88
89

THEORYBack to the basics - men are the gatekeepers of commitment. (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor

Back to the basics - women are the gatekeepers of sex

The natural state of women

At her core, a woman is a someone. A person of worth who deserves to be cherished, loved, sustained and taken care of. This isn't objectively true. However, it is the way women view themselves and the way men view women. Women deserve to be treated well just for existing. Thus, women are human beings.

Women value emotional reality over objective reality, feelz over realz. Your feelings are 100% valid even if you're objectively wrong. Whereas men tend to evaluate the objective reality and tell you to stop feeling the way you do because you're being ridiculous, women tend to validate your feelings first even if you're being ridiculous from an objective standpoint. The premise behind that is - I exist, therefore my feelings are just as real as the reality of the world around me.

When mommy is happy, everyone is happy and when a woman is in distress, everyone comes to her aid. Both men and women reinforce her sense of existence.

Female bonding desire

If a woman is a full on something, what more can she need? The answer is - some of the male's nothingness. A core need of women is to pair and bond with a man.

Men begin from a position of nothingness and need to achieve to become a something, women begin from a position of being a something and need a man to imbue them with a sense of nothingness. Female sexual desire includes being dominated by a strong male (hello fifty shades of gray, a best seller book!). Female relationship needs include men who are decisive and who can lead. Women date up, marry up and have sex up. One way to look at the common thread in all of this is - women need to feel smaller in the presence of their man. They need to feel more nothingness.

This feeling of nothingness before her man does not contradict the feeling that's at the core of her being - that of being a something. She will always see herself as an inherently valid something who wants to lose herself in the strong arms of the best man available. Thus, she wants a man who will cause her knees to turn to jelly, not a man who will actually turn her into an actual nothing through abuse and the like. Therefore, women are extremely picky with regards to men. Only the best men are up for consideration.

Gatekeepers of commitment

It's therefore no wonder why men hold all the cards when it comes to commitment. If a man's worst fear is being a nobody, a woman's worst fear is being all alone. OTOH, unlike men whose default is to be sexually attracted to all women with the exception of those who turn him off, a women's default is to reject all men except for the ones who make the cut. This means that most men aren't even in the running, but if you're from the few who are, you decide on the degree of commitment.

This is as true once the relationship is well underway as it is true during that first day of commitment. While the man may feel like he committed to her forever, she certainly doesn't feel that way (just like he doesn't feel sexually desired forever). His commitment to her is something for which she needs constant reassurance. A woman will be plagued with self doubt that boils down to - am I still lovable today? And therefore - will he still commit to me today? When a man expresses his love and desire or makes her feel special, he signals his commitment to her. Just as he needs constant reaffirmation of his sexual desirability, so too does she need constant reaffirmation of her worthiness for commitment.

The problem is when expressing his love for her and commitment to her decrease her sexual attraction to him. This is like a self destructive autoimmune disease and will be discussed in a future post.

Conclusion

The natural state of the woman is to be a deserving someone, her fear is to be alone. What she craves is for some male nothingness to be instilled in her heart by the strong arms of a powerful man. She feels secure when her knees turn to jelly in his presence. She needs constant reassurance of his commitment.

Unfortunately, most men don't measure up. This part of female nature is cruel to men. Those who do measure up hold the keys to commitment.

Cheers!


[–]Mike_3487 16 points17 points  (16 children)

The problem is when expressing his love for her and commitment to her decrease her sexual attraction to him. This is like a self destructive autoimmune disease and will be discussed in a future post.

Looking forward to it.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 8 points9 points  (15 children)

πŸ™‚

[–]Mike_3487 8 points9 points  (7 children)

As you stated, women need constant admiration for her worthiness for commitment. However, providing such constant admiration portrays a sense of neediness and lack of abundance.

Neediness is directly attributable to lack of strength and independence.

Lack of abundance - - i.e. other women who desire that man - - is directly attributable to low SMV. How best to determine the market value of something then true supply/demand macro-economics? The more people want something, the more valuable it is.

What the woman was attracted to in the first place (strength, independence, dominance) becomes negated by the man providing constant admiration.

It's a very fascinating cycle IMO!

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 4 points5 points  (6 children)

It's a very fascinating cycle IMO!

Yes, but a key point to remember is that while we're limited by our natural instincts, we aren't slaves to them. Therefore, it is possible for men and women to fulfill each other's needs. It just isn't that common today.

[–]JeanBroady123 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Therefore, it is possible for men and women to fulfill each other's needs. It just isn't that common today.

And whats more is that there is common ground if both men and women are willing to take a step forward in spite of their fears. His :a lack of respect. Hers: a lack of affection.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Please elaborate, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

[–]JeanBroady123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I need a little time to put this in the right words. I will respond when I figure it out. What I will say in the mean time is that there are more scenarios for happiness between men and women than this sub will acknowledge. I have seen it first hand.

[–]JeanBroady123 0 points1 point  (2 children)

So what do men and women need from each other outside of sex, which is the exclamation point of managing to find a place to come together as a couple? There has to be another underlying need that impels a man and a woman, both in their sixties to marry. There is another reason to explain why a man would marry a woman who is ten years older than he is. I have seen both scenarios in my family. I personally believe in the concept of love which cannot be measured or explained

[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

There has to be another underlying need that impels a man and a woman, both in their sixties to marry. There is another reason to explain why a man would marry a woman who is ten years older than he is.

Exceptions do not make the rule. These are uncommon scenarios for the women in this subreddit. It does not mean they are impossible and each person is an individual. However, outliers do not negate the experiences of the population at large and do not make good examples of anything other than what outliers look like.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[removed]

    [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Noted

    [–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    Not for nothing y'all (not you loneliness-inc) but this is still the women's sub and meant for advice to and for women. If guys are falling for anything, they should be spending more time on TRP.

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [removed]

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [removed]

        [–]LuckyLittleStarModerator | Lil'Star 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        On mobile it looked like an empty comment. Looks like it wasn't empty... there was a smiley in there. I re-approved it for you.

        [–]DatingCoach111 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        The guys and I over at TRP are still anxiously waiting for this post.

        [–]SKRedPill 5 points6 points  (1 child)

        Men need freedom, and men need women. These 2 are as contradictory as needing lover and provider. Men who cross a certain level of abundance to the point where women no longer have much to offer in comparison to what they seek end up becoming monks for this reason.

        In the event where a man starts to feel that women and sex aren't worth the risk (like in most western nations), he'll choose freedom. A solitary man has few needs apart from the essentials. The technology that set women free in the last 200 years also makes life equally easier for men. This makes men the gatekeepers of commitment.

        [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Very good points.

        [–]missatomicbomb666 8 points9 points  (18 children)

        Do women really have that many issues getting commitment out of men though? I've never had any real problems getting a guy I like to commit to me and make me his gf.

        [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 7 points8 points  (15 children)

        Do women really have that many issues getting commitment out of men though? I've never had any real problems getting a guy I like to commit to me and make me his gf.

        Good question. To answer, I need to lay out a few factors.

        1. Women being the gatekeepers of sex.

        2. The female requirements for attractiveness in men, excludes most men from the running (some 80% or so).

        3. The resulting thirst of many men for female sexual attention.

        4. The abolition of sexual constraints over the past 5 decades.

        When factoring all this together, we get the following.

        1. Young women in the prime of their beauty and innocence can have the pick of the litter. They can attract and keep almost any man they want. Some do exactly that and live happily married for many years to come. However, this abundance of available men can be intoxicating. Indeed, many let it get to their heads and they keep jumping from man to man, thinking that another 100+ available - better - men are just around the corner, so why settle for this man?

        2. Women in the years when their SMV begins to decline but hasn't really declined significantly. The decline + accumulated baggage from years of riding the cc or jumping from one relationship to another results in eligible - marriage minded men - to overlook them in favor of the younger women described above. However, they still have some degree of SMV and RMV so they still hope and dream of meeting a good man. These women often ask - where are all the good men?

        3. Women whose SMV has seriously declined due to the onset of menopause. By now, there are many more women vying for even fewer men who are still available and interested by some miracle.

