40
41

FIELD REPORTPlucked from AskTRP (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by WhisperTRP Founder

I forget her actual number but I know it can be counted with just one hand. We're technically not exclusive, but I've dropped my other plates just out of lack of desire for them now, and she has made it abundantly clear that that I'm the only guy she's seeing. The sex happened pretty quickly but like I said, we have history and it just naturally turned into that.

This is what can be done with strong game.


[–]Ok_Philosopher 41 points42 points  (0 children)

Yeah, but now the second part of the equation is hoping he's a good captain. Exclusivity is just one component of the vetting process, albeit a crucial one.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 16 points17 points  (14 children)

Guys, do you really think that "we're technically not exclusive" is anything but chest thumping from the commenter? Let's remember the source and not lose the point.

The men & boys on AskTRP would be giving this guy a whole bunch of crap if he said "This girl is awesome and I've dropped all my other plates and decided she's the one". Use of the word technically is, I'm sure, intended so that the's not technically lying.

We take: you cannot negotiate attraction as truth. It's logical and we all feel that this is correct. The flip side of that is that you cannot negotiate commitment. You can have the talk, you can lay your cards on the table, you can make sure you are on the same long term page as the man you are dating. What you cannot do is force him to feel committed to you simply by talking it through. This is where girl game comes in. You have to make him believe that you are so awesome and perfectly suited to him, that there is no reason to let you go and other women pale in comparison.

This commenter has found a woman who is so awesome, that the other women who were giving him a steady supply of sex, pale in comparison.

[–]neveragoodtime 22 points23 points  (2 children)

You point out a meaningful difference between girl game and guy game. When a girl uses sex to get sex, she’s a slut, and when a guy uses commitment to try and get commitment, he’s a beta. They’re playing the wrong game for their gender. Girls should be using their sex as a means to commitment, and guys should be using commitment as a means to a good sexual relationship. When a girl plays by guy’s rules, trying to get sex, it’s like a soccer player kicking the ball into her own goal and thinking she scored a point. The point still goes to the guy’s team, even if it felt really good for her. Over at TRP, they help men present themselves as someone who women want to have sex with, here at RPW, the goal is to help women be someone men want to commit to. You don’t get commitment from someone by using dread game, you get it by being trustworthy and submissive.

[–]Ezaar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for clarifying.

[–]LittleMissAfrodite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is an excellent post. I love this place.

[–]Atticus_Crowley 7 points8 points  (3 children)

I'm the quoted person in Op's post, so think I should clarify.

When she and I first reconnected, I made it clear I had two side girls at the time. One thing lead to another and she and I ended up picking up where we left off. We're pretty much just taking it one step at a time now, but she made it clear that if I continued being a "fuck boy" there would be an expiration date to our arrangement. At this stage in my life (late 20's), I have hit my (admittedly somewhat gross) "goal number" so being with someone I have a connection with and can be comfortable with is more important to me now than adding more notches to my bed post. So there were no demands for monogamy, but the desire was known, and she brings well more than enough to the table (as a woman in and outside the bedroom)that it was natural for me to drop the other women, even if she hadn't made it known to me she wanted me to.

I'm on mobile so I don't feel like typing out our whole history, but I guess if y'all are curious, I'll answer questions.

[–]BewareTheOldMan 0 points1 point  (2 children)

So are you Captain Material - made a decision to search for a life-mate and be dedicated to one woman with the possibility of marriage, fatherhood, and continued self-improvement? After all - Spinning Plates into one's 60s is not necessarily the best "life-goal."

Asking for everyone else and my own curiosity...

[–]Atticus_Crowley 1 point2 points  (1 child)

As long as she keeps up her end of the "bargain" so to speak, I can't imagine myself needing any more women in my life. She and I bring out the best in each other, preventing ourselves from getting lazy getting cooped up in our homes. We've discussed kids and so far the consensus is an ideal situation of two kids, a girl and a boy.

