~ archived since 2018 ~

Do Men Need (or believe in) Love more than Women?

August 28, 2022

Replies in a recent post on r/askfeminism has led me to believe not only do women not desire relationships with men, but they don’t believe in love anymore. In fact most replies imply that women detest love from men as it leads to the imprisonment of childbirth. They believe men provide nothing [within relationships] and are only an increased burden.

I think Men believe in, and desire, to love and be loved.

Is this difference in perception (one desiring a family while the other being raised in a feminist culture to believe having a family is a patriarchal burden forced upon women by man’s evil penis 💦) the reason dating is so shitty for men now? Because men are the only ones that want to date?

If women as a whole are rejecting men (as an idea, even) before they even attempt to woo a woman, what should young men be taught now?

Something like “women aren’t your enemy, but they see you as one. Or as a means for extracting money, a cog in the commodified sex machine who will pay for a vial of their bathwater. Let women pursue you. Otherwise, seek prostitutes and God to satisfy your carnal drives. Love is a fantasy taught to the poor to give them reason to settle into their mediocre lives and procreate. Save your seed for a suitable carrier - see women as no more than that, potential genetic combinatrixes whom you may use as surrogates with the money you earn as a result of avoiding belief in love…”? I mean not really that, but is this world so bleak now that young folks don’t believe there is value in love and procreation?

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/AllPillDebate.

/r/AllPillDebate archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title Do Men Need (or believe in) Love more than Women?
Author hdksndiisn
Upvotes 1
Comments 44
Date August 28, 2022 1:34 AM UTC (3 months ago)
Subreddit /r/AllPillDebate
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/AllPillDebate/do-men-need-or-believe-in-love-more-than-women.1139634
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/AllPillDebate/comments/wzj660/do_men_need_or_believe_in_love_more_than_women/
Red Pill terms in post

[–]Environmental_Lie561 5 points6 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

I am the most romantic person I’ve ever known besides my dad & my husband, both of them have passed away. Im so sad because that’s the only thing I really need is loyalty and romance. Where have all the romantic men gone to 😫

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump 4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

They died out because women never romanced them back.

[–]Environmental_Lie561 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

I would blame porn culture. I know the men who have porn addictions because when I romance them back, they withdraw in insecurity and they don’t pursue romantically, but only sexually.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Porn made that happen? There have been people like that since long before porn.

[–]Environmental_Lie561 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Just the influx of the culture, also blame feminism.

[–]Swapsta 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't see what porn does to romance specifically. Imo it's OLD that changed courting to a shopping system.

[–]Environmental_Lie561 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, it made it to where they no longer court or chase or change because they can run to porn. Be lazy in pursuit of women because they don’t have as much desire.

[–]TriggurWarning 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Trust me, they're out there, but people have to try hard to find them.

[–]Environmental_Lie561 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for giving me hope. I do tend to attract them, it’s just where I currently live where there seems to be a culture of anti seduction. I’m the natural siren, so I’m thankful for my ability to attract and seduce. But so many have lost this art and the meaning behind it that isn’t purely for ego. Too many control games in black pill culture forgetting that seduction is about the thrill in gaining but most importantly, losing control.

[–]TriggurWarning 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Good luck to you and be well.

[–]Environmental_Lie561 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You as well, thank you.

[–]Obsidian_Koilz 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Love and romance doesn't have to be about children. 🤷🏿‍♀️ Many women can't have one, don't want one, or having a child might create a medical emergency for her.

As the eldest child in my family; I NEVER even pretend played the role of 'mommy'. Ever. I didn't like baby dolls or Barbies and used to cut off the hair and drop them in my toy box to be forever forgotten.

However, I used to EAT up the classics such as offerings from the Brontë sisters, Jane Austen, and a few others... I also watched my parents romance each other and play like little kids with each other.

I grew up wanting a playful and romantic relationship with an intellectual gentleman. 🤷🏿‍♀️ I wanted all of it - except the children. I STILL don't want the children... and medically, I cannot have one.

Love and romance don't have to be about children or being tethered to a person you've fallen out of love with. It's about the two people who have committed themselves to each other.

As to what you teach young men? That romance and love can be fulfilling- but that it cannot be guaranteed as an outcome. Some women are selfish, self involved, dismissive of men based on looks, and only wish for a provider of resources. I say, give these young men the tools to spot those types of women and avoid them at all cost. Also, show them how to find women who will respect, love, support, and uphold similar morals, values, and goals. Teach them to recognize her and to treat her accordingly. To respect her, love her, and value her in return.

