Game equivalent for women. How to make a guy stay?

[Emerald]

6 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

If a women wants to maximize the chances of retaining a man, then be less of a hassle as you can in his life.

Make his life as peaceful as possible. Don't nag him or pester him. Dealing with many women has become insufferable. If that's the case, he will definitely leave even before you know it.

In short reduce the hassle. Increase what he likes: Be sexually available, be feminine etc.

This is the game of retention for women. But just like game for men, no game is perfect. It's just maximises your chances.

This game for women is made under the assumption that you have selected the right man for you in the first place. You don't want to retain the wrong man for sure. 

Most of these things won't help a woman keep a man wanting to stay with her.

However, (with the not nagging/pestering thing) everyone has their breaking point no matter how much love and attachment there is. So, that could become a deal breaker if taken to an extreme.

However, this post isn't about avoiding losing a man (as everyone male or female has deal breakers)... it's about what keeps a man wanting to be with a woman.

Also, it's important to note here that everyone has certain compatibilities and incompatibilities that are important to work out in the initial attraction phase.

So, when it comes to the topic of KEEPING a man, it's already assumed that the compatibility (sexually or otherwise) has already been established.

But beyond establishing sexual compatibility (along with other forms of compatibility), being constantly sexually available to a man isn't going to keep him.

The only thing that keeps a man is if he loves you and wants to be there. And no amount of strategy or game will keep a man there that doesn't already want with all of his heart to be there. And if he doesn't, the best strategy is to let him go.

Now, being in the Feminine energy creates softness and space for him to get closer to you. So, there is truth in this one. If you aren't able to shift into the Feminine energy and be the beloved, the bonding won't really have a chance to happen.

[Princess Arabia]

1 minute ago, Bobby_2021 said:

What you guys don't get is that Love takes physical forms.

Love takes the form of sex, food, attention, emotional attachment etc. Men want love in the form of sex whilst women may want it in the form of money or attention.

For a broke women money is love for her. So it's okay for her to seek love in the form of money. Is it the husband's responsibility to provide? No, but your lady will perceive it as love, incase that's what she is looking for. 

Love for women comes in the form of attention, feeling of safety being etc. Does it always have to be the case for all women? No. Different people look for love in different ways.

If you can seperate sex from love, then don't blame men when goes looking for sex somewhere else. He is looking for love. If he can't get it from his woman, then some other women will give it to him. 

In this day and age, no one is forced or should be forced to give anything. None of which I said implies anything of that sort.

Anyways make up your own mind. 

You said be available for sex. That's not the same as two people in love wanting to share the art of having sex together. All the rest you said up there is just horseshit. That's to me and not limited to anyone else's ears. Don't take it personal. You are entitled to your beliefs and opinions, but it's just horseshit.

[Emerald]

13 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Hit the nail on the head here. Most guys who don't understand this are the ones that are like the ones you described above. This is why women who do this end up being left for the woman he can work for and provide for. Men need this dynamic to feel masculine. 

I think the challenge here is that men don't tend to fantasize about loving a woman. So, they're not aware of how they actually fall in love... especially if they've never been in love with a woman before.

They fantasize more about "getting good" with women and being desirable to women... and having lots of sex with women and getting female validation.

They like this idea because their main bottleneck is being able to find ways to be attractive to women.

So, these fantasies are novel and empowering and exciting to them. So, they will get really turned on and excited by the idea of their women (or women in general) treating them as the beloved... and having tons of sex... and getting all the female validation... and having a woman with a super submissive nature who is pliable and listens to his beck and call.

All these ideas are exciting and novel to a man precisely because he's not living them.

But these fantasies don't have anything to do with how men actually fall in love and what really keeps a man committed. 

In fact, when men fall in love it goes against this whole entire fantasy.... as the fantasy has to do with feeling a sense of power and control in the face of women (that they often feel disempowered in relation to since women are generally the more selective sex).

So, falling in love is often a dreaded experience to many men because it goes against his conscious agenda to realize this fantasy... even as his conscious agenda towards this fantasy can accidentally lead him to love.

And because of this, men will give women advice on how to keep a man by telling you what their fantasy is and what they like... and they're not lying. They really do think that this would keep them around because it's their fantasy. They LOVE the idea of the fantasy.

