You Can Never Trust a Woman Who Doesn't Have Intense Lust for You Nearly Immediately

Feeling_Ad_1034 · 2025-02-05T17:17:15+00:00

I think it’s great advice to only commit to a woman who felt physical attraction to you initially… but self control is also valuable. Just because she’s mentally biting her lip doesn’t necessarily mean she’s going to give it up on the first date.

Get to know people and vet them. Get to know a lot of people. This will help your judgement.

No-Rough-7390 · 2025-02-05T21:32:05+00:00

A couple where the two parties are still hot for one another is going to make overcoming the hurdles of life infinitely easier than if even one is lukewarm from the jump.

petellapain · 2025-02-05T20:15:44+00:00

The fact that most men understand is that nearly 95% of them will never experience this level of immediate lust from any woman. Men don't have the leverage to select from women who are hot for them. Women are physically neutral or repulsed by the vast majority of men, leaving only financial or emotional reasons to get involved. This is why the entire dynamic is skewed heavily in favor of women

KayRay1994 · 2025-02-05T20:53:45+00:00

“The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.”

““There is in fact no analogy between that [animal] group and the patriarchal human family; to equate the two is a proceeding for which there is no justification. The patriarchal family in the form in which it exists today is a juridic institution. Whatever external and superficial similarities there may be in the constitution of the human and of the animal family, there is one profound and fundamental difference. The patriarchal family is founded upon the supremacy of the male as ‘pater familias,’ as head of the family. This is not the case in the animal family. it is, on the contrary, entirely the product and manifestation of the female’s instincts; she, and not the male, is its head. We may occasionally find the male employed in foraging for the brood and for the mother, while the latter is lying quiescent in charge of her eggs or brood; but there is nothing in those appearances to justify us in regarding the animal family as patriarchal; on the contrary, the conduct of the group is entirely determined not by the male but by the female.”

AT LEAST use the right quote. A quick google search will tell you he was talking about observing behaviours between animals species - not humans.

G4M35 · 2025-02-05T22:02:57+00:00

So, in a way, you are advocating the effectiveness of "Love at first sight". IMO there's something about that.

I would not go as far as never trust someone, if there was no love at first sight; but surely if it takes some "convincing" most of the time it's a marriage/relationship of convenience than ... well, love at first sight.

During a strange time of my life I found myself single (divorced) and living in one of the premier suburban zip codes in the US and... most of the marriages there were marriages of convenience, and IMO the vast majority were dead bedrooms since the wife was more interested in the value of their home and keeping up with the johnses, than into sex. At the same time there were also a good number of affairs going on, but not the majority.

It's 2025, I am not sure how pervasive love and trust (2 separate items, not 1 combo) are.

I am the lucky guy in the room, my young, beautiful, and incredible woman that I call wife fell in love with me at first sight (her words, not mine), and years later she's still madly in love with me; and I trust her 1,000,000 %.

rustlerhuskyjeans · 2025-02-05T17:20:54+00:00

As a reserved woman married to a reserved man k adore, neither of us are ever going to passionately kiss in front of others. That is for us in private. Why do we need to display our love and just for others for it to be real?

LapazGracie · 2025-02-05T17:25:05+00:00

This is akin to saying.

"If they don't offer you $500,000 remote work at home during whatever hours you want". Dump that job and immediately look for another.

That is great and all. If you can manage to find a $500k a year remote job that doesn't micromanage your hours. That is fantastic. But it's not reality for most humans.

Finding some woman who is instantly lusting for you and also happens to be a good potential life partner for you. Is not very common for men either. People following your advice would just end up single all the damn time.

You have to remember also males and females select partners differently.

Males primarily on physical appearance. Which is why this instant lust is far more common among males towards females than vice versa. We don't need much beyond your face and body to know if we want to fuck you.

Females select differently. They too can be enamored by your appearance. But they also weigh in things like status and money. Which means a lot of guys who are not super great looking can still find quality partners. In fact guys who can get girls on looks alone are quite rare. You often need to be a combination of factors to get quality chicks.

So yeah this is terrible advice that will only harm people listening to it.

Sweet_Service_9752 · 2025-02-05T18:27:51+00:00

A woman that lust for you initially can lose attraction to you fast too and a guy she has no lust for initially she can fall deep in love with him over time. THEY ARE NOT US

mobjack · 2025-02-05T17:30:29+00:00

This is terrible advice that will make you insecure and sabotage your relationships.

Attraction can grow over time. As she falls in love, she will want you more and more. That is how normal healthy relationships work.

fucksiclepizza · 2025-02-05T18:42:42+00:00

How are women guaranteed sexual fulfilment when so many dudes are completely selfish in the sack, ever heard of the orgasm gap, that's not sexual fulfilment.

Also that's not really how women's sexuality works, with men its basically an on/off switch, women don't really work the same way.

Hellarouge · 2025-02-05T17:56:21+00:00

I don’t really find packaging particularly sexy. My last relationship went:

Friends for 6 months > started to kinda have feels > kissed one day > 8 years of sex at least 3 times a day unless one of us was out of town. 🫠

awakening_7600 · 2025-02-05T18:07:43+00:00

TLDR: It's a bad thing when a woman isn't into you in bed. Cool story, bro but I extend a better offer.

What if you actually can meet someone who isn't unboundly controlled by her urges? If you meet someone who has that, you will deal with a bigger problem.

Recklessly spending money. Recklessly pursuing short-term pleasure. That includes her reckless pursuit of sex with you and whomever she finds interesting.

To have a woman undisciplined is a burden and while us horndog guys love a good time (and my post history shows it), there is a time where sex isn't first priority all the time. It's just the way of life.

Maybe, if you can find a chick who isn't a headache to be around whenever you aren't fucking, perhaps that's a good lady to make a relationship out of.

Madonna-whore complex. You can't expect to turn a hoe into a housewife and ebbs and flows within sexuality are quite normal in long term monogamy.

JustGeminiThings · 2025-02-05T18:28:29+00:00

I think the wording of the OP is just florid and dramatic. Of course desire is important, and good sex is important. If there's physical attraction, chemistry, and no red flags - why shouldn't it be on? That doesn't mean she doesn't want you if she doesn't ravish you on sight! It also doesn't mean that she just really might be in the mood - and you are only part of that equation.

Levels of passion and spontaneous desire change not only over time but day to day. This is just super melodramatic with a helping of fantasy.

Solondthewookiee · 2025-02-05T17:29:05+00:00

No, this seems like the type of thing people who haven't dated much would believe.

Briffault’s Law: "Women are guaranteed sexual fulfillment. Because she has an abundance of options she can afford to use and discard men on a whim. The female determines all the conditions of the family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the man, no such association takes place."

I prefer this quote from Briffault:

Briffault clarifies that this rule applies only to nonhuman animals, and not to humans: “There is, in fact, no analogy between the animal family and the patriarchal human family. The former is entirely the product of the female’s instincts, and she, not the male, is the head

Intense lust does not equate to deep or long term attraction. Gradually built attraction is not any less valid.

KissMyAsthma-99 · 2025-02-06T00:01:53+00:00

This is probably the single most accurate thing ever posted here.

I've been married nearly 20 years, and the more times passes, the more I realize how absolutely critical lust is. If you two don't share a deep and abiding lust for one another, the chances that things will work plummet.

Well said.

toasterchild · 2025-02-05T18:01:18+00:00

A lot of people who feel intense lust our other intense emotions very quickly also tend to move on to new people very quickly. Extremes tend to be bad in 2 directions not just one.

PB-French-Toast-9641 · 2025-02-05T18:09:36+00:00

Because she has an abundance of options she can afford to use and discard men on a whim. The female determines all the conditions of the family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the man, no such association takes place

I fail to see how this doesn't apply to both parties if you can keep your dick in your pants man

If she doesn't want to passionately make love to you for hours sometimes, kiss you in front of others, proud to show you off, then she doesn't desire you physically, and in the regard you're completely disposable to her.

Interesting hypothetical: what if she didn't do the above but has shown that she's willing to risk her life for you? Willing to commit crimes for you? Willing to give up her friends/family for you?

PermissionUpstairs12 · 2025-02-05T21:00:56+00:00

Wrong, wrong wrong. Unlike men, women can go from seeing a platonic male friend to being a romantic relationship and do so frequently. Because respect, sincerity, and being there for people are sexy traits. Those men fuck AND get 'the good women".

Good god "Women don't know what they want" - yeah we do. As individuals. Just like you.

And when a man doesn't want to get to know a woman as a PERSON (ie: friendship), we know immediately.

Because it's so rare for men to remain "respectful, sincere, solid" platonic friends LONG TERM (without attempting sex at least once) that they're snatched up immediately by the women the Manosphere think they deserve.

Not all women like sensitive men. Not all women like emotions and women's murder channels. (OK, fine. 100% of us watch ID for all the murder on "women's channels'), not all women like tall men. Not all men like trad wives.

The Manosphere could have been a safe space for men yo really tall about these issues without blaming groups that have never held legislative or systemic power once in American History.

The reason those men get angrier and angrier at women is because they've been told by the Patriarchy that women love babies & marriage, muscles & tall men, and you MUST adhere to these beliefs that are completely irrational and easily disproven by see above facts, so when the women in his life (and the dream-life the Patriarchy promises if he just find that woman who adheres to the rules).

But those women don't make you happy bc none of the stuff Patriarchy demands...actually works since all men and women are different.

Yet those men come back when the relationship is over to be validated by the Manosphere that it's the woman, the Nanny State, & Feminism causing all their woes.

This perpetuates a cycle of reinforced misery, rejection, and failure that only drives men deeper into examining everything but themselves.

Women are like 89% of buyers of self-help, wellness, (etc) books, vids, programs, and therapies bc Weare socialized that we must CONSTANTLY improve or we are worthless.

So when it comes to bettering yourselves...even misogynists should be like "they're literally the experts in finding legit self-help that's not about men, women, or sex. It's about becoming more emotionally mature, stable, and usually if nothing else...you learned something about yourself or you learned what does NOT work for you.

Both of those are a win. Think about how bizarre it is that Patriarchy tells men that examining ALL facets of their brains is harmful or not useful.

While working out and earning financial security are part of bettering yourself, that's never what women mean.

And unless the Manosphere has gotten you the self-love, sense of community, and a few great dates, at least...

Maybe you should reconsider where you get your advice and say to other men "So since women are literal experts at self-help, should we maybe try that sometime?"

But the rest of your post is the same regurgitated nonsense from 2005 that was never a science and still isn't a science...and if it worked, there wouldn't be a Manosphere.

one_little_victory_ · 2025-02-05T22:01:14+00:00

Have you tried seeing women as people? As human beings like yourself, instead of robots whose mission it is to perform emotional labor to make you feel desired and validated?

False_Crew_6066 · 2025-02-05T22:39:51+00:00

It’s utterly bizarre to me how many men I see predicting the behaviour of women as if the perceptions they have from their limited life experiences are the ‘answer’. Pay attention, listen, and attune to women. That’s how you get to know them. While there maybe some overlap in pattern, each one is unique, there is not a source code, complexity of the human psyche is infinite.

RecognitionSoft9973 · 2025-02-06T02:11:25+00:00

This is just another attempt to minimize the way women feel attraction and replace it with how men feel attraction. The idea that a woman would be suddenly overcome by lust upon seeing a compatible man sounds like medieval hogwash (because in the olden days men believed women were sexual deviants and men were pure beings corrupted by them). It’s more likely that as a woman gets to know a man better, she’ll start to feel more and more attracted to him physically and sexually. It’s a slow burn. Nothing wrong with that.

Suspicious_Glove7365 · 2025-02-05T17:29:57+00:00

Damn, guess I better tell my boyfriend of 3 years that I no longer want to have sex with him all the time because it took me a month to realize how much I was attracted to him.

EulenWatcher · 2025-02-05T17:28:02+00:00

This is way too extreme. I’d rephrase it to “If you don’t have good chemistry, you shouldn’t date”, but chemistry can take time to develop. Some people just don’t feel any immediate attraction, and it doesn’t depend on your attractiveness level. It’s just not the way their sexuality works. Some are more conservative or traditional leaning, so they won’t be making out with you on the first date even if they do want it.

relish5k · 2025-02-05T18:11:29+00:00

next episode: women are mean because they don’t go with nice guys (like me)

although i essentially agree - if the woman isn’t all over you then, at least within her own subjective range of expressing desire (some women are less horny than others) then the relationship is not on solid ground.

for one, i could never make love for hous. nor would i want to. ouch. and who has the time?

attendquoi · 2025-02-05T17:09:32+00:00

I gotta disagree. Lusting after someone doesn't make them indisposable. I can't think of a more disposable man than one who I only want to fuck. That's not enough to keep him around.

Environmental_Day558 · 2025-02-05T17:32:14+00:00

A woman could instantly find you attractive lust after you in her mind, but would reserve that until she's gotten to know you and is more comfortable around you, and trusts you. Is that still a red flag?

MyUpSeemsDown · 2025-02-05T20:08:32+00:00

Anytime a post claims that there's only one type of way that a person is acceptable and right, it needs to be immediately discarded and disregarded. It shows lack of experience, nuance and frankly lack of insight.

One doesn't need worlds experience to know that people are different, it's one of the first things one ideally learns as they grow up and socialize in school. People are different, they act differently, they have different approaches, views, beliefs in life, and it all manifests in different types of way in all fronts of any actionable situations, including relationships and social interactions. Anyone who is intellectually honest would admit it's a variable that isn't 100% right or wrong/predictable at any given time.

LilacMists · 2025-02-05T22:25:45+00:00

Let’s say she is passionate at first, then you agree to a relationship with her and one month later she’s gone back to more regular sex once she’s got you locked down. You need to bail now before it gets too difficult to leave her.

Men value sex more than anything else a woman can provide - you’re encouraging men to leave, even if they’re getting “regular sex.”

If she doesn’t want to passionately make love to you for hours sometimes, kiss you in front of others, proud to show you off, then she doesn’t desire you physically, and in the regard you’re completely disposable to her.

Ironic considering you just told men to bail, but okay. Are you aware that women care about other things than just having an orgasm?

You’re probably going to have a really hard time winning any arguments from this point forward.

This is immature. No one should be angling to “win any arguments,” especially in a premeditated way. In a relationship, and especially in a marriage, you’re a team. Also if you think you’re going to lose every argument because your woman isn’t slobbering over your body, you really don’t understand women or how arguments work

Women can sometimes love your personality and what you do for them emotionally. If you have very long engaging conversations where you deeply connect on a spiritual and mental level, you can be loved for your personality by a woman and not the physical. Don’t count on this, if after 6 months you’ve told all your stories and this doesn’t continue, she doesn’t see you as a real emotionally connected friend.

Oh good, I’m glad you recognize women can value what men bring to the table other than a hot bod. Kinda weird that you think anyone who is “deeply connected on a spiritual and mental level” would just toss it away once you run out of past stories, but hey maybe that’s your thing

she’ll never love the real you. When you lose your job and stop providing what you can give her, this is why majority of divorces are filed by women.

I promise you the majority of divorces are not filed because the man lost his job. The vast majority of households are duel income, so the men aren’t providing. Also I’m curious what you think “loving the real you” looks like. You seem to be implying it means loving the person’s body, since you’re insisting women must be hot and heavy to be considered worthy of staying with/wanting to stay.

Rocketskate69 · 2025-02-05T17:38:48+00:00

This is an extremely unhealthy mentality to have. A stranger isn’t gonna look at you as something depicted in a movie. If you think real life is a movie you are pretty removed from reality.

obviouslymoose · 2025-02-06T00:21:51+00:00

Mmmmm I’ve had terrible sex with men who I was like super attracted to at first.

Joyful-Adsorption · 2025-02-06T05:06:34+00:00

Trust is earned.

Lust is just hormones.

I can't believe there was 8 paragraphs of this in the original post. You can make something sound as technical as you can write it, but it doesn't make it sound science.

Work on building trust with women. Don't be looking for someone who instantly lusts for you. You WILL come off as a complete creep.

SilverSaan · 2025-02-06T14:06:24+00:00

Some people just dislike sex at all, dude, it's not really a secret, as a dude I've never felt lust for any of my partners, be them female (1) or male(2)

binkerfluid · 2025-02-07T18:21:11+00:00

The woman who had the most of this intense lust for me was the most cheating, backstabbing woman I have ever met.

Fancy-Statistician82 · 2025-02-05T17:17:25+00:00

Wow.

Particularly the title about not even being able to trust a woman who doesn't have intense lust for you nearly immediately.

Several (most, nearly all) of my year long high school and college relationships were friends first.

Now that I'm married, I must red-facedly report that the longer I work with a man, the more likely I am to have a wet dream about him. Not that I would ever act upon it to endanger my marriage or his, but being around the men I respect for months and years seems to provoke my reptile brain to want to try them on for size in the land of Morpheus. No cheating has ever or will ever happen, it's just a thing that most men become more attractive the longer I'm around them, so long as they're displaying good personality traits and intelligence.

Gravel_Roads · 2025-02-05T17:10:02+00:00

I hope you’re not also one of those “women are shallow and should lower their standards and try dating ORDINARY JOE!” types

Most_Vermicelli9722 · 2025-02-05T19:12:04+00:00

I never felt lust. Ever. I can be around attractive people and I see that they are pretty but I don’t feel anything I could call lust. I don’t get excited from looking at someone.

I’m 31. If I wasn’t married I would be called a post wall old hag who’s standards are too high. But now I also can’t be trusted because I got married young without getting aroused without a good reason?

Women can’t win.

And no, women aren’t guaranteed sexual fulfillment. Women are guaranteed sex that doesn’t equal fulfillment. Men are guaranteed fulfillment if they have sex.

DecantsForAll · 2025-02-05T19:14:06+00:00

I wasn't attracted to my ex-gf for at least a year after the first time I saw her, but that changed completely. Also, you can quickly lose attraction to someone. So, no, this is stupid incel theorizing.

ZoneLow6872 · 2025-02-05T17:42:20+00:00

How many of these posts are made by young boys who have never in their lives dated any girls? Like, what even is this premise?

Something I see a lot of by men is the idea of hanging around the woman they desire, even as a friend, in the hopes that she will wake up one day and declare her love. That's the opposite of this post.

I casually knew my husband around college before we dated; he was in fact married to someone else, we had a few classes together. Honestly I never really gave him much thought. Years later, he was divorced and we connected and here we are 30+ years later. Instant panty-melting doesn't mean anything.

ThatBitchA · 2025-02-05T20:29:39+00:00

she doesn't express near immediate total lust for you

I don't think I've ever expressed "immediate total lust" for anyone.

isn't obsessed with you physically on some level

What?

Y'all make up the most unhinged expectations and then get mad that you're still single.

MongoBobalossus · 2025-02-05T17:25:25+00:00

And you know this how? Aren’t you a virgin with little to no relationship experience?

Asleep-Guide-4285 · 2025-02-05T18:07:10+00:00

This is such a transactional and extreme way to look at this issue. If you'd just said, "good chemistry is essential to a successful relationship", I'd agree with you. But this is filled with unhelpful black and white takes and "facts" about things that are inherently subjective

Autumn_Forest_Mist · 2025-02-05T17:37:20+00:00

What about asexual or low-libido women?

DragaodaAlvorada · 2025-02-05T17:47:42+00:00

That's not how dating actually works. Women can become more interested in you after learning more about you, and that includes sexual interest.

Of course, you want your partner to find you attractive, but that doesn't mean that they'll show how attractive they find you at the start or that the attraction they feel will be immutable.

0kayz00mer · 2025-02-05T18:12:00+00:00

Near immediate intense lust is 100% sexual and women will only feel it for an extremely small minority of men. In a dating app context, OkCupid cofounder Christian Rudder examined this phenomenon and used IQ as analogy to explain it:

Sex appeal isn’t something commonly quantified like this, so let me put it in a more familiar context. translate this plot to IQ, and you have a world where the women think 58 percent of men are brain damaged

So at first glance of dating profiles women in general already perceive 58% men as utterly ugly. You still got mildly ugly, average, above average, mildly attractive, and attractive before you get anywhere near the realm of “near immediate intense lust”. Dating apps are different than real life, sure, but the phenomena we experience on them and their underlying causes don’t just magically disappear in real life. A big part of why dating apps are the way they are is because of how women naturally react to and perceive an abundance of options in a shallow setting.

Near immediate feelings of lust are just not a realistic feeling for women to rely on for monogamous relationships. Just because a woman didn’t get the primal urge to fuck the gigachad genes out of you at first glance doesn’t mean she can’t still fall in love with you, nor should you distrust a woman solely because of that.

modidlee · 2025-02-05T18:21:23+00:00

I’d say “you can never trust a woman” period lol. I have experienced women having a strong enough attraction to me at first sight that they walk up to me in the middle of a store and start talking. And I’ve also experienced the attraction that isn’t instant but grows over time after getting to know each other. In both cases I’d say nothing stops that woman from also feeling intense attraction for other men she sees and meets. And tbh the women that have had that intense immediate attraction for me were usually the ones that I’d find out were also seeing other guys at the same time they’re seeing me. That’s why I tell guys be careful what you wish for when they say they want women to be so attracted to them that they approach first. I’ve experienced that and those women often tend to be the most promiscuous and sexually driven.

henrycatalina · 2025-02-05T18:21:39+00:00

This is very true. That last part about sex and goodbye is exactly what my wife did many decades ago when she was moving 1000 miles away as my girlfriend. It was her next want and need to move to a particular city. She already had options lined up. One last sex filled weekend.

She did the same thing to her ex when starting to date me.

She did have and continued to have that lust, but she remained open to using that if better options were there. After marriage, the desire lasted many decades except some low points.

The test is the man setting boundaries and, if needed, ending the relationship. If she comes back, you might have a keeper. One must get both desire and loyalty to your principles.

Knight-Bishop · 2025-02-05T20:10:50+00:00

I’m extremely impressed, OP: for once, someone in this forum that actually knows what the fuck they are talking about.

Yep— you are absolutely correct.

Nothing else matters than what you wrote: at whatever the costs, you have to find women, who have extreme lust towards you.

It is what gives you some kind of leverage over a broad when you are a man.

Because remember— the vast majority of time— especially in the West— women have leverage over men.

But because it isn’t easy for a woman to find a man that she lusts after (who actually wants to seriously be with her in return), when she DOES find this “rare” gem, SHE is much more likely to be the “SIMP” in the relationship.

The dynamic shifts in your favor.

I have been heavily vetting women for genuine sexual attraction desire for 16 years.

It’s what men need to be concerned with doing in all of their romantic dealings with women.

The problem men have is that they have a very difficult time figuring out how to vet women for sexual attraction.

This type of stuff is what separates the REAL subject matter experts from the cons/frauds/plagiarizers.

In THEORY, it would be manosphere 101 for content creators to be able to explain how to know if a woman likes you for you.

But in reality, most content creators in the worldwide manosphere cannot explain this.

Why? Because they are frauds. They were never actual legit womanizers.

AutoModerator · 2025-02-05T17:04:35+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

AutoModerator · 2025-02-05T17:04:35+00:00

Hi OP,

You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. PPD has guidelines for what that involves.

OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.

An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:

Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;

Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;

Focusing only on the weaker arguments;

Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.

Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Grenztruppen1989 · 2025-02-05T18:23:35+00:00

I honestly agree. It was strange with my boyfriend since we were online friends and I never really saw his face, but after we met face to face, we clicked immediately. We waited too, and it was good. I have a question now, what would be the advice to women? What do men show, besides the physical, that truly shows they love and take you seriously?

feistykalorina · 2025-02-05T22:38:45+00:00

I think women should reverse the genders in this message and take that advice, I read about a lot of high libido women ending up in dead-bedrooms and i think that happens when the man only sees you as an appliance a convenience of some sort, you represent comfort and security to him but his desire goes to porn stars or even worse some real life crush, be very careful and don’t be a starter wife.

as for the initial advice as a woman I come from a culture of chastity so all my dating life I had to repress my sexuality reject the sexual advances of the Man i desire and then go home with wet panties and sexual frust to then resort to masturbation and fantasise out the man I reject lol

another thing as woman I never felt sexual attraction from day one it always builds up as I get to know the man’s character and the attraction grows, as The attraction grows he becomes sexier and sexier

businessJedi · 2025-02-06T00:46:05+00:00

Briffault’s law doesn’t apply to humans, he said so himself. Disregarding the rest since you used that at the start.

Jephta · 2025-02-06T03:11:31+00:00

This basically completely contradicts my mental model of how women work. Women are all about inertia. They have almost no desire to sleep with 99.9% of men at first, but if you get the ball rolling then it's almost impossible to stop it.

I've been rejected before sex many, many times but I've never been broken up with by a girl that's slept with me more than once. Their enthusiasm automatically and uncontrollably grows without you doing anything once you start sleeping together (even if you'd prefer it not to). This is why you have to try so damn hard to get a woman to notice and and get to sex the first (few) times, but once she's sleeping with you you can basically completely stop trying and she'll never leave you. I've told 3 different women that I'd like to go sleep with other women now as well while still sleeping with them after they get attached, and even though in all 3 cases they didn't like it, in all 3 cases they refused to leave outright.

The reason is the same: women have high inertia. To her, you're the only man that has gotten her ball rolling. She looks around at the other men around her and they're half-buried in the ground. It will take a lot of activation energy for them to get rolling. So even though from our perspective, it seems like women have lots of options, from her perspective she doesn't really. It's like imagine if 99.9% of women are 2/10 or below and you'll understand what it's like for them.

Secondly, why is your physical body "the real you" but what you provide (ie, the fruits of how you spend your effort) not representative of the real you? It's a strange way to conceptualize it. (For me, I don't care at all about this distinction. I will play whatever cards I have.) You say "when you lose your job and stop providing what you can give her, this is why majority of divorces are filed by women." Why are you more insecure about losing your ability to provide than about losing your looks? News flash, buddy: for most men, looks are the first things to fade. You should be more insecure about losing them. (I have absolutely 0 issues with money but I have extreme problems getting with girls in their 20s because I'm getting too old...If I could exchange money for youth, I totally would. Money isn't that valuable.)

Thirdly, women have a massive variation in possible sexual experience, unlike men. For example, an orgasm is not an assured thing for them. A woman's initial level of enthusiasm for sex generally reflects her inherit libido plus her desire for sex based on the sorts of sexual experiences she's had in the past. But just because she has a certain level of enthusiasm at first doesn't mean it can't change. As long as you don't suck at sex and are making her cum every time, you're in the top 15% of men. If you're not doing that, then make sure you're doing that. She should want to have sex with you more and more and become more enthusiastic about it, even if she wasn't initially.

ta06012022 · 2025-02-06T05:16:54+00:00

If she knew you for a year in social circles and didn't pursue you, she had near zero physical attraction and you shouldn't consider her for a real partner.

I don't know about that. I knew hundreds of girls in my extended social circle in college and a number of them made a move at some point even though we had been in that social circle for a long time (I was in a frat and a few sororities were basically the social circle). It wasn't all that uncommon for a girl I had sort known to say she had feelings, especially after she had gone through a breakup.

Post college I've also had similar experiences. For example, there was a woman I worked with. I left and went to a different company, but was still friends with my old coworkers. We were all hanging out one night and this girl basically confesses she always had a thing for me when we worked together. I had no idea, because she had a boyfriend when we worked together and never seemed more than friendly. We went on to have months of great sex, even though it never turned into anything serious.

I actually think it's not that uncommon for people in relationships to have feelings for others but not act on them until after a breakup.

Key-Faithlessness-29 · 2025-02-06T06:42:48+00:00

This might be one of the realest most factual post ever

PossessionUnusual250 · 2025-02-06T08:52:05+00:00

A lot of women are unfulfilled by their relationships with men and would rather be celibate than stay with someone they don’t like? Do you actually not believe this?

thapussypatrol · 2025-02-06T10:21:36+00:00

I do agree with the idea that if she doesn't show S tier choosing signals from the outset then it's not worth pursuing - the only relationship I had (for almost 5 years) was one where she was extremely keen straight away - the reason that relationship lasted as long as this was because she liked me a lot more than I liked her, especially in the first half of the relationship, meaning she had a scarcity mindset whereas I didn't in comparison - relationships are stable only in so far as the man is the most powerful person, and relationships that are dominated by the woman and her emotions (which themselves are subject to almost arbitrary fluctuations) are extremely insecure by comparison.

Relationships only last as long as that usually when those sort of conditions are there, whether women agree with or understand this - their biggest downfall, ironically, is having too much power and dominance stemming from their options and how disposable they can make their man - if you make the man less powerful, he is less dominant. If he is less dominant, he is less masculine. If he is less masculine, he is less attractive. Of course, that sounds crude and generalistic, but it is very predictable. People say men are simple creatures and easy to understand, but strangely enough, if you ask me, women are equally as predictable from a certain (rp) lens.

612King · 2025-02-06T13:07:45+00:00

I do agree with the message, and the saying “you can’t negotiate desire” it’s either there or it’s not. However, there are some women that know how to fake the desire and lust for as long as it takes to secure marriage. Then the next chapter starts…. The dead bedroom. Be careful out there!

kingpinkatya · 2025-02-06T14:22:03+00:00

this law is about non human animals
you didn't quote the actual law - actual law here
what does sexual fulfillment mean? what did it mean in 1930 when he was active?

kingpinkatya · 2025-02-06T14:25:07+00:00

Then they leave you, the way in which that's happened 3 out of 4 relationships there has to be something to it

3/4 of your own personal relationships? this doesn't make it the universal experience that you think it does

most women looking to break up with a man can bring themselves to even see him sexually anymore. sex revulsion is real

Kurkzer · 2025-02-06T15:13:50+00:00

You can never trust women.

Fixed it for you.

Pristine-Angle3100 · 2025-02-06T15:50:32+00:00

This is correct. Any woman trying to tell you that they "never get instantly turned on" is trying to manipulate you into being a dancing monkey for some woman who sees you as a utility and sees another man as a lover.

Former_Range_1730 · 2025-02-06T16:28:19+00:00

This is exactly why I always say, don't date women who are on the non hetero spectrum. A woman who is the Q of LGBT is never going to desire a man as much as a Hetero woman. Plain and simple.

But a lot of men seem to have a difficult time understanding this. And then they wonder why they keep ending up like Johnny Depp, Marylin Manson, Will Smith, Liam Helmsworth, Joe Jonas, etc. Every single one of them got blasted by non hetero feminist women they were dating/married to. It's foolishness.

gothfather3 · 2025-02-06T18:54:32+00:00

Not true. I have not found some men attractive in any capacity, then as they have revealed their personality to me, and we have bonded through conversation, I have found myself falling for them and wanting to be with them physically. The two often go hand in hand.

Outside_Memory5703 · 2025-02-06T21:46:48+00:00

Then the vast majority of men will never have a woman to trust

2025-02-06T23:45:31+00:00

I've never instantly lusted for a man. I've been married twice, 11 n 1/2 years (divorced) and 6 years (partnered 16 years all up, widowed).

When you lose your job and stop providing what you can give her, nah

First was employed but an AH.

Second was on permanent disabled (low) income due to injury and I was always the bigger income earner.

Nervous_Designer_894 · 2025-02-07T09:24:03+00:00

This is utterly stupid and reads like something a true incel (no offense to them) would write.

Women are not sexually driven like men. I've seen average girls easily easily turn down hot guys, but will have a weakness for one particular, often not so attractive man.

Once you develop an close emotional bond with a woman, you will almost always have her faithfulness once she has a good head on her shoulders.

Plane-Image2747 · 2025-02-07T10:45:34+00:00

Im sorry but if theres no equation to come with it, dudes need to stop calling their ideas 'Laws'

But im sorry to hear you had relationship issues.

nuclearmeltdown2015 · 2025-02-07T11:24:37+00:00

This entire premise that you need someone else to fawn over you to prove their commitment is deep insecurity on both genders.

Schleudergang1400 · 2025-02-07T12:35:07+00:00

Briffault’s Law posits a one‐sided model in which women unilaterally dictate relationship terms. However, extensive research in evolutionary psychology demonstrates that mate selection is fundamentally mutual. Both sexes have evolved distinct, yet interdependent, criteria for choosing partners. For instance, Buss and Schmitt’s (1993) sexual strategies theory shows that while women tend to prioritize traits indicating resource potential and stability, men also display discriminating preferences—seeking cues related to fertility, health, and even behavioral compatibility. This bidirectional selection process means that men actively influence the outcome of relationship formation rather than simply being “used and discarded.”

Trivers’ (1972) theory of parental investment explains that the sex investing more biologically (typically women) is choosier in partner selection. Nevertheless, this does not translate into unilateral control over mating dynamics. On the contrary, the need for men to invest in resource acquisition and display competitive traits means that male behaviors and contributions (financial, social, or otherwise) become critical factors in mate selection. Numerous studies on assortative mating (e.g., Kalmijn, 1991; Schwartz & Mare, 2005) demonstrate that men’s socioeconomic status and associated resource provision substantially shape relationship stability and the conditions under which families form. This influence counters the idea that women can disregard the potential benefits a man brings to a union.

Also, women do not have an abundance of options. Women are more choosy: as in, fewer men are potential options for women, than women are potential options for men. When 100 women fight over 80 men (because 20 are discarded as not good enough for any of the women), then there is a scarcity of men to mate with for the women. Discarding those men whenever they like is not possible for long term committed relationships. The men they like are heavily competed over by the women. If you discard one, there is a likelihood you will not get another man for commitment.

If she doesn't want to passionately make love to you for hours sometimes, kiss you in front of others, proud to show you off, then she doesn't desire you physically, and in the regard you're completely disposable to her

You realize that there are different levels of libido, public displays of affection, sociosexuality, etc. no matter the amount of desire of lust here is at the start, right? Why do you treat women (and men) as if they all would want to have the same amount, frequency, duration, quality, etc. of sex and displays of affection? Why don't you factor in culture, religion, social bubbles, etc?

If you're in this scenario and she doesn't lust for you back 110%,

Why make it an impossible to fulfill statement? Are you afraid that women actually lust for you for 100% of their capacity and your argument would fall?

Then they leave you, the way in which that's happened 3 out of 4 relationships there has to be something to it

Women are not a monolith, and the thing that was constant in those exampels are you. Don't take your biased personal relationship examples as a basis to claim knowledge about women in general. You are not lazy to look up science on Briffault and Batemen, maybe also look into typical breakup behavior by men and women, before you jump to conclusions about the things you experienced will likely mean.

The reason she left you is because you ultimately failed to provide to her what she wanted and saw you as physically disposable

This is the same for men, in general. Relationships are transactional and we leave when we don't get what want and we are not afraid to be alone or think we will never get another partner. Do you stay when she ultimately fails to provide what you want?

Deep-Piglet5264 · 2025-02-07T13:30:51+00:00

Loads of flaws here. But let's focus on the top. According to multiple studies, the most common reason women cite for filing for divorce is infidelity; meaning a partner's lack of commitment or extramarital affairs, which significantly damages trust and respect within the relationship.

Emotional or physical abuse: Consistent patterns of verbal, physical, or financial abuse can be a major factor leading to divorce. Lack of communication: Poor communication and inability to effectively address issues can lead to growing resentment and marital dissatisfaction. Growing apart: Feeling like partners have significantly diverged in their life goals, interests, or values over time. Financial issues fall below this.

I do agree with the sexual connection portion of your statement, and as a woman I get a lot of grief over my opinion. However it's disingenuous and not fair if I don't find the man sexually attractive to continue to be with him, regardless if he is a nice guy, good provider, etc

Re-Clue2401 · 2025-02-07T17:35:16+00:00

Yup. If her lust for me wasn't abundantly clear, I wasn't interested in her long term. I was nit picky about the concept. If the only physical complement she gave me was "You're so handsome" then I wouldn't take that dynamic seriously, as that was an indicator to me that she was looking at me holistically vs being driven by that primitive lust.

suuuurrrrffff · 2025-02-08T07:29:53+00:00

Mad victim mentality here 😂 just be the man. That’s it.

ExcitementLow4699 · 2025-02-08T21:44:18+00:00

>Women are guaranteed sexual fulfillment

I'm gonna stop you right there. I've had a lot of sexual partners, and an overwhelming majority were not "fulfilling." Most women have *significantly* fewer partners, either by personal choice or because of the culture they were raised in, so I estimate that a great deal of women don't end up with fulfilling sex lives.

Essentially, women have to make a choice about whether or not to prioritize sexual chemistry when looking for a long term partner. Some of us get lucky and find a man who meets all of our other standards and also happen to be fulfilling sexual partners, as well. But I think most of the time, what ends up happening is that women wait til they have developed either romantic feelings for a man, or have built up sexual tension, before they have sex with the men they're interested in, and will often stay in the relationship even if the sex isn't totally fulfilling.

KikiYuyu · 2025-02-05T18:55:54+00:00

This is objectively false, baseless and ridiculous. That's not how people work. Please go outside and talk to a normal person.

Lift_and_Lurk · 2025-02-05T19:41:31+00:00

Dudes here don’t understand that a hipster acting super into a guy so that he starts trusting her is literally how young bucks get played.

Way to set yourself up for failure, bros!

asbruckman · 2025-02-05T19:17:40+00:00

Some women marry their best friend, and live happily ever after? And sure attraction is nice, but it’s not central?

False-Purple3882 · 2025-02-05T23:09:14+00:00

This week in scrotal delusions: women with low libidos are evil bitches, more at 11

treadmarks · 2025-02-05T17:42:44+00:00

Title was too long, it could have just been "you can never trust a woman"

But anyway this isn't as important as you think, women do not have the same sex drive as men. If their sex drive was like men, and some women are like this, they're pretty likely to be disloyal. It's just too easy for them. Besides it's natural to lose passion over time.

It's more important to find someone mentally and emotionally stable with good morals.

Objective_Ad_6265 · 2025-02-05T17:45:41+00:00

I don't agree with the first statement because attraction can't be forced and we are not guarenteed to actually meet someone we FEEL that way about.

Otherwise I agree. If there isn't lust almost instantly she is settling for other practical reasons

Clean-Luck6428 · 2025-02-05T18:02:48+00:00

It’s more that if she doesn’t lust for you sooner than later then she doesn’t trust you. Often this is indicative of trust issues and that she thinks you want to take advantage of her.

But imo there’s no point in wasting time in trying to convince someone with trust issues that you aren’t trying to take advantage of them. You can’t be rational with someone who is triggered by their own paranoia

falconress · 2025-02-05T19:52:22+00:00

not even your own mother

Title	You Can Never Trust a Woman Who Doesn't Have Intense Lust for You Nearly Immediately
Author	rustlerhuskyjeans
Upvotes	118
Comments	408
Date	February 5, 2025 5:04 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1iiewg4/you_can_never_trust_a_woman_who_doesnt_have/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/you-can-never-trust-a-woman-who-doesnt-have.1543057 https://theredarchive.com/post/1543057

Comments