Healthy Reciprocity and communication are the foundation of a romantic relationship.

[–]hdksndiisn[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Great response except I want to clarify “not being tethered to someone you’ve fallen out of love with” - I think this is where a lot of further problems arise that are unnecessary where people believe the sparkle-rainbow-fest and passion of the newly ignited love fading into a slow burning ember means out of love. I think it would be wise to teach people that commitment is a huge aspect of love, and love evolves beyond being IN it when it becomes Choosing to live by it (with the lover). At the same time people shouldn’t remain in relationships that make them unhappy. But I think you understand what I mean. I think there are tons of people that would otherwise be happy together or had they remained together if they’d expanded their conception of love as existing beyond the heroic sweeping romance portion, which stabilizes into a different type of love.

But either way I think you’re right in that your perception is an optimistic one and signals to men that some women do want love and to be loved holistically :)

[–]Glad-Discount-4761 8 points9 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Men do real love more than women.Either they believe in love or not just like humans do.I am not firm believer of love or romance.

Women see respect=love and just like the idea of romance.

Young man just shouldn't be taught blue pill advice that's it.You can already tell woman nature by her action not what she says.

Amount of times I see women talking about what they like and appreciate about man while in reality they get with asshole guy then they complain about it(I even see this sometimes in rpw sub).Worst part is when you give real or good advice,they ignore it.

[–]SaltyGeekyLifter 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Healthy perspective. Take my upvote.

[–]Glad-Discount-4761 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Healthy perspective

Why I feel like this is sarcastic lol

[–]SaltyGeekyLifter 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nope. Not sarcastic.

A woman saying men shouldn’t be blue pilled is… refreshing.

[–]HodgekinWhitePill 3 points4 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

I think romance and love are two separate things. And yes, men are the romantic gender.

Love on the other hand isn't something well define. I think people have a poor definition of love in their minds.

My definition of love is "wanting the best in someone or something".

When you say you love your child, what you're hopefully aspiring for the child is their growth towards functional independence. No trauma. Healthy body and mind. Good morals. Good friends and family. Etc, etc.

[–]you-arent-reading-it 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

As a man, I believe love is a liability that feels like an asset. Only in that situation, you can see what the person actually wants and act accordingly. That's romanticism. You know how to please a person and at the same time you know how to not make her accustomed to that, and it feels easy to do that. You effectively have the ability to make sure that you are appreciated. if your are "in love", that's just emotional attachment, which is good, but if you both are too much emotionally attached to each other, you guys will do whatever it takes to keep that feeling going. Basing the stability of the relationship on an emotion on both ends is not the best Idea. It will makes you do crazy stuff. So for me "loving" and "being in love" are different. Both are required to work. The responsible person should be the one who loves, and the emotional person should be the one in love.

[–]HodgekinWhitePill 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

I think feeling like an asset is a bad way to put it. I get what you're saying. Feeling appreciated. Feeling valued.

The reason I don't like that definition, is people can be manipulated out of their best interest to be assets. Stockholm syndrome for example. Or people who support Hitler during the nazi regime. They were happy and unified under the ideology, but they were doing evil things.

You did mention at the end, too much love will make you do crazy stuff. Wouldn't using a different word like manipulation, brainwash, or indoctrinated be a better fit in those situation? Instead of using love?

I like your wording at the end about the responsible/emotion person. Though I think you're kind of making it like a diametric system. I think any proper loving relationship, both people are responsible for eachother.

If one is responsible and one is just emotional, I see that as control or manipulation. Like those tlc shows with an overweight addict and their spouse. The spouse does all the work to keep their overweight addicted partner alive. It fits your definition in that sense. I wouldn't call it love personally. I would call it along the lines of an addict and an enabler, or a insecure person who's seeking control.

Edit: I think people who use these bad tactics of control will cover their actions with the word love. The same way an evil person will lie to you and say "we are taking away your rights to bear arm for your safety." Or "we are taking way your property for your prosperity (communism)". I've seen parents manipulate and control their own children by doing all the work and spoiling them. They essentially made their children grow up to be dependent over grown children, who refuse to leave the house. The parent will say "I love my child, that's why I do everything for them". I believe the use of the word love their is a lie, to cover their actual feelings.

[–]you-arent-reading-it 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

The reason I don't like that definition, is people can be manipulated out of their best interest to be assets.

In my case I was raised to be a good person. So if I'm in control, I don't do evil stuff. If you're raised with evil concepts, I get why you are worried of taking that responsability. I don't believe women should be in love with fat guys who don't have jobs. I think women should be protected and helped in the choice of a partner. They shouldn't be forced ( like in some countries ), just accompanied. For various reasons.

Wouldn't using a different word like manipulation, brainwash, or indoctrinated be a better fit in those situation? Instead of using love?

Nah. Being in love will make you do all of those things.

Though I think you're kind of making it like a diametric system.

What do you mean by diametrical? I think you used the wrong word.

I think any proper loving relationship, both people are responsible for eachother.

Elaborate on that.

[–]HodgekinWhitePill 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Diametric meaning two opposite ways. Meaning one person is responsible aka, the giver. And one person is emotional, the receiver.

Like your example about a man is responsible for the woman, it leaves out the part where the woman reciprocated and is responsible for the man.

This leads to answering your questions to elaborate. I'll use myself as an example. I'm a husband. I go to work, I do the typical man things. My wife reciprocate the work I put in. She stays home. She cooks all the meals. She caring for two of our children, no daycare. So it's a partnership where both people work and are responsible for eachother and themselves.

I would define a relationship like that as love.

You have a very skewed view of relationship. Where the man does all the work and the woman reaps the benefit and does not reciprocate. A gold digger can manipulate a beta simp in providing her resources, and she can pretend to love the simp as a form of manipulation. But when I see that situation, I call it manipulation, not love. Even if the simp feels appreciated and is fully responsible.

[–]NietzscheIsGulty 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It depends what you mean by love.

Nowadays, you can love whatever you want. You can love men, women and infinite genders. You can love animals the same way you love humans.

Many people have animals for children. They demand the same rights for animals like human's rights.

Nowadays, you can love someone and hook up with the other just for experience.

You can be married and have open relationships.

You can sacrifice your love for career (which happens often, more often then you think).

Nowadays, family can be whatever you think. Family is just you and your dog.

Nowadays, people have shifted so much, that love is a strange concept to me.

[–]hdksndiisn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Strange concept perhaps being evidence of a lack of experience.

If you don’t know what it’s like to be in love to the point of craving life with another human I’d dare say you haven’t fully lived. Or fully learned who You are. Takes a mirror to see oneself and often the only person holding that mirror is who you fall in love with.

Also love can be learned as it often has via traditional organized relationships given time and procreation. But that’s a far more complicated and divisive discussion not really pertaining to what I’m getting at: which is the romantic notion that it’s at least important to love your partner and commit to a relationship with them with the hopes of building a home or a family. It’s been a driving factor in the economy and in man’s drive for purpose for centuries and doesn’t seem like women could care less nowadays.

So something has to shift.

And clearly if you love a human like you love your dog you don’t love the human romantically, unless you want to fuck your dog and make hybrid babies, and would go to war to protect it…

You know what I meant by love. It’s disingenuous to think the majority of humans can’t tell the difference between living their romantic soulmate and loving their favorite tv character or best bud.

[–]Hekinsieden 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

IDK I think the juice might not be worth the squeeze.

Yes there are probably some extra juicy ones that are worth the squeeze but going through 100 oranges to get the 1 cup of juice is some bullshit. I just give up.

Men and Women are all individuals but people suck.

[–]DivineDaedraChadwife 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Edit: am woman and misread the tag. My bad. There’s no automod though so I’m freeeeee

I think in western society, men who have fulfilling (non sexual or romantic) relationships—whether it be with men or women—risk being perceived as less manly for being more or less content with that and not doggedly pursuing a romantic/sexual relationship with everything they have.

I think this contributes massively to the touch starvation present in much of western society, particularly for single men. When people (but almost entirely men) are expected to rely exclusively on their partners for physical comfort, those people will struggle far more with depression and isolation than people who can easily get that comfort from friends and family.

I absolutely believe that most people desire love and to be loved, but people who have a support system and life that brings them fulfillment in other aspects of life are less afraid of life without romance and are therefore less willing to make extreme sacrifices for the sake of finding or keeping a partner. Women are not punished to anywhere near the same level as men for seeking comfort in friends and family, so they are able to meet their social needs more easily.

[–]hdksndiisn[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I didn’t choose that tag it was automodded so your reply is welcome. Thank you for the comment. I agree with everything you’ve said, tho have some comments my phone is acting up and won’t let me type properly so I’ll leave it there

[–]SaltyGeekyLifter 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The women on that thread are the female equivalent of blackpill. They try to justify not being in a healthy relationship themselves by decrying all relationships with men.

They aren’t representative of women as a whole.

[–]Antisocial_NihilistRedPill 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

To be honest, I really don't believe in the concept of love. At all really.

[–]TriggurWarning 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Even if it's a lie at it's core, a trick of biology to compel us to reproduce, it's one hell of a drug, and one who is inclined towards it arguably should pursue it for the experience itself.

[–]hdksndiisn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I see why, but as someone else pointed out, it’s an incredibly powerful thing when in its throes.

There truly is nothing better than having it, and nothing worse than losing it (and I am going to include losing a child as loss of love too, albeit a different kind).

[–]TriggurWarning 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I don't believe that is necessarily true for all women, but you are in fucking /r/askafeminist and trying to draw conclusions about all women. That's a mistake of massive proportions if you are indeed trying to draw such a conclusion. There are women who literally identify as non-feminists or some variation of that.

[–]hdksndiisn[S] 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

True, but women identifying as feminist is pretty norm/standard in the West, and if not consciously then by indoctrination and socialization most women (and men) hold feminist perspectives. And if feminism is the epitome of Woman and represents the voice speaking for women, then their impressions of men surely affect the rest of the population who are in turn impacted by feminism, or at the very least are a significant sample. Though I do wonder if most outspoken feminists are merely feminists because they hate men (had bad experiences with men) and found a safe identity-place that honors their rage. But had they experienced mostly positive male interactions they wouldn’t have become feminist.

[–]TriggurWarning 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Many/most outspoken feminists are definitely sipping on that haterade like it's a fine wine. But it's largely a self-inflicted wound. They just can't help themselves, they keep fucking chad, and he keeps dumping them in the trash where they belong.

[–]hdksndiisn[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

And yet there’s no admittance of this phenomena outside of TRP and every single male on the planets observations (which must be false because they have testicles?).

Sometimes I wonder if the world is going to convert to Islam simply because it’s the easiest way for men. Like the end result of Feminism is going to be Allah, starting with Europe. Or maybe Evangelical Christianity will rise to the occasion and gain more traction. In other words their outspoken hatred of men is going to put them right back where they were emancipated from if they keep it up. Unless the Western man is so soyboi’d and defeated he won’t be apt to rise against his own castration…not Everyman can be a Chad after all.

[–]TriggurWarning 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I have often wondered where the endgame is on all this insanity. Economic collapse is a certainty, but I think nuclear war risk is rising too. So we may be in for a complete reset of everything.

[–]Wide-Illustrator2906 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Men love logically, women love Ideally.

[–]PaliantBlackPill 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I sincerely believe a lot of women see pregnancy in the post modern world as a burden, a weakness, aka something to make them dependent and forced to deal with a man. All these run counter to culture messages woman are also receiving. I say this as a guy in my mid 20s in Gen Z, so I’m out here in the young crowds.

It’s difficult having a high sex drive. I’m probably attractive enough to “date” a girl just for some consistent sex, but I don’t really care to do something like that. Really wish seeing a pro was legal in the states.

[–]Pilling_it -2 points-1 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

People of both sexes act like a carpet towards attractive people that can afford to be assholes then complain about bad experiences when it's a you problem.

Difference being that even if men are less fed the romantic lie nowadays, they're not hammered about the risks associated with women's nature constantly like women are about men's.

I think people would be much happier if they observed things, shut it up about that and hit the gym. Then get attractive in the way that is attractive to the other sex. Then whatever happens, you will know you did the best you could, and regardless of dating success that comes with perks in the regular life compared to what would happen if you did not.

But nah, people gotta sit and do nothing then complain about attractive people having it easier when comparing yourself to anyone but yourself is sure to make you depressed.

[–]hdksndiisn[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I think I understand what you’re trying to say but you didn’t touch on love at all.

This isn’t about who is attractive or who isn’t or why they are or aren’t, but is about romance/love/purpose/ideals reasons for commitment etc that have been driving mankind for aeons and no longer seem to be of primary importance.

Yes hitting the gym is great but if you think muscles are gonna get you laid you’re an idiot. You can pull mad pussy by being a confident pile of trash as much as you can being a stoic godform. And getting laid or being attractive doesn’t guarantee love.

What would be better for society than hitting the gym to be attractive is to stop placing so much vapid glory on external appearances and instead praise and promote virtuous and noble behaviors that better the world and those that live in it.

[–]Pilling_it 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

As for love, yeah, it's about men wanting to be loved for who they are because they are acknowledged on what they do. I'm not sure a man need to believe in it. But I really didn't touch on it because it's that kind of word where everyone will know what it is, but disagree on what it is because the definition is highly personal.

Yes hitting the gym is great but if you think muscles are gonna get you laid you’re an idiot.

It's for yourself. When you start something with expectations, disappointment comes out, then ressentment, and that's not very useful if you want to love the other sex.

And getting laid or being attractive doesn’t guarantee love.

There's absolutely a way to go about it, but getting laid is often the first step to that, and for a load of men the difficulty is getting the foot in the door.

What would be better for society than hitting the gym to be attractive is to stop placing so much vapid glory on external appearances and instead praise and promote virtuous and noble behaviors that better the world and those that live in it.

200% with you there. But tbh I've had enough platitudes for a lifetime, so while doing what I can, I'll do what work in my environment.

Although, if there's a game to get laid, there's also having game for ltrs. And it's drastically different.

[–]hdksndiisn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

For sure. I mean I’ve been hitting the gym for 10 years so I know it’s importance for self-image and even simply as a consistent marker of progress - no day one has worked out can be considered a failure because one at the very least took care of their body and in turn their mind.

But tbh I got laid far more when I didn’t work out. Or when I choose to stop exercising and go out more instead. In other words for me personally when I am an alcoholic I get laid. Then I meet women. Then eventually one clicks well enough that I sober up for her. A cycle I’ve been getting myself out of for some time now. It’s easy for me to “grab drinks” with a chick and develop chemistry. It’s far more difficult for me to “grab coffee” with a woman and even be slightly interested in her.

Experiential I’ve found there is something inexplicably attractive about being a “hot mess” (ie an alcoholic) to women that I can’t help but exercise that card when I haven’t been in an LTR or had a date for a while. I swear for me getting laid isn’t a process of “work out, become a better person, improve lot in life financially, practice game, approach women, be confident/aloof/funny/etc…” it’s simply a matter of 1. Dress uniquely and minimally. 2. Start drinking 3. Make all decisions drunk and with drinking in mind.

The moment I hit the bottle and am in “fuck it” or “fun” mode, women appear out of nowhere ready to cook me breakfast the next morning lol. No better way to describe it than that. I drink -> I find myself waking up to omelette’s at some girls apartment.

And definitely there is a “game” to LTR’s but the best LTR’s are ones where you don’t have to be perpetually consciously aware of your words/actions in the sense of it being game/in-frame. The best LTR’s require no game beyond your initial attraction phase which hopefully or likely progresses from fun/exciting/flirty/sparks to intimate/emotionally available, while maintaining a forward trajectory in life outside of the relationship. In other words game in a rs should only become a conscious thing when you catch yourself fucking up like getting comfortable/lazy/not progressing. One shouldn’t be “acting” in any way as the attraction should naturally arise and remain. I guess maybe a better way to put it is one should practice their version of game so well prior to the LTR that one naturally behaves “in game” or always maintains frame without effort.

I think a lot of people mess things up when they use their Idea of Game to attract someone that isn’t their natural or effortless self, and they have to constantly be pretending in order to “maintain frame”. Maybe why dating is so difficult for so many men initially is because almost everything they need to do to accrue attraction is materialized with conscious effort rather than organically arisen from an outcome-independent frame. If that made sense.

And yes “love” is very ambiguous but the catch-all term is generally well-understood enough by most as something that falls within all of our consensus realities to be referential and implicative of meaning without having to explain specifics of what is meant by it. Ie when I say “Bob is in love with Sally” you know I don’t mean the same thing as “Bob loves hamburgers!”

[–]Marzipan-Happy 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I know a few men who think love is bullshit. But, I belive in it. I love my husband, I know he loves me. My sisters husband loved her until the day she died, and still feels that love for her. He carried her through terminal illness and was amazing. I think, I guess my point is, both me and women belive in love equally, but there are as many cynics as not.

[–]BlackPillPusher 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women do not love men, every platonic relationship between a man and a woman is utilitarian whether the woman admits it or not.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2022. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter