~ archived since 2018 ~

The Talk is Socially Retarded, Don't Do It.

February 21, 2018
157 upvotes

Imagine yourself on a date with a man. It's going fairly well so far... he's confident, handsome, smart, and he has a sort of dry humor that makes you laugh. Then, about halfway through, he drops the banter, gives you a serious look, and says:


"We need to talk. You're a nice girl, and I like you, but my goal for tonight is to have sex. So we need to talk about whether you're ready for sex, and about what kind of sexual acts you're ready for. Because I deserve sex, and if you're not a sex-minded kind of girl, then I need to not be wasting my time here."


About now, most of you probably feel like you need to go and take a shower just from reading that.

That's okay, I feel like that from writing it.

Certainly in this scenario, sex would not be happening, that night or any other.

Why? Well, because it's creepy, but let's be more specific:

  • He attempted to negotiate desire, which is involuntary and cannot be negotiated.
  • He showed poor, indeed borderline autistic, social skills by not knowing this.
  • He acted entitled and demanded what it was his job to inspire.
  • He treated you as a means to his own goals, rather than a person.

The "Commitment Talk" is the female version of this social blunder, and men react to it with just as much distaste, for the same reasons.

  • Negotiating Desire

Remember that commitment is not a man promising to stay, calling you his SO in public, letting you move into his house, or even marrying you. All of these are expressions of commitment. Commitment itself is his desire to keep you in his life. This is not a conscious act. A man can neither deliberately give you commitment, nor deliberately withhold it. You simply inspire it, or fail to.

  • Poor Social Skills

These are even more repellent in a woman than in a man, since gracefully dealing with thorny social issues where conflict may arise is a feminine art. A man wants to be with a woman who smooths over potential arguments, rather than creating them.

  • Entitled

Since you either inspire commitment or fail to, getting to commitment is your job, not his. If you attempt to dump this responsibility on him, he is certainly going to wonder what else you will just demand that you should have earned.

  • Treating him as a means to an end.

This hardly requires explanation. He already knows what you want. If you simply demand it from him because you want it, then he will know you think that he was put on this planet to fulfill your desires.

The art of girl game is the art of getting what you want without conflict or ultimatums, by making him want to give it to you. Do not attempt to shortcut this process.

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 The Talk is Socially Retarded, Don't Do It.
Author Whisper
Upvotes 157
Comments 67
Date February 21, 2018 11:09 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit /r/RedPillWomen
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/RedPillWomen/the-talk-is-socially-retarded-dont-do-it.2770
https://theredarchive.com/post/2770
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/RedPillWomen/comments/7za0r6/the_talk_is_socially_retarded_dont_do_it/
Red Pill terms in post
Comments

[–]Ariel12584 points85 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

this is an excellent post. My husband was always 'not the marrying type' (so he thought) and I was a girl who did not move quickly physically... ever. With anyone. No matter how much the guy wanted it.

I wound up being 'the only woman he could ever marry' and he wound up being 'the only man I couldn't control myself around'.

If you're a match and it's meant to be, it's unspoken. It just happens. There's no need for any 'talk'.

[–]WhisperTRP Founder[S] 49 points50 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I wound up being 'the only woman he could ever marry' and he wound up being 'the only man I couldn't control myself around'.

THIS is the win-win situation in a nutshell... what happens when both people have strong game.

[–]darbyisadoll1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Doesn't this community advocate for not dating men who are anti-marriage? - curious tourist

[–]aussiedollface1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

love this. thanks for sharing!

[–]fastforwars 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Everything in this post is logical. But sex "happens" whereas commitment needs to be explicit.

I used to be 100% of the mindset of this post.

Then I met a guy. He was perfect for me - strong-willed, intelligent, good looking. A Don Draper type, but funnier.

We dated for a while and I was pretty firm about where the boundaries were at each stage. Then we hooked up and soon after he was spending 3 nights a week at my place and I was spending every weekend at his.

You'd think between a demanding job and the time he was investing in me, female intuition or even just logical deduction would suggest that commitment was there.

I found out 6 months later that in that early time period, for really convoluted reasons, he'd hooked up with the girl that pre-dated me twice.

