Well, it was here that I wrote something that was way too long about Dr. Kerry Kerr McAvoy, Ph.D., Devout Christian.
Dr. McAvoy wrote about her relationship with her "boyfriend". Some guy was a big meanie to her in the comments section. She took it to her "boyfriend" and she read his injury as manipulation and deceit. So Dr. McAvoy broke up with him because he was "immature" and didn't help her with her insecurities.
And as is my wont, I wrote a whole bunch of stuff about what she did and all the things she did wrong. But as I was reading and cogitating some more about this, I worked hard to distill this down into what had actually happened. And I came to it:
Dr. McAvoy expected boyfriend treatment from a fuckbuddy, mostly because she didn't want to admit to herself that he was a fuckbuddy. And her fuckbuddy tried to act like a boyfriend, mostly because he wanted to keep fucking her.
Guys, if you're a fuckbuddy or a friend with benefits (FwB), don't act like a boyfriend or a husband, even if you want to keep fucking her. Your job as a FwB is fucking and fun. Good sex, have fun with her, show her a good time, do fun things with her. That's it.
You are not a boyfriend. You are not a husband. You're not there for emotional support, for relational maturity, or for commitment. You're not there to cultivate a relationship. You're not there to build anything, to commit anything, or to expend time or resources.
You're not there to "work things out" or "fix things". When things get to a point of "we need to work things out", that's when you know you need to move on if you don't want that level of involvement, because she's trying to convert you into a boyfriend or a husband. FwBs do not "talk it out" or participate in discussions preceded by the woman saying "we need to talk". If you're not going to fuck or do fun things, then there's nothing to talk about.
You're also not a beta orbiter. You're not there to let her borrow anything, give her money, or spend lots of time doing "friend" things. You're not there to give "loan" her $100 to tide her over to next month. Just know that if you "loan" money to a woman, you'll never see it again. Consider it a gift, if you give it to her in the first place, which you should not do. FwBs are not there to be financial institutions, emotional tampons, movers, or lifters of heavy things.
If you're a fuckbuddy, don't act like a boyfriend, and don't act like an orbiter.
Typo-MAGAshiv Mod 3y ago
Related reading: Be A Skittles Man by Heartiste.
Sumfuc 3y ago
Back in college, was talking to prospects & when I ran into the, “well, I got a boyfriend...”. I always, alway, ALWAYS countered with, “what’s that got to do with me?” Or a “So?”
Out of 10 prospects, I would regularly get 7-8 that would give me a smile & her digits. This was the era before “booty calls” became a thing. These were all hook-ups & nothing more.
Every now & then I miss college.
rubix_fucked 3y ago
Women will always try to extract resources from you no matter how little you invest in them no matter how your association is defined - ie FWB.
moorekom Mod 3y ago
Amen.
[deleted] 3y ago
[deleted]
moorekom Mod 3y ago
The presence of one horse does not negate the existence of a field full of donkeys.
Maximedius 3y ago
I agree.
DoopaDog 3y ago
I'd go further and say guys, don't be a FwB, as in so doing you are perpetuating the state of hypergamy that modern women find themselves in, and the state of hypergamy that women find themselves in (amongst other things, but I would go so far as to say it's the primary reason) is the reason why we have places like this to point and laugh and cry to ourselves that those of us who would seek to be Good Men, don't have any Good Women to join ourselves with. OP, I think that the way a FwB acts is kinda a moot point, because the act of being a FwB with women has already rekt the woman's chances of being a good woman, due to pair bonding being rekt etc. To speak even further to that point, the whole reason you are saying that FwB shouldn't act like a husband/boyfriend is because women struggle to tell the difference in the first place, which would indicate that they are not well-suited to FwB situations because of their inner nature to be bonded to the one they share their sexuality with, i.e. men shouldn't be going around breaking women mentally, regardless of how much fun they're having while they do it.
I would qualify my above statement, for the mods sake, to say that I'm not here to judge someone who loves being a FwB. But I am here to say that if we are going to allow posts where the thrust is just telling guys how to behave, then I think robust discussion on that post as to whether that advice is good or not is fair enough. I don't think OP has good advice, I think it's fairly near-sighted and poorly thought out advice.
