333,804 posts
333,804 posts
796 upvotes
by on /r/TheRedPill
11 March 2015 06:29 PM UTC
| Title | I'll keep this short and sweet- Woman's definition of love... |
|---|---|
| Author | |
| Upvotes | 796 |
| Comments | 257 |
| Date | 11 March 2015 06:29 PM UTC (5 years ago) |
| Subreddit | TheRedPill |
| Link | https://theredarchive.com/post/30107 |
| Original Link | https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2ypdec/ill_keep_this_short_and_sweet_womans_definition/ |
© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.
Your life is about to explode with opportunities and freedom.
Oh. Dude. It definitely already is. I mean some things suck, I'm in a bit of a bind financially, I have less free time, etc. But overall I'm doing good, spinning several plates already, lots of time on my motorcycle and it's great to be able to do any damn thing I want any time I wanna do it without having to consider anybody's insecurities or suspicions.
[permanently deleted]
All of this worked out very well until our modern world changed things. The thing that is disheartening is we are allowing women to shit all over us over and over again because of our desire to take care of them.
true words man. and if we don't there are thousand women and white knights that tell us, we need to act like they please.
bitch shut up, if i do that she will lose all her interest.
Having a nature is not blameworthy. Making no effort whatsoever to understand and transcend it is. This applies to both men and women.
Yes, I recently experienced just how utterly AWALT even a so-called "RP woman" is - one who is aware of RP, has read a bit, and claims to agree, and is trying to moderate her behaviors accordingly.
They can read. They can "understand" in their own solipsistic way, but never the same way you or I can understand it. And I use the word "can" very literally, as in "has the ability to". It's their disability, and it is the lens through which they see you and the world.
When they think they have overcome their bad behaviors, you'll find at best that it will result in simply more stealth about those behaviors. They aren't even reduced, just hidden better. It will out, so if you think there is anything not AWALT about that unicorn, realize please that you thinking so is actually you FAILING the primary shit-test: maintaining frame. If she can covertly convince you she's "special", you lose.
Holy shit, I was looking for a post that didn't follow the circle jerk.
Here is an internet point, don't spend it all in one place
This is spot on and I couldn't agree more.it still fucking hurts so much.ive known this particular fact for about a year,I still struggle to cope with it.
Don't worry, you'll get over it. Remember, it's not the truth about women's nature that hurts, it's the fact that you were systematically mislead about it. If you'd always known what you know now, it'd seem perfectly natural.
It hit me quite hard as well, and I've never even felt loved by a woman in a relationship. I just always had this idea that it was possible, and if I changed into the right thing, it could happen to me. I'm finally starting to get over it. It's not going to happen and it's been very liberating to let go of these false expectations.
What also helped me was to admit that my expectations were my own and not based in reality. Reality isn't there to cater to our personal or collective illusions and fantasies. I keep in mind that what I used to desire was never there at all, for nobody. If they thought it was, they were mistaken.
I still often have some urges to be around women when I'm on my own. But as soon as I'm around women, their simple ways and bullshit bore and annoy me within minutes. When this happens, I realize how little I care about her and her opinions and I feel deep relaxation.
Anyway, give it time, let the knowledge sink in until it becomes natural, and you will become mentally strong and free.
I cant help to remember when a girl heard me say this or something similiar and tried to refute it with things such as:
Then why do you love someone who has died? That serves no purpose.
Why do you love your parents and grandparents?
"Well, you see, dear, words can have more than one meaning. "Love" is a word, and it too has more than one meaning. You are not using the same meaning as I am. Let's talk about that other type of love later, okay, sweetie?"
Talk to her like a child. She certainly thinks like one.
Do you think this could ever change in our modern era, where childbirth isn't as dangerous, and women can provide for themselves without men, because society enables it? Especially if we ever reach a post scarcity future, made on the shoulders of great men?
If society continues to function in this fake, pretender way, will it become real?
It could, at least for the well-off woman (i.e. big alimony).
Solid RP basis for all of that. Rollo writes a lot about the difference in male and female love.
No, people, and red pillers first of all, should stop using that biological version of the pussy pass to excuse women from everything they do.
Starting with the direct implications of what that "nature made 'em like that" implies: that women are, technically, inferior to men, under every single aspect in life outside childbirth;
That women are biologically incompatible with power positions; that women shouldn't just be respected as much as we respect other men, because they're nothing more than cute, and potentially lethal, parasites.
I mean... there are outliers, but he's not wrong either.
And not one of those outliers isn't AWALT. Please remember that. Throw that outlier into any one of a number of situations in which RP would predict a particular outcome, and I suspect you're going to find her much more at the top of the bell curve. Outliers tend to hide their RP tendencies better.
Some women (the ones that have earned it) do deserve the same respect we give men. Look, at some point, almost anyone will compromise their moral character. There are things I would do for 100k, and there are things I would do for 100 million. Everything is transactional. It doesn't outright prove anything about men or women, only human nature.
It's safe to assume that all women are like that, but a necessary risk to allow women to prove they don't want to be like that.
This isn't white knighting. I used to think the same way until I had the chance to work with women that actually knew their shit. I wouldn't want to date them (don't shit where you eat), but they brought value to the company and weren't man hating ball busters. TRP works in relationships, but also in careers. It certainly helped mine.
I respect artistry of all kinds, and a number of other traits, irrespective of gender, because gender has nothing to do with those areas.
But also, this is your straw man, as I said nothing about respect. So if you want to join the conversation in an on-topic way... Or perhaps this is really something you could start a different conversation on, in its own post?
How was this not about respect?
This, BTW, is 100% true. Women shouldn't JUST get respect. They should earn it, like anyone should. The problem is that so many were raised to believe that their vaginas were enough.
Women aren't in any way - even "technically" - inferior to men at all. Yeah, hormones go nuts, depending on the woman's genes, for a few days a month. When i'm on my period, i admittedly become irritable. But it doesn't completely alter my sense of judgment. Nor does it dramatically change my behavior or long-term feelings. I don't become a heartless she-hulk.... I think you've been watching too many densely stereotyped, misogynistic media lately.
Also, i would stop blaming women for their "biology" because in the case of nature vs. nurture, nurture would most definitely win. Women have been raised to show emotion all the time, and to FEEL inferior, apologetic, and therefore become sensitive and dependent easily, which would definitely explain the whole "need" =/= "love" thing on this post. Of course i don't mean every woman, but many women throughout history and now are like this. (Although, i disagree with OP. I think a lot of women mean the L word as the L word..)
I wouldn't call women parasites or "potentially lethal".... lol. Although i understand the obvious fem/masc contrast between cis women and men, so the whole "cute" thing is just being feminine, as most cis women enjoy being... lol. (We have intelligence, too!! Not mutually exclusive.)
"Pussy pass"s obvi shouldn't exist. Stupid behavior is stupid behavior. But in this case, i wouldn't separate women so much from men... like, jesus christ. You're pretty harsh in my opinion. I don't know who friend-zoned you, but to me you're clearly a misogynist.
It just makes me feel disappointment that you actually think another sex is inferior to your own, based on something you don't seem to understand at all. Amazing. The feeling prompted me to write all this; I'm so amazed. "parasites"...lol
I don't think it's just "simply biology" for everything, although it obviously plays a major factor in things.
Nature and socialization work with each other. If we all acted in a "natural" way on a clean slate without socialization, there would probably be a lot more raping and killing happening around us.
As a guy, you've probably gone out with your friends or whoever while you're in an exclusive relationship, seen a hot chick and thought "damn I'd like to hit that".. But you wind up not doing it, because you know that it would be "wrong' and hurt the feelings of whoever you're with. Or you'd feel bad for your unfaithfulness to your girlfriend/wife.
Likewise, a lot of women do the same exact thing. Sure not every man or woman is going to operate on that standard, but a lot do.
Hahaha this is so true. I remember years ago I told a girl I was in an LTR with "I love you, but I don't need you." She was shocked and could barely process the information. Now I realize it's because in order for a woman to love you she must need you. If you love her but you don't need her she doesn't understand what you're saying.
So like
Gotham doesn't love the Batman but needs him (selfish).
Batman doesn't need Gotham but loves it (selfless).
So if batman left, Gotham would say they loved him when actually they Needed him.
So what do you actually mean by love?
Because let's not pretend they're aren't selfish benefits with being with someone.
No, I think that's pretty general.
"I don't need you" = "I could do with out you / you're replacable", had you said "I don't need a SO to be happy" her reaction might have turned out different. And if a girl told that to her emotionally needy boyfriend, he would probably have been equally shocked.
Most people who succumb to some sort of scarcity mentality-induced attachment are terrified of the idea that this feeling isn't mutual, that they could be let go at a whim, and be left alone without their presumably only source of romance and emotional comfort.
Did almost the same thing I said "I love that we both love each other but don't need each other". Major crying jag started. When we broke up a couple years later she still remembered it and said that's when she first started thinking it would not work out.
Woman try to create a level of dependency with you in order to feel secure that you won't leave. When that does not work they get very nervous which means crying, screaming or both.
From the old thread about FuckedCompany:
Is this sidebar material? If not, it really should be. It is the rock at the center of a great many observable behaviors, like hypergamy, solipsism, etc.
This is basically the cliffnotes to The Manipulated Man.
Nailed it. Right as I was getting into RedPill a couple months ago, I went on a few dates with an exchange student from Latin America about to graduate university and leave. The night before graduation was the only chance she gave me to try and fuck her. I choked because I was meeting her parents the next day for a graduation dinner; would not make that mistake again. I'm sure she did this intentionally, bitches love drama. In hindsight, I was just a fling she wanted to check off her list before she left the states. And she wanted an attractive boyfriend in tow for her friends and family to see.
On one of our dates she suggested we watch To Rome with Love which is basically just identity role porn for women. The women in that movie are terrible and want to have trysts in Rome based on the roles men occupy not who they are at all. It had nothing to do with monetary transaction, just fucking archetypes for the experience.
Fucking perfect description.
Now I get why Han solo said "I know" when Leia said "I love you" haha
Didn't Harrison Ford refuse to say, "I love you too." because it was too clichéd?
In an interview he said that it would be out of character for Han.
Nice. Standing up to Lucas. Doesn't take shit.
OP is on point. Female love is solipsistic. A woman will love you based on how you make HER feel, not because of who you are. Mothers are the only possible exception to this rule.
Red pill is the place where I learned the words "solipsism" and "hypergamy".
I submit that a mother's love is, to some degree, solipsistic as well. Consider for a moment that a mother loves her child and takes good care of her child because her self-image (and even more importantly, her public image) is dependent upon it.
In other words, she would obviously NOT be regarded as the person she claims to be, if she did not properly care for her child.
This can be further backed up by some of the threads I've read on /r/twox, etc. about women who have just never come to love their children (and I'm not talking about post-partum depression).
However, I won't agree with you entirely. I think there are woman out there who love their children unconditionally. Which is another reason why it is so important to find a woman with a true maternal instinct (if marriage is what you want). A small extrapolated example - Do you have a pet? I love my dog so much it hurts - I can't imagine what it must feel like to love a child that I produced.
My mother certainly loves me quite unconditionally. She frequently reminds me that she loves me, has helped me out emotionally and financially more times then I can count. She's a spectacular mother who has never asked or expected anything from me, aside from doing what's best for me.
But, in general I see most mothers to not be like this, and I just feel endlessly lucky to have a mother like mine.
If there's any legitimacy to the "you'll marry someone like your mother" statement I'll be tickled pink.
I personally find it hard to imagine NOT loving my child. I haven't even had kids and I feel a deep love for these little unborn humans.
I feel like the majority of mothers are like our mothers. Its just somewhat unclear because the ones you hear about most are the bad ones.
While the "love" a woman feels for her SO might be in fact a state of need, I feel like the value of ones offspring cannot be underestimated.
The love in my grandmothers eyes when she saw her grandchildren is unmistakeable.
Of course this is all anecdotal but I feel that sisters can truly love their siblings as well.
From an evolutionary standpoint it only makes sense for your blood relatives to be of higher importance to you. Of course it could just be the old 'doing what I'm supposed to do' case of solipsism but I highly doubt that.
If a woman considers a man like her brother, then, does that increase the possibility of actual love?
You know, at a glance this seems creepy, but it does make sense.
You have a better chance of developing an extremely close, genuine bond with a family member I suppose.
Good question but what exactly do you mean? Like FWB that decide they actually like each other on a personal level or...?
Think for yourself abit here... Do girls want to fuck their brothers?
It's called the friend zone.. You will forever be an orbiter. Congratulations, so what if she loves you. It's a one way street and u will be busting your balls trying to satisfy her need for validation. Enjoy
I feel the same. My sister has a son. I love him so much. I even love other people's children. It's weird, like we have fatherhood hard wired into us.
Most people in /r/childfree would have much more of an emotional attachment to the dog than to an infant "own flesh and blood" or not. I say that as a subscriber.
Your growing up might be different from mine but my mother has always looked at me as a utility. A wage earner to support her in her old age. My mother never loved me. In my entire 26 years of existence she never said that she loves me. In her mind I was born to serve her.
Opposite is true in my case. My mother supported me until I was ready to support myself, even after I failed out of college, got into drugs, etc.. she was still thoroughly financially and emotionally supportive, unconditionally. When I got my shit together, finished university, and started making money, she didn't ask me for a single penny. Now I want to save up some money and surprise her with a nice retirement.
My father on the other hand was just like your mother, since I was a child he has looked at me as some sort of parasite or cancer on the family. He was physically/emotionally/verbally abusive, neglectful, and thought it was hilarious to scare me. He was hypocritical, and still is secretly a homosexual. He was the cause of most of my mental and emotional issues. Other than simple pleasantries to avoid conflict in family gatherings, I haven't talked to him since I was 17 and never will. I sincerely hope he slowly dies in a fire.
Its 2:25 AM here and I am drunk so this is going to be a rant.
Sometimes I see my friends talking to their moms on the phone for a long time. That seems to alien to me. I just dont get it why anyone would want to talk to their mom for such a long time. My mom has always been a true manipulator. She has ensured that during my impressionable years all my life decisions your benefit her more then they would benefit me. She has been physically/emotionally/verbally abusive to be for the longer part of my life. If I ever bring her the topic of how awefully she parented... she always resorts to crying and try to become the victim and then my white knight dad shames me for "making my mom feel bad". This pattern of event is so common that I eventually gave up on even bringing up the topic. I have always hated my dad for this reason. He never did anything to stop my mother. People say a lot about how women are abused in homes and how men are pigs but what always goes unsaid is how children are abused by mother. Children are more vulnerable then women coz unlike women they cant pick them selves and head to a domestic abuse shelter if there is even one that would accept.
/r/raisedbynarcissists has many similar stories. You might recognize a lot of yourself in the stories there.
I've come to begrudgingly respect and understand my mother. She's a master manipulator, but isn't a clinical narcissist like most I read about; she's self aware enough to know how to pull the strings without it seeming like she is. She has enough emotion towards others that she can fake more of it convincingly. I'm surprised my dad lasted as long as he did, 20 years with her is brutal. He's a hell of a man for that alone.
As an adult, I made peace with my mom, and now we're actually friends. A plate was over (still) in the morning a couple days ago, and my mom called. I chatted animatedly for 10 minutes. She had some good jokes, and generally positive stuff.
But as a kid, she was not much of a parent - not bad, but not good either. Just sort of coasting, doing her own solipsistic thing, parenting in a minimal way. She's still utterly solipsistic, but as an independent male, I understand that.
And, she's getting remarried for the 7th or 8th time (seriously, I'm not sure), at almost 80 years old. She's still in the game. The guy is quite wealthy, flying us all out to Vegas and such. Near octogenarian, TRP all the way.
I think a lot of men in your dads position are also being emotionally manipulated. When you think you need someone more than they need you you will put up with being treated like shit.
Same here. My mother loves me like no tomorrow, and has done so much to help me even when I was at my worst.
I would absolutely be working toward her retirement, but she happened to inherit a large sum of money, so she's set. And god does she deserve it.
She's an outlier, and you are fortunate indeed!
Yeah, mine's the same. I grew up mainly with my mom and grandma, and while my grandma was always extremely devoted to doing what she could to look after her children, my mother has pretty clearly always seen me as a retirement ticket. Ever since I could talk and my parents figured I was pretty smart my mom's been pushing me into certain fields and pressured me to keep living in her house.
When you mentioned the no "I love yous" part, I realized it's the same for me. Then again, I've never said that phrase to anyone either, and likely never will. It just feels wrong and awkward. As do hugs. Hell, I'm thrown off by compliments.
I suspect most mothers are like this. They have no concept of love for children, so how can it be they only 'love' theirs? There's certainly an agenda. A child is how a girl entraps a male for servitude. how could a father let his own child suffer.
I really don't think that makes sense. Most people are biological robots carrying out their programming. Why is it do you think then that women have so much more brain mass devoted to emotion? Men and women evolved this difference for a reason.
Women naturally carry more anxiety and worry more then men. They are hard wired to be more clued into the emotional world around them, literally because of this increased brain mass. This is what makes them such good mothers. More awareness => more anxiety (worry) => better caretaker => better mom. It's also why they love confident men so much. Powerful, calming reassurances => relief from their anxiety => comfort and submission => lubrication.
Love for their children is a very real, and very powerfully positively selected, trait. Not 100%, because no biological rule ever is, but very likely regardless.
I believe that most women (but certainly not all) have unconditional love for their children. They are the ones gave birth, that needed to feed the children from birth into infancy, the ones who raised the children to be adults while the men were out providing. Unconditional love is a mechanism with which ones provides and protects for someone else with no necessary reward in return. Without it early men could easily not provide for their women or children, and early women would just chuck their babies with no regard if they felt it a burden.
The unconditional love flow goes Man > Woman > Child. A woman can love her child unconditionally, a man can love his woman unconditionally, but a woman can never lover her man unconditionally.
Believe it if you want, but most of the posts about this don't support that viewpoint. I think it's safe to say most of us experienced solipsism, varying and unpredictable degrees of "care", or other aspects of the same RP traits we oft discuss.
That is why MEN built civilizations throughout history, and women brought them down. Such a shame. Nature fucked us up and the system carried its work.
This is also why they are able to be so completely stone cold when it ends. You cease to exist to them.
And this is exactly the attitude you must adopt when nexting. They cease to have any meaning. They WILL try almost everything to get you to give them meaning. Don't fail that final shit-test.
The single dad's I know are very, very concerned about their children's education, well-being, and success. The women I know (and sometimes have dated) with kids are visibly concerned with how others will think of how they raise their kids, a completely different and far more solipsistic rationale.
But perhaps this, too, is more evolutionary programming, and perhaps why we get the false idea that women are necessarily better single parents than men - they "compete" with other women on the kid thing. I have a truly horrifying tale about how THAT plays out, if interested.
This is probably the most succinct and accurate way of describing a woman's love I've ever seen. Thanks for the insight.
I'm not the smartest guy in the world, so simple and direct sentences tend to stick with me where longer, more complicated stuff goes in one ear and out the other.
How many female doctors marry male nurses?
How many female restaurant owners marry one of their waiters?
How many female pilots marry male flight attendants?
How many female bosses marry their male administrative assistants?
Etc.
And yet, the gender-reversed answer for each of the above questions is "lots!". Those would be extremely common scenarios.
That's as close as you're going to get to statistical proof of what the OP was saying. Despite centuries of female propaganda about being the more "emotional" gender, the reality is statistically apparent in the above questions: For women, marriage isn't about love. But they'd sure as hell like you to believe that it is, for them.
Women aren't capable of loving someone who they don't look up to -- financially and in terms of power. Which is why equality in the workplace has turned into a disaster for societies across the globe. Hundreds of millions of women will be single forever because they don't really want equality in their own personal lives: They want a partner who is unequal -- and superior.
If that weren't true, each of the above questions wouldn't seem quite as ridiculous. But the statistics are what they are.
Lots of black knighting opportunities here whenever some 30 something professional whines about "where are all the good (rich) men?!?!?" just point to the nearest service worker and say, "Well, what about him? He seems like a nice guy. And cute too." Then watch them bite their tongue and start equivocating about how they like "ambitious" guys or guys who are "interesting."
I love this hamster.
"I'd be more likely to marry a doctor or lawyer because... that means he's intelligent and capable of committing to a serious field!"
You want his money, ho.
Thing is, she honestly believes what she says.
If anything, "believes" is too weak a word. It's so core to what she is that nothing can shake that belief.
Hit the nail on the head with this. Deserves a standing ovation. Ultimately, it is their hypergamy that will make them miserable. There isn't enough "superior men" to go around, some women will lock these apex males down but the rest are doomed to cathood. That's why we say to raise your value here, once you make it you really have it made. Hypergamy will select you every time. There's no competition. Ain't hypergamy a bitch? I think the statistics for the increase of depression in women post-feminism is very telling. According to surveys, they're more miserable than men. Both genders got more depressed after feminism, but women far more so. Bitches don't know what the fuck is good for them, they're prone to fuck up without a man guiding them. Silly bitches.
While I agree with you I just want to follow up and reinforce the redpill idea for newbies that our purpose here is not to blame women for being "silly" or whatever. They are merely following their sexual agenda just like we are, whether they're aware of it or not.
As men we should take responsibility in being superior and preventing misery as much as we can. Feminism may be a massive shit test, but it's one that we as a society are currently failing. I've said this before here and I'll say it again: the main reason we're in this situation is technological comforts. This is why we have to lift weights and go into monk mode sometimes, we have to tune in to our genetic imperatives, and understand the genetic imperatives of women however superficial they may be.
Smart men control violent impulses they have. Dumb men give into it and end up in prison. Smart women attempt to control their hypergamy and recognise when it is driving them to make poor decisions. Dumb women (most) blindly follow hypergamy and ruin relationship after relationship in search of "the next big thing." It is what it is, most women really are idiots with little self-awareness just following their biological programming.
Very well put.
Now, what do we suppose happens when a woman who's prone to outrageous shit testing finds herself in a relationship with a dumb man who doesn't know how to handle her shit tests?
Sorry, but I've dated more than a few of those "smart women". They have exactly zero control over it. They are as hypergamous as any other woman. What they are is smart about hiding it from YOU.
These behaviors can't be resisted any more than, say, eating or sleeping. They can be moderated to some extent as behaviors, but not as drives.
So by being RP we are literally the resistance to feminism, never thought about it like that but it helps a lot.
I didn't see anything in the post about blaming women for this. But yes, for the newbies - one of the things that will get you over the anger phase, is really internalizing how both evolutionary and cultural factors drive women into these behaviors.
They can even be fully aware of and in agreement with US about TRP, but even the most self-aware, mindful, self-actualizing woman can't prevent those behaviors from manifesting.
So, when she acts up, handle it as TRP recommends (and there's a lot to read about that). Even when it is utterly counter-intuitive to your BP understanding of how to be.
I'm not perfect, but I'm decent-to-good looking, have a significant career, education, plenty of money in the bank, a home, ride motorcycles, write, perform, and produce music, and am a long-time martial artist. None of that is humble bragging -- I'm not even vaguely humble. But it is just true, the point being:
In my BP days, I did get "locked down" a few times, but have since found non-monogamy to be the key. I enter any relationship with my non-monogamous lifestyle very well disclosed. When they try to lock me down, it's the start of the end - they never can accept the terms under which we began, and, so far, maybe 6 months to 2 years in (non-mono the whole way), they get jealous, exhibit massive craziness, and I summarily next them.
By "massive craziness", I include blatant stalker behaviors (in one case, requiring I involve police. Twice. They were amused and understanding of me, not at all toward her - a win, I'd say, especially as one of the cops was female). Frankly, women can be far creepier than men.
I'm not even against commitment beyond what I already offer, but there just isn't any woman out there who can show me a good reason to do so.
Then give him a delta yo!
He earned it...
I have custom flair text so I can't give deltas (bot's retarded)
This is very true. I have never had the lasting respect of a woman who out-earned or out-performed me.
I've not met one. They have weak little arms and are incapable of thinking logically.
That made me smile. I dated one who called herself a "logic-based organism". PhD in a medical field, actively worked as professor and researcher at a prestigious med school.
She had exactly zero ability in life to think her way out of an open paper bag. Stress shut her mind down, and she'd look at whatever man was nearby to think her out of whatever mess she'd created.
[permanently deleted]
This is wildly ignorant. There are plenty of women who are very intelligent and who have thoroughly earned their degrees. People like you give TRP a bad name.
There are some women who are very intelligent and who have thoroughly earned their degrees. This does not negate the fact that significantly more women are given privileges above and beyond men.
[permanently deleted]
Absolutely. Equality is poison for reproductive rates because women are are the biggest bigots in the world - they only want better not equal or less in their men.
For women, marriage is absolutely about love. It's just that women love someone who is capable of providing for them a.k.a. someone they need. They still have the feeling of love, just like a man, but for different reasons.
I like this bit.
Lol, no. Women do not feel or experience love like a man does. I strongly suggest you search Rollo's blog (The Rational Male) about this, as he does an excellent job of making this very real.
What's your point exactly- isn't it already well-known that women are programmed to seek high status partners (good providers), whereas men mainly seek certain physical attributes (cues to fertility)? Are you just pointing out their hypocrisy regarding equality or are you actually complaining about the lack of equality?
In any case, men and women are different, so they'll seek different things.
Well... but, at least in the day, how many men married their secretary? In the day, being a secretary was an excuse to meet one's future husband.
It's their instinct to try do better than someone they consider weaker than they are. It's a fractal of protection.
Hahaah ... BBB b but TRP is full of backwards crazies!
Fuck the logic breaks so many dense idiots.
Love is a four letter word.
And yet your username quotes Jared Diamond. Don't sell yourself quite so short friend.
Guns, Germs, and Steel has been mostly discredited. The premise of the book is that all civilizational differences between people are due to geography and ecological determinism. He doesn't think culture or genetics played a part at all and that's just wrong.
[deleted]
I am not mischaracterizing Diamond. He literally uses the example of an Australian aboriginal using a computer as evidence that biological intelligence differences don't exist.
If smarter/more cooperative people have a reproductive advantage in cold regions, and then cold region peoples are more internationally competitive; it doesn't mean geography (weather in this instance) explains the differences. The cold weather is merely the substrate/incubator on which those more competitive societies were able to flourish.
I think there is a correlation between cultures that adopted agriculture and technological advancement. So forth as countries began to industrialize.
Does remaining a hunter-gatherer society make that group of people less civilized? For sure, but not lesser in regards to genetics.
I always found that point to be absurd considering the fact that the first civilizations started in temperate regions and e in hot climates like Iraq or Egypt. While these people were building pyramids my anglo-saxon forefathers were living in caves. Genetics likely plays a part but culture is probably the defining factor.
I'm with you, buddy. Diamond weaves a compelling narrative, but that book was written with the express purpose of down playing the important on genetic differences between ethnic groups.
He started with an ideological view point and worked backwards from there. Scientifically, it's a crock of shit.
Ive read the book. I agree that he's not entirely correct but he made me think so I enjoy his writings.
That's the reason I couldn't get past the first 50 pages. He makes so many circular arguments I just couldn't read further.
I'm not saying I agree with OP but it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective.
Like science, it's true irrespective of whether you believe in it or not.
What's there not to agree with?
Your nuts are currently stuck in the meatgrinder of divorce. But for the young romantics out there, read The Predatory Female by Lawrence Shannon (search for the pdf).
Here's a quote: "Little of the mayhem could occur without the endless army of men, untutored in the predatory female, queuing up obediently for destruction. Blinded by steam from their own gonads, they stumble ignorantly into relationships with women and later awaken to find themselves trapped in an ever deepening pit of emotional, legal, and financial quicksand."
I believe it to be rather true. I got out of my most recent LTR. When she finally said those words, I laughed it off in my head. I knew what it meant. She was rather beautiful, nice face, nice body, Masters, etc...I wasn't teetering on the Unicorn yet, but as time passed, I committed myself and said I Love you back.
Her I love you eventually changed. I couldn't hold frame. In short, during my commitment, I forgot what I Love You meant from a woman, thinking that because I was repeating it, it had the same meaning to her. I was wrong, and will forever be wrong. I lost frame, I lost the definition of love because I became to needy, enthralled by love.
Never forget les garcons.
This an invaluable lesson though. Some men never learn this and go from relationship to relationship repeating the same mistake. I believe once you have internalized this you've passed probably over 50% of the shit tests that make male-female relationships such a challenge.
Also agree. Looking back, in the earlier part of the 4 year relationship I was swatting back shit tests like flies, unbeknownst to me TRP, or female male dynamics. Shit just Changed once I began to base decisions around her.
[permanently deleted]
Yeah, it's a sad realization that men are the true lovers of this world. Literally, a males best friend can never be a woman.
A soccer teammate, a player in his hayday, he's mid 40s said it right. "You can never trust a woman 100%, max 85%".
Now we know.
Yeah - she has to fit into YOUR frame, not the other way around.
One of the happiest days of my life is when my divorce was final. I wasn't weepy with glee, I didn't party with friends; my happiness transcended worldly signs of happiness. It was as though my soul traversed a level in the Mayan World Tree.
Stick to it, do everything as well as you can. Protect the children, if there are any. You'll get through it.
Friends I hadn't seen in awhile told me I looked younger and more relaxed.
Spot on. I'd like to add a couple of things though.
As a male you actually have a desire to be needed by a woman, to become the protector of a protegée. It might not be present all the time and buried somewhere deep inside of you, but it is there.
I am sure many of you who suffered from oneitis in their BP-days actually badly wanted to protect their special snowflake from any harm. May it be from Cocky McAlpha-Douche, who'd just be going to hurt her, or in many cases even just herself. Many of those guys tend to fall for mentally damaged women, whom they believe only they've got the sensitivity and power to heal.
The process of unplugging yourself must also inevitably involve realizing that you should never get into a position where you become the one needing a woman for just anything.
Developing an abundance mentality, both for sex and for feels, is probably the most important part, closely followed by becoming self-sufficient and getting rid of the need for external validation as good as possible.
If you choose to commit to a woman you should make it because she has proven to be worth it and in a concious thinking process, and not just because you think that you haven't got any better options and she's the one and only who's able to satisfy your needs and desires - your personal unicorn.
Spot on. In my pre-RP days, it was all about being the protector. I would go out of my way to find methods to "help" that really were just enablings. I showed off my provider prowess.
I still do the latter, but those prowess are never actually offered for their sole benefit. And now, as an openly non-monogamistic male, I no longer put effort into "helping" them beyond what is convenient and interesting for me. And I am mindful that this never get so far as to give the impression I would be their go-to for their next self-created crisis.
Eh... I would also say they mean "I love the way you make me feel [about myself]". Although that kinda falls under "I need you [for self-validation]".
That's exactly what they need you for. I think that's what is meant.
Woman's love is pragmatically parasitic, man's love is sacrificially idealistic.
Men's love is idealistic, but is hardly sacrificial. It is primarily superficial and lots of men get plenty of satisfaction from it. We don't care about their jobs, their desires, hopes, dreams or principles. We care about how good they look.
You're describing attraction, not love. Think of the common LTR. Men sacrifice like fuck and women take, take, take.
Ok, fair enough.
How would you describe a proper loving relationship between a man and a woman?
Read the manipulated man by esther villar.
Along with the rest of the sidebar.
Yeah, you haven't read or understood most RP stuff.
Men die protecting their women. Women never reciprocate. Not sure how much more sacrificial you want a guy to be.
Yeah, you're absolutely wrong. I've read nearly everything this site has to offer. I get it for the most part even if I still question it.
A perfect example would be pregnancy before the invention of modern medicine. Sooner or later, it would likely result in the woman's death. I would say that is quite sacrifice on a women's part.
Even today, having a child is a major sacrifice to a woman in certain ways. It dramatically drops her SMV, which as we all know is their primary source of power. Not to mention, that it can be a huge burden and drastically diminish her freedoms. Furthermore, in order for her to love you she has to give you the best years of her life while a man has all the time in the world to build his value.
I'm not trying to make excuses. Everyone has their own struggles , makes their own choices and has to live with them. I just recognize that their is a strong male bent on this forum and I prefer to see the issue from both sides. To say that man's love is "Idealistically sacrificial" is both lacking and a flimsy attempt to play victim.
So tell me, how am I wrong? Is men's love not superficial? Even if that is primarily attraction, is that not a pre- requisite to love?
Let me show you the error of your ways, using only your "perfect example", since if it's perfect, disproving it disproves your premise.
Before medicine, a woman who would not have children was not marriageable. To remain in the status of marriage, she needed children. She had them because she had to. She never wanted to sacrifice anything.
By definition, sacrifice is knowing and willing, otherwise it is theft or something else by which the person is diminished. This is not willing - it is required by social contract.
There is no evidence to support this being a "sacrifice", except by overly dramatized Victorian stories. That's where the attitude you expressed came from.
But here's a bonus round: Read Rollo (The Rational Male) about marriage and children, and you'll find out how in accord with RP it all is. Perhaps that's what you need to end your questioning.
By that definition, it sounds like coercion which is even worse. Have children and risk your life, or don't have children, face ostracization and this risk your life. Yep, no sacrifices made. It's all just peaches and cream.
I've read it already. It's not going to "stop my questioning." That's the point of learning you fucking dumbass.
You still didn't answer my question, which was my original point.
Your value judgement is pointless, as it comes from today's perspective.
Women were also raised to believe that was their finest calling. Many desperately wanted children. They also wanted a good provider. Hardly a sacrifice. And as you offer nothing in rebuttal but your feels about it, I'll accept the point as made.
You sacrifice more than you think barring any nontraditional relationship structures such as an open relationship. Opportunity cost is a big one. The main sacrifice that comes to mind though is FRAME CONTROL. How many of our readers have given up frame control because they were in loooove, only to find things blow up in their face? Case in point: /r/TheRedPill/comments/2ypdec/ill_keep_this_short_and_sweet_womans_definition/cpbp5i3
So, the answer is to maintain a relationship by keeping it on your terms, right?
Two famous RP contributors to look into on this one:
Rollo /The Rational Male - he's in a LTR, married, and writes about how RP fits into and works in a monogamous LTR.
Patrice / Black Phillip Show. He talks a lot about how to maintain a relationship. Also, crude and funny as hell.
You're exactly right, and I adopted a non-monogamistic lifestyle a bit before discovering TRP. Everybody I date knows that up front. My adult life as a BP-er taught me the sacrifice has exactly no remuneration that I can't get without the sacrifice.
That doesn't mean there aren't internal struggles with oneitis and other BP behaviors, but these no longer externalize at all. I recognize them when they are nascent, and have a little discussion with myself to put them back into their place.
Yup, exactly. I used to be told "I love you; I need you." In my last real relationship (BP days) and then I got injured and lost my job. Two months later she jumps ship after 4 years and less than a year later is engaged.
This is typical. Many LTRs die at the point the man gets an injury and is forced to display anything less than robust, healthy action. The tingles are utterly killed, and it's not at all easy to fully get them back.
The much vaunted nursing/caring reputation women have cultivated is about 90% fantasy.
You want love? get a puppy.
She is never "yours". It is only "your turn".
Disagree. It's her turn for me.
Sometimes a short comment on here is tight enough to make me just stop and say "oh shit." This one is marvelous.
It's not mine, I stole it from somewhere on the manosphere, I forget where.
[permanently deleted]
Definitely. I can't count the number of times a woman has told me about something personal/relationship-ish she intends to be/do in the near future. None have ever followed through.
Now, when a woman tells me anything about even the near future, I always have a backup for when she flakes. The old "I'm a woman, I can change my mind."
My answer: you can, but I'll be going out, as planned.
Expected a bitter post after you mentioned your divorce, but this really hit home.. upvote
Oh, I'm extremely bitter. I'm sad. I'm hurt. But I am a leader of men. I'm 40 years old and there are several young men looking to me to set an example. My goal is not to pass on my bitterness, only to pass on my experience.
Time is the most valuable thing on earth: time to think, time to act, time to extend our fraternal relations, time to become better men, time to become better women, time to become better and more independent citizens.
Time serves all equal portions, 1 Life Time.
Wrong. Some people have more time than others. We don't know how much time we have.
[permanently deleted]
I'm sure what will happen is she will find someone else to marry within a year. She will stay 100% convinced that she did nothing wrong to me. Her friends will continue to reassure her that I'm a terrible person and she is a flawless angel.
Accountability is not in her nature. She has never made an apology or admitted a flaw. She just doesn't do that. She's not going to start. And it's no longer my problem.
God, that is so relieving to type that. IT'S NO LONGER MY PROBLEM.
No matter what, she WILL hit the wall. It's just a reality. When she does just know you've got better hotter options :)
Just remember: That poor, poor man, who marries her. You know what he's going to get.
A good way to look at it is that they "want" something from you (softer version of need) and use their Game (Charm) to get it from you.
A woman who uses Charm on a daily basis to get what she wants is signaling that her wants can be fulfilled by you.
The day she stops Charming you and switches to a Shit Test this signals that she no longer has full confidence that you will fulfill her wants any more.
When she stops "asking nicely" you need to worry.
Marriage 1.0 really was very hardcore because it gave all Power to the man and if a woman even attempted a Shit Test she might be thrown out on the street to become homeless. That was real need back then. (Dread Game by default)
Sorry about the divorce... there are plenty of guys who were Divorce Raped on this sub. (I never married)
[permanently deleted]
And that's why Marriage 1.0 was a success 95% of the time.
"Need" was the operative word then. If a woman got out of line she could literally be thrown out onto the streets where she might likely die of some disease while being a prostitute. It was grim.
These days the best you can hope for is "Want" from women.
Need and RESPECT.
A woman may think she needs her beta orbiter's favors, or sugar daddy's or husband's buckaroos, but she does not respect him.
I would argue that if a woman sees you solely as a provider she 'needs', she doesn't really love you at all. She's just sticking around.
Honestly, the one thing I've found that women respect a man for is a really good fucking. I wish I were at all being facetious about this, but I'm being as starkly literal as I can.
That's why i instinctly say, "i know". Mainly because it's easy to do things to cause them to be overwhelmed with emotion, and say it. But without that, you may never hear it from them.
I did this the other day. Plate says, "I have feelings for you". I answered exactly as you do.
Men love idealistically, whereas women love opportunistically
Very concisely stated imo! I've experienced so many women who loved me because of what/how much I could DO for them, they only loved me to a certain extent. Hell, they couldn't even describe me, just adore me.
Ha ha, thank you. But I should give credit where credit is due. Check out The Rational Male. Rollo Tommasi is an amazing RP blogger. He has some really great posts! I cant tell you the exact article where I read that quote, but its in there.
I have found that if you pretend the phrase , "right now I feel that" to whatever declaration of undying emotion the woman issued, then you're spot on. "Right now I feel that I love you" is more accurate than before. "Right now I feel that I will love you forever" is even better.
It's made so many thing more straightforward and understandable.
Women don't love, they consume. Shoes, phones, music and fashion trends, different trendy drinks or diets....dick. It's all a consumer experience where her desires and wants and emotions are what constitute truth and reality.
And when the product (i.e., you) is deemed less than some other product she now wants, then it's the product's fault that she no longer feels well served by the product. In fact, the old product might even be viewed as abusive of her or, at least, offensive for its comparatively reduced utility or fashion status.
Exactly, externalization of responsibility - all the way.
Don't feel bad...i initiated divorcing my wife. People ask why I am divorcing her and I tell them, "if I stayed with her I would die lonely and unhappy, without her, I may die alone but I won't be unhappy."
[permanently deleted]
But still, true. As a BP man, I was utterly unaware that I even had any SMV. I assumed ALL such value was woman's. It wasn't until I got divorced, starting dating, became ethically non-monogamous, and then discovered TRP, that I started to realize my own SMV. And frankly, it was probably higher now than then for many reasons.
But still, I was fit, funny, made great money in a career, etc. I have come to realize that, while they (the "I love you" girls) were good looking, they were far below my league in adult matters (including sex). And possibly crazy.
But it doesn't have to be depressing. It opens up far more doors than it closes. It is just very disappointing to realize that the intensity that is male love toward a woman will never be equally reciprocated. But it's a disability they have, and you can forge a life that works with their disability to love.
[permanently deleted]
Perhaps it is the area in which I live, since I have often dated single parents. In southern California, the areas of Santa Monica and Culver City have, by survey, the largest number of women who cheat on their husbands. And, by extension, there are a huge number of separated/divorced women parenting or co-parenting children in those cities. I've dated a few.
In no case have I seen anything that I could call wanting to take care of their children. And I mean that literally - I've never seen or heard anything that wasn't negative about the subject of their responsibilities toward their own offspring.
They might be great kids (and they all are, even the raving, raging brats), but that's their solipsism, and occasionally narcissism - of COURSE their kids are great, because anything less would make mom look bad - but in general, mom's effort is to offload the kids on others as often and for as long as possible.
I love you = I love you until I get bored.
I've had women on more than one occasion tell me they love me after just one or two dates. You are correct - they basically mean "so far, you have entertained me."
Man as gladiator, woman as crowd. Are you not entertained?
Doesn't it blow your mind to realize this is how women really think? To realize men conceptualize and emote what true "love" is. In the fairy tails we heard growing up, women were the ones who embodied the concept of true love.
And many of those tales were immortalized by the Grimm brothers.
But the romantic aspect of those fairy tales is a recent addition. Go find an unabridged copy of any original Grimm's, and prepare to be a bit horrified. Many tales end up in the death or maiming of the person or people on the wrong end of those morality tales (often children and women, or stupid men, which tells you something about how stupid men were viewed).
You won't find a single original tale of this sort, in which women are loving. They are almost always stupid and manipulative, the combination of which is often the plot device for the carnage that ensues.
[permanently deleted]
They come from an age of severe sexual repression.
A large part of my contribution to this community focuses on RP-marriage ideas and RP-child rearing ideas. My goal is to enable the most successful husbands and fathers.
As I read your words it is apparent that the positive outlook demonstrated toward the process of dissolving a marriage is vital. I hope to see more of your posts as the process unfolds. I know of no other period in a man's life in which they are susceptible to suicide than during a divorce and the aftermath.
Thanks for the positive words of wisdom
Interestingly enough my first girlfriend said this to me either when we were dating or when I was breaking up with her. Her words verbatim were "I love you and I need you." To me that implies that they are jointly linked as you mentioned.
Love for men is sacrifice and commitment.
Love for women is getting sacrifice and commitment from a man she's attracted to.
Think about it this way: what do women actually do for the men they claim to love? I put it to you that it is actually sweet fuck all. Some feeeeeeeels for sure, but nothing actually concrete or worthwhile that might benefit the man.
If a woman could materially benefit a man, she'd BE the man. It's a failure of frame, if she can do that (and remember, I said "materially"). It means he needs her after all.
Women don't love you, they love their attraction to you.
When a woman says "I love you", she means one of these:
Vagina tingles. Your smv interests her.
Social status increased by associating with you. This is the trophy wife thing women project on men, but flipped. Men imho rarely get a hot wife to impress other people, they do it because she's hot and they want to fuck her. Women on the other hand are all about status. They actually do look for "trophy husbands", because for women status is important and where you are in the pack is important. They are not loners, they way many men are.
Nothing. It's a lie to secure a beta bucks.
I know men who's love for women are based on need. Need not to be lonely, bored, sexually frustrated. Will jump ship the minute a better catch possibly rears. In fact I know more men like that then women, to be honest.
I know more women who are committed to their men. It could be due to lack of better alternatives though. I feel like that's a tad bit of a generalization.
Okay, so there's a few things fundamental to RP you either don't know, or aren't thinking with.
We talk about the preponderance of behavior in people, not about extreme outliers. Generalizations are necessary and good.
No one woman is going to exactly display the same actions as another woman when she acts out her solipsism, hypergamy, etc.
Your idea of a "better" alternative may not be theirs. I know women who fight to stay in relationships in which the guy is absolutely abusive toward her. In every case, she sees the guy as "the best she can do". It's not love, it's status, even if a very sick idea of status.
Like any behavior, it can be warped by mental illness, drugs, etc. A natural instinct can be forcefully set aside, at great discomfort. Sometimes a person is "committed" because they don't want to be seen as having "failed again". That also is obviously not love, but it IS commitment.
So sure, they may be "committed". Means exactly nothing special as far as whatever "love" they are experiencing.
Great fucking post. Excellent simple definition.
Thats why marriage is about fulfillment not about love.
Can someone show me the stat that women Initiate divorce at seventy five percent or more? I'd like to be able to back that up in conversations. I assume it's true but have never seen it.
Read the legal section of the newspaper. The name listed first is the Plaintiff.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_in_the_United_States#Initiation
There's a claim of a CDC study that says 80% of women initiate. It is different, state to state, and this is a US statistic. And others claim the number one reason: they've met somebody else (branch-swinging, hypergamy).
Non-mobile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_in_the_United_States#Initiation
That's why I'm here, I don't judge you. PM /u/xl0 if I'm causing any trouble. WUT?
I'm sure there are people out there that knows this about women but still choose to get married. What would cause someone to do that? Knowing that she is probably marrying you for the convenience, rather than marrying out of "love" is kind of hard to wrap my head around. I don't think I'll ever get married.
Naturally I had myself convinced that she was "different". And to some degree, she was. She was a great wife in many ways. Worked, cleaned, cooked, gave head, sex was on a pretty regular basis. Then she got a new group of friends who are all lesbians and/or getting divorced... hence her social group was 100% man-haters. Her being a typical basic female, she went wherever that group led her. Which was away from me. So good fucking riddance to bad rubbish. I didn't need her when I found her, and I don't need her now.
I accepted this a long time ago, but it's important not to only point a finger. You need to look at how you and everyone in general uses the word love.
If I learned anything from philosophy debates and classes in college, it's that damn near every disagreement in an undefined argument comes down a difference in the meaning behind the words being used. When I talk about God do I refer to the same thing as when you talk about God? Maybe, but we can fight over every detail of God since that argument is undefined, though there is a general idea behind it.
It's the same with love. When you say "I love you" to ANYONE, you mean that you need them or are in their debt. That's the general idea, but the details are up for debate.
Here are examples,
Saying "I love you" to:
A parent (as a child) = You need them for everything. Food, housing, shelter, inheritance, self worth, and most of all knowledge. Any child that doesn't love a parent was taught not to need that parent.
Your wife = You need her to create and raise your children. This is biological life's primary goal and therefore it creates a strong love, or feeling of need. Other than that you may need her for company and entertainment or other things a life partner provides.
Your child = You need him/her to carry on everything you are into the future. The point of life is influence, a child epitomizes that through your genetics and your knowledge.
Your sibling = You need them for potential help in the future, assuming they have their life together. If your brother is a homeless opium addict, you'd only love him for the past memories (companionship or entertainment).
I've thought deeply about this and believe it wholeheartedly, but please give your opinion on my view.
It's odd. I love my brothers, but I don't like them. I would and have gone way out of my way for them. And I've never in my life received anything helpful from them. So they've never been part of that "need" equation. But I've even gone so far as to have one brother and his two kids live with me when they hit financial hardship. For 4 full years (ended some time ago).
I don't think need and love are the same at all. They sometimes need my help, and my own feelings about family are the only reason I do.
It is possible to love someone without needing anything from them. In the same way you can love a sunset or a piece of music. Or the way in which you love yourself. When you attain this kind of love in it's highest form, it is unbounded and stretches infinitely across the universe. You now know true peace.
Romantic love is always conditional and the same for relatives. I would argue that there is only one true kind of love and it's selfless love or the love of all things.
This love supreme is very rare. I'm not sure if women can experience this or not although I have read about female enlightenment. So, I'd like to believe it is possible although evidently even more rare.
All the women I know who were happy with their marriage had a very traditional (passive deferment to husband) marriage.
The women I know who divorced many times didn't like listening to other people and serial married thinking somehow things would be different each time.
Exactly. Those few exceptions are generally very traditional in structure on all sides.
only brothers show love, they will fight and die by your side
"At any time, if that NEED vaporizes, she will be gone with the first puff of wind."
I concur, to my last gf, I was an asset to book profits. She couldn't appreciate me for who I am, just what I could give her. Even in making her feel good about herself, which she couldn't do on her own. She made a complete mess of her life and when I couldn't/didn't want to fix it, she was gone, with the words 'but I love you' - read: I have needs you were able to fulfill but not anymore.
She couldn't stand my downsides, because: they reduced her profits. She never counted her many own downsides though, because there were reasons to those... She didn't take her shortcomings into account and tried to make up for those (last six months were a true "Sam Co.", a shop inside of the relationship - complete disregard of my needs, including begging my family for money behind my back), she promised shit and never delivered, then she split.
To some women, a man is a business: no matter what reason or cause, if you don't make them a proper profit, you're no good. There's no room for your story. They're not in it for the experience or the journey with a human being, they're in it to climb their own ladder.
Remember: women prefer a "father/daughter" kind of relationship over a "mother/son" kind.
Women can only "feel", they cannot "love". What she means when she says it, is either a lie, or a lie wrapped in self-delusion. It is that feeling she has at the spur of the moment, nothing more & nothing else. When the moment ends, so will her feels, and she & her love will be out the door in a heartbeat.
On top of that, you have Disney Co. and pop-culture selling love™ and romance™ as a commodity. Why else is the gift-card industry and bridal industry worth billions of dollars? While Disney and Hallmark sell you love™, the average consumer who is yet to unplug from The Matrix, assumes that love leads to commitment. When in reality it is commitment that leads to love. Remember: AWALT; don't trust her words, trust her actions.
Why do you think arranged-marriages have historically been so successful? As arranged-marriages are quickly withering away in the third-world, the divorce rates are climbing up just as fast. The two are inversely proportional. As for the first-world, there are incentives for divorce on top of that, namely the State taking up the mantle of what was otherwise the husband/fatherly duties of a man. She no longer needs a man to provide for her or her kids, the State by way of welfare, child-support & alimony has become the new patriarch. Yes, the feminist is correct when she says there is a Patriarchy, it is the State. Call it Big Brother, Big Daddy, or whatever you will, but there's no denying it.
Yes. That is what a relationship is for in the first place is it not?
You have your needs as do your partner? You are together to provide for each others needs that are reliant on being given by another person. Love, what is love? Why don't you men define it, I'm curious. Love is the measure of the link between you and another entity. Just as how much you're willing to give for it, how much you want to strengthen it or even sever it. The motivation for this link, needs.
Men are not any nobler, as that goes for any human out there. Men women gay whatever-you-are. The only difference between people is how good we are in masking these needs, giving as little as we can to get ours, and redirect attention. What else, downplay? Make my needs more important than yours, that even if you cant get yours it's not big of a deal compared to mine? Lol.
It differs by the nature of what you need. Mens needs are simpler and easier to fulfill as by their nature, it is taken by 'them' from the woman. Women's needs are different, as is their supposed position - for it to be given to them.
Men, firmly commit? Lol dont make me laugh. Let's see that when you are in a position where your needs are not getting fulfilled at all. Lets say you dont get laid for a year? To commit is to give the person enough time to find a way to regain the ability to provide, adjusted by how dependable the person is. And what is proposed? Martyrdom?
To be human is to be selfish, that is our nature. Or any sentient being I'd imagine. Self righteousness, hypocrisy.
A women's love and a mans love are two different emotions that we labelled the same.
[permanently deleted]
And this is why women loved men more in the past.
Technological progress is objectively antagonistic to nearly all men, as far as sex goes.
In my beta days I would have been horrified... now my reaction was: "YES! YES! YES! Totally and absolutely right on!"
Live and learn...
I divorced my wife
Cause I no longer need her.
Good luck with divorce buddy, were all pulling for you. Don't give an inch or she'll take a foot. And the only foot she should get is in her ass out door
And welcome to the red pill..
What you say is totally true but I recommend you guys not to dwell too much on it. Just remember that for a relationship to work she has to need you more than you need her (emotionall), financially you should never have someone depending on you.
Isn't this already in the sidebar?
Yup. I suspect this is why women are able to turn on dime wrt how they feel towards a man the moment a better prospect arrives in their periphery. Most women can come off as some type of psychopath and cold hearted when this happens, which I suspect most men have experienced at some point in their lives when a woman who is supposedly so in love immediately does a 180 and latches on to some new guy (branch swings). You may not know about the new guy, or in some rare cases there isn't one and it's because of something you did (like crying or a mega "beta" event on your part), but you know the 180 I'm speaking of, which is the abrupt changing of feelings towards you.
For anyone else who was curious about the statistic "75-80% of divorces are initiated by the wife" Psychology Today says that from 1867 to 1995 68.9% of all cases were initiated by the woman. I'm sure more recently the percentage is higher, but it also shows that this is nothing new
The last thing I want is to be "needed" by a woman. If I can't stir her to want me, that's the end of it.
But very definitely different on what it means to love someone. Their hypergamy makes that a very different statement than when men say it.
No. Woman do not love you because they need you. That's beta thinking. Becoming the ultimate provider will NOT make women love you. If she needs you at all, stay the fuck away from her.
Women need to nurture and give love. They will glow like embers when you let them. But they don't want to serve a weak, little faggot. They want to worship a man.
Likewise, "I love you" from a man does not mean "I'm firmly committed to you". I love lots of girls, but I'm sure as hell not firmly committed to any of them.
Kids, don't take advice about women from a guy who's wife is in the process of leaving him for another man. And OP, keep quiet until you get back in control of your life and actually have some legit experience to base your ideas.
Love is subjective. Women are demented
That's a funny one because the other day they where playing in the radio one of my favorite songs from last summer. There is a chorus of women that at one point says something like: "Honey, I need you, hence I feel for you". I though it was very red pill.
The whole song has very simple words but they are quite red pill.
As a man, I have always differentiated "I love you" from "I am in love with you" and I make this clear to ladies from the start. Still probably want to
Also, I hate "I love you too," especially the first time you hear it from the other! I prefer something like "I know", "sweeet", "right?" etc. then I'll bust it out to her when I'm good and ready. By then she's usually in on the whole game so it makes it all more fun, too!
I don't think this is true.
EDIT: I say this because I've met some girls that are looking for a guy to devote themselves too completely.
Until something that seems better comes along.
What about the women I've known who have stayed loyal to their husband until their husband's final moments?
These aren't wealthy husbands we're talking about either.
What about them? They simply never found what they considered to be a better arrangement they could switch to.
Is that a real statistic? What are your sources? Wouldn't that also imply that 75% - 80% of divorces are caused by men? Is this even something you can say with certainty?
What about women who marry men who make less money or have children of their own already? What makes you assume all women need a man?
Ever thought about looking up some sources yourself? Or do you just assume everyone is wrong?
An interesting stat is that 70% or divorces in no fault states are initiated by women.
http://www.divorce-lawyer-source.com/faq/emotional/who-initiates-divorce-men-or-women.html
When it comes to RP, yeah. These are the most interesting points
*Conversely, because men more often engage in adultery, it may seem that wives would be more likely to seek a divorce based on their husbands’ conduct.
*Even though the individual states’ data vary somewhat and the numbers have fluctuated over time, throughout most of the 19th century about 60 percent of divorce filings were by women.
*The reporting of divorce statistics isn’t as complete as, say, the census data collected in the U.S. every ten years.
Your source is saying statistics aren't that complete yet its preached here like its absolute fact and given no other context which makes it irrelevant. Saying 75-80 is completely made up. Also these are only American "statistics" certainly not all woman.
I understand the limits of statistics quite well, but you are still failing to be open minded.
Expanding on this logic, are you saying the statistics must be more complete? The premise of this point is that you are saying you don't view it as credible because that stats are not that complete. So, I must ask, if the stats were somehow more complete, then you would accept the view? I hesitate to put faith in that thought...
Well, if this the route and evidence you want to use, then there will certainly be no point in discussing these issues. Any claim that someone does not agree with can just pull out the NAWLT card.
Depends. If out of 100 cases this source pulls 50 cases and bases it's statistics off one half, then no, I don't think it's credible (obviously, everyone should doubt that) and what I mean by no other context is this: Say they take all 100 cases and get the statistics from that and say "89% of all women initiate divorce" but give no context as to why, then I would also doubt the credibility of what op is trying to convey. Even if 89% initiate divorce but you leave out details like 60% of those cases where derived from infidelity on the husband's behalf then it's misleading to the reader.
This is not a "card" it's a fact.
hahaha. priceless that this sub believes this.
Hey man don't bring your anti-circle jerk nonsense here. All men are super honorable knights that have just been beaten down so much that all the dishonorable things they do are still honorable because girls are mean.
Oh and hypergamy and stuff.
Sometimes I think this sub gets their head a little too far up its own ass. I think this thread is one of those times.
i think this thread is a bit of a generalization, but i do believe that men and women see love differently. one of those indicators is marriage....marriage is by far and away a chick thing, if chicks didn't want to get married, i firmly believe the majority of men would be perfectly content in a relationship without marriage.
Hahaha. Reminded me of this week's episode of 'The Last Man on Earth'