My take on WWNH's Options in his "Fidelity without His Devotion? Unlikely!" post

Excerpted from What Women Never Hear

Option A: “Some women embrace the idea that you are single until married, meaning that even though you might spend time with someone in a romantic context, until a man proposes, you remain free to entertain the interest of whomever you desire should you choose to do so.”  (Already described at #1434)

Option B: “Others claim that this is disloyal, unfaithful, etc. and that if you are seriously interested in someone, that interest ought to be expressed through a committed, exclusive dating relationship where both parties are off limits to anyone else so long as you are an ‘official’ couple.”

 *******************************

I've lived my entire life by Option B, always had boyfriends and was committed to them and they to me.

But this post made me rethink that and I completely agree that Option B limits a woman's options to shop for the best man, so therefore, Option A makes the most sense if you're looking for marriage.

If you're NOT looking for marriage, but a long-term partnership, then basically, you're stopping at Option B. There's nothing wrong with that, but if you want your relationship to turn into marriage, you might want to reconsider whether having a boyfriend is actually the best way to go about this.

Conversely, if you want marriage, then if you are living life via Option B (living with or have a committed boyfriend) -- you may be shooting yourself in the foot. Why would a guy want to marry if he gets the benefits of marriage without actually, at least, proposing marriage to you? Obviously the love you give him in a committed relationship is the same you would give him with the ring. So what's in it for HIM to actually marry you?

Prior to Women's Lib (and the Pill) -- I think all women were dating according to Option A. There were more marriages then, right?

Think about it!