~ archived since 2018 ~

How does a girlfriend behave differently than a wife in a relationship with a man, and how can a girlfriend be of value to him without giving away too much too soon?

July 29, 2019


I've been going down the rabbit hole of RP hardcore for the last few weeks, and really discovering what it means to embrace my femininity. I've also been listening to Helena Hart, Adrienne Everhart, and Pat Allen as a companion to this subreddit.

Putting these truths and strategies into practice is already working like magic to improve my life and my relationship. However, there are some things I'm still trying to grasp. I would love to hear some discussion on this:

Before a life long commitment has been made, what can you do as a girlfriend to nurture him without prematurely playing the wife-- or God forbid-- the mother? How do you show him your value as a partner and be "wife material"? How can you make his life better with you then without you?

A big part of femininity is receiving and creating space to allow him to lead and come towards you, so where are the boundaries as a girlfriend? What's the line between being a burden by being too passive, vs. nurturing him, vs. overcompensating/over functioning for his approval? How do you build him up and affirm his masculinity, but not give too much of yourself in the process?

Tl;dr: I'm auditioning for a part as his First Mate and want to better understand how the behavior of a girlfriend differs from that of a wife.

I wonder if these questions are obvious, but I'm in the process of reinventing myself so it's honestly not clear to me.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/RedPillWomen.

/r/RedPillWomen archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title How does a girlfriend behave differently than a wife in a relationship with a man, and how can a girlfriend be of value to him without giving away too much too soon?
Author dabadeedabadaa
Upvotes 105
Comments 65
Date July 29, 2019 2:21 AM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit /r/RedPillWomen
Archive Link
Original Link

[–]wymone64 points65 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

My understanding of it is: that, as a girlfriend, you are maintaining independent lives. You’re not living together, not intertwining finances, and not cleaning his house on a regular basis. You are making time for your own hobbies and friends and allowing him to do the same.

[–]RubyWooToo3 Stars24 points25 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The only thing I would add to this is that, up until you get engaged or married, you should still be vetting each other.

[–]Vellore992 1 points [recovered]  (40 children) | Copy Link

As a girlfriend, you bring joy and fun to his life by being present and pleasant to be around. You get to know him and figure out if you're compatible for something more. That's about it. You each maintain your own life and home and wellbeing, and get to enjoy each other in your spare time. Don't move in with him, don't do chores for him, don't change your life for him. And vice versa. He's an addition to your life at this stage.

When I got married, it meant so much because after getting to know him properly I was literally handing over my life and safety and future to him. We made the conscious decision to permanently entwine our lives, and that is when his problems and my problems become "our problems".

By all means help your boyfriend out with things and do him favors, but treat them as a gift for now, not a responsibility.

[–]Blexit20201 point2 points  (39 children) | Copy Link

This. I'll also add in (and fully expect to be downvoted for this) don't have sex with him until you're married. That's a marital commitment only deal. As vulgar as this statement is, I'm a firm believer in "not getting on your knees until he gets on his."

If men are the gatekeepers of commitment and women are the gatekeepers of sex, it stands to reason that sex shouldn't be given until true commitment is obtained. And the highest level of commitment is marriage.

Otherwise, you really should just be enjoying one another's company and being supportive of one another. Keep it simple. No drama.

[–]Vellore992 1 points [recovered]  (20 children) | Copy Link

Keeping sex for marriage is going to rule out just about every western, non religious man on the market.

[–]Blexit202021 points22 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

You'd be surprised how much men are willing to compromise if they think the woman is worth it. I'd argue, though, that the reason men have this attitude now is because other women are giving it away too easy. So, why "waste time" with a woman that's not going to give him what he wants?

Feminism was one of the worst and best things to ever happen to men depending on their marital status. For a single man, feminism is probably one of the best deals because more women are willing to have NSA sex and absolve him of any responsibility by aborting any unwanted seeds he's planted. Why get married? Just like Dave Chappelle said it best, "women have flooded the market with p****" and as a result, its "stocks are plummeting." For married men, feminism is their worst nightmare. So, as a man, what is the better deal, staying single and getting sex easily, or getting married to a potential feminist harpy?

You have to know how to play the game. At the end of the day, a man has a natural drive to fight for something he wants; for something he thinks is worthy fighting for. If that's you, he will wait. Men are not complicated. Don't be worried that you won't find a man because you're protecting yourself by making sure you get everything you want before you open the gate. That's indirectly putting their needs before yours. And if you're a high quality woman, you have options, anyway. You don't have to settle and prematurely open that gate because you're high value. High value people don't settle. They set a standard and people follow it.

[–]RubyWooToo3 Stars51 points52 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

No woman is such a unique snowflake of special unique specialness that a high-quality man with tons of options will forgo sex completely and take the risk that he will suffer a lifetime of bedroom incompatibility when he has a good chance of finding a woman who is equally if not more well-suited to him who is not going to demand he become legally, financially, and religiously bound to her before going to bed with him.

It sucks that the sexual revolution and feminism have created this state of affairs, but until women collectively decide to turn the clock back to the sexual mores of 1950, this is the reality that women who are dating outside the enclaves of traditional religious and ethnic groups must be prepared navigate.

There’s also a healthy middle ground between NSA sex and waiting until marriage... it’s waiting a few months until you’ve vetted each other and established a trusting, committed relationship.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor14 points15 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This person is coming from a religious perspective and in that case there probably are a good number of quality guys who will wait. In the secular world your comment is spot on.

It's complicated further if you have already had sex. A man will be hard pressed to wait and permanently commit in order to get something another guy has had more easily.

You can demand anything you want and look for men who will comply but it's naive to think that you won't miss out on good otherwise compatible men by waiting for marriage. To say otherwise is, as the incels say, a cope.

[–]Blexit20203 points4 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

No woman is such a unique snowflake of special unique specialness that a high-quality man with tons of options will forgo sex completely and take the risk that he will suffer a lifetime of bedroom incompatibility when he has a good chance of finding a woman who is equally if not more well-suited to him who is not going to demand he become legally, financially, and religiously bound to her before going to bed with him.

Honestly, the term high value varies depending on who's making the judgment. I used the term more as a way to describe how we should view ourselves as individuals. But truly, it's a subjective term when applied from a third party perspective. And it just so happens that my personal criteria for what defines a high-quality man includes not only a willingness to wait, but a desire to do so. A man who is unwilling to wait for marriage, or worse, has slept with so many women in his past that he doesn't even know the number is, to me, low-quality.

Now, if he's saved, sanctified, Holy-spirit filled and speaking in tongues, that's different, lol. Everyone has a past, and if he's repented and is now living a life of chastity, that's acceptable. But if he doesn't see anything wrong with it, he's a "basic bro" and there's absolutely nothing special about him. I also distrust the ability of a man like that to genuinely and truly love someone. Any "love" he has to offer is more likely to be clouded in lust and is subsequently fleeting and shallow. A man like that isn't likely to have staying power and be willing to put in the work necessary to maintain a healthy marriage. A man like that is likely to not even value marriage and its sanctity. A man like that is more likely to cheat and hurt me.

If his n-count is in the double digits or higher and he's proud of it; low-quality. If he's had ONS, FWBs/flings and he's proud of it; low-quality. I don't care about anything else. Sex is so much more than what society has turned it into. And being flippant about it shows a lack of character and tact. Just from a health standpoint (STDs/STIs) having a flippant attitude about sex, I'm sorry, raises brows for me, and I don't want to be bothered with a man like that. Period.

Does this mean my options are probably slim? Hecky yeah, lol. But if I have to choose between nun-mode and an eternity of misery and discontent with someone who doesn't share my values, nun-mode it is, then. Me and my dog will be fine. Like I said, there are men out there who think the same way that I do in regards to this matter. And if it's meant to happen it will happen. Right now, however, my job is to work on myself, build my relationship with Christ, and grow spiritually. Personally, that requires that I stay in nun-mode until I've become the woman that I'm meant to become.

[–]RubyWooToo3 Stars15 points16 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

If you’re a virgin and are seeking a similarly religious man who shares your values, this approach will possibly work for you.

If you’re not a virgin and/or you’re planning on dating outside of traditionalist, religious circles, then enjoy nun mode because the only man you’ll find who will meet your expectations is Jesus.

[–]Blexit2020-1 points0 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

If you’re a virgin...If you're not a virgin

This is the only thing you're inaccurate on. That's why they call it being "born again." You don't have to be a virgin to adopt this belief system and adhere to it. There are people who converted to Christianity after the fact, there are Christians who back slid. But God is a merciful God. And even from a secular standpoint, virginity is not a prerequisite. It's a personal lifestyle choice that anyone can adopt for any reason. I will agree that finding a non-Christian who has adopted this lifestyle is less likely. But Christians come from all sorts of backgrounds, and each has sinned; many sexually. And because we serve a forgiving God, that doesn't even matter.

When they continued to question Him, He straightened up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.” And again He bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard this, they began to go away one by one, beginning with the older ones, until only Jesus was left, with the woman standing there. Then Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are your accusers? Has no one condemned you?” “No one, Lord,” she answered. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Now go and sin no more.” John 8:7-11

Sin no more. That's the key. He died on the cross to atone for the sins we've all made and will make. Not being a virgin doesn't mean that one is "impure" and being a virgin doesn't mean that one is "pure." It's deeper than that.

[–]RubyWooToo3 Stars6 points7 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

I agree with you that’s there’s nothing we can do that’s beyond Christ’s capacity to forgive.

But to expect that degree of grace from men that you’re dating is asking too much. I’m sure there are exceptions (and I sincerely hope you find them!) but very few men will pay a million dollars to obtain what other, perhaps lesser men, got for free.

[–]Blexit20202 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

But to expect that degree of grace from men that you’re dating is asking too much.

When dealing with people in the natural, absolutely. But when dealing with people in the spirit, it's a whole different ballgame that goes beyond the understanding of the natural mind. We're supposed to leave finding a spouse up to God, anyway. His will be done, not ours.

And if God sends you a man who, prior to being saved, was hustling in the streets, sleeping around, drinking, clubbing, and acting a fool, guess what, lol? We have to trust that He knows what He's doing and follow. He told Hosea to marry a promiscuous woman. And unlike most of us today, Hosea's response wasn't r/holup. Instead, it was one of obedience. Hosea's wife was so unfaithful, he had to buy her back from the man she cheated on him with. And he still followed God's will. Only spiritual maturity can handle that.

Following God is not for the faint of heart. It is extremely difficult. And those who have been fully transformed and renewed in Christ, will not see someone with a sinful past who is repentant any different than they see themselves, because they will see that person the way God sees them. And that's how we're supposed to view one another.

[–]loneliness-inc-4 points-3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

But to expect that degree of grace from men that you’re dating is asking too much. I’m sure there are exceptions (and I sincerely hope you find them!) but very few men will pay a million dollars to obtain what other, perhaps lesser men, got for free.