But their fantasy is just what they think would keep them around.

In reality, they would lose interest in a woman who does these things very quickly like the dog that caught the car. 

Men are more likely to fall in love with a compatible woman who invests in herself, has a high sense of self-worth and strong boundaries, and who's willing to challenge him from time to time.

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, Princess Arabia said:

You said be available for sex. That's not the same as two people in love wanting to share the art of having sex together. All the rest you said up there is just horseshit. That's to me and not limited to anyone else's ears. Don't take it personal. You are entitled to your beliefs and opinions, but it's just horseshit.

A normal heterosexual relationship implies that she is the only creature in this world he can have sex with.

So if she isn't sexually available, where is he supposed to have sex?

Note that love for the man comes in form of sex. He will expect to get sex just like you would expect his attention. 

I said "be sexually available" only if you want to retain him. She has all the freedom in the world to not be sexually available. But then, don't be surprised when he leaves you to get sex from women who are sexually available.

No one will force anyone to do anything. 

On the same note, if the man is not giving enough attention to his woman, them even she will leave him. 

Quote

"That's not the same as two people in love wanting to share the art of having sex together"

Two people are having sex because they both were sexually available in the first place.

Available to take calls doesn't mean that you have to on phone 24/7. It just means, you are available to take calls when they occur. If you are not available, then no problem. Someone else will take the calls in your place. 

Don't worry I don't take anything you said personally. 

Edited April 3 by Bobby_2021

[Emerald]

30 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

What you guys don't get is that Love takes physical forms.

Love takes the form of sex, food, attention, emotional attachment etc. Men want love in the form of sex whilst women may want it in the form of money or attention.

For a broke women money is love for her. So it's okay for her to seek love in the form of money. Is it the husband's responsibility to provide? No, but your lady will perceive it as love, incase that's what she is looking for. 

Love for women comes in the form of attention, feeling of safety being etc. Does it always have to be the case for all women? No. Different people look for love in different ways.

If you can seperate sex from love, then don't blame men when goes looking for sex somewhere else. He is looking for love. If he can't get it from his woman, then some other women will give it to him. 

In this day and age, no one is forced or should be forced to give anything. None of which I said implies anything of that sort.

Anyways make up your own mind. 

Like I mentioned before, sex (and money for that matter) is something that there needs to be compatibility around in order for a relationship to work out.

Sex isn't what's going to keep a man there as the only thing that keeps a man there is love and a desire to live his life with her. And no amount of sex will convince a man to stay who doesn't already love her and want to stay of his own volition.

So, it's not a good idea for a woman to view sex as a strategy she employs to keep a man or as a part of "female game". 

Instead, she (and he) would be wise to find a partner who is already sexually compatible so there aren't any issues or deal-breakers around this topic.

With relationships, there are things we need from our partners in order to be compatible and feel good in a relationship. And this will be different for different people. So, getting the compatibility clear at the outset of the relationship is essential for avoiding a painful breakup down the line.

But the issue with the idea of women "using game" to keep a man is that the only way for her to win the game is to remain in the frame that there is no need for her to play the game... because she is already the prize. And then to eliminate men from her consideration that don't recognize her as the prize.

[Bobby_2021]

37 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Most of these things won't help a woman keep a man wanting to stay with her.

If you are looking for certainty, I am afraid you won't find it. It's called game for a reason. You cannot predict the outcome. That is by design.

If there was some that women could do that would definitively retain a man, then it would be called cause and effect. Not game. 

Even game for men doesn't imply that he will get every other woman to sleep with him. If he is an expert, then maybe 5% of the women be willing to sleep with him on a lucky day.

43 minutes ago, Emerald said:

However, this post isn't about avoiding losing a man (as everyone male or female has deal breakers)... it's about what keeps a man wanting to be with a woman.

You will retain him if you don't piss him off, given that he loves you in the first place.

But even if he loves you, there is a high chance that you will lose him, if time spent with you is full of chaos & bullshit. 

49 minutes ago, Emerald said:

But beyond establishing sexual compatibility (along with other forms of compatibility), being constantly sexually available to a man isn't going to keep him.

I didn't say it will. But not being sexually available will not keep him either.

Do you want to maximize your chances of retaining him or not?

51 minutes ago, Emerald said:

The only thing that keeps a man is if he loves you and wants to be there

Yes. He should also get some back love in the form of peace and sex.

We are both saying the same thing.

She loves him with sex, her feminity or whatever.

He loves her with attention, emotional attachment, and whatever she wants.

You clearly do agree that she should love him, isn't it? What I am saying is that love isn't abstract, but it come in the form of sex. Love is physical. Not abstract.

Love should materialise physically. It should find expression in the body. 

The best chances of retaining him is in loving him with as much sex & feminity as he wants. Or if he isn't looking for sex he must be seeking love in some other ways. Then give him that love. I don't know what kind of love he is looking for. But most men are looking for love in the form of sex. 

Loving him more seems to be a reasonable strategy for retaining him.

I can't explain it better. 

[Emerald]

12 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

A normal heterosexual relationship implies that she is the only creature in this world he can have sex with.

So if she isn't sexually available, where is he supposed to have sex?

Note that love for the man comes in form of sex. He will expect to get sex just like you would expect his attention. 

I said "be sexually available" only if you want to retain him. She has all the freedom in the world to not be sexually available. But then, don't be surprised when he leaves you to get sex from women who are sexually available.

No one will force anyone to do anything. 

On the same note, if the man is not giving enough attention to his woman, them even she will leave him. 

"That's not the same as two people in love wanting to share the art of having sex together"

Two people are having sex because they both were sexually available in the first place.

Available to take calls doesn't mean that you have to on phone 24/7. It just means, you are available to take calls when they occur. If you are not available, then no problem. Someone else will take the calls in your place. 

Don't worry I don't take anything you said personally. 

The problem with this line of thinking is that it's a sure-fire way to get her feeling like sex is a chore she has to do for you to keep you loyal. 

And this will put her in her Masculine energy and using sex a strategy to keep you as opposed to a beautiful mutual experience to share... and it will create resentment and kill her libido.

I was with a guy like this before (minus the threat of cheating as he really valued being with me and wasn't a completely terrible guy).

But he did view sex as a chore I was supposed to do for him. And he had this idea that if I didn't give him sex... then he wasn't going to cuddle with me or give me attention because he would say "There is no difference between sex and cuddling because this is how men feel loved."

And he thought that it should be an even exchange where if he cuddled with me that it should lead to sex.

But this whole dynamic was a huge turn-off as he would withhold cuddling and affection because he felt I was withholding sex. And anytime I wanted to cuddle with him, he would immediately take it to a sexual place. And he'd get angry and resentful if I told him that I just wanted to cuddle for a while.

But the problem is, that I need non-sexual cuddling and affection to feel valued and loved. And this in turn is the thing that turns me on as it relaxes me and gets me in the mood. And I never had the opportunity to get into that mood because engaging in cuddling meant that I would be expected to get to work within the next 30 seconds or he would get mad.

So, from my perspective, the whole sexual dynamic became like doing the dishes or vacuuming. And it was just exhausting. And it lead to me avoiding cuddling and sex for months at a time because my body was just closed up to it.

And after 2 or 3 months of avoiding sex, I'd force myself to have sex with him by pretending not to be there or imagining I was with someone else. And my whole entire being was screaming "I DO NOT WANT THIS!"

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

If you are looking for certainty, I am afraid you won't find it. It's called game for a reason. You cannot predict the outcome. That is by design.

If there was some that women could do that would definitively retain a man, then it would be called cause and effect. Not game. 

Even game for men doesn't imply that he will get every other woman to sleep with him. If he is an expert, then maybe 5% of the women be willing to sleep with him on a lucky day.

You will retain him if you don't piss him off, given that he loves you in the first place.

But even if he loves you, there is a high chance that you will lose him, if time spent with you is full of chaos & bullshit. 

I didn't say it will. But not being sexually available will not keep him either.

Do you want to maximize your chances of retaining him or not?

Yes. He should also get some back love in the form of peace and sex.

We are both saying the same thing.

She loves him with sex, her feminity or whatever.

He loves her with attention, emotional attachment, and whatever she wants.

You clearly do agree that she should love him, isn't it? What I am saying is that love isn't abstract, but it come in the form of sex. Love is physical. Not abstract.

Love should materialise physically. It should find expression in the body. 

The best chances of retaining him is in loving him with as much sex & feminity as he wants. Or if he isn't looking for sex he must be seeking love in some other ways. Then give him that love. I don't know what kind of love he is looking for. But most men are looking for love in the form of sex. 

Loving him more seems to be a reasonable strategy for retaining him.

I can't explain it better. 

The things you're mentioning here are compatibility-related things and avoiding deal-breakers, which are important for both partners to be clear on before entering into a relationship.

Now... not every man is going to feel the same way that you do about sex nor will he need the same amount of sex as you to have his needs met. And not every woman is going to be compatible with your sexual values and needs.

So, if you want those needs to be met in a relationship, you'll have to find a woman who is compatible with you in that way. That said, with the last post you made, I'm going to caveat this with the reality that your philosophy on sex will turn sex into a chore she does for you which will likely kill her libido and lead to less sex... because it will be less fulfilling sex for her.

But the reason I'm posting all this is because the OP was asking what is the equivalent "female game" and strategies that women can do to keep a man. 

And my point that I've been bringing up is that the only strategy a woman can use to keep a man is to find a man who loves her and wants to live his life with her. 

Otherwise, there is no other strategy that will work. The woman has no control over keeping a man... other than to pick a compatible man that loves her and wants to be with her.

In regard to the certainty thing... of course, nothing is ever certain. But I am personally not worried about certainty or strategies for keeping a man. I feel pretty settled in my relationship. I am merely sharing best practices for women who might stumble across this section of the forum and get confused by all the ineffective advice around "how to keep a man."

The only real way to win the game is to choose not to play with someone who doesn't love you and/or isn't right for you. For women, the best strategy is to separate the wheat from the chaff... and employing strategies that work within the Masculine attraction framework aren't going to work.

[Consept]

Just my 2 pence and its interesting thinking from a female perspective, I think for a man to stay, first of all he himself has to be in the mindset of genuinely wanting a long term relationship. So 'female game' starts from this point which is selection, through the courting phase she has to ascertain whether he actually wants to settle down and be with her long term. I think a lot of the time women know that the guy is not really looking for that by they try and keep him around with sex or by demonstrating 'wifey' characteristics. 

Some guys will settle down for a particular girl but she needs to work out whether he actually feels strongly for her. This can get slightly confused if they're having sex and a lot of women believe that if he's having sex with her regularly, he loves her but this is rarely the case. Guys will definitely talk a lot of bullshit to keep a girl around. 

Once she's passed this hurdle and is sure that he's at least up for a long term relationship with the right woman, all she can really do is be herself and see if that connection can grow and they fall in love. There will be traits that will signal that she would be a good long term mate, but this is very dependent on the guy. For me personally it'll be things like being a person worthy of respect, high emotional intelligence, ability to navigate conflict well, dealt with previous trauma or at least working on it, good at communication, honest, fair, able to take criticism. There's many more probably. 

 

[Princess Arabia]

46 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

So if she isn't sexually available,

I think what you mean by this and what I assume you meant by this is somewhere in between. I read it as you meant she should be at his beckon call. It seems you meant that she should be the type of woman who is willing to have sex with him and not just like a platonic-like relationship or to expect that he won't want sex from her.

If that's what you meant, I apologize for my outburst because as a woman saying we should be available for sex when you want it just seems a bit psychotic if that's the right word, So, excuse me for my all caps and use of expletives.

[Bobby_2021]

2 hours ago, actuallyenlightened said:

Give me enough alone time (I'm an introvert)

I am not an introvert, but this is big for me. I needs lots of time alone and women might perceive that as lack of interest. But that is not the case. Not having alone time will only make me more miserable over time. I just need a break, not a breakup. And that is not because of something that happened. Just some time alone for the sake of it.

For me, this is how I want love. By leaving me alone for some time.

20 minutes ago, Emerald said:

The problem with this line of thinking is that it's a sure-fire way to get her feeling like sex is a chore she has to do for you to keep you loyal

That would take the excitement away. It is typically how a SD blue mind would interpret what I said. Because all they can see is duty and responsibility. That is not what I meant at all. Availability implies dynamism. There is a possibility of sex, but you do not know if it will happen.

Being sexually available do not have more connotations to it. It simply means what it means. They way I suggest needs a higher order of development. It requires the man to judge if she is in the mood as well. As I said this is not your typical forcing people to get what they want.

You can be sexually available without having sex, you do know that this is a possibility right?

The opposite is not being sexually available. Which leads to more frustrations and breakups, cheating later on.

SD Blue = Have sex every Friday because that is how the bible says so. Sex becomes a chore, which is suppressing the woman.

SD Orange = Give me sex in return for flashy life, cars, money etc Everything is a transaction.

SD green = open relationships with no expectation of sexual exclusivity.

SD yellow = Realizing that all previous stages were looking for love and you can maintain exclusivity and love. Give what the other partner wants. That is love. Else there will be consequences that were apparent in the previous stages.

I am talking about a yellow way of relationships. There will be elements of blue and orange and green in it. But that is not what I am talking about.

[Emerald]

5 minutes ago, Consept said:

Just my 2 pence and its interesting thinking from a female perspective, I think for a man to stay, first of all he himself has to be in the mindset of genuinely wanting a long term relationship. So 'female game' starts from this point which is selection, through the courting phase she has to ascertain whether he actually wants to settle down and be with her long term. I think a lot of the time women know that the guy is not really looking for that by they try and keep him around with sex or by demonstrating 'wifey' characteristics. 

Some guys will settle down for a particular girl but she needs to work out whether he actually feels strongly for her. This can get slightly confused if they're having sex and a lot of women believe that if he's having sex with her regularly, he loves her but this is rarely the case. Guys will definitely talk a lot of bullshit to keep a girl around. 

Once she's passed this hurdle and is sure that he's at least up for a long term relationship with the right woman, all she can really do is be herself and see if that connection can grow and they fall in love. There will be traits that will signal that she would be a good long term mate, but this is very dependent on the guy. For me personally it'll be things like being a person worthy of respect, high emotional intelligence, ability to navigate conflict well, dealt with previous trauma or at least working on it, good at communication, honest, fair, able to take criticism. There's many more probably. 

This whole post is 100% true and relates a lot to what I'm trying to drive across.

And the underlined statement above is the dynamic that I fear some women can get into if they start trying to use "female game" as a means to strategize to keep a guy around.

So, a lot of the advice from earlier posters around making herself useful to a guy or giving him sex or looking good or any advice like that is just bad strategy... because it is usually a woman who likes a guy who isn't interested trying to find a way to cause a man to fall in love with her and want to be her partner.

The thing is, that no woman can make a man want to be with her and fall in love with her. If it isn't there from the beginning, it will never ever be there.

And once a woman accepts that she is 100% powerless to change a man's feelings about her and that she cannot "earn" his love... this gives her the ability to be in her Feminine energy and utilize ACTUAL "female game" which is to reject the uninterested men and select a compatible man who loves her and wants to commit to her that she has mutual feelings for. 

[Princess Arabia]

31 minutes ago, Emerald said:

The problem with this line of thinking is that it's a sure-fire way to get her feeling like sex is a chore she has to do for you to keep you loyal. 

And this will put her in her Masculine energy and using sex a strategy to keep you as opposed to a beautiful mutual experience to share... and it will create resentment and kill her libido.

I was with a guy like this before (minus the threat of cheating as he really valued being with me and wasn't a completely terrible guy).

But he did view sex as a chore I was supposed to do for him. And he had this idea that if I didn't give him sex... then he wasn't going to cuddle with me or give me attention because he would say "There is no difference between sex and cuddling because this is how men feel loved."

And he thought that it should be an even exchange where if he cuddled with me that it should lead to sex.

But this whole dynamic was a huge turn-off as he would withhold cuddling and affection because he felt I was withholding sex. And anytime I wanted to cuddle with him, he would immediately take it to a sexual place. And he'd get angry and resentful if I told him that I just wanted to cuddle for a while.

But the problem is, that I need non-sexual cuddling and affection to feel valued and loved. And this in turn is the thing that turns me on as it relaxes me and gets me in the mood. And I never had the opportunity to get into that mood because engaging in cuddling meant that I would be expected to get to work within the next 30 seconds or he would get mad.

So, from my perspective, the whole sexual dynamic became like doing the dishes or vacuuming. And it was just exhausting. And it lead to me avoiding cuddling and sex for months at a time because my body was just closed up to it.

And after 2 or 3 months of avoiding sex, I'd force myself to have sex with him by pretending not to be there or imagining I was with someone else. And my whole entire being was screaming "I DO NOT WANT THIS!"

The type of man that has this mindset will carry over other personality traits in the relationship that has the same type of characteristics. If you're not the type of woman who wants to be with a man that sees you having sex with him as your payment for his so-called love or as a chore you do because that's how he feels loved, better beware and move on because this attitude will bleed over to other parts of the relationship.

I feel a man who sees you having sex with him as him wanting to pleasing you because him pleasing you makes him feel good is a better candidate. I know men who didn't even cared if they came as long as the woman came, or would only do it if she wanted to, or will make sure she was comfortable doing whatever they were doing. These men were the same way in other parts of the relationship and the ones who treated it as you must show me your love by having sex with me type were terrible to deal with outside the bedroom.

[Princess Arabia]

11 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

I am talking about a yellow way of relationships. There will be elements of blue and orange and green in it. But that is not what I am talking about.

Yellow is pretty high on the scale and I believe is right under turquoise. So a yellow shouldn't be the type to want or need anything in a relationship but rather be in it to share life experiences with. Not that any other stage doesn't do this but the difference is you're saying give what the person is looking for and what one wants. A perfect kind of relationship is where neither is wanting anything or looking for anything from their partner but companionship and then however they view that to be. Not what one is looking for and not what one wants from the other. 

[Emerald]

7 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

That would take the excitement away. It is typically how a SD blue mind would interpret what I said. Because all they can see is duty and responsibility. That is not what I meant at all. Availability implies dynamism. There is a possibility of sex, but you do not know if it will happen.

Being sexually available do not have more connotations to it. It simply means what it means. They way I suggest needs a higher order of development. It requires the man to judge if she is in the mood as well. As I said this is not your typical forcing people to get what they want.

You can be sexually available without having sex, you do know that this is a possibility right?

The opposite is not being sexually available. Which leads to more frustrations and breakups, cheating later on.

SD Blue = Have sex every Friday because that is how the bible says so. Sex becomes a chore, which is suppressing the woman.

SD Orange = Give me sex in return for flashy life, cars, money etc Everything is a transaction.

SD green = open relationships with no expectation of sexual exclusivity.

SD yellow = Realizing that all previous stages were looking for love and you can maintain exclusivity and love. Give what the other partner wants. That is love. Else there will be consequences that were apparent in the previous stages.

I am talking about a yellow way of relationships. There will be elements of blue and orange and green in it. But that is not what I am talking about.

Your philosophy and mindset around sex in relationships is quite literally identical to his.

My previous partner (who was not traditional at all and was more like a mixture of Orange/Green/with a splash of Yellow at the time) who had this philosophy around sex. 

Sex is just the way he feels loved. And when I wasn't interested in sex he felt rejected and unloved. And he would then withhold cuddling and affection from me because he felt I was rejecting him... se he was rejecting me back. 

And it created all these pressures and felt like a chore. And the more it was a chore, the more closed up I became.

And you could potentially execute this philosophy in both better and worse ways than he did. But the philosophy is the same, and it would likely yield similar results.

[Emerald]

13 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

The type of man that has this mindset will carry over other personality traits in the relationship that has the same type of characteristics. If you're not the type of woman who wants to be with a man that sees you having sex with him as your payment for his so-called love or as a chore you do because that's how he feels loved, better beware and move on because this attitude will bleed over to other parts of the relationship.

I feel a man who sees you having sex with him as him wanting to pleasing you because him pleasing you makes him feel good is a better candidate. I know men who didn't even cared if they came as long as the woman came, or would only do it if she wanted to, or will make sure she was comfortable doing whatever they were doing. These men were the same way in other parts of the relationship and the ones who treated it as you must show me your love by having sex with me type were terrible to deal with outside the bedroom.

It definitely did show itself up in other ways. He was just really biased and couldn't see things from my perspective and was very unreceptive to my needs. So, there couldn't be any real give and take. It was all give on my part and all take on his.

He did all the communicating and I did all the listening. 

And for years I begged him to be more considerate towards me and nicer towards me. Often, he would deflect blame onto me. Sometimes he'd outright tell me no.

Needless to say, I'm not with him anymore. 

[eos_nyxia]

5 hours ago, Emerald said:

None of this is relevant if you find a man who loves you and wants you in his life.

Doesn't matter if you have sex with him on the very first date... or if you wait until marriage. If he wants you, he wants you. And if he doesn't he doesn't.

And there's nothing you can do (or should do) to try to change his mind on the latter.

There's no strategy you can employ to make a man stay or value you... other than to choose the man that loves you and wants you in his life and to reject the men who don't love you and/or aren't that into you and are just keeping you around to avoid loneliness or for easy female companionship and sex.

Always on the money.

Add to that list all the other things a man could use a woman for.

I'd also add to that list: men who are not emotionally present or who literally do not show up in other ways. Like if they want to be there, they will be THERE. You will be their priority. Everything else is just excuses.

 

And for myself, as much as my teenaged self was rough around the edges emotionally, I always had deadly accurate instincts about who was serious, and how much, and intuitively, what the conditions were. Violating my own intuition and instincts about men came at my own absolute peril.

Edited April 3 by eos_nyxia

[Bobby_2021]

32 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Your philosophy and mindset around sex in relationships is quite literally identical to his.

You are not capable of ascertaining my philosophy on relationships. So do not bother.

A lot of guys talk big stuff but act in manipulative way in real life. And women are unable to assess the depth of his "philosophy" will fall prey to them who had darker stuff to hide. If you can get him to talk with me for an hour, his entire philosophy will crumble in front of his eyes that he would not be able to bare it.

We had an entire long discussion in the Politics section precisely on this. How underdeveloped people use liberalism as a mask for their controlling style personalities. He talks like yellow and acts like blue. Big deal. That most liberals in real life if you control for wealth and prosperity.

To actually embody the values I speak of is not easy. You should be rightly skeptical of anyone who pretends to know these kinds of complicated stuff.

[LSD-Rumi]

It is about the quality of her partner. Some men cannot but cheat. Some others have fantasies or desires but don't act on them, they have some self inhibition. And some, commit with ease because he is interested in maintaining and cherishing the bond between him and his partner.

It is the function of the woman to asses the man thoroughly before commiting.

But also, it is essential for a woman to actively express her feminine energy. 

Edited April 3 by LSD-Rumi

[Bobby_2021]

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

But the issue with the idea of women "using game" to keep a man is that the only way for her to win the game is to remain in the frame that there is no need for her to play the game... because she is already the prize. And then to eliminate men from her consideration that don't recognize her as the prize.

I can accept that she is the prize. But you wouldn't struggle hard to pursue a prize for no reward. A prize is a prize only because attaining it is a rewarding experience. 

Getting the prize usually gets you more honours, money, acceptance and generally a more prosperous life. People don't pursue a prize that would make their life worse.

Being the prize is ironically a bigger responsibility than getting the prize, since you are expecting some sort of unearned recognition. There is no struggle in being the prize. There is plenty of struggle in getting the prize. 

You wanting to have no struggle in maintaining the relationship is a bad expectation to set. 

I personally never want to be the prize. I will rather tread hell and heaven to get the prize, never be one. I don't see how much of rewarding experience is being the prize as opposed to growing yourself and struggling in the process of getting the prize. 

Being a prize is self objectifying. 

19 minutes ago, LSD-Rumi said:

But also, it is essential for a woman to actively express her feminine energy. 

This is my point too. This is the maintainece work that woman should do.

If you simply sit and expect a man to love you ever more, with nothing in return, then he is bound to be dissatisfied which will sabotage the relationship. 

Edited April 3 by Bobby_2021