Being possessive over your woman isn't a sign of insecurity, it's a sign of protectiveness and being territorial - both of which are very masculine traits.

I find it amusing how this gets spun into a weak/low status behaviour when it is in fact a high status/dominant behaviour.

Yet both pick up artists and feminists alike agree on one point:

If you try to limit her freedom, you're low status and insecure.

Why do they agree on this?

Because each group wants the freedom to be degenerate, which means removing gatekeepers to women to promote promiscuity.

This is in actual fact, very disingenuous however. High testosterone males are extremely possessive of the female they're invested in, and rightfully so. Protecting your investment from sabotage and ascertaining your paternity is about as masculine as it gets.

This rhetoric that only low status insecure weak men would try to "control" (read: enforce standards and boundaries - a masculine behaviour) on their woman is laughable, and that "real cool masculine dudes are just detached and trust her" is a most laughable work of fiction.

In fact, this is one of the biggest shit tests of all. If you fall for this trick and are successfully shamed into thinking you're insecure for exercising your natural rights as a man to be protective of, and possessive of your woman - then you are in fact a weak, foolish man.

Why would you take advice from people who want casual sex with your long-term investment on gatekeeping?

Shall we also take advice from active thieves in your area with no loyalty to you on home security as well?

Don't think there might be a conflict of interest here?

Male mammals across the animal kingdom are highly territorial of their females.

They're not all "LOL, I don't give a fuck bro, I'm practicing my amused mastery, fuck that thot, I'll just get a new one anyway"

No, they're locking that bitch down.

Stop being a delusional moron.

I don't know who needed to hear this, but I know you're out there.