I ended up in a situation where I had to choose between walking away from the closest thing I'd ever found to "perfect for me", or staying in essentially muddied waters.

Don't be me. Have the conversation. If for no other reason than because it draws a clear line for both of you as to when the commitment begins.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

To play devil's advocate for a moment... why leave? You were together for less than 6 months and you discovered that early on he was seeing you and another woman and he chose you.

[–]WhatIsThisAccountFor3 Star3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Why did you leave him? He wasn't cheating, since it was never specified, or would you consider what he did cheating?

[–]fastforwars 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

I didn't say I left him. I said I was faced with a really difficult decision. I stayed. I resented him for years and ended up getting a lot of therapy.

Technically what he did wasn't cheating, but where I thought the commitment was obvious by intuition, it wasn't. It took me a while to realise this. Had I had the conversation, that line would have been clearer in both of our minds.

[–]WhatIsThisAccountFor3 Star0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Was the therapy as a result of his borderline infidelity, or were there other issues?

Was the infidelity the main reason you two broke up?

[–]rabidoctopi3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Not having a talk about commitment would seem to mean that a guy could NEVER cheat, because the commitment wouldn't be specified.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

And you could be with other men if you felt so inclined....after all, no commitment.

Presumably if the relationship is solid, and you are a worthwhile partner, the man will bring up the commitment discussion when the time is appropriate. Leadership means he leads and you follow.

Also just because he could cheat on a technicality doesn't mean he would. Give men more credit than that. In my experience the type of high value men we are seeking here are honorable and not inclined to cheat. If you are repeatedly drawn to the types of men who cheat then you should reconsider your vetting process.

[–]rabidoctopi2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

In my experience the type of high value men we are seeking here are honorable and not inclined to cheat.

So do you consider it cheating or not? High value man or not, honor is not involved if exclusivity is merely compiled from nonverbal cues, because nonverbal cues do not a promise make. Of course this doesn't mean every man WOULD use this carte blanche, but the problem is more in the failure to establish clear expectations.

Does following someone else's leadership mean that you should abnegate your own desires, to the point of not even discussing them with your partner? To me, communication should be an asset to avoid misunderstandings and facilitate mutual satisfaction on both sides.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I consider cheating and how to respond to it highly situational.

But I think that what you are suggesting is that without a "commitment" label a man has a loophole to cheat. If my man were the type to utilize loopholes in this manner, he would not be my man.

And men are nonverbal so sometimes what they do is far more important than what they say. Women have been promised the world only to have it come to nothing. Learning to read men's nonverbal cues is a powerful tool for the Female Toolbox.

To me, communication should be an asset to avoid misunderstandings and facilitate mutual satisfaction on both sides

To me, this post is discussing a high level of Girl Game at a specific point in the relationship. It is not saying "never talk to him" and it is not saying "don't vet him for his ideas about marriage and commitment". If a woman can't figure out male cues and can't enjoy the ride in those early days then sure have "The Talk". But its' not the most charming way that it can be handled.

I'm not sure what women are waiting until year one and two and three to figure out if their man is committed. It seems to me that if you aren't getting signs of commitment and exclusivity by month three through six then it's time to look hard at the relationship and consider if he's the guy.

[–]WonderfulandValuable9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I made it clear from the beginning that I expect commitment and exclusivity before engaging in sexual activities.

[–]carefreevermillion2 Star18 points19 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

For the sake of discussion, you argue that the man bringing up that his sexual needs need to be met in a mechanical way is inappropriate and socially weak. You then compare this to a woman asking for commitment.

Do you find the reverse discussions to be as socially unacceptable? To clarify, the woman would be essentially saying "I'm offering sex if you want it" and then the man saying "I'm offering commitment if you want it". How covert should those agreements be? Obviously the eventual results of commitment and sex (marriage and children) need overt discussion, but if you think it's appropriate to have those overt discussions when the gatekeeper of the respective desire is ready, at what point (or range) would you say that's appropriate? Or would you leave it up to the individual couples to draw those lines?

[–]WhisperTRP Founder[S] 24 points25 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Good question.

