Men in Love

Dalrock had an interesting post last week – She’s the Victim – and as is the nature of Dal’s conversation the post served as the tree trunk for various branches of very interesting off-shoot discussion. Starviolet, a regular commenter (some would say troll) dropped what was a seemingly innocuous question:

“Can men really not tell when a woman doesn’t love them?”

As would be expected, the male responses to this and her followup comments ranged from mild annoyance of her naiveté to disbelief of her sincerity with regards to her “want to know.” However, her original wonderment as to whether men did in fact know when a woman doesn’t love them, I think, carries more weight than most guys (even manosphere men) realize. So I thought I’d recount my comments and the discussion here.

Can men really not tell when a woman doesn’t love them?

No, they can’t.

Why? Because men want to believe that they can be happy, and sexually satisfied, and appreciated, and loved, and respected by a woman for who he is. It is men who are the real romantics, not women, but it is the grand design of hypergamy that men believe it is women who are the romantic ones.

Hypergamy, by its nature, defines love for women in opportunistic terms, leaving men as the only objective arbiters of what love is for themselves. So yes, men can’t tell when a woman doesn’t love them, because they want to believe women can love them in the ways they think they could.

From Women in Love:

Iron Rule of Tomassi #6
Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved

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.

HeiligKo responds:

All right, I keep hoping your rule #6 is wrong, but it hasn’t proven to be. So is the big lie that men miss not that women can provide this, but that we don’t invest this energy into fellow men? That we don’t find men we can be vulnerable with, so that we are emotionally prepared for the trials that women will create in our homes. Is this why so many women tend to isolate their husbands or boyfriends from their male friends early on in marriage or dating?

Presuming Starviolet was genuinely confused (and I’m half-inclined to think she is) this is exactly the source of Starviolet’s confusion. Women’s solipsism prevents them from realizing that men would even have a differing concept of love than how a woman perceives love. Thus her question, “can men really not tell when a woman doesn’t love them?”

I don’t necessarily think it’s a ‘big lie’, it’s just a lack of mutuality on either gender’s concept of love. If it’s a ‘lie’ at all it’s one men prefer to tell themselves.

Bridging the Gap

Later in the discussion Jacquie (who is one of the two female writers to make my blogroll) brought up another interesting aspect of bridging the lack of mutuality between either gender’s concepts of love:

If it is beyond what a woman is capable of, therefore even if a woman recognizes this incapacity in herself, is there no way to compensate? What if a woman truly desires to try to move beyond this? Does she just consider it a hopeless matter and do nothing? Or is it something she should strive for continuously with the hope that she can at least move somewhat closer to this idealized love? Is it even too much for her to comprehend?

As I was telling HeligKo, it’s more a lack of mutuality on either gender’s concept of love. Starviolet’s question about whether a man can determine when a woman doesn’t love him goes much deeper than she’s aware of. I think a lot of what men go through in their blue pill beta days – the frustration, the anger, the denial, the deprivation, the sense that he’s been sold a fantasy that no woman has ever made good upon – all that is rooted in a fundamental belief that some woman, any woman, out there knows just how he needs to be loved and all he has to do is find her and embody what he’s been told she will expect of him when he does.

So he finds a woman, who says and shows him that she loves him, but not in the manner he’s had all this time in his head. Her love is based on qualifications and is far more conditional than what he’d been led to believe, or convinced himself, love should be between them. Her love seems duplicitous, ambiguous, and seemingly, too easily lost in comparison to what he’d been taught for so long is how a woman would love him when he found her.

So he spends his monogamous efforts in ‘building their relationship’ into one where she loves him according to his concept, but it never happens. It’s an endless tail-chase of maintaining her affections and complying with her concept of love while making occasional efforts to draw her into his concept of love. The constant placating to her to maintain her love conflicts with the neediness of how he’d like to be loved is a hypergamic recipe for disaster, so when she falls out of love with him he literally doesn’t know that she no longer loves him. His logical response then is to pick up the old conditions of love she had for him when they first got together, but none of that works now because they are based on obligation, not genuine desire. Love, like desire, cannot be negotiated.

It took me a long time, and was a very tough part of my own unplugging when I finally came to terms with what I thought about love and how it’s conveyed isn’t universal between the genders. It took some very painful slap-in-the-face doses of reality for this to click, but I think I have a healthier understanding of it now. It was one of the most contradictory truths I had to unlearn, but it fundamentally changed my perspective of the relations I have with my wife, daughter, mother and my understanding of past girlfriends.

If it is beyond what a woman is capable of, therefore even if a woman recognizes this incapacity in herself, is there no way to compensate? What if a woman truly desires to try to move beyond this? Does she just consider it a hopeless matter and do nothing?

I don’t think it’s necessarily impossible, but it would take a woman to be self-aware enough that men and women have different concepts of their ideal love to begin with, which is, improbable. The biggest hurdle isn’t so much in women recognizing this, but rather in men recognizing it themselves. So, hypothetically, yes you could, but the problem then becomes one of the genuineness of that desire. Love, like desire, is only legitimate when it’s uncoerced and unobligated. Men believe in love for the sake of love, women love opportunistically. It’s not that either subscribe to unconditional love, it’s that both gender’s conditions for love differ.


100 responses to “Men in Love

  • A.B. Dada

    I hold up one and only one “proof” or “truth” that I know a woman loves me: she acts completely retarded with me. I can do or say virtually anything and she’ll laugh/giggle and continue to keep her paws on my body.

    When a woman’s “social retardation” mode changes and becomes too serious, I know she’s thinking too logically and her love for me has dropped. Then I just back away and see if she comes back around. If she doesn’t, that generally means the relationship is over, she just doesn’t know it yet.

    Usually, the relationship is over because I fucked up and started the pedestal/one-itis beta crap that many guys do as a relationship ages.

  • Gustavo

    “So he spends his monogamous efforts in ‘building their relationship’ into one where she loves him according to his concept, but it never happens. It’s an endless tail-chase of maintaining her affections and complying with her concept of love while making occasional efforts to draw her into his concept of love. The constant placating to her to maintain her love conflicts with the neediness of how he’d like to be loved is a hypergamic recipe for disaster, so when she falls out of love with him he literally doesn’t know that she no longer loves him. His logical response then is to pick up the old conditions of love she had for him when they first got together, but none of that works now because they are based on obligation, not genuine desire. Love, like desire, cannot be negotiated.”

    Ugh, this is like a page from my life, verbatim. This seems all too common for a majority of men. If only I had known sooner maybe I could of avoided this, but then again would I have the same understanding I do now after learning the hard way? Probably not. The truth is such a bitter pill to swallow though.

  • Stephen

    I’m living this reality right now as well. Ten years of marriage, 15 together in total and I’ve finally woken up to these red pill truths thanks to sites like this. We met when we were 18 and she convinced me that our love was this perfect romantic love without conditions. I responded like most men, especially those who are still really kids, and bought into her vision of us being soul-mates hook line and sinker. I ignored the times over the years when I had stumbled and her unconditional love suddenly became very conditional.

    Two years ago I lost my job and suddenly I was as disposable as a used kleenex to her. Contemptuous talk about me, disrespect and other men coming out of the woodwork. She had the audacity to tell me she was finally going to live the life of freedom I’d denied her by insisting on a relationship so young, a total rewrite of the truth. It’s not as if I had been 18 and dying to get married and the fact that I held out against marrying her until I was in my 20s did nothing but piss her off.

    A young guy who came by one day to fix our fridge was an object of absolute lust for her and she made it clear how useless I was in comparison to him. He was one of several she told me I couldn’t measure up to, guys who lived how they wanted, worked out and socialized all day when not on shift and drank and slept around at night (so basically everything I the perfect beta husband had given up on in order to be with her years ago).

    I recovered financially last year and she never cheated physically (carefully verified), but now I’m awake to reality. She is loyal to me only as long as I fulfill all her fantasies, whatever they are in a given moment, and pay all her bills no matter how wasteful some of her expenditures are (at one point when I was jobless we had $100 in the bank to last two weeks and she went out and spent $80 of it on a scarf). This wasn’t a temporary thing, but a pattern I’d ignored throughout our marriage. Even when I was at my lowest, unemployed and living on savings, she was laughing at me and telling me my whole reason for existing was to pay her bills, true for any real man she said. She even convinced me to finally convert to her religion and promptly fell into a flirtation with the minister advising us, my lowest point.

    She’s well past her prime now at the age of 34 and I’m only beginning to come into my own, which is why I assume she never left or slept around. I’m now getting fit, making great money and can more than live without her (always could but now I know it). She said we might be over before long if my attitude doesn’t change and I just laughed and said so what? That shocked her and she was the one jumping through my hoops for a while there. But I can tell she’s biding her time and she fully expects me to fall back under her whole Disney princess spell and go back to working my butt off for her and loving her no matter what, but I’ve seen the truth now. You can’t unring a bell and she can’t unsay the venomous things she said to me when she thought I was useless, flirting with men in front of me while I blamed myself for not having work. I’ll do what’s good for me now and she’s welcome to come along for the ride, but on my terms. If not, she can take a walk. I regret marrying and if it doesn’t last I won’t marry again, but I’m just fine with that.

  • That's me

    Sounds like my life too. I was “slapped” with the facts explained in this post. I never would believed that women’s love was so conditional. If I read this when I first got married I would’ve said “no way, not my wife”. Ha! Now I know.

    Now that my eyes are open, I’m a different/better man, and I’m not motivated by trying to please her….and of course she loves me again…at least for now ;)

    My sons will be learning the truth from me as they grow up!

  • Phaedrus

    Yeah, your Iron Rule #6 is by far the most difficult to accept, especially (as you describe it here) the conditional nature of a woman’s love. I still find myself oscillating between accepting it and hoping that maybe, with the right girl, it won’t be true. It’s always safest to act under the assumption that it’s true, though, and never let that hope turn into an expectation.

    I wonder, though, whether it’s true that the more hypergamous a woman is, the more conditional her love is? Is it the hypergamy alone that makes for the conditionality? My current gf is much more hypergamous than my most recent ex (I can tell both by their behavior towards me and by who they’ve dated in the past), and while she’s currently very much in love with me, I have a strong suspicion that, were a few of my circumstances to change or were I to start acting too “beta”, she’d slowly and subconsciously find excuses and rationalizations for that love to disappear. This realization kind of sucks.

    Also, my current gf is substantially higher sex rank than my ex. So I also wonder: is there a correlation between higher sex rank in a woman and how hypergamous she is? It would make sense, but I don’t have enough varied experience to say for sure.

  • Phinn

    The corrollary rule you mentioned — that women cannot appreciate the sacrifices a man makes for her — is the one that snapped me out of my blue pill fog.

    I had always understood that love is conditional, that you could love but still need to part ways if there was a structural problem that love alone could not fix. My own parents had loved each other, but had no ability to stay happily married. I always knew love wasn’t enough to make you happy in a marriage or LTR.

    But appreciation is something I expected. That was my blind spot, a core error about women. I didnt mind making all the sacrifices so long as they were appreciated, acknowledged, and even minimally reciprocated. When that didn’t happen, that’s when I really became bitter and withdrawn.

    Hearing someone identify that problem, and explain that insufficiently-appreciative is just how women are was like being handed a glass of water when I was dying of thirst.

  • gregg

    Of course, love of a woman is conditional to its core. Role of a man is to slave his life away for woman and her children. EVERY married man facilitates this feminine imperative. Wise men never marry, but we are rarely “wise” when it comes to women. We have those protective instincts, romantic nature, high level of hormones, etc. Easy prey for a woman. I have to admit that women have it too easy with men. No wonder that beuatiful ones are bored. It is sooo easy and predictable with those poor males ruled by their hormones, illusions and dicks.

    This is the reason why those romantic stories are so popular among women. Woman subjugates this strong, single and free hero into her feminine reality – commited realtionship. He is defeated and tamed, subjected to her feminine imperative. He resists for a while – finally some some fun for our beloved chicks, but finally he collapses. He is done. Defeated by..ehm..love. Btw: how many married men knew this truth about women before marriage?

  • Grit

    Acknowledging Iron Rule #6 is akin to acknowledging that you die alone. It is a harsh reality and not beneficial to dwell on. Besides, humans are evolved to place all kinds of strawmen and idealizations between us and that reality. It is not as if thousands of men in the manosphere were hoodwinked in a game of “3 cup hide the marble.” Their biology led them to ignore reality and get married (without love). You can’t place any blame there.

    Consider “you die alone” akin to a red pill belief. Every friend you make, every child you have, everything you live for means nothing. You will be buried in a hole and people will be glad to see you go. Theres a 99.9% chance you will be forgotten. Can you fault everyone who invented and believes in the concept of an afterlife? The only healthy approach is to make a bunch of friends and live happily despite the oncoming doom.

    Just like the concept of “friend” distracts you from mortal doom, there used to be a litany of healthy obligations that a woman fulfilled to distract you from the concept that women cannot love you. The more vanilla being her role as a housewife who cooks and cleans and stays at home. The more extreme being that gossiping is religiously bad, she is forced to tolerate a husband’s bad leadership (or face the social stigma of divorce), wearing headscarves to demonstrate submission, tolerance of domestic violence, etc.

    Did you enter the marriage contract with her cognizant that she had her own healthy obligations to fulfill? Or did you fail to enforce or even humor the conditions of her role in your life, wagging your tail like a puppy all the way to your own doom?

  • Rollo Tomassi

    I should add here that a belief in the universal mutuality of love between the sexes is one of the primary reasons beta plug-ins and especially White Knights cling so tenaciously to their mental models.

    Naturally that model is based on a scarcity mentality and reciprocal reward exchanged for relational equity, but at the end of it all the concept of that ‘love’ reward is based on an expectation of a male-define, male-idealized, love being returned to him when he is rewarded.

    It’s only after he’s involved and invested in an LTR that he comes to realize that love isn’t at all what he’d originally had in mind because women, his dream-girl, has no concept of what a male defined love is.

  • Ted D

    Rollo – if a man cannot expect a woman to love him the way he feels he should be loved, is there no place to find it? Is it that many/most of us simply have an incorrect concept of love that is not humanly possible, or is it only not possible from women? Is this what men’s clubs and strong male friendships were for?

    I ask genuinely, because I’ve accepted that I can’t get what I’m looking for from a woman, but I haven’t stopped desiring that level of bonding. It isn’t about the sex, it is about knowing one person that truly understands you. The fairy tale says that is supposed to be “the one”, but we know that is BS. So, is it your father, uncle, best friend? Or, are we destined to never feel that kind of connection?

    I have a few very close male friends; guys I consider non-related brothers, but we don’t sit around and talk about our feelings. We get together and talk politics, sports, the usual. The few times I’ve had real heart to heart talks with these friends, I’ve felt glad to have their ear, but uncomfortable crossing some unseen boundary. We have no problems talking about things like itchy balls or colon cancer screening, but the mention of how we “feel” about something is uncomfortable. But we can’t talk to our wives/GF’s about this stuff, so who is left? Is it really a matter of grit and determination? Am I just too much of a wuss that sometimes I NEED to talk shit out? Is it a deficiency that I feel relief when I realize I’m not the only man that feels the same way?

  • gregg

    Rollo I would bet half of my assets that you did not know this “truth” before marriage. This is not “beta-thing” or “white knight” thing. This one is rooted in biology of men. Without this there will be no marriages at all. It is manly to belive in romance, soulmates, to protect and provide for your wife, to sacrifice your well being for her. We are made that way. This belief is almost universal among men.

    Men were made blind when it comes to women -and we are made that way for a reason. When a tiny minority of us finally open their eyes – life is no longer so nice…but much more predictable.

    [You'd be keeping all your assets.]

  • Stingray

    That men believed in unconditional love from their wives was a shock to me when I first I first read it in the manosphere. My husband and I had this conversation shortly before or after (I can’t remember exactly) we were married. We were both lamenting the fact that we could never be capable of loving one another unconditionally. We both knew there are things that either of us could do to destroy the love. Given that, I assumed this was common knowledge. We both know, the only people we could love unconditionally are our children.

    So, my question is this, are men taught that a woman’s love is unconditional or is it something that is ingrained?

  • deti

    Sting:

    I think Rollo’s Iron Rule 6 suggests the answer. Men love through self-sacrifice, through giving of themselves, by doing. This is how we are made. It’s ingrained. Men think that because they love unconditionally, then women must also do the same.

    This is reinforced by family members, media and churchianity telling men that the only way they know how to love is through sexual intimacy, which is bad, perverted and dirty. But women love through “giving”, which is good, pure and clean.

  • Sasha

    The first biggest relationship of every man is with his mother – he spend 9 month in the womb, subject to his mothers hormonal fluctuations, emotional swings, happiness and sadness, good nutrition and substance abuse. That is what is deeply imprinted as “love” on biological level.

    It takes breaking away from one’s mother on the emotional level to stop seeking unconditional “wombly” love from women.

  • Alpha Mission

    @stingray: a woman’s love for her child is conditional as well, ever heard of abortion? Also some women have been known to kill their children post partum because they don’t appear to be from the desired biological father (alpha). Additionally a man and wife should love each other more than their children. As women have gained power through feminism, the results have been more than repulsive.

  • Rhino Tingley

    It seems to me that we are being unfair to the ladies.

    I would suggest that women can indeed love unconditionally, however, what they love is not what you “are” – whatever that means (are you the same man you were ten years ago ?). No, what they love is what you represent. A winner, a hero, a risk-taker, a leader… you name it.

    When you cease to represent what they love, then it’s over. Hence the divorces after guys lose their jobs. Your “essence” has no meaning to them.

  • dean

    I am trying to understand this argument but I would like some clarification. What exactly is the male definition of love and what is the female definition? It seems it goes something like this:

    Male: wants a woman to love him for his ability to make a living, help raise the kids, keep a homefront, love him for his character, love him for the fact that he gave up being a playboy for love, etc.

    Ok, but there are alot of assumptions in there, primarily that the man actually has character and is lovable. Many men are just not. I do know some happily married men who are not game aware. They just have their shit together and are confident men. I also know of a number of men who are miserable in their marriages but to a man all of them are lacking in either ambition, character, fitness, money, etc. I can’t say I blame a woman for falling out of love with a non-ambitious man; and ambition doesn’t mean trying to be Bill Gates. It means trying to live a successful life in the areas of health, wealth, family, friends, hobbies and love. Ok, what about women:

    Women: love is conditioned on the man being both a lover and a provider; ie both alpha and beta as Athol Kay puts it. We know it is the alpha/lover attributes that gets the women into bed but it is the beta provider stuff that gets her to marry you. As Tyler Durder has said many times, “women don’t care about the wealth of the men they fuck, only the wealth of the men they marry.” The evolutionary reasons for this are clear. But this makes sense. Women are the smaller, weaker sex. They are inherently vulnerable and their psychology reflects this. They need material help to build and maintain a homefront and family (unless they are extremely wealthy which most women are not). But I still think that for the higher self-esteem women, and I have met a few of them, if the man meets the conditions (and even if he meets them more than less), women do remain committed.

    I don’t deny hypergamy but I think that the notion that a woman with a confident successful man will up and run off with someone who is of marginally higher market value to be somewhat over-stated and exaggerated. If she meets a significantly higher smv guy then maybe. But the chances are that she would have married that guy to begin with. Hypergamy doesn’t influence the marriage market the way it does the short term sexual market (ie the “hookup” market).

    I’m not denying that there is a different sexual psychology b/w men and women b/c of their different respective biology and the evolutionary forces that forged them. But I don’t think that the “love differential” is insurmountable. It would take two people who 1) hold committed values 2) share those values 3) both remain attractive relative to their age 4) both remain effort driven in all the major areas of life 5) both don’t become lazy as most people they do. Yes, the majority of the burden does fall on the shoulders of the man. He has to be both productive and sexy. But for a game aware man that shouldn’t be that hard.

    My main point is that posts like this suggest a nihilism to the human condition that I don’t believe exists. I can understand rejecting blue-pill naivete but this red-pill nihilism isn’t much better.

  • deti

    Dean:

    Almost. Men want to be loved for WHO THEY ARE and appreciated for WHAT THEY DO.

    Most women do not do this. A woman loves a man for what he does for her and what he represents: affirmation, validation, provision.

  • dean

    I would suggest that women can indeed love unconditionally, however, what they love is not what you “are” – whatever that means (are you the same man you were ten years ago ?). No, what they love is what you represent. A winner, a hero, a risk-taker, a leader… you name it.

    When you cease to represent what they love, then it’s over. Hence the divorces after guys lose their jobs. Your “essence” has no meaning to them.

    But this gets to the heart of the issue: What exactly is love? Unconditional love is a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing. Life requires meeting conditions. So does love. It sounds like men are asking for something for nothing; a kind of romantic welfare.

    Rhino says that women love the “hero, risk-taker, leader, etc.” Well should they love the loser, risk-avoider, follower, etc? Of course a woman will fall out of love for you if you change from winner to loser or from strong confident man to weak, doubt-ridden wimp. I’m willing to bet that most men today are *low self-esteem* men. The question to ask is why. And I would suggest that the reason for that is culture which means yes, wait for it, the LEFT and the post-modern philosophical legacy that it is built one. The Left in the name of egalitarianism has destroyed ALL moral standards. When the Left destroyed masculinity they also destroyed PRIDE.

    The manosphere constantly stresses biology and I don’t deny that it is extremely important. But just as important if not way more so is culture. Biology expresses itself through culture and today culture is shaped by the Left. The conservatives are non-players and haven’t been since the 60s. The Left’s war on moral standards and moral virtue is what has caused men to be weak and women to be amoral.

  • CaptainHammer

    @Gustavo:

    You already quoted it, but I’ve got to quote it again…

    “So he spends his monogamous efforts in ‘building their relationship’ into one where she loves him according to his concept, but it never happens. It’s an endless tail-chase of maintaining her affections and complying with her concept of love while making occasional efforts to draw her into his concept of love. The constant placating to her to maintain her love conflicts with the neediness of how he’d like to be loved is a hypergamic recipe for disaster…”

    This was the first 4.5 years of my 6-year marriage (and the 2 1/2 years of the relationship before that). It was also the 5 years of my previous (and only other) LTR.

    @Phinn:

    “The corrollary rule you mentioned — that women cannot appreciate the sacrifices a man makes for her — is the one that snapped me out of my blue pill fog.

    But appreciation is something I expected. That was my blind spot, a core error about women. I didnt mind making all the sacrifices so long as they were appreciated, acknowledged, and even minimally reciprocated. When that didn’t happen, that’s when I really became bitter and withdrawn.”

    This was my experience as well. It was extremely liberating to learn and accept that this is just the way it is. I kept expecting a big payoff for the constant sacrifices that I was making over the years, and all that actually happened was that I kept raising the bar for what she could expect me to do for her without having to give anything in return. Not unexpectedly, I had a lot of bitterness and resentment.

    However, knowing the reality of it all makes me more honest about the sacrifices that I make. I’ll make sacrifices when they are necessary or when I believe that it’s the right thing to do, but I no longer make any sacrifices in order to earn “Brownie points” to be cashed in later. My eyes have been opened up to all of the covert contracts that I was making.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @Dean, I’d agree up to this point,..

    Hypergamy doesn’t influence the marriage market the way it does the short term sexual market (ie the “hookup” market).

    Strongly disagree. Hypergamy doesn’t end at the alter, and if anything it’s even more pronounced. Think of the ‘buyer’s remorse’ principle PUAs describe; now think about mitigating that for a lifetime. That’s the hindbrain doubt that hypergamy etches into every woman.

    As I said before, men believe in love for the sake of love, women love opportunistically. The best illustration I can think of for this disparity is to watch the movie Blue Valentine. That disparity is exactly what makes this movie is so painful to watch. This will make Stingray cringe, but it’s the “what do I have to do to make you love me?” dynamic.

    I will also agree about the red pill nihilism aspect, but that’s the point. All of the very positive, very beneficial aspects of accepting a red pill reality come at the cost of abandoning the blue pill idealisms we’ve been conditioned to for so long. Leaving behind that polyanna, expectant, blue-pill dream seems like killing an old friend, but unlearning that old paradigm allows you to benefit from a far more hopeful red pill existence.

  • dean

    Almost. Men want to be loved for WHO THEY ARE and appreciated for WHAT THEY DO.

    Well, “who they are” is going to be determined by “what they do”. So on that end there shouldn’t be any problem.

    Most women do not do this. A woman loves a man for what he does for her and what he represents: affirmation, validation, provision.

    Well, this argument I can understand and I don’t doubt that there are many women like this. Essentially you are saying that women love the deeds a man does but not the actual man himself and if the deeds stop then so does the love.

    But my answer is that if the deeds stop then the man has changed. Also, I would say that higher self-esteem women (admittedly not a majority) understand that it is the man that is responsible for the deeds. I don’t see an inherent conflict with effort driven, psychologically healthy people. But there is the rub. As I said in the comment above most people’s psychologies have been damaged by bad philosophical trends in our culture; the Left being the MAJOR cause of all of this. Yes, I hate the Left to the depth of my soul and I find that the manosphere does not fully appreciate just how much of the sexual insanity of today’s world is due to post modern philosophy; the “pomowankers” as a friend of mine calls them.

  • Stingray

    a woman’s love for her child is conditional as well, ever heard of abortion? Also some women have been known to kill their children post partum because they don’t appear to be from the desired biological father (alpha). Additionally a man and wife should love each other more than their children. As women have gained power through feminism, the results have been more than repulsive.

    I don’t disagree with anything you say here. It seems that women, as a group, have become only their base biological desires (what they refer to as empowerment). Without some kind of will, women aren’t going to able to ever become something more. A woman will rarely learn will without some incentive for doing so.

    Yes, a woman should love her husband more than her children. She will never be able to raise them the way they should be and deserve to be unless this is true. That doesn’t mean the love is unconditional, however. I can’t think of a way to describe what I mean without using myself as an example, so please bear with me. I can’t love my husband unconditionally and he knows it. We both do. I know that, should he ever give up and stop trying to keep his end of the marriage, there would reach a point where I would fall out of love with him. I don’t know how long it would take but it would happen. Conversely, the same goes for me. If I gave up and stopped caring for him and our children he would fall out of love with me. I don’t think that would ever happen with our children. They could completely check out, give up, do nothing all day, everyday without any ambition in the world and I would still love them.

  • dean

    Rollo,

    I don’t disagree. But I just think that high self-esteem women will marry the best man they can get and that there will not be such a SMV disparity. In ‘Blue Valentine’ you had a non-ambitions prole marrying a LSE single mother; two fucked up people. But lets say he had saved his money from his construction job and then opened up a small bar and bought 2 or 3 rental properties and had a nice cash flow going. He had nice friends and family and threw great superbowl parties where they showed off the kids, etc.

    Well I know a couple just like that. A guy who looks wise is a 6 but married an 8 and has kept her happy and with a decent sex life. He worked construction but bough rental houses and opened a local bar. He and his wife are always holding hands and kinoing each other. He knows nothing about game. He just has his shit together and he is pretty happy.

    Now if his fortunes turn south. Yeah, there will be problems but there are many women out there that DO appreciate when a man picks himself up after a fall; granted not too many of them will be under 25. Yes, I know the man DOES need to pick himself up. But from my perspective the conditionality of love is just obvious. What I’m saying is that I don’t see women as being demonic. They’re smaller and weaker. Conditions need to be met I agree. But meet those conditions and meet them with a cocky swagger. If you didn’t marry a LSE night mare (as in “Blue Valentine”), you should be OK.

    Anyway, this is a good blog and a good discussion.

  • deti

    LSE= low self esteem

  • Stingray

    Oh man . . . duh. Thanks Deti. ;)

  • FFY

    As Rob at No Ma’am always says, there is a heirarchy of love.

    Man -> Woman -> Children

    Love flos down the heriarchy, not up. Much like a child can never love its parents like its parents love it, a woman can never love a man like a man loves a woman.

    http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2006/01/very-few-women-are-capable-of.html

  • Michael

    Great article. But isn’t there something missing? Something along the lines of “… so this is what you do about it”?

    Should men just give up on ever being loved and turn into a pump-n-dumper? Vow chastity and just hang out with the guys? Settle down to a life of unloved misery and pretend to enjoy it?

  • Stingray

    My husband played me this song last night and it is an utterly raw look at hypergamy.

    I hate you for the sacrifices you made for me.
    I hate you for every time you ever bled for me.
    I hate you for the way you smile when you look at me.
    I hate you for never taking control of me.
    I hate you for always saving me from myself.
    I hate you for always choosing me and not someone else.
    I hate you for always pulling me back from the edge.
    I hate you for every good word you ever said…

    Blood, blood, blood, pour more through my veins.
    Shut your dirty, dirty mouth. I’m not that insane.
    Blood, blood, blood, pour more through my veins.
    I’m a dirty, dirty girl. I wanna feel sane.
    [x2]

    I love you for everything you ever took from me.
    I love the way you dominate and you violate me.
    I love you for every time you gave up on me.
    I love you for the way you look when you lie to me.
    I love you for not believing in what I say.
    I love you for never once giving me my way.
    I love you for never delivering me from pain.
    I love you for always driving me insane..

    Blood, blood, blood, pour more through my veins.
    Shut your dirty, dirty mouth. I’m not that insane.
    Blood, blood, blood, pour more through my veins.
    I’m a dirty, dirty girl. I wanna feel sane.
    [x4]

    This is going to incomplete, so please bear with me. A woman’s love is wrapped up intrinsically with her respect for him. She can’t respect him properly unless he, for the most part, satiates her hypergamy. If he gives up and the hypergamy is no longer satiated she will lose respect for him. When the respect goes, so goes the love.

    That doesn’t mean she has to crush him and go for the I’m not haaapppyyy divorce. She can still act respectful, but it is never going to be the same as feeling that respect.

  • Stingray

    Rollo,

    I must have posted too many links and I ended up in moderation. Would you please take me out? Thank you.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Saw this video linked at a manosphere blog last week, can’t remember which, but I loved it and the write up.

  • Stingray

    Spacetraveller mentioned a blog written by Lost called Dating on the Move? Does that sound familiar? I haven’t heard of it but am planning on checking out.

  • 3rd Millenium Men

    @Stephen do you have kids? Cause if not I’d be getting myself the hell out.

  • xsplat

    Sasha says: “It takes breaking away from one’s mother on the emotional level to stop seeking unconditional “wombly” love from women.”

    This is an insightful point. I like the idea of individuation. Although we can’t equate individuation with charisma, I think there is a close correlation with the circle that we draw to claim the set of alpha characteristics.

    Individuation is at the core of this most manly art of dealing with women.

    I like the way you put it. We can no longer rely on our women for succor. That was never their job. That relationship is only between women and young children.

  • Sam Spade

    Man. When I was 17 or 18, I joked to my (female) friend and her parents that “women are evil; men are stupid.” I was trying to be funny/clever of course. I don’t believe women are “evil” and men are “stupid.” But the naked truth of that statement just struck me. I made it at an age when I didn’t know anything about anything, let alone Game, Hypergamy, etc. Yet I somehow felt moved to observe that women follow their plan and men self deceive and play along.

    I probably would have forgotten I ever said that, except that her parents used to bring it up and chuckle from time to time. The really got a kick out of it. From the mouths of babes perhaps. Not incidentally this friend was a friend-zone friend, to whom I was an emotional tampon.

    Deep down, I knew. I always knew. I maintain that all men, deep down, know the naked truth. It’s in there somewhere. Self-deception is a powerful thing, but there is some tiny iota of reptilian brain tissue that knows the deal. I will always believe this. The red pill, like any good pill, unlocks a chemical that is already there. Women are evil. Men are stupid. The beat goes on.

  • Dreamer

    I think you left out a major piece in this analysis. It was from a response you (RT) made in the last post about the conditionality of love.

    I commented before that your argument seems to be an argument that love is insincere. Your response was that the more sincere the conditions, the more sincere the love.

    That’s a very important aspect you seem to recognize (unless I have mixed up my memory or misinterpret it) in this subject, but was not mentioned in this post. We assign value of genuineness of the conditions as much as the genuineness of the love.

    I agree love cannot be unconditional, but is the ideal is just to be loved unconditionality? Isn’t the main related statement is to “loved me for who I really am.” It means to be loved based on his existence which entails identity. Identity is nebulous, but identity is arguable the summation of everything perceive to make the man – hobbies, actions, thoughts, personality, and etc.

    This tends to be viewed as unconditional because existence and identity tends to be view as permanent part of any person. Yet, we recognize that people change including becoming not the person before.

    When the conditions of love is based more on character, personality, athleticism and the person change into a coward, effeminate, and fat. The dissonance is far less than if a man loses his job like commenter Stephen above. Your superman analogy from many posts ago fits. If superman is only superman so long he retains the sum of all the qualities that made him. If superman becomes the opposite of everything about him. Few seem to find dissonance regarding that.

    To be loved for reasons as close and many of the summary parts is to meet that ideal.The conflict comes not to the idea that love is actually conditional, but when the love is based on conditions that not very intrinsic (like income and status) and/or very few aspects to the totality of the person. If you agree, doesn’t this mean that the accepting the idea of conditionality isn’t as bitter as your present? That the problem is not accepting the idea to be never being truly loved, but to ensure the reasons behind the love reasons we find sincere (which are reasons that cover aspects of ourselves and our actions)?

  • abcdef

    Men love for the sake of love?

    No, men love for the sake of wide hips, tasty dinners, and maternal instinct.

    It’s practical in both directions.

    @Dada: “When a woman’s “social retardation” mode changes and becomes too serious, I know she’s thinking too logically and her love for me has dropped”

    You’re missing the point. Women are logical. They are seeking status.

    Women laughing at everything just mean they find you sexy. It’s a biological reaction.

    Biology, however, is not mutually exclusive from logical reasoning.

  • Simon Corso

    I think what messes us up is our mothers.

    If you’re a guy who was ” lucky ” enough to have a good mother, she loved you unconditionally. This was your introduction to women and so as a man you presume that all women are capable of this kind of unconditional love. The sweet, nurturing, you-can-do-anything-and-I-will-still love-you, kind of love.

    If you did receive this unconditional love from your mom, I hope you enjoyed it because no other woman on the planet will EVER offer that again and eventually you will have to train yourself not to even hope for it.

    If you did NOT receive this love you are actually better off in many ways, certainly more prepared to enter the harsh cold realities of the world as a man.

  • nek

    @Simon Corso.

    I couldn’t agree more. I have a very nice mom and had a “good” upbringing. While I’ve straightened out my act, it has definitely had an effect with women. It’s as if modern moms are trying to raise men to always be dependent on them, instead of raising them to stand on their own two feet. They’ll tell you what you want to hear, instead of what you need to here. They’re good at comforting, terrible at problem solving (go figure). The problem is, dads should be able to counter this but this day in age they’re either too brainwashed themselves or absent in some form or another. My dad is alpha, so with him it was an odd situation. He’d basically tell me to be the nice guy provider type. He himself was not that. And my mom is very good to him. He’s the alpha that doesn’t realize what makes him successful. If he practiced what he preached, I doubt things would be the same. He’s definitely aloof and does what he wants and my mom is the main breadwinner although he manages the finances.

    @Michael,

    I’m currently going through that or just through that. I thought I swallowed the red pill fully but I’ve realized it takes longer to digest than imagined. I can fully understand the concepts, principles, and realities, but really ACCEPTING them is/was tricky. You suffer from something that many of us have suffered from or are still suffering from: Expectationitis. Simply put, we have too many expectations in life. All of us, and not just in the realm of romance. I’m in my late 20s and I EXPECTED that by this point in my life I’d be farther ahead professionally, making more money, etc. but that has not been the case. We have a culture of expectations. Get rid of them. Only once you’ve lost everything are you free to do anything. And that’s the truth. The truth may hurt, but it will set you free.

  • nek

    @ Michael again:

    I think phase I of the red pill process is understanding the dynamics and realities. And I think that, while this isn’t easy to do at first either, it is the easier part of the process. Phase II is the acceptance. In between Phase I and Phase II (Let’s call it I b.) is where guys are still holding on to Blue pill ideals and using red pill knowledge to try to achieve them. As in, they’re using red pill skills/knowledge to obtain that Ideal love. I think alot of guys are stuck in the I b. part. Because the reality is uglier. While I think they’re wrong from a logical standpoint to try and do this, I understand where they’re coming from.

    PS

    @ gregg

    Moment of recognition: I can’t help but smile when I see you’ve commented on a story. I know you’ve chimed in to “keep it real” when the discourse in the comment section starts to drift away from reality. And every time I read your comments, you never disappoint. You should have your own blog, although I don’t think you’d have too much to say as you typically cut right to the core of things.

  • Sphinx64

    Men need to be make clear what conditions are required for his love, e.g. his wife/girlfriend staying fit. Unfortunately, we’re labeled as shallow if we are not pleased with a woman’s weight gain.

  • Dirty bitches love it in the ass* « Krauser's PUA Adventure

    [...] It should be pretty clear that girls fantasise alot about sex. This girl is the prototypical Good Girl – she’s 23 and had only one sexual partner, looks quite nerdy. For a long time I struggled with the madonna-whore complex, struggling to believe that good girls love sex. 60 Years of Challenge explains that one well. Men have trouble accepting affection from sluts because they have a natural aversion to forming a long-lasting emotional attachment to a girl who shows signals of likely sleeping-around / cuckoldry. Women know a child is theirs but a man never does and this simple fact explains about half the difference in male and female sexuality. Thus men are inclined to sort women into mutually exclusive categories of those who love sex (Bad Girls) and those who are marriageable (Good Girls). It’s wrong but it took me a long time to unburden myself of this notion – it’s a pretty lie that doesn’t want to perish because men don’t want to give up on the hope that women can really love them unconditionally. [...]

  • Grizzly

    Simon Corso, you have just spoken the most bitter of all red pill iron laws: You must purge all hope that any woman can love you as you are, as deeply and unconditionally as your own mother did. All the others can only love how you make them feel about themselves.

  • Markku Koponen

    Stringray: The lie of unconditional love is basically that the love of my hypothetical wife is the one thing I can count on in my life – that I could try things and fail at them, and it might make life a bit rough for a while, but I’d always have the love of my wife to fall back on.

    I believed this hook, line and sinker a decade ago. Luckily I learned otherwise before actually getting married.

  • expat

    nothing more pathetic than a man in love

  • Dreamer

    People, looking at some of the comments, I want to quote this:

    “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.”

    That’s from Rollo from the “Women in Love” thread and I don’t think it is out of context.

    Some are writing like as if the reality is “there is no love” and thus the only choices is to either screw around/abstain or leave in loveless misery. I’m going to go on a limb to argue to chill a bit. I don’t want to sound like some NAWALT hamster girl, but the point is to be aware there are conditions. Some conditions are better than others and that is important to consider, not prepare to give up any semblance of love. Or at least that’s what I think Rollo is saying.

  • xsplat

    Great article. But isn’t there something missing? Something along the lines of “… so this is what you do about it”?

    Should men just give up on ever being loved and turn into a pump-n-dumper? Vow chastity and just hang out with the guys? Settle down to a life of unloved misery and pretend to enjoy it?

    Men have found different solutions to the quandary. The most popular one in the manosphere, as far as I can tell, is to become an emotional zombie, and just pump and dump girls as if the man no longer has any humanity left in him. All traces of emotional bonding are to be burned to char with a flame thrower. People develop strong mindfulness for any “one-itis”, and develop a frame that is geared to attracting girls with severe attachment issues; the frame of the aloof alpha; incapable of forming lasting emotional bonds.

    Another solution is to “go your own way”, and abjure all affection and even most sex. Another is prostitutes.

    But there is another way. A way you will rarely hear even whispered. We can still love the girls AS THEY ARE. We can still engender love from them, as they can give it. We can still enjoy strong, passionate, deep intimacy.

    Of course it will all be temporary. But that’s part of being a man. You can handle the bitter along with the sweet, and you endure the pain and the pleasure both.

  • Alpha Mission

    Are we supposed to make our girls of the moment have abortions too? This is the one part of the xsplat experience I refuse to replicate.

  • nek

    @ Dreamer

    I think the issue with conditional love is that it doesn’t really make it worth a man’s while to invest in a woman too much knowing that there are conditions to it. You simply can’t invest too much of yourself into a woman who will leave you once a better deal comes around, or just out of emotional whim. And it seems like these days that the number of conditions seems to be growing. It’s like xsplat says, love them as they are, but once you realize what they are, it doesn’t inspire that strong of a love from a man. And it’s nowhere near the type of love that women desire from a man.

  • xsplat

    I have no idea how a family man can safely structure a family life nowadays. I love giving advice, but have nothing to say on that topic. And am not planning to figure out a solution either.

    All I know or care about is enjoying the company of women. Babies? You tell me if you ever sort that out.

  • wdplant

    A very good post, one of the best I have seen. It explains very well the problem most men have with understanding the behaviour of women in relationships. Our expectations are different from theirs and many men would have happier lives if they could realise and understand this concept.
    I just wonder where a man’s concept of love comes from. Do we get from from our mothers, from our culture, from our fathers? Are we setting our sons up for failure in relationships?

  • YaReally

    @Stephen

    “She said we might be over before long if my attitude doesn’t change and I just laughed and said so what?”

    I let out a little “fuck ya!!!” under my breath when I read that. Fuckin A, props man!

  • Dreamer

    @nek

    I agree with the second half. These days the conditions are growing larger by the minute.

    But I’m not sure of the first half. The reasoning seems to be based on the premise of not only unconditionality does not exist, but the conditions that do exist to be fragile. To be at the graces of the superior competition and emotional whims of the woman.

    I spent a significant amount of energy to write my first post noting the thought. Which seems to be getting ignored rather contested or concurred. Unconditional is unrealistic, but conditions does vary. If the condition is only being an ATM, you get Stephen. But for others (let’s use Dalrock), is probably a bit stronger and more sincere than that – the condition is far more intrinsic to the man making the love much more sincere and genuine. Why can’t we use this for our actually benefit to set our conditions to be sincere and genuine? To set the conditions to be on aspects that is most intrinsic that makes up our identity (presuming an identity with attractive qualities)? The existence of conditionality does not necessarily mean giving up hope or so I hope.

    I don’t know for sure what Rollo thinks (knock knock), but I suspect he is not advocating to the young man to go emotional zombie or MGTOW.

  • YaReally

    @Rollo

    “All of the very positive, very beneficial aspects of accepting a red pill reality come at the cost of abandoning the blue pill idealisms we’ve been conditioned to for so long. Leaving behind that polyanna, expectant, blue-pill dream seems like killing an old friend, but unlearning that old paradigm allows you to benefit from a far more hopeful red pill existence.”

    Yep. I would argue that understanding and accepting women’s limitations and faults as how they are, instead of expecting them to live up to an imaginary ideal actually allows me to love them more, because I love them for who they are, faults and all, not who I hope they’ll be. There’s no need for her to put up a facade around me, I know her to her core, so if I love her, that’s a love based on truth.

    To quote Into The Wild’s version of Thoreau’s quote: “Rather than love, than money, than faith, than fame, than fairness…give me truth.”

  • YaReally

    One more lol:

    “I think alot of guys are stuck in the I b. part. Because the reality is uglier.”

    I think the biggest difference between myself personally and the Manosphere commenters I’ve seen is that the red pill was a tough swallow for most of them. It went down hard, took multiple tries, they got stuck in “I b.” clinging to shit, it was a total scary mindfuck, accepting the realities of the red pill (like the comment above about how it would mean everything is meaningless and that’s too scary/depressing to accept) etc etc.

    For me, I had no reference experience with women or anything outside the bubble of my computer room living at home. So when I found PUA and the red pill I was like “woah what?? Awesome, gimme!!” and swallowed it more eagerly than xsplat’s mom on a Friday night. And when I realized the red pill was showing what an imperfect and fucked up (but logically consistent) world we lived in when you ignore all the Disney shit and the social conditioning and brainwashing, I was like “this is amazing, I love seeing behind the curtain, show me more!!”

    If I had found this stuff after two divorces and a couple of kids and failed careers etc, I’m sure I’d have had as much trouble with it as a lot of Manosphere guys. It’s a shame this stuff is so shrouded in MSM-hate/fear…the more men it reaches, the earlier in their lives, the better.

  • Steve Canyon

    A woman can express a desire, verbally or written, to move beyond her nature and maybe even recognize such it, as Jacquie claims, herself. Ultimately, she never will be able to move beyond it because her emotions dictate her actions and thus will revert back to her natural state.

    I consider such stated desires to have no more merit than a woman who states she wants to lose weight as she dumbs half a bottle of ranch on her cobb salad and washes it down with a coke.

  • pulsotic

    I think the biggest problem is that people still believe in romantic love. It doesn’t exist. For a different shade of red pill, Google: “romantic love is a hoax by james park.”

    The reality is that men can only “fall in love” with pretty women, and women can only “fall in love” with “better” men.

    When a woman loses her looks, or when a man loses his resources or status, the “love” is lost.

    @Ya Really
    I keep searching google for your blog but I still can’t find it.

  • Apollo

    Of course men can’t tell the difference between a womans fake love and real love. Two main reasons (or categories of reasons if you will):

    1. Women are master manipulators. Women are adept at getting men to believe what benefits them, and if a man needs to believe that a woman loves him in order for her to get what she wants (and that’s a pretty effective way to go) then that’s what she will get him to believe. Womens whole sexual/mating strategy essentially revolves around men not properly understanding her motivations, so being able to project a chosen and desirable attitude towards men is practically a biologically evolved, unconscious skill.
    2. Men want to believe. We are socially conditioned by romantic movies, tv shows and stories to believe women can and will love us this way. Many men don’t have enough experience with women to learn otherwise before they are hooked, and it’s pretty much a social taboo to spread the word about this. Most of all though… men want it to be true. The alternative is painful to accept, too much to accept for many men. The truth can deal a savage blow to the regard with which you view human relationships.

    And dare I say it… maybe another reason men can’t tell the difference between a womans fake love and her real love is because there may be no difference.

  • peoplegrowing

    What confuses me most about this is that what has been described as what a man wants from love sounds to me very much like what women want from love too. I think women also want appreciation and unconditional support.

    The problem as I can see it is not that men and women aren’t talking about the same things in terms of their desires, but that they aren’t talking about the same things in terms of “self” – and, to be fair, I recognize that there may also be (our culture currently even encourages) an imbalance in each gender’s ability to give those desired things.

    For example, we have heard the cries of the fat and/or sexually unavailable woman – “You don’t love me any more! How come you can’t just love me for me, and not my body?” Much of the comments on this post (and, to a lesser extent, the post itself) strikes me as men looking on the plight of those left by hypergamous women complaining, “You don’t love me anymore! How come you can’t just love me for me, and not my job/social standing/et cetera?”

    This is NOT to discredit the very real anguish of such a situation, or the fact that society has shown a gratuitous imbalance in supporting those left behind. I mean in no way to minimize the distress caused by such disloyalty, only to show that there is a certain parallel.

    The point is just that men and women (obviously) value different things in a mate; these are our conditions for love. In and of itself, these are understandable, and in an ideal world, no outside force would impinge our respective abilities to keep the bargain of “I stay thin, you stay employed (or whatever).”

    Where things really heat up is the effect of an economy that disables men from being able to stay gainfully employed (or otherwise “qualified”) despite their best intentions, a culture which penalizes one spouse while supporting the other in divorces based on their respective “love conditions” and a lack of understanding between genders of the differing conditions for love.

    What’s most unfair about these love conditions, I think, is that there are now many people, especially men, who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed. That is to say, it is NOT THEIR FAULT the circumstances changed. On the other hand, women these days ARE in FULL CONTROL of their weight and appearance. Where men are often powerless to control their lover’s primary love condition (at least these days), women can fully control their lover’s primary love condition (appearance).

    As to the question of whether or not women can appreciate a men’s sacrifices, and whether or not men and women can love each other for their “self” and not just their primary condition (status vs. appearance), I think we can see examples in previous generations that punished women for hypergamy as fiercely as men for polygamy that both men and women must make sacrifices for lifelong monogamy, and at least if they don’t appreciate the other’s, they must make a sacrifice to match. There were days when a woman could live with a man in poverty and not dash off to the next best thing, just as there were days when young men weren’t encouraged to chase as much tail as they could score with as little obligation as they could manage.

    Unfortunately, “they just don’t make’em like they used to,” is definitely true of women, and increasingly, as men realize this, they are choosing to avoid “being like they used to,” as well. There is no fault in this – it is human to adapt. But for those who wish to cast stones at women and suggest they don’t know what love is, I would say, women these days are being “raised” like feral dogs. Men are still taking obedience classes en masse, but are increasingly taking the feral route as well. We all start feral, but some are better trained then others. Some may be incapable of ever being domesticated, but that is based on the individual, not the gender.

  • peoplegrowing

    * scrolls up to see what new posts came up while drafting my essay *

    ….

    Dammit pulsotic, for saying 4 lines what I wrote several paragraphs to express!

    Stupid people being concise. :P

  • Johnycomelately

    Equality is the root of the misunderstanding concerning love, once a man disavows himself of that notion and truly accepts that women are inferior to himself, he bursts that little bubble.

    He can then see past their foibles and appreciate them for who they are.

  • Rock Throwing Peasant

    Understand, the movies women (and men) watch also show no distinction. It would be intresting to see who wrote the most “romantic” movies and, maybe more importantly, finding whoch romantic movies a woman wrote to compare/contrast.

    If men have written the uber-romantic movies, women are more likely to believe they love the same way men do, because the man wrote her part. How would a woman write those parts, from a modern, unleashed perspective?

  • 3rd Millenium Men

    “Can men really not tell when a woman doesn’t love them?

    No, they can’t.

    Why? Because men want to believe…”

    Spot on, and I made the exact same point in my post earlier today:
    http://3rdmilleniummen.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/women-talk-to-your-men/

    When men are in love, we’re on cloud 9. Nothing can get in our way, and we see the world as a far more beautiful place. Norman Doidge explains the basis of this neurochemistry in ‘The Brain that Changes Itself’. Consequently, men (and particularly Beta men but also alphas who let their guard down) can be taken by surprise when we find out a women has either withdrawn internally or is pretending the love exists…

    Though the times I’ve been in love, they’ve been the most all-consuming, passionate, intense times I’ve ever experienced. No way either of us could have faked that.

  • Team-Red

    My experiences have taught me to never develop feelings for a woman or open myself up in a way that could cause pain if she leaves me as I have experienced that heartache in the past. I just enjoy the moments with women now and not expect nothing in return. If they open themselves up to me I acknowledge and thank them for the affection, but nothing more. I once believed in the idea of unconditional love as what I was led to believe, but now I know it’s absolutely conditional. Now I realize why Dogs are a man’s best friend. You could lose your job and house, end up in a trailer and that dog will love you no matter what. A woman? Yeah good luck with that pal.

  • Team-Red

    And honestly men, it’s far healthier to abandon the entire notion of love. You begin to really question your purpose in life and begin to pursue things that really matter to you. It’s almost like a breath of fresh air when your expectations are solely put upon yourself. You experience women in a much more pleasant way too. There is almost a sense of calmness and a genuine character flows from you. For the men out there reading this, ask yourself if what your doing is what you really want to be doing in your life. If the answer is no decide what that is and go after it. Enjoy the pleasures of women, but in a non emotional way.

  • YB

    @pulsotic: thank you for the information. Fascinating to learn that the romantic love bullshit was invented by French troubadours 800 years ago. I will get that book and read it properly, get more view of the whole thing rather than the synopsis of one chapter.

    So the modern business of unconditional love/marriage/divorce is a meme which has gotten well out-of-control. To the point where it has infected society on a deep, ongoing, and totally-unfavorable level. One which in its current uncontrolled manifestation is destroying our society instead of being beneficial.

    Game: rather than being undesirable and deplorable (according to the mainstream media) is actually a culturally-desirable cure required to cut through the bullshit and bring reality back to our social interactions. Once reality is back, we can decide whether to:

    1/ go the emotionless robot pump’n’dump route

    2/ go our own way like the MGTOW movement

    3/ enjoy women for what they are, bittersweet though it might be

    4/ follow the way of @Rollo and employ Game in the long term with a woman that exceeds your baseline (very high) criteria – and knows and dreads at her gut level that you can and will replace her

    I’m unsure if there can be a lasting fix culturally. Perhaps once the crop of entitled princesses die out with minimal children due to general lack of interest. This will probably take a couple of generations at least.

    A link: http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/HOAX.html

    @Rollo, I would be very interested to read your take on this.

  • The Dude

    What has saved my sanity when it comes to relationships after taking the red pill is this.

    Everything in this world…I look at through a man’s eyes EXCEPT relationships. I look at that through a woman’s eyes.

    Men…we can look at some things through a woman’s perspective if we allow it. After all we do have a X chromosome too. Just don’t expect a woman to see things the way you do.

  • The Dude

    And after I started this process of looking at relationships like that…you wouldn’t believe how much easier it was to socialize with women. In fact I would start living and enjoying the moment, having fun, forgetting my ego, and stopped trying to impress.

    My metaphor is…when a woman says she wants a man who communicates well…use your words to paint a picture, don’t use your words to solve a mathematical formula.

  • jarl

    The female conception of love reflects their solipsism. Their love is fundamentally a love of self, while male love is outwardly focused. That is why a woman’s love is conditional; love to her exists as the feelings you can give her. The only way a woman learns to love outside herself is by having children, but that is not even a sufficient condition.

  • Deep Conversion « Krauser's PUA Adventure

    [...] Manosphere speculation on women’s incapacity to love men as they wish to be loved [...]

  • Elaine

    Hmmmm. Intersting. Does make a lot of sense to me. From reading what male posters have written here, I get the idea that men want a female lover to be like the female version of a Wingman (ie Wingwoman). Someone who will have his back and him hers, someone whom he can sacrifice everything for, and vice versa. Someone whom he will be totally and absolutely loyal to and vice versa. Someone he has absolute trust in, enough to potentially put his life and that of his children in her hands. But unlike a Wingman, someone whom he can be totally vulnerable with and reveal the most sensitive emotional parts of himself to, while she accepts him despite his vulnerabilities. Like a Penelope to a Ulysses. Faithfully defending home and heath during the 40(?) years he was away, tending his fields and land, fighting off suitors and remaining totally loyal to a man who was off doing God knows what in God knows where. And no, he did not call because there weren’t cell phones back in those Greecian mythical days.

    The problem here is that a woman’s concept of what they should love in a man is quite different. While women love vulnerabilities in children – then again they may be biologically engineered to do this I don’t know. What they see worth loving in a man is “nobility” or someone who is an inspiration to them. OKay, this is not necessarily true with all women, but certainly a large proportion of them. The trick part is then what constitutes inspiration to women ? It varies and can be hard to put a finger on, like everything female. Conventionally and historically, it meant strength of character, courage, leadership, charisma to lead a group of people, moral strength and moral courage, self control and the ability to transcend himself (?) Okay the last one sounds a bit wacky. Of course with pop culture nowadays this may not necessarily hold true today. But the one thing that hasn’t changed is that the man they love must stand out from the crowd and be different.

    So while men want to be loved and accepted for their vulnerabilities while women look to love men for their strengths.

  • Elaine

    Oh. A final thing. How did Penelope recognize the man she loved/loves after 40 years ? She finally got tired of waiting and said to her suitors that whoever could string his bow and shoot his arrow through twelve axe shafts (wikipedia) or in other versions, through twelve jug holes will win her hand. Guess who could do this out of all the men there ? Yup, the best of them all – the man she loves.

  • GeishaKate

    ***free literature lesson :)

    Odysseus was away twenty years. Penelope’s suitors were plotting to kill Telemacus as he was soon to inherit his father’s lands and she could put them off no longer. She had initially told them she would pick a suitor when she finished weaving a tapestry. Each night she would undo her weaving, but she was eventually discovered.

    So, the challenge was set. They had to use Odysseus’ bow, and naturally, he was best able to do this. Yet, he was still in disguise and she was not certain it was him. Her true test was to ask about their marriage bed, which he, himself, had built and only he could describe.

  • Urban Counselor

    Hands down..one of the best manosphere posts I’ve ever read. With humans there ARE conditions to love and more importantly respect when it is given by women.

  • 3rd Millenium Men

    @Team-Red

    My experiences have taught me to never develop feelings for a woman or open myself up in a way that could cause pain if she leaves me as I have experienced that heartache in the past..

    Giving up on one of life’s greatest joys just because you’ve been burned is very sad.

  • Augen

    I read every article and every comment on RM, it’s really become my favorite blog, almost my favorite read of any kind, so on account of the fact that I don’t comment often, I always feel compelled to affirm that I am down with 99.5% of everything here, the insight, truth and articulation is unexceeded anywhere.

    So, having said that, a few points of nuance.

    I think a big part of the reason RT has the insights he has is age and experience. I am able to read these words and experience them only now looking back at my late teens, my entire 20s and throughout my 30s.

    One thing that makes it possible to understand these things and to appreciate the truth of them when someone else articulates them so clearly is that age puts us in a different position vis-a-vis women than we were when we were younger.

    As RT has been so clear to point out, when we were younger our female peers had the edge in the SMP. As we age, any man who keeps on top of his career and health, begins to gain an upper hand that he never had before. This makes it possible for him to see the feminine side – or at least what the feminine side looked like (a) from our female age-peers when we and they were in our 20s and (b) from the perspective of the younger women we are still attracted to, and who continue to show us interest, only of a different kind, who are now still in their 20s or younger 30s.

    Getting a grip on this, I think, forces us to change the interpretation of the image a bit from what’s being said here in the articles and largely agreed upon by the commentators because:

    A) While it is true that some aspects of female behavior are traceable to evolutionary reproductive strategies tucked away deep in the hindbrain

    B) …much of the behavior simply reflects the different location that the women WHO MEN DESIRE occupy in the SMP – where their desireability leads to different trading behaviors, behaviors that change over time

  • Augen

    Much of what allows me to see “the feminine”, and my guess is that much of how and why RT sees the feminine so clearly, is that no occupying a different side of the SMP, where our value is higher and we see women behaving differently … specifically they behave now LIKE WE DID TOWARDS THEM in our 20s, we get it, we understand the “feminine”.

    But this isn’t entirely understanding “the feminine”, it’s really just understanding how someone behaves when they have an upper hand in a pending transaction.

  • Augen

    Put another way – there can be multiple causes of the same thing. There’s a statistical technique where we try to tease out cause called “multivariate regression”. If I were to poke a guess, I would guess that if we put “evolutionary hindbrain” on a chart with “age with youth and beauty yielding greater power for women early on in the SMP”, we’d find out that the latter contributes at least as much, if not more to the behavior of women.

    Some examples to point …

    In my 20s I didn’t get it. I put in the “relational equity”. They didn’t care. I was their shoulder to cry on and good friend and all that, I got LJBF’d. Over and over.

    At my age now … they put in the relational equity, I can see that they are baffled by the fact that I don’t really care. Or: I do care, but it doesn’t make them any more attractive to me. It doesn’t make me want to bang them. It doesn’t make me want an LTR.

    A reversal of roles in the SMP taught me this and allows me to see clearly what’s going on with women who are younger and who have more assets to wield in the unstated SMP negotiations.

    I haven’t become more feminine. To the contrary, the opposite. All that’s changed is position of relative strength.

  • Augen

    Another example:

    I credit that there is a way men love and want to be loved. I credit that is a massively wholesome thing that is woefully undervalued, at a cost that, if civilization were smart enough to regret it, it would regret it greatly.

    But let’s not overstate this.

    We are able to overthink this because women who are not sexually attractive to us are INVISIBLE to us when we are thinking about these things.

    We DO NOT love every woman like this. We don’t even love one special woman like this. We love the hot thing that happened to come our way.

    That, is the Male Imperative, and it exists every bit as strongly as the Female Imperative and its own self-powering vehicle of YB+TA (youth and beauty + T&A) is as unforgiving as hypergamy.

    To really gain this insight, do an experiment.

    Have lunch in a mall food court. Force yourself to pay attention to all the women who DO NOT catch your eyes.

    The older ones. The fat ones. The ugly ones.

    Could you “love” them, the way we are talking about love?

  • Augen

    Last point:

    Once we get a real handle on the fact that age is playing a highly modifying role in the SMP that inverts the power of the feminine and masculine at different times, I think it turns out that there is a time and place for equity.

    In Old Age.

    When everyone has past their prime. When both parties are no longer attractive to anybody.

    Then, perhaps only then, are we at a point where all that is left is relational equity. And I suspect we all agree, undesirable sexually though such a pair may be, it’s an outcome almost everyone admires. It reminds me of the song “Book of Love” by The Magnetic Fields and later redone by Peter Gabriel … the point is, if it is LOVE we really care about, we are doing something that is concerned with when we get old, when SMP gaming is over, and when we’re left with our actions in history, irrevocable, and our consciences. When there is no more gaming to do.

    Another commenter has argued that the cure to this would be to reorder social expectations so that men and women found and committed to one another when each is at or close to peak SMV. If monogamy and family are what we value, then I agree. How we achieve this social re-ordering though, is anyone’s guess.

  • Acksiom

    “But let’s not overstate this.”

    Let’s first actually see some actual evidence that we actually are.

    “To really gain this insight, do an experiment.

    Have lunch in a mall food court. Force yourself to pay attention to all the women who DO NOT catch your eyes’

    The older ones. The fat ones. The ugly ones.

    Could you ‘love’ them, the way we are talking about love?”

    What way would that be?

    This one?

    Women, if you want to attract us, you should keep in mind that even when we’re NOT EVEN dating you, we men are still expected to step into the line of harm to protect you women from any dangers. That’s what we mean by devotion. That’s the degree and kind of commitment we’re expected to bring to the interaction by default. In the bacon and eggs of this, we’re the pigs and you’re the chickens.

    This still holds true. And I suspect that’s one of the things driving men’s desire for “unconditional” love — reciprocation of that level of commitment.

    That’s about as “unconditional” a love as you’re going to find in this world — the willingness to fight, kill, and even die in someone else’s defense.

    Many, maybe even most of us, would still fight, kill, and die in the defense of those older, fat, ugly women. Sure, we’d likely prioritze the younger, fit, pretty women, but not ahead of our own selves. . .let alone other men.

    For all your talk about your age and experience, you don’t seem very cognizant about the relatively far greater invisibility everybody applies to men and boys, including they to themselves.

    Males are so “invisible” in the usa that we’ve industrially commoditized their erogenous tissue. We genitally mutilate over a million innocent children every year out of literally nothing more than ignorant sexist bigotry, and then resell their sexual flesh on the open market so that, among other things, those older, far, ugly women can have cosmetic anti-wrinkle facial cream.

    So we’re understating just how bad it really is, if anything.

  • To Love « On the Rock

    [...] Rollo had two pieces regarding men and love (Men In Love and Of Love and War).  In the first he stated “ Women are utterly incapable of loving a man [...]

  • Joe

    There really is no such thing as true love these days. Only false love, lust, and extortion.

  • The Soul Mate Myth «

    [...] Due to this core concept and soul-mate mythology, both sexes will seek to perfect that idealization for themselves – even under the least ideal of conditions and expressions. We want to build our intimate relations into that soul-mate idealism in order to relieve the fear and solve the problem, and most times so badly that we’ll deftly ignore the warnings, abuses and consequences of having done so. For women the impact of the most significant Alpha is what initially defines that soul-mate idealization. For men it may be the first woman to become sexual with him or the one who best exemplifies a woman he (mistakenly) believes can love him in a male-defined orientation of love. [...]

  • necorochi

    “Men believe in love for the sake of love,women love opportunistically.”

  • necorochi

    “Men believe in love for the sake of love,women love opportunistically.”

    “The constant placating to her to maintain her love conflicts with the neediness of how he’d like to be loved is a hypergamic recipe for disaster, so when she falls out of love with him he literally doesn’t know that she no longer loves him.”

    Can you elaborate on women objective love a little more, so I can know where to draw the line.

    I was not overt about the neediness but you could almost feel it in the vibe. I’m not a real needy person I got really good at dispelling my emotions , aloof etc but I caught my self doing exactly as how you portrayed.

  • Hopeless Romantic

    “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.”

    And men are uncapable of loving women in the way we idealize. That’s because only the self fully knows, idealizes and love the self. We seek the self in the other.

    “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.”

    As a woman I’d be interested in knowing what this ideal is from your perspective, to see if it matches or conflicts with the ideal that I, as a woman, have nurtured about love.

    ” 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.”

    I have never been loved by a man as I would like them (him) to love me either.

    This goes back to the self knowing, idealizing and loving the self as only the self can. We want the other to know, idealize and love us the same, but it cannot be so.

    Nonetheless I am really curious, if you could give word to it, about how you idealize love and would like to be loved.

  • Anonymous

    YaReally said:
    “It’s a shame this stuff is so shrouded in MSM-hate/fear…the more men it reaches, the earlier in their lives, the better.”

    I’m 22. Keep up the good work.

  • breakherlegs

    What an interesting read.

    However, I do not think all of this applies to all women. It does not apply to my relationship.
    For the past three years, my partner has been on government welfare, living in share houses and often, on the streets. I have left the comfort and warmth behind to be with him in these times, quite often, regardless of the fact I can seek shelter with my mother or my friends whenever I want it. Certainly, we have argued about these things from time to time, but would I leave him over a financial crisis or a lack of social status? Certainly not. I didn’t fall in love with his money or the materials he could provide me.

    So I think it’s less that women need men to provide for them in order to remain in love, but that they need their man to remain the man they fell in love with.
    If a woman falls in love with a man because he is rich, successful and socially dominant, and one day he ceases to be all of these things, he is no longer the man she loves, so she falls out of love.
    One of the reasons I fell in love with my partner was due to his strong ethics, our shared spirituality and his kindness to animals. If those things changed, e.g he became cruel to animals, would I remain in love with him? Probably not. He would no longer be the same man.

    But men love like this too. If a man falls in love with a woman because she is physically beautiful, caring, supportive and fun to be with, and she becomes fat, nasty, apathetic and boring, does he stay with her unconditionally? Doubtful. Most likely, he leave her to seek out a woman who holds these traits he finds lovable, or at the very least, finds a woman on the side to be these things for him.

    How is that any different?

    Is unconditional love remaining devoted to somebody regardless of how many people they become? Of how different their qualities, flaws and interests change? How can that exist, for either gender? If a person becomes a completely different person to the one you fell in love with and you still love them exactly the same, I do not think that is unconditional love; I think that is falling in love with a new person. That, or holding on to fantasy that they will become the person they once were until eventually, they either do revert to their old self, you are forced to give up on them or you are forced to spend your life in a loveless relationship.

    I think unconditional love can only really be seen in parents love for their children (though it isn’t always true) or in some people’s love for their pets. Other than those rare exceptions, I think ALL love is conditional.

    It might be true that women can not love men how they want to be loved. It is a fantasy that women could and should love a man regardless of how much he changes from the person she once knew. However, I doubt there are many, if any, women who would say that their man is capable of loving them in the way they want to be loved.

    And I do not think it is a matter of love being so very different according to gender, (I think it is virtually the same for both, or otherwise homosexual relationships would flourish and always feel unconditional love), but more so a fact that we must accept AS PEOPLE, not as men or women, that unconditional love is a rarity that will probably never be seen by us in our lifetimes, outside of perhaps our parents.

    It is foolish for a man to believe his woman will love him regardless of how slobby and unmotivated (or any other opposite of whichever traits she finds lovable) he becomes, just as it is foolish for a woman to believe her man will love her regardless of how unattractive and psychotic she becomes (or whatever other opposite of the traits he finds lovable).

    It does not mean that we have to give up on love, or view it bitterly. We do not have to abstain from relationships, or only have unemotional sexual flings. It only means that in a relationship, one must be not only honest with their partner, but honest with themselves. We must know why our partner is in love with us and do our best to uphold those ‘conditions’ and we must allow our partner to know why we love them and have them do their best to uphold their conditions.
    In real love, there is room for failure, for forgiveness, for patience. If we do slip up with upholding these conditions, our partner, if they love us, should show patience and forgiveness, of course.
    But in real love, there is determination, self-sacrifice and effort. We can not expect to not even TRY to uphold these conditions, and not repair our mistakes if we slip up, and still expect our partner to love us. We can not expect something for nothing.

    In general, I think people only see things as extremes. People either see the genders as complete opposites, incapable of understanding each other and feeling the same things, or as complete equals, expecting both to love in the same way and react to things in the same way.
    While there are differences between the genders, we are not so different that we are like alien species speaking a completely different language of love.
    I think it is less about different genders and more about individual people. Not all women are materialistic, manipulative b*tches, anymore than all men are emotionally-numb, sex-crazed adulterers. People are people.
    I also think it is less about entertaining fine delusions of unconditional love and exquisite romance, and more about being honest in ourselves about what we can give and what we expect, and being honest with our partners about what we can give and what we expect.

  • Chaagá

    Hey, I am a women, determined to love my guy to the very last bit. Well, I loved him since the very first moment I saw him. I want to marry him and make lots of his babies :) In fact I came across this page while I was searching for ways to make him happier. After reading the bitter comments of frustrated men, I thought I’d share my thoughts so this page don’t look like one sided story. Here we go. Women’s responsibility in family focuses more on care giving and reproduction. We women carry babies in our womb for 9 months, feed them with our blood etc. Can you guys even imagine the physical pains and psychological traumas of delivering a baby? Once a baby is delivered our bodies are never the same. Women sacrifice their beauty, youth, physical and psychological strength to give you a child. Why? Ask your mother, why she gave birth to you. Is it her mere selfishness to cradle a baby? If your father thought like that you would not have born into this world :) In old days, women gave a child to her husband, so the child carries that man’s blood line, wealth, his name, reputation, status etc. (I want my man’s blood line to survive in this world, mixed with mine, cause he has been such a sweet heart to me ^_^) Having said that, lets ask men, What is your role in a family? If women does the earning, cooking, washing, cleaning, giving birth to children, feeding them, providing for them, protecting them, looking after them etc. what is the purpose of your existence? Is it too much to expect from a man to provide for us, to protect us, to accompany us? Is it selfish? There can be temporary time periods in which husband may lose employment, go through hell, lose social status etc. that is when one has to be kind to the other and encourage and support them to move along the rough patches. I am so sorry to hear that most of the frustrated husbands/boy friends who have commented here had not received such a support from their women. My heart goes for them but you men need to understand that they cannot expect women to love them without filling that void in her life which requires to be fulfilled by her man. Good Luck Guys !

  • 10 Ways to Tell Whether Your Man Is in Love With You | Vincent Egoro

    […] MEN OFF 20 SIGNS YOU ARE IN AN ABUSIVE OR VIOLENT RELATIONSHIP 10 SIGNS HE IS JUST NOT INTO YOU Men in Love HOW DO MEN FALL IN LOVE? [MUST READ] 26 Reasons Why I Love My Wife “What if he’s just being […]

  • cyfox

    I don’t pass shit tests. I train them not to shit test. Positive reinforcement works best.

  • Mac

    Again, great insight. I do feel now like we are the better of the sexes. We have a greater ability to empathize, love properly and be responsible. It really pisses me off that we have been indoctrinated into this neutered existence (recently divorced… a little bitter)! I have two sons and I will use much of what I learn to lead them to becoming strong men.

  • john

    Chaaga
    “My heart goes for them but you men need to understand that they cannot expect women to love them without filling that void in her life which requires to be fulfilled by her man. Good Luck Guys !”

    The fact that you said this, you love a person by feeling. Feeling alone will always change due to circumstances (etc man turning beta)

  • iu5xytf

    “Can men really not tell when a woman doesn’t love them?”

    I love this quote, is succinctly shows how tilted the game is. Firstly, it assumes that men should know when they’re loved, despite the lack of parameters given. This is genius, because the onus of responsibility is transferred to the man. With no clear parameters for what love actually is, the woman is free to ‘change her mind’ at any time, leaving the man to figure out, in an endless cycle if he is loved.

    In short, women act, men re-act. If you believe this quote, you’re always one step behind the woman :) The man’s feelings aren’t considered in the slightest. We’re expected to do the heavy lifting ourselves, keep guessing our ground, without any guarantee of being rewarded.

  • Cory Pontillo

    Robert, they vary. It’s up on the authors. Many of the letters coming up are handwritten, or hand-notated, it’s about half and half. Though most on the first letters were typed. The fourth letter was a comic.

  • Kate

    This is definitely an eye-opening blog. I am a 32 year old single woman. English is not my mother tongue. I guess I didn’t realize men actually loved so deeply. At the end it comes down to the question of can I offer what I’m asking and looking for? That is: will I love my wife if she gains 40 pounds? Not 10, 40. Who cares about weight, will I love her if she is paralyzed in a wheelchair or has a grave mental illness? If you can say yes to these, you know there’s sth about her, as someone talked about, their “essence” that you feel pure love for. I think having similar values will help in this endeavour. If you don’t want your wife to love you for your status or money, you shouldn’t love her for how sexy she is. Tomorrow she could not be sexy anymore and you could be homeless. It all comes down to what kind of love you want and if YOU are ready to offer the same type of unconditional love.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,611 other followers

%d bloggers like this: