The hierarchy of love - Why as a man you will never be loved unconditionally in a romantic sense

P

Prettyboy

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2021
Posts
10,990
Reputation
36,098
Between two persons, only the more powerful one is capable of unconditionally loving the weaker party; the vulnerable person's love toward the powerful person can only be conditional.
Men love women unconditionally, while women are only capable of loving men in a romantic sense with conditions. The only possible way a woman can love a man unconditionally is through maternal love.


Man's love

The problem is contingent on not only the way in which man craves to be loved, but likewise the way in which woman is capable of loving. Man desires a sacrificial love, sacrifice implies loyalty and connection. What men want from love, and what woman’s love amounts to is fundamentally irreconcilable. In matters of love (and not simply lust,) man is an optimistic egalitarian. He loves as he wishes to be loved. In matters of love, when man is young and oblivious to the ways of women, he is a true adherent of the golden rule: "treat others as you would like others to treat you".
The foolness of man’s nature lies in the belief that the loyalty quintessential to woman’s maternal instinct will be available within a romantic context. He believes rather naively, that as his mother loved him, his idealised girlfriend could. He remembers the love he got from his mother growing up and upon this concludes that women are capable of such great love. They are, but this great love is reserved solely for their children, not to man.

The anctient Greek differentiated between these types of love. They referred to romantic love as eros, after their god of love and fertility. They used the term storge to express the love between parents and their childs.

Man has an idealisation of women's love, not a realisation. During childhood, up until puberty, there's not much difference male and female siblings receive very pure, high quality love from their environment. Parental love extends to both of them, which with the onset of puberty, plays a cruel trick on the psychology of the boy. It gives him a template for woman's love that comes to expect as a standard of all women, making him derise something which is unattainable to him, unaware the love he desires is maternal in nature, unable to be felt for him. He is taught by his mother’s love that unconditional loyalty, noble character, gentleness, sacrifice and trust are intrinsic of the feminine essence. And so as he grows from a boy into a man he comes to the rather logical conclusion that if he is “a good man,” he can expect to be loved by his lover in much the same way. His mother, well-meant but quite incorrectly likewise affirms this notion to him. This is a wicked lie, but a man whose heart is yet to be broken does not realise this. He thinks woman’s love is immutable. He doesn't know that her love for child is different from that of her love for him.
Istockphoto 854862752 170667a

At that point, he must re-evaluate his notion of woman's capacity of love.
He is ought to learn woman's love for her mate is of vastly reduced moral and psychological quality than that of her love for her child.

And so he continues to be wanting to be loved like when he was a child, not realising such love is reserved for children. Believing that the love he desires is romantic love, when truly is was maternal love. This dichotomy strucks him in puberty as he gets his first girlriend. Nothing lasts forever and as the inevitable breakup comes, he is faced with the fact that the unconditional loyalty inherent to the maternal bond is absent from the mating bond.

Of course, there are those who had narcissistic, detached, or otherwise unloving mothers. The mothers who always put on a good public face of being nothing other than wonderful, but due to an affliction of personal defect did not share the love intrinsic to the maternal bond with their son. Men who had mothers that never endowed them with the maternal bond find it easier to understand real female behaviour as adults. Men deprived of maternal love are better adapted for dealing with women as mates in adulthood.​

The man who grew up as a neglected boy never foolishly believed that a girlfriend would love him as his mother would, he believed she would love him exactly as his mother did; with extreme conditionality. Rather perversely, the standard of which such a man holds women to romantically is more in line with their true nature. Unlike most men, he was not taught to expect a sacrificial love from women because he never experienced this love to begin with. His mother didn’t love him like a mother, but like a partner, ergo, he was loved for his utility rather than his essence. And so it stands to reason that man’s frame of reference for the quality of woman’s love is based upon how his mother loved him. A man whose mother did not love him like a child when he was a child is therefore, in adulthood, at a perverse advantage. He has no idealisation to shatter, because his expectations of women in relationships are realistic.

A3638745 23a7 e211 a98a 002655e6c126 original

The more neglect you got from your mother as a child, the lower the bar was set for your expectation toward other women's love.
Vica versa, if you had a loving mother, the bar was set very high and you are bound to hit it.


Men are romantics pretending to be realists, women are realists pretending to be romantics.

There's a long standing myth in society that girls are the hopeless romantics. This couldn't be further from the truth. Throughout history, it were always men who moved mountains in order to attain the girl they set their eyes on. Just think of all the poets, writers, painters, musicians, athletes, conquerors and inventors who worked hard night and day on their feat with the sole purpose of impressing a lady. It's men who serenades, we are the hopeless romantics, not women.
Qfwe

Men believe that love matters for the sake of it.
Women love opportunistically.


Woman's love

Women are incapable of reciprocating man's love. There's a hierarchy of love that trickles down:

Man sacrifices for woman, and woman, for child.
Rarely does the river flow upward. As such, if man wants to believe that women can love the same extent as he, then he is doomed to disappointment and misery when she invariably acts within accordance of her nature rather than his idealisation.

The epitome of a woman’s love is infatuation. To define it, this is a lust for your power and an obsession with how your character makes her feel, secondary to your power. Woman crave men with power, since they themselves don't possess it. So to put it crudely: opportunism and emotional self-appeasement alchemised with lust is what woman's love is.

Man oft forgets that love does not flow upward in the sacrificial sense. He makes the mistake of thinking that because he can love a woman without lusting for her, that a woman can do the same. She cannot, because her love is not based on sacrifice, it is based on the appreciation of man’s sacrifice met with lust. The more man sacrifices for a woman, the more likely he is to fall in love with his investment.

The more a woman sacrifices for man absent of animal lust, the more repulsion she feels for him, interpreting her need for investment as a shortcoming on his part. And so there it is, unspoken in word but detected in sentiment; woman expects man to love her more than she loves him, reinforcing the hierarchy of love. Female sacrifice is predicated on lust and mental entrapment.
Qfeq

Male sacrifice is expected, and freely given.

A woman who does not lust for you cannot love you as you wish to be loved. Lust is the basis for her love, absent of lust you have "like" rather than "love." Women are masters of self-deception, in combination of being emotionally neurotic. If they were to become too self-aware, they could end up hating themselves because they cannot overcome their animal elements.

They can’t make themselves love you in the way you want them to, even if they tried to. To do so would ravage them with immeasurable misery. So as unfair as you may think it is that your girlfriend can never love you the same way your mother did, it is likewise unfair to expect her to do so if you wish her happiness. Women are what they are; your perception of them no matter what that might be will not change their fundamental nature. You can learn to accept them or reject them out out of the idea their conditional love isn't worth it for you.​
 
  • +1
  • So Sad
  • Love it
Reactions: gribsufer1, Ryldoo IS COPING, hattrick and 56 others
Banger but will read later, caught me in the headlights

@Korea thoughts
 
  • +1
Reactions: Yerico7 and beau
Will read fully later
But I agree

The only woman who loves you for you is your mother
Another woman is always conditionally, isn't even 'live' per second, more of an arrangement

Hence why we are lookmaxxing so hard just to have an opportunity haha, otherwise we'd find someone who 'loves' us without having to looksmax
 
  • +1
Reactions: Ryldoo IS COPING, hattrick, tombradylover and 17 others
Will read when home, but i already know it is over
 
  • JFL
  • +1
  • So Sad
Reactions: Detective, Hero of the Imperium, p0lishsubhuman and 11 others
Men are romantics pretending to be realists, women are realists pretending to be romantics.
never gonna forget that line. A banger as always. keep it up:love:
 
  • +1
Reactions: Lmao, p0lishsubhuman, AscendingHero and 7 others
can confirm my mother showed zero appreciation for me when I was growing up
Not sure what effect this had with regards to my thoughts on foids but I remember becoming extremely enraged when I tried texting a girl when I was 13 and she was putting less effort into the convo that I was. The idea of pursuing her or putting in more effort than she was enraged me so I didn't pursue girls again until 17 when I began drinking.
I think I had the instinctive belief that foids were inferior and the thought of risking your dignity to impress a foid never clicked with me
 
  • +1
Reactions: litaz, closedplatecel, MorningNorwood and 12 others
Good thread as ever. Women are incapable of love but they are theoretically capable of loyalty. If a woman demonstrates loyalty then she deserves love even if she can't reciprocate it imo.
 
