First of all, this post is meant to outline an observation, not to tell women what they should or shouldn’t do. If there is anything made manifestly clear by the current dating scene, it is that people are only entitled to no more and no less than that which they are able to take, which has always been the case but women have ceaselessly sought for decades to destroy any institution or convention whereby collective interests might impose some semblance of morality and fairness in dating.

For better or for worse alpha indeed fux and beta most indisputably proffers bux and there is absolutely nothing stopping women from taking full advantage of this situation, as I would likewise do were I a woman. If I were a woman I would have a rough coital encounter scheduled with a fit, hung stud for every spare half-hour not spent working or studying languages and linguistics, if I even had to work, so i really don’t see my enmity with women as anything personal. I just happen to be an average male, a complete normie, and that renders my interests and goals mutually incompatible with women in general in the same way you can’t be friends with the guy trying to sell you a used car. Does it mean used car salesmen deserve less rights and to be violently subjugated? Actually, it kind of does from the customer‘s perspective but i digress and find myself appalled at the prospect of even potentially advocating a course of action which would violate Reddit’s rules for posting.

IF there‘s anyone I seek to influence, it’s men. I would urge them to factor this observation into their lives and decisions, because whatever women experience and call love is nothing approaching what men mean when they say love.

I normally don’t like arguing for basic red-pill talking points, because the red pill was already stale and questionable before the post-Andrew Tate degradation of all analytical value it once had, but I think I’ve discovered a new angle, approach to demonstrating one of its core tenets against which I could never formulate a good argument.

Not only is women’s love conditional; it doesn’t even seem to be oriented around, certainly not directed towards, a man himself, but as many redpillers have pointed out, what said man does and the emotions he generates in her.

The quickest proof I‘d present is the fact women emphatically do not want to ever have to mother you or take care of you whereas men do not at all mind taking care of and nurturing a woman they’ve grown to love over the course of a relationship.

So yes, men’s love is also conditional, for try as i might, I have yet to fall in love with any fat-armed cafeteria ladies even after multiple sessions of aggressive but no less sweet carnal congress.

But as a man I am going to grow, have already grown, attached to my partner in a way which compels me to nurture her when necessary in a way you just don’t see in women. Even women who say their man can be vulnerable think that means he can occasionally complain about a bad day if he’s hot and otherwise perfectly in control of his life. They can’t fathom being attracted to a man who is actually lost and needs to be nurtured in a state of true vulnerability; if they ever do it it’s because of other exceptional traits or potential they see in the man. They don’t derive any joy or fulfillment for doing it for him though in the same way a man likes to protect and take care of a woman he actually cares about.

Women aren’t just transactional, it’s like the real you as a man isn’t even the object being transacted for

Edits to fix grammar errors