Loyalty and Women

[DAPHNE XO]

So, I consume a lot of manosphere content. I think I enjoy the bluntness and unapologetic masculinity on display. IRL I tend to meet a lot of feminine men and I just am not here for any of that.

Anyway, one of my favourite (as of late) manosphere personalities said something that has really resonated with me:

"Women are not loyal to you, they are loyal to the benefits of being with you."

[Animal]

I'm pretty confident in saying I'm a loyal woman. I've never cheated on anyone at all in a committed relationship. Never even came close. Any time there's contact with another person that crosses an emotional line, I tell my partner. I am super intense.. I can't not be. So people can end up falling for me, since I hone in on them so deeply as a person. But I'm explicit and tell them I'm taken from the first moment, and I report every incident of someone else wanting me to my partner, for the sake of being honest.

When I had more complicated relationships in the past - such as friends with benefits - I always had explicit, clear talks with the person before doing anything intimate. First of all I'm not attracted to strangers, period. I can be interested in them, but if they move too fast for sex I'm done forever. I need to be the chaser, and before chasing, I tend to size things up for a while. So, by the time sexual contact would even be a question, this person already knows the key figures in my obsessions and inner life. The only time I was shy, and held back, was when I was the one who was obsessed. I would not reveal my obsessions to the people I was obsessed with, but provided I was the less interested party, everything was on the table.

When I'm with someone, I talk about the past, including relationships - in fact, love interests provide an anchor for me in describing periods of my life. The obsessions tend to last years and provide a kind of 'era' for me. But cheating in real time -- no. Just no. If I'm with someone I'm with them; stories and art is one thing, but actually leading someone else on simply doesn't happen. (Unless it's an honest three-way or something like that.) And getting intimate with anyone behind my partner's back is just out of the question, and always has been throughout my life. Basically, I avoided committed relationships unless I wanted to commit.

As for testing my loyalty - nope. If someone cheats on me, they're done. I have been in this situation, when I was deeply in love, and deeply in the throes of trauma. I had nothing but him --- and I left anyway, and refused to take him back. I could not fully get over him for 18 years but I refused all his subsequent marriage proposals.

As for the question of abstract loyalty - am I loyal to the benefits of being with someone? No. I'm far too autonomous at heart. Even if I'm sick and actually can't take care of myself, this doesn't register in my peabrain. I find it insulting if a partner 'needs me' more than he wants me, and I would not do that to my worst enemy. I would be far more likely to sell my body as a means to support myself than to stay in a relationship with someone whose soul does not inspire me. The latter is too great a cost, as it would mean selling my soul.

[Vive]

In response to the statement, I would say that it depends on the woman.

While it is good to recognize that there's something egoistic in having a partner, like more confidence, positive feelings, a feeling of safety, someone cleaning up after yourself, you name it, but I don' think relationships aren't just that. You stay, because you genuinely care about someone's well-being, you feel attracted to your partner, they help you grow and you help them, naturally. Relationships that continue to be a one-way street tend to fizzle out pretty quickly, or they become toxic if one person is too scared to leave and the other reaping the benefits.

Sure there are relationships where there might be benefits for both sides, but honestly if you're both in only for the benefits, I don't think you're really in a relationship at all, you're in a beneficial trade agreement, but it's nothing more than that.

How to separate loyal people from those just loyal for benefits:

• Are they truly interested in you and learning about you?
• Are they there for you when you have problems and are going through difficulties?
• Do they do things for you without asking for anything in return?

Now if the answers to questions like this is no, consistently over longer periods of time, you might be with someone who is just in for their own benefits, but these are just a couple questions and these kinds of things can't truly be solved with just a couple questions, but this is just to get some kind of indication, I suppose.

[Animal]

Truth!!! So well stated.

[Qassim]

[Qassim]

Exactly. It's yet another permutation of of this.

[a2jc4life]

Ugh. That's a good way to put it ("Women are not loyal to you, they are loyal to the benefits of being with you.") I think we all agree this isn't universal, but I definitely agree with it as a trend. I find that women in general are far more likely to be all surface than men in general. They can't deal with conflict. They can't deal with anything difficult. So as soon as there's a hint of discomfort, they just bail. There wasn't ever any real substance in the first place. There are exceptions on both sides of this, but there does seem to be some gender-based skew. (e.g there's a reason "if you don't know why I'm upset, I'm not going to tell you" is associated with women.)

I generally avoid contexts where it's mostly women, because I don't have the patience/tolerance for the catty games or for walking on eggshells.

[BalalaikaBoy]

tbh...I think this is true of most women, but I seldom bring it up, because it's not true of the women I spend most of my time with. like, I'm sure most men would get annoyed with a woman who constantly bitched about how there were so many rapists and they were all men. same idea.