She initiates, and he reacts; it’s the opposite of what works best for a lifetime together. I’m not sure, but I’d bet: Except for the man suggesting they shack up, modern women are first to pledge commitment, seek his commitment, and even include shack up as essential or a lure to seal the deal.
· As I use these terms here: Dedication is his effort; devotion is what she receives. From signs of his dedication, she infers his devotion.
A woman shouldn’t commit before he commits, and not even then unless she sees devotion in his eyes and actions and not just his words. Why? Odds greatly favor only a temporary arrangement, plus she encourages his natural dominance to be more dominant.
· If he makes himself worthy of her, she may win but no guarantees. If she makes herself worthy of him, she loses. Yielding to his conquering nature automatically makes her worthy of him. He interprets it to mean that he’s good enough for her just as he is. This means his natural dominant spirit is also okay. As a challenge to him, her value goes down, and it adds temporariness.
· By providing sex and committing to a man without marriage, she takes him off the hook and hangs herself on it. How? Her commitment neutralizes his competitors for him—other men. This takes pressure off him to show dedication for her. Having had sex with her, growth of his dedication slows or stops. He competes less strenuously to keep her, because he’s had her. And so, he gets by with giving less of himself to fulfill his promises. This too adds temporariness.
Those points should caution women today, but feminist blather convinces them otherwise. Dealing with men, they try to force success with short-term endeavors. This costs them long-term togetherness.