@Typo-MAGAshiv Ok, I think we are working with slightly different definitions here but the examples you cite are just what I am likening to the exhilarating walk along the cliff top. I just don't call this dread.

Walking along a cliff edge, it would be dreadful if you messed up or if the rocks were were a bit less stable but to call the state of mind that the walker/scrambler is in dread is a huge exaggeration. In fact the walker will be feeling very safe and happy, especially if she is with a guide she trusts. She would have to really mess up or willingly put herself into dread in the situation I am describing and that is the situation she really enjoys. In this situation she has the illusion of control but knows it is only possible because she accepts her weakness and makes the right moves. She will want to have this feeling again.

When women feel real dread they will usually swiftly comply to remove themselves from dread (or monkey branch the hell out if they have the option). They deal with it less well than men. However they feel no exhilaration, they do not get well bonded to men who put them in real dread, they just feel needy for them. They can become tolerant to this and then feel hard done by (understandably).

I just don't see value in calling a man having options dread. Dread is something else and sometimes it is needed. If a woman is mistreating you or considering infidelity for example it is perfectly fair to give off hints that will make her feel dread at losing what you bring to her but I am trying to distinguish this sort of thing (fire fighting at best) from being the guide who takes her to the exhilaration of knowing she is

@First-light your understanding of dread is severely lacking

You probably read or watched on YouTube some spergtard talking about dread as if it's all about verbally beating his woman over her head with his other options, and constantly threatening to leave.

That's poorly applied hard dread.

Demonstrating value and having options is not quite the same as the use of dread.

That is exactly optimal dread, of the soft variety.

Most women, that's all it takes. Seeing other women drool over you. Having one of her friends joke with her, "if you ever decide you don't want your husband, send him my way!" Seeing other women flirt with you.

Yes, it works long-term. In fact, most who know what they're talking about will say it's necessary long-term.

Women don't want a man that no other woman wants.

@Mate1212 I think there is not as much about this out there as there could be. Married red pill is probably somewhere to start.

RP theory says a lot about retaining her interest by making her work for commitment and sometimes by the use of dread. To my mind these are short to medium term solutions and can actually be counter productive in the long term, especially if heavily used. In the end if you are clearly offering a bad deal by long term lack of generosity and much dread, she is likely if she values herself to think less of you.

Demonstrating value and having options is not quite the same as the use of dread. Dread is standing on a cliff edge or worse a lonely ledge and fearing losing your balance or that the loose ground may give way as you try to progress. A walk along the a solid cliff top by contrast is often exhilarating.

You can't escape being a bit blue pill in the long term if you want to hold a woman. LTR is blue pill in her fantasy version. There she holds Chad as her beta protector. Of course fantasies are not entirely possible. You have to get as close to this as possible, get her reaching for the dream and rewarding it when she does by giving her a bit of what she wants but it has to be a natural reward not a transaction.

Transaction is essential to all relationships (no one sticks about if they never get enough of what they want/need) but women can't grasp this. They need to feel its natural or it dries them up.

@Typo-MAGAshiv @Typo-MAGAshiv I personally long ago gave up worrying about such things. Life is too complex and subtle for their to be more than a handful of absolute sins -parricide and the various forms of self abuse and wasting of your goodness perhaps? Sex is certainly too complex to be a sin unless it falls into a wasting yourself through indulging in emptiness category.

People can tie themselves into some knots over sexual ethics. If you want to look to the bible, I think they had it about right in the early old testament, except for the marriages to close relations. Male "adultery" is only really possible if a man pays more attention to empty side chicks and whores than to the women he has children with. Proverbs gets this about right.

The pending end of the world that the new testament's main players believed in shaped their ideas about all sex being less than ideal but OK in marriage. We have had to live with that ever since. Then the church starts to get into marriage, even starts to conduct marriages, even does so in a church and makes it a sacrament (not at all the case at first as marriage was always basically seen as Islam still sees it -a secular matter). Then the Roman practise of only having one official wife became adopted pretty universally around the start of the second millennium.

Note that we see the practise of monogamy sanctioned by the church was only just getting its claws in in the 11th century when William the bastard (who was still permitted to be his father's legal heir though a bastard) defeated Harold Godwinson in battle. Harold had to be identified by marks on his body known to his second wife Edith of the swan's neck as his face was too disfigured. Harold had two wives but he did come from a more backward country.

Customs come and go. The nature of men and women remains the same. Marriage is a secular matter much older than the church or even El. the church oversteps when it takes it further

@First-light

I am always a bit curious when someone fears God from cheating but not from fornicating outside marriage.

This is a deeper topic than I can really delve into with the time I have remaining, but I'm afraid I'll forget all about it if I put it off for later. I tend to do that.

Anyway....

1) the original meaning of "adultery" was to polute the bloodline. That can only happen through the woman. In other words, men could have sex outside of marriage, unless it was another man's wife or betrothed. This led to very little sexual opportunities outside of marriage for men, because just about everyone with a daughter tried to get her married off and so she was off-limits. The restriction in men was de facto rather than "no fornicating", at least originally. The Apostle Paul expanded that a bit, telling all believers to remain sexually pure. Modren preachers steeped in feminism have tried to make everything apply equally to men and women, because they believe that blank slate equalism bullshit that feminism teaches.

2) in my particular case, I started off trying to save myself for marriage to a fellow virgin. I never once encountered a virginal woman, so I gave up and started fornicating.