As for a being a "captain", she seems to think so, since she keeps referring to me as one, which makes me wonder if she's on this sub since this is the only place where I hear that term used. But, well...Im trying? Not perfect, sometimes I get in my head and doubt my capabilities and become paralyzed with indecision. But over the years I've gained enough wisdom to know to avoid the usual pitfalls of relationships. Still working on myself, but I feel I'm on the path to being the Man I was always meant to be, and she inspires me to be so. Plus, with what I know of most guys now days, the fact I'm even trying, more or less sets me above most....the bar for men is set depressingly low it seems.

[–]BewareTheOldMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good for you and her both - best of luck to you.

[–]lespetiteschoses 3 points4 points  (6 children)

i think you're probably right that the comment is chest beating, but then what is the point of sharing it if the meaning is lost?

i believe that the point here is that whisper is using this anecdote in an attempt to reiterate his "don't have the talk" spiel.

clarifying exclusivity (i.e. having the talk) is completely different to negotiating commitment, and i don't see anyone advocating for the latter. i don't know why people keep bringing that up.

if he's not clarified his exclusivity to her, then she's making a big mistake, and the women here should not look to that kind of dynamic as being any kind of goal.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 9 points10 points  (5 children)

I always took the "don't clarify exclusivity" idea to be an attempt at getting towards "don't negotiate commitment" (with maybe a dash of "don't nag" thrown in).

To me, there is every reason to set out what you want in the first couple dates to make sure you are both looking for the same thing. That's different from the talk though. The talk happens further into the relationship. If you are at three months and you have to ask if you are boyfriend and girlfriend, then I think you probably know the answer (but want it to be different). If he's not demonstrating commitment, then it's unclear to me why discussing it would change anything. And if you go for a stretch and he's not indicated that he wants to be exclusive or calls you his girlfriend, well that's telling too.

Honestly, in some ways, I think having to request commitment or exclusivity well in to the relationship is handing a man a road map. If he's not aware of how to behave in a relationship, doesn't tell you that he's thinks of you as his gf or whatever else, then is he really captain material? Is he a leader if you are nudging from behind?

[–]lespetiteschoses 0 points1 point  (4 children)

I always took the "don't clarify exclusivity" idea to be an attempt at getting towards "don't negotiate commitment"

clarifying exclusivity is just that - asking him "are we or are we not exclusive?" (in more elegant words).

negotiating commitment is taking a man who you know is not as gung-ho about it as you are, and trying to get the answer that you want out of him.

I think having to request commitment or exclusivity well in to the relationship

you're getting the two mixed up. asking "are we exclusive" is not a request.

we should be careful to separate the two. one is stupid and should be avoided, the other is very important.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 3 points4 points  (2 children)

"Are we exclusive" puts you on the spot and there is only one "correct" answer when the question is asked. It invites a player to lie to you and asks a good man to articulate his feelings before he's ready. It is effectively "I want to be exclusive with you, can we be exclusive".

You should be watching his behaviors more than his words. Asking "are we exclusive" just lets you rest on his words and assume you are in the clear vetting-wise.

We may just have to agree to disagree on this one.

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

A good rule of thumb is to (at least try) to never ask questions which cannot be answered both ways.

What are we? Is a veiled demand that says - why aren't we yet, eh? There's only one correct answer, to either propose or give a timeline for when the proposal will happen. The question doesn't leave room for the answer to be - I don't know if I want to be with you long term.

[–]lespetiteschoses 0 points1 point  (0 children)

agree to disagree :)

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

clarifying exclusivity is just that - asking him "are we or are we not exclusive?" (in more elegant words).

negotiating commitment is taking a man who you know is not as gung-ho about it as you are, and trying to get the answer that you want out of him.

This is hamster speak. Both are negotiations for commitment.

you're getting the two mixed up. asking "are we exclusive" is not a request.

Whether it is or isn't, the man will likely perceive it to be a request or even a demand!

As u/girlwithabike said - it's imperative to lay out your terms and conditions for dating in the first few dates. If you aren't headed for the same goals, you part ways then and there. If you have a "define the relationship" talk later on, you're trying to negotiate commitment.

[–]Atticus_Crowley 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Lol, I'm the one that made that comment. I deleted the whole thread because I got sick of rp guys messaging me saying I have "oneitus" and calling me a "cuck" for no reason.

[–]WhisperTRP Founder[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Don't sweat over it.

The anger phase isn't just a thing that happens. It's something we do to these guys on purpose, something we stoke and build up to put a spine in them.

One of the major goals is make these stop doing things that girls want just because girls want them, but instead leave to the girls the responsibility to create positive incentives (not negative incentives, like "do this, or I won't have sex with you") to give them what they want.

The male protective instinct runs so deep, and these men have been conditioned so hard to think so little of themselves, that you pretty much have to light a fire like this to get them to look after their own interests, and not actively sacrifice them to those of women.

But the reason you know you're doing what's best for you, is that you didn't do it to make her happy. Hell, she didn't even ask. You just lost interest in the old deal because the new one was better.

[–]lespetiteschoses 18 points19 points  (4 children)

yeah cool, but "technically not exclusive" isn't good enough for me, or any high value women that i know.

"technically not exclusive" is not a prize.

[–]MentORPHEUSTRP Endorsed 8 points9 points  (3 children)

yeah cool, but "technically not exclusive" isn't good enough for me

I agree with this sentiment, but feel you're missing Whisper's point.

Through good Girl Game, the woman described in OP inspired the man to voluntarily give up his other prospects, BEFORE she invoked her female prerogative to define the terms of the relationship. From the sound of it, him offering exclusivity without her explicitly demanding it is the next step of this relationship.

It isn't mandatory to have had sex first like in the example. Effective Girl Game works the same in that case too.

[–]lespetiteschoses 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Through good Girl Game, the woman described in OP inspired the man to voluntarily give up his other prospects, BEFORE she invoked her female prerogative to define the terms of the relationship. From the sound of it, him offering exclusivity without her explicitly demanding it is the next step of this relationship.

That's great, inspire commitment. That's our job.

But,

He has not "offered" exclusivity, he's stopped seeing his other plates. This is an important distinction for a woman. Until he's said that they're exclusive, they're not and she's just sticking around hoping they are. This is a covert contract that does her no good.

Again, no one is suggesting a woman demands or attempts to negotiate commitment. Simply clarify with the man whether or not they are indeed exclusive, and if so, make that a condition of the relationship continuing.

[–]MentORPHEUSTRP Endorsed 0 points1 point  (1 child)

He has not "offered" exclusivity,

...yet. This is a snapshot of a guy's internal thought processes, as he's in the midst of being beguiled from having other active options, to voluntary exclusivity, without the woman demanding anything or "having the talk." These internal processes are common to the transition of not-monogamous to monogamous, regardless of whether the specific guy was previously a plate spinner, or the timing of sex and commitment in a given relationship.

This FR is descriptive- good girl game inspired exclusivity even in a difficult case; not prescriptive as if to say "Do what she did and nothing else being equal you'll get exclusivity."

[–]lespetiteschoses 3 points4 points  (0 children)

yeah, we're just not going to agree on this.

This FR is descriptive- good girl game inspired exclusivity

...

We're technically not exclusive, but I've dropped my other plates just out of lack of desire for them now

this is not what exclusivity looks like.

[–]Xtinamina 21 points22 points  (31 children)

Are these the kind of guys we're aiming to win over now? I thought "red pill men" were not worth our investment?

[–]White_pony413 14 points15 points  (15 children)

Yes as much as it's frowned upon I want a genuine alpha not a guy playing RP theory - I mean how is the relationship gonna look in 20 years otherwise..

[–]sonder_one 20 points21 points  (0 children)

And men want naturally gorgeous women, not women who need makeup.

Good luck to you both.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 4 points5 points  (13 children)

Alpha and beta are traits not people. What would be the actual difference between a man who has learned alpha behaviors on his own or a man who has learned alpha behaviors from theory? I'm really curious how you think the relationship would look in 20 years between the two?

[–]White_pony413 6 points7 points  (12 children)

Okay so personally I think there is a massive difference between the two.

I'm aware that my opinion might sound a little harsh, however it comes from comparing how my brother approaches life with things I've seen & read on r/asktrp and r/redpill.

My brother is what I would consider a 'natural' alpha - someone who's had a lot of alpha traits from early childhood, seeming without much effort.

For example people always like him, he's very good at first impressions, always had girls into him, his current girlfriend of 2 years adores him, he's very sporty (rugby), good looking and successful. Also he is only 19.

However he would never dream of reading TRP and if he did I suspect he would feel quite confused by it all because for him that stuff is as natural as breathing.

Now compare that to a man who's learned alpha behaviours from theory. That man acts from his head not his instinct.

Truth is you can't learn instinct.

I want a man who's alpha traits are instinctive because being with someone for 20 years means you'll go through your share of challenges.

Hope I managed to express this clearly, I think it's an interesting topic.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor 9 points10 points  (11 children)

My brother is what I would consider a 'natural' alpha - someone who has exhibited a lot of alpha traits from early childhood onwards, seeming without much effort.

Lol!

You don't know anything about his internal monolog.

I know many men and I've known many men over the years. There's no such thing as a natural alpha! It doesn't exist. Sure, some men have an easier time being alpha, but to suggest that it comes as natural as breathing? You're dreaming.

Men are human doings and women are human beings. Men need to work to become something and becoming an alpha is no different.

If you wait around for a natural alpha, you may be waiting a long time... if an alpha is what you want for a LTR, you may be in for some disappointments. Both alpha and beta have pluses and minuses. The female sexual strategy of AF/BB is the desire to choose the best of both in a manner where she lives with the beta and goes to visit the alpha during her week of ovulation when she's the most horny and can put up with his shit. Sure, alphas give women tingles, but most women can't live with an alpha. The alpha is usually the "abusive" ex BF.

[–]White_pony413 5 points6 points  (10 children)

Of course I don't know his inner monologue and of course we're all human beings with weaknesses.

That's not my point.

My point is that I want to do the best I can when it comes to choosing the man I marry. For me that means a man that has managed to figure things out on his own.

Maybe I'm lucky but in my circles I've met several.. they're not that rare. I'm looking for a natural leader not an iron man.

Edit: if you don't admit that 'natural leaders' exist than how do you explain a leader in a group of 5 year old kids?

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Of course natural leaders exist, no one is arguing against that.

But as soon as boys hit puberty, all their leadership flies out the window as they melt like butter before her majesty pimply faced, bratty, hormonal classmate!

The point is that men become irrationally weak near women. It takes active training to maintain frame in the presence of a sexually desirable woman. It does not come naturally at all.

[–]AlmightyPerun 2 points3 points  (8 children)

You aren't born "alpha", you become "alpha". You can't deadlift 200kg as soon as you enter the gym, you must start with an empty 20kg barbell and work up to it over the course of multiple years. It comes from experience. It's just that some guys start obtaining the experience much sooner than others.

Why? Well, i believe the most important factor are the parents. Some simply don't know how to raise a child, the end-result being a "nice soyguy" with T-levels of an 80 year old man. Simply put, children naturally try to imitate their parents and their actions, as well as any other "seniors" which might be a part of their group of friends.

Of course, genetics also play a part, but they play a very minor part. Some people are predisposed to some things, but 99% is still hard work. As for "natural leaders", well, they aren't natural leaders. They've simply learned to be leaders before the rest of their 5 year old peers.

You are born a blank slate, a "tabula rasa". How you develop into your adulthood depends on your parents to a large degree. The rest is all you. I mean, on the other side of TRP, you'll often hear that men are made, while women are born, which isn't too far from the truth. Tarzan is the equivalent of a unicorn (a perfect woman). The two don't exist.

[–]Comeandseemeforonce 7 points8 points  (7 children)

I think she's saying she wants a man that grew into rp naturally, from environmental and social conditions. Not some turn around that red rp and now uses it.

[–]AlmightyPerun 2 points3 points  (6 children)

My point is that there is no difference. With some theory and a lot of practice (real-life experience), the end-result is the same.

The fact that one started the journey at the age of 5 and the other at the age of 20 is irrelevant. A 20 year old person can learn more in a few years than a 5 year old child can learn in 15 years. It's relatively easy to "catch up", so to speak.

[–]White_pony413 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Of course the 'innate alpha' exists.

Let me explain.

Whilst I agree that human nature is malleable, there's a big difference between someone who has 'caught up' and 'Mr Innate Alpha.'

To show this difference I'm gonna use the example of comparing someone who is socially gifted with someone that is socially awkward.

Whilst we all know that social skills and charisma can be learned, it's also true that some people don't need to learn them.

To such people these skills are 'innate'... Or to put it another way they gained them so easily & at such a young age that they don't know life without them.

When I say 'natural alpha' this is essentially what I mean.

Whilst some men need to read RP theory in order to try to sculpt their nature into that of a leader, other men are 'born with it' in the sense that they've lived their entire lives from kindergarten onwards with lots of alpha traits.. and that is the man I want.

[–]Comeandseemeforonce 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Maybe at end stage of the nonnaturalized, maybe. The innate alpha does not have that hesitant aspect, which I suspect alot of rpers do, which is why asktrp exists.

[–]chief-w 8 points9 points  (13 children)

Depends on the "red pill man." Most of the active posters are young ideologues and recently burned ex's who got it bad in a recent relationship. Neither of them are the best captains. But only RP men will take the idea of being your Captian™ seriously enough to potentially be a long lasting partner. And they can do that without Reddit at all.

[–]Astroviridae 14 points15 points  (2 children)

You're right in that a man doesn't necessarily need TRP to be red pill, but I think she means men from TRP sub. Most of these men want to spin plates, not enter a long term relationship and a very small minority wants to marry. This means these men aren't suitable for RPW who want an exclusive relationship and eventually marry.

The OP dropped his other plates and made this girl the top plate. It's not an exclusive LTR, therefore not good enough for RPW. Commitment is important.

[–]chief-w -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Than get out of r/theredpill. Marriedredpill, and rpchristian (obviously this will be more religious) and other orbital subReddits are where to go for reading like that, but they tend to be already merried. Meeting people for relationships isn't what Reddit is for. If he's not going to trust you enough to commit for life and you can't continue without that than it's better you not try to make him something he isn't and move on. But it sounds like OP is okay with this as is for the moment.

[–]Astroviridae 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You're missing the point. No one here is going to TRP or any other sub looking for a partner. The strategy and goals of RPW and male-centric RP subs are not the same. This type of relationship maybe ok over at TRP, but it's not a relationship RPW advocate for or strive towards. We're not interested in being plates.

[–]Ramp_Up_Then_Dump 0 points1 point  (9 children)

But without a teacher(father/trp etc.) it is hard to be captain because of nice guy propaganda of this age.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 5 points6 points  (8 children)

So what? My husband figured it out by college and he has an absent father and the worst kind of feminist mother (she never wanted or could handle male children). Being a grown adult in this age is difficult, everyone has complaints. Accomplishing something difficult just makes you a better (and more fulfilled) person in the end.

[–]Ramp_Up_Then_Dump 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Didnt he had any role model at all? An uncle, a teacher, someone on tv etc? The problem I pointed out wasnt about difficulty. If you dont have a map, luck is the major factor that determine the direction. Diffculty of the road may not matter in this case.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 7 points8 points  (2 children)

The short answer is no, he didn't have a role model in his family, no good teachers, no coaches that he still talks about. He's just a smart man who saw the world around him and worked hard to be a good man who embraces his masculinity. He had plenty of ups and downs along the way but he doesn't complain that it's just too hard to be a man because of propaganda.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You know what's propaganda?

The idea that others are responsible for you.

It's a bad childhood, bad teachers, bad neighborhood, big oil, big pharma, big corporations, the government, the patriarchy, toxic masculinity, the environment, drugs, alcohol, porn, the internet, guns, cars, soy, GMO's, global warming, white privilege, male privilege, oppression, and what not.

Everything is someone else's fault and someone else's responsibility. It's never my fault or my responsibility.

This is modern propaganda 101.

[–]Rokig 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is what can be done with good game

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike2 Stars 2 points3 points  (3 children)

I read the better part of the Western philosophical canon as a teenager. Plenty of direction on how to live a life of righteous virtue there.

That's about it.

Don't sit around whining about how life is hard and the world needs to change for you to succeed. That makes you no better than the feminists.

Strive. Persevere. Excel. Laugh.

[–]readingwithcoffee 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I kind of did that too, except with literature! I wouldn't say I read all or even most of the canon, though.

[–]Ramp_Up_Then_Dump 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Struggling in sea is meaningless if you dont how to swim. I dont expect torrent to do all the work. When things dont work, a nice guy will try to be nicer.

[–]Xtinamina 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I get what you're saying. You have to find the red pill SOMEWHERE.

[–]BewareTheOldMan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If a man who is knowledgeable in RP Theory and Principles makes a decision to search for a life-mate and be dedicated to one woman with direct and express intent on marriage, fatherhood, and continued self-improvement, it's not a bad idea. He's at a point in life where multiple women are no longer an ideal situation nor a desire. This is good for women seeking commitment.

This assumes a man and woman are both RP Aware and are compatible, both are informed of male and female nature, and behave accordingly to achieve a mutually beneficial and reciprocal relationship. Besides – assuming he’s doing it right, you’re not SUPPOSED to know he’s RP Aware, however his behavior, disposition, and manner will reflect well-learned RP Principles.

However, you’re correct…establishing a relationship with TRP-Aware Man who wants to continue Spinning Plates is a bad decision.

After all - Spinning Plates into one's 60s is not necessarily the best "life-goal."

[–]readingwithcoffee 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I feel like something women could do before deciding to have a relationship with someone is just evaluate the likelihood that the relationship will lead to marriage. There's a lot of factors you can look at both to evaluate how compatible you two are and the likelihood that he will want to commit. Background, family, education, personality, looks, lifestyles, and of course the all important "how much does he like you?" all go into it. I think applying this process and being conservative and humble in such estimates can save a lot of regret. I could be wrong, though.

[–]White_pony413 11 points12 points  (20 children)

Still I always require exclusivity before sex.

I know the sex will be great so I'm not in a position of having to prove it to him first.

I'm not going to give away my bargaining chip for nothing.. perhaps that's not as RP as I thought?

[–]WhisperTRP Founder[S] 7 points8 points  (19 children)

This has to do with the "terrain".

At certain times in Western civilization, while sex before marriage or outside of marriage was always a lot more frequently than people let on, it was certainly socially taboo enough so that "holding out" was seen as a reasonable position by most men.

However, circumstances have changed in ways that were both inevitable and irreversible, and this created a new world where commitment was no longer an enforceable legal condition, but a psychological state.

This means that sex is a "bargaining chip" isn't really relevant anymore. Because you can bargain for a legal contract, but you can't bargain for a psychological state.

You can no more "bargain" me into feeling a desire to stay with you, than I can "bargain" you into feeling sexually attracted to me.

[–]White_pony413 6 points7 points  (18 children)

Interesting because I've found that you actually can bargain for attraction.

In my experience withholding sex beyond the average time frame of modern standards, does increase attraction and desire.

For example I waited three months to have sex while being exclusive with current guy. It was important for me to see that i was not just a notch in his belt.

The result was amazing because you've both wanted it for so long and already know each other very well.

P.S. are you saying that the fundamental tenet of RP - 'women are the gatekeepers of sex and men of commitment' no longer applies...?

[–]WhisperTRP Founder[S] 3 points4 points  (6 children)

In my experience

Well, that's the problem, isn't it?

A woman who has had one relationship has a sample size of one, and she can't sort cause from correlation from coincidence.

A woman who has had many relationships has a track record of failure.

TRP material is very simple to sort out, because men with high counts are successful and know what works, and can teach other men. To generate the theory for women, we have to dig a little deeper because female expertise cannot come solely through personal experience.

What we've learned from looking into the male side of the equation is that what kills desire is not the delay in and of itself, but the belief that the delay is being deliberately imposed. The idea that "playing hard to get" can stoke the flames of desire is mostly a combination of projection and mistaking romantic comedies for examples of male behaviour.

Male indifference tends to increase, or at least not decrease, female desire, because women are constantly surrounded by male sexual desire, to the point where it is often obnoxious or burdensome. Thus, an indifferent male is judged to be confident and high value, and a woman tends to view the act of turning him passionate as a worthwhile and surmountable challenge.

Female indifference, real or feigned, is experienced quite differently by men. Sincere female sexual desire is not ubiquitous for men, even for those who are quite desirable. It's not unattainable for high quality men, but it is always scarce enough to be a measure of success, rather than an imposition.

Thus, men find female indifference irksome or even humiliating, not exciting or endearing.

A good strategy, therefore, when refusing or delaying sex with a man whose interest you want to keep, is to use a logistical obstacle or impediment, rather than displaying a lack of desire (real or feigned).

[–]lespetiteschoses 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Your anecdote is also a sample size of 1

[–]WhisperTRP Founder[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Nope.

[–]lespetiteschoses 2 points3 points  (1 child)

How is your vague anecdote any more encompassing than one woman's personal experience?

[–]WhisperTRP Founder[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because it's drawn from a lot of men's personal experiences, of course.

By this point I've lost count of the number of men who have come to me for counsel.

[–]White_pony413 1 point2 points  (1 child)

A good strategy, therefore, when refusing or delaying sex with a man whose interest you want to keep, is to use a logistical obstacle or impediment, rather than displaying a lack of desire (real or feigned).

Yes this was exactly my instinct. I explained how scared I was of getting pregnant b/c of my career plans.

He was happy to will till I got an IUD, it just happened to take 3 months lol

[–]WhisperTRP Founder[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He's far more patient than I would have been.

But expressions of sexual desire, even coupled with bluntly honest excuses about needing to vet more, will in most cases take you much farther than pretensions of indifference.

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike2 Stars -4 points-3 points  (10 children)

So you married this man that you made wait for three months? How long have you two been married now?

[–]White_pony413 0 points1 point  (9 children)

I'm 23 and not at a point in life where I want to marry yet.

We're in a committed relationship and I'm happy.

[–][deleted]  (8 children)

[removed]

    [–]White_pony413 3 points4 points  (7 children)

    My comments are fundamental RP theory. It's really not controversial in the slightest...

    [–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 0 points1 point  (6 children)

    I think the point is that you are suggesting that you can negotiate attraction. Which is not fundamental RP theory.

    you actually can bargain for attraction

    If the sex is hot because of the delay, that's likely to be a temporary state. You've spent three months building to it. However, the likelihood that a delay makes a person more attractive in the long run is slim to none. At some point, you'll have been together long enough that 3 months is negligible.

    If you weren't attracted to someone originally, then a delay won't help you find him attractive after the initial excitement has worn off. Certainly there are reasons to hold off on sex, that isn't the critique. However, suggesting that it means you can bargain for attraction is off the mark on any real time scale.

    If you are in a short relationship, then this is not something you would have experienced yet, so to suggest that attraction and desire can be bargained with is a limited anecdotal view at best.

    [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor 2 points3 points  (5 children)

    If the sex is hot because of the delay, that's likely to be a temporary state. You've spent three months building to it. However, the likelihood that a delay makes a person more attractive in the long run is slim to none. At some point, you'll have been together long enough that 3 months is negligible.

    Furthermore, the delay has a high chance of turning into resentment later down the road if the sex is lackluster.

    [–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    Right, but even in the best case scenario, it's a temporary state.

    And again I'd like to stress, there are plenty of reasons to delay sex. But any increase in attraction that results will be ultimately short lived and does not disprove the rule.

    [–]labratte1996 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    8 days later and I still need someone to clarify this; did the woman in this post have sex without commitment or not?

    [–]TrueFacets 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I randomly stumbled over this thread and read your question.

    A guy with a spine will never give you exclusivity before sex. The reasoning is simple; You will never be my girlfriend if the sex is bad. Therefore if I don't know how the sex is, you cant become my girlfriend.

    yeah that's it.

    I've dropped my other plates just out of lack of desire for them now

    this is the winner, just be so pleasant that the guy does not want to leave

    [–]CleburnCO 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    The end result of that will still be a crash. Nobody is "the man" forever. Every man and every woman will age...they will get slower, fatter, have a time where the lose and the world crushes their hopes and dreams.

    If a woman is with him because he is the "alpha"...there will come a time where he isn't. If he is with her because she has awesome tits and loves sex...there will come a point where there are women with better tits who love sex more.

    The contest is for losers...even the winners will lose in the end.