Since sex is one of the biggest motivations for men...this forces males to truly demonstrate their worth... They will do everything for a woman. They must go through many trials.

At the very least its does create a bar for the committed men vs. the man that is just attractive, or whatever. This traditional concept, while not particularly healthy sexually speaking, might be a positive for happy relationships - maybe. I'd rather we not go back to all of this, though.

The man has to treat the woman to dinners, regular dates, invest money in her, buy her gifts, court her, call her on the phone often...sometimes for many years. During this time, they only hold hands and kiss... Then, once everything is cleared, the man has to...promise to commit to the woman for the rest of his life. Only then can he get any sex.

I think the concept of 'male entitlement' comes up here all the worse. I imagine they're somewhat related, although the way 'male entitlement' is currently defined I find rather dubious. The only kinds of guys that think buying a 5 dollar beer for a woman 'entitles' them to sex are all shitheads anyways.

I have known quite a few of these women personally... These women are even average-looking... They have many good men over the years fighting for them, taking care of them, fixing their clogs, carrying their bags, etc...

So, a potential net-benefit for women, minus sexual freedom, all at the expense of 'free labor' from men? I can't help but feel like men might be all the more justified in their entitlement at that point, and I don't exactly feel comfortable with that either.

I mean, if I was courting a woman for 5 years, she wasn't putting out, and then went off with some other guy, I'd kinda feel like I was owed something for all the work and shit I put in - and that is probably not healthy for either individual. Like, the woman would be able to get free labor, knowingly, with no intention of returning the guy's affection, and the guy would feel cheated because he invested time and energy into someone who rejected him... Just ew. We have enough of that without all this social pretense.

Feminism has destroyed everything that allowed women to have sexual power over quality men

Well, that's more women selecting quality men, really. The quality men haven't disappeared. Having sex with quality men isn't the problem. The problem is that its not socially restricted who and when you can have sex. So, more women end up having sex with good looking, not necessarily better quality, men who know that they can also continue to get free sex.

The dynamic has changed, and it means that if a woman wants a quality man, then she needs to select based upon that, not based upon their appearance.

What was once difficult to obtain 60 years ago is now obtainable within 1 or 2 weeks without even having to buy the girl a cup of coffee... [A man] can have all the sex he wants with little effort...

Annnnnd so can a woman. Women like sex too. Sex isn't supposed to be some sort of bargaining chip used to suck men into your life.

If [a woman is] not giving sex quickly...he knows there are another million girls who will...

Well, that entirely depends on if women are willing to have sex with him in the first place. Also, this seems to only really apply to attractive men, which again, isn't the guy's problem but a problem of selection on the woman's part.

The pressure to spread her legs within a few weeks is too strong. She has lost all her sexual power.

So... don't. Problem solved. Do what you want to do. If the guy isn't willing to wait, then he's not a quality guy, right? Man, that was an easy selection process. Its almost like you've created a means of filtering quality men from non-quality men, if your 'quality' is valuing your desire to wait until marriage at least. Some quality men might not want to wait, but might still be quality, but... hey, that's dating and trying to figure out who is and is not 'quality' - which is sort of subjective anyways.

Men should have to work to get sex from women.

Should women have to work to get sex from men? Should women have all the power when it comes to sex? Should men have all the power when it comes to sex? OR... should they be equal partners and no one have power over the other in such a way - more so than they already do based upon their differing libidos.

Now I've been called hypocritical because I support traditional expectations upon men, but not upon women (e.g. cooking and cleaning). Here's the thing: Women already contribute enough to relationships.

Do they, though? I mean, if we go with the traditional, then the guy working 50+/week is his contribution. I mean, its such an individual basis to really determine anyways, and a lot of it comes down to both people not recognizing what they do one another or for themselves as a couple.

There's evidence that men benefit more from relationships than women do, emotionally & psychologically & even physically. So we're the ones doing them a favor by being in relationships with them; it's only fair that they give things (money and resources) in return.

Hoooboy. Uhm, yea, that's some borderline misandrist thinking, I think.

And yes, men do benefit a great deal from a relationship specifically because their partner is in many ways their only acceptable emotional outlet. We all have our pains to bear and this is one of men's. Remember, men commit suicide more... I'm pretty sure not having a woman in your life doesn't really help the not committing of the suiciding.

In many cases, due to the fact that men generally have stronger sex drives than women

Not always true, and the context of this is very much arguable depending upon the source. I've seen some sources that say men have more of a sex drive, that men and women have equal sex drives, and some rare pieces saying that women actually have stronger sex drives. A lot of factors also play into that, like attraction, age, and so on.

sex also provides a greater relief to men than women

Generalizations are just a theme with this post at this point.

It also sparks a sense of accomplishment, precisely because it's harder for men to get women than vice versa.

It really shouldn't, though. Men shouldn't feel accomplished for getting sex. Men should feel accomplished for pleasing their partner, but not for getting sex.

So why do women feel like it's hypocritical for them to demand more from men before fucking or dating them? It's the opposite of hypocritical!

Because its sexist? Because its setting women on a pedestal? Because is treating women like god's gift to men - which, I mean, kinda while ignoring the biblical implications of that too. Its wanting a slave, not a partner. Its creating this dynamic where you're not equal partners, but that there is a definitive power structure - which, fine, figure that out amongst yourselves, but don't dictate it on the outset.

Heck, there's evidence that even being around women, not even necessarily fucking or dating them, has a therapeutic effect on men, but not vice versa!

So? Don't be around men, then... <shrug>

There's also the frequent claim that men are "visual" & get a thrill from looking at attractive women. Thus, every time a married man wakes up, he gets pleasure from seeing a woman next to him whom he almost certainly finds attractive (because men care more about looks when entering relationships). Women generally don't get this.

Sure, they get the 'thrill' when their guy thinks of them, or engages them in different ways, like mentally and so on. Granted all of this is working within the assumption that men and women are different in this regard, which may be over or under stated.

I think that it's only fair that men should have to work, give things, etc in order to get the pleasure of fucking, or dating, a woman.

Aaaaaand that's why plenty of men are saying 'fuck this shit, I'm out'. They aren't being treated with respect, like they have value, so fuck it. Why enter a situation where you are inherently devalued, that the woman has all this value, oh, and then also argue that women don't have inherent value. Just... uhg. No.

People call me entitled. Yet how is it NOT "entitled" for men to want to get the therapeutic benefit of spending time with women but not give anything in return?

Then date women. You're looking at just one aspect of a relationship, and looking at it entirely in a one-sided way. A relationship isn't some sort of balancing act of a business relationship, although certainly too much imbalance is unhealthy. A relationship is more than just what one provides to the other.

God this just not a good or even remotely healthy way to view the dynamic of a relationship.

I don't think that women who have sex freely, when they're horny, should be shamed. However, I do encourage that women in general should set the bar high, & that men should realize that this is completely fair and, in fact, equal.

Sure. Ok. In many cases it is, depending upon the woman. This is all largely counter to your point.

(Equality=/=same. 4+4=8 and 6+2=8 are equal but not the same.)

I've been saying this for a really, really long time that men and women have asymmetric equality. The wage gap might mean women make less, but it also means men work more. Women get more time with kids, but less professional development. Men get less time with gets, but more professional development. It all depends on what you value within all of that. Regardless, men and women have asymmetric equality.

What you're ultimately proposing, though, sounds very much like a misandristic female entitlement system. If its wrong for men to feel entitled, then the same goes for women.