The Private Man

Attraction and dating information for all men

Men – The Gatekeepers To Commitment (Long Post)

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-misstress 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, has 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.

Hooking Up Smart

Apex Fallacy

Dating 2.0

Fundraising hasn’t stopped!

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

40 thoughts on “Men – The Gatekeepers To Commitment (Long Post)

  1. interestingly enough, i just posted how i screen a woman as a potential gf, i’ll withdraw if she withholds sex.

  2. siquaeris on said:

    Men are gatekeepers of commitment, women are gatekeepers of sex. It’s a generalization, to be sure, but it’s also a very accurate generalization of how most relationships work.

    I find that when people object to generalizations, it’s often because the generalization is in conflict with what they want the world to be. It’s as if acknowledging a truth will somehow get in the way of their idealized world actually being realized. It’s somewhat tantamount to thinking that if you tell a lie enough times, it will turn into truth.

  3. I think that if you looked around the manosphere, I think you’d find that there are actually quite a few men out there who are single because the woman withdrew her commitment to him….often, a series of women have done this. Men may well be the gatekeepers when it comes to the initiation of commitment, but once that commitment has been made, it can be withdrawn by either party at any time. So, it behooves both the man and the woman to put in the work to maintain it.

    Just my take…I think that one reason that my husband and I are really happy is that we both work quite hard at pleasing the other person. There is an equitable and reciprocal relationship between us, and we sustain that relationship on a daily basis.

    Neither partner should continually put up with a non-reciprocal relationship where the lack of reciprocation extends for a long period of time and is based upon selfishness. That’s just crap. And I would not urge anyone to remain indefinitely in a relationship where one person deprives the other person of sex or affection. That’s shitty.

    A woman or man who deprives their partner of sex on an ongoing basis is creating a situation ripe for infidelity. I consider it a basic human need, and without some sort serious medical reason, it should not be withheld. It’s the worst sort of passive-aggressive behavior.

  4. Vicomte on said:

    I’ve always had a problem with the ‘gatekeeper’ paradigms. I don’t agree that it can be generalized so cleanly or easily, at least based solely on gender.

    The person with the higher SMV in that particular context (the context of the interaction between those two people, a context of one man and one woman, adjusted for individual perception) is the gatekeeper to both sex and commitment. This person is also the gatekeeper to attention.

    The moment one party wants something (sex, attention, commitment) from the other more than that person wants it from them, that latter person is a gatekeeper. It’s the classic ‘who cares least, wins’ mentality (which I find distasteful).

    Men or women could be gatekeepers to anything. I understand the ‘the man is the prize’ ideology is a sort of pendulum-reversing belief, and a needed one, but what I don’t understand is why it’s sold short (and often erroneously) to commitment. Men can be gatekeepers to sex and commitment, and definitely attention.

    The whole idea just plays into the idea that men want sex and women want commitment, which I think is incredibly simplified, tired, and unimaginative. These days, it might even be completely reversed.

    The usual ‘red pill’ stance makes sex very cheap on both sides. I don’t see why men should sell low on that front but high on another. Sex is worth something from a man, as much as a woman.

    • I’m not sure the person with the higher SMV is the gatekeeper to both sex and commitment. I think this would be true only if commitment and sex are of equal value to both men and women. A male will often willingly have sex with a lower SMV female. A female will almost never have sex with a lower SMV male. This is just because males are more promiscuous. Now sex can either precede commitment or commitment can precede sex. A higher SMV male will almost never give a lower SMV female commitment before sex. Why would he when he can get a better female any time by offering commitment to her instead? So the high SMV male is the gatekeeper to commitment because commitment is what he is withholding from the lower SMV female. He is not withholding sex because he’ll freely have sex with the lower SMV female so he is definitely not the gatekeeper to sex. It’s the lower SMV female who has to decide whether she’ll have sex with him without any assurance that there will be anything more than just the sex so she is definitely the one here who is the gatekeeper to sex. So you can’t really say the high SMV male is the gatekeeper to both sex and commitment.

      • just visiting on said:

        Women will have sex with men who have a lower smp. Marriage where the mans rank has dropped is an example. Though women will sometimes find themselves is situations if they are rebounding or looking for validation. These are not optimal for long term and don’t last long. The woman is in control of commitment in those situations. (and these are the only times where I’ve ever heard of men hoping or manipulating for an “oopsie” situation.) If married, the man might suddenly start pushing for a baby.

  5. Senior Manchild on said:

    In these discussions, we seem to just concentrate on what is going on with people in the first half of life. But to really understand the concept better, let´s look at people at every age. I don´t think that I have to really go into the details of young adults up to middle age as the commenter HanSolo makes really good points. However, no one is talking much about the older folks. And this is where men really become the gatekeepers in a way that reverses the roles. Sure, the older woman can refuse sex, but it is in a context where their peers don´t care as much; just as a younger man can refuse a commitment in a context where their peers don´t care as much also.

    • Anaïs on said:

      True. Older women and men can be gate-free (especially for sex) or in some cases there isn’t even a gate. Just a brick tall and thick wall around them.

  6. goes like this. women are the gatekeepers of sex because sex is what men want from them. and men are the gatekeepers of commitment because commitment is what women want from men.

    usually the deal is woman provides sex in exchange of commitment, or, man provides commitment in exchange of sex.

    note that the woman is not offering commitment / the man is not offering sex

    the woman retiring commitment – in truth, the will stay there for as long as she finds what she is getting, the male commitment, worth enough the exchange. we can talk about female commitment… but that’s not really what the exchange was ever about, and if she breaks it, she probably broke her end of the deal, sex, earlier

    and when women break their side of the end they usually expect the male to stay around and keep offering commitment. wise.

    the top 20% males (or high value males for the specific girl) can do the same, break commitment but keep getting sex. the lil commitment they provide (attention) is worth the sex for her, and in case of beta males / orbiters, the little sex (hope, human contact) is worth the commitment

    laws of the market

  7. Senior Manchild is on the right track. The gatekeeper paradigm is a generalization and obviously doesn’t apply at the outliers. A man who can’t get sex may offer commitment but can’t get any takers; man who gets lots of action doesn’t have to offer commitment. A woman who just wants sex and doesn’t desire commitment will get as much sex as she want (and she may get commitment though she rejects it).

    But this plays out not within any particular age group, but over a continuum of ages. In their 20s generally attractive women will offer sex to the high SMP men and while they may want commitment, short-term or long, and probably won’t get it. But she has the SMP value to move on to the next phallus. The men in their 20s who are mid-range SMP will want sex and may offer commitment, but may find few opportunities.

    Moving into the 30s, the balance starts to shift as the women become more interested in commitment but get it less and less from the pool of high SMP men they used to screw and will start to look at the mid-range guys she spurned at an earlier age. Not surprisingly, she’ll often find it. Some of these commitments work out, but more often they end badly. The woman who holds out for a higher-value commitment will usually end up bitter and alone unless, fast approaching 40, she finds a poor sap who will offer his commitment for her well-broken in offerings.

    Trekking on into the 40s, the balance shifts even more in men’s favor, where women are more desiring of commitment, giving men more power in relationships. Women will either offer up the sex in hope of a commitment that may or may not come or they will try to withhold sex in hope, usually not met, of gaining commitment.

    So the gatekeeper paradigm really describes a shifting balance of power between men and women as they age. Guys, I think, instinctively get this, but they don’t really recognize their power, especially in their 30s, and offer up the commitment too easily. Women, as a rule, don’t really get it and overrate the value of the Golden Snatch as they get older.

    Ideally, if women really understood the paradigm and really wanted commitment at an earlier age, they’d make better choices, and if men really practiced this, they’d realize that they can withhold their commitment until they meet a woman of character with a low partner count, which is usually indicative of a woman who actually values commitment.

    Of course, your mileage may vary…

    • someguy302004 on said:

      The “Golden Snatch”! Awesome…

      In this discussion, I think there also should be the difference between perceived SMV and actual SMV… The disconnect between the two leads to a lot of inefficiencies in the market!

    • He said “phallus” Heh-he-heh *butthead laugh*

  8. This shifting balance that LostSailor brings up is something I’ve noticed among the older divorced women I date and I’ve wondered why they don’t get that their SMV drops faster than men. Even the ones who haven’t seen the statistics showing higher percentages of older men being married should be able to see just from their own observations that there is a surplus of older unmarried women due to men either dying younger or marrying younger women to a greater extent than women are marrying younger men, thus making many older men unavailable to their same age female counterparts. Partly it may because many older divorced women have been off the dating market awhile and haven’t seen the slow decline in their dating market value. When they get divorced and jump back into dating, they just assume that things haven’t changed since the last time they were single twenty years back. Then their ability to recognize that the change has occurred is further held back by their egos. They just can’t admit that the guys they want aren’t available to them anymore, hence all the cries from older women about not being to find any good men.

    • just visiting on said:

      Some are clueless. But from my own feelings and from what I gather talking with other women, it comes down to a few things. It’s better to be in no relationship than a bad relationship. Most women that I know did not marry alphas. They married betas, and may be a bit put off from the experience .As a result, they also have some fairy story ideas of what alphas are like. (We aren’t talking carousel riders.) So they figure if they are going to take that chance, they might as well aim high. And some are just entitled and immature.

    • There are quite a few blogs written by women in their 30s, 40s, and beyond and they are simply clueless. Here’s a perfect example: http://planktonlife.wordpress.com/

      • just visiting on said:

        Ah yes, Ms. Plankton. I don’t know if clueless is the right term. Willfully ignorant seems more like it. She, and other bloggers like her have had people try to help them, but it falls on deaf ears.

      • I know. Astonishing isn’t it? With just a little teensy bit of effort she could live the life of a woman like you, or even have a man like some of the men who comment here. Bizarrely she doesn’t seem to want that. No accounting for taste

      • just visiting on said:

        A teensy bit of effort? No. A complete overhaul in introspection, yes. Fi, older women are competing with younger, prettier, hotter, tighter. And those younger women don’t come with the baggage older women come with, whether that’s kids, ex husbands, or in some cases bitterness. The men in her age range may have their own issues where commitment, especially marriage are concerned. The average 20 something has a lot more free time, and will not be pushing for permanent commitment. Dinner? More like a case of beer.It’s not enough to just assess strengths and weaknesses.

        That said, my dating experiences have been positive. But introspection and common sense have helped in that regard.

      • just visiting on said:

        (Well, that and a heavy dose of femininity, 2 hour work outs, and the wisdom of making sunscreen my friend back in my 20’s.) Good men are everywhere dear, for those who have eyes to see. Prince charming is gay. And even if Plankton came across the mythical multi millionaire hunky handy man, she’d probably pass him over at first glance. Too blue collar, doncha know?

      • Actually I can’t disagree with you there.

  9. BlackCat on said:

    Men are indeed the gatekeepers of commitment. The reason why it often does not seem that way is because modern, feminized men are giving away their commitment too easily (too cheaply).

    Think of the analogy of the lock and key for women:
    A lock (woman) who can be opened easily by many keys (dicks), is not a good lock.

    Well, the same applies to men and commitment.
    Gates are meant to control access; to keep undesirables out.

    A gate (man) that will open (commit) easily to anyone, is not a good gate.

    The fact that many men nowadays are not good gates does not mean that men are still not the gatekeepers of commitment. It just means that they are not good gates.

  10. Spacetraveller on said:

    I really like HanSolo’s thinking. It is similar to mine lol. I see his point. If a man can’t find a woman who actually wants to be in a committed relationship with him, he cannot be a ‘gatekeeper’.
    This is why your 3 thoughts above really help clarify your original comment about gatekeeping, TPM.
    If you might remember, I once asked you if women were really the gatekeepers of sex. Following HanSolo’s line of thought, that question also makes more sense to me now. If a woman wants sex even more than a man (as seems to be the case with some women nowadays) then it is not SHE who can be the gatekeeper of sex.
    In general though, your basic premise is (or should be) true. That men are gatekeepers of marriage, women are gatekeepers of sex.
    That I am sure most would agree with.

  11. Nice CYA at the end there – don’t want to step on Patriarchal Toes!

    • BlackCat on said:

      So, Giggles, when are you going to stop being intellectually dishonest and acknowledge that Dalrock, Yohami and others really do have valid points and letting them comment on your blog again?

      • Shhhhhhh, she likes having reasons to privately and quietly ban people like me and hope we’ll go away. She doesn’t think about how she alienates people that would otherwise be interested in conversations that work towards the same solutions she’s invested in, simply because we bring up points through those conversations that require painful, hard solutions that don’t fit her ‘feel good’ ideas.

    • BlackCat on said:

      P.S.: Only man-shaming feminists use “Patriarchy” like that. You out yourself again.

    • Oh, both TPM and you, Susan, can step on Patriarchal Toes. We wear steel-toed shoes these days. We won’t even notice…

  12. Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You – 8-12-12 | Society of Amateur Gentlemen

  13. Pingback: Link Love « M3

  14. Men are always, ALWAYS, the gatekeepers of commitment

    Women are always, ALWAYS, the gatekeepers of sex.

    The only thing that changes are two things. The real value of what the individual is gatekeeping and the perceived value of what they’re gate keeping.

    The real value changes, obviously, with the things that changes the individual’s value on both the sexual and marriage market place. These things differ for men and women, and we’re all fairly aware of them, so I won’t bother listing them.

    The perceived value though, is how cheaply or expensively the individual will sell their goods. Enter for women the Entitlement Princesses, Honest Sluts 101, and Unicorns. Entitlement princesses ask higher prices. They think they deserve it all before they give it away to anyone other than the super alpha stud. Honest Sluts 101 give it away for free at the drop of a hat. They’re the Sex Pos feminists that really will screw your brains out until their 30 and then wonder what happened to the male attention they got when they didn’t notice how hard they just ran through that wall. The Unicorns actually know their value and ask the right price for it. They get it and everyone’s happy. They’re just more and more rare.

    For men the perceived value shifts come in the forms of Beta Orbiters/manginas/white knights, Alpha cads, and Alphas with morals. The first group makes up the majority of men these days. They run around handing out commitment like candy, generally giving women the vibe of some guy in a white van handing out candy. The women know what’s up, are creeped out, but until the Beta’s ask them to get in the van they’ll just stuff their mouths with candy till they puke. Alpha’s ask a higher price than its worth for most women, but most women are willing to pay without any promise these days, so the Alpha’s get free poon and all are happy. The Alpha’s with morals will actually enjoy the free poon from lesser women, but if a woman worth it came along we’d stop and objectively think about if she’s worth giving up others for. Then we’d say yes or no. About as rare as those unicorns.

    The main problem is that the men’s side – commitment gatekeepers, has been so obfuscated. We’ve been told that our commitment should be given out for free as a gift, and that if the men are found worthy they’ll be gifted with sex. As such, you see all those beta’s running around handing out the free candy without any promise of reward. Meanwhile the women are told they can and should stuff their faces full of said free candy till they puke, then ignore the guy and go for the alpha. Meanwhile the betas are left feeling like women stole all their lunch money they spent on the candy while watching women get with bad boy Alpha’s.

    So, the gatekeeper roles are correct in my opinion. We just need to relearn the value of what we guard.

  15. Another point on topic is that the state has taken away much of the power that society hadn’t already hidden from men when requiring that they provide financial support to a child no matter what their opinion or decision or involvement in its creation. Broken condom – bam. Mouth to vagina transfer – bam. Stolen condom – bam. Lied to about being on the pill – bam. I don’t even know if the rarely persecuted male rape victim could get out of child support.

    Doesn’t that last part say something about how today’s society values men as the gate keepers of commitment? They love what we guard, and don’t care how many guards they have to kill to get the prize.

  16. katmandutu on said:

    “Nice CYA at the end there – don’t want to step on Patriarchal Toes!”

    Indeed, Susan.

    Oh, and BlackCat? You crack me up. How about a saucer of milk?
    Must have a dry tongue after all that bootlicking. 😉

  17. Pingback: Hold the line. Guard your Gate « stagedreality

  18. Actually men are forced to commit to women through forced taxation thus providing women with benefits of marriage. (Security, welfare, childcare, easy income through fake jobs etc)
    So much for gate-keeping.

    Women don’t have to return the favor.

    • Yes, the alpha males will only give them sex but no commitment so the women force the beta males to give them commitment, i.e. financial resources, with no sex in return. They want to basically have their cake and eat it too and have sex with the alpha males while the beta males involuntarily support them. Also to clarify the situation whether the higher SMV female is sometimes acting as the gatekeeper to commitment when she rejects the lower SMV male I’ll use an example. Typically a low SMV male will offer to a high SMV female the signs of commitment like giving her attention, providing her emotional support, buying her little presents or meals in restaurants, doing her favors, and running errands for her. He’s hoping she’ll eventually have sex with him but she never does. The argument has been made that the higher SMV female is sometimes being the gatekeeper to commitment but that’s not really what is happening in this typical situation. The higher SMV female is taking the commitment but not providing sex so she is still the gatekeeper to sex. Now you do have situation where a low SMV guy will offer some token of commitment like offering to buy a high SMV female dinner and she just turns him down. Even in this case she is not really being the gatekeeper to commitment. The guy is not really offering to trade his commitment for her commitment. He’s offering his commitment for her commitment plus sex. Most guys wouldn’t want her commitment without sex so she’s still the primarily acting as the gatekeeper to sex and not commitment in this situation. She’s just rejecting this deal at the beginning and letting the guy know right away there isn’t ever going to be any sex. I find this kind of female who lets the guy know right at the beginning that he’s wasting his time to actually be much more admirable than the kind of female who accepts all the tokens of commitment from a guy and then pretends to act surprised when the guy actually makes a sexual advance. The poor male sucker then usually just gets told something like she sees him as “just a friend”.

  19. I posted this over at stagedreality, but thought it may have relevance here as well:

    —————————————————————————————————

    I agree to a point. Many men will decline uncommitted sex with a woman who is of insufficient attractiveness.

    I remember and episode from my college years where a blind-drunk alpha banged the fattest chick on campus in the bathroom at a party house.

    It was interesting to see the stereotypical responses reversed: The Human Cankle was crowing about the encounter all over campus, and the alpha wanted to crawl under a rock.

    The reason is obvious, fatty imagined that her SMV had received a boost by banging an alpha, so the anti-slut defense took a back seat to her opportunity to advertise her bangability.

    Mr. Alpha was ashamed, having been caught “riding a moped”, as they say.

    When you have a large enough gap in SMV/MMV between a male and female, the “gatekeeper” model becomes unpredictable, and could even reverse.

    This fat girl could not get even low betas interested in banging her, making those low betas, well, gatekeepers of sex, in a way.

  20. Pingback: A Final Word on Sluts… for now. « M3

  21. Lost Sailor is a smart guy. I think this way of thinking will slowly return. I admit I play the field but for the right woman would commit easily. And by right woman that includes one who doesn’t sleep around like a man.

    Call it what you like but any man with two functioning testicles who has options will usually take the girl with a low partner count.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: