Men believe that love matters for the sake of it. Women love opportunistically.
Today’s pull quote comes from Xpat Ranting’s blog. The discourse there is brief, but insightful:
I really, really, really hope the myth that girls are the hopeless romantics gets kicked to the curb ASAP. Everyone needs to realize that men are the “romantics pretending to be realists” and women; vice versa
I found this particularly thought provoking – Men are the romantics forced to be the realists, while women are the realists using romanticisms to effect their imperatives (hypergamy). This is a heaping mouthful of cruel reality to swallow, and dovetails nicely into the second Iron Rule of Tomassi:
Iron Rule of Tomassi #6
Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.
In its simplicity this speaks volumes about about the condition of Men. It accurately expresses a pervasive nihilism that Men must either confront and accept, or be driven insane in denial for the rest of their lives when they fail to come to terms with the disillusionment.
Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.
In the same respect that women cannot appreciate the sacrifices men are expected to make in order to facilitate their imperatives, women can’t actualize how a man would have himself loved by her. It is not the natural state of women, and the moment he attempts to explain his ideal love, that’s the point at which his idealization becomes her obligation. Our girlfriends, our wives, daughters and even our mothers are all incapable of this idealized love. As nice as it would be to relax, trust and be vulnerable, upfront, rational and open, the great abyss is still the lack of an ability for women to love Men as Men would like them to.
For the plugged-in beta, this aspect of ‘awakening’ is very difficult to confront. Even in the face of constant, often traumatic, controversions to what a man hopes will be his reward for living up to qualifying for a woman’s love and intimacy, he’ll still hold onto that Disneyesque ideal.
It’s very important to understand that this love archetype is an artifact from our earliest feminized conditioning. It’s much healthier to accept that it isn’t possible and live within that framework. If she’s there, she’s there, if not, oh well. She’s not incapable of love in the way she defines it, she’s incapable of love as you would have it. She doesn’t lack the capacity for connection and emotional investment, she lacks the capacity for the connection you think would ideally suit you.
The resulting love that defines a long-term couple’s relationship is the result of coming to an understanding of this impossibility and re-imagining what it should be for Men. Men have been, and should be, the more dominant gender, not because of some imagined divine right or physical prowess, but because on some rudimentary psychological level we ought to realized that a woman’s love is contingent upon our capacity to maintain that love in spite of a woman’s hypergamy. By order of degrees, hypergamy will define who a woman loves and who she will not, depending upon her own opportunities and capacity to attract it.
December 27th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
Yes.
December 27th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
“…we ought to ["have"?] realized that a woman’s love is contingent upon our capacity to maintain it [what is "it"?] in spite of a woman’s hypergamy”.
December 27th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
You say it so easily, but this realization, for many guys I believe (myself included), carries with it much weight. Perhaps on the same level as what disproving god is for a believer.
“re-imagining what it should be for Men” is just as easy as rebirth in this case.
If only my father had told me that throughout childhood instead of the regular “when you’ll have a wife that you love, you’ll stop playing your silly video games”…
December 27th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Women love their pocketbooks, phone, tv, house, etc. Women expect men to buy them these things (or if the woman already has them, then to buy her Newer/Better/More expensive of these things). Men can opt-out of this, and also thus have better Game, by not buying women anything expensive. A man can love himself and maybe love his pets, and view women as just for Game.
December 27th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
The posts here are nicely written, and you get lots of little details right. In “to effect their imperatives”, for example, not one person in a hundred would use “effect” correctly, but you did. I have noticed, though, the frequent use of “it’s” as a possessive, as in “In it’s simplicity…” The apostrophe is seductive in possessives, but in this context you want “its” instead: “In its simplicity…” You might find the “his/hers/its” mnemonic helpful in remembering the distinction.
December 27th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Noted.
December 27th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
so how about an article on how the modern man expects to be loved…
December 27th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
[...] Always remember that a Lady will still be a female, still subject to the same biological impulses, the same societal pressures. Even with such a catch of the rare and elusive Lady, one has to remember that fact and act accordingly. As Rollo said just today on his blog post: [...]
December 27th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
It seems your last posts are all about reasons why it´s so hard for most men to get a hold of the stress that comes with the new realistic “blue pill” world vision. Its very insightful, keep it coming.
Also in the way you describe the relation its more similar to the employer-employee relation and not a relation where you can depend on the other person if times go bad (which is neccesary if you want to feel safe in the relationship’)
December 27th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
Loved it Rollo. Just started reading your blog this week. Its been really helpful as I take my first tentative steps blogging as a way to organize my thoughts and dealing with the red pill.
Oh, by the way, I had no idea it would link and quote what I wrote on my blog earlier tonight to yours. I have no idea what the ‘etiquette’ is on that – I was startled to see that it did that. If you want me to take the link to yours down, just let me know. Or, alternatively, if there’s some setting I don’t know about to avoid doing that in the future, I’d love to know about it.
WordPress hasn’t exactly told me how that kind of thing works and I haven’t figured it out for myself yet.
December 27th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
I’ve been hammering on that theme for a while, in relation to marriage. There was a time when the sexual strategy of relying on the norms of the community to help keep your partner mated to you was successful. But nowadays marriage is less effective, and men who want to maintain such bonds must take on more personal responsibility for the effort. Nowadays we must maintain attraction, through charisma, dominance, psychological ploys, and as many other attractiveness triggers as we can manipulate.
Game is not an option.
December 27th, 2011 at 11:59 pm
Truth. I learned it the hard way.
A woman can love, but not the same way that we men love.
Examine the literature. The Romantics are men.
December 28th, 2011 at 12:48 am
This spells out exactly why a man should seek a woman’s respect, and not her love. The more respect and power she gives him, the better he can love her.
As per the incapability to love at the same capacity, I’m curious as to an explanation of how this is a natural state. I consider it more to be a conditioned response, yet I could be wrong on that one.
December 28th, 2011 at 1:34 am
I woman can love like a puppy. She can dote and be devoted. You can be her world.
But it’s a different love than what men have. Men are loyal to love, while women are loyal to immediate circumstances. Her feelings can be strong and powerful, and she will be honest when she says she wants to be with you forever. Translated to man speak it means “Right now I feel like I want to be with you forever”.
A woman’s love is a valuable thing. It has it’s own brand of truth and beauty to it. Just don’t mistake it for another thing.
December 28th, 2011 at 4:28 am
[...] Ferdinand Bardamu In the same respect that women cannot appreciate the sacrifices men are expected to make in order … Published: December 28, 2011 Leave a Comment Name: [...]
December 28th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
“Examine the literature. The Romantics are men.”
Literature is male.
December 28th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
After 35 years of marriage I still see the admiration and love in my mother’s eyes when she looks at my dad. I do not see how that applies to your argument. I guess this is one of those manosphere posts on which you try to reduce women into something they are not, in order not to feel guilty when you heartlessly use them and hurt them.
December 28th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
I can see love in mother’s eyes – Guavaberry.
Interesting point. I think by that time they truly became ideal life partner’s. A sort of platonic friendship in conjunction with the former sexual chemistry must’ve risen from those everlasting years…. Question are you.. Christian by any chance? That must be a factor to, since husband and wife seek to be one flesh, beneath God.
The philosopher (forgot his name) touched base on
They were..
PATERNAL (CONDITIONAL, “If u follow my rules u’ll make me proud)
MATERNAL (Unconditional “ill protect and luv my lil baby no amtter what)
Erotic (Desiring possession over someone’s body, or to be possessed/penetrated)
BROTHERLY (True Friendship.. akin to what Emerson discussed)
SELF-LOVE (Accepting yourself for what you are regardless of your flaws)
LOVE OF GOD (Submission ot a higher principle… doezn’t gotta be god)
Generally speaking, guava, I think your mom has a combination of four of these in dealing with dad.
From personal experience, I’ve seen husbands cherish their frumpy, fat, older wives in their later years MORE OFTEN than I’ve seen wives cherish their husband after he became weak and jobless and boyish (temporarily). Why haven’t other people picked up on this????
Roissy, in a thread long, long, long ago discussed how to retaliate if a girl asks if her azz looks fat. One of the quotes he mentioned was that “hmmmmm. strange” response would make her fall deeper in love and added a parenthesized (make her more dependent on you) adjacent to that. That bothered me a bit, which explains why it stuck to my mind so long.. is Love basically dependence and sumbission? Why are we engraved to aim to please?
In the Five Love Languages, there are supposed to be 5 ways you demonstrate love; through
ACTS OF SERVICE
QUALITY TIME
PRAISE
KINO
GIFTS
Interestingly enough, most of these backfire in regards to seduction.. well a surplus of them to say the least. Rollo, if a girl shows affection through all five and is sincerely loyal to her man through thick and thin; do u think that she’s transgressed the general “realists pretending to be romantics” assigned to women? Thoughts would be appreciated.
I’ve exhibited this phenomenom many-a times before. I’ve seen my father hurt my little brother and little sister, but my little brother would still be kind to him and my little sister as well. However, when my father demosntrated sporadic cases of weakness or beta; I could detect a grimace in my sister’s eyes. My brother seems to have a consistent combination of respect/friendship/love whereas my sister will have cases where she’ll adore him and then flashes of complete, remorseless apathy. The latter more often nowadays as we are running thin on luxuriess….
Similarly, the sheer speed at which a girl who’s fallen out of love can break up with a man, to this day, baffles me.
Rollo, what would you recommend to help women enhance their capacity to love?
December 28th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
Women don’t love men, they love the feelings the man brings.
And discuss.
True or false? It confirms your previous concept of female
narcissism.
December 28th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
[...] his comments section: I woman can love like a puppy. She can dote and be devoted. You can be her [...]
December 28th, 2011 at 11:09 pm
When I realized the implications of what this post is saying a few years ago I was shattered. Borderline suicidal. Profound one-itis AND realizing that there is no such thing as true love in the old school romantic sense almost made me lose my will to live. Beta, sure, but I had many bad things going for me. I was steeped in the romantics from a young age, both poetry and philosophy, not to mention a strong spiritual background. Frankly, I was totally unprepared for my whole life view to be upended. The poster who said its like realizing God doesnt exist, comes pretty close to how I felt.
I now know the truth, and this has inured me to women’s words wrt love. My only hope is that I find a woman who is very religious, ethical, strong family background and moral values and even then I know these are only buffers to her hypergamy. Thing is, I want children, if I didn’t I would never marry a woman, much less monogamous ltr, knowing what I know now. Like clockwork, its actually amazing and depressing how predictable women really are once you get down to the biology behind it all.
December 29th, 2011 at 12:12 am
A woman asked me what my “love language” was and I said something like, “I don’t need love, Chuck Norris only loves his horse.” So, instead of getting smushy, this kind of a ultra-confident statement increased her attraction.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:29 am
In Guava’s parent’s case I have no doubt that her mother has a deep affinity for her husband. As I said, this isn’t an issue of whether a woman can love at all – I’m not debating the genuineness or sincerity of women’s capacity to love. What I’m positing here is that women’s conception of love isn’t what men would be led to believe it is. Men are the True Romantics not women.
Men cling to an idealized concept of love that no woman is capable of fulfilling because her concept is different. Hers is a more practical, pragmatic conditional love while his is more ephemeral if that makes any sense? I’m sure Guava’s mother is deeply in love with her husband, but based on the conditions of how well he’s able to typify her concept of loving.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:54 am
Women confuse love with infatuation. When they are infatuated, they “love” you. When they are not, they “don’t love you anymore”. As it has been said, they love the feelings you produce in them.
When a man says “I love you”, he means “I would do anything for you. I will be loyal and I will sacrifice for you”. When a woman says “I love you”, she means “Right now, I am feeling romantic feelings for you because I have a gina tingle”. While men are talking about the future, women are talking about the present. In fact, women are creatures of the present, when it comes to relationships.
Besides that, for women, love always follow self-interest. If a woman perceives that loving you is against her interest, she will stop loving you. This will be little by little, step by step and it won’t be conscious, but, if you want women can love men unconditionally, you are for a rude awakening.
January 2nd, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Iron Rule of Tomassi #2
Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.
Is it even possible for a man to master game without first accepting this reality?
January 5th, 2012 at 7:11 pm
As said on the novel “Dangerous liaisons”, by choderlos de laclos: “men savor the happiness they feel, women savor by giving it”
It confirms by other means your rule #6.
January 11th, 2012 at 5:54 pm
So what is the love that men expect, exactly? From the post, it seems a bit vague, but I guess it’s that almost unconditional love? The one where you stick together even if you age, lose a job, become less exciting? Fully unconditional love is not something to want, if you ask me, as it’s the type of love that keeps people with their abusive partners. I also looked at the Disneyesque ideal link. Is that what men want, then? Wanting to be needed and indispensable is not asking for too much (if you’re unneeded and dispensable, it’s not much of a love…), but eating up each others time and having a mutual addiction is not realistic in the long run. So is this the difference between women’s and men’s love? Men have more commitment, loyalty and unconditionality?
January 11th, 2012 at 5:58 pm
A love that is idealistic and soul-fitting by beta standards. Pick any hollywood romantic comedy. Then replace the male with a female.
February 2nd, 2012 at 12:16 am
I can agree with this. I must be wired differently because I love just like men love. I want to be completely devoted and loyal to someone that I can really trust. I find that I also hold friendships to a loyalty standard and because women are so iffy, I usually end up with only male friends. This is why I personally like to take my time dating. I also don’t date just to be doing it. If I’m out with someone it’s because I enjoy their company and want to get to know them better. I definitely circle around a person for a while before I decide to open my heart up to love them. I find I love with my head first, then my heart always follows.
I do agree that most womens idea of “love” is in fact infatuation. They don’t think it through. Its like buying a car on a whim and then regretting it and returning it once you’ve had time to think about it.
April 9th, 2012 at 3:32 pm
I’m psychologically where you apparently were once. You sound very similar to me – your upbringing, studies, interests, stuff. How did you get through it? What happened with the oneities girl? I’m at a loss for words, and feel like I’m Stevie on East Bound & Down. Like that’s who I’ll become if I don’t get over this. I have read, studied, & comprehended from an early age, Kierkegaard to Schopenhauer, St. John of the Cross to Kukai, Nerval to Ezra Pound, Yeats to Burroughs, the Sepher Yetzirah to Bacon to Scholem to you name it etc…yet I can’t internalize this newfound acceptance of the nature of women in a healthy manner. It’s causing me a profound misery; no longer staring into the Abyss, I’ve become it.
A girl actually, literally said to me recently, “[She] loves [her] dog, because it’s the ONLY thing [she] can ‘love’.” And now I get it.That was perhaps the most honest thing a woman has ever told me. Why is this even depressing? Shouldn’t I be happy that I will have many women in my life, and no longer believe I’ll have one? It’s that the girl I have oneitis for, I now understand, doesn’t, nor ever, has, or will love me. Unrequited is what someone else said, and I guess that’s true. But, she will still tell me she loves me, so I’m left extremely confused, because she exhibits every behavior, I now see, that these blogs speak of.
This is just ridiculous. I’m physically ill from seeing this all play out.
Thank you everyone for all of your insight. The internet is a blessed curse.
July 2nd, 2012 at 8:15 pm
“she will be honest when she says she wants to be with you forever. Translated to man speak it means “Right now I feel like I want to be with you forever”.”
Thanks to xsplat for the bitesize takeaway. This nails it on the head for me.
August 3rd, 2012 at 10:56 am
[...] trying to run you up the flagpole here. My assumption is that Dan hasn’t read Appreciation or Women In Love in their entirety. There’s much more to men’s sacrifices than just a trade off between [...]
September 11th, 2012 at 4:31 pm
[...] drew a lot of commentary. I probably should’ve added the caveat that readers have a look at Women in Love as a prelude to reading Men in Love before posting it, but by far the most disconcerting part of [...]
November 8th, 2012 at 9:56 pm
@Emma the Emo
“So what is the love that men expect, exactly? From the post, it seems a bit vague, but I guess it’s that almost unconditional love? ”
I would be happy to have a love who doesn’t disappear when the first problem arises. And it would be nice to have a woman who doesn’t go after my material assets. Nowadays, this is mission impossible.
Of course, every woman I have known in my life denies she is interested in economic things. They deny it, deny it, deny it. But they all earn a lot less than I do.
In fact, my romantic prospects have followed my economic situation. When I was poor (a student), I was celibate because no woman would touch me with a six-feet pole. When I got a good job (lots of money), I had a lot of women interested in me. Then I got a job as a teacher and only the cleaning lady was interested in me. Then I got a very important job and I had lots of women offering themselves to me.
So keep denying, ladies.
November 9th, 2012 at 6:46 pm
I’m glad I made the choice never to get into a relationship. You men think you’re gods.
December 10th, 2012 at 7:17 am
None of this even makes sense according to my experience in life. Maybe it coincides with how I would describe one or two women I’ve been in a relationship with, but not all of them, by far. People are too variable to make this kind of complex generalization and still maintain the guise of intellectual honesty.
People Are People
Generalizations
January 31st, 2013 at 5:40 am
This really is the hardest lesson of all.. I’ve been a MGTOW for 6 months now, and I still can’t get my head past this.. everything I have always wanted.. doesn’t exist. What a waste of my young life.
February 11th, 2013 at 7:18 pm
[...] [...]
February 17th, 2013 at 6:58 pm
Women are naturally selective. So it makes sense.
March 14th, 2013 at 5:13 pm
I was once really a romantic male. My wife really had me sold on how much she loved me. She told me that she didn’t care about money…and on and on…
Then, I got downsized from the company I worked for through no fault of my own. She did a total 180. She was mean, cold, and sexually unavailable.
Then, a couple of years later, I landed back in a large corporation. She suddenly had an interest in me again.
Screw that…
May 27th, 2013 at 4:18 pm
Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.
Just out of curiosity, how does a man expect to be loved?
Apparently, the problem is that women love men for some reasons… for qualities… Men have to be something to be loved. (Correct me if I’m wrong).
I sometimes wonder… OK, correct me if I’m wrong, this is just a hypothesis. I do not think the problem is that women love conditionally (that is, they love men for possitive traits). I think the problem is that men love women for nothing.
In their teens, boys are not very attractive, and also a bit aggressive. Most boys are not wanted by the girls. Boys are supposed to grow into men. They must earn their value.
In their teens, girls are very attractive and boys and men want them. Womanhood is not required of them. Other higher values are not socially required of them. They are not forced to earn their value.
Manhood is to be earned. A boy has, socially, less worth than a man.
However, society puts great value in girls, much less than it gives to grown-up, loyal, responsible, rational, caring women. Boys do NOT get love or value for existing. Girls get loved, basically for nothing that is their own merit.
I was already scared of being considered useless after my 30s when I was 15, so I thought a bit about it and arrived to this conclusion:
“You don’t have to fear old age if you do things right. The only problem when you are 35 is that you are a man. You will not get free attention, you will not be listened to unless you have something interesting to say, you will have to work out your way in life. Might as well start right now, and not rely on looks for anything. First of all, I do not choose whether I’m pretty or not: whoever is looking chooses. And in any case, it’s not going to last. Only thing I need is to try to become better, smarter, a hard worker, earn my own money… So when my looks are away, I’m worth something”.
As far as I know, most young girls (specially the more attractive ones, and more so the ones who qualify as “hot”) do not know this, rarely arrive to such a conclusion, and get into “I am worth it” mindset. They do not think they have to become “women”. They do not think they have to do something to be of value because society tells them they are already valuable just for existing. This leads to a tremendous waste of their 20s, years in which you are supposed to learn, mature, work, and not hurt your body much.
So… Correct me if I’m wrong, but… I don’t know if the problem lies so much in women not loving men for reasons, as the fact that men are wired to love girls and young women just because. And logically, men may be astounded at the fact that women cannot lovem them back the same way.
It is nobody’s fault, that’s how it’s ingrained in our genes. A tribal Neolithic society of 100 individuals can afford to lose 90% of the men, and it will survive. Not so much if it loses 90% of the women. Because of that, girls are wanted just because. They have value for existing. While boys rarely do (at least in the sexual market: in theory, in our democratic societies, every life is of equal value).
But maybe the problem is that men want women to love them as they love (or want) women. And I am not sure that is possible. I need to respect a man to love him.
I soon realized that being sexually attractive to a male (at least in my late teens and 20s) meant nothing. Having a man’s respect is something of value, because it doesn’t come for free. You have to earn it, and that makes you a better person.
I am sorry our genes are wired that way, because that sense of power and entitlement some women have in their prime stops them from pursuing better interests, they don’t develop their personalities, skills, social sphere… Nothing. It’s really bad for them in the long run, because when their looks fade, they have nothing.
However, just because our genes are wired in an unfair way, doesn’t mean we as human beings have to be unfair. Civilization is a lot about putting a stop to those goddamn selfish genes for the best of all of us (or so I thought).
Maybe the trick is loving women for good qualities and traits they have worked on. To love women conditionally when they deserve it.
Just a few thoughts.
Good blog. Sad. Scary at times. But very good.
June 4th, 2013 at 9:56 am
xsplat
December 27th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
Never settle for one. Two is the minimum. Competition improves the service.
June 4th, 2013 at 10:06 am
obmon
January 31st, 2013 at 5:40 am
Actually it does exist. But only if the woman is willing to bond with you. Odds run from zero to not for long. Mostly.
June 4th, 2013 at 10:12 am
00000
November 9th, 2012 at 6:46 pm
I’m glad I made the choice never to get into a relationship. You men think you’re gods.
=====
But honey, we are gods.
You eatin’ regular? Got a warm hut and a screen to communicate? Men did that. With the help of a few women.