Admittedly at first, I got annoyed, as everything performed sexually in my opinion has to be done by consent. But then (and it took quite a while) I tried to look at the angle through the eyes of 'ownership' and this is how I surmised Gabrielle's bold statement for my own mind. 

​Men are the factories and businesses that make, courier and distribute the product known as "semen". They own it outright and make all decisions on whom they will 'provide' it to. In fact, apart from the accidental splitting of a condom, semen is totally controlled by 'him' no matter what requests or demands 'she' makes. Ultimately, he has the final say on the distribution of the product. In addition, new business protocols would suggest; that men should go as far as recapturing their semen product once it has been exported and fully dispose of it themselves. This method is advised in a bid to minimise corporate espionage and counter-intelligence, as receivers of the product have been known to keep and store it for later use, without the original owners permission.

We all have a responsibility to take care of ourselves during sex, but women do not control the flow of semen and at best they can only play a part to neutralise it. Men have to start being quite fussy about the entire journey of their semen and look after it in its totality.

Throughout time; socialisation through chivalry, morality and religion have always had a strong say in how we conduct our sex lives and as with all doctrines and principles, useful or not, somewhere along the line they can become twisted, out of date, oppressive, corrupted and even contrived. Since the formal public mentioning of the 90 day rule was brought into the mainstream by TV presenter/comedian Steve Harvey, people all over the world have been employing it in a bid to find true love with mixed results. Some have found success with it, others have not affected any change at all, but the real shame would be to adhere to the rigid 'clock' and end up forsaking a glaringly obvious meant-to-be connection. Imagine ruining what should have been the summit of a key moment in the building of your relationship, all because the calendar said "not yet". And so in my opinion, there needs to be a common sense flexibility attached to the proceedings.

Believe it or not, I for one am not against waiting 90 days, in fact it could be even longer, but it could also be shorter - it depends on the person I am dealing with and how quickly we delve into each others lives. 90 Days where you only see that person 15 times, is different to 90 days where you see that person 60 times. And yes, I am a man that doesn't want to rush into sex if I am serious about a person, but not out of any rules related to chivalry, morality or religion. 'Waiting' is not (should not) create the absence of something, the main goal isn't about bedding her. If that is the main focus or if that is all someone can think about, then the entirety of the person you are dealing with away from sexual activity, is clearly not enough to hold you and coupling is a bad idea. As a couple, can you be 100% functional without the sex - in essence what I really want to know is: Who Are We Together If There Is No Sex?

Who The Hell Are You? In the area of work and business, companies will perform entire background checks on potential employees because the wrong person can disrupt workflow or cause financial upheaval and we as candidates don't mind this. But for some reason when it comes to our social lives, too many of us will let our emotions take us away and we will involve ourselves with any yahoo because we are on a high. In not investigating early on, we then go on to find out all manner of things that we would never support or condone...like our 'partner' being an active criminal or being actively married. You can't find out all these things in a week, especially if you don't have the resources of MI5. Ultimately, waiting gives us the chance to discern and dissect their life and examine their behaviour to see if we are in any capacity really compatible. 

Unforeseen Consequences: STIs, STDs, pregnancy, heartbreak, drama. There are talk shows that have thrived because early, but mostly irresponsible sex, was had leading to dysfunction spreading to multiple lives. If you weigh the two against each other (irresponsible sex vs no sex) you know that the latter is ultimately the formula for peace, as the road not travelled is better than an exhilarating drive that ultimately leads to a car crash.

Emotional Insurance: When you lay me down to sex, I wanna feel comfortable and not that your gonna be worse than my ex. Peace of mind is not to be scoffed at! Not all people are good at having sex or ready to receive it, when they don't feel comfortable. Is sex an enjoyable experience when it is rushed and you feel rigid from the unfamiliarity or from not being able to ask for what you truly like? Why do we place so much emphasis on the physical encounter? Answer - because it feels soooo good! But, no fully realised relationship can be based on one thing. Sex feels good. Love is a nice feeling. Lust is a strong feeling that feels great when it is quenched. But none of those feelings are pragmatic for a long term union. None of these elements alone allow you to sustain a relationship. Boredom can easily settle in when you've completed the physical joy, especially when you have no real connection. The joining of 2 personalities that really know each other, their spirits, their souls and their higher emotions is the summit of a sexual joining. In fact, the lack of a true bond can send you in the opposite directions from the feeling of being oddly lonely and feeling cold.

The very reason I am calling for a remix or at least some flexibility, is that one rigid rule will bring about different reactions in the person you try to impose them on. Some men will like it. Some men will hate it. Some men will think it's some sort of feminist political movement (the irony) and some men will think it's a means of control...which it is, but not a negative one. But observe this - whatever their response is, it does not determine the calibre of the man they are - this can only be decided by their actions. One of my favourite male responses to the 90 day rule that influenced this article was: “It’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of. It’s like women think if a man waits 90 days then it means he is going to marry them. Women don’t get that some men will wait 900 days, hit it, and still quit it. That thinking is all wrong. If he wants to be with you then time doesn’t matter.“ Sourced from Fierce Daily.com

So what do you do with that type of man? A man who is willing to wait until the dinosaurs reappear back on Earth in order to have sex with you and then bounce. The technique employed to protect yourself against the very thing you don't want seems redundant with this type of psychological profile. I mean whilst he is waiting, he could be easily seeing multiple women on the side to fulfil his current desires. I have no grand answer for this, except during the 90 days...or however long you make him wait, you have to investigate, you have to probe - do not be entertained into a relationship. "Oh he bought me this, he took me there" blah, blah, blah. When women talk about men being chivalrous and opening doors and pushing their chair in for them during dinner, ask yourself this; do they act like this when you're at home alone? If he wouldn't do it in private, don't get so caught up when they do it in public, it's a contrived action that doesn't mean anything by itself. The good signs you should be looking out for are; respect, honesty (especially when it makes them look vulnerable or weak) accountability, a vision for the future that is genuine (not some regurgitated soundbite), a willingness to do and transparency. Look for these things and if you are satisfied and the sex organically comes about, then it shouldn't matter too much when you have it...but still, don't be an eager beaver because some men have rehearsed those very faux principles in order to lull you into lowering your defences.

For years I've often wondered why I didn't know a single woman that fully liked her body and it occurred to me that perhaps the obsession and constant policing from society at large, would drive any person to be overly critical about themselves. With such a razor sharp focus and a list of penalties to inflict and ridicule a person if they don't fit the annoyingly mutable standards, it's no wonder that some people have lost their minds in the attempt to be 'beautiful'. I say "person" rather than woman in the second instance because I have to acknowledge, that even within the male sector, though the gaze isn't just focussed so much on how we physically look, there is that pressure too. I myself have been turned down before for not being sexy enough or I should say a "sex on legs" type. But for the most part, men are measured on who we are amongst other men and what expensive things we own which is an ancient signal to being a resourceful provider, an attribute and ritual often found to work the same way in the animal kingdom. Men with a certain status are revered, whilst women with a certain body type (per culture) are praised and yes, this is initially to do with finding the best mate to procreate with, but beyond our hardwired biological responses to each other, we have to admit, we have gone crazy about our physical features and women receive and are forced to live with the worst of this physical mania. 

So where does the idea, of the ideal female body come from? I mean there are approximately 3.7billion women in the world, how do you decide from all the shapes and sizes that a body can have, that this particular form is the number one. And more importantly which council of nitwits are making these decisions? My belief for any standard existing at all, is for reason of profit, as there are products and services, within the range of beauty, fashion and body hacks that cover the ENTIRE female body - I mean literally from head to toe. Men in comparison are not held hostage to that part of their image so vehemently in comparison. So why is it that I as a man don't feel the need to have long eyelashes to seem more handsome? Because a man's natural delusion and path to being loved doesn't lie in the same box as a woman's. Our delusion is usually about a display of wealth and ownership - driving a nice car or wearing an expensive watch or having a good job apparently makes us somebody, that is how we make our body beautiful, those are our eyelashes.

It would seem that within the realm of womanhood, it is extremely important to sew discontent and destabilise any neutrality about the body. Every part of her must be subject to baring a fault that can be remedied with a product. Destroy her self-esteem and then offer the temporary and costly solutions to build it up. The 'assets' of a woman must be broken down with acute purpose so that there are several avenues of revenue that come from her: hair, eyes, ears, nose, lips, cheeks, chin, throat, neck, breasts, mid back, arms (biceps, triceps and elbows), hands, nails, hips, stomach/waist, bum, vagina, thighs, knees, feet, toes and skin. Would I be wrong in saying that there is a product or service (away from health care), that exists for all these areas of the body, that supposedly will make you look better? And just for fun, ask yourself if there are male equivalents. From panty girdles and wonder bras, to botox and contour techniques and plastic surgery. Everyone that markets these products, has to get you to buy into the false fact that you, as you are, are not good enough or you're just okay, but you could be improved. These manufactures are not providing solutions to real problems, they are creating the 'problems' and selling you a remedy.

The fashion industry has a similar practice that also works on low self-esteem. If you don't feel that you are of worth, then a highly praised label or item attached to your body is a step to upgrading it. And if a celebrity wears or endorses it, then the power-up is of a greater magnitude. The vanity of human beings knows no bounds, how do we know this? Well the most expensive belt in the world costs $249,000 (£192,246). People, hear me: if I was a billionaire, I wouldn't by a belt for over £20 unless it had some sort of application on it, on par with Batman's utility belt. But this is where our desperation fails us, we want to be accepted, loved and admired, but our fear of that absence drives us to operating within a matrix that is actually bonkers. Occasionally, people escape from the matrix and when they declare that there is another 'world' that we can all inhabit, free of pressure and shame, that person often gets ridiculed. You know I'm not making this up because you know about Alicia Keys who transitioned to being more natural with her face, dealing with her own issues surrounding her body and she got lambasted for it - mostly by women. How can you have a problem with someone who wants to display the face they were born with or rock the hair that naturally comes out of their own scalp? Like I said - bonkers.

FEEDING FEAR INTO THE PSYCHE
​Where did the idea of the beach body come from? This one type of body that is permissible to be seen semi-naked. If you type in "Beach Body" on Google, you will find books, videos, online courses, fitness apps all ready to get you looking good...for a price. The beach body is code for 'good' 'acceptable' 'admired' 'loved'. In fact replace "beach" with the four alternatives and tell me if those sentiments are not what is trying to be expressed as the selling point. The truth is, there is no beach body, summer body, there is just the body. If you only workout and eat properly seasonally, to look better whatever the hell that is to you, then you have no real love for your body, what you have is the fear and contempt of being criticised or ridiculed. Ergo your painful, frustrating seasonal transformational missions are actually for the sake of other people, not yourself. The moment you give up on everybody else's standard and truly find your own, you'll find happiness and contentment through your freedom. I know, I know it sounds corny as hell, but as Chris Cornell sang "If you are free, you'll never see the walls."