[I wrote this post back in August of this year. It's still valid]
An interesting blog post over at Hooking Up Smart (link and note below) gives 25 Politically Incorrect But Effective Ways to Make Him Your Boyfriend. In the comments, I chimed in with:
The first item on the list should be “Know that he is the gatekeeper to commitment and that he can rescind that commitment at any time and for any reason. It is your supremely rewarding pleasure to maintain his desire and motivation to keep that commitment.”
Susan Walsh, the blog-mistress there, agreed.
A follow-up comment from HanSolo asked for some clarification on the concept that men are the gatekeepers to commitment. This commenter also made some excellent points (in boldface):
How true is it that men really are the gatekeepers to commitment?
The general principle to be a gatekeeper seems to be that he or she who decides last (or less often or less readily) is the gatekeeper since the other has already decided she or he wants it.
With sex, especially casual sex, women are seen as the gatekeepers since on average men want it significantly more and with less discrimination regarding whom.
In light of this post (aka, that many young women need this advice) and that many women in there 20′s don’t want a relationship but would rather study, work or party. Plus, with the many young women who will excessively blow out a guy for seeming too needy and clingy if he expresses that he’s looking for a relationship and not just casual (I’m not talking about the legitimacy of a guy waiting long enough to know her to like her beyond her looks). I would say these types are a minority but still a significant percentage that definitely affects the market. The other factor is hypergamy. If the 6 girl won’t even go out or hang out or whatever with the 6 guy who wants a relationship then effectively she is the gatekeeper and is preemptively keeping her relationship gate shut to him.
Now with the players and cads who are getting lots of attention then they are certainly gatekeepers for commitment because they either don’t want it at all or can be very selective in whom they commit to. In generically assigning men as the gatekeepers of commitment I wonder if there is not a bit of the apex-player-cad fallacy going on to some extent because we do hear about a lot of guys who do want a gf of their own MMV (especially the 6′s, maybe even 7′s, and below) but are having some difficulty in finding one. I won’t opine on how many such guys there are except that they probably are not a majority but are also not insignificant.
Even from evo-psych women are going to be careful and hence gatekeepers about whom they commit to.
So, what is meant by saying that men are the gatekeepers to commitment? Is it really the men that women want to commit to them and are thus of equal or higher MMV than her and would thus have other equal or better options than her? I can believe this but then really it is women who are the initial gatekeepers by filtering out most men and then it could be the remaining men that she is interested in are the later-stage gatekeepers.
Any thoughts on this to clarify it would be appreciated.
Here are my thoughts:
When assigning men to the gatekeeper role regarding commitment, several assumptions are involved:
1. He has found a woman who wants a committed relationship with him.
2. He is selective and careful about to whom he becomes committed.
3. He understands Charisma and is fully prepared to use those skills within the committed relationship.
As the commenter correctly pointed out, there is some apex fallacy (link below) going on within this model and within Dating 2.0 (link below). Yet the fundamental truth does remain in that a man has the opportunity to refuse commitment just as the woman has the opportunity to refuse sex. There are certain men who will seek commitment prior to a woman’s emotional investment. These men are not commitment worthy because they lack a fundamental understanding of Dating 2.0 and how it works in the context with Charisma.
As more and more men learn the realities of Dating 2.0 and the power that has been given them, the apex fallacy becomes less of an issue. But as things stand now, the commenter is basically correct when he states that “…then really it is women who are the initial gatekeepers by filtering out most men and then it could be the remaining men that she is interested in are the later-stage gatekeepers.” In other words, women lament that “no guy I’m interested in is willing to commit.” this is because, like most other women, she’s only interested in the top 20% of men.
In the Red Pill world that is the Manosphere, it is assumed that men are the prize, always in the top 20% and therefore the immediate (not late-stage) gatekeepers to commitment.
Note: Susan Walsh and her blog, Hooking Up Smart, have caused no small amount of controversy amongst several Manosphere bloggers. I bow out of this controversy but still respect the reasons that some Manosphere bloggers have cut ties with Susan.