Does conditional female love improve humanity?

BaadKitteh · 2016-05-20T19:55:54+00:00

No. Being "really good looking" is an accident of genetics and has nothing to do with who you are as a person. That's why "love" based primarily on looks doesn't mean much; it's shallow, and if the person gets in an accident or something that changes their appearance you have nothing left. The only kind of love that isn't shallow is the kind based on what a person thinks and chooses to do with their life, and frankly (while I personally don't care about wealth beyond the basic point of being adult enough to handle adult responsibilities) a person's professional success says far more about who they actually are than their appearance. If you are attracted to things like ambition and drive, it makes sense to care about success. There is a personality type that pushes harder for things like promotions and raises, and some people dig it. Again, I'm more attracted to people who only work to live instead- workaholics are not fun to me, and I'm not interested in being "kept" while barely seeing my partner. More money only matters to me in context of not having to worry about things. I have no greed to accumulate more than I need. Terps are never going to get anywhere until they realize not everyone is the same.

UA_Hammer · 2016-05-20T15:46:26+00:00

if women had a more ideal, more unconditional love where they picked a man and loved him even if he got lazy, lost his job, failed at life, would humanity stagnate?

Yes it would. However, although women lose attraction in that case (where the man becomes a useless shit), they also lose attraction if the man is away from home a lot and focuses on his career, contributes more. So basically, man focuses on improving the family's standing, he loses his family and everything he worked for. This selects against men building their careers and subsequently contributing to humanity, and selects for bodybuilding narcissistic degenerates. This tendency also harms women generationally, as their children grow up poorer, dumber as chadspawn/single mother raised.

Women being gatekeepers is good, but women are shitty, outdated, ineffective gatekeepers. The patriarchy reeled this in by making them need a provider. This is the transition phase where AWALT gets weeded out.

sittinginabaralone · 2016-05-20T15:39:35+00:00

Everything you said is correct but that doesn't mean unchecked female hypergamy is not a boon for civilization either.

So this leads to another question, if women had a more ideal, more unconditional love where they picked a man and loved him even if he got lazy, lost his job, failed at life, would humanity stagnate? Heck, have societies like this existed in the past and were they destroyed by more competitive, aggressive peoples?

One of the reasons civilizations have flourished is by tapping into the power of the beta. If every man has a woman and children to look after he's going to a hell of a lot more productive and willing to contribute to society than he would be if he were alone and bitter. Now that every woman has her eyes unwaveringly set on an alpha this means that betas have no reason to put as much effort into building civilizations. Not to mention the alphas that these women reproduce with are usually sociopaths that also don't give a fuck about civilization.

Plugawy_Nedznik · 2016-05-21T05:43:56+00:00

So this leads to another question, if women had a more ideal, more unconditional love where they picked a man and loved him even if he got lazy, lost his job, failed at life, would humanity stagnate?

"Stagnate"? What does the even mean? Humanity's been exempt from the basic laws of evolution ever since we made the first fire in the first cave.

ThatGreekLady · 2016-05-20T17:31:34+00:00

I don't think love is unconditional in general. No matter what TRPillers tell you, men don't love unconditionally either. The only ones who love you unconditionally are probably your mother and your father.

That being said, I suppose the way sexual selection works today does create some problems, like for example that there are lower birth rates.

I'm sure TRPillers will attack me for this as an eeeevil female destroyer of nations, but I think personal freedoms are more important than "society" or "civilization". I'm just not a fan of authoritarian systems with religious brainwashing.

Will society collapse in the distant future? Maybe. Maybe not. The question is, why should I care if the alternative is living in a society where my freedoms are limited? What would I personally have to gain from such a society when I'm not interested in having kids in the first place.

DevilishRogue · 2016-05-20T20:42:07+00:00

Conditional female love is the driving force behind every single technical innovation that has improved the lot of man from the wheel to the internal combustion engine and beyond. Men may not like it and it may not be "fair", but that is irrelevant to the fact that it works and has enabled our species to become the dominant form of life on this planet.

Archwinger · 2016-05-20T16:30:49+00:00

Society prospers the most when women are slaves and/or property. Because society was built on the backs of "betas".

When every single man, regardless of whether he's good-looking, high-status, accomplished, or awesome, receives one wife, as much sex with her as he can handle, and as many children with her as he can afford to have, and the only stipulation on this is that he does his part, fills his role, and works hard as a member of the greater community, then every single man is going to work. Very few men will turn to crime, very few men will opt out and be losers who don't contribute.

When women have complete sexual freedom, society suffers.

While it's true that many men compete and accomplish things in order to get women to choose them, instead of just being guaranteed a wife for doing his part, many other men don't do their part. Even if just the bottom 20% become a drain on society, whether through unemployment or having jobs but slacking off at them and making things harder for their employers, that's a huge blow to society overall. Then, when you factor in the marital instability and single-parent children that result from female sexual choice, things just get uglier.

LUClEN · 2016-05-20T18:34:06+00:00

it's purer and more righteous to love someone for being really fucking good looking than being rich and successful

Get all the way out of here with that BS. They're both shallow

Ultramegasaurus · 2016-05-20T17:39:37+00:00

So this leads to another question, if women had a more ideal, more unconditional love where they picked a man and loved him even if he got lazy, lost his job, failed at life, would humanity stagnate?

In theory, hypergamy yiels higher-quality offspring. But letting it run rampant like we do nowadays, it encourages low quality women to breed often while discouraging high quality ones. It also encourages single motherhood, which is absolutely detrimental to the quality of offspring.

despisedlove2 · 2016-05-20T16:38:19+00:00

Cuts both ways.

Yes, conditional female "love" is a good incentive for men to remain productive.

However, unchecked and incentivized female hypergamy acts the opposite way - it tells productive men to stay away from women because they are definitively going to be taken to cleaners in our feminist court systems.

Productive men these days also tend to be socially unattractive to hypergamy prone women. They prefer the dark triad types, whose progeny tends to be sociopathic. Ultimately, feminism destroys society, having gone too far.

ShadowMonarch212 · 2016-05-21T05:52:44+00:00

"If a man could fuck a woman in a cardboard box, he wouldn't buy a house." - Dave Chapelle

DaphneDK · 2016-05-21T03:25:05+00:00

No, because girls are absolutely horrendous at selecting for beneficial traits. Their instincts were honed in another period, and little suitable for modern times. Many bad boyz, drug lords, serial killers on death row, etc. few MIT nerds with +150IQ.

Probably their selection weight weren't particular beneficial for the human race as a whole even back in the stone age.

adrixshadow · 2016-05-21T10:49:38+00:00

Any woman that does not select for intelligent docile betas do not improve humanity. But neither is lazy slobs.

This is why marriage used to be pretty good system, there were checks and balances between the parents of both families before they give the approval so they could initially ensure some competence.

Aggressive people destroy themselves, you want a drive towards intellectual pursuits, peace and the betterment of society.

Sunjammer0037 · 2016-05-21T14:27:01+00:00

more unconditional love

Just this very phrase shows you don't understand what "unconditional" mean. Love, or anything else, can't be "more unconditional" or "less unconditional". "Unconditional" means 0 conditions. You either have conditions or you don't.

No human can love another person unconditionally in a romantic way. If you value looks - that's a condition. If you couldn't love your partner when she gold old, wrinkly and ugly - that's a condition. If you couldn't love your partner when she got into a terrible accident that left her face severely burned and scarred - that's a condition. If you couldn't love your partner when she gained 10kg and stopped wearing makeup - that's a condition. If you couldn't love your partner when she cheated on you - that's a condition. If you couldn't love your partner when she started making more money than you or stopped being submissive to you - that's a condition. If you couldn't love your partner when she stopped giving you blowjobs - that's a condition.

This whole Red Pill trope is not based on any truths, only a desire to paint men as morally superior and put them on angelic pedestal while throwing women to the dust. Men don't love more nobly or selflessly, they're just as selfish and shallow as women are, if not always in the same way.

Whisper · 2016-05-20T18:32:48+00:00

if women had a more ideal, more unconditional love

Anything follows from an absurdity. If two and two are five, then I am the Pope.

AutoModerator · 2016-05-20T15:31:58+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair, just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

kick6 · 2016-05-20T18:20:21+00:00

It improved the possibility that humanity survived in earlier times. You didn't have women pining indefinitely after their husband died. Women were able to reattach to a new mate, and keep breeding.

wazzup987 · 2016-05-20T18:45:50+00:00

i think it would be best for humanity if we could move the needle on both of those such that men are valued more innately like women and women valued more prescriptively like men.

Title	Does conditional female love improve humanity?
Author	yo_radical_one
Upvotes	6
Comments	91
Date	May 20, 2016 3:31 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/4k8rrj/does_conditional_female_love_improve_humanity/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/does-conditional-female-love-improve-humanity.274597 https://theredarchive.com/post/274597

Comments