We recently had an out-of-theme content submission in our main sub. There were a lot of comments (before it was removed eventually) in our sub about how this girl was just being duplicitous. But as Dalrock points out in the article, almost all of the discourse we saw in our sub and even the the best response in the OP operated under the presumption of romantic love and the context of expected sexuality in such a situation.

Most of the comments labeled this situation as a dual mating strategy, but as we are about to see, this is not so cut and dry. The object of this post will be to post several choice quotes from hand-picked articles to highlight that the issue is not (just) the girl but the mentality and the social convention behind it.

Link:

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/lovestruck/

There is a new sexual morality which modern Christians and non Christians alike have embraced in the place of biblical marriage, and it isn’t centered around overt hedonism. The new sexual morality is centered around romantic love. What nearly all modern Christians have done is place romantic love above marriage. Instead of seeing marriage as the moral context to pursue romantic love and sex, romantic love is now seen as the moral place to experience sex and marriage. This inversion is subtle enough that no one seems to have noticed, but if you look for it you will see it everywhere.

Lifetime marriage, with separate defined roles for husband and wife and true commitment is what makes sex and romantic love moral in the biblical view. In our new view, romantic love makes sex moral, and the purpose of marriage is to publicly declare that you are experiencing the highest form of romantic love. Thus people now commonly refer to a wedding as “making our love official”.

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/but-we-were-in-love/

Romantic love is now seen as the moral place to experience sex and marriage, instead of marriage being seen as the moral context to pursue romantic love and sex.

Notice comment from a guy:

Women are the gatekeepers of sex, and men are the gatekeepers of commitment. I refuse to give commitment to a woman who did not guard her virtue. She gave it away to other men, and I find it unattractive. No judgment implied. Just not attracted to women with a past.

And the response from a "Christian" woman:

So a woman’s value is only as good as her virtue? And if she loved another and expressed that love physically with that person before you, she’s too unattractive and not worthy of your attention, attraction, commitment?

As Dalrock points out,

Only in a world of sex outside of marriage is there a need to distinguish between gradients of romantic love, where some forms are more pure and authentic than others. The modern view is that women especially need to experience falling in and out of love a sufficient number of times to identify “the real thing”. If she finds “true love” the new paradigm asserts, she will remain bonded to him for life. By definition of course if she later finds herself “trapped” and not wanting to keep her commitment, this is prima facie proof that what they had wasn’t true love after all. Marriage in this context is just a public assertion of true love, and there is no concept of commitment outside of romantic love. Because it is love and not marriage which now confers morality upon sex, sex outside of marriage is now considered moral so long as you are in love. Thus we have the modern harlot’s defense/anthem “but we were in love!”.

Matter of fact, Dalrock has two more articles that go even deeper into this issue.

Link 1:

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/a-ltr-is-not-a-mini-marriage/

The term Long Term Relationship is profoundly misleading in that there is no commitment and no term. The preferred female form of promiscuity is serial relationships with men who are invested in her. This way she keeps her options open to jump to a better man should the opportunity present itself, while still securing investment from the man. If she isn’t able to secure investment from the man she finds most attractive, plan b is to obtain sex from the most attractive man (or men) possible while securing investment from another man. Whichever course she chooses, like the male strategy she hopes to have her cake and eat it too. Note that her ideal form of promiscuity is exactly what LTR defines. The idea that promiscuous women have one night stands while good girls only have sex with their boyfriends is incredibly misguided.

The hookup script reverses the sexual norm; the pair becomes sexual first, before emotional intimacy or a relationship is established. It is sex first, consider a relationship later. There isn’t a promise of commitment or exclusivity. This isn’t an accident, it was a deliberate move by feminists as they drove the sexual revolution. Who here doesn’t recall the feminists screeching you don’t own me just because we had sex!

But not only are many people mis-characterizing LTRs as mini marriages, but they often are thinking of marriage as a sort of beefed up LTR. This is precisely why so many people (mostly women, but some men) feel perfectly justified terminating a marriage because the feeling is no longer there, or they think they can get a better offer.

Link 2:

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/the-boyfriend-invention/

When people consider the sexual revolution over the last 100 to 150 years, the invention of the concept of “boyfriend” tends to be discounted.

From the point of view of the feminine imperative, something had to give. How was a Victorian woman supposed to feed the hypergamous beast which lay beneath her prim and proper exterior? An entirely new creation was needed, something which previously had lacked even a name. Between 1895 and 1900, that name was created. Over time this new term bridged the gap between the concepts of illicit lover and husband. It solved a number of problems for the feminine imperative, providing three essential benefits which previously were only available in (once and done) marriage. Inventing the concept of boyfriend created a socially approved mechanism for women to obtain/experience the following three things without having to choose/commit to one single man: Sex (recently). Romance/love. Status (having a man publicly invested in her).

When looking at the modern SMP, the introduction of the hookup culture is what is most striking to most observers. However, the innovative concept of boyfriend still plays a central role in providing the essential stamp of propriety the feminine imperative requires. In fact, the boyfriend is the glue which holds the entire process together. Even modern divorce culture can be seen as an attempt by women to expand the class of boyfriend. This in fact is the natural state feral women seem to want to push to from either direction. In the case of hookups and dates, women will attempt push men they retain interest in up into the boyfriend position. In the case of a husband, feral women are pushing them down back towards the (ex) boyfriend position. Note that even here, the position of husband is still maintained as actual husbands are demoted to boyfriends. This is because there is still greater status associated with the concept of lifetime monogamy. Once she finds “the one”, she still wants to reserve the full status of wife for herself.

As Dalrock points out, in traditional societies, you were either a wife (who was married to her husband and dedicated to him) or a whore who had no chance at marriage. The social convention of the "boyfriend" was created to allow for women to enjoy the best of both worlds before finally settling down. What started as a small step has now become the norm. Notice also the fact that courting in the traditional societies was used as a way to vet women and not spent seducing them and bedding them. Notice also the point that how after the normalization of this concept husbands are also just glorified, government approved boyfriends.

In regards to the situation we are discussing here, the confusion about the status of the relationship wrecked havoc for both the girl and the guy. Because of the ambiguity surrounding the relationship in the OP, people are left to assume whatever they would assume by default.

We do not know whether the "couple" in discussion here were in a commitment oriented, marriage minded relationship. We do not know if the girl ever told him that she wants to wait until marriage. We do not know if the guy ever agreed to it. As Dalrock clearly mentions it, this ambiguity is by design. The only winner here is the co-worker (assuming that he will not get metood). He was at the right place, at the right time and knew how to say the right things. The thing to discuss here is not who was in the wrong, but the effect a given society can have on a girl, even if she starts out (relatively) innocent.

This couple should have married as soon as they could have, if that was ever their intention. And they would have been, if not for the laws and the societal norms that actively prevent this these days. That would have solved his issue and her reservation. But right now, we do everything ass backwards. We don't think that commitment is the prerequisite to sex. We think the opposite. As Dalrock clearly lays out, LTRs are nothing but glorified, extended hookups and that is the current societal norm and practice. It does not matter how pure as an individual you are, it will be a tough uphill battle if you are against a culture which is designed for your failure.

As we saw in last week's post, women want to secure maximum commitment from men by only providing minimum commitment themselves. As Dalrock has pointed out, women's preferred form of sexual strategy is serial monogamy, which is cock carousel without the stigma. And thanks to hypergamy, they expect the quality of their partners to go up every iteration. Women's outlook on relationships can be easily compared to men's outlook on jobs. As you can see, the popular cliche that men are afraid of commitment is only half true. Men are afraid of committing to women who are, themselves, unwilling to commit or are unworthy of commitment or both. As always, be aware. Be safe. Don't give your commitment to the unworthy.