  • +1
Reactions: p0lishsubhuman, Yellowskies, Yerico7 and 7 others
can confirm my mother showed zero appreciation for me when I was growing up
Not sure what effect this had with regards to my thoughts on foids but I remember becoming extremely enraged when I tried texting a girl when I was 13 and she was putting less effort into the convo that I was. The idea of pursuing her or putting in more effort than she was enraged me so I didn't pursue girls again until 17 when I began drinking.
I think I had the instinctive belief that foids were inferior and the thought of risking your dignity to impress a foid never clicked with me
Same, my mother hated me and if anything it made me want a woman to care about me more- as a result I got my heart broken easily. Of course as @Prettyboy has pointed out, women can't truly love so I was wrong to expect it.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Daniel Plainview, TITUS and Prettyboy
Men are romantics pretending to be realists, women are realists pretending to be romantics.
that hits hard while some ppl believe this
1653344855349


the only way to get their respect/love is to mog :redpill:
 
  • +1
  • JFL
  • So Sad
Reactions: Lmao, Deleted member 24293, p0lishsubhuman and 10 others
interesting idea, the ideal mother loves their children conditionally. LTR with damaged stacy ideal?

I don't exactly remember mainstream conclusions, but something like a loving mother and father is ideal to act as a model of the outside world, and raise a child to continue a healthy nuclear family. Unless you live in pakistan seems obsolete and a surefire way to raise a cuck
 
  • +1
Reactions: LooksOrDeath
can confirm my mother showed zero appreciation for me when I was growing up
Not sure what effect this had with regards to my thoughts on foids but I remember becoming extremely enraged when I tried texting a girl when I was 13 and she was putting less effort into the convo that I was. The idea of pursuing her or putting in more effort than she was enraged me so I didn't pursue girls again until 17 when I began drinking.
I think I had the instinctive belief that foids were inferior and the thought of risking your dignity to impress a foid never clicked with me
Same, my mother hated me and if anything it made me want a woman to care about me more- as a result I got my heart broken easily. Of course as @Prettyboy has pointed out, women can't truly love so I was wrong to expect it.

For me it's the exact opposite. My mom always loved me unconditionally, which she has proved many times over both verbally and through her actions. We were neglected by my father and my mom never pursued any other man after him, leaving me and my younger brother as her life's main purpose, which she never hid from us.

This quality of love I received (and continute to receive to this day, despite being a grown ass adult now in college) from her meant that the expectations on my side toward my future love interests was set sky high, which meant the dichotomy between my idealised love and the real love a girl is capable of giving me were about to struck me. And it did, after the breakup with my first girlfirend. It deeply affected me and for a long time I had a hard time making sense of it. Now I see it for what it has been, but to this day I can't really come in terms with the fact that as a grown ass man I'm alone, nobody will move a stone for me. It's either me who will act, or nobody will on my behalf.​
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 30433, p0lishsubhuman, litaz and 9 others
Between two persons, only the more powerful one is capable of unconditionally loving the weaker party; the vulnerable person's love toward the powerful person can only be conditional.
Men love women unconditionally, while women are only capable of loving men in a romantic sense with conditions. The only possible way a woman can love a man unconditionally is through maternal love.


Man's love

The problem is contingent on not only the way in which man craves to be loved, but likewise the way in which woman is capable of loving. Man desires a sacrificial love, sacrifice implies loyalty and connection. What men want from love, and what woman’s love amounts to is fundamentally irreconcilable. In matters of love (and not simply lust,) man is an optimistic egalitarian. He loves as he wishes to be loved. In matters of love, when man is young and oblivious to the ways of women, he is a true adherent of the golden rule: "treat others as you would like others to treat you".
The foolness of man’s nature lies in the belief that the loyalty quintessential to woman’s maternal instinct will be available within a romantic context. He believes rather naively, that as his mother loved him, his idealised girlfriend could. He remembers the love he got from his mother growing up and upon this concludes that women are capable of such great love. They are, but this great love is reserved solely for their children, not to man.

The anctient Greek differentiated between these types of love. They referred to romantic love as eros, after their god of love and fertility. They used the term storge to express the love between parents and their childs.

Man has an idealisation of women's love, not a realisation. During childhood, up until puberty, there's not much difference male and female siblings receive very pure, high quality love from their environment. Parental love extends to both of them, which with the onset of puberty, plays a cruel trick on the psychology of the boy. It gives him a template for woman's love that comes to expect as a standard of all women, making him derise something which is unattainable to him, unaware the love he desires is maternal in nature, unable to be felt for him. He is taught by his mother’s love that unconditional loyalty, noble character, gentleness, sacrifice and trust are intrinsic of the feminine essence. And so as he grows from a boy into a man he comes to the rather logical conclusion that if he is “a good man,” he can expect to be loved by his lover in much the same way. His mother, well-meant but quite incorrectly likewise affirms this notion to him. This is a wicked lie, but a man whose heart is yet to be broken does not realise this. He thinks woman’s love is immutable. He doesn't know that her love for child is different from that of her love for him.
View attachment 1695522
At that point, he must re-evaluate his notion of woman's capacity of love.
He is ought to learn woman's love for her mate is of vastly reduced moral and psychological quality than that of her love for her child.

And so he continues to be wanting to be loved like when he was a child, not realising such love is reserved for children. Believing that the love he desires is romantic love, when truly is was maternal love. This dichotomy strucks him in puberty as he gets his first girlriend. Nothing lasts forever and as the inevitable breakup comes, he is faced with the fact that the unconditional loyalty inherent to the maternal bond is absent from the mating bond.

Of course, there are those who had narcissistic, detached, or otherwise unloving mothers. The mothers who always put on a good public face of being nothing other than wonderful, but due to an affliction of personal defect did not share the love intrinsic to the maternal bond with their son. Men who had mothers that never endowed them with the maternal bond find it easier to understand real female behaviour as adults. Men deprived of maternal love are better adapted for dealing with women as mates in adulthood.​

The man who grew up as a neglected boy never foolishly believed that a girlfriend would love him as his mother would, he believed she would love him exactly as his mother did; with extreme conditionality. Rather perversely, the standard of which such a man holds women to romantically is more in line with their true nature. Unlike most men, he was not taught to expect a sacrificial love from women because he never experienced this love to begin with. His mother didn’t love him like a mother, but like a partner, ergo, he was loved for his utility rather than his essence. And so it stands to reason that man’s frame of reference for the quality of woman’s love is based upon how his mother loved him. A man whose mother did not love him like a child when he was a child is therefore, in adulthood, at a perverse advantage. He has no idealisation to shatter, because his expectations of women in relationships are realistic.

View attachment 1695647
The more neglect you got from your mother as a child, the lower the bar was set for your expectation toward other women's love.
Vica versa, if you had a loving mother, the bar was set very high and you are bound to hit it.


Men are romantics pretending to be realists, women are realists pretending to be romantics.

There's a long standing myth in society that girls are the hopeless romantics. This couldn't be further from the truth. Throughout history, it were always men who moved mountains in order to attain the girl they set their eyes on. Just think of all the poets, writers, painters, musicians, athletes, conquerors and inventors who worked hard night and day on their feat with the sole purpose of impressing a lady. It's men who serenades, we are the hopeless romantics, not women.
View attachment 1695646
Men believe that love matters for the sake of it.
Women love opportunistically.


