A common belief here is that women can’t love men, they can only possibly love what men do for them. Women don’t feel love the same way as men. True love is a lie perpetuated by some bluepill conspiracy.

Any suggestion that a relationship can have any pragmatic basis is used as evidence that women only care about what you do for them. If they want someone “ambitious” they’re just looking for a betabuxx. If they want someone mentally or physically healthy, that love is too conditional and is somehow not real.

However, the same people who say this will also say women throw themselves at criminals. That doesn’t sound terribly conditional. the criminal is presumably not doing anything for the woman. So wouldn’t that be true love?

It just sounds like you’re twisting the definition of love to be the most exclusive towards yourself as possible to maximize your own victimhood. If your definition of love is uncontrollable, illogical, some sort of cupids arrow mechanism, then the women throwing themselves at criminals would qualify.

If you take the more reasonable approach, and view that as actually pathological, if you define love as based on the entirety of the person, including their looks, personality, ambition, philosophy about money, mental and physical vitality, then you wouldn’t be able to claim you are victimized by female nature.