The Remote Boyfriend

LustHackers | Saturday, 19 May 2018 |

Remote boyfriending is a tendency in a man to adopt the mentality of a boyfriend in situations where he’s sexually attracted to a female, and does not perceive rejection from that female, but is unable to access her in person.

Remote boyfriending has the same root psychology as so-called ‘white-knighting’ or ‘nice guy syndrome’. However, remote boyfriending specifically includes behaviours such as labouring on behalf of the female, sending her out-of-context, physically-based ‘compliments’, and potentially spending money on her. The guy essentially acts as if he’s in a romantic relationship with the woman.

Remote boyfriending is common on the Internet, and is the cornerstone of revenue earning and publicity management in many facets of interactive adult entertainment.

A remote boyfriend is in one way the opposite of a cyber sex pest. Sex pests only see the immediate term. They want gratification now, and they’re not really thinking about tomorrow. Sex pests will trick and scam women in order to get their own whims gratified, and are not at all worried by the thought that they’ll ultimately be recognised as selfish predators or con artists. Provided they get what they want, in the moment, what the woman thinks doesn’t matter to them. They’re ‘rapey’.

But the remote boyfriend has a much longer-term vision, and aspires to be liked by the woman. His logic is that if he can be liked enough, he will eventually eliminate the distance and gain personal access. His dream is to make the woman (or even a group of women) fall in love with him. For this reason, unlike the sex pest, the remote boyfriend is highly compliant and consent-orientated. He must be considered a ‘nice guy’, and will be devastated by any indications that the woman dislikes him.

The classic remote boyfriend has been heavily exposed to adult entertainment, and due to the adult bubble effect, he may think women actually want types of communication which would be unacceptable between strangers in real life. A proportion of the women he’s been around online gain commercially from pretending they like lecherous behaviour in male strangers. He probably interprets at least some of that pretence as the truth. He may be offensive through ignorance or delusion, but it’s most unlikely he’ll be offensive by choice. He wants to get it right, but unfortunately, he let his dick choose his education system.

The remote boyfriend will normally, to some extent, think the communication that happens as part of an adult entertainment or flirt fantasy service, or the promotion of that service, is real.


Whilst the remote boyfriend’s personality may not be particularly agreeable per se, he will be ultra-agreeable with his selected ‘remote girlfriend(s)’. This is simply because he has no other option.

The default action (or inaction) for a woman in the land of lust is to ignore the remote boyfriend. By nature of her role and the means by which he discovered her – almost invariably an adult service or promotion resource – he’s profiled himself as a creep from square one. One of many lust-motivated men who’ve crawled out of the woodwork looking to avail themselves of the sex appeal she deliberately dangled as bait. She has no innate desire to connect with that man. So in order to get her attention at all without spending money, he must become compliant beyond the normal realms of credibility. Essentially, become her servant.

She’s not going to debate with him, reason with him, engage in smalltalk with him, listen to his life story – unless he’s paying, obviously... She neither wants to, nor needs to. Cognitively, for him, this is a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship, but in terms of power dynamics, she is in fact his boss, and he has the status of her employee. That’s just a product of the severe imbalance in desire, and thus control.

So his options are: treat her like his boss, or be ignored. Even if he’s quite profoundly argumentative by nature, he’s still going to relentlessly agree with her, because if he doesn’t do exactly what she wants him to do, she will dismiss him.

Only his wallet can change these power dynamics.


The huge majority of remote boyfriends are one-way polyamorous. That is, they want to cultivate and maintain special relationships with multiple women, but they don’t want those women to be interested in any other men. However, the remote boyfriend’s need to be considered a ‘nice guy’ is so great, that he will typically pretend he approves of a woman’s behaviour even when it profoundly angers him. His need to be considered ‘nice’ outranks his urge to object to the woman’s interest in other men, and therefore he artificially suppresses such objections. He’s additionally constrained from expressing his real feelings by the boss/employee power dynamic.

There’s a number of typical dependencies for the remote boyfriend…


A high level of sex appeal in the woman. He’s generally looking for what’s broadly now umbrella’d as ‘hot girls’.

A belief, in the man, that the woman cares about him, or feasibly will care about him if he behaves in the right way (i.e. plays the ‘nice guy’). However, the remote boyfriend’s threshold for ‘feasibly will’ can be almost limitless. Rejection will usually need to be very clear indeed for him to assimilate it, and even after rejection he may attempt to address or apologise for whatever he believes caused it, in the hope of continuing the ‘relationship’.

A faux vision of intimacy from the man’s viewpoint. Instances of remote boyfriending increase almost infinitely with women whose public role incorporates nudity or partial stripping. There may be a psychological effect in which seeing a woman nude heightens some men’s sense of emotional closeness to her and awakens their in-relationship instincts. It may indeed be the masturbation experience that evokes those instincts. Sex therapists say that love-making emotionally bonds a man to a partner, and whilst masturbation is not love-making, it’s feasible that the experience is sufficiently reminiscent to have a similar psychological effect. Like when disaster strikes in a movie. We know it’s not real, but our instinct to be upset is still engaged. Alternatively, the nudity may simply persuade the men that the woman is more sexual, and therefore, to put it crudely, an “easier lay” – even though around 100% of fans’ attempts to hit on a professional adult provider are unsuccessful.