But she said she was a born again virgin... 🤦‍♂️

In her words:

If you’re a virgin...If you're not a virgin

This is the only thing you're inaccurate on. That's why they call it being "born again." You don't have to be a virgin to adopt this belief system and adhere to it. There are people who converted to Christianity after the fact, there are Christians who back slid. But God is a merciful God. And even from a secular standpoint, virginity is not a prerequisite. It's a personal lifestyle choice that anyone can adopt for any reason. I will agree that finding a non-Christian who has adopted this lifestyle is less likely. But Christians come from all sorts of backgrounds, and each has sinned; many sexually. And because we serve a forgiving God, that doesn't even matter.

[–]shupup2609-2 points-1 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

The right one wont leave no matter what. Its you who needs to decide what is the x factor in you that makes you stand out. Its the sex? or is it your love, intellectual, compassion etc?

[–]RubyWooToo3 Stars17 points18 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

When sex is good, it’s only 10% of your relationship. When it’s bad or nonexistent, it’s 100% of the relationship.

[–]unnaturalcontrol2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is so true.

[–]dabadeedabadaa[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol, I don't want a man who doesn't advocate for his own needs. If he's not Christian or otherwise religious I don't think a man with abundance mindset would have any reason to tolerate that from a woman.

[–]jacksheart 1 points [recovered]  (15 children) | Copy Link

This advice is very difficult to apply in my culture/social circle. I don‘t know any man who would be okay with this attitude.

My country is not very religious and has a very old average marriage age. I would totally scare all man away by following this advice.

The worst is that it is becoming more and more difficult to even get the „girlfriend status“ before putting out.

[–]shupup26095 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

you are so right. Lets say you are his girlfriend and the next thing he is gonna ask for you is be there when he needs you. ykwim. If you refuse or say u want to keep it for marriage the relationship starts falling apart, he thinks you are inconsiderate and you want him to ruin his these years before marriage in masturbation. well i am not at all supporting pre marital sex but as sad as it may sound its the fact.

[–]Blexit202012 points13 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

he thinks you are inconsiderate and you want him to ruin his these years before marriage in masturbation.

I'm going to tell you right now, on the men's side of TRP, the focus is to not worry about anything that the woman wants, and only focus on what you want. And I support this concept 100%. If he's red pilled, you having sex with him is not going to guarantee you'll get married if that's what you truly want. In such a setup, the woman is actually giving more than she's receiving, especially if her ultimate goal is marriage. Sure, she may enjoy sex, too, but she's still not getting everything she wants in that setup. What's sustaining her is the hope and belief that someday he'll give her what she wants (marriage). Once sex is given before she's reached the level of commitment she truly desires, he holds all of the power in that relationship. And the only time the man should have that much power is when he is her husband. At that point, he's earned that power. Why give a man that much power when he technically hasn't earned it, yet?

Honestly, most men are content not being married. That's mainly a woman's deal. Most men aren't "dreaming of the day" they walk down the aisle at their wedding as young boys. That's why most wedding books and sites are female-centered. The whole ceremony itself is female-centered. Most men would be cool with going down to the county building and signing some papers. Women are the ones that care about the wedding. I mean, seriously, what man do you know that's flipping through wedding books going, "Ooh, these are definitely my colors!" Lol, no!

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's not that you are wrong about acting in your own best interest but TRP also says to accept the terrain. For many women this is an unrealistic asses of the terrain. You have to do what is best for you without shooting yourself in the foot.

[–]Blexit20201 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

That's the thing, I don't consider that shooting myself in the foot. Agreeing to compromise my values just to "keep a man" is shooting myself in the foot. No man on this planet is worth putting myself through that. At the end of the day, it depends on your values. If that's very important to you, stick to it. If it's not, then whatever. Do you, boo boo, lol.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I meant the general "you". Everyone should find someone in line with her own values. Holding off on sex until marriage is uncommon and many men will not go for it. If you are doing it for some power play then you may lose good men for bad reasons. If it is within your value system you will have to find someone who feels the same.

I do wish you luck and would not encourage you to behave outside of your own values. What you are recommending isn't practical for all women, especially women who are not looking for a religious man.

[–]cushionkin3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Although you have to admit that the fact that so many other women are doing this definitely has put increased pressure for people to have sex when they don't necessarily want to. I only started doing it at 25 and solely because I felt internal pressure to be 'normal' and it was ok. The guy was nice and though it was consensual, I did not want it. I did it to keep his interest. We broke up because he said he could see in my face that I didn't want it. He didn't like the fact that he felt he was 'forcing' me. I don't know what my next strategy will be. Lol. Im not religious so idk what my actual problem is.

[–]Blexit20204 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

This is almost exactly what happened to me, and I will regret that decision for the rest of my life. Because by essentially forcing myself to do it and be normal like everyone else, it was actually very painful and I never enjoyed one minute of it. I was 20 and had never even kissed a guy before him. I already had serious reservations about relationships and sex and it wasn't just because of my Christian upbringing, but because of abuse that happened in childhood that traumatized me (yes, I'm getting therapy). I even told him I didn't believe in premarital sex ahead of time. I was very clear with my beliefs and he said was ok with it when he wasn't. That was his opportunity to walk, but instead he lead me to believe he, too, was a Christian and respected my beliefs. The next thing you know, we're kissing in his bedroom and he's going for my underwear. The fact that I literally grabbed his arms, shook my head and said "no" meant nothing to him. He told me "he wouldn't look" and just kept going while I laid there frozen. He broke up with me shortly after because he didn't want to be with someone who wasn't enthusiastic about sex and "felt bad" for doing it. That was a nightmare and it messed. Me. Up. That was almost 13 years ago, and I am still healing in some ways.

I've tried compromising my values to "fit in" and it made me miserable. At the end of the day, my peace of mind and happiness is more important. Would I like a husband and children some day? Yes, I would. But if I have to do something that I'm extremely uncomfortable doing in order to get that, something is wrong with that picture. It's not worth it. I'd rather be by myself than do that again. You don't have a problem you have values and there's nothing wrong with that. My advice to any woman who feels this way about sex will always be stick to your values no matter what. If he wants to walk let him walk. He's doing you a favor. The right man will wait. They exist. Trust me. My little brother is one of them, and the poor thing is having the same problems with girls because he believes in waiting and they don't. That's why he likes Tim Tebow, because he's so outspoken about waiting for marriage. It's difficult out there for anyone who wants to wait. Sign of the times.


Speaking of Tim Tebow he got dumped for this very reason. It's rough in these streets, lol. But that doesn't mean it's hopeless. Find people who share your values. PERIODT!

[–]cushionkin1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The relationship I had straight after that was extremely disordered because of that experience. I told the guy straight up that I'm not doing premarital sex. He said OK. Then I changed my mind and said we should do it. Then I changed my mind again but only seconds before the piv. Repeated this bizarre behaviour twice more. He called me a crazy person. And it was rather crazy, though I failed to see it at the time. I'm OK now though. I hope you continue to to stand up for what you believe in.

[–]Blexit20205 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep! I did the exact same thing. It was a very tumultuous time and I even tried "being an atheist" for a minute. I genuinely went through a questioning phase of wondering if my entire worldview was just wrong. "Maybe I'm brainwashed." "The majority of people do this." I seriously had to have a complete breakdown where I realized that this was backwards. The problem: I couldn't really trust the guy after I told him I wanted to wait and he started pulling away and didn't "check back in" until I agreed to be sexual. It felt "fake" and inorganic, and it was, because I wasn't being true to myself. A relationship cannot survive if both parties are not only being 100% honest with each other, but also themselves. I hope the same for you, as well. I have a lot of other issues within myself that I need to work on, and it's by the grace of God that I'm even here to type this and say that I'm trying to work on myself. Because with what I'm dealing with, if I didn't have my Faith, I would've ended it a while ago (heavy stuff).

[–]Blexit20209 points10 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

While I am Christian, I am going to try to explain my point in the most secular way possible. This is the way I see it, if a man's not willing to wait, and the level of commitment you want is marriage, then he isn't the one. Period. What you "put out" should be equal to the level of commitment you truly want once it's received. If you only want to be a "forever girlfriend" and he's agreed to that, then that's different. At that point, you've reached the level of commitment you're seeking and having sex with him would technically make sense. But if you're looking to be a wife, and women are the gatekeepers of sex, why give that away before you've gotten what you want? By all accounts, that actually doesn't make sense. Sex should be off of the table until you reach the level of commitment you want. It's the law of equivalent exchange.

I understand that a lot of men aren't willing to adhere to such a setup, but if it's what you want it's what you want and you should never settle for anything less in hopes that he gives you the level of commitment you truly want. No. If you want to be married then that "gate" should stay closed until you get it. The man that is for you will respect that, and the man that won't, to that I say "Bye, Felicia!" Nothing worth having is easily found. You will encounter more men unwilling to wait than men who are, that's just the way the world works but you have to ask yourself what's more important; giving him what he wants before you get what you want and hoping he agrees to give you everything you want someday? Or being patient and waiting for the man that is willing to wait for you and actually getting everything you want?

There are men who are willing to wait everywhere. Yes, even in your "not very religious country." Waiting until marriage for sex, while popular within many religions, is not something that's only practiced amongst religious individuals. There are many secular reasons that people choose to be celibate until marriage. These kinds of men do exist. TRP isn't the only community that has that "unicorn theory." There are "male unicorns" as well, if you want to take a more cynical approach to this matter. But I would advise not to "open the gate" until you've received the level of commitment you desire from a man.

[–]shupup26099 points10 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

i wish i could give you an award. But so well put. Its not about being religious. We are not sex machines. Its special and thts why not every maybe boyfriend should be having it. The reason marriage has become a secondary choice for many people is because sex is given away so freely.

[–]Blexit20209 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

True. I think that it's an unpopular practice these days because a lot, if not most, women want sex, too, and waiting for marriage is "difficult" for them. That's where self-control comes in. Whatever my personal views on the activity, there's nothing wrong with desiring sex. That's normal. But women who ultimately want marriage, children and the whole deal, do tip the scales in the favor of men when they give in to sex before marriage. That's a fact.

By telling him you prefer to wait for sex until marriage, you're essentially saying sex will happen when marriage happens. In essence, he has something to look forward to if he agrees to court and wait. A man saying, "I'm not going to agree to marry you without having sex first" isn't promising to marry you if you have sex with him. He's saying, "I'm not going to agree to marry you without having sex first." Marriage may or may not happen. Sex is generally considered a "package deal" with marriage. Generally speaking, if he marries, he's guaranteed sex. If she has sex, she's not guaranteed marriage. She has a more stringent biological clock. He doesn't. Who's risking more, here?

If more women were doing what they were supposed to do as wives once marriage actually happens, men wouldn't consider it to be such a bad deal in the first place. Feminism truly has messed everything up when it comes to marriage and family.

[–]shupup26092 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

cant agree more.

[–]reneeamelia1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I love this c:

[–]Atheist_Utopia-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Here's your downvote. Good luck with this strategy in 21st century Europe / USA / any other 1st world country.

[–]durtykneesEndorsed Contributor19 points20 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

How do you show him your value as a partner and be "wife material"?

This depends on the individual guy.

Imagine that every guy comes with a metaphorical basket (or box, or some container) that you need to fill up with things that make you attractive to him, and he'd only consider you "wife material" if you can fill up his basket.

Men with abundance (the mindset) have huge baskets (their commitment is much harder to earn), while the average guy mostly operates on scarcity and have small baskets that most women can fill up if they just do the baseline things like being hot and fun.

The value of whatever you put in the basket is also different for different guys. For thirsty guys, putting "sex" in the basket will fill it up, while for "experienced" guys, "sex" in their basket is equivalent to a basket that's still empty.

What you put in the metaphorical basket (and what you wish to withhold) is really up to you, as long as you fill it up. Different guys look for different things.

Whatever you withhold, make sure your current guy never finds out that you've given it away to an ex. Ideally, you've never given away anything to an ex that you're withholding from your current guy.

If you're not the type of woman who has enough to offer to fill up a huge basket, find a guy with a basket capacity that's more compatible with your ability to fill it.

Basket size is not about whether a man is "high value" or not. What you want is a man that is high value to you, who considers you to be high value to him, because no sane man will want to commit to a woman he sees as "low value".

It doesn't need to be complicated, imo.

[–]dabadeedabadaa[S] 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Simple =/= obvious in my case. I approach life with a How To Win Friends and Influence People kind of mindset. If you want something, you need to understand what the people who will give it to you actually want and give them that. It's obviously totally individual, but there are usually some rules about what makes people like you and want to spend time with you, and the way to get that is never through acting entitled about it. I've made mistakes like this in the past and the difference that can be made by focusing on making yourself valuable is the difference between being a passenger in your outcome in life vs. an active participant.

[–]durtykneesEndorsed Contributor3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

there are usually some rules

Yes and no. For personal romantic relationships, "rules" mainly apply for the majority (55% is considered a "majority", so exceptions are not that rare nor special :p).

Definitely check if the general rule-of-thumb works for you first, but don't be discouraged if you have to do the hard work to figure out what actually works for you, because you're an individual too.

If I was a good girl who followed all the "rules", I wouldn't be happily married to a man I actually want. Growing up, everyone had plenty of advice about what type of man I "should" date/marry, and I went along with that advice for my first few exes --- while holding back a lot, because none of the men I was told I "should" be attracted to were attractive to me, and as far as I'm concerned, they didn't deserve much at all, so I didn't give it! :p

Each time when I got what I thought I wanted (/was told I "should" want), I find that nope, I didn't really care for the guy, so I moved on ASAP :p So I'm very much in support of holding back as much as you please, while you figure things out and vet for a man who is "high value" for you.

IMO, it's not about what you should give --- it's all about vetting for a guy you crave to give everything to.

The hardcore RP advice is to never date a man who doesn't make you want to "give everything" to. That's not wrong, but it also requires women to know what we want without any experience, which isn't logical. Maybe this works for women who are miraculously born wise, but most of us aren't.

No woman is born a fantastic girlfriend/wife. Most of us learn as we go, and make mistakes, or learn from the mistakes of others.

For those who are religious, they can just play by the "rule book" of their religion to get a man from the same religion. This may sound great, but the downside is they're limiting their options based on religion.

If you're not religious, the higher you want to aim, the more you need to figure it out on your own, and not be fearful of mistakes (take calculated risks, don't be reckless, and be very good at learning from mistakes).

The more inexperienced you are (or the younger you are), the more you can withhold without men feeling deprived.

However, the more you withhold, the more you need to compensate for the lack of stuff to fill the metaphorical basket with. Side note: I'm using the word "basket" to go with "laundry list", but I keep getting the impression I'm using the wrong word here, because something at the back of my mind keeps mocking me about "basket cases" lol Please replace "basket" with whatever word that works better for you :p

As for men and marriage, marriage-minded men are motivated by "reaching the next level", and most men actually require some motivation to get to the point of marriage.

  • Men who don't/won't marry don't think this way ^ , because marriage is unnecessary outside of social/legal reasons. Weddings are also unnecessary outside of religious/cultural/social-status reasons.

Marriage protects your relationship from other people making life difficult for you, such as raising bureaucratic walls for when you need to move often for work reasons, or anything regarding legalities related to your children.

Once a man has children of his own, he can pretty much say goodbye to abundance (/freedom, or outcome-independence). A man who values being outcome-independent above all else, wouldn't want children. A man who wants children still needs motivation to make him consider marriage "for the sake of children".

Consistency of good traits is where most women fail when it comes to motivating men (men who vet well) to marry.

Consistency sounds easy enough, but maintaining a solid track record for 5+ years takes a lot of willpower, self-awareness, and a total lack of pride/"self esteem" --- basically, have a high initiative to take responsibility for/acknowledge/correct your mistakes, and avoid any and all major mistakes. Logical, sane men are quick to overlook the rare minor slip-up (we're only human), but anything that occurs too often, or mistakes that are too major, would make any smart man change his mind.

Personal ramble to put what I've said in clearer context:

My now-husband was especially happy when I suggested we skip the wedding and put the money to better use, like affording a house at a better location.

Since we're childfree, I not only need to fulfill all his extensive expectations, I also need to exceed them, to motivate him to marry me.

I could not have done this if I didn't have about a decade's worth of proof that I'm a consistent source of joy in his life, before he even decided to date me. Generally, we align well enough to be actual best friends, despite having different relationship/life goals when we first met, and we're compatible enough to never argue for all those years, despite being always brutally honest with each other.

Our shared history also allowed me enough "extra credit" to withhold minor things like not getting any body modifications just to please him, or acting like his unpaid maid --- and he only accepted my withholding because he has proof from our long term close friendship that I always keep my promises.

PS: I trust u/Whisper to correct me if any of this is not RPW advice, or if I used the wrong words to describe the right concept. None of anything I've said contradicts the advice he's given you so far, I've simply expanded on it from a married woman's perspective.

[–]dabadeedabadaa[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I really appreciate your perspective on this. I think of myself very much as an individualist so appreciate you taking the time to point out how all of the RP advice can fit into your life without completely changing yourself/who you are in the process. I've tried to overcompensate to figure out how things "generally" are because my knee jerk reaction is that annoying "*but not ALL [blank]!*"

But now having put some work into accepting that, I guess there's an important distinction between imagining you're a special snowflake, and then legitimately understanding how you can apply advice to suit your actualy desires. It can be easy to forget that all this advice is more like rules-of-thumb based on the basic RP truths and axioms than rigid guidelines. You all are very patient, and I appreciate having a space to post and discuss (with someone other than my boyfriend, since that can get weird sometimes...) about this stuff before I've fully grasped it.

[–]FleetingWishEndorsed Contributor34 points35 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

To me, nothing. The girlfriend is the audition for the chance of getting permanent commitment. When you audition, you go all in. If you withhold something all he knows is that this is something you don't do. It doesn't make him want to marry you more because he won't think "if I marry her she will change for the better". When a man makes the decision to be with someone for the rest of his life, he makes the decision based on her past behavior, assuming future behavior will be the same.

The only reason women think they shouldn't go all in is they think "what's his incentive to marry me if I act like I'm married to him?" But the answer to that is easy: he no longer has the risk of losing you. If you are someone he really desires he will want you in his life permanently.

As for when you should act like his mother, that's a whole different topic, to which the answer is "never".

[–]Vellore992 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

Your method works fine if you're not hoping to marry one day, but it sounds like OP auditioning for the role of wife, not committed girlfriend.

[–]LordDunderhead 1 points [recovered]  (3 children) | Copy Link

Are you married?

[–]WhisperTRP Founder-2 points-1 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Are you?

[–]LordDunderhead 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not the one dishing out questionable advice

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Perhaps her experiences and age give her some insights that you lack.

[–]goodtimes15311 points12 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Love this question, I was wondering the exact same thing myself just a few days ago... You're definitely not alone!

[–]BubblyCandidate0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link


[–]dabadeedabadaa[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lots of good answers here so far. :)

[–]WhisperTRP Founder8 points9 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

The words "giving away too much" carry the assumption that dating is a negotiation, an economic exchange where you withhold something he wants (but you don't want to give), until he gives you something you want (but he doesn't want to give).

The other way of looking at dating is as an audition, a trial period where both people see what being with the other person is like, and thus are able to decide if they want to make that permanent.

When you are selling something, you want to withhold until you have been paid.

When you are auditioning for something, you want to show the best that you are capable of.

Since RPW is an amoral, empirical place designed for discussing what works, the only important question is "Which of these models works better for getting what you want?" But to answer that, we first have to answer the question "What do you want?"

And that is a personal question.

It boils down to what kind of relationship you want to have with the man you marry. Would you like a transactional relationship, where what he does for you is exchanged for what you do for him? Or would you like a relationship based on mutual desire for each other's happiness? Do you want to sell something, or create a bond of mutual support?

How you feel about this will imply the answer to the question of whether you wish him to marry you in the hope that you will change afterwards, or to marry you in the hope that you won't.

Empirically, from my coaching experience on both sides of the gender gap, inspiring reciprocity in a man works much better for relationship permanence, stability, and quality than trying to leverage him. The drawback to this plan, however, is that, while it's actually safer because it works better, it's quite scary to try, as it involves going "all in". Many women simply are too afraid to try this, and this is often complicated by the way that women who are fearful tend to "aim too low".

In my opinion, if a man isn't worth going "all in" for, you're probably wasting your time and yourself dating him in the first place.

[–]dabadeedabadaa[S] 3 points4 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Perhaps it's just difficult to go "all in" without losing yourself when your sense of self is not as strong. I wonder, though, do they really have to be distinct? After all, a good sales person understands that you need to have skin in the game to win big. Ideally, a good sale isn't just half-good. Both parties should come out ahead because of it. Which I suppose is why "I demand you marry me because I want you to" doesn't work, but showing your value in a positive sense does.

How do you go all in to inspire reciprocity, and avoid doing it in a masculine, aggressive manner? Personally, I have a feeling of "I know what I want, and I'll do everything in my power to get it" (it's him) but I'm trying to reconcile what that means. Is that approach too masculine? Can I take this approach to go "all in" without sacrificing what it means to be submissive and feminine for a man?

[–]WhisperTRP Founder6 points7 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

That's a good question.

The answer lies in an understanding of how the male and female mindsets differ.

TRP has always been a work in progress, and one of the principles we latched onto early on is something called "Briffault's Law". Goes like this:

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

... this, of course, represents an accurate understanding of female behaviour, but, since we were studying seduction of women, and not forming some comprehensive theory of human sexuality, it doesn't say anything at all about male behaviour. Now, having studied the female side more in the years since, I can reformulate Briffault's Law into a more complete statement, Whisper's Law of Commitment:

"A woman's commitment to a relationship is determined by the future benefit she hopes to derive from it. A man's commitment to a relationship is determined by the amount of benefit he has already experienced from it."

Thus, a woman who doesn't understand men very well will assume their commitment works like hers does, and it will make sense to her to withhold some benefits from him so that he will commit more in the hopes of securing them. But that's the exact opposite of how men work. Men predict the future by looking at the past. When you use a sales model, withholding benefits until he has paid, he doesn't see it by a sales metaphor. Instead, he begins to see you as a withholding sort of person, rather than a giving sort of person. This does not inspire emotional investment.

Men are actually wise to do this. Anyone can promise to be a good wife once she has a ring on her finger. Talk is cheap. Actually doing what she would do as a wife demonstrates both the inclination and the ability to follow through. A woman who acts like a good wife while she's a girlfriend is proving to him that she can do what she says she can.

"But why would he buy the cow if he can get the milk for free?" is the common objection here. Note how it comes back to that same use of a transaction metaphor ("buy", "free", etc). Any economic metaphor is going to fail to model how men do relationships. Men are reciprocal. They have a protective instinct towards women, and an inherent urge to take care of them, and the better a woman treats him, the stronger this urge becomes. A man marries a woman who has already acted like a good wife because he has the urge to reward her for doing so. When people speak of buying a cow as a marriage metaphor, it doesn't work because cows always cost something. A man's cost in marrying is the risk that his woman won't be a good wife. The more she proves she will, the less that "cost" exists at all.

So what does this mean for you?

It means that if you have a man is not mentally ill, feral, or depraved, the more pleasant you make the experience of being with you, the more likely he is to act on his own to make that experience permanent.

[–]dabadeedabadaa[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Amazing. I'm going to put Whisper's Law on my wrist so I don't forget.

[–]CraziAces1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

You have 100% describe the way I see things. Its like you are in my head XD. I have disqualified my women for this type of transaction mindset because it doesn't suit my way of loving.

[–]WhisperTRP Founder0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. TRP-trained men tend to dump women who deal with them transactionally, not because they alone resent it, but because all men resent it, and they in particular feel that they have the choice not to put up with it.

Some men will comply with women who treat them transactionally, but they will always resent it.

The RPW core strategy is about inspiring reciprocity from men, rather than merely compliance. This often is difficult for women to understand... "I leveraged him, and he complied! It worked!"... well, no, it didn't. You burned a non-trivial amount of his patience and goodwill to get what you wanted, and you weakened your relationship. The goal was to strengthen it, and you did the opposite in exchange for whatever stack of cookies you wanted right then.

Here's how women can get what they want while strengthening the relationship: \

[–]durtykneesEndorsed Contributor2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

because all men resent it

Pffft, all women also resent giving anything they don't naturally feel compelled to give. The transaction mindset is the result of women often settling for Mr. Good Enough (or Mr. High-Social-Status who is enthusiastically approved by all girl friends, family, church, and random strangers).

Attraction can't be negotiated, and when there's not enough attraction to inspire automatic giving, the hamster will work on greasing the hamster-wheel with transactions.

No amount of finger-wagging will change a woman's revulsion at the idea of simply giving everything to Mr. Good Enough, except for women with low/no self-respect --- she'd give, then hate herself for it, and give some more to reinforce that sweet sunk cost fallacy, and if she ever snaps out of the cycle of self-hatred, she'd probably end up wringing her hands about how she did everything according to the RPW sidebar and only had misery to show for it :p

[–]WhisperTRP Founder2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

You are right, of course.

(Recently counseled someone through a divorce from a man about whom the most passionate thing she was able to say was "he is a really good person". Ewwwwww.)

So many women hate risk, so they settle for Mr. Kinda-sorta-okay to avoid the risk being dumped. Then wonder what combination of dog training tricks they can use on him to make a good relationship.

Answer is, none. You can't have a good relationship with a man you aren't passionate about.

Going for betas because Chad is a "player" is like jumping off a cliff to avoid the risk of accidentally falling.

RPW was created to teach girl game, so women could actually hold onto men for whom there was some competition.

[–]durtykneesEndorsed Contributor1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

As always, thanks for your reply! I'm still scratching my head over how to describe various concepts (those off the beaten trad-con/older-RPW path) to write something that's useful for this sub, and reading what you have to say helps me slowly figure out how to frame things better.

[–]WhisperTRP Founder2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

To be frank, this is a frustration I share.

The majority of women are extremely risk-averse, and not only have a disproportionate fear of risk, but regard any need to take risks as a sort of injustice being actively perpetuated on them.

They keep asking me how they can secure Mr. Right into a stable marriage without any risk of being used for sex, dumped, etc. And the answer "you can't" tends to occasion much wailing and whining and damseling in general.

Life is risk. Nothing is safe, and nothing is free. The only way to be as safe as possible to be as prepared as possible for the risks you take. Avoiding risks at all costs simply guarantees the very sort of failure you were trying to avoid in the first place.

[–]durtykneesEndorsed Contributor0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

They keep asking me how they can secure Mr. Right into a stable marriage without any risk of being used for sex, dumped, etc.

IMO, they're too busy being concerned about things that don't actually matter, but if I made this outrageous statement, both women and men who browse this sub (despite Vanguard advice to guys to not read RPW :p) will get their panties in a bunch.

It starts with knowing what you want, because not knowing what you want is like traveling without a reason nor destination. Most women under 25 haven't experienced enough to have a clue what they want, and the common "advice" (especially among feminists) is to mindlessly "explore the world" and "find yourself".

Anyone who thinks logically would know that the real answer is to learn, explore what you've learned (test your knowledge), analyze your experiences, take note of mistakes, learn about why you made them, and put more things to the test without being mindless nor reckless (mindlessness and recklessness seem to be so popular in mass media, that it almost seem like propaganda to me :p)

Feminine women are malleable, which is a good thing with the right man, but otherwise not an advantage (and feminists are busy over-correcting this by insisting that women be stubbornly "true to themselves", even when it's illogical to do so).


The majority of women are extremely risk-averse, and not only have a disproportionate fear of risk, but regard any need to take risks as a sort of injustice being actively perpetuated on them.

This mentality was drilled into me ever since I was a little girl (well, they tried their best :p), and I'm sure I'm not the minority that grew up with this experience.

Most people think little girls "should" be sheltered from any and all "bad" things (driven by a combination of male protective instinct and maternal instincts, I guess). As we grow up and spend more and more time on our own without any adult supervision, we're always told to be good girls, and only do safe good things with safe good people, and the definition of "good" depends on who you ask :p

Even in this sub, many men clutch their man-pearls over women who don't conform to the good-girl template (what "should" be!).


And the answer "you can't" tends to occasion much wailing and whining and damseling in general.

It always cracks me up when damsels complain about TRP men saying "women are like children".

To be fair, this sub attracts a lot of damsels, so I don't hold it against any regular poster to give damsel-centric advice (I'm probably guilty of doing it before), because when you (you, specifically!) don't step in regularly to define what's "RPW" and what isn't, a sub with too many women would always gravitate towards consensus, and forget the original plan (yay for feminine malleability and the female social matrix :p).


Avoiding risks at all costs simply guarantees the very sort of failure you were trying to avoid in the first place.

Since it's trendy now to normalize the celebration of mediocrity, not everyone considers it a failure .. until they hit their mid-life crisis and realize it's a failure, I guess.

[–]slynn25 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I'd say honestly if you want to get married the most important thing to do as a Girlfriend first is to get to know him. He's not the only one choosing YOU ARE AS WELL!! You should never ever forget that either as a RPW. When he's your boyfriend you can still leave, if you feel that you cannot commit to him for life because you notice during your relationship recurring issues because those get bigger not smaller during a marriage. I'm very happy with my husband we've been together for over 10yrs but when we were dating i never gave him "wife benefits " that he hadn't earned. I didn't cook him a proper meal for atleast 5 months into the relationship. When i prepared him something it was frying an egg or buttering toast or brewing a quick coffee. I instead got him stuff i knew he liked like his favourite beer, or reserved tickets to a jazz festival he wanted to go or funny gifts based on an inside joke we shared. Be careful doing too much because you can come off as desperate and he'll feel like you're rushing things. Infact he told me later on that he'd broken up with the girl he was with before me because he left her for a bit at his place, went for an emergency at work and when he came back 3hrs later she'd cleaned the house, ironed his shirts and cooked. It freaked him out. As Girlfriend keep things fun, light and when he's around you concentrate on just having fun and really really getting to know his heart, how he thinks etc. We had lots of conversations and i asked him lots of questions to vet him and he did the same. He should always feel safe talking to you and speaking his mind..Also try to live your own life too,have your own stuff going on.

[–]dabadeedabadaa[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I like this perspective. It gives some of the specifics I was looking for. Things like how much I can cook for him and do things for him without coming across in a bad light was tripping me up. I'm a little bit aspy so I need help with these things. Thanks!

[–]slynn22 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh and btw I don't believe in waiting for marriage before sex because i consider that part of testing for compatibility but ofcourse that depends on your culture and beliefs.

[–]shupup260910 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well! being a girlfriend and a wife material arent that hard, its natural. By being just girlfriend you can usually miss out on compassion for him, as it is a more playful kinda relationship. Wife material Girls love him genuinely and care for him, his things including his comfort, health, emotions, money, family. Its just that you are naturally very concerned about tht person and you are not sucking out of him anything. plus compatability is a strong strong strong nail. By becoming actual wife its not about just giving. You start thinking of your rights as well and you dont want to compromise on them much. it doesnt mean love is gone but it means that you want ur other half to be a responsible partner now in every way.

[–]LateralThinker133 Stars2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Before a life long commitment has been made, what can you do as a girlfriend to nurture him without prematurely playing the wife-- or God forbid-- the mother? How do you show him your value as a partner and be "wife material"? How can you make his life better with you then without you?

Easy. Be his cheerleader.

[–]razor_sharp_0073 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Don’t mix your finances. Don’t own assets together.

Don’t give up your residence.

Don’t make career/education choices that are predicated on the relationship continuing.

Don’t pay your partners debt or professional development costs. But do spend money on enriching activities that you do together.

Don’t get pregnant.

Don’t get a pet in common. Ie no getting a dog or cat together.

Be cognizant of making financial sacrifices in the furtherance of your SOs career. Here’s an example: I’m currently running for office and the woman I’m dating is dynamite with cooking/hosting. I had a campaign bbq yesterday but she was offered a catering contract at the same time. Although she would have declined the contract to support me, I believe that would be inappropriate given our level of commitment. I encouraged her and indeed, she took the catering contract. Had we been married, I would have encouraged the opposite.

[–]SouthernOhioRedsFan-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Giving away what?

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter