A Reply To Cadence on Sex, Commitment and Spinning Plates

My post “Assanova’s Four Moods” discussed the seductive power of a man remaining calm and unbowed in the face of rejection, implying a surfeit of options and experience with the opposite sex that may, and often does, act to trigger attraction and reverse her rejection. Blogger Cadence spoketh:

This is a fantastic post. I was doing this not necessarily on a conscious level. I always notice the reactions to rejection, whether it was a playful one to slow him down, or a REAL one.

The last reaction you wrote about, the calm, is incredibly appealing. It comes across confident & can make a woman feel like the guy really wants her (since he persists, despite her resistance) and he doesn’t give up that easily.

Regular reader Mike C (not to be confused with MikeCF) chimed in with a reference to blogger Rollo Tomassi’s “plate theory,” a process of non-exclusive dating or “spinning plates.”

Related to both A & C – Needy and Angry, this is why as a guy I think it is imperative to follow Rollo’s “spinning plates” and pretty much at all times try to have at least one girl you are getting laid with regularly whether FWB, FB, new girl you are dating, whatever.

Any extended period of involuntary celibacy is likely to lead to a mental place of frustration, desperation, and neediness, and then you are going to pin all your hopes for sexual relief on the onenitis of the moment. It will nearly impossible to maintain a state of aloofness and indifference to the outcome. It would be like telling the man in the desert who hasn’t had anything to drink for a few days to not worry about drinking the glass of water on the table next to him. He has no idea if and when another glass of water might reappear.

I don’t find the plate theory controversial in the least; it encourages men to explore their dating options before solidifying into a exclusive relationship. But Cadence did not take well to this, calling Mike C’s comments “distasteful” and saying she had “no use” for men who do such a thing. This brought some pretty serious blowback from men on the thread who accused her of one-way monogamy. It’s easy to interpret Cadence’s statement as “I don’t want a man to date other women even if I’m not committed to him,” but it’s also easy to hear her words as “I’m not sleeping with a guy who is sleeping with other women.”

I think Cadence and Mike C may be talking past each other a bit; I doubt she expects a guy to drop all other women he may be dating when he goes on the first date with her. My experience is that women are put off by men who want to commit so early anyway. I hope she will join this thread and fill in some details on what it is she finds distasteful.

The key point is that until a couple has agreed on a monogamous committed arrangement, both of them are free to date other people. The plates theory (itself building on the wisdom Roissy expressed in a commandment to “always keep two in the kitty”) goes a step further and advocates that men actively seek to date multiple women. Rollo also encourages men to be honest and straightforward about their non-exclusivity, so no one can accuse them of being a cad.

As I see it, “spinning plates” is not about polyamory or cheating, it’s really about not committing until you’ve actually committed. This is a really key lesson for beta men to internalize. Sometimes it’s an active process of not allowing yourself to fall too hard. I can recall times in my life when I was pursuing someone as if they were my one and only, a do-or-die option, while they were fielding the advances of other men. And then I’d get butthurt about it, angry that I’d been more willing to forsake other options than they had been. But as I got older I realized how unfair that was on my part. I had not earned their commitment and we hadn’t discussed it; they had no obligation to me that restricted them from other people.

Nowadays I assume carte blanche that any woman I am dating is dating other men at the same time; until we’re exclusive, we’re not exclusive. Tact and class dictate that I don’t ask about their options nor tell them about mine, and I don’t frame myself as in direct competition with other men. But I always assume they are there, just to keep me from getting too invested until we’re both ready to invest. Even if I know they’re not, I make sure to remind myself that nothing’s stopping them. Contrary to cultural tropes that men are paralytically “afraid of commitment,” plenty of beta-type guys will make the decision early that they’re ready for it, or try to lock it down before the girl gets away from him. Avoiding this oneitis tendency is a serious key to achieving success.

I can tell you from my own life, the dating of two women at once does wonders for a man’s sense of romantic confidence and the willingness to take the sort of bold risks that earn a man the way into a woman’s heart. I’ve grokked this knowledge to the point that when I get a new prospect – from a grocery store, bookstore, bar or whatever – I make a serious effort to get a second one if only to play foil. Lest you think I’m just using someone, oftentimes the second girl wins out. (It’s amazing who you can find when you are open to it.) It’s easy to get the second one once you’ve got the first one, and after that it’s a huge relief to think “well, if Molly doesn’t respond to my text message, it’s ok because I’m working on Julie at the same time.” It’s the paradox of romance – to keep from losing her, you have to not care about losing her. And as the response to the Four Moods post shows, women can smell it.

Rollo also makes the point that women have long reserved the right to entertain the simultaneous overtures of multiple men. Here’s another source that riffs on this, and Dalrock points out that the “choice” between multiple suitors is a cliche theme in media marketed to women.