        So after this long preface, I can answer the actual question πŸ™‚. The phrase - men are the gatekeepers of commitment - almost always comes in continuation to the phrase - women are the gatekeepers of sex - because when combining both ideas together, women start out with all the bargaining leverage in the beginning of life and men end up with it at the end of life.

        [–]uebermacht 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Excellent reply!

        [–]JJ33141 Star 1 point2 points  (4 children)

        β€œYoung women in the prime of their beauty and innocence can have the pick of the litter.”

        While I definitely agree that women hold most of the cards (relative to men) during their prime attractiveness years, I seriously doubt that their power for securing commitment is that great, unless they are either more attractive than average, or are dating a man close enough to them in SMV. A woman who is a 5 will tend to have difficulty securing commitment from a male 9, regardless of her stage in life.

        I think there is also a self-selection process. Women tend to not hit on men. The men who hit on them, particularly if the women are of average appearance, represent only a subset of men who would consider them for sex, let alone a relationship. People talk about the 80/20 rule, but I think this mainly applies from the female perspectve. We have to ask themselves if it truly works in reverse: many (though probably not all) upper tier men would never consider sleeping with a woman who is like at the 21% level of attractiveness. And I’m talking during that woman’s prime attractiveness years, not when she’s hit the wall. What’s the point when you can get with more attractive women with relative ease?

        [–]BewareTheOldMan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        "What’s the point when [men] can get with more attractive women with relative ease?"

        An estimated age for this self-realization and "awakening" in men is about mid to late-30s. By his 40s - assuming a man desires a younger, attractive woman, this is easier to accomplish versus his mid to late 20s.

        There has to be multiple factors in place and demonstrated proof of sustainability and regular maintenance of these factors with some being as follows:

        -Financial stability, solid income with potential for upward mobility, possibly a few appreciating material assets (e.g. real estate, investment portfolio, etc.)

        -Intelligence, wisdom, critical-thinking capability, smart life-decisions and future planning, life-experience, relationship experience

        -Demonstrated responsibility and personal accountability, good character values, integrity

        -Fitness/aesthetically pleasing appearance, good personality

        -Confidence, masculinity, problem-solving capability, demonstrated/proven leadership

        By his early to mid-30s a man should have mastered many of these areas that easily support the aforementioned criteria with a very long list of positives and a very, very short list of negatives.

        Assuming he's single, never-married, and childless - SMV/RMV is trending upward which facilitates access and generates interest from younger, more attractive women as well as women in his age-range.

        Regarding women - at this point a man makes decisions in his best interest that fully supports his personal agenda.

        [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        While I definitely agree that women hold most of the cards (relative to men) during their prime attractiveness years, I seriously doubt that their power for securing commitment is that great,

        What causes your doubt?

        unless they are either more attractive than average, or are dating a man close enough to them in SMV. A woman who is a 5 will tend to have difficulty securing commitment from a male 9, regardless of her stage in life.

        Sure, if you expect more than you're offering, you'll have a hard time succeeding. If a 5 girl got together with a 5 guy in high-school, she'd have little to no problem gaining commitment.

        [–]JJ33141 Star 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        What I mean is that when we say a young woman can secure commitment relatively easily, we have to understand the context. At least in my opinion she can secure commitment fairly easily with a man of equal, or near-equal SMV. If she is an average woman, going for a top tier man, it’s not necessarily even a guarantee that she will sleep with him, let alone get commitment, while she is in her prime attractiveness years, forget about post-wall or whatever.

        [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        What I mean is that when we say a young woman can secure commitment relatively easily, we have to understand the context. At least in my opinion she can secure commitment fairly easily with a man of equal, or near-equal SMV. If she is an average woman, going for a top tier man, it’s not necessarily even a guarantee that she will sleep with him, let alone get commitment, while she is in her prime attractiveness years, forget about post-wall or whatever.

        Ah, and here lies the difference between can and does.

        A woman in her prime, can secure a man of equal or slightly higher SMV and RMV. However, many women are gunning for the top men only because hypergamy (which will be covered in a future post).

        [–]r2401 -1 points0 points  (8 children)

        Interesting so you are saying you believe the 80/20 rule is correct, that the top 80% of women are vying for the top 20% of men? That's something I see on incels and mgtow.

        Let's say 80/20 is correct however. Since the majority of people marry or at least couple up for periods of time it's clear that some women are not getting a man in the top 20%. Does that mean that she just failed and needs to employ better strategies or that she needs to develop strategies for coping with what she settled for?

        [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 3 points4 points  (7 children)

        Interesting so you are saying you believe the 80/20 rule is correct, that the top 80% of women are vying for the top 20% of men?

        80/20 was never meant as a hard and fast rule of 80 and not 79 or 81. 20 and not 19 or 21. It's the general idea that the overwhelming majority of women will try to get the men at the top of the SMP.

        This is female nature. Can a woman choose to not aim for that hot chiseled guy who everyone else is going after? Of course she can! As long as they guy is better than her in some way so she feels like she's marrying up. Unfortunately, many women still aim only for the highest of the high. This inflated hypergamy is bad for both genders.

        That's something I see on incels and mgtow.

        MGTOW is a part of TRP ideas, incels are not! Don't conflate the two, they are not at all like one another.

        [–]r2401 -1 points0 points  (6 children)

        I don't think mgtow and incels are similar, I just see 80/20 used in both places often.

        But let's say you are a 6/10 woman who marries a 6/10 man. Hypergamy and 80/20 suggest that you are not satisfied with that man. Does RPW suggest finding a better man or learning to accept and appreciate what you have?

        [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (5 children)

        But let's say you are a 6/10 woman who marries a 6/10 man. Hypergamy and 80/20 suggest that you are not satisfied with that man. Does RPW suggest finding a better man or learning to accept and appreciate what you have?

        Hypergamy in a nutshell - if a better man becomes available to you, you'll be tempted to monkey branch to him even if you were happy with your current guy. You'd want to do so in the hopes of being even happier.

        Obviously, you still have the freedom to choose right from wrong and are responsible for your choices. Wanting to monkey branch doesn't mean it's a good idea.

        [–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 4 points5 points  (4 children)

        Does RPW suggest finding a better man or learning to accept and appreciate what you have?

        I'd argue that the answer to this depends on the relationship status. If you've gotten to the lifetime commitment stage (marriage or lifetime LTR) then you accept and appreciate what you have. Learning about our natures helps this process.

        If you are early in a relationship and/or commitment has not been established, then you must attempt to rationally compare the man you are with and the man you hope to branch swing to. This is tough to do and emotions really need to come out of it (they are unreliable because they will almost certainly lead to what is new and exciting). But a woman should chose the best man she is able to get commitment from (this will help prevent branch swinging down the road IMO).

        You've got to beware of the grass is greener mentality, but if the grass is greener and you are more compatible, then you branch swing. It's what's best for you and your future offspring. If it's just emotions and tingles and you are just trading off mildly annoying qualities in one partner for different annoying qualities in another partner then you should stay put and learn to be happy where you are.

        Ideally (even morally) you break up with a man if you aren't compatible and then begin looking, but a woman absolutely should be with the best man she can get to commit to her.

        [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        Very good distinction.

        I'd add - if you do branch swing (even if you do so in the most moral and ethical manner) and it doesn't turn out the way you would have liked it to - take responsibility for your life, learn from your mistakes and don't blame anyone else.

        [–]r2401 -1 points0 points  (2 children)

        Interesting. For the record I don't think hypergamy is an evil thing, or a reason to criticize women wholesale. It causes people to act in unethical and perhaps immoral ways but do men not want to get the best woman? Do people not want to get the best job? It is natural.

        But if we accept hypergamy and 80/20 as true, then the main concern I have for society as a whole is where this leaves the men and women who are in relationships where the woman feels she settled for a man in the bottom 80%.

        I believe the net result of these combined forces: hypergamy, modern women's liberation, access to dating through technology, are resulting in relationships where women and men are less happy.

        Now, that's not to say that I think women's rights should be rolled back or things were on balance "better back then." But I also think it's fair to discuss whether these forces have some negative consequences.

        I liken this to the paradox of choice, the idea that people are happier with increased choice, but only up to a point. After that point adding more choice paralyzes people who can't decide and experience fear of missing out.

        Hypergamy plus tinder society is creating that situation in modern dating. I have to wonder, if as a man, I could date multiple women with ease, sometimes even well above my league, and all through my phone, wouldn't I have the same dissatisfaction with "settling" for any one person? If I've had many sexual partners this would exacerbate the FOMO. Well that's basically life for any reasonably attractive young woman today.

        In the past when, due to social pressures, women couldn't sleep around easily and had to choose and invest in a man early, they seemed to be happier. In a more distant past when women had no choice whatsoever, I assume they were very unhappy. But in the modern day when they have maximum choice, maximum options they also seem to be unhappy. A growing number of men seem to be unhappy as well, either because they can't get a good woman or because they can only get a good woman after she's slept around and she's settled for him, which can't be a good feeling.

        I'm glad to see that some women maybe realize this negative dynamic and try to go against the flow of current society. That is the kind of woman I'd want to marry so it's good to see some are out there at least.

        [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

        but do men not want to get the best woman?

        No. Men don't need the best woman. Men just need a good woman. Good on the outside and good on the inside. Good now and good later. Hypergamy is a female thing, not a male thing.

        Now, that's not to say that I think women's rights should be rolled back or things were on balance "better back then." But I also think it's fair to discuss whether these forces have some negative consequences.

        Both men and women got rights in recent history. Historically, no one had rights. Everyone lived under the boot of tyranny. Some places better than others, but generally speaking, people didn't have rights.

        Then we got rights, but not equally. Men got rights + the responsibility that comes with the rights. Women just got the rights but not the responsibility. This isn't good. Women should either have both or neither. I think they should have both.

        Women were indeed happier back then. But that's a whole other topic.

        [–]Rivkariver2 Star 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Same but I’ve noticed it is mild reverse psychology. Having high standards making me very conscious and slow about committing. Not assuming he is desperate to commit, demanding that he learn to trust me before he says he’s in love. Somehow this is like catnip to dudes. I think it gives off a high value vibe maybe.

        [–]360_no_scope_upvote1 Star 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        There are a few possibilities at play here. You're a great catch, or you've never met a man with many options.

        Men with many options don't saddle the first horse they find.

        [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        This is my personal hypothesis on why being indifferent towards women and having a dominating personality are considered attractive.

        Women's power is mostly inherited. Most women are born with the ability to affect men strongly on sexual and emotional bases. Not much work is done to obtain that power, but there is some effort needed to maintain it.

        Men's power is mostly acquired. Most men are not born with the material and moral resources that would render them powerful. Much work is needed to obtain and maintain that.

        Each party uses their power to obtain security. It goes like this

        For men: Obtain resources = Security

        For women : Obtain a man with resources = Security

        Women rely on men for survival because 1) they can 2) they lack a better solution. Therefore, women's attraction to men is directly proportional to the resources they provide, so, they spend a lot of time and effort filtering men to find the one with the best resources who thus can provide actual security.

        Filtering based on material resources is fairly easy, A woman can find out if a man is healthy, financially capable, or smart on the spot. It gets tricky with the morals though, so they basically use what we call "shit tests" on this sub.

        Women are more sensitive to detecting weakness than detecting strength. 2 weaknesses are by far the most common moral causes for men to be turned down by women. The first is the weakness to desires. It's when a man lusts over stuff so badly that he often loses his logical and calculated nature in order to get them. The logical nature of men is crucial for survival so by occasionally losing it a man can't be trusted by the woman and she eventually feels turned off. One application of this is when man desires a woman to the point of becoming an orbiter and the woman is repulsed by his behavior.

        The second weakness is what we call weakness in personality or being a doormat, It's when a man doesn't have strong opinions and values and is tossed left and right by anyone who comes across. The idea here is, a man with weak personality is prone to be affected by psychological assault and to be taken advantage of, which lessens his chances of survival, and thus renders him unfavorable to women. One application of this is when a man breaks down after he is shit tested by a woman, she is eventually turned off by that.

        We conclude that by desiring women rationally and by having a dominating personality (the opposite of weak personality), a man can bypass the 2 most common moral reasons of being turned down by women. His chances of success with women are markedly increased as a result.

        [–][deleted]  (1 child)

        [removed]