When will I be loved | LeftWingMaleAdvocates

Blauwpetje · 2019-10-01T19:23:08+00:00

We always have the idea women want strong, rather macho, successful men, and least of all needy - needy is worse than anything else, and that is probably...

[–]ElderApe 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor[S] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ElderApe 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

Yes. More or less yes. And I dislike it. But also, I understand it. The point is more or less like this: women do not need men anymore and would prefer to be alone than to be with someone that drains them.

We need to provide value to the lives of women.

And I do believe that is a problem, make no mistake.

Psychologically unbalanced women provide at least the value of sex. Us men do not have that. That means that by default us men are not desired. This was the point of the "phantom maleness" text I posted.

This has the consecquence of unconfidence being utterly unattractive (while unconfident women at least have sex, although they'd feel used by the experience). That is complex indeed, because unconfident women do not usually receive from men the emotionally intimacy they required for feeling affection even if they give sex. So I'm not sure unconfident people receive affection at all.

So.... what can we do about that? First of all, I believe a great percentage of our need for sex is about the need for female validation. User banmale calls it "our need for a mother figure", and I agree with him. Now, not needing female validation will makes us happier, and it will make us more attractive -and thus gaining us more sex-.

But let's think in another way. Greeks though there were 3 main loves: eros, philos and agape. Both Eros and Philos are conditional loves. Loves towards lovers and loves towards friends are not unconditional. The third one, the love that was taken by christians, Agape, is an unconditional love. Is the love one gives to every people just because they are human beings.

Us men do not receive agapic love, and this is the real issue. We need to receive love not out of being confident or because we follow that or this standard. But we are worthy of love because we are humans. This is about agapic love, more than erotic one.

Erotic and philic love cannot be completely genuine without a society were agapic love is strong.

Instead, agapic love, in capitalism becomes privatized: in order to receive love, you need to love yourself. And this is completely true, if you do love yourself, women will flock towards you. But although it is true it is not good. There is an interesting phrase from Fat Activism that says "stop telling us to love ourselves, stop privatizing love, let's create a society were our bodies are also worth of love."

The point is, only confident men, that is, men who love themselves, are worthy of love in this society. That is a consecquence of both patriarchy and capitalism. Agapic love has become privatized. You are expected to love yourself before being worthy of love by another.

We need to fight that. In order to fight that, we need to give love, agapic love unconditionally, and specially unconditional love towards men. We need to create a society were there is a communism of agapic love, first. Although the ones who say that erotic love should be communalized (and that would help incels) are completely wrong, since erotic love can't be genuinly made communal, agapic love totally can, because it is unconditional. This communalization of agapic love will help men to love themselves and to heal and be happier. Which will make them more attractive to erotic love. But we need to break the patriarchal and capitalistic privatization of love first.

[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What you actually are saying I think, I am not a man of 'big words': people should be nice to eachother, understanding, patient, give eachother a chance. I agree this is what keeps societies together, and not just societies, I was raised to see the world that way, in a benevolent moderate Dutch protestantism. And I agree this is what very much is NOT happening in the digital age. This may be a factor in what I'm trying to say with this post. People (male and female) used to think: funny, that man is alone, I like him so much, maybe he just needs some advice or support. (30 years ago I knew f ex a feminist woman who always thought about coupling me to other girls. It was a bit unpractical as she lived in Amsterdam and I in Groningen.) Now they simply think: loser. What you call Agape may make it easier for anybody to also reach Philos. And Agape and Philos together in turn may make it easier to reach Eros. Of course attraction will still be important, but unlike now (especially for men) it won't mean you constantly have to prove you're either the handsomest, the most daring, the strongest, the richest, you name it, but that people - also men - will return to looking for a partner that is not 'the best' but that fits THEM personally. The generation of my parents more or less did it that way: they were in a (moderate protestant!) students' organisation and when a boy and a girl liked eachother they formed a couple. No 'it's got to be perfect', just enjoying being together. (I don't know about patriarchy and capitalism. I think patriarchy is an unfalsifiable concept, and conservatives say it is not neoliberalism but the welfare state that broke up communities and made people over-individualistic. That is one-sided but not totally untrue.)

[–]Melthengylf 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

People (male and female) used to think: funny, that man is alone, I like him so much, maybe he just needs some advice or support. Now they simply think: loser.

Yes, I agree. That is kind of the deepest issue, from which the lack of erotic love is an emmergent.

What you call Agape may make it easier for anybody to also reach Philos. And Agape and Philos together in turn may make it easier to reach Eros.

Yes!!!! That is the idea. Agape for philos, philos for eros. In any case it is a political fight that we need to fight.

conservatives say it is not neoliberalism but the welfare state that broke up communities and made people over-individualistic.

I heavily recommend you reading "The Suicide" by Emile Durkheim. It is an excelent book and should be read by every male activist.

You'll see how much of the modern problems existed already in the XIX century. Now they are just worse, but Durkheim investigated when they were budding.

[–]PrincessofPatriarchy 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for asking!!!

The classical answer would be that women are desired on their own, even if they are abusive, or depressive, etc. Because of sex. There is an inherent need for femaleness amongst men that women do not have. Whether that is biology or societal trauma that men have, it does not matter. Women are desired at the very least as an object.

There is an empathy gap (scientifically proven) that is higher towards women and towards men. This implies that women spontaneously receive empathy, both by women and by men. Men need to earn that empathy.

Both these two issues mean that the pit where you can fall has no bottom. Men are aware of this. They are aware that noone has our backs. We are not human by default. If we slack out, we can fall into an infinite pit of despair, and noone will come to rescue us. People surrounding us will just disappear.

That is the reason why men can never be completely vulnerable. Men know that if we truly collapse there is noone there to support us. So we cannot afford to be fully vulnerable.

The solution is not sexual entitlement.

The solution is universal love.

As secular atheist people we lost God. We do not have anyone who will love us unconditionally. Christian and other religious people have someone to have their backs if they collapse. God will always love them unconditionally, no matter what they do or how we are.

But that is a problem. As secularity grew, we lost something that we need.

We need to create a society where noone is left behind. Where you don't need to prove your worth to be valuable to the community. Where you deserve to live just because you are human.

That is complex. Which is the reason why I believe it is not sexual entitlement, eros type of love but Agape what we need.

We lost our ability to be unconditionally empathetic to men like we are towards women. While women are much more empathetic towards women than towards men, I believe that many times (even if this is controversial in this community) women are more empathetic towards women than towards men. But men are more empathetic towards women than towards men. Men are competitive, harsh towards other men. I have felt it in the manosphere, and I have felt it in Menslib and I have felt it in real life. Women support each other just because they are human.... men do not. Men judge each other too much: whether because they see each other as weak or because they see each other as evil. But there is no unconditional support, no unconditional love. And I have seen how women relate to each other in twox, so I know that is possible.

As a political stance I believe that it is important for me to show men unconditional love and support. We need to create a net that can support us there when we collapse and fall down. We need to love men not because they are worthy enough for this society, not because they are strong enough, or good enough. Women love each other even if they are weak and even if they are evil, so why can't we?

And if we are able to create a net, then there will be no more bottomless pits. Men will have a place where to hang their hat. That will change brutally what men are.

Does it have any sense?

[–]PrincessofPatriarchy 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

That really doesn't make any sense, I'm sorry. I think the obvious answer is that no one, man or woman, should be unconditionally desired or wanted when that person either brings nothing of value to the table or who is actively abusive, cruel, or toxic. Toxic, abusive women should not be accepted by men, and toxic, abusive men should not be accepted by women.

Your stance seems to be that toxic, abusive men should simply be loved unconditionally because from your (questionable) perspective, shitty women are desired so shitty men should be too.

I mean that's literally an argument that you want there to exist more unhealthy, toxic and abusive relationship dynamics. When you couple that with the fact that female abuse victims are significantly more likely to be killed by their male partners than the other way around, you're basically saying that women should accept abusive men in their lives even if it kills them. Let alone their kids.

That's absurd. All love should be conditional, upon things like being treated with respect, with decency, and bringing something of value to one another's life. If someone is a shitty person and a shitty partner they should be alone and rejected by those who seek healthy, fulfilling lives and relationships.

Women love each other even if they are weak and even if they are evil, so why can't we?

No we don't lol. That's a fictional story. People in general may be less likely to attribute malicious intentions to the actions of women than with men, but that is due to sexist stereotypes that need to be eliminated. Weak, fair enough. But evil? No way. When it is accepted that a woman is evil, she is not anymore loved or supported than evil men are. It's simply that people are less likely to declare a woman evil for the same actions or crimes.

Essentially what you are saying to me is that instead of leaving my boyfriend who abused me and broke my self-esteem in order to find a healthy and fulfilling relationship with a man who loves me and treats me with respect, I should have just stayed with my abuser and suffered because apparently abusers are entitled to that as long as they are male. I shouldn't have been upset by the abuse, I should have simply loved him without conditions like 'don't abuse me, please'.

Bullshit.

Of course we can and should encourage there to be support for men, an elimination of gender roles that dictate that men have to be strong, stoic and bread-winners. But arguing that bad, evil men should simply be able to do whatever they want with no consequences because of (fictional) idea that bad, evil women can do the same, is absurd.

We need to create a society where noone is left behind. Where you don't need to prove your worth to be valuable to the community. Where you deserve to live just because you are human.

So what are you imagining here? A society like The Purge where all crime is legal and there are no consequences for unethical behavior? Deserving to live and deserving to be with a romantic partner no matter how badly you treat that partner are two different things and you present them as the same thing. That is sexual entitlement. You are saying "even if someone mistreats you, you should let them do it and just keep loving them unconditionally". Love should always be conditional.

[–]Melthengylf 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

you're basically saying that women should accept abusive men in their lives even if it kills them

No. I am not saying this.

Essentially what you are saying to me is that instead of leaving my boyfriend who abused me and broke my self-esteem in order to find a healthy and fulfilling relationship with a man who loves me and treats me with respect, I should have just stayed with my abuser and suffered because apparently abusers are entitled to that as long as they are male.

I am not saying this.

Pay attention to what I'm saying!!!

I mean it. If you can't understand what I'm saying at the moment because it triggers you the societal pressure you have felt for staying with your abusive ex, this is not the time to be talking with me.

I mean it. I am very explicit on it. If you read what I'm saying and believe that I support for women to stay in abusive relationships (or men in abusive relationships, for the case), then stop reading. That is not what I'm saying and it is not the time for you to read it, it will just cause you pain.

It is easy for people to just trash on, say, incels because they are extremely shitty people.

But they know they are worthless. They know that they do not deserve to love. They even know they don't deserve to live. They know that if they died noone would miss them.

Why do you think Trump supporters call themselves the deplorables? Trump supporters know they are unlovable and they know they are worthless. They know they just lost the ticket to humanhood. they are not human, they'll never be human, they have nothing to lose, and just want to burn the world to the ground.

The problem is that you believe that I believe that love is about being there suffering as a victim of abuse. But that is not what love is. That is not love according to my definition, that is not what love is according to the definitoon of many psychologists, and that is not what Agape is about.

I'm not sure if I want to give a full text about what love is. But let's keep it simple. Love is about empathy and understanding. Love is NOT about excusing someone else's behaviour. It is not about caretaking. It is not infantilizing. It is not being someone's punching bag. It is not burning yourself in flames to make the other person feel warm. You do not love someone alcoholic by excusing their addiction.

[–]PrincessofPatriarchy 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Your words were that it is a problem that men need to bring something of value to the lives of women. When asked how it's a bad thing, you said it's because women aren't expected to bring value to the lives of men, and are just desired by default. You said this is the case even when women are abusive, or depressive.

You then led into a speech about how the solution should be that men are loved unconditionally because you (erroneously) claim that women still love evil women, so why can't we also love men the same way?

I contest that the solution is actually that we should not desire toxic women or toxic men by default, and evil people are not entitled to love in any way.

Love is NOT about excusing someone else's behaviour. It is not about caretaking. It is not infantilizing. It is not being someone's punching bag. It is not burning yourself in flames to make the other person feel warm. You do not love someone alcoholic by excusing their addict.

Finally you are talking sense. But that is pretty much the widely understood definition of "unconditional love".

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Finally you are talking sense. But that is pretty much the widely understood definition of "unconditional love".

Hey, greattt!!

But it is not mine, I try to folow the ethics -even if most times I fail- of NVC (nonviolent communication).

I contest that the solution is actually that we should not desire toxic women or toxic men by default, and evil people are not entitled to love in any way.

Evildom does not exist.

What exists is harmed people who are a danger to themselves and to others.

So let me be clear, noone should sacrifice themselves to caretake someone else.

I find r/BPDLovedones an interesting subreddit. Most people there are male victims of abusive women, with some women victims of abusive men. Because the abusers are women, their pain is more transparent. But you still are not supposed to stay in a relationship where you are being harmed. That doesn't show love for their SO, that shows a lack of love for themselves.

Love is about thinking beyond the judgements about good and evil, it is human being beyond the enemy image. You can have empathy and understanding for someone and still not caretake them. You can have empathy and have your own boundaries, you can have empathy and say "no".

But remember, you (princessofpatriarchy) are just an ally. This is not your fight. While I have seen many women being judgemental towards men, I see more women trying to (even if failing to understand) to see beyond their enemy image, than I see men. It may be controversial. But I genuinly perceive it differently. I perceive men to be so far into the trauma that I find it rare to find a place where men genuinly support each other.

This r/Menslib text about male and female communities I find it, well, true. This one of the expression of the thing I'm trying to convey:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/ddp0ct/what_ive_learned_from_womens_communities/

As a collective, us men we need to fight against that.

The myth that love is a prize for being good is just that, a myth. It is the myth that produces creepy NiceGuys. Of course there are "evil" men who have lots of sex.

Mainly because "good" and "evil" are myths that stem from believing that when someone does something to us that causes us pain, that is solved by punishing them, shaming them, and causing them pain.

This doesn't solve anything, that creates broken men that will keep on traumatizing themselves and others. That will keep the cycle of abuse flowing.

There is a reason why I stick to the values of Nonviolent Communication. There is a reason why I do not follow the rules of reward and punishment. Why I try to perceive the needs and feelings of the other, even if I fail. But I make the effort. Because it is not punishment what will save us, it is love, in the true sense of the word.

[–]PrincessofPatriarchy2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Radicalization, sadism and lack of empathy are never just because. I recommend you to start from James Gilligan, if you want criminology and research. He relates pain and trauma to violence in a very clear way.

Evil is subjectively applied to certain actions and behaviors, what's considered evil may vary from cultures but arguing that it is a concept does not exist is false.

Evil presupposes punishment. That system of ethics, caled by Nietzche "slave ethics" is extremely dangerous to create a harmonious society where people do not cause harm to each other.

Instead of thinking that an action is evil, and judge it, try sensing the pain that it causes you and the pain that it causes the people you love and care about. That is what NVC would advice to do.

Yes but then you should understand how people misconstrue what you are actually trying to say.

Yes, I completely understand it. And I agree that is difficult to convey an idea that is so far from what is culturally accepted.

But the problem still exists. The issue of men being disposable in the sense of knowing that there is a bottomless pit there waiting for them is extremely huge problem that affects all men, the men at the bottom, and the ones that are not.

We need to think differently if we want to solve male issues. We need to change the culture.

So my answer is relevant to the framework Blauwpetje was exposing. Taking into account that is not sexual or romantic entitlement that I'm advocating for.

But we do need to change the culture to solve this issue, this core issue in male life and pain.

[–]PrincessofPatriarchy2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, not necessarily. Radicalization is the result of environment and upbringing. It can be traumatic but it's environmental. Sadism can be a fetish, and there is no consensus on how sexual fetishes originate. Sadism is only a problem when the sadistic tendencies are focused on non-consenting partners. And that is overall uncommon but still commonplace enough to pose an issue. Psychopaths are generally assumed to be born and not made. And the feature of psychopathy is an inability to feel empathy. Most psychopaths are not violent, they simply see the world differently than most people. A minority of psychopaths are violent. Sociopaths are the ones considered to be "made", as the result of trauma. Again, most are non-violent.

And some of it is just a feature. For instance there appear to be many neurotypical people who don't experience much empathy for animals or other sentient beings that do not humans. Again, many of them do not mistreat animals as the result but they could without feeling any empathy for the suffering they caused. A minority of people do this however. Again, that seems to have little to do with some trauma or pain and more to do with the fact that some people just find it hard to empathize with non-human animals.

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PrincessofPatriarchy2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I do not want to cite right now the list of papers that support my view, James Gilligan is just a good point of departure.

I also do not ask you to take interest in that subject, if you want to read him, sure, if you don't that's ok too.

In any case, there is a reason why monsterizing people and believing them to be kind of from another species, doesn't help me taking into account male issues.

There was an interesting text around here comparing the narratives between men-on-men violence vs black-on-black violence. While men were seen as biologicaly more violent, and thus deserving to be killed by other men, on black-on-black violence, the social structure that caused them pain was more obvious.

So beyond the academic issues and investigations, this is a political stance where I stand.

I do have the former, though, if you genuinly are interested to read about them I can pass you a few cites and texts

[–]PrincessofPatriarchy2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Heyy, great!!!

Just to be clear, I am not saying that someone needs to be traumatized in a specific sense. There is an issue of suffering though.

Beyond James Gilligang (which I believe it is the best author and would totally start here), you can also take a look at Jess Hill (which portrays a similar idea), I should also add the investigations about restorative justice (which, you know, is the most successful way of justice), you can also add the classification of John Gottman, and about borderline disorder and its cure through DBT. You sure know the correlation between social inequality and crime.

There are some evidence that CBT or mindfulness increase empathy (this style: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022167805280264 ), which I do believe make many sense.

I'm sure you know the risk factors of radicalization:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/251789.pdf

You can see that most of these issues are linked to a disposability structure (Having Psychological Issues, Being Unemployed, Having a Sporadic Work History, Having Less Education, Having a Lower Social Economic Status, Failing to Achieve One’s Aspirations, Having Trouble in Romantic Relationships, Having Trouble in Platonic Relationships, Having Been Abused as an Adult, Being Distant From One’s Family). Everyone of them is related to the disposability structure.

I have heard about psychopathy has a strong genetic component. I'm not 100% bought on that, but sure some percentage genetic has to be there.

Overall, I stand by NVC thinkers, such as Miki Kashtan and other humanistic or gestaltic psychologists. But I don't believe they have research in a strict sense.

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

To understand why I care about all this, I want you to pay attention to the way the risk factors of radicalization are related to maleness.

First there is failure and not being part of society from an economic standpoint. Failure and economic success are totally requirements for men to be seen as completely humans worthy of love. Failed men are not men and are not human:

Being Unemployed

Having a Sporadic Work History

Having Less Education

Having a Lower Social Economic Status

Failing to Achieve One’s Aspirations

Then there is disconnection from humans, which manifests in romantic, platonic and familiar facets:

Having Trouble in Romantic Relationships

Having Trouble in Platonic Relationships

Being Distant From One’s Family

Besides, two issues that also affect them:

Having Psychological Issues

Been Abused as an Adult

Failure and loneliness. Being a man is about failure and loneliness. I have seen somewhere that the most dangerous people in society are young men with no love and no future.

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PrincessofPatriarchy1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Great that you asked!!! I also want to thank you for engaging in good faith so long.

My point is this one: not everyone is capable of having chemistry (aka, connection) with another person. Shame disconnects and guarantees that you won't connect with everyone. And the belief that-you-are-not-nice-enough-to-receive-love guarantees the shame that will guarantee that you'll not have chemistry with anyone.

The ideology of Good and Evil creates the Shame that makes it impossible to create Compassion in the world.

So because of this it is important to distinguish the Eros and Philos, which indeed need chemistry and connection, and the Agape, which does not require connection, but it is a conscious decission.

People can't just make themselves fall in love with another person on command. There has to be things like mutual chemistry in place.

This is the Eros type of love.

Love is NOT about excusing someone else's behaviour. It is not about caretaking. It is not infantilizing. It is not being someone's punching bag. It is not burning yourself in flames to make the other person feel warm. You do not love someone alcoholic by excusing their addict.

This is the Agape that I'm talking about.

In summary: men are systematically disconnected, which makes them unable to have chemistry with anyone. It is Agape, which is a conscious and voluntary choice that will enable men to connect to themselves. It is connection to themselves which will allow them to connect and have chemistry and erotic love with a woman (in case they are hetero).

So when I propose to take the voluntary, conscious and political decission to love men, it is Agape from what I'm talking about. It is still not about entitlement. It is a political decission from the person who loves, not an entitlement from the person who is loved.

This instead will make men able to love themselves, which will make them able to connect with themselves, and thus connect with another person and have chemistry with another person.

But neither I propose Eros neither Philos to be done in an unconditional way. Those types of love should be given only to those that enrich our lives. My objective is to help men for them to be able to enrich their own lives and thus the lives of other people, including women. And thus help them be able to reach romantic love in a natural, not in a manipulative way.

This is not an individual failing from individual men. There is a social system that blocks us structurally from connecting to ourselves. If you pay attention, disposability (at war, at job deaths), loneliness, despair (suicides, opioid addiction), all stem from the same system that encompasses all reality for men.

And I'm trying to fight that social system.

[–]PrincessofPatriarchy1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well, there are two issues that I believe are basic: to listen without judging and to hear the pain before jumping to throw their own responsability.

That does not mean to not be clear to set up men to connect with their own agency, afterwards.

It's just that men almost never receive validation for their feelings first. Feelings validation needs to be temporally and logically before accountability.

There is this text "Radicalizing the Romanceless" that basically says that, and is liked by many in this sub.

Men usually need to prove they can solve an issue that causes pain before getting people to recognize that they are indeed feeling pain.

"I have this issue and I don't know how to solve it" is kind of not allowed to be said by men.

Structurally, all the fights that are made for men contribute this issue. Fighting for male homeless to be protected means that society is there to be present for them. Share custody for men means to help them connect them connect with someone for them to love and be loved deeply (their children). Sexualizing men in the media helps men recognize themselves as living beings, living bodies, diminishing workplace fatalities reaches the same objective.

All men issues are interconnected, I believe.

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ElderApe 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ElderApe 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ElderApe 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]joeclark5 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PrincessofPatriarchy 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Aaod1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

If you are not good looking your only other option is being rich preferably with high social status. If not? Hope you like the feeling of rope instead of your partner.

[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Aaod 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PrincessofPatriarchy 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	When will I be loved
Author	Blauwpetje
Upvotes	8
Comments	44
Date	October 1, 2019 7:23 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/dbybvt/when_will_i_be_loved/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/when-will-i-be-loved.1064480 https://theredarchive.com/post/1064480

Comments