(Long-time redditor and redpiller but just made this account.. no longer want to post here from my main account)

So the consensus around here seems to be that men are capable of pure, unconditional love and women are not. Two of the top links in 'required theory reading' claim this. Some quotes from there and around the sub:

Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.

The reason TRP talks about oneitis so much is that men fall in love forever (or until you crush his heart) and women fall in lust with the best man she can get. If a man puts a woman on a pedestal, he will kowtow to her and she might lose attraction and move on to another, better man (in her eyes).

men love women like women love children. the red pill is a very bitter pill to swallow for men. part of it is the knowledge that if you fall in love with a woman, she will never love you as much as you love her.

I think it's possible this line of thinking could be both inaccurate and damaging.

More specifically, that it's coming from our biased perspective and only seeing part of the picture. In this strongly 'betaized male' society and around TRP which is populated by those who are more naturally 'beta', men do tend toward pedestalizing and looking for the kind of unconditional love they got from and had for their mother (see sidebar link 'Relationships, the Red Pill, and you').

But there's another side to it that is being overlooked. Namely that it goes both ways. Women get oneitis too. And did we forget that there are plenty of men out there who do things like lead adoring, loving women on or use them for sex or as a comfortable home-maker, as much as any woman can be claimed to use a man for 'beta bux'? Who cheat on or drop a wife they no longer love because they are no longer attracted to them because they 'hit the wall' or gained some weight? When did it become decided that women are the only ones who leave their partners for someone 'better', use someone (unconsciously or not) for their own selfish needs or who will cheat on someone who loves and adores them?

I think it's really more of a matter of dominance and who has the upper hand in the relationship. If the balance skews too much one way or the other, the dominant partner loses respect for the other and realizes they have other options. While the other partner pedestalizes and loves the other 'unconditionally', ie. they accept all their flaws and see them with rose coloured glasses. But it's not even truly unconditional because if something happened to flip things around so that they had the more pronounced upper hand, they would be just as quick to lose those glasses and suddenly that love isn't so 'unconditional' anymore.

Before feminism the upper hand usually fell to the man and men were condemned as users and abusers who betrayed their loving and devoted wives with mistreatment, cheating and mistresses. Now, after a feminist cultural revolution, the upper hand usually falls to the female, and here we are calling women the users, abusers, cheaters and betrayers.

I'd be interested to hear other opinions on this. A lot of young men are coming to this sub and one of the first parts of the theory they are fed are these notions that women aren't capable of true love but men are, and I think it's adding to their bitterness and anger toward women and prolonging their process of getting to the acceptance phase. I would argue that the bitterness of the pill isn't that women are guided by unconscious selfish biological imperatives, but that all people are, regardless of gender.

I also want to add that the idea that men are able to continue to be 'in love' with one woman with while adding new ones in a harem or mistress fashion and love them all somehow equally, while women can 'only love one man at a time' doesn't hold up either. The nature of pair-bonding (or being 'in love') is that it only can occur with one partner at at time. If two partners SMVs become too disparate or one partner is so submissive that they lose respect for them and the 'in love' feeling, they are going to have an open space for pair-bonding/falling in love to occur with a new partner and have the urge to seek it. But being the one with the upper hand, they are naturally going to want to keep the previous partner who idolizes, validates and provides for them (whether through resources or sex, home-making etc.) around while they do so. When men are dominant this manifests as keeping a wife at home while taking on new mistresses and when women are dominant it manifests as cuckolding their beta/submissive husband.

And the harem/multiple partners phenonmenon isn't exclusive to men either. Polyandry has been documented in some cultures and now, dominant women in western society, are beginning to show this behaviour and calling it 'poly'. Here are a couple of documentaries that contain examples of this:

1 Mom, 2 Dads and a Baby

I Love You And You And You

It's entertaining to watch them hamster to try to call what they're doing 'poly' in the face of the obvious. And to see the woman claiming to not have a problem with her first beta partner wanting to see other women and then trying to make him jealous and put him in his rightful beta/submissive place by talking about her connection with her second, more alpha partner. The second one also shows an obvious example of polygyny (he won't allow his girlfriends to see anyone else), showing that 'poly' is never really the idealized, free/equal love they claim it to be.

These are just my thoughts on all this and I'm interested to hear what you guys think.

*edit: I had supporting links to other red pill posts throughout, but removed them as per this subs policy on cross-linking to anything else on reddit