casual sex, because it's not what they want.

    Do you agree that this is slightly similar? If there is a better way to put it, do you have any suggestions?
    I am curious if most men genuinely don't understand that women aren't 'privileged' to be able to have casual sex. Most men would fuck a cantaloupe (I'm sure at some point they have...). It is not a compliment that anyone would use you as a cum dispenser and it is ridiculous for men to think so. Most men must realize on some level, otherwise, why would they judge women for casual sex?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. imagine a guy that no woman ever wants to have sex with.

      imagine a girl that no one man ever wants to commit to.

      they are similar.

      women are the gatekeepers of sex. men are the gatekeepers of commitment. in general.

      Delete
    2. I'm aware of that, it has been stated in a previous post.

      What I was asking is whether this particular analogy makes sense and whether most men are aware of these comparisons.

      Delete
    3. if you're aware of that then you already have your answer. the situations are similar.

      a guy can get friendship anytime he wants. he wants more than friendship from a girl he's attracted to. he wants sex.

      a girl can get sex anytime she wants. she wants more than that from a guy she is attracted to. she wants a relationship.

      and yeah most men are aware of it on some level.

      Delete
  28. This is absolutely true, but it is something that men need to learn more than women.

    Most women know they shouldn't put out too soon. Although some still do, they know that it works out in spite of being too easy, not because of it (they simply believe that attraction is strong enough for him to want to see her again).

    Women are shamed for putting out too soon (reasonably enough), men are rarely shamed for offering commitment too soon. In fact, again it is usually women that are being shamed for their choices. Women know, like men, that the best things in life never come easy. If we reject the guys that are openly looking for a girlfriend to pursue the men who takes their time, we are "not seeing the quality in beta males", "pursuing bad boys" and "have ourselves to thank" if it doesn't work out. Men rarely see the analogy you've mentioned, and if they do, they still use it to put women in a negative light.
    A man sharing that he wants commitment on a first date communicates desperation but women who discriminate on these grounds are, in common opinion, being difficult.
    This is more important for men to know. You're not "nice", or necessarily a good father and husband just because you're desperate.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "... just like a woman is unsurprised if a man has fucked a lot of girls (i.e. given himself to them sexually)."

    Is this true, women? I'm going to need some direct confirmation, because unlike the others, which ring intuitively true, this one is a bit harder for me to see.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. depends. my grandmother once told me that i should never ever date a man who had more than 20 partners, because that just means he can't keep it in it's pants and that it's probable that he'll cheat on you.
      not sure if this is true though.
      But, personaly, i get put off if a guy has a big number.

      Delete
  30. I think the entire comment is full if BS& generalization. Most women do not only want commitment& not just sex most mwn arrnt just looking for sex. I have NEVERhooked up. Not once. I have dated sinse age13 & every guy I was with was at least a 3 to4 yr relationship from the start. Every guy I dated asked me to go with only them first& stayed. I have never had a man try to use me just to get sex then leave either. I have always wanted deep and total commitment. All other women I know just want sex. Every guy Ive been with wanted deep commitment and not just sex. Men& women are NOT that different& articles trying to separate ylthe genders further into different types are full of it and harmful. Women are NOT more sensitive or weaker than men. Men are not just after aex. Thats stupidity speaking at its finest. I have never had a relationship less than 3 years. Even as a teenager. Ive never cheated.Any that ended earlier than4 yrs ended in death or someone moved far away. Otherwise they have lasted average6 yrs or more, or I ended it not him. Punches holes in your theory in droves& I am an average looking woman who only dates men. Im no supermodel thats sure. Yet somehow these guys still love me on& on. Wonder why? If they all just love sex? What crap

    ReplyDelete
  31. well... there is nothing with keeping his higiene and shaving his chest and pitarms...
    i mean, no one wants do date chewbaka :/

    ReplyDelete
  32. Another post with the "men trade love for sex" and "women trade sex for love" fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another stunning argument against it...

      Delete
    2. Andrew did Manisha dump you? haha. wow. irony.

      Delete