Single until married

Even if we don’t consider this behavior unethical, even if we assume that “nah, he probably doesn’t care”, my original point still stands: it’s strategically unwise. It doesn’t maximize female benefit to keep a man around who hasn’t passed your vetting. Firstly, a HVW respects her time. If she’s serious about marriage, she doesn’t need to waste time on casual relationships, especially when she needs that time to look for other men. Secondly, a HVW respects herself enough to not accept crumbs of a relationship just because it’s better than nothing. She knows that being alone is preferable to maintaining a no-strings-attached situation with a man, especially when her goal is marriage. If it’s not a hell yes, it’s a no. If this man supposedly cares about her so little, what possibly can he offer her when friends and family would probably offer the same at a fraction of the risk? The risk of crazy jealousy some men develop when they feel cheated on would be enough to make me want to break it off with a man before trying to meet others with romantic intent. (My ex went nuts when I broke up with him and he learned that I had another man trying to date me -- I don't want to know what would have happened if he would have had concrete reason to believe that I had actively been planning to leave him for someone else)

Actually, with posts like the one in question, I sometimes get the feeling that they’re designed as traps. They want to bait FDS users into encouraging obvious LV tactics just because it’s a woman employing them, so the poster can post the replies somewhere else à la “look what these unhinged b*tches told me to do, they are sooo entitled and hate men!!”. To those, I say, good luck. This is not r/diabla or “dark psychology” TikTok. Even if it was a genuine question, I don’t think this forum exists to unconditionally validate women in whatever they want to do. Of course, we can’t stop her, but it’s not exactly FDS-aligned behavior.

Just came here to say that I agree: the original post gave me troll vibes. Like wanting us to share "tricks" on how to cheat on male partners so the reddit losers and pick mes would make a big deal and say how FDS bitches encourage cheating and how we're the equivalent of Andrew Tate fans🙄 Pathetic

PREACH SIS!!!

Yep, if you want a marriage, how is a situationship going to benefit you exactly? This reminds me of the discussions around casual dating and FWB that sometimes come up here. Some women always seem to think they can somehow gain something by dating the way men do, like using others just for sex. I don't believe this ever benefits a woman as much as it does the man, because dating men always involves a higher risk for women.

I understand what you mean about objects and its hard to come up with an exact analogy, but if boyfriend/girlfriend doesn't progress to the next stage, assuming at least one person wants that, then its not much of a promise. It's the benefit of keeping her for himself but wont make the ultimate commitment that justifies her shutting down better options (which she was willing to do for him).

So if he's willing to spend fun time with her but unwilling to progress further, on what grounds is it immoral if she does the same until something better comes along?

It's just an assumption that he dates her "until something better comes along", I believe it's a myth that everyone wants to get married either at 1-2 years or never. If she has concerns about being strung along, the solution is not to string him along back. Either she sees a future with him and gives him a heads-up of "hey I expect to be married by X years" or she just breaks up with him.

Yeah, we expect HVM to stay true to their values and display a strong moral backbone even when it's not convenient to them, so a HVW should hold herself to the same standard, if she wants to attract other HV people into her life.

The poster in question wasn't "pestered" for wanting marriage, people were just telling her she should break up with her current seemingly lackluster guy before starting to look for other marriage prospects, that's all.

In the original post, nothing pointed to her being abused or disrespected by her partner. It sounded like she was just "meh" about him. And no one says she can't leave her partner for a better one if she finds one, she was specifically asking about staying in the relationship out of convenience while looking for another man. If you're at that stage, you can just break up with nothing lost. I feel it's more like "small world" thinking to believe that she needs to secure another man before she can break up. We want to empower women to prefer singleness over being attached to a subpar man. How is that moralistic or anti-woman?

I see your point on encouraging women to find peace without men and that is one really good dating strategy for empowering women but I would argue that we should not be too prescriptive - if it truly empowers women (eg benefits women as a whole more than it benefits men), than FDS should not tone police that. A plethora of strategies that still stay on target of benefiting women in relationships/dating should be embraced. Instead of shutting these type of discussions down we should remain curious - why do we think that way (ie is it because of the scrotes crying about monkey branching) and what benefits/disadvantages could these different type of strategies bring to the cause.

As for the moralistic arguments (I never said any of the discussion is anti-women nor implied it, so I don’t know where that comes from) that line of thinking comes from a parable I ran into yesterday “the right looks for converts; the left looks for heretics/traitors” and I was thinking how that works in real life political movements - the left is hellbent on policing themselves by insisting on incredible high moral grounds of its members - this ultimately tears the left apart and makes them ineffective at making change. I say this as a card carrying leftist (Im an organiser in a union) and have seen this be the thing that tears movements apart. I really don’t want that for FDS so i commented as such.

Only if the benefits outweigh the benefit of being single and unburdened, and in this particular case, there was no measurable benefit to the woman.

Nobody shut anything down, OP presumably deleted her post because she didn't like the answers. As I said elsewhere, the wording of the post made it seem like a troll's attempt to make FDS look bad by eliciting reponses encouraging her to go behind her partner's back. But assuming OP was asking a serious question: the topic of why casual relationships are of little benefit to women even if it might seem different on the surface has been discussed at length on here. It's not like FDS "dismisses" this idea outright just because, there are good reasons for that stance.

I've been observing the same phenomenon for years in leftist spaces, and I frequently do speak out against it. But in this case, it didn't seem like a "burn the heretic" kind of situation to me. The arguments here are not "don't do this because we don't do this", there are actual practical arguments. We don't remind women to have more self-respect on the basis of moral obligation to the community, we do it because it directly increases the well-being of women themselves, and hopefully lets men get away with less. After all, FDS is not just about dating but also about personal growth. There are other communities for women who are looking for a more straightforward "how do I extract the most resources from a man with little to no consideration for morals or personal integrity" approach.

No one said it was cheating, just that it wasn't a good idea.

If you are with a man whom you suspect of just seeing you as a way to pass the time, why are you with that man? No need to "keep your options open" then, just break up. A situation where both people string each other along is not the desired outcome here, and I'm really baffled at women thinking it is. My time is too precious to waste on stupid "mutually assured destruction" stuff like that.

Extracting money from a man in exchange for romantic company is turning yourself into an escort. Sure, if she is currently dependent on him in some way, she needs to be smart about her exit. But it didn't really sound that way in the OP.

Yes why not ! I agree with you more power to her !

I'm revisiting some of my old posts and I had to stop checking this one at the time, because of the back and forth specifically with you. But holy smokes, I see you responded to every comment in this thread trying to police everyone with your misguided, even naive morality, but this one really takes he cake. Calling a woman an escort for any reason other than being a literal escort only exposes YOU as LV and misogynistic.

You seem rather paranoid about being trolled and deeply insecure about what these imagined trolls might think of us/you (newsflash, they will think we're bitches no matter what, that's why we put ourselves first always, even before a theoretical future high value man, read again: a man, not a god). A man who meets his dream woman will not care if she left her 'boy-friend' last week. In some cases of exceptional admiration he may even hold out hope & wait patiently until the boy is out of the picture. You are once again projecting female logic onto men. But... Are you sure YOU are not the troll? Because you defended this guy's honor ferociously. You have given the benefit of the doubt on his intentions without any proof in the form of action. Cheating is immoral and no one disagreed... but you admit it's not cheating. So you deflect by demoting it to "a bad idea" based on the assumtion he provides 'no measurable benefit', despite the fact that (besides him not actively planning to marry her) she sees enough benefit to consider marriage with him. You don't know her schedule but assume the amount of time and effort she spends on him is too high & leaves no time to mingle in other social settings, when she already made it clear there will be a time limit put on him regardless. Somewhere in there you even assumed she is staying only for sex like a fwb... huh?? project much? This is all over the place.

Yo re-worded things I said to fit your narrative like  ""If he was afraid to lose her he'd marry her asap" is a very binary view of things."

What? Now you're speaking in extremes by throwing in an ASAP that was never there. How is making your plans and intentions clear after 1.5 years of presumed exclusivity the same as "marrying her asap"?? Making excuses for these men is pickme behaviour. Intelligent mature men know what they want and have a vision for their life. When I say they don't care, I mean they either can't be bothered to plan their life with her in the picture, or she is simply not in the picture. You really assumed after 1.5 years no hints, clues, or conversations along these lines EVER took place, if the intention and desire was there? If he cared, is it not reasonable to ask his girlfriend at any point during these 1.5 years about something as fundamental as her relationship/family values?

I'll leave you with some gems copy+pasted straight from the handbook since you wont take it from me and continue to incorrectly claim its not FDS aligned:

Enforcing Monogamy and dependence in females lessens infighting between males and increases infighting between females.

Instead of males competing for access to females, the females must compete to secure resources from a singular valuable male. In actuality, it would be more advantageous for women to secure many resources from the many available males. This role reversal allows Men to have the advantage and energy to pursue other females while still maintaining ownership of single female.

It is also why the concept of “gold diggers” and “hoes” is so demonized in society. It thwarts male control over the natural opportunistic female mating patterns.

Even so, hoes and goldiggers are often successful in securing their desired partners. This is because hoes and gold diggers are great at seizing opportunities and triggering the male mate guarding instinct.

1. Keep your options open, always. Instead of women desperately pursuing a relationship with a single male, you maintain several which are beneficial to you in different ways. Although, at this stage, you shouldn’t allow sexual access.

4. Monogamy is for marriage. Unless a man expresses an explicit desire for marriage, with a timeline in mind, you should not be monogamous. Again, monogamy benefits men, not women.