A perception that the woman is single. When the woman appears to be romantically or sexually involved with a man in real life, remote boyfriending is reduced. This is so significant that women can literally regulate remote boyfriending by publicising a relationship status. The man’s dependency on the female being single attests to the fact that this is NOT fantasy in his mind. For him, ONLY distance stops this relationship from becoming physical. He will somehow rationalise and accept that ever-present distance, but all evidence suggests that he can’t accept third party romantic involvement in the same way. This is interesting, since the woman’s insistence on maintaining distance is actually a greater obstacle to a real life romance than her having a partner. Some feminists believe this is explained by male chauvinistic tendencies. The remote boyfriend does not recognise a woman’s will as final, but respects a male partner’s ‘possession’ of the woman as something he cannot contradict.


Because remote boyfriends are so compliant, they normally have significant potential to be useful or lucrative. It’s therefore important for women in the land of lust to identify them.

It’s easiest to recognise a remote boyfriend when a woman he desires contradicts herself. Provided the contradiction has no toxic fallout for him, he’ll generally agree with or try to justify/reconcile both of the contradictory statements. Some women appear to have deliberately contradicted themselves in order to test or ‘dowse’ for remote boyfriend personalities.

Another documented compliance test is for a woman to deliberately behave in an intolerable or offensive manner and see if the man remains tolerant. However, this is more subjective, and the results are not so predictable. If the remote boyfriend can somehow exempt himself from the offensiveness, he may continue to support the woman’s stance even when she’s unfairly attacking other people. But if he’s unable to exempt himself, and is forced to accept that she’s personally attacking him, he’s more likely to walk away. He may, however, still return after a cooling off period.

In the wake of this test, we often witness the archetypal ‘not all men’ reaction. The man is trying to clarify his exemption. Separate himself from the attack, so that he can remain supportive of the woman without unbearable cognitive dissonance.

Whilst not-all-men-ing is heavily maligned, it does show the man cares about how he, personally, is perceived, which is fundamentally a positive attribute. The “Not all of us…” reaction is also not exclusive to men – it’s an aspirational instinct across both male and female genders. You may, for example, see a male adult service customer complaining about being scammed on Twitter, only for a female provider to cut in with “We’re not all like that”. Is her reputation more important than the theft of his money? Not to him, but it does tell him she cares about her reputation, which would benefit him if he chose to use her service. Likewise, ‘not all man’ is likely to prove compliant in personality, so his not-all-men-ing is better seen as a useful identifier of likely compliance than an opportunity to attack or mock him.


One of the key factors in the spend potential of remote boyfriends is the extent of their polyamory. Getting ‘monogamous’ remote boyfriends to spend is normally straightforward. They’ve decided they want one particular woman, and if she sets up her system to ensure they can’t win unless they spend, then provided they’re not broke, they’ll normally spend.

However, ‘polyamorous’ remote boyfriends are not bound into that same corner, and what tends to happen with them is that they constantly sniff around for free access, then prioritise the women who offer it. Fundamentally, no remote boyfriend wants to pay to connect with someone he sees as his potential girlfriend. He views gifting differently, because gifting is an accepted part of courtship, whereas paying directly for access is not. But when he perceives that his access charge is part of a corporate system rather than just a direct payment to the woman herself, he may be more tolerant of it.

For example, because the company running a premium rate phone service is responsible for the charges, he may not consider a woman employed within that system to be personally charging him. It’s just circumstance, and until she’s confident enough to give him her personal number (which he imagines WILL happen), he may put up with it – subject to past experience. However, a woman on Twitter asking him to directly pay her £75 to talk on Skype would much more likely ring his alarm bells. Why? Because there’s no way he can set her personal insistence on an access fee into the context of a developing relationship. You don’t ask your friends to pay to talk to you.

Polyamorous remote boyfriends have an enormous amount of choice. Thousands and thousands of women to chase after, and a proportion of those women will breadcrumb men. If a guy collects up enough breadcrumbs, from enough sources, he basically has a meal. Whether he wants a better meal than just a loaf of bread is another matter, but he’s never going to go hungry.

Some men actually evolve from monogamous to polyamorous remote boyfriending. One guy I watched, exclusively focused on and gifted a specific model for a very long time. She left the business, canning her social media and presumably all connections with fans. He now pursues a wide range of models, and I can find no evidence of him gifting or paying any of them. He’s a great example of a link between monogamy and the tendency to spend.


The general professional consensus on dealing with remote boyfriends is as follows…

  • Don’t reveal or hint that you have a partner.
  • Don’t reciprocate any expressions of romantic interest, or ‘Like’ any messages in which he expresses or hints at love. Lust is fine, and friendship is fine, but accepting or condoning his love is asking for trouble. He should learn to stay off the subject if he gets stonewalled every time he goes there.
  • Don’t ASK him to labour. You can train him to labour as you require by selectively rewarding him with an electronic pat on the back when he’s useful, and blanking him when he’s not.
  • Don’t ASK him for gifts. Gifts are associated with courtship, so he may interpret personal invitations for him to buy gifts as a thumbs up to romance. Alternatively, he may anticipate being rinsed and make an exit.
  • Don’t dress up any messages or be overly diplomatic, because you won’t penetrate his optimism. If you want him to clear off and leave you alone, tell him to clear off and leave you alone.
  • Make sure you’re au fait with 'nice guy syndrome', and the men’s self-perceived entitlement to reward. He sees every single one of his ‘compliments’ as a significant favour, so don’t be surprised if, after several of them, he expects something back from you. If he starts to play hard-done-by, just ignore him.
  • Default to ignore. Ignoring a remote boyfriend is the best punishment you can possibly give him. It will hugely piss him off, but it won’t put him off spending more money. When you ignore him, he doesn’t know what’s going on. You may hate him, but you may simply have missed his message(s). If he’s a payer, he’ll probably pay to find out.