My other qualifier would be that posts like this should be removed, because it's not pointing and laughing, or otherwise geared towards bemoaning the current state of women everywhere and commiserating with one another about the frustrating situation we find ourselves in. I would say that this post borders on judging men for their behaviour.
InevitableOwl1 3y ago
Your comment on women not being suited for fwb is interesting and valid.
I recall the romcom with that very title that proves this where it predictably turned from fwb into a proper relationship. I re read the synopsis and it very much seems like the change is driven by the female character who breaks off the fwb when the guy doesn’t act like a boyfriend. I guess some defenders would try to argue that he didn’t act enough like a “friend”. The horrifying point I didn’t remember is she only confronts him when she stands to lose a work related financial windfall. I mean yikes
From my own life I am really not the fwb candidate for almost any woman. But recently I was with someone who claimed that is what they wanted notably when “I” tried to push for more. Kept rejecting. But in the end she freaked out because I didn’t message her for a few days whilst she was out of town. Apparently I didn’t care about her safety and my behaviour had changed.
This was pre-red pill so I did a lot of unseemly simping to try and “fix” things including apologising when I had done nothing wrong and letting her project all her toxic behaviour onto me and take a moral stance against me and have the pleasure of ending it on her terms - including the usual “I still want to be friends” and me agreeing
I look back on it and my actions with horror but it was a very valuable wake up call. It was stewing on that one (only end of “relationship” when I haven’t really been upset and anger/annoyance has dominated) plus the crazy flakiness of OLD girls over the summer that caused me to discover all of this.
Hopefully I am on a clearer path now
Devilsgun 3y ago
Nah. I'ma get mine
[deleted] 3y ago
I hear you, and you make good points. When I write here, I personally am not interested in moral judgments applied to men. I don't care what men do or don't do, and I am not going to judge them either way. If a man wants to be a FB, a FwB, a boyfriend, a husband, or none of those things, I am fine with it.
I would just exhort him not to be an orbiter but if he really wants that, I won't stop him. Nor will I try to "save" men who don't want to be "saved". I won't foist this message on anyone who doesn't want to hear it or thinks there's nothing to be gained from it.
All I'm saying is: Decide what you are, and be that. If you're going to be a FB, then be a good one. If you're going to be a husband, then be a good one. Whatever you are, make sure you understand how to be a good one so you get what you want and need from it.
BigBoiBahmani 3y ago
I understand your moral concerns, which are right. But not everyone wants to be moral or virtuous, unfortunately. Posts like these are important to understand what to do and expect in the modern relationship playground.
​
Things sure do need to change, a lot.
But then again, don't hate the player, hate the game. A lot of people are in the pursuit of the material. And for them, they have got to do what they have to do.
DoopaDog 3y ago
I think that posts like this lead men down a dangerous path of equivocation with the modern relationship playground, such that they set themselves up for failure no matter how much they play by arbitrary rules set, largely, by the prevailing conditions in that playground. The prevailing conditions change, the rules change, and the men lose.
As I qualified in my original comment, I'm not here to judge men pursuing FwB arrangements with women - I can see that sometimes we feel there's an itch that's just gotta be scratched, no matter our supposed morals we hold dear. No hate for the players, or for the game for that matter.
Just cautioning against over-confidence based on arbitrary rules, that's all.
moorekom Mod 3y ago
We understand your point. My counter-point is that it does not work. You are advocating to not play by the market rules and to instead play by the rules of yester-years. That will not change anything.
Look at welfare. The intention for welfare was alright. It was a system that was supposed to provide to people who would have got their provisions from their tight-knit extended family at some point. In essence, welfare was a system that was designed to replace and usurp power from a then flailing power structure. The intention was to replace it with something else similar, but controlled by the government instead of the families. Look at what welfare has lead to (although the intention was mostly noble).
What you are proposing is almost similar. You are proposing to not let the market correct itself and to rather insert morality based corrective measures that will eventually worsen the condition. People understand cause and effect very clearly. While your heart might be in the right place, women getting pumped and dumped is another step to understand the folly of their failed experiment and to self-correct said process. The actions these women chose have consequences. The only way they will learn and adapt is by dealing with said consequences and adapting to those consequences. By interfering in that process, you will not make it better. You will make it worse or at best, you will maintain the status quo. One can argue that this whole mess came about because governments interfered a failing situation with the intention of bailing out people who should not have been bailed out.
Women designed this game. And they now have to deal with its players. It is what it is. The post above gives men tools to play that game. Take it or leave it. But the game is there to stay until it gets too big, costly, ineffective, unsuccessful and unsustainable.
DoopaDog 3y ago
You are misrepresenting my point made in other posts and not responding to the point I'm making in the post you replied to. The post you replied to is making the point that the market conditions are given to change, and that having confidence you can somehow navigate this fickle world and be confident you won't get rekt by virtue of arbitrary rules you think describe market conditions adequately is foolish. It's making the point that the post is bad advice because it's gives readers a false assurance that the game isnt rigged to absolutely rail them, no matter the arbitrary ruleset we decide to use to navigate a very fickle market.
My other comments are essentially making the point that we as men are the ones who accept the dumb rules made by the gatekeepers of sexual intercourse (women), that we don't have to accept their dumb rules, and in my opinion have a responsibility to force them to play by our own rules by leading them in correct interactions between the sexes.
You (in other comments and this one) are making the point that the rules are dumb, they are made that way by women, and we need to let it all collapse in a heap at some point so that everyone can learn a lesson. You are saying that experience is the best teacher, I am saying we can have the foresight to avoid painful experiences by looking at the situation and declining to participate by the given ruleset, and instead participating by a ruleset which has worked very well for a very long time in the past. I am saying that that is not an easily or quickly achieved goal, it will take a lot of time and sacrifice by men to achieve, but that it is overall worth pursuing because this stuff matters.
The relationships between the males and females of humanity will make or break us. We ought to take this situation with deadly seriousness, more than climate change or social welfare or some particular races lives mattering or police being brutal or an outrageous orange man being president, and yet we instead ignore it because we like putting our dick in stupid. To our (humanity's) own peril.
moorekom Mod 3y ago
Personally, I am not here to cry about the lack of good women. I am here to point and laugh. Posts like this are essential to survive in a modern dating environment. What good is hoping for a good woman and crying about it going to bring? Will it reverse the time and take the entire world back to an age where women were feminine and demure?
Men need to understand the current climate and how to act in that climate. You are not going to gain anything by trying to reverse the situation. You only have two options:
Anything else is a sucker's bet. A man who wifes up a trad-thot is in for a world of hurt. It does not matter if women have their heart broken playing the game they created the rules for. How many men have had their hearts broken and how many of those men turned into players? Does anyone care? You cannot pretend to be a gangster and not expect to have your ass beat eventually.
DoopaDog 3y ago
Well, yeah, the baffling stupidity of thotiness is hilarious, I like laughing at these absolute losers as much as the next guy. Taking the black pill though, as you seem to imply as the only rational option, is not for me. I think we are ignoring our basic needs if we say "the world is screwed and it's hopeless, I'm just going to watch the world burn and then do a little burning myself every now and again".
When I say cry and commiserate with one another, I'm talking in a hyperbolic manner to convey the point that many of us find it sad that the world, or more specifically society, is in such a state that male-female relationships are majority trash in comparison to even just a few decades ago. That's not to speak of the vast, and in my opinion wonderful, history of men and women working together in well-defined roles to progress humanity forward in a way that edifies both sexes.
Taking a nihilistic stance with regards to this situation, such as you are, which is to say deciding that the situation isn't going to get better by being sad about it and letting that sadness form how we respond to the situation, so your better off just watching the world burn, is a valid stance. But it is a hopeless stance, and it also leads you to, as you say, participating in 'the game' with fairly superficial motivations - sexual gratification. In participating in 'the game', yes, you will have that superficial desire gratified, but you will also put yourself at risk of mental torture and turmoil in the event you don't follow the rules (such as a man who wife's up a 'trad-thot'), whilst also perpetuating the situation that led us to having to play the stupid game in the first place.
No, I haven't given up on women, I think that Good Women can exist again, and probably do exist in very modest numbers currently, although they are very very hard to find. I am yet to bump into one. My stance therefore is that I need to take personal responsibility for my behaviour and stop sleeping with endless lines of women, because this hypergamy is the main driver and reason behind the fact that women everywhere are fucked in the head. I am certainly saying that you cannot claim to be a Good Man, if you are participating in 'the game'.
moorekom Mod 3y ago
I don't believe in the black pill and I think you might be confusing that terminology (and a lot of things) for something else.
You know why tradcons are not taken seriously? Because they're not actually trying to conserve traditionalism, they are trying to conserve the status quo. And that is exactly your problem as well. I assume you want to get and increase/ encourage the increase of good women. How do you propose to do that in a system that is rigged to create ever increasing sluts?
While you can personally decide to abstain from the current shit show, that does not mean only those who abstain from this shit show are good. As I explained earlier, you have chosen one option and others have chosen the other option. The only difference is in your perceived morality. While you certainly do not need the above post (or any post), the people who went the other way certainly do. You are not the audience for this post and you expect the message to be converted to your needs.
There is no question that the current global dating system is bad. But, how would you initiate a change in that system?
Your whole approach is that of noble sacrifice: since I cannot get what I want, I will do without. The problem is, you seem to advocate that that is only "good" choice to make.
DoopaDog 3y ago
The black pill is to be resigned to the fact that women are no longer capable of providing sex in a way that a majority of men can take advantage or participate in themselves, and so find themselves involuntarily relegated to sexless lives. Choosing your option 1 is definitely the black pill. Choosing your option 2 is to spit out the black pill and take a short-acting blue pill, which we all know is just a shit time. This post is essentially someone saying "if you are going to take the blue pill, you gotta follow the rules". I'm saying no, don't take the blue pill, it's a shit time. I haven't chosen either of your options, because they're both bad options in my opinion. I'm not confused, at all, as to what we are talking about my guy.
I am definitely not trying to conserve the status quo, what makes you say that? The status quo is the shit-storm of bad decisions we currently find ourselves in... I am clearly not a fan of the current status quo.
I am proposing that initiating a change in the situation happens by virtue of a majority of men saying no to casual sexual relationships in favour of saving sex for marriage relationships, because the continuation of casual sex is what is causing there to be a dearth of women suitable for marriage. I can initiate that change by choosing to live that way myself and seeking to convince other men to do the same.
You've presented a false dichotomy in opposition to my choice, which is that either you are a tradcon who gets suckered into wifing a trad-thot, or you're a player who gets to sleep with women safely (with regards to mental health) because you are playing by the rules. You can be a tradcon and not get suckered into wifing a trad-thot, and indeed being aware of supposedly Christian chicks who have FwB, as this post opens with, is potentially helpful for tradcons like myself. So the post can be helpful to me, but more broadly I don't think it is helpful to men who are in FwB situations because, as I stated, there's no such thing as not having a shit time when you take the blue pill, even if you follow 'the rules'.
moorekom Mod 3y ago
There you again confusing bluepill terminology.
I want to start with the below quote first.
Notice the phrasing of your explanation there. In your view, is a relationship between a man and woman one where a man takes advantage of a woman?
No. You are getting confused again. Notice the difference between,
and
You are conflating voluntary choice and involuntary dead end. It is true that I presented two options. But what you are doing here is to conflate other options with the options I presented. The options I presented are for people who are aware of the game, understand the rules, know how to play the game and are capable of being participants in that game. The people in the option you presented are not even participants to begin with.
Nope. Blue pill in the manosphere is defined by you not being aware of the actual rules of the game or choosing to play by what is pushed to be the rules of the game. Bluepill is Disney love. Redpill clarifies that men cannot have Disney love. Depending on the approach we take from there, we all fall under different categories. You, in my view, fall squarely under purple pill category. You are neither MGTOW, nor TRP and you are certainly not a traditionalist. I think you want the system to be fixed magically (or through a faulty belief you hold on to which I will come back to later).
Have you ever read the Harry Potter books? In those books, the school HP goes to plays a famous game called Quiddich and HP is the designated Seeker who chases after the elusive Golden Snitch, which is so valuable yet so fast and unobtainable, catching it essentially ends the game and makes the team that catches the ball win the game.
That is what you seem to be doing. You seem to be chasing after a mythical unicorn and you seem to be looking down upon all the players who are playing the same game you are playing. Your problem is that you have trouble understanding that you are still in the game. You have convinced yourself that just because your goal is not the same as the goal of the common player you see around you, you are not also a player in the game. While the other players are using a shotgun approach to gain as much points as they can, you are using the sniper approach in the hopes of finding the highest point possible. Make no mistake, you are still playing the game. Yet, you look down upon the people who are also playing the game (but with different goals) as beneath your ambition and approach.
Do you know who can actually bring about change in the dating game? The men women chase after. The men who are at the apex of the dating pyramid. Some of those guys have decided to not get involved in the game at all, some have decided to just have fun and to never commit, some have decided to look for the mythical unicorn in other un-spoilt pastures etc. Take a guess on who are the most seen and who will lead to the biggest change? The ones who have decided to just have fun and to never commit anything to a woman.
Your approach has a fatal flaw. Your approach can only work when there is unity and a cartel-like structure where every man denies women sexual access. Guess what? This is not possible in reality and your approach is destined to fail miserably. The fact that women are also not interested in your ideology is another nail in the coffin for your ideology. They are brainwashed into becoming promiscuous, feral, manipulative and egotistical from a very young age. They have no interest in your morality or your ideology. Look at the men they choose, especially when they are in their prime. That tells you all you need to know. Tell me this too: what is the median age at which a Christian woman gets married? What is the age range when she decides she is a born-again-virgin? What percentage of women abide by Bible's teaching about never to commit sex outside of a marriage? What percentage of women yet call themselves Christian despite going against the teachings in Bible?
The sexual marketplace will continue to exist solely because it has been unleashed (by women let me remind you) and that is what they want. No matter your approach, you are not going to stop women playing in that marketplace. I did not present false dichotomies. I presented dichotomies that actually work. Yours, on the other hand, does not.
The post above is to help men who are still playing the game, which includes you too. Just because you are complaining about the rules does not mean that you will get to change them. As a matter of fact, that is the very marker of powerlessness in a game.
Cc: u/loneliness-inc, u/Aldabruzzo, u/lurkerhasarisen.
DoopaDog 3y ago
No that's not my view, that is why I further qualified (admittedly poorly) "taking advantage" with the words "participate in". I believe that men and women can fulfill ideal roles in pursuing a relationship with one another, and both are taking advantage from the relationship, rather than taking advantage of the relationship, by virtue of participating in it together, rather than seeking to have their aspirations alone fulfilled. So black pilled men have come to believe that the situation is such that there are no women in existence which allow them to have a fulfilling relationship, and they are therefore precluded from sexual relations with women.
My personal view is that the black pill is really men deceiving themselves that participating in a voluntary relationship is not an option for them, and that their supposed "involuntary celibacy" is in fact a choice to not seek to make the changes required to allow for the possibility of voluntary celibacy, whether that be through feeling that a certain (unrealistic) standard is what they deserve and won't settle for less, or raising their own value on the sexual/relationship marketplace through whatever means available to them, which may be admittedly limited (giving credence to a true "black pill", although a flimsy one in my estimation). I gave the contemprary view of black pill because you were saying I am confused, and wanted to demonstrate I am not confused at all. So then we are in a debate of semantics - you think the black pill is one thing, I think it is another. My view of the black pill is consistent with your choice 1 - black pills have taken themselves (voluntarily in my view) out of the game and are watching it go down.
I can see we also disagree on the definition of red and blue pills. Red pill philosophy, in my view, is based on the idea that there is something wrong with the way that men and women (mostly with women) relate to one another in society such that our relationships are breaking more and more as time goes by, and on the idea that those who have not taken the red pill disagree (without rationale or reason) with the idea that there is anything wrong with how men and women (again, mostly with women) conduct themselves in society. Corresponding to that the blue pill is for those who think that playing by the rules of the status quo is good and proper, and will work for you if you play by the rules. Ergo, the blue pill (in my view) is very much for those who think that FwB situations are a valid way to interact with women. Perhaps then it would be easier for me to describe a red pilled person who chooses to participate in blue pill philosophy as a purple pilled person? Seems laborious, and having done so myself (what the previous sentence describes), I generally feel that I was very much in line with blue pill philosophy at those times, because I have to play by the rules of the game in order to participate.
I'm not looking for overnight change, I'm not looking for an immediate solution, I firmly believe that the change that will need to happen in society to bring us back to majority healthy male-female relations is a monumental one that will require a huge amount of commitment from all concerned. So if setting too high and unrealistic a goal can be described as the plan having a fatal flaw in it, then yeah it's fatally flawed, but I don't agree with that assessment. It's just a very difficult goal to achieve, and one that will occur over a long period of time. A generation, or multiple generations.
I am one of those men, not to big note myself or sing my own praises, but I'm a high value male. I work in a six figure job, I am attractive by conventional standards, and I have many women who would drop everything to pursue a relationship with me on the face value of who I am. I have had success with the "purple pill" lifestyle previously. I am also a Christian, so I have a fairly firm grasp of how Christian women conduct themselves, and I completely agree, there's plenty of women who profess to follow Jesus but still participate in frequent fornication, and yeah they do tend to be a particular type of born again Christian as you imply with your questions.
Incidentally, that is my prime motivator for choosing to keep sex for marriage, because I have re-discovered my faith recently (in part through a traumatic purple pill experience, no less), so objectively I'm no better than those women in my past actions, but thats starting to get into the weeds a bit with regards to our debate, so I'll leave that be unless you want to explore the ideology of those who are true followers of Jesus Christ further.
Only to say though, I believe that all men are capable of being high value, that women pursue, even as evidenced by the successful PUA's out there. Therefore, I believe that all men can commit to being high value males who will wait for marriage for sex, and can commit to not giving women an easy run to marriage just because they want to have a sexual life partner for the selfish gratification of their own needs, sexual and otherwise. I am committed to waiting for my God to give me the woman He wants me to marry (and they won't have an easy run at marriage to me, that's for sure), or otherwise remaining unmarried and therefore celibate. So perhaps the fatal flaw could be said to be what is construed as mystical thinking by the majority of men underlying my philosophy, but I think that men can still make the same wise decisions with regards to who they choose to share sexual intimacy with, and can base that on the idea that being hypergamous is rekking the world and they need to stop, rather than on the (for them, preposterous) idea that God will provide them with the woman He wants them to have.
Am I playing the game? Only insofar as my calling to have healthy relationships with all humans in my life, and sometimes actions to fulfill that calling with regard to women could be construed as "playing the game", though my intention is most certainly not land a Good Woman by treating them with decency and respect - because I want to treat everyone with decency and respect, they just fall into the pool of people who are "everyone", so to speak.
loneliness-inc Mod 3y ago
There's a great lecture by Milton Friedman on the tyranny of the status quo. You can probably find it on the YouTube channel - free to choose.
Tradcons are even worse than that because the status quo that they wish to preserve isn't traditional at all!! It's second wave feminism or first wave feminism or some hybrid of the two.
Tradcons believe in the same principles of equality and egalitarianism as feminists do, they're just upset to be on the wrong side of the equality equation.... fundamentally though, they're the same.
There are no good choices in life. There are only tradeoffs.
Tag u/DoopaDog
DoopaDog 3y ago
Depends on your definition of TradCon. My view of traditionalism/the era we wish to conserve is based on the era of 1900-1950, where men worked and supported the family, and women stayed at home and raised kids, and made a good home, to grossly oversimplify. I don't subscribe to first wave feminism. I don't think women should be able to vote, much less be ubiquitous members of the entire workforce.
I think that we are a long way down the road of destroying the core institutions that upheld the last "status quo" that worked best, and I include No-Fault Divorce, and the suffragette movement, and the legalisation and endorsement of homosexual marriage, amongst many other things, as being some of the attacks that have succeeded on those core institutions.
So, perhaps I'm not TradCon by your definition, or even a majority definition. But I do firmly believe that my version of Traditional Conservatism is the best type, vis a vis the dysfunctional trash that we've been deep diving in since the 60's.
[deleted] 3y ago
Being a tradcon is best for y ou. Your version of TradCon ism is best for you.
It might not be best for others. I'm not going to begrudge men doing what they can to make it in the SMP others foisted and forced on them
GayyFieri 3y ago
There's a flip to this- if we're just having sex, especially if you're already married and seeing someone, don't talk about you're problems. He's not there to console you emotionally. That's a husband/boyfriend thing.
phuk-nugget 3y ago
Fucking married women isn’t worth the time compared to the risk involved.
BigBoiBahmani 3y ago
Maximum Reward : Sneaky sex with used beef.
Minimum Reward : Blowjob or snogging.
​
Minimum Risk : Drama.
Maximum Risk : "Double - Murder - Suicide" by the husband.
​
Just don't do it. Juice is not worth the squeeze, or the sting.