In general, I think that men, as the gatekeepers of relationships, can talk more openly about relationship status, and women, as the gatekeepers of sex, can be more open about sex.

But there is a threshold. And there is also a certain degree of social grace in how you offer that which it is your role to offer.

A man is certainly going to be more turned on by you growling "Take me now" in his ear than "I. Am. Offering. Sex. If. You. Want. It.", which, let's face it, is kinda robotic.

At a certain point, things have to become explicit, but even then, indicative words are superior to literal language, and actions are better yet. Tearing off his shirt, with buttons flying everywhere, is a better indicator of sexual passion than anything you could say. And bringing you with him to his family's Thanksgiving celebration, or along with his college friends on that road trip, is a better indicator of investment than using the word "girlfriend".

I would say that the principle is that men should work to inspire sexual desire, and women should indicate it with their actions. While women should work to inspire emotional investment, and men should indicate it with their actions.

Telling the other person that their "game" is working is generally fine... but the actions they take are a better measure of how they feel.

[–]mwait5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I would say that the principle is that men should work to inspire sexual desire, and women should indicate it with their actions. While women should work to inspire emotional investment, and men should indicate it with their actions.

Bingo.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I had a guy who handled this in the overt way that you are talking about here (I think).

It became clear to me that he was more interested in the relationship than I was. It was never 'hell yes' so I probably shouldn't have kept it up for as long as I did (about 6 weeks) but I didn't understand "hell yes, or no" at the time. His friends were all getting married and I mused one night that because of that fact, I thought he might be looking for something more serious than I was. Now he probably should have broken up with me then and there but he just listened. The next time we were together, he told me that he wanted us to be boyfriend and girlfriend if I wanted it.

It totally put me on the spot and was cringy AF.

I think that's the issue with all of these scenarios where things are discussed outright. If both people's feelings aren't in the same place, it's awkward and off putting for one partner to come out and say it. It puts demands on the other person, sometimes too soon.

[–]NubianIbex16 points17 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sounds nice in theory but the difference between theory and practice is much greater in practice than in theory (Richard Feynman).

What you say may be true up until LTR level. In a liberal bluepill society, however inspiring a woman might be, nowadays there's absolutely no need for a man to think about his desire to marry her until push comes to shove. This is what feminists fought for and this is the loophole RP male strategy exploits to achieve optimal outcome of plate-spinning or at best carefree LTRing.

So a better analogy for your example is a man trying to get laid or assess his odds at getting laid while dating in a religious society where sex without marriage/commitment is not expected of anyone or even frowned upon. Here women may be the gatekeepers of sex, but there's a strip of land surrounding the gates, guarded by the principles of society. In this analogy, men only want to date women who will be sexually attracted to them someday in the future when time comes to approach the gates. While for women it's a matter which they vet in a mostly theoretical manner, or maybe not at all.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that in theory commitment shouldn't be negotiated. However unlike inspiring desire in a woman to have sex with you, it's naive to think that anything will inspire a man to effortlessly commit. Sex is something both men and women want and need, and I've lurked on RP enough to know that commitment isn't.

It's sad sometimes, really. To feel that your heart's desire is to be a wife to this man that you're in a relationship with, yet you can't do anything about it but trust him and wait as long as it takes. Sometimes the hamster just can't take it anymore, you're overwhelmed with fear and sadness and you brainfart the talk out of your mouth and regret it afterwards.

[–]SouthernAthenaEndorsed Contributor7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

This is a great post. I would caution ladies to be at least somewhat explicit about committent though, not demanding but simply asking. In this day and age, things may seem really serious, but sometimes each partner is on a different page. One will think they are exclusive while the other assumes that, if it's not stated, there's still room for dating. The signs of commitment may all be there, but they may not be the whole picture.

So when things are feeling serious, just a simple, calm, non-accusatory question of "are we exclusive?" or "are we bf & gf?" can go a long way to saving heartache. You don't want to be 6 months in love and find out he was dating other people the whole time.

But it must be understood that this can't be a demand. It is a simple question.

All this is simply to avoid what happens when you assume...making an a** out of u and me.

[–]lespetiteschoses2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. Women and men are very different creatures, and we are not mind readers on either side.

It is very wise to clarify where you both stand. As you say, there's no need for it to be a demand, a simple question is fine though.

[–]g_e_m_anscombe23 points24 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I totally disagree with this. There can be reasons unrelated to a woman that explain a man not wanting to get married. In a world where 3 and 5 year LTRs are common, if you want commitment sooner, it can be good to have the talk.

Within a month of dating, I asked my now husband how long he would want to date before asking someone to marry him. He said about a year. I told him that I wouldn’t want to waste more than a year with a man who wasn’t interested in marrying me. A little over a year in, I checked in with him. “So, you said it would take about a year of being with someone before you felt ready to marry her. Where are things at?” As we talked, it became clear that he felt confident about me but was worried he wasn’t adult enough to be married. I told him that getting married would help him to feel like an adult, but he sort of needed to figure that out on his own a bit. Within a few months, I made it clear that I wanted to marry him but that I wasn’t going to waste another year on him if he didn’t put a ring on it. Giving him a bit of a nudge was helpful and he still took all the initiative in planning the proposal.

We’re Christians so we were waiting for sex until marriage. If you’re in a different situation, maybe there would be less desire to get married in a shorter time frame. But I think it’s very reasonable for women in their mid-20s to tell men that they aren’t willing to waste 1-2 years on someone who knows he won’t get married “until 35” or “until he feels like an adult” or whatever excuse he may give. It’s better to have a talk like this in the earlier stages of dating rather than the end. But a follow up is fine as well.

[–]lespetiteschoses10 points11 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. Commitment is far more complicated than sex, and with a short fertile window women need to know that you have complementary goals if she's going to invest precious time in you.

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike3 Stars6 points7 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

A woman's ideal window of fertility is short relative to a man's, but let's be realistic here - it's still approximately 15-20 years. That's not exactly the blink of an eye. If you squander a sizable portion of that window engaging in the type of promiscuity encouraged by feminists and the media alike, that's no one's fault but your own, and it certainly doesn't place any responsibility on men in general to commit in a shorter time period than they deem fit.

[–]lespetiteschoses11 points12 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Most women are not pumping out babies at age 20. Say you get into your first serious relationship after college at 22, date for a few years, and it goes bad at say 26. It happens. Start a new relationship at 27, think he's committed, 30 rolls around and he's out of there. "Oh you were looking for a husband? I didn't know."

This is not an usual scenario and is not slutting around.

You've now got say 5 years of viability left before things seriously start to slow down. 5 years to find a new man, become committed, get married, get pregnant... What if you want more than one? What if you need IVF?

I'm not saying you should try to gain commitment before he's ready, simply ask him if that's on the cards for him and move on quick smart if he says no.

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike3 Stars6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Look, you can either rail against human nature and lament the sad fact that men do not cater to every woman's wants or needs, or you can accept the world as it is as an emotionally mature adult and learn to work within that framework. There is no third option, and as the friends you've mentioned as well as many other women are quickly learning, men writ large will not simply cave to the increasing demands of women ad infinitum without considering their own interests or adjusting their dating strategy.

This is the reality of the world. If you don't like it, the proper outlet for your ire are the mailboxes of the likes of Andrea Dworkin and Gloria Steinem.

[–]lespetiteschoses8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Where did I say a man should bend to our wants and needs?

Quite the opposite. I'm saying we should be clear about our wants and needs on both ends so that we don't end up staying with a man who has different plans to us. How is that at all demanding?

[–]WhisperTRP Founder[S] 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Or, as one of my old professors used to put it: "Your lack of planning does not constitute my emergency".

[–]ElfFey5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

So what's the problem with clarifying your plans to him?

[–]lespetiteschoses24 points25 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

I think this is a poor analogy.

A woman will show her attraction to you by having sex. There's no ambiguity there.

A man may act like he's committed to you, but unless you have the conversation and make exclusivity clear, you have no idea if he's seeing other women on the side. You also have no idea what 'commitment' means to him. If you're a woman aiming to marry, you need to find out his views on this and make sure you're not wasting each other's time.

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike3 Stars3 points4 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

I disagree.

A woman can state her intention to sleep with a man, but the statement lacks credibility whereas the act most certainly does not.

Similarly, a man can say whatever he likes in order to get laid, but if he has no genuine intention to commit then the lie will cost him nothing in the long run. His actions, however, are far less ambiguous when attention is paid to the proper actions.

The main source of confusion and miscalculation for women is they often judge men by the significant actions in their value system instead of the important actions from the man's perspective.

Actions like presenting a girlfriend to his friends are not particularly significant to a man - this is mere social convention, which matters far less to men than it does women. Actions where a man will sacrifice his own best interests for the sake of a woman's well-being are far more significant from the male perspective.

[–]lespetiteschoses6 points7 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

But women don't think like men. How are we supposed to know what actions scream 'commitment' when they are entirely foreign to us as women? Why not just ask the man?

And what about the woman who (like most women) wants to marry one day. How should she figure out if this is in her guy's plan?

All this guesswork is very dangerous for women.

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike3 Stars3 points4 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

"All this guesswork is dangerous for women."

And with that statement, every man on Earth laughed out loud in unison.

It is certainly less dangerous than the situation men face regularly, trying to differentiate between "this woman is interested in sex with me", "this woman is interested in sex with one of the guys I'm friends with", "this woman is interested in sex in general", and "this woman is just fishing for free drinks".

But hey, this is the fun, exciting part of dating! What are the correct indicators of commitment will depend on the man - that is why I emphasized asking the right questions and listening. Find out what a man wants out of life, what he values, and what his ethics are. If you learn that about him, you'll be able to tell when he's sacrificing something important to him for your sake - which tells you that you are more important than the thing he's sacrificing. That is a good measure of when a man is committed to something.

[–]lespetiteschoses8 points9 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Running out of time to reproduce because a man had strung you along through your fertile years is no small problem.

Men also having risks in dating does not change that fact.

Is this not a community for female sexual strategy?

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike3 Stars1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

It is certainly a dilemma and I didn't mean to come off as callous or snarky in my response; I wrote it shortly after someone had been getting under my skin at work. I apologize if my post has a negative tone.

That being said, life is full of unavoidable dilemmas, and we are all working on a deadline. The best we can do under the circumstances is to improve ourselves as best we can, have an honest view of the state of the world, and try to navigate through it with the tools we have available. There are no easy answers.

To that end, I still maintain that trying to understand the personal values and life goals of any man courting you is the best approach when trying to determine if his actions are indicative of a desire to bind himself to you. Furthermore, if your efforts to listen and really understand him are both apparent and sincere, it will increase the likelihood that he will view you as a woman that has earned his commitment.

Contrary to the popular view put forth by feminists, men are not actually afraid of commitment; they generally treat oaths far more seriously than women (some evidence of this is that over 70% of divorces are initiated by women) and implicitly interpret them as meaning "until death and beyond". As such, they tend to be slower to pledge loyalty, and they expect a certain level of effort for someone to earn their loyalty. It is no accident that the motto of the USMC is Semper Fidelis.

[–]lespetiteschoses6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Women are not good at reading these cues you're speaking of. It is safer to just be honest and forthcoming with your goals rather than playing mind reader.

I know far too many women who have spent a lot of time with a man who was 'acting' commited. Moving in together, holidays, support and care, and yes, making "sacrifices", but when push comes to shove he's gone.

"Oh I never said I was looking for a long term thing! I never said I was interested in marriage one day! If you were looking for a husband why didn't you say so?"

Too many women try to play it "cool" and end up wasting years.

The conversation doesn't need to be demanding or "socially retarded". I made sure my husband knew early on what kind of relationship I was looking for, and when things weren't clear (and things between men are women are rarely very clear!) I asked him for clarity. I wasn't pushing him to commit earlier than he was ready to, simply making my plans known and sussing out if we were compatible there.

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike3 Stars2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

No, you are apparently not good reading men's cues. There are plenty of women who frequent this board who seem to fare just fine when interacting with men, just as there are ample men out there that have learned to divine the far more mercurial signals from women.

The proper and mature way to handle this conundrum is to STFU, read and listen, and think on the statements of women that have successfully navigated these waters, which is the stated purpose of this forum, NOT to get pissy at men for their intrinsic nature while simultaneously demanding lifelong commitment from them.

[–]lespetiteschoses8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Haha I don't know where you're getting the idea that I'm pissy.

Men and women have different goals much of the time, making sure we're on the same page is wise. This is the extent of what I'm saying. Chill :)

[–]mauibaya5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed, don't know why guywithgirlwithabike is getting so pissy with you

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

whereas the act most certainly does not.

Actually, I believe a quick check in at MRP would show that women will fake the act of attraction regularly (ie: duty sex). I won't question motives, that's a whole other topic, but sex is not a 100% guarantee of a. attraction or b. more & continuing sex.

Both sides are taking a risk that the other person's words and actions reflect their genuine thoughts.

But I really wanted to ask you to elaborate on this:

Actions where a man will sacrifice his own best interests for the sake of a woman's well-being are far more significant from the male perspective

What sort of thing should a woman look for during the dating process. Remember, we have trouble understanding the male perspective - so to say this is all well and good. But what are some ways to use this idea to determine if a man is committed?

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike3 Stars6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

As to your first point, I don't think the duty sex and dead bedroom issues on MRP apply here as that board pertains to people who are already married, and here we are discussing the courtship phase which precedes a formalized and legally-binding commitment. A wife may have sex with her husband just to shut him up for a while, but it seems doubtful that a woman would do that on a first date simply to avoid some strange man's complaints.

As to your second, I will use an example from our own relationship: after I finished college I largely limited my job search to the local area - no more than an hour from where we were currently living. I did that because you had things tying you to the area; you still wanted to finish school which was made easier by sticking to in-state schools, and you are much closer to your family, which is also much larger than mine, and moving would have weakened many of your familial ties.

It certainly wasn't the most advantageous course of action were I only considering my own self-interest. There are other parts of country or world with higher wages or more prestigious job opportunities, but the additional benefit of pursuing those opportunities was outweighed by the cost I would have incurred had we broken up, or had you followed me around the globe but our relationship degraded.

I considered that a sacrifice, but one I was happy to make. It's difficult to lay out hard and fast rules for RPW to follow when trying to decide if a man's displays of commitment are significant. That will depend on the man in question's own hierarchy of values, which will vary between men. If you don't actually know the values of the man you are dating, there are two possible explanations why: either you are not deserving of that level of intimacy, or he simply doesn't have any. In either case, that's a subject that is best sussed out sooner than later.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Can I just say that you two are actual couple goals and I love reading about your relationship. Totally not trying to be a creep.

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike3 Stars0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you and it's not creepy at all. It means we've been objectively doing things right and we're not just kidding ourselves.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

A woman will show her attraction to you by having sex. There's no ambiguity there.

Some women will lose attraction after she's locked down her man and sex stops. So showing her attraction via sex during courtship is only meaningful for the period of time that it lasts for.

A man is committed to you for as long as it gets him what he wants, so discussion of commitment means nothing - it can disappear in a day or after 10 years.

It all still involves getting to know the person and properly vetting on both sides. Finding out his views early is a good thing but that's not the same as sitting him down at the 3 month mark and saying "We need to discuss the status of our relationship."

[–]lespetiteschoses3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not saying to sit down and write up a contract lol. But there's nothing weird about have a frank conversation with someone you're considering spending your life with to make sure you're on the same page.

[–]SnivyBells 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

This was what somewhat happened to me. He was ready to commit, but it turned out that his idea of commitment and what I had in mind was something completely different (I'm the kind of person that cannot be arsed with any kind of relationship unless the end game is marriage). For whichever reason, his was really warped from what I would usually think commitment stands for, but that might just be me, who knows, who cares anymore. He turned out to be quite a twat and man-child, just wish I realized that sooner.

[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Insulting your SO is against the rules, this extends to your ex. It is not a good look on women who do it. Femininity includes social grace.

If you wish to share you experience please do so, but do it without insulting the man you thought was good enough to share your life with for a time. If you edit this comment I will review and reapprove.

[–]SnivyBells0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I will just delete it. I was too young to see what was happening, so I was very much mistreated, my bad if it's not allowed to say whatever I said, I didn't know.

[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

We want you to share, we just want you to share in a way that is helpful to other women, rather than a rant about your ex. If you were too young, it is likely that others can benefit by learning from your youthful mistakes!

[–]batting4fireflies12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is a really important topic. One of the most common questions women ask here is how to know if a guy they’re seeing will commit to them.

The problem, of course, is there is no way to know for sure whether a man is willing to commit to you, because like sexual desire, the desire to commit can change. This is why RP emphasizes self improvement, for both men and women.

One thing I would add is the role good intuition plays in girl game. The ability to read a man and his actions, and respond appropriately without having “a talk.”

When I first met my SO, I had no idea if he would desire any type of commitment with me. However, I knew we desired each other sexually right off the bat, and after a couple dates, I knew I also desired commitment from him. At that point, I relied on a combination of common sense and intuition to decide if it was worth taking the risk of being sexual with him. I decided it was. He told me he wanted to be monogamous with me and asked me to be his girlfriend the day after. In the two and a half years since then, he has demonstrated his commitment in increasingly more serious ways, I’ve demonstrated my sexual desire for him constantly, and I work everyday to be the woman he will continue to want to be committed to. Because I know that if I “slack off”, his desire to commit could change, just like if he were “slack off” my sexual desire for him could change.

I would say that The Talk is unnecessary if you’re a high quality woman with good intuition and ability to assess risk.

[–]connaught452 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

There is a much better solution to this. You don't sleep with them. You show desire, you compliment their appearance, you make it known how much you enjoy kissing them. When they try to progress to sex and you say I'm not ready, de-escalate, etc.. They will ask why you don't want to. You smile and say you are not the type of woman who has sex outside of a committed relationship. Then they will either commit or not, without you ever having to aksk. This is very easy to do.

[–]throwawayindisbelief1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

.

[–]Rape_And_Honey1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This could be an ok analogy for the "are we dating" talk, but not for marriage if that was your intention.

[–]aussiedollface1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is such an interesting post! I’m so glad I found this board. I’ve only had a couple of boyfriends, but they have always brought up commitment, not me. In the dating phase I have always focused on connecting emotionally and mentally, and really listening to him and getting to know the man. I wouldn’t sleep with a guy before we were exclusive, but I do also accept that in those early stages of dating they are likely sleeping with other women. Some of my friends freak out by this and I think that makes them prematurely try to “lock down” a man, and the guy freezes up. I’m getting married in two months and my fiancé has been the leader in all the commitment stages, and I like it that way as it gives me security that he has come to it on his own. I do realise there are some men who need a little push or nudge, but I believe it can be done subtley and without losing your feminine charm.
xo

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]CrazyHorseInvincibleModerator[M] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think you get to take a little break from RPW now.

When you return, discuss the idea, not the person.

[–]opiatesaretheworst0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

So women never seek just sex without interest in a relationship?

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike3 Stars0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is a good post, and an apt analogy.

I don't really have anything else to add.

[–]unicorn__juice0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I am learning so much from this subreddit. So so so valuable! Thank you!

[–]stubborndaffodil0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

This is genius. Deep down I know this but I couldn't put it into words why. I have mentioned wanting marriage to my man, but I have never and will never give him an ultimatum to marry me. Even though it is one of my deepest desires (that and having kids with him), I really focus on not putting pressure on him, especially when I know our situation is not ready for those things.

Who wants to nag someone into marrying them?

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

I really focus on not putting pressure on him, especially when I know our situation is not ready for those things.

Who wants to nag someone into marrying them?

Absolutely. No one should ever feel pressured into making such a huge life decision. After a year or two you should evaluate your relationship (at this point no need for a conversation, just look at his actions) and decide to fish or cut bait.

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

Yeah I've never understood the concept of sitting down and having a big chat about things that should be apparent. If you have to have the talk to see if he wants commitment, he probably doesn't. Men are fairly territorial in my experience, unless they're just playing around.

[–]redmanticore20 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Then marriage itself is socially retarded.

The marriage is legally bound The Talk.

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

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