Since female dating is more of a passive process on its face (respond to the man’s escalation rather than doing the escalation yourself), and because women are generally far more circumspect in displaying their interest in men, it is easy, but wrong, to see a woman “keeping her options open” as a fundamentally different process than a man doing the same thing.

To quote Athol Kay, don’t make someone a priority if they’re only making you an option.

SEX VERANDERT ALLES

Now this whole non-committed dating thing gets complicated when sex gets involved. Our minds do weird things after sex, and it’s an unfortunately typical experience that once a woman sleeps with a man, she feels he owes her something, and will hold his lack of commitment against him even though no commitment or exclusivity was discussed. Likewise men will sometimes take sex as a signature on an annuity, where he can depend on her companionship and availability, whether or not she was interested in anything more than a good romp to wake the neighbors.

A generation of women have (or should have) learned that sex for commitment is an unsuccessful exchange strategy. Men by and large HAVE learned that commitment for sex is also a losing strategy (whether they find a new strategy is a matter of how long it takes them to find blogs like this one). It seems that more and more women are viewing a man offering commitment as a mark of the beta, a signal of neediness and lack of options. This is certainly the experience of the under-30 crowd; no matter how much women complain that guys don’t want to commit, it’s clear that they don’t want guys who will commit per se; they want the (attractive) guys (with options) who won’t commit to them to commit to them. It’s classic scarcity psychology…people want the thing that is held out as unavailable.

The post-sexual revolution world is one in which sex is to be exchanged for sex, and commitment exchanged for commitment. No one, male or female, should EVER accept a lack of sexual reciprocation or reciprocation of commitment. But likewise, they should be wary of trying to trade one for the other. It’s simply an invitation to get played, one way or another, either as a bed-buddy or a chump. A related point is that it is critical a woman not assume that a man who goes to bed with her is marketing himself as a relationship partner.

Until marriage is discussed, the ideas of commitment and exclusivity are de facto synonymous in today’s SMP, as technically speaking, the only step to getting out of the commitment is to alert the other person that you are going back on the market. (In light of this, nonmarital relationships and FWBs are almost indistinguishable.)

Now, for women who want a monogamous relationship, I advise they execute the “no sex before monogamy” strategy. This solves the erroneous sex-for-commitment problem by encapsulating sex as an intrinsic part of a committed relationship, not as a parallel process that is bargained against commitment.

In today’s largely free-sex society, that means that monogamy and sex have to happen more or less in tandem – it’s just unrealistic to expect a man to make a show of commitment and then wait more time for sexual release.

Of course there is the chance either of you could decide, after the sex, that you made a terrible mistake, or this person just wasn’t your cup of tea, or something was really off about the sex, or whatever, and break it off (or give it a few more tries, then get out). To the outside it might look like a pump-and-dump, a false show of commitment to get sex followed by a quick exit. Things are not always as they seem; every stage of escalation of a relationship has the risk that one or the other party will decide they’ve gone too far and want to get out. I’m sure many readers have dated someone, been into them, and then finally kissed them or groped their curvy bits and found something just didn’t feel right, the chemistry wasn’t there and you couldn’t imagine touching this person again. That’s to be expected – part of the instinctual reason for kissing is to test out the hormonal chemistry and see if the other person pushes your sexual buttons.

So someone might be driven to get out after any point of sexual escalation, including full-on intercourse. That’s just the risk we we take in today’s world; the only way to have seriously binding “commitments” is to have a hard-monogamy system, where sex doesn’t happen until after you’re bonded in a marriage that is very difficult to get out of, and that’s just not a credible policy in today’s world.

About these ads

53 Comments

Filed under beta guide, girl guide

53 responses to “A Reply To Cadence on Sex, Commitment and Spinning Plates

  1. Lavazza

    Back in my day this was all implicit. If someone was reprocicating enthustiastically, then you did not take or respond to any other contacts. And if you did not tell or did not break off other contacts, you were cheating. I only had an overlap once, when I had already arranged to go to see another girl in another city, but when I met the other girl, she was no longer (that) interested in me. I guess that is the case for most guys, i.e. thatthey might have a couple of women that they are testing to see if they are interested and/or if they are interesting, but not having two or more women that have responded positively (making out/groping at a minimum) for some time.

  2. Butterfly Flower

    I’m sure many readers have dated someone, been into them, and then finally kissed them or groped their curvy bits and found something just didn’t feel right, the chemistry wasn’t there and you couldn’t imagine touching this person again. That’s to be expected – part of the instinctual reason for kissing is to test out the hormonal chemistry and see if the other person pushes your sexual buttons.

    Unfortunately, this contrasts with the dating scene of many Christian circles [well, Christian circles where the young adults actually adhere to the faith]. In some Evangelical churches, the act of kissing itself is restricted until marriage.

    I’m a really bad Christian, so I’ve been quite physical with my fiance since the beginning of our relationship [well, doing everything but "it"]. In the long-run, I think my sinful behavior has been a good thing because I know for a fact that my fiance and I have chemistry.

    So someone might be driven to get out after any point of sexual escalation, including full-on intercourse. That’s just the risk we we take in today’s world; the only way to have seriously binding “commitments” is to have a hard-monogamy system, where sex doesn’t happen until after you’re bonded in a marriage that is very difficult to get out of, and that’s just not a credible policy in today’s world.

    I think the main reason so many Christian marriages fail [i.e. couples who wait until marriage, or couples who have sex years into the relationship] is because young Christians get married when they aren’t even sure if they’re attracted to their significant other. Or they get married for reasons that look good on paper [goes to the correct church/has a job/did missionary work].

    I used to look down on men who insisted on sex-before marriage [& men who engaged in pre-marital sex, in general. Um, Badger, that's kinda why I was so hostile to you when I first started posting on your blog. *bows head in shame*] but now I can see where they’re coming from. Why should a man get married to a woman, when he doesn’t even know if she’ll be willing to meet his sexual needs? Besides, “no-sex before marriage” [at least when it's applied to women] has reduced virginity to a high-stakes casino chip.

    When it comes to non-Christian dating scene commitment, I think men often feel obligated to commit to a woman – not because she’s their only option, but because they think she’d be offended/upset if they didn’t commit after a few dates. Good news for guys: women don’t care. I mean, until commitment is blatantly brought up, it’s assumed the relationship is in some-sort of romantic limbo. If a woman really likes you [like, head-over-heels in love], she’d bright up commitment first. If she doesn’t, and you find someone else – oh well, her loss…

  3. Thanks for including that post. Just to clarify, my reaction to that woman’s situation was due to the fact that the man “committed” to her after a week of dating. Eventually she revealed that she was someone who would not have sex with a man without commitment. That explained why he committed so soon. It’s a little alarming to me that she or any woman wouldn’t see that as questionable. Also alarming is that they don’t see that as manipulative in some way by using sex as some kind of bartering chip. Any man who indulges that either has few to know options due to lack of confidence or he commits so regularly and so frequently that it means nothing.

  4. Lavazza,

    That’s very interesting. Today we have to put it all on the table, nobody is safe assuming anything. Gotta have that DTR talk.

  5. criolle johnny

    “someone might be driven to get out after any point of sexual escalation, including full-on intercourse”
    You might also include “after full-on marriage”. Commitment is not. Full stop.
    Women STILL complain that men will not “commit” while women refuse to REMAIN committed, especially after marriage difficulties.

  6. “Eventually she revealed that she was someone who would not have sex with a man without commitment. That explained why he committed so soon. It’s a little alarming to me that she or any woman wouldn’t see that as questionable.”

    It’s pretty simple, people will find ways to scale the walls put between them and what they want. That’s why I don’t discuss with people “I’ll do X when Y box is checked,” there’s no way of knowing if they’re actually doing Y because they believe in it or because it’s what I told them had to be done. This is part of the problem with the “Rules” mindset, you’re really just making the man manipulate you back by finding ways to tell you what you want to hear so you’ll give him the next piece of what he wants.

    I’m not sure that’s the whole story with that case, though – the dude sounded like he was desperate for companionship, as was she. A couple of codependent people.

  7. ASF

    Great post (hope it was written on an Open Source platform of some kind). ;)

  8. ASF,

    Does dual booting count as a form of spinning plates?

  9. Well damn.

    What’s a guy who’s actually interested in an old-fashioned-for-life-until-death-do-us-part marriage supposed to do? Especially if he isn’t interested in sleeping around?

    How on earth, in today’s SMP, do you find a reliable partner with whom to build a lifelong marriage? Where are the quality women; the beautiful, intelligent, virtuous, feminine ones?

  10. deti

    This post should be required reading for manosphere regulars on how the current SMP works (how it ACTUALLY works). .

    +1 Lavazza. In my day, most of this was implied, but because of the nascent PC environment, many men believed women held all the power and a lot of men played into women’s frames. A lot of men simply offered commitment to get sex. Some women had a paradise of serial monogamy; where the LTR lasted as long as the woman wanted it to. . Most women were not down for sex without exclusivity. It was implicit: once clothes started coming off, you were expected not to get physical with anyone else.

  11. the fact of the matter is the SMP is purely a numbers game for men. one of my friends in NO explained it to me like this (he was a male model btw and did VERY well with women).

    “danny if i go out on a fri and sat night and i pull 10 numbers, i’ll probably only call 4-5. of those 4-5, i might end up on a date with TWO of those women, IF i’m lucky and i like her. there’s probably a 15% chance one of those two will end up a gf.

  12. modernguy

    This is nonsense because “monogamy” is not clearly defined. What does a woman sacrifice to “commit” to a monogamous relationship with a man nowadays? Nothing. Because it is understood that she reserves the right to dump your sorry ass as soon as a better prospect comes along. What is she risking? Nothing. She will trade you up on a whim, while you are forgoing opportunities. If you submit to this kind of agreement you are playing into their hand.

    If a woman is not committing for life she isn’t committing anything. If she had sex before she met you, you’ve been cheated on retroactively. Those are the hard realities.

  13. I very much appreciated Lavazza’s words “Back in my day this was all implicit. If someone was reprocicating enthustiastically, then you did not take or respond to any other contacts.” This is how my relationships have been most of my life– by chance really.

    I see where this can be problematic in todays SMP, because it has certainly changed. I see the value in keeping two in the kitty… not putting all your eggs in one basket, etc. I agree that it can improve one’s confidence, make him or her less needy, etc.

    I think it also gives people a chance to see the personalities and charachteristics of others, so that when they -do- find a unique and incredible man or woman… He or she will appreciate how lucky they are to have found a kindred spirit. It’s not easy.

    I do this. I’ll be talking to more than one man, until I find someone I want to be exclusive with and we are both in agreement. I’ve done the multi-dating thing, but I do NOT sleep with all of them. That would not be the right choice for me. I’d feel like I was trivializing one of the most intimate acts we can experience in life.

    I do not -expect- this same behaivor from a man I’m dating. If we are not exclusive, then he’s free to do as he pleases. However, I would hope that he would not pass out his naked intimate affections too readily either.

    After reading more about “spinning plates”– it’s not the theory it’s self that I find distasteful. What I find distasteful is the thought of it being handled poorly by -any- person fucking multiple people as though it’s a meaningless act and nothing more than a strategy.

  14. Lavazza

    The women were taking a bit of a chance, by not asking before having sex (or similar acts of intimacy). But it was not much of a risk, since only a small percentage of men already had something similar going on, and a smart woman could see if she was out of her league. The 6 to 15 women (depending on acts) I had before meeting my ex-wife at 24 (I was a late developer and had sex for the first time at 21) never asked any questions before engaging in said acts. 3/4 lost interest in me (same as or slightly lower SMV than me; okay, one might have had 0,5-1,0 on me) and I lost interest in 1/4 (women with 2-3 points lower SMV than me), within a couple of weeks maximum.

    Once I even took the high road a broke off with a girl, who I was quite sure wanted to have sex with me, because I could not see myself falling in love with her (she only had 1,0-1,5 lower SMV than me).

  15. Lavazza

    What I mean is that not knowing if the guy is seeing someone else is less a risk than seeing someone out of your league (which starts already at 1,0 -1,5 higher SMV).

  16. Lavazza

    My guess is at this time and place (Swedish university in the mid eighties) at any given time less than 1-2 % of men had pseudo-relations (FWB, FB, booty calls). About half were in LTRs and half were single. And in both cases it was easy to find out who was single and who was in a LTR, e.g. by asking class mates of the guy.

  17. deti

    Mr. Hopeful Romantic:

    I read your plaintive queries and your heartfelt blog. In my opinion, your goals are admirable but probably unrealistic. I say as a man who’s been (mostly) happily married for 15 years that I would recommend traditional legal marriage only after undertaking Dalrock’s wife interviews:

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/interviewing-a-prospective-wife-part-ii/

    Consider this:

    1. Love is not enough to sustain or even create a marriage. Nor is beauty, intelligence, virtue or femininity.

    2. The only things that will create and sustain a marriage are a small modicum of maturity, some good chemistry between the two of you, and a truckload of commitment.

    3. A lot of women you meet will be unfit for marriage. Most will lack either the maturity, the chemistry or the willingness to commit.

    4. You will not get everything you want in a wife. You might get most of it, but not all of it.

    5. She will never be everything you want all the time.

    6. Marriage is not constant hot sweaty sex.

  18. Thank you for the reply, deti. Realistic, if a bit grim.

    What would you say was the key quality, or key factor, key _something_ that has enabled you to be happily married for 15 years? What is something you wouldn’t have known (in my position, single and late-20s) that you wish you would have known then? In other words, what is my blind spot that I don’t even know I don’t see?

  19. deti

    Mr. Hopeful:

    This really isn’t an advice site. Badger can leave this up or delete this comment, whatever he wants.

    “What would you say was the key quality, or key factor, key _something_ that has enabled you to be happily married for 15 years?”

    I am in this until one of the following happens:
    1. She dies;
    2. I die; or
    3. There are valid grounds for divorce — adultery, abandonment, abuse, addiction. That’s it.

    “What is something you wouldn’t have known (in my position, single and late-20s) that you wish you would have known then?”

    The true nature of women. They don’t think, act, talk or reason like men.

    In intergender relationships, men think, women feel.

    If you want to know her, ignore what she says and watch what she does.

    She wants the best man she can get, and you’ll do until someone better comes along.

    Live your life according to your wants, needs and desires, not her reactions to them.

    Don’t fear her. Don’t be afraid to:
    1. Tell her no
    2. Tell her to STFD and STFU
    3. Make the rules
    4. Decide the plans
    5. Direct the relationship
    6. Lose her

  20. I’ve read quite a bit of Game literature (the book itself, Chateau), as well as sites like this one and Susan’s HUS. I understand how Game can be used to bed women, reject marriage entirely, and live the player lifestyle.

    I want to learn how to use the insights of Game/evolutionary psychology to achieve _my_ objective — i.e., lifelong, happy marriage. Surely that’s _possible_, even if it might difficult. I respect that different people have different objectives, but honestly bedding multiple women doesn’t appeal to me (you could say I’m a … Hopeful Romantic). I know what I want; I am not clear how to achieve my goals, given the current culture. I figure evolutionary psychology/Game can inform my decisions, but much of the literature is slanted toward either the player-lifestyle or people already married (Athol Kay’s blog, for example). I’m in the situation of trying to _find_ a quality girl and am wondering if there is anyway I can optimize my search procedure (which right now is: be the man I want to be, and hope the right girl comes along — it feels very RNG to me, which I don’t like).

    The culture, it would seem, actively discourages women from seeking to become caring wives and loving mothers, the sort of women who would stand behind their man and support him in his career, while managing the family and home. You can see women like this existing aplenty sixty years ago (Mary from It’s a Wonderful Life is an excellent example of a strong, loving woman with Character), but now it’s like a wasteland out there.

  21. deti

    Mr. HR:

    read Dalrock’s posts on Interviewing a Prospective Wife.

    dalrock.wordpress.com

  22. Deti-
    those last 2-3 comments from you are a post. lol. i might have to lift that.

  23. deti

    Here’s another thing I wish I’d known in my dating years:

    There will always be another woman.

    http://dannyfrom504.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/more-deti-goodness/

  24. Vest

    I disagree with your attitude about sex and commitment. By waiting for commitment (not marriage, yet exclusive monogamous dating after a few months courtship), my friends and I have been more successful at filtering out men.

  25. Pingback: Linkage: You know you want it. | Dalrock

  26. deti

    Vest:

    Your post reinforces Badger’s point. If you hold out for exclusive monogamy, you’ll screen for the men who also want that. But by the same token, many times you will also screen out the attractive alphas who don’t want exclusive monogamy. It’s all a tradeoff.

  27. @Vest

    By waiting for commitment (not marriage, yet exclusive monogamous dating after a few months courtship), my friends and I have been more successful at filtering out men.

    Commitment isn’t applicable to what you are describing, unless you are saying you and the man agree to stay together for a defined period of time, vs stay together until one of you doesn’t feel it any-more.

    But your point is still right. For women looking to have sex without being constrained by commitment, your strategy is very practical. Make him be the one who shows his investment upfront, through months of courtship before you 1) have sex with him and 2) agree to be exclusive. By him becoming deeply invested first you greatly raise the probability of shifting the bulk of the risk of heartbreak to him. You also can maximize the enjoyment which comes from having many men “court” you over your lifetime. This is an extremely pragmatic strategy for you when seeking sex without commitment.

    What Badger and others are saying is while this is to a woman’s advantage, it is to a man’s great disadvantage to play this way. Spending months “courting” a woman who is neither exclusive nor having sex with you is foolish for men.

  28. “Women would rather share an Alpha male than be saddled with a faithful loser.”

    Whenever I’ve overtly promoted this tenet of Game, said it aloud or tried to elaborate on it in an open forum in the most rational way I can muster, it’s invariably met with a chorus of empowered women and mangina sympathizers exclaiming that “only pitiful, low self-esteem bimbos would ever share a man!”

    The problem of course is that, in an overt context, they’re mostly correct. It stokes that psychological rush of indignation that women need like a drug. However, in a covert context, women’s behavior will bear out this truth with all too predictable regularity. Very few women are going to tolerate a man’s blatant philandering – only the most apex Alpha, controlling and/or famous men can pull this off (think Gene Simmons) – but in a casual, subversive, covert context women are all too willing to share a man they suspect has other options. In fact it makes his SMV all the more enticing; it makes them try harder to be one of his starters.

    Women don’t want a man to cheat, but they love a man who could cheat. Women want Men that other men want to be, and other women want to fuck.

  29. Pingback: Deti’s explains how to screen for a wife. « dannyfrom504

  30. SAGE

    “Commitment isn’t applicable to what you are describing, unless you are saying you and the man agree to stay together for a defined period of time, vs stay together until one of you doesn’t feel it any-more.

    But your point is still right. For women looking to have sex without being constrained by commitment, your strategy is very practical. Make him be the one who shows his investment upfront, through months of courtship before you 1) have sex with him and 2) agree to be exclusive. By him becoming deeply invested first you greatly raise the probability of shifting the bulk of the risk of heartbreak to him. You also can maximize the enjoyment which comes from having many men “court” you over your lifetime. This is an extremely pragmatic strategy for you when seeking sex without commitment.

    What Badger and others are saying is while this is to a woman’s advantage, it is to a man’s great disadvantage to play this way. Spending months “courting” a woman who is neither exclusive nor having sex with you is foolish for men.”

    What “investment” are you talking about here? Financial. I’m currently in an exclusive relationship, and neither of us spend much money. When we go out its to do free or very cheap stuff but most of our time is spent cooking together at each others’ homes and swimming, hiking, etc.

    The exclusivity has to do with 2 factors:

    1. STDs
    2. the “ick” factor over your partner sleeping with other people while simultaneously carrying on a relationship with you, and
    3. giving ourselves the time to get to know each other and possibly fall madly in love and get married

    We dated non-exclusively for a few months but then both decided that out of all the people we were dating, we liked each other the best, so why not just date each other?

    We are both very happy we made this decision. I’ve never been with an easier, more joyful man in my life. He’s just a blissful guy and that bliss is contagious.

    We’re not talking kids at this point but it wouldn’t surprise me if at some point soon we did.

  31. Charm

    I’m not gonna lie guys, I’d be a little offended if someone I was interested in was seeing other people. Im a very rational woman, and I know it would be foolish to assume he wasn’t but the irrational part of my brain doesn’t care about that. Id be irritated and turned-off. When I give someone my attention, I am giving it to THEM, and no one else. But I know, most people aren’t like this. *sigh*

    It seems there is really no room in the SMP for women like me. I wasn’t born in a time of traditional courtship, but I still want to be won. I want to be chased. I want a man to keep trying even when I resist. Why? Because it would make me feel good about myself. Like I was worthy of being chased. But…and let me say it again, BUT, I’d only give that attention to him. I like playing the cat mouse game. It creates a good level of tension in a relationship. The woman feels good when being chased and the man feels good when he’s finally caught her.

    I think it comes down to power and what you do with it. When a woman is being pursued by a man she has the power, or at least most of it. That being said, she should use it wisely. But more often than not women dont. Hell men dont either. Often people use, abuse, and throw the person away with the power they hold. I think trust also factors into it. A man should be able to trust that a woman won’t take advantage of him during courtship or initial pursuing but in today’s world its encouraged.

    I need to get out of this fantasy right? Accept the reality of the SMP?

    Im not gonna lie to you Badger, I can’t/won’t do it.

    I won’t discount myself to level the playing field or to increase my odds. I want to do a courtship dance with someone and take my time getting to know them before being exclusive and then having sex. I take ample time to circle around a person and look them over before I even allow myself to be pursued. Yes, allowed. If I don’t like someone, especially a cad, they will be shut down very very early. If I give someone the green light to pursue it means I like them over everyone else. Being that selective used to mean something to people. Now, I won’t know if I really matter to a man or if he’s “keeping his options open”, but I guess, neither would he.

  32. Bob

    I agree with Butterfly Flower. I just have to say, as a Christian man, I find it near impossible not to have sex with Christian women by like the 5 date. This is because they seem to expect it and reject you if you don’t make a move. I don’t get it. Most Christian women aren’t better than nonchristian women. I’m dating 3 Christian girls now and one is already inviting me to basically get drunk and stay the night (explicit invite) for the second freakin date. If I tell her no I want to wait, I’ll lose her altogether. It’s similar with the other women. Women want passion, and of you don’t provide it and escalate thy lose interest. It sucks because I just want a Christian wife and I get caught up in banging women who aren’t even my girlfriend yet. I don’t know how to go about this. It sucks being alone and on a carnal level it feels great to sleep with women, but I hate offending God and feel guilty about it. Do I just sleep with 1 then try to artfully escalate to marriage ASAP? Seems like a bad idea but anything beats sinning or being lonely and needy.

  33. Lavazza

    Charm: “If I give someone the green light to pursue it means I like them over everyone else. Being that selective used to mean something to people.”

    The SMP must really have changed over the past decades, if that is the case with men who are at the same SMV as you or lower. Ask some men if you are you are dating in “your league”.

  34. “Now, for women who want a monogamous relationship, I advise they execute the “no sex before monogamy” strategy. This solves the erroneous sex-for-commitment problem by encapsulating sex as an intrinsic part of a committed relationship, not as a parallel process that is bargained against commitment.”

    You give such great advice. Keep doing it. There are some who are actually listening.

  35. @SAGE

    What “investment” are you talking about here? Financial. I’m currently in an exclusive relationship, and neither of us spend much money. When we go out its to do free or very cheap stuff but most of our time is spent cooking together at each others’ homes and swimming, hiking, etc.

    I’m talking about emotional investment, but financial investment is often part of the deal as well. Courtship isn’t cheap. Men know this, women assume “it’s all equal in my relationship”. Of course. Yours is different. I’m talking about all of those other women.

    But the much bigger risk typically comes from the emotional investment, not the financial one. For example:

    giving ourselves the time to get to know each other and possibly fall madly in love and get married

    What if he falls madly in love with you and you not with him? Or vice versa? There is no “commitment” by either one of you to stay any longer than you want to. The odds are high that someone is going to end up hurt. The way to manage this risk is to let the other party be the one to fall harder and sooner. Women do this by making the man “show his love” before they have sex with him. Men do this by refusing to spend time, money, and energy on women they aren’t having sex with, and by being very careful not to become overly invested emotionally in any given woman.

    This is excellent practical advice for men and women engaging in uncommitted sex. Where it goes off the rails is when people start to mistake it for *moral* advice, because it simply isn’t. Much of this comes back to pretending commitment exists where is simply doesn’t, and then pretending that long term relationships are a sort of marriage.

  36. P Ray

    It can’t be an exclusive relationship until one person values it enough to say it is …
    and the other can accept the restrictions that come with an exclusive relationship.
    Others playing trade-up in relationships is what makes the person who is dumped, refuse to make a commitment. They’ve effectively wasted their time, restricted their choices, spent their money, overlooked other opportunities and damaged their own psyche in an attempt to adapt to the other person …
    with nothing to show for it, since they are quickly and easily discarded if the other has plenty of relationship experience.
    Which is why neither party in a relationship owes trust to the other … until both consider it serious and exclusive, and their behaviour reflects that.

  37. SAGE

    “What if he falls madly in love with you and you not with him? Or vice versa? ”

    That risk is always there. No pain, no gain. We could very easily go the poly route and do very well in that scene due to our looks and sex appeal, but its against our natures. Neither of us are all that interested in going out and meeting alot of people. Americans just aren’t that interesting to beginwith.

  38. Mike C

    It seems there is really no room in the SMP for women like me. I wasn’t born in a time of traditional courtship, but I still want to be won. I want to be chased. I want a man to keep trying even when I resist. Why? *****Because it would make me feel good about myself. Like I was worthy of being chased.******

    Charm, you seem cool and likable but for the guys this is EXACTLY the frame YOU DO NOT WANT TO PLAY INTO. Cultivate and develop your
    value, know you are the prize, flip the script, and make them chase. Truth is you’ll be better off in the long run if they feel like they’ve won you and not vice versa. And for the minority that really won’t go along with this, there is always NEXT:

    http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/next/

  39. Charm

    MikeC-

    Well if I was next-ed Ill take it. I am currently cultivating and developing my value, so when I get to the age that Im ready to settle down, Ill follow Athols advice and only date people who could be possible husband material. I didnt read the full post you linked, but I am not putting out by the third date. If that was expected of me and and man thought I was wasting his time, Id understand and he could move on. Like I said above, Im not discounting myself for anyone. Now, allow me to clarify more. I know a lot of people think of the dating phase as a time to “get to know” the other person, but Im not going on a date with a man until I decide I like him. I don’t meet people and determine in 10 mins if they are dateable or not. It could take days of contact with you or weeks. Hence my problem with dating.

    I like to take my time, but Im also not in the business of wasting others which is why I take my time. I would hate to be on a date and get a shock that I didnt see coming and have to sit there by obligation. I often try to stay very neutral to men and remain indifferent so that I can observe how they are from afar or quietly in a group setting. I know, its weird, but apparently a lot NTs do it. Anyhow once Ive determine there is the possibility for us to get along, I will engage him. Not hitting on him at all or giving any indication of interest, just in a very neutral way. The relationship will move slowly from there until I give the green light to go. Im very observant with someone I like and oddly very aware of them, you know, how they move, talk, react to things I say and others say, their behaviors etc.

    So If I gave someone the green light my research phase is probably damn near complete. Like I said, I dont like to waste peoples time or hurt any feelings. Im actually pretty good at being indifferent and cold to people upon first meeting them. Im not the overly flirty girl thats just a cock tease. Nah, if Im teasing its cause Im interested. Though, I say what I mean, and mean what I say and actually carry it out in my actions, so I understand male weariness to it.

  40. Charm

    Let me also state that during my observation phase, dating other women wouldn’t bother me it would just aid my research LoL.

  41. Candide

    Sounds like it’s all about you having total control of every stage of dating. Too much “fun” for most men to handle, except the most desperate in your social circle (as men from outside have no chance).

    Might work if you’re among the top 1% of beautiful girls though.

  42. so when I get to the age that Im ready to settle down, Ill follow Athols advice and only date people who could be possible husband material.

    If your goal is to get married eventually (and you said WHEN, not IF), then the time to “only date people who could be possible husband material” is right now.

    Otherwise, logically, you are intentionally including people that you know are not husband material (only fling-worthy), and that works against your stated long-term goal.

  43. Might work if you’re among the top 1% of beautiful girls though.

    No, this no compromises dating/relationship style works for many more women, i’d say more like the top 20%. There are tons of desperate, and even fairly attractive manginas and white knights out there who will pursue and court as they been taught…

  44. @Poester99

    No, this no compromises dating/relationship style works for many more women, i’d say more like the top 20%. There are tons of desperate, and even fairly attractive manginas and white knights out there who will pursue and court as they been taught…

    There is no such thing as a desperate attractive mangina.

  45. Pingback: Happy Birthday to the Badger Hut, Part 2: Best Posts | The Badger Hut

  46. Pingback: How should Christian men respond to slutty women? Marry them! | Dalrock

  47. MuleChewingBriars

    “Might work if you’re among the top 1% of beautiful girls though.”

    Or if you were capable of showing genuine passion and attraction to the low-value male rabble who would persist under this scenario. Guys with more than one or two options are going to head elsewhere. Fortunately for Charm, in their late ‘teens and early twenties, that is only about 30-40% of them.

    There are a lot, a lot, of unattractive guys. A lot depends on how catholic Charm is in her affections.

  48. Anonymous Reader

    Mr. HR, Deti has given you some very good advice, particularly with regard to Dalrock’s “interviewing a prospective wife”. However, before getting to that stage, one must actually meet women. In order to meet women at all, a man needs to be visible to them. This blog by Badger has a number of useful postings on things like cold approaches. A man who is confident, comfortable with the idea that he has worth as a human being, will be more likely to be visible to women.

    A man who is visible to women then can engage them in conversation and discover things. Bear in mind that you are the prize, and that many women don’t measure up to your standards, so you should act that way. You must believe it, that you are a worthwhile human being, and that there are some number of women (more than one! Much more than one!) who would be fit to marry you. I don’t mean only in an intellectual, talking-to-yourself-in-the-mirror way, but also at the “gut” level.

    Since you are a marriage minded Christian, obviously you should select venues appropriate to the kind of women you want to find. If you are serious minded in some way, find the groups of people who are that way – if you are fond of classical music, then don’t just go to concerts, find the “concert guild” or whatever support group exists for such things and socialize with those people, for example.

    Do not succumb to hypothetical one-itis, the notion that there’s one and only one “soulmate” out there. Life is full of compromises, and no one woman is going to fulfill all your desires and needs – that’s what Dalrock’s interview process ought to help you with, determining a short list of “nevers”, another short list of “must haves” and then you can not worry so much about the rest.

    I see too many men in their late 20′s to early 30′s who sell themselves short. Having been shunted to one side in the meat-market early 20′s SMP, they get a subconscious feeling that they are inferior humans who don’t really deserve much. It is ironic, because men at that age have much higher ‘marriage market value’ than many of the women in that same age group, thanks to the meat market stage of life.

    Finally, Game is a tool, it is inherently amoral. It’s not moral, it’s not immoral, it is applied psychology. You should be honing your Game all the time – cold approach followed by whatever version of cocky/funny you prefer can be practiced in any coffee shop. If you mess up an approach on a woman you probably won’t see again, nothing is lost, but you learn. Also practice the not so common art of conversation, and use it in whatever church you go to. In time as you raise your visibility, women will want to talk with you, and having your Game polished up & basic conversation skills will make it that much easier to gently interview women. It’s possible to conduct at least part of Dalrock’s interview with a woman at some social event without her realizing it – and that can only help.

    You can find a good woman to marry, but you have to be willing to work at it in a useful, constructive manner.

  49. i like your blog is have nice posts i like it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s