Woman's love

Women are incapable of reciprocating man's love. There's a hierarchy of love that trickles down:

Man sacrifices for woman, and woman, for child.
Rarely does the river flow upward. As such, if man wants to believe that women can love the same extent as he, then he is doomed to disappointment and misery when she invariably acts within accordance of her nature rather than his idealisation.

The epitome of a woman’s love is infatuation. To define it, this is a lust for your power and an obsession with how your character makes her feel, secondary to your power. Woman crave men with power, since they themselves don't possess it. So to put it crudely: opportunism and emotional self-appeasement alchemised with lust is what woman's love is.

Man oft forgets that love does not flow upward in the sacrificial sense. He makes the mistake of thinking that because he can love a woman without lusting for her, that a woman can do the same. She cannot, because her love is not based on sacrifice, it is based on the appreciation of man’s sacrifice met with lust. The more man sacrifices for a woman, the more likely he is to fall in love with his investment.

The more a woman sacrifices for man absent of animal lust, the more repulsion she feels for him, interpreting her need for investment as a shortcoming on his part. And so there it is, unspoken in word but detected in sentiment; woman expects man to love her more than she loves him, reinforcing the hierarchy of love. Female sacrifice is predicated on lust and mental entrapment.
View attachment 1695698
Male sacrifice is expected, and freely given.

A woman who does not lust for you cannot love you as you wish to be loved. Lust is the basis for her love, absent of lust you have "like" rather than "love." Women are masters of self-deception, in combination of being emotionally neurotic. If they were to become too self-aware, they could end up hating themselves because they cannot overcome their animal elements.

They can’t make themselves love you in the way you want them to, even if they tried to. To do so would ravage them with immeasurable misery. So as unfair as you may think it is that your girlfriend can never love you the same way your mother did, it is likewise unfair to expect her to do so if you wish her happiness. Women are what they are; your perception of them no matter what that might be will not change their fundamental nature. You can learn to accept them or reject them out out of the idea their conditional love isn't worth it for you.​
I HAVE SISTERS i have seen them be in love ... U NIGGAS ARE RETARDED FRRRRRRRRRRRRLL
 
  • +1
Reactions: enchanted_elixir and Deleted member 17448
Sounds good on paper, but IRL you can see lots of GFs and wives sacrificing themselves for their partners. It's funny how women are described as mindless animals while men are the hardship bearers and rational beings of light.

Trying to stereotype women into a simple caricature it's very low IQ.

Trauma from breakups is a real thing. Losing hope in the opposite sex in one of its symptoms.
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: Lmao, Vidales, looksseg and 9 others
Same, my mother hated me and if anything it made me want a woman to care about me more- as a result I got my heart broken easily. Of course as @Prettyboy has pointed out, women can't truly love so I was wrong to expect it.
When I became attracted to a girl I used to develop obsessive thoughts about her
I always had the perception that other guys generally cared less about girls than I did and had less obsessive desire for them but I guess I can't know for sure
Despite having this obsession I also always believed that if getting with one girl I had a crush on would give me x amount of pleasure, then getting with 2 girls I have crushes on would give me 2x pleasure. The idea of settling down with one girl and having a family never made sense to me from a young age, I had the ambition to experience being with every girl that I considered attractive.
I would say this means I was driven by the idea of lust rather than love
I never felt like my current self was good enough because girls showed me no attention therefore I knew since I was a child I would have to become a famous athlete or musician before I could experience attraction from girls.
This made me realize early on that I could only be valued for my practicality whereas normie males can just be NT and mediocre and get into relationships and "fall in love"
 
  • +1
Reactions: litaz, Daniel Plainview and Deleted member 17829
I think it goes both ways. I don't believe this redpill nonsense.

Love = Lust + Attachment. Trust me, if a woman loves (lusts + is attached to you), it'll be unconditional. I think love is "conditionally unconditional", meaning as long as one party lust and are attached to the other, it's unconditional, or maybe quasi-unconditional may be a better term here, and it will remain that way until someone either loses the lust or attachment aspect.

The reason why maternal love is so strong is oxytocin, your girlfriend can also secrete this hormone a lot throughout your relationship to the point where it can come close to your mother's levels. The fact that women secrete oxytocin proves this theory false.

People tolerate nearly anything in relationships when they're in love (exactly like unconditional love). I mean just look at this: Woman Forgives Ex-Boyfriend Who Stabbed Her 32 Times

In men, lust and attachment can be separated, but not in women! They come and go together.
Once one of the missing pieces disappears (from either party). The relationship goes in the shitter and that's where problems arise.

Women can also withdraw their quasi-unconditional love quickly if she believes they can get another guy she thinks is better, but she needs to fall out of love with you first. If a woman doesn't lust over you anymore and isn't acting the way she acted at the start, she has fallen out of love. Women fall out of love with a guy when his physical attractiveness gets lower. Women can also stay with a guy that isn't as attractive as her but she genuinely loves due to extremely high oxytocin levels secreted from JBF (Just being First). She would prefer him to a guy a point above his attractiveness. She could also prefer a less attractive guy due to him being very good at sex, so much so that her oxytocin levels go to the edge of the Milky Way and back. A girl could go to a guy a point lower because he oxytocin-mogs you to Streetshitterstan and back. Probably what happened to @Xangsane.

Being attractive to her and doing things that hyper-charge her oxytocin levels (great sex, fun and memorable experiences with one another, romance, cuddling, tactics to enhance attraction) indefinitely throughout the relationship is how you have 95-year-old couples that are still happy with each other after 74 years, and she won't ever leave you.

WOMEN ARE ONLY LOYAL TO MEN THEY ARE IN LOVE WITH!

Taking your anti-aging medications with your girlfriend/wife will do wonders for the future of your relationship.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 4946, Traxanas, looksseg and 8 others
Between two persons, only the more powerful one is capable of unconditionally loving the weaker party; the vulnerable person's love toward the powerful person can only be conditional.
Men love women unconditionally, while women are only capable of loving men in a romantic sense with conditions. The only possible way a woman can love a man unconditionally is through maternal love.


Man's love

The problem is contingent on not only the way in which man craves to be loved, but likewise the way in which woman is capable of loving. Man desires a sacrificial love, sacrifice implies loyalty and connection. What men want from love, and what woman’s love amounts to is fundamentally irreconcilable. In matters of love (and not simply lust,) man is an optimistic egalitarian. He loves as he wishes to be loved. In matters of love, when man is young and oblivious to the ways of women, he is a true adherent of the golden rule: "treat others as you would like others to treat you".
The foolness of man’s nature lies in the belief that the loyalty quintessential to woman’s maternal instinct will be available within a romantic context. He believes rather naively, that as his mother loved him, his idealised girlfriend could. He remembers the love he got from his mother growing up and upon this concludes that women are capable of such great love. They are, but this great love is reserved solely for their children, not to man.

The anctient Greek differentiated between these types of love. They referred to romantic love as eros, after their god of love and fertility. They used the term storge to express the love between parents and their childs.

Man has an idealisation of women's love, not a realisation. During childhood, up until puberty, there's not much difference male and female siblings receive very pure, high quality love from their environment. Parental love extends to both of them, which with the onset of puberty, plays a cruel trick on the psychology of the boy. It gives him a template for woman's love that comes to expect as a standard of all women, making him derise something which is unattainable to him, unaware the love he desires is maternal in nature, unable to be felt for him. He is taught by his mother’s love that unconditional loyalty, noble character, gentleness, sacrifice and trust are intrinsic of the feminine essence. And so as he grows from a boy into a man he comes to the rather logical conclusion that if he is “a good man,” he can expect to be loved by his lover in much the same way. His mother, well-meant but quite incorrectly likewise affirms this notion to him. This is a wicked lie, but a man whose heart is yet to be broken does not realise this. He thinks woman’s love is immutable. He doesn't know that her love for child is different from that of her love for him.
View attachment 1695522
At that point, he must re-evaluate his notion of woman's capacity of love.
He is ought to learn woman's love for her mate is of vastly reduced moral and psychological quality than that of her love for her child.

And so he continues to be wanting to be loved like when he was a child, not realising such love is reserved for children. Believing that the love he desires is romantic love, when truly is was maternal love. This dichotomy strucks him in puberty as he gets his first girlriend. Nothing lasts forever and as the inevitable breakup comes, he is faced with the fact that the unconditional loyalty inherent to the maternal bond is absent from the mating bond.

Of course, there are those who had narcissistic, detached, or otherwise unloving mothers. The mothers who always put on a good public face of being nothing other than wonderful, but due to an affliction of personal defect did not share the love intrinsic to the maternal bond with their son. Men who had mothers that never endowed them with the maternal bond find it easier to understand real female behaviour as adults. Men deprived of maternal love are better adapted for dealing with women as mates in adulthood.​

The man who grew up as a neglected boy never foolishly believed that a girlfriend would love him as his mother would, he believed she would love him exactly as his mother did; with extreme conditionality. Rather perversely, the standard of which such a man holds women to romantically is more in line with their true nature. Unlike most men, he was not taught to expect a sacrificial love from women because he never experienced this love to begin with. His mother didn’t love him like a mother, but like a partner, ergo, he was loved for his utility rather than his essence. And so it stands to reason that man’s frame of reference for the quality of woman’s love is based upon how his mother loved him. A man whose mother did not love him like a child when he was a child is therefore, in adulthood, at a perverse advantage. He has no idealisation to shatter, because his expectations of women in relationships are realistic.

View attachment 1695647
The more neglect you got from your mother as a child, the lower the bar was set for your expectation toward other women's love.
Vica versa, if you had a loving mother, the bar was set very high and you are bound to hit it.


Men are romantics pretending to be realists, women are realists pretending to be romantics.

There's a long standing myth in society that girls are the hopeless romantics. This couldn't be further from the truth. Throughout history, it were always men who moved mountains in order to attain the girl they set their eyes on. Just think of all the poets, writers, painters, musicians, athletes, conquerors and inventors who worked hard night and day on their feat with the sole purpose of impressing a lady. It's men who serenades, we are the hopeless romantics, not women.
View attachment 1695646
Men believe that love matters for the sake of it.
Women love opportunistically.


Woman's love

Women are incapable of reciprocating man's love. There's a hierarchy of love that trickles down:

Man sacrifices for woman, and woman, for child.
Rarely does the river flow upward. As such, if man wants to believe that women can love the same extent as he, then he is doomed to disappointment and misery when she invariably acts within accordance of her nature rather than his idealisation.

The epitome of a woman’s love is infatuation. To define it, this is a lust for your power and an obsession with how your character makes her feel, secondary to your power. Woman crave men with power, since they themselves don't possess it. So to put it crudely: opportunism and emotional self-appeasement alchemised with lust is what woman's love is.

Man oft forgets that love does not flow upward in the sacrificial sense. He makes the mistake of thinking that because he can love a woman without lusting for her, that a woman can do the same. She cannot, because her love is not based on sacrifice, it is based on the appreciation of man’s sacrifice met with lust. The more man sacrifices for a woman, the more likely he is to fall in love with his investment.

The more a woman sacrifices for man absent of animal lust, the more repulsion she feels for him, interpreting her need for investment as a shortcoming on his part. And so there it is, unspoken in word but detected in sentiment; woman expects man to love her more than she loves him, reinforcing the hierarchy of love. Female sacrifice is predicated on lust and mental entrapment.
View attachment 1695698
Male sacrifice is expected, and freely given.

A woman who does not lust for you cannot love you as you wish to be loved. Lust is the basis for her love, absent of lust you have "like" rather than "love." Women are masters of self-deception, in combination of being emotionally neurotic. If they were to become too self-aware, they could end up hating themselves because they cannot overcome their animal elements.

They can’t make themselves love you in the way you want them to, even if they tried to. To do so would ravage them with immeasurable misery. So as unfair as you may think it is that your girlfriend can never love you the same way your mother did, it is likewise unfair to expect her to do so if you wish her happiness. Women are what they are; your perception of them no matter what that might be will not change their fundamental nature. You can learn to accept them or reject them out out of the idea their conditional love isn't worth it for you.​
freud would have a field day reading this :lul::lul::lul:
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Mouthbreath, gogger and enchanted_elixir
I think it goes both ways.

Love = Lust + Attachment. Trust me, if a woman loves (lusts + is attached to you), it'll be unconditional. I think love is "conditionally unconditional", meaning as long as one party lust and are attached to the other, it's unconditional, or maybe quasi-unconditional may be a better term here, and it will remain that way until someone either loses the lust or attachment aspect.

People tolerate nearly anything in relationships when they're in love (exactly like unconditional love). I mean just look at this: Woman Forgives Ex-Boyfriend Who Stabbed Her 32 Times

In men, lust and attachment can be separated, but not in women! They come and go together.
Once one of the missing pieces disappears (from either party). The relationship goes in the shitter and that's where problems arise.

Being attractive to her and doing things that hyper-charge her oxytocin levels (great sex, fun and memorable experiences with one another, romance, cuddling, tactics to enhance attraction) indefinitely throughout the relationship is how you have 95-year-old couples that are still happy with each other after 74 years.

Taking your anti-aging medications with your girlfriend/wife will do wonders for the future of your relationship.
It‘s an interesting topic you are touching on, namely abusive relationships where men are the abusive party. I have thought about the type of women who enjoys being abused while writing this thread. It’s grotesque to think about that the love women can provide that comes the closest to it being unconditional is toward their abusive partners. Women with Stockholm syndrome will go to great lengths appeasing their psycho boyfriends.

With that said I still don’t believe in unconditional female love since unlike women, men can be defeated. If a woman acts weak and submits, nothing happens, that is the part of their nature. However if a man is defeated by another man, she will lose her love for him and instead lust for the victor.

I forgot the dude’s name, there was some thai box fighter who lost the fight in the ring with his girlfriend present and immediately after the fight, his girl broke up with him and asked the victorious guy if he wanted to be her boyfriend.

As a man, you are only loved because of the power you possess at the moment. Were you to lose it, the girl who loved you for it would also lose her attraction toward you, hence why female love will always be conditional.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 16834
Reading this, it felt weirdly familiar. Like I had read this years ago. And I did. This is from the second part of this blogpost :
 
  • Woah
  • +1
Reactions: p0lishsubhuman and bogii
It‘s an interesting topic you are touching on, namely abusive relationships where men are the abusive party. I have thought about the type of women who enjoys being abused while writing this thread. It’s grotesque to think about that the love women can provide that comes the closest to it being unconditional is toward their abusive partners. Women with Stockholm syndrome will go to great lengths appeasing their psycho boyfriends.

With that said I still don’t believe in unconditional female love since unlike women, men can be defeated. If a woman acts weak and submits, nothing happens, that is the part of their nature. However if a man is defeated by another man, she will lose her love for him and instead lust for the victor.

I forgot the dude’s name, there was some thai box fighter who lost the fight in the ring with his girlfriend present and immediately after the fight, his girl broke up with him and askes the victorious guy if he wanted to be her boyfriend.

As a man, you are only loved because of the power you possess at the moment. Were you to lose it, the girl who loved you for it would also lose her attraction toward you, hence why female love will always be conditional.
A woman who truly loves you will just see the guy as a bad guy or he was unlucky. She could have even predicted that her TikTok E-Boy boyfriend would lose a fight, but doesn't matter since she's insanely attracted to him and is attached to him. This is only for guys women perceive as Chad. I think these kinds of scenarios are for competing normies in which the woman isn't very attracted to the beaten-up guy in the first place though.

The thing with abusive partners is not only are they obsessed with him (insane lust and insane attachment) but that he plays manipulation tactics on the woman, which just cranks up the oxytocin (attachment hormone) to insanely, insanely dangerously higher levels than they already are.

Normies have shit to prove since normies are very prone to struggle to keep women around.

Trust me, if a woman were to see her abuser (which she thinks he's attractive) get beaten up, she wouldn't lose feelings, she would actually take this opportunity to prove her worth to the guy in a heroic act of love.

1653349427372

Keyword: "...handsome Yu Xingzhi..."
The ultimate sign of weakness and women still love this book. It's historical as well so it even emphasizes my point even further that women will tolerate this if she's in love with you, as "rigid gender roles" are much more pervasive back in that time.

1653349845158


Could have gotten a higher rating if people weren't rating it less for their political beliefs.



Why would a woman trade a Chad (that got beaten once) with a normie? Maybe with two Chads, but not a normie or an incel.
Chad has to prove himself with other Chads (A situation in which a duel with two Chads is so insanely low, you won't ever have to worry about it).

Chad showing weakness is tolerable and is intolerable for normies. The more she likes you, the more she'll tolerate, including weakness.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: AscendingHero, LooksOrDeath, Deleted member 16834 and 1 other person
When I became attracted to a girl I used to develop obsessive thoughts about her
I always had the perception that other guys generally cared less about girls than I did and had less obsessive desire for them but I guess I can't know for sure
Despite having this obsession I also always believed that if getting with one girl I had a crush on would give me x amount of pleasure, then getting with 2 girls I have crushes on would give me 2x pleasure. The idea of settling down with one girl and having a family never made sense to me from a young age, I had the ambition to experience being with every girl that I considered attractive.
I would say this means I was driven by the idea of lust rather than love
I never felt like my current self was good enough because girls showed me no attention therefore I knew since I was a child I would have to become a famous athlete or musician before I could experience attraction from girls.
This made me realize early on that I could only be valued for my practicality whereas normie males can just be NT and mediocre and get into relationships and "fall in love"
You are a narc, welcome to the master race.
 
  • JFL
Reactions: gogger
When I became attracted to a girl I used to develop obsessive thoughts about her
I always had the perception that other guys generally cared less about girls than I did and had less obsessive desire for them but I guess I can't know for sure
Despite having this obsession I also always believed that if getting with one girl I had a crush on would give me x amount of pleasure, then getting with 2 girls I have crushes on would give me 2x pleasure. The idea of settling down with one girl and having a family never made sense to me from a young age, I had the ambition to experience being with every girl that I considered attractive.
I would say this means I was driven by the idea of lust rather than love
I never felt like my current self was good enough because girls showed me no attention therefore I knew since I was a child I would have to become a famous athlete or musician before I could experience attraction from girls.
This made me realize early on that I could only be valued for my practicality whereas normie males can just be NT and mediocre and get into relationships and "fall in love"
that indeed sounds like narcism i dont blame you but you really dont want to settle with a girl? i know i am also a validation seeking whore
 
in my eyes, it is lust in the beginning and after you really vibe with eachother than the love commes, you like when that person is arround, if you are searching for love you dont find love.
 
  • +1
Reactions: 11gaijin
that indeed sounds like narcism i dont blame you but you really dont want to settle with a girl? i know i am also a validation seeking whore
The idea of settling only came to my mind when I hit 23 and realized that it is ideal to find a JB to LTR before time runs out since the window to get a JB on looks alone was about to close
I have now realized that ship has sailed and my aim is to attain gigastatus then slay girls who have just turned legal

What is it about my post that seems like narcissism? I'm not denying I'm narcy I just didn't realize that what I said made me seem like one
For me PinV is the only worthwhile validation because it provides me with a sense of accomplishment, just getting compliment validation is worthless to me
 
  • +1
Reactions: Lars
The idea of settling only came to my mind when I hit 23 and realized that it is ideal to find a JB to LTR before time runs out since the window to get a JB on looks alone was about to close
I have now realized that ship has sailed and my aim is to attain gigastatus then slay girls who have just turned legal

What is it about my post that seems like narcissism? I'm not denying I'm narcy I just didn't realize that what I said made me seem like one
For me PinV is the only worthwhile validation because it provides me with a sense of accomplishment, just getting compliment validation is worthless to me
you see them as a trophy but lose intrest after fucking them so you are just going for the hunt, there was also a narcist being interviewed in a dutch program on youtube can link it and he exactly said what you were saying
 
  • +1
Reactions: 6ft4
you see them as a trophy but lose intrest after fucking them so you are just going for the hunt, there was also a narcist being interviewed in a dutch program on youtube can link it and he exactly said what you were saying
Legit
Yeah link it please
 
Legit
Yeah link it please


in some ways i am also like him but never would put someone down to benefit from and i prefer giving more during sex than receiving and i just want to have a gf, so i am not a narc just someone with a ego from her to gandyheaven
and he thinks about himself when masturbating lmao not doing that
+ i love being critisized so i can work on it
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: 6ft4
Yes female children know they can use men from a young age
My niece is 2, she knows exactly what to do to get the men in the family to do what she wants/get her what she wants

She already knows males give her attention for being 'cute' despite it being innocent right now
When she is older she'll know how to take advantage of it

Aka girls know from literally a toddler how they can manipulate men to get what they want
They aren't capable of love
 
  • +1
Reactions: Prettyboy
Yes female children know they can use men from a young age
My niece is 2, she knows exactly what to do to get the men in the family to do what she wants/get her what she wants

She already knows males give her attention for being 'cute' despite it being innocent right now
When she is older she'll know how to take advantage of it

Aka girls know from literally a toddler how they can manipulate men to get what they want
They aren't capable of love
Society also view boys as cute (well that is in the developed world, in the developing world they are usually seen as workhorses right from the start), until they go into puberty, that's when they lose their innocence and after it they are seen as sexual competition for other men, so no forgiveness is provided to them from then on​
 
  • +1
Reactions: p0lishsubhuman, AscendingHero, gogger and 1 other person
Between two persons, only the more powerful one is capable of unconditionally loving the weaker party; the vulnerable person's love toward the powerful person can only be conditional.
Men love women unconditionally, while women are only capable of loving men in a romantic sense with conditions. The only possible way a woman can love a man unconditionally is through maternal love.


Man's love

The problem is contingent on not only the way in which man craves to be loved, but likewise the way in which woman is capable of loving. Man desires a sacrificial love, sacrifice implies loyalty and connection. What men want from love, and what woman’s love amounts to is fundamentally irreconcilable. In matters of love (and not simply lust,) man is an optimistic egalitarian. He loves as he wishes to be loved. In matters of love, when man is young and oblivious to the ways of women, he is a true adherent of the golden rule: "treat others as you would like others to treat you".
The foolness of man’s nature lies in the belief that the loyalty quintessential to woman’s maternal instinct will be available within a romantic context. He believes rather naively, that as his mother loved him, his idealised girlfriend could. He remembers the love he got from his mother growing up and upon this concludes that women are capable of such great love. They are, but this great love is reserved solely for their children, not to man.

The anctient Greek differentiated between these types of love. They referred to romantic love as eros, after their god of love and fertility. They used the term storge to express the love between parents and their childs.

Man has an idealisation of women's love, not a realisation. During childhood, up until puberty, there's not much difference male and female siblings receive very pure, high quality love from their environment. Parental love extends to both of them, which with the onset of puberty, plays a cruel trick on the psychology of the boy. It gives him a template for woman's love that comes to expect as a standard of all women, making him derise something which is unattainable to him, unaware the love he desires is maternal in nature, unable to be felt for him. He is taught by his mother’s love that unconditional loyalty, noble character, gentleness, sacrifice and trust are intrinsic of the feminine essence. And so as he grows from a boy into a man he comes to the rather logical conclusion that if he is “a good man,” he can expect to be loved by his lover in much the same way. His mother, well-meant but quite incorrectly likewise affirms this notion to him. This is a wicked lie, but a man whose heart is yet to be broken does not realise this. He thinks woman’s love is immutable. He doesn't know that her love for child is different from that of her love for him.
View attachment 1695522
At that point, he must re-evaluate his notion of woman's capacity of love.
He is ought to learn woman's love for her mate is of vastly reduced moral and psychological quality than that of her love for her child.

And so he continues to be wanting to be loved like when he was a child, not realising such love is reserved for children. Believing that the love he desires is romantic love, when truly is was maternal love. This dichotomy strucks him in puberty as he gets his first girlriend. Nothing lasts forever and as the inevitable breakup comes, he is faced with the fact that the unconditional loyalty inherent to the maternal bond is absent from the mating bond.

Of course, there are those who had narcissistic, detached, or otherwise unloving mothers. The mothers who always put on a good public face of being nothing other than wonderful, but due to an affliction of personal defect did not share the love intrinsic to the maternal bond with their son. Men who had mothers that never endowed them with the maternal bond find it easier to understand real female behaviour as adults. Men deprived of maternal love are better adapted for dealing with women as mates in adulthood.​

The man who grew up as a neglected boy never foolishly believed that a girlfriend would love him as his mother would, he believed she would love him exactly as his mother did; with extreme conditionality. Rather perversely, the standard of which such a man holds women to romantically is more in line with their true nature. Unlike most men, he was not taught to expect a sacrificial love from women because he never experienced this love to begin with. His mother didn’t love him like a mother, but like a partner, ergo, he was loved for his utility rather than his essence. And so it stands to reason that man’s frame of reference for the quality of woman’s love is based upon how his mother loved him. A man whose mother did not love him like a child when he was a child is therefore, in adulthood, at a perverse advantage. He has no idealisation to shatter, because his expectations of women in relationships are realistic.

View attachment 1695647
The more neglect you got from your mother as a child, the lower the bar was set for your expectation toward other women's love.
Vica versa, if you had a loving mother, the bar was set very high and you are bound to hit it.


Men are romantics pretending to be realists, women are realists pretending to be romantics.

There's a long standing myth in society that girls are the hopeless romantics. This couldn't be further from the truth. Throughout history, it were always men who moved mountains in order to attain the girl they set their eyes on. Just think of all the poets, writers, painters, musicians, athletes, conquerors and inventors who worked hard night and day on their feat with the sole purpose of impressing a lady. It's men who serenades, we are the hopeless romantics, not women.
View attachment 1695646
Men believe that love matters for the sake of it.
Women love opportunistically.


Woman's love

Women are incapable of reciprocating man's love. There's a hierarchy of love that trickles down:

Man sacrifices for woman, and woman, for child.
Rarely does the river flow upward. As such, if man wants to believe that women can love the same extent as he, then he is doomed to disappointment and misery when she invariably acts within accordance of her nature rather than his idealisation.

The epitome of a woman’s love is infatuation. To define it, this is a lust for your power and an obsession with how your character makes her feel, secondary to your power. Woman crave men with power, since they themselves don't possess it. So to put it crudely: opportunism and emotional self-appeasement alchemised with lust is what woman's love is.

Man oft forgets that love does not flow upward in the sacrificial sense. He makes the mistake of thinking that because he can love a woman without lusting for her, that a woman can do the same. She cannot, because her love is not based on sacrifice, it is based on the appreciation of man’s sacrifice met with lust. The more man sacrifices for a woman, the more likely he is to fall in love with his investment.

The more a woman sacrifices for man absent of animal lust, the more repulsion she feels for him, interpreting her need for investment as a shortcoming on his part. And so there it is, unspoken in word but detected in sentiment; woman expects man to love her more than she loves him, reinforcing the hierarchy of love. Female sacrifice is predicated on lust and mental entrapment.
View attachment 1695698
Male sacrifice is expected, and freely given.

A woman who does not lust for you cannot love you as you wish to be loved. Lust is the basis for her love, absent of lust you have "like" rather than "love." Women are masters of self-deception, in combination of being emotionally neurotic. If they were to become too self-aware, they could end up hating themselves because they cannot overcome their animal elements.

They can’t make themselves love you in the way you want them to, even if they tried to. To do so would ravage them with immeasurable misery. So as unfair as you may think it is that your girlfriend can never love you the same way your mother did, it is likewise unfair to expect her to do so if you wish her happiness. Women are what they are; your perception of them no matter what that might be will not change their fundamental nature. You can learn to accept them or reject them out out of the idea their conditional love isn't worth it for you.​
Lmao this sounds like an elaborate cope to justify buggery.
 
  • JFL
Reactions: gogger
Looks like you truly read the Red Pill side bar
Now look into Holding Frame
And dread game
 
  • JFL
Reactions: 11gaijin and gogger
“only women, children, and dogs are loved unconditionally,” whereas “a man is only loved under the condition that he provide something." -Chris Rock
 
All of this is pretty surface level stuff.
Try to dissertate about the women who have sex with dogs and horses.
 
Read every word, too deep and true. Great high IQ thread
 
  • +1
Reactions: gtuktm and Deleted member 19317
This hit really fucking hard. My parents really really abused me bad and made me homeless at 19 but I made it and I'm alive. I still get bad dreams about my parents and shit years later, but I realized my dumb whore mother just treated me exactly like you said, based on my performance or how much I provided for her. She literally only cared about me when I provided something for her. She never even asked about me my entire childhood. She came into my room maybe a few times total and it was just to talk about meaningless material things, not me.

I feel broken from the way my parents treated me and at least now I understand why. That's her true nature and she didn't even have the capacity to love me like a mother "should". People would say im mentally insane for seeing the world as I do, but ANYONE born with the life I lived would end up exactly fucking like me. You simply can't ACTUALLY be beaten by your father, emotionally abused, left to be homeless then see the world through anything less than an animalistic way, no some people had human parents, I did not. You can imagine what type of damage this does to the brain but at the end of the day my parents acted according to human nature NOT forced kindness. This is the way the world truly is, and I understand it well.
 
  • +1
Reactions: p0lishsubhuman, STEVE GAMING, Daniel Plainview and 1 other person
This hit really fucking hard. My parents really really abused me bad and made me homeless at 19 but I made it and I'm alive. I still get bad dreams about my parents and shit years later, but I realized my dumb whore mother just treated me exactly like you said, based on my performance or how much I provided for her. She literally only cared about me when I provided something for her. She never even asked about me my entire childhood. She came into my room maybe a few times total and it was just to talk about meaningless material things, not me.

I feel broken from the way my parents treated me and at least now I understand why. That's her true nature and she didn't even have the capacity to love me like a mother "should". People would say im mentally insane for seeing the world as I do, but ANYONE born with the life I lived would end up exactly fucking like me. You simply can't ACTUALLY be beaten by your father, emotionally abused, left to be homeless then see the world through anything less than an animalistic way, no some people had human parents, I did not. You can imagine what type of damage this does to the brain but at the end of the day my parents acted according to human nature NOT forced kindness. This is the way the world truly is, and I understand it well.
ever read "berserk" ?
 
didnt read a word.

my gf of 6 years relationship talks about marrying and having kids ever day for the last 3-4 years

and no im not rich or betabuxxing her
 
  • +1
Reactions: TrestIsBest
All of this is pretty surface level stuff.
Try to dissertate about the women who have sex with dogs and horses.
E93ADEEF AE71 441F BEED B8DCA6663712


Some men do too, zoophillia definitely exists. This forum just like to joke about white women fucking their dogs but it goes beyond that
 
Between two persons, only the more powerful one is capable of unconditionally loving the weaker party; the vulnerable person's love toward the powerful person can only be conditional.
Men love women unconditionally, while women are only capable of loving men in a romantic sense with conditions. The only possible way a woman can love a man unconditionally is through maternal love.


Man's love

The problem is contingent on not only the way in which man craves to be loved, but likewise the way in which woman is capable of loving. Man desires a sacrificial love, sacrifice implies loyalty and connection. What men want from love, and what woman’s love amounts to is fundamentally irreconcilable. In matters of love (and not simply lust,) man is an optimistic egalitarian. He loves as he wishes to be loved. In matters of love, when man is young and oblivious to the ways of women, he is a true adherent of the golden rule: "treat others as you would like others to treat you".
The foolness of man’s nature lies in the belief that the loyalty quintessential to woman’s maternal instinct will be available within a romantic context. He believes rather naively, that as his mother loved him, his idealised girlfriend could. He remembers the love he got from his mother growing up and upon this concludes that women are capable of such great love. They are, but this great love is reserved solely for their children, not to man.

The anctient Greek differentiated between these types of love. They referred to romantic love as eros, after their god of love and fertility. They used the term storge to express the love between parents and their childs.

Man has an idealisation of women's love, not a realisation. During childhood, up until puberty, there's not much difference male and female siblings receive very pure, high quality love from their environment. Parental love extends to both of them, which with the onset of puberty, plays a cruel trick on the psychology of the boy. It gives him a template for woman's love that comes to expect as a standard of all women, making him derise something which is unattainable to him, unaware the love he desires is maternal in nature, unable to be felt for him. He is taught by his mother’s love that unconditional loyalty, noble character, gentleness, sacrifice and trust are intrinsic of the feminine essence. And so as he grows from a boy into a man he comes to the rather logical conclusion that if he is “a good man,” he can expect to be loved by his lover in much the same way. His mother, well-meant but quite incorrectly likewise affirms this notion to him. This is a wicked lie, but a man whose heart is yet to be broken does not realise this. He thinks woman’s love is immutable. He doesn't know that her love for child is different from that of her love for him.
View attachment 1695522
At that point, he must re-evaluate his notion of woman's capacity of love.
He is ought to learn woman's love for her mate is of vastly reduced moral and psychological quality than that of her love for her child.

And so he continues to be wanting to be loved like when he was a child, not realising such love is reserved for children. Believing that the love he desires is romantic love, when truly is was maternal love. This dichotomy strucks him in puberty as he gets his first girlriend. Nothing lasts forever and as the inevitable breakup comes, he is faced with the fact that the unconditional loyalty inherent to the maternal bond is absent from the mating bond.

Of course, there are those who had narcissistic, detached, or otherwise unloving mothers. The mothers who always put on a good public face of being nothing other than wonderful, but due to an affliction of personal defect did not share the love intrinsic to the maternal bond with their son. Men who had mothers that never endowed them with the maternal bond find it easier to understand real female behaviour as adults. Men deprived of maternal love are better adapted for dealing with women as mates in adulthood.​

The man who grew up as a neglected boy never foolishly believed that a girlfriend would love him as his mother would, he believed she would love him exactly as his mother did; with extreme conditionality. Rather perversely, the standard of which such a man holds women to romantically is more in line with their true nature. Unlike most men, he was not taught to expect a sacrificial love from women because he never experienced this love to begin with. His mother didn’t love him like a mother, but like a partner, ergo, he was loved for his utility rather than his essence. And so it stands to reason that man’s frame of reference for the quality of woman’s love is based upon how his mother loved him. A man whose mother did not love him like a child when he was a child is therefore, in adulthood, at a perverse advantage. He has no idealisation to shatter, because his expectations of women in relationships are realistic.

View attachment 1695647
The more neglect you got from your mother as a child, the lower the bar was set for your expectation toward other women's love.
Vica versa, if you had a loving mother, the bar was set very high and you are bound to hit it.


Men are romantics pretending to be realists, women are realists pretending to be romantics.

There's a long standing myth in society that girls are the hopeless romantics. This couldn't be further from the truth. Throughout history, it were always men who moved mountains in order to attain the girl they set their eyes on. Just think of all the poets, writers, painters, musicians, athletes, conquerors and inventors who worked hard night and day on their feat with the sole purpose of impressing a lady. It's men who serenades, we are the hopeless romantics, not women.
View attachment 1695646
Men believe that love matters for the sake of it.
Women love opportunistically.


Woman's love

Women are incapable of reciprocating man's love. There's a hierarchy of love that trickles down:

Man sacrifices for woman, and woman, for child.
Rarely does the river flow upward. As such, if man wants to believe that women can love the same extent as he, then he is doomed to disappointment and misery when she invariably acts within accordance of her nature rather than his idealisation.

The epitome of a woman’s love is infatuation. To define it, this is a lust for your power and an obsession with how your character makes her feel, secondary to your power. Woman crave men with power, since they themselves don't possess it. So to put it crudely: opportunism and emotional self-appeasement alchemised with lust is what woman's love is.

Man oft forgets that love does not flow upward in the sacrificial sense. He makes the mistake of thinking that because he can love a woman without lusting for her, that a woman can do the same. She cannot, because her love is not based on sacrifice, it is based on the appreciation of man’s sacrifice met with lust. The more man sacrifices for a woman, the more likely he is to fall in love with his investment.

The more a woman sacrifices for man absent of animal lust, the more repulsion she feels for him, interpreting her need for investment as a shortcoming on his part. And so there it is, unspoken in word but detected in sentiment; woman expects man to love her more than she loves him, reinforcing the hierarchy of love. Female sacrifice is predicated on lust and mental entrapment.
View attachment 1695698
Male sacrifice is expected, and freely given.

A woman who does not lust for you cannot love you as you wish to be loved. Lust is the basis for her love, absent of lust you have "like" rather than "love." Women are masters of self-deception, in combination of being emotionally neurotic. If they were to become too self-aware, they could end up hating themselves because they cannot overcome their animal elements.

They can’t make themselves love you in the way you want them to, even if they tried to. To do so would ravage them with immeasurable misery. So as unfair as you may think it is that your girlfriend can never love you the same way your mother did, it is likewise unfair to expect her to do so if you wish her happiness. Women are what they are; your perception of them no matter what that might be will not change their fundamental nature. You can learn to accept them or reject them out out of the idea their conditional love isn't worth it for you.​
Can you voocaro this bro pls?
 
This is water for anyone who have read and understand rollo tomassi redpill works. But its good that u share this here for the blue pilled looksmaxer imo
 
  • +1
Reactions: Prettyboy
This is water for anyone who have read and understand rollo tomassi redpill works. But its good that u share this here for the blue pilled looksmaxer imo
I used to lurk the redpillsphere before finding this place and although it’s mostly seen as a laughing stock here, there very many smart people there. I especially liked the presence of older guys with their wisdom. There are few theories that stuck with me, including this one.
 
i mean are they wrong, if you think about it one guy can have sex with a dozens of girls a month but before birth control for a woman having sex could be death or life situation
 
  • +1
Reactions: sub5inchcel
The mother loves the son conditionally.. the condition is he carries her dna

But I agree about women being uncapable of real love, only a conditioned loyalty
 
  • +1
Reactions: TrestIsBest
Between two persons, only the more powerful one is capable of unconditionally loving the weaker party; the vulnerable person's love toward the powerful person can only be conditional.
Men love women unconditionally, while women are only capable of loving men in a romantic sense with conditions. The only possible way a woman can love a man unconditionally is through maternal love.


Man's love

The problem is contingent on not only the way in which man craves to be loved, but likewise the way in which woman is capable of loving. Man desires a sacrificial love, sacrifice implies loyalty and connection. What men want from love, and what woman’s love amounts to is fundamentally irreconcilable. In matters of love (and not simply lust,) man is an optimistic egalitarian. He loves as he wishes to be loved. In matters of love, when man is young and oblivious to the ways of women, he is a true adherent of the golden rule: "treat others as you would like others to treat you".
The foolness of man’s nature lies in the belief that the loyalty quintessential to woman’s maternal instinct will be available within a romantic context. He believes rather naively, that as his mother loved him, his idealised girlfriend could. He remembers the love he got from his mother growing up and upon this concludes that women are capable of such great love. They are, but this great love is reserved solely for their children, not to man.

The anctient Greek differentiated between these types of love. They referred to romantic love as eros, after their god of love and fertility. They used the term storge to express the love between parents and their childs.

Man has an idealisation of women's love, not a realisation. During childhood, up until puberty, there's not much difference male and female siblings receive very pure, high quality love from their environment. Parental love extends to both of them, which with the onset of puberty, plays a cruel trick on the psychology of the boy. It gives him a template for woman's love that comes to expect as a standard of all women, making him derise something which is unattainable to him, unaware the love he desires is maternal in nature, unable to be felt for him. He is taught by his mother’s love that unconditional loyalty, noble character, gentleness, sacrifice and trust are intrinsic of the feminine essence. And so as he grows from a boy into a man he comes to the rather logical conclusion that if he is “a good man,” he can expect to be loved by his lover in much the same way. His mother, well-meant but quite incorrectly likewise affirms this notion to him. This is a wicked lie, but a man whose heart is yet to be broken does not realise this. He thinks woman’s love is immutable. He doesn't know that her love for child is different from that of her love for him.
View attachment 1695522
At that point, he must re-evaluate his notion of woman's capacity of love.
He is ought to learn woman's love for her mate is of vastly reduced moral and psychological quality than that of her love for her child.

And so he continues to be wanting to be loved like when he was a child, not realising such love is reserved for children. Believing that the love he desires is romantic love, when truly is was maternal love. This dichotomy strucks him in puberty as he gets his first girlriend. Nothing lasts forever and as the inevitable breakup comes, he is faced with the fact that the unconditional loyalty inherent to the maternal bond is absent from the mating bond.

Of course, there are those who had narcissistic, detached, or otherwise unloving mothers. The mothers who always put on a good public face of being nothing other than wonderful, but due to an affliction of personal defect did not share the love intrinsic to the maternal bond with their son. Men who had mothers that never endowed them with the maternal bond find it easier to understand real female behaviour as adults. Men deprived of maternal love are better adapted for dealing with women as mates in adulthood.​

The man who grew up as a neglected boy never foolishly believed that a girlfriend would love him as his mother would, he believed she would love him exactly as his mother did; with extreme conditionality. Rather perversely, the standard of which such a man holds women to romantically is more in line with their true nature. Unlike most men, he was not taught to expect a sacrificial love from women because he never experienced this love to begin with. His mother didn’t love him like a mother, but like a partner, ergo, he was loved for his utility rather than his essence. And so it stands to reason that man’s frame of reference for the quality of woman’s love is based upon how his mother loved him. A man whose mother did not love him like a child when he was a child is therefore, in adulthood, at a perverse advantage. He has no idealisation to shatter, because his expectations of women in relationships are realistic.

View attachment 1695647
The more neglect you got from your mother as a child, the lower the bar was set for your expectation toward other women's love.
Vica versa, if you had a loving mother, the bar was set very high and you are bound to hit it.


Men are romantics pretending to be realists, women are realists pretending to be romantics.

There's a long standing myth in society that girls are the hopeless romantics. This couldn't be further from the truth. Throughout history, it were always men who moved mountains in order to attain the girl they set their eyes on. Just think of all the poets, writers, painters, musicians, athletes, conquerors and inventors who worked hard night and day on their feat with the sole purpose of impressing a lady. It's men who serenades, we are the hopeless romantics, not women.
View attachment 1695646
Men believe that love matters for the sake of it.
Women love opportunistically.


Woman's love

Women are incapable of reciprocating man's love. There's a hierarchy of love that trickles down:

Man sacrifices for woman, and woman, for child.
Rarely does the river flow upward. As such, if man wants to believe that women can love the same extent as he, then he is doomed to disappointment and misery when she invariably acts within accordance of her nature rather than his idealisation.

The epitome of a woman’s love is infatuation. To define it, this is a lust for your power and an obsession with how your character makes her feel, secondary to your power. Woman crave men with power, since they themselves don't possess it. So to put it crudely: opportunism and emotional self-appeasement alchemised with lust is what woman's love is.

Man oft forgets that love does not flow upward in the sacrificial sense. He makes the mistake of thinking that because he can love a woman without lusting for her, that a woman can do the same. She cannot, because her love is not based on sacrifice, it is based on the appreciation of man’s sacrifice met with lust. The more man sacrifices for a woman, the more likely he is to fall in love with his investment.

The more a woman sacrifices for man absent of animal lust, the more repulsion she feels for him, interpreting her need for investment as a shortcoming on his part. And so there it is, unspoken in word but detected in sentiment; woman expects man to love her more than she loves him, reinforcing the hierarchy of love. Female sacrifice is predicated on lust and mental entrapment.
View attachment 1695698
Male sacrifice is expected, and freely given.

A woman who does not lust for you cannot love you as you wish to be loved. Lust is the basis for her love, absent of lust you have "like" rather than "love." Women are masters of self-deception, in combination of being emotionally neurotic. If they were to become too self-aware, they could end up hating themselves because they cannot overcome their animal elements.

They can’t make themselves love you in the way you want them to, even if they tried to. To do so would ravage them with immeasurable misery. So as unfair as you may think it is that your girlfriend can never love you the same way your mother did, it is likewise unfair to expect her to do so if you wish her happiness. Women are what they are; your perception of them no matter what that might be will not change their fundamental nature. You can learn to accept them or reject them out out of the idea their conditional love isn't worth it for you.​
it's just a matter of options tbh. Ofcourse a thirsty beta is gonna "unconditionally love" his gf who gets 5 dms a day when he hasn't got one in his life. But dudes with options play girls all the time and have them fall in romantic love while reciprocating a facade of love back just to use em for sex. So it's not men vs women it's high a value vs low value. Men and women both want to find the best possible mate
 
  • +1
Reactions: AscendingHero, wateriswet, A23ghskung and 1 other person
I disagree although it depends on what your definition of "love" is
Biologically love between two adults of the opposite sex within a mammalian species requires sexual attraction and attachment
sexual attraction is obviously reciprocal
but on the contrary attachment isn't, for attachment to exist there has to be an attachment giver and an attachment receiver
so one has to play the role of the care giver and one has to play the role of the care recipient
those are two completely different notions and thus both have different effects on the individuals

love from the male point of view is vastly different in comparison to the female's point of view as theyre both playing entirely different roles

so its not to say that females are incapable of love
its that their version of love differs from your own
 
I disagree that mothers love unconditionally. Ive just seen Too much proof that mothers are ultimately women and thus love conditionally. Even to their children. Especially the males.

I use to get down thinking that a woman can never truly love me. But now im trying to take pride in the fact that im just emotionally superior to them. Im capable of loving more than them.

What a loser gender. They suck at everything and have the nerve to project their weakness onto us. 😂
 
  • +1
Reactions: Trilogy

Similar threads

i_love_roosters
Replies
6
Views
98
i_love_roosters
i_love_roosters
BigJimsWornOutTires
Replies
2
Views
57
BigJimsWornOutTires
BigJimsWornOutTires
TheLastLaugh
Replies
3
Views
202
PrettyDeformed
PrettyDeformed
Z
Replies
18
Views
625
_MVP_
_MVP_
TheLastLaugh
Replies
12
Views
630
Maalik
Maalik

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top