Hail to the V

I’m not sure if Mark Minter had plans to submit his essay of a comment on Hypergamy Synthesis to Return of Kings or some other manosphere collective blog, but I felt it was too important a post to allow it to slip into the obscurity of a mere comment thread. Yes, it’s long, but it has to be and it’s well worth the read. Set aside half an hour to read it through in one go. It’s really not as cerebral as you might expect and very ‘illuminating’ to say the least.

In several posts and on various other blogger’s comment threads I’ve debated that the social paradigms of chivalry and feminism are cultural engineerings of the feminine imperative. I delved into the history of chivalry in The Feminine Imperative – Circa 1300 and made my best attempt to outline the history of chivalry, the feminine bastardization of it and how it was the cultural parallel and precursor to feminism. Naturally the more romantic leaning of my critics chose to keep their noses in their holy books and epic poems rather than take the time to consider the historical underpinnings of what we now consider chivalry and monogamous romantic love.

So it pleases me beyond what I think Mark will appreciate to have him provide such an in depth and insightful detailing of the history of courtly love and how it influences our social consciousness, our gender expectations, even the frustrations we experience in today’s gender landscape.


I continue to explore the concepts of things I learned at this blog. I am bouncing around sporadically from idea to idea and am having trouble staying focused on any one idea. But I keep getting pulled as much as being due to any lack of mental discipline.

I was searching for a study about the lack of congruence and dissonance between physical indicators of arousal in women and their mental perception of arousal. The whole Testosterone thing drving women’s sexual choices.

I was actually searching for “Chimpanzee Porn” because the article I was looking for used it. The researcher had imposed the sound of Bobono monkeys over the visuals of Chimpanzees having sex because they were more “vocal” during sex and the researcher noted that women display measured physical arousal even though they didn’t recognize being aroused.

And one of links in the search phrase I was using came back with this imbedded in the text:

“Cultural historians believe that romantic love was created sometime in the 14th century”.

Google is the most wonderful thing ever created by men. How this linked got included with a search phrase on “Chimpanzee Porn” is a particularly unique result that would prove it relevant only to my particular “Googling” habits. But I guess Sergei felt I needed to see it. And I did.

OK, we moved down this line of thought at some point on Rational Male a few months ago in the discussion of the beginnings of “chivalry”, so I bit on the link that came up.

The link stated that the idea of “Romantic Love” was created by troubadours in verses by the idea of “Courtly Love” that arose in its beginnings the the end of the 12th century. So I started going back,back,back,back, back (-Chris Berman) and I found this:


The book is important. The foreword by John Jay Perry was written in 1941. The title of this book is “The Art of Courtly Love” but it is actually a Victorian Era title imposed on the work that has several other different titles as a function of the era when the translation was performed, country where the translator lived, and particular social attitudes prevalent when and where the translator produced the translation. I think the “Romantic Era” was when these ideas of “courtly love” finally percolated up into mainstream thought, well, actually women’s mainstream thought, and defined love as we believe it be today, or at least defined it as women wish that definition to be imposed on men.

The title I generally use is “Treatise on Love”. Andreas Capellenus was the Chaplain of Countess Marie, and the preface goes into all of this history and I don’t want to get it into it. Read it.

It is the seminal work on the subject and there is no earlier work by a European. There is reference to Ibn Hazm, an Islamic writer from Spain, who began to define the idea of “love” in Islamic cultures. It went through a series of other writers in the 13th century and orally communicated through verse and song during the 14th century and made its way into the consciousness of western thought from the 14th century on.

The key thing is that these Troubadours were not some “traveling band” singing for their supper. Maybe later, but at this time, they were major nobles, from both the nobility and the higher noble classes. The first major one referenced was Duke William of Aquitaine, who was Marie’s grandfather. These were important people of the time. This would maybe be like, God forbid, Senator Harry Reid, breaking into a song after dinner about the importance of passing spending bills to ease the particular issues about the “sequester” that are key issues to Democrats or Ben Bernake letting loose about the Quantitative Easing. Ok, maybe not exactly.

The issue at the time, was that, as the historians state, that “Love as we know it did not exist. Marriage was as much as about land and politics as anything else”. It was said you “Married a fiefdom and a wife got thrown in the bargain”. Imagine a time where firelight and sunlight were practically the only light, when people rarely traveled more than 12 miles from their place of birth, when nothing, and I mean nothing, changed. The major cathedral built in Nimes took 38 generations to complete. The skyline never changed, towns remained the same. There were no books. None. All knowledge was conveyed orally and generally died with a person. The only cultural conditioning was what you got by watching the people you saw. And you saw very few people. Even at the peasant level, most marriages were the tossing together of two available young people, and that was that. But particularly at the noble level, all marriages were entirely based on practical considerations and nothing to do with “love” as we know it.

And the major church writers the time, just skewered women. The preface named several, and while I can’t find actual text of the writers specific to women, Bernard de Morlaix, John of Salisbury, I can find overall references to what they said about morality in general. They were a group that very much about self control. And it was thought that due to the “wickedness” of women, it was probably superior to remain a virgin. And thus the idea of the “celibate” priest was born. He could not be “godly”, and should be suspect, if he allowed himself to come under the temptation of women.These guys were definitely the “Red Pill” writers of the time. The general idea was not so much that sex was bad, but women were so bad, and sex was lure, the hook, so they damned sex as a means to keep men from getting ensnared in the traps and wickedness that women lay for men. And the thought has a little bit of merit, I must say.

So, think about this. The men in power at the time, saw some of the stuff we see, and they gave a huge “thumbs down” on women. Huge.

Now, heading into the second 500 years of Christianity, throw a “rubbing elbows” with Moslems in Spain, and this idea of “love” starts to percolate about, sort of this “counter-culture” idea of the time. It did not exist at all before in European culture, this idea of “soul mates” and “intertwined” spirits and “the ennobling qualities of love”, love as the be all and end all, the very reason to live.

And it was made up.

By women. Duh?

So there were moments, during this period 1170-1250 were in certain places the women got control. It the case of this Marie, she got control of this region “Troyes” in southern France when her son was named to be noble over the region and he was 11 years old. So she accompanied him down there and was the defacto “regent” during his “minority”. Her husband became King while she was down there. So this was a woman of major influence. And her sister was married to someone that also became King of someplace else. Their mother had been both Queen of France and then Queen of England after she divorced the King of France. This was a powerful woman who got what she wanted. And two of the chief architects of “love” were her two daughters, who married extremely high status men.

The same thing happened at the same time in about 3 other major places in the area, and these women, began to “flirt: with idea of “Courtly Love”. Flirt maybe is a little weak of word. But the general idea of most writers about the theme is that they “Proposed it as countervailing religion or thought to Christianity.” Christianity had so vilified women during the past 200 years, and this “love” stuff was really one of the first “feminisms”.

And near I am can tell, it was literally the birth of the Feminine Imperative. At least, the birth of the version that we know today.

The general idea was this.

“Women are the love. Women give praise to men and the power of that praise is the driving motivator of men. All good things that men do are only done in the true spirit of love to earn the right to the love that the woman confers to the men. Women define what is good. Women confer status on men by allowing them to receive the love they receive from women as a result of high character and accomplishment”.

Sound familiar.

So that was why some “Sir Goodguy” white knight would tie the scarf of the woman around his neck during some contest. It was his sign to her that he was doing this brave dead for her love and his recognition that she saw him as good and worthy.

They actually created these things called “The Court of Love”. And these men and women, and you can imagine the men in those courts were the 12th or 13th century equivalents of Manginas, would literally “rule” on love. They would debate questions, actions, and then determine is an act was good or bad and then that further defined “love”. Remember again, this was not idle chit chat after dinner. These were the major movers and shakers of the time. This was the court that would go on to exert cultural and intellectual control over Europe until 1914. And really even later than that. For nearly 1000 years, the French held sway in everything and Paris was the center of the world. Except at this time, this part of France, the south was the big deal.

One example I saw was letter written by a man that said, he and a woman were having heated discussion of two points, (1) Can true love exists in a marriage. (2) Can there be jealousy between the married partners. The Countess, the Queen of Love, at that time wrote back and said “No, love cannot exist in a marriage. Love is freely given and asks for nothing in return. Marriage is a contract of duties. So there is no love in a marriage. And Jealousy is a prerequisite of love and since only lovers could be jealous and since married people were not lovers, then their could be no jealousy in a marriage. ” And that was that. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Love had issued a ruling. And its weight was everything.

And needless to say, it was a mighty convenient development for women that were traded off into marriage as pawns attached to land. So it conferred the key power of social definition and the final say of what is good in men, and good in society, and that women should and will be the definers, and the arbiters, and the judges of all of that.

The translators, and this particular author John Jay Parry, mention that was nothing particularly distinguishing about Andreas Capellanus that would make it seem like he was the person to end up as this great literary figure that wrote a work that is “One of those capital works that explain the thought of a great epoch, which explain the secret of a civilization”. Parry said often, some of the prose was different in style and “meter”, such that it seemed “dictated” to him.

And frankly I am sure the whole book was “dictated” to him. That he was, in fact, as chaplain, the mouthpiece of these women, and his position as Chaplain allowed the viewpoints expressed to be accepted in a way that a work created and made public by women, given what it expresses, would have viewed more critically by readers. Keep in mind that it was written in Latin, and only those who were either Clerics or the nobility could read the thing. What wasn’t literally dictated, was more or less, transcribed thought, and he knew that Marie was final “editor” in the content. And his position, both as Chaplain, and his very livelihood, depending on her being happy with the finished product.

So let me make an analogy, and step just a little bit in time. Things are little muddled today cultural to make a similar one from a very current example.

Consider Hugh Hefner. And consider his show called Playboy After Dark. This was a time of much “friction”, the early 60s. Civil rights and racism are extreme issues. Sexual “freedom” is coming about. The “rights” of just about everyone are much talked about. The setting which was sort of this contrived “salon” from Paris. The set looked like a large living room in a swanky spiffy Playboy bachelor pad. All these “cool”, meaning avante guarde, “open minded”, intellectually superior, artistically superior, liberal people are just hanging out, having a spiffy party. Hef does more for civil rights in a minute than 50 writers do in 10 years by having Sammy Davis Jr on the show. Hef did more for women’s liberation by having a “guest” on the show to talk about it and the camera sees Hef nodding approval, than 50 screeching female professors could ever do.

So then that “cool” boy, that wants to be like Hef, all through the 60s and the 70s, the “cool boy” believes in Equal Rights, Racism, Feminism and this idea of “gender” and “race” being a culturally imposed concept. And that “cool” boy does it exactly because it is “artistically and culturally superior” than the conservative ideas of the time. So then imagine how pervasive both of those viewpoints on Racism and Sexism are today and how “religious” both have become in such a short time, historically. All of us have experienced the reaction of people to our Red Pill beliefs that border on religious arguments. And some of the biggest fighters of what we propose are men. So a philosophy can quickly move from the fringe and become core if the “right” people get behind it and push it.

So then imagine the same thing back in 1200, the “cool” boy, the son of the nobles, that reads latin, has a little bit of education, he thinks the Catholic church is a bunch of sticks in the mud. He is literally built, wired, for sex, to want women. And this idea of “love” makes absolute sense to him, or at least he wants it to make sense, because the top of line, highest status women, those noble women in that area between Barcelona and maybe, Bologna, were all giving approval to those men that bought into it. So by saying “I believe in Love” or “I am in Love’s army”, or “I am a soldier of love”, what he is saying is “I’m cool, man. Please like me.”

And just like today, any guy that goes against Feminism or attacks the behavior of women is shunned. I hurl some attack on women in comments to an article, and some woman comes back with “Oh, I be you just get you tons”. So in 1200, It is “No ‘Love”, then no ‘love’”, you were ostracized by women, at least the cool French Chicks who were the celebs of the day.

And so it takes hold, and as Feminism has co-opted the church, today’s women have imposed their viewpoint on church acceptance of divorce, premarital sex, with the whole idea of the “magic vagina” of women compelling those men into better behavior and better performance, and the woman has the right and the duty to punish him for failure to live up to the love that the woman has given him as a gift that he must continue to earn, the same thing happens with “love”. It co-opts the Catholic church of the day, and throughout the 13th and 14th centuries, “love” creeps into the morality and consciousness of the people at the time. The “love” thing is dominating the “court” and is leaks into the church in the relationship of accomplices that they first and second estate have which each other. It catches on and becomes the dominant aspect of the culture and women are “rehabilited”, seize control, and never let go. They have the “authority” because they have the “morality”, and they drive the course of society by controlling what is “moral” and what is “honorable”. And what constitutes both, from that point forward, are generally what is in the best interest of women, given their situation, given the time.

So why is this important to us?

First, the whole idea of “Courtly Love” was entirely hypergamistic. Entirely. The Capellanus book has as the heart of the second part, 9 dialogues. These dialogues define the Feminine Imperative.

Keep in mind, at this time, there might have been maybe 500 books floating around in total. And this is the only one on this topic available for a 100 years. The only other referenced work before this was Ovid “The Art of Love” and most scholars really see Ovid as more of a satire on the “treatises” written during his day, and not as a REFERENCE MANUAL that people today, including myself (pre-Red Pill) , see it.

I took it as “how to” book. And what it should be titled is “How to be a AFC Beta”. Also keep in mind that books were so rare, that everything thing was relayed as an oral tradition. Even as late at 1513, Luther said he had been a priest for 3 years before he ever even saw a Bible. And that’s the effing bible.

So here you are somewhere in 1200, and this major Noble dude guy, or high status babe, gets up and starts talking or singing about this new “love” thing, and everyone is nodding and agreeing. And if they don’t nod and agree, then they don’t get to be in the group, they’re fired. The High Status women turn on them, and they are ostracized.

So in the 9 dialogues, there are a series of conversations that men of one of three statuses would have with a women of one of the same three statuses. Those statuses being “commoner, noble, high noble”. And these dialogues set the ground work, the rules, of what both men and women of all three classes should, do, feel, and think about “love”. And “love” is only between those classes. Peasants don’t love. They need to stay on the farm and work it. They have no time for “love”. And love is only between people that aren’t married.

And there you go right there, with anachronistic thought. You probably thought, single people. No. Single people weren’t dating and marrying. No way. That was decided by someone else. You were probably going to be part of some arranged marriage. “Love” was between married people, at least married women and a man, but not married to each other. You can already see the way hypergamy is influencing the idea of “love”. Girl gets pawned off as a 14 year old or 15 year old as part of some arrangement between older family members. She probably didn’t like her husband very much, given what we know about women today. And he probably didn’t like her much either. I am sure there were just as many men when they first saw there “betrothed” thought, “Oh fuck, you have got to be shitting me. I have to marry this bitch?”

And in these dialogues, pure hypergamy is enforced and codified. The dialogues enforced class, at least enforced it for men. Men could try and love “up”, but most likely they couldn’t unless they displayed such extreme good character that their character was better than all of the available men in the class of the woman he was “hitting on”. But it also set a nice set of rules for women “move up”. But the women were the ones, in every case, to judge the men, the determine that even though the women were “moving” up, they still were to ones to say “OK, I’ll take you You are worthy of my love”.

And then it also codified acceptance for women to be able to “cheat” on their husbands. “Courtly Love” was only between people that were not married. They got around the 10 commandments, by stipulating that the true lover never asks for sex in return for his love. He loves merely for the purity of his love. And that the whole endeavor was supposed to remain entirely secret. That if it became public, then the “love” was dead. Over. At best he got a kiss, maybe an embrace. Gentlemen in the army of “love” never tell. And Gentlemen never demand sex. Which of course, all of this was bullshit. But since “Courtly Love” was “love” for “love”‘s sake then those husbands couldn’t get jealous, and nobody loves their husband anyway. So it gave a socially acceptable way for this woman that had this beta forced on her by marriage, then get out their and have exposure to the alphas that she truly wanted. And it gave her a social means to circumvent the church. And since everyone, at least everyone who mattered, was married to someone they didn’t like, then it was an early version of “Don’t ask; don’t tell”.

This also forms the basis of monogamy, as we know it, codified by women, in that the definition of it truly benefits women. “The true lover that truly loves only loves the one. He cannot love two. The sight of other women do not affect him because he has true love for his true love.” Notice that there are a lot of “he” and ‘his” words used. The book asserts that those men that would want sex with lots of women and have passion for someone other than “the one” under the guise of love is an an “ass”, mule, dressed up in the finest livery, but still an “ass”.

Schopenhauer said “Love! If you would have thought it up, your fellows would have thought you daft. The mere idea that because a woman allows you her favors, that you should support her for life.”

Well, it was thought up, by these women in the south of France, and it curled around and snaked its way into the current consciousness of people like it was something that people have done since the dawn of men. And it wasn’t.

When you read Capellanus’ statement of what “love” is, it is the seminal definition, the very “jump street”, the Genesis of the codification of “OneItis”. And when you read the dialogues, and then this list of the “Rules of Love” which is the part of the book that is most public, you see the fingerprint of the Feminine Imperative.


I think at some point in my reading, someone had described Capellanus as being very “Copernican”,as in Copernicus, and astrology, threatening the religion and the concept of the world.

I say we use him again in a Copernican manner, as the very argument that the Feminine Imperative is an entirely contrived ideal.

And we reject “love”, as in the definition of it by Capellanus. We see it as the social manipulation that it was to orchestrate the emotions of men, and actions from those emotions, entirely for the benefit of women.

Churchill said “In England, it is permitted unless it is not permitted. In Germany, it is permitted only if it is permitted. In Russia, it is not permitted even if it is permitted. And in France, it is permitted, even when it is not permitted.”

To some degree that combination of all four “permitteds” describes the Feminine Imperative. It is permitted when they want it to be permitted and not permitted when they do not. Even if it is not permitted then it is permitted, if it is in the benefit of women. And especially, it is not permitted even when it is permitted, in the case where it might benefit men at the expense of women.

They only way to put a brunt on the Feminine Imperative is make them pay a cost for their behavior. And the best way for men to do that is the rejection of “love”.

In the words of YaReally, “The manosphere is the new counter-culture”.

We are the new “cool boys”. We are the new “rebels”.

And you need to read Capellanus, and as you read it, to see the manipulation in the pages. Maybe it was adopted because it had social value to blunt the negative behavior or the men of the time and turn it in a constructive direction.

But today it is only something that is used to provide advantage for women. And that advantage is often used at the expense of men, and furthermore, for the punishment of men, the social shaming of men, when women deem the men’s behavior or actions to be at the detriment of women. And they are allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner of their verdict. And no one ever challenges them.

And we begin by rejecting unilaterally, out of hand, “love” for the pack of lies it is.

So I say we use our position as influence peddlers, taste makers, of our day and time, and shame men, Mangina men, and White Knights as fools; toadies for women and their “love”. And make no mistake, that whole White Knight shit comes exactly from this book. We all should read “Treatise on Love”, deconstruct it, and expose it for the bullshit sham it is.

I have ranted this in the past. It is time for men to gain an entirely new consciousness, a new awareness, a entirely new set of constructivism abstracts on which to frame their thinking.

The constant whine, complaint, criticism of the manosphere is that is attacks “love”, it makes “love” impossible, it kills “love”.

And I say, no it doesn’t. It exposes the reality of the impossibility of “love” because “love” is entirely a manufactured ideal. And modern Feminism has brought about the recognition of the impossibility of it and rubbed it in the face of men. If you pine for it, it you whine about it, the end of it, the lack of it, then you deny the truth of it.

Modern life is entirely developed as a means to blunt the natural advantages that men have. This “love” is a further handicap, a weight on your shoulders, that limits your ability to use your advantage, physically, mentally, by women exploiting the emotional advantage that women have over men. She only has this advantage if you allow her to have it.

So discard it. It is religion in you that does not work to your advantage.

So yes, “They have a right to do anything that we can’t stop them from doing”.

But we have the capacity and the ability to make them pay for it.

In the end, and my life right now is living proof of this, they need us more than we need them. We want them; they need us. And the things that most women want, they get from us. And without the handicap of “love”, you can make them pay, and pay, and pay, until they fucking cry uncle.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

72 comments on “Hail to the V

  1. Nice job Mark.

    I’ll repeat my one disagreement with Marks writing here. I think rejecting love is not quite what needs to be done. What needs to be rejected is the default presumption of female authority over the definition of love and what constitutes approval of it. Love exists outside of SMP toolboxes, that means (to me) that the real problem is the lack of societal hand.

  2. And how do you make them pay exactly? By fvking and chucking?

    They will still get impregnated by the alpha “accidentally” and collect your taxes to support her and the child she wanted.

  3. I think we need to know what “love” is. We need to reject what modern culture defines as “love” and not confuse other traditional sources of the definition of love (such as through religion).

  4. The confusion seems to be with the loose and incorrect use of the word “Love”. For example, using the word “Love” when you mean “Whoring”. It is not “The Art of Courtly Love” but, “The Art of Courtly Whoring”. I don’t have a problem with Whoring but I do have problem with the intellectually dishonest smoke-N-mirrors-tap-dance around what is plainly a sex for money (i.e. Material Value) transaction dressed-up as romantic courtship. Let’s just call it what it is and be done with it.

  5. I’ve been saying for years that love and monogamy are a feudal superstition. Thanks mark for giving me the facts.

  6. I just can’t take any of this seriously. “There was these noble dudes, and they were kind of red pill” etc. There are actual medieval scholars, you know, who gain their knowledge from original texts. They will laugh at this bro-history.

  7. Great post, Mr. Minter is much appreciated.

    I wonder how much of this notion of love comes from the inherent inability of Western languages to distinguish love from erotic feelings.

    Given that the Bible was the template for Western culture after the fall of Rome and Latin was its medium of expression, its constant exhortations to ‘love’ was easy to misconstrue.

    Even the venerable language of Latin is threadbare in the love department, with basically two expressions, amor and caritas, the latter being more akin to charity, with English being even worse.

    Even the feared Saracens (with the Arabic penchant for poetry) were up to their necks in courtly love and some even think it influenced the Europeans:


    The Greek is much more succinct and there is no way you could confuse sex for love, why is probably why the Eastern Empire never had courtly love and chivalry.

  8. I have a contrary opinion. We all know our evo-psych, and know that in the state of nature, a man and woman meet and want to fuck, then she gets pregnant, and works to make him want to stay around to care for her and the baby. The feeling that underlies the man’s decision to do this can reasonably be called love. This feeling is underlaid by brain chemistry involving dopamine and oxytocin, as we are all familiar with, but it feels like being in love.
    Some recent discussion in the manosphere points out that this initial feeling of love frequently fades after four years, long enough for the child to grow old enough to walk on its own, so the mother can return to gathering, or working in the village, or whatever. At this time, the man and the woman may consider changing mates. However, most often, in modern and primitive societies throughout history, men and women mate for life. Obviously not always but it’s common enough to be the rule, not the exception. The feeling that underlies the man’s decision to remain with the same woman for live can reasonably be called love.
    We can qualify things, and say that the initial dopamine rush doesn’t last for ever, so in the later years of a relationship, things frequently cool off, and the sex is at least less good, and it may even stop. Still many people have always chosen to stay together in spite of this.
    I would say all of these things are basic aspects of our physiology and psychology, and have always been with us.

    What the medieval courtiers came up with was actually a reaction to their arranged marriages, which failed to provide the dopamine rush they wanted. Here is where the romantic love comes in. I think the focus here should be on romantic, not love. I would say people have always experienced the emotion that makes them want to help raise a family in a monogamous relationship, and this emotion is love.
    However, I would say it is all the sappy romantic stuff that came about in the middle ages. Bringing flowers, proposing down on one’s knee, writing love sonnets, and all that crap. Even bringing flowers actually has an evo-psych basis, since the flowers represent fertility.
    This romantic crap is mainly practiced by betas, and is stupid. I promotes pedestalization, and is definitely in support of the feminist imperative. However, I wouldn’t go so far as to dismiss romantic love as love per se. I would only dismiss the romantic trappings (which are fake) around love (which can be real).

  9. @A Man For All Seasons: “The feeling that underlies the man’s decision to remain with the same woman for live can reasonably be called love.”

    It’s possible that the man may not wanna leave because he fears he won’t be able to find another woman. This isn’t love nor is this romantic. This is ego masquerading as selflessness when it really isn’t.

  10. Dan Aykroyd: I’m station manager Dan Akroyd. During the past few weeks in Los Angeles, actor Lee Marvin and his former live-in companion Michelle Triola Marvin have been in court to settle her claim that he owes her half his income from the six years they lived together. That is the subject of tonight’s Point-Counterpoint. Jane will take the pro-Michelle Marvin point, while I will take the anti-Michelle Triola counterpoint. Jane?

    Jane Curtin: Dan, times change and so does the nature of relationships. People are reluctant to get married these days and looking at divorce statistics, who can blame them. But the lack of a piece of paper does not neccessarily mean a lack of a total commitment. A woman is this modern-day relationship may well give up all her personal pursuits, as Michelle Marvin claims she did, to give her full support to her man’s career. And Michelle Marvin is just asking that the courts recognize that reality. Dan, there’s an old saying: “Behind every successful man there’s a woman.” A loving, giving, caring woman. But you wouldn’t know about that, Dan, because there’s no old saying about what’s behind a miserable failure. [ gives a look of arrogance ]

    Dan Aykroyd: Jane, you ignorant slut! Bagged-out, dried-up, slunken meat like you and Michelle Triola know the rules. If you want a contract, sign on the dotted line. Oh, but let’s all shed a tear for poor Michelle Triola. There was only testimony that she had sexual intercourse over forty times with another man while living with actor Lee Marvin. But I suppose that sort of fashionable promiscuting means nothing to you, Jane, who hops from bed to bed with the frequency of a cheap ham radio. But hell hath no fury like a woman’s scorn, and Michelle Triola, like a screeching, squealing, reptatious swamp sow is after actor Lee Marvin’s last three million dollars. I guess what you and Michelle are saying is that when you’re on your backs, the meter is running. Well, please spare us, gals, and tell us the rate’s at the top. Then we can choose which two bit tarts and bargain basement sluts to shack up with.


  11. “Love” as a term is woefully guilty of conflating the biological cocktail of emotions with the objectives of the feminine imperative.

    It is an incredibly clever play to pin an amorphous, idealized term to a powerful blend of emotions. The feminine imperative has a monopoly on the term. We cannot combat the term on it’s own grounds, debating the meaning of love. Rather we need to develop entirely new words to shake the frame of this monopoly.


  12. The feeling that underlies the man’s decision to remain with the same woman for live can reasonably be called love

    a man can also feel a moral obligation to stay with the woman and provide for their offspring – his genetic legacy – even if he no longer loves her.

  13. God…that commercial is disgusting. Too bad our society couldnt handle a reverse one:

    “Women have been pounded by it,
    it has driven men to mountainous heights,
    and ingnoble depths,
    most girls want it,
    and all guys want to give it,
    hail to the Big D”

  14. Romantic love is a universal phenomenon.
    “Until fairly recently, many social scientists held the view that romantic love was a quirk of Western culture (Jankowiak, 1995). Romantic love was long considered a mark of cultural refinement, an intricate emotion that could only be experienced by the most educated or enlightened individuals. However, researchers have increasingly documented the existence of
    romantic passion across many different cultures (Buss, 1989; Jankowiak, 1995; Jankowiak and Fischer, 1992), providing support for the notion that the experience of love is universal (Buss, 1988, 2006; Diamond, 2003, 2004; Frank, 1988). For instance, Jankowiak and Fischer (1992) Predictors of Love conducted a study in which people in 148 out of 166 sampled cultures described having an experience that fit into the rubric of romantic passion” Galperin, Andrew, and Martie Haselton. “Predictors of how often and when people fall in love.” Evolutionary Psychology 8.1 (2010): 5-28.

  15. Mark,

    Thanks for posting this, it’s a very insightful perspective. I’m curious about this myself and hope your mind can loop a few more times. Consider the origins of the word ‘love’ in various languages/cultures, and you’ll see that it began in antiquity, predating Christ. Furthermore, ‘love’ is used a lot in the New Testament, stemming from a couple definitions from Greek. Of course the most ‘accurate’ translation to English (KJV) was in the 1600s, but we still have Hebrew manuscripts.

    Our favorite site will give you a brief overview of some more ancient uses of the L word: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love

    I hope this can help you further develop your hypothesis.

  16. I view the idea of romantic love as a huge shit-test. Display it too often or too early in a relationship, and you’re bound to get marked as a beta chump.

  17. The four loves are agape, eros, storge, and philia. The problem with courtly love is it mixes agape and eros where the man is expected to give this bastardized love of agape and eros to the woman, and the woman is expected to receive without returning this to the man. Love may exist, but we must call this bastardized love of agape and eros false and self destructive to the men who believe in it and act on it because women do not possess the ability on average to mix agape and eros for men who do so for them. I believe Mark Minter was referring to this bastard hybrid love of agape and eros as false. It is women who have made this courtly love false, not men; and, we should recognize this fact and act accordingly. Mixing eros with storge or philia is less hazardous on average than mixing it with agape. Agape is less hazardous when mixed with philia and storge too. We must reject selfless love with women because they rarely if ever will selflessly love men, and it seems when they do then they do it with the men which most of us men would typically regard as worthless men. Men’s biggest problem is that they expect women to have agape for them when men have it for women, and this all too rarely happens It happens even less when men have agape mixed with eros for women while women even more seldom have agape mixed with eros for men. Agape is selfless love usually without conditions e.g. Jesus dying on the cross to redeem us or jumping on a hand grenade to save another. Eros is sexual, longing and romantic love such as David and Bathsheba. Storge is familiar love as with family such as David loving his children even when they rebelled against him such as his son, Absalom, or even his loyal son and heir, Solomon. Philia is the love between friends or comrades e.g. fellow soldiers such as Jonathon and David of the Bible.

  18. Read that whole thing, pretty interesting, the thing I want to comment on is the last part: “In the end, and my life right now is living proof of this, they need us more than we need them. We want them; they need us. ”

    It is a decent call to action, but unfortunately systematic false because of the ‘big daddy alpha’ aka the government. We are already in, and rapidly approaching a point where men are truly NOT NEEDED in any capacity other than as servants like police.

    1. Guys, the real instinct here is hypergamy. Security is only a means to statisfy hypergamy. Daddy state is filling the role of a beta provider: pays the bills, but she’s unhappy – really unhappy, having the basic needs covered only makes her realize her real need. That void. That void is a man. And a woman will do *anything* to fill it.

      They need us. The rest is a charade.

      1. Of course women are unhappy, it is a deviation from the norm of thousands of years. I agree we can hone our craft to take advantage of it, but a problem is that a lot of alpha outlets (eg. fighting, violence against women) is blocked by the State

  19. The adaptation of Churchill’s quote to the Feminine Imperative…

    Feminine Imperative. It is permitted when they want it to be permitted and not permitted when they do not. Even if it is not permitted then it is permitted, if it is in the benefit of women. And especially, it is not permitted even when it is permitted, in the case where it might benefit men at the expense of women.

    … is truly excellent.

    Great comment/repost.

  20. This is the most fascinating idea I’ve come across in a year reading the manosphere.

    Is there a book that details the origins of love? I want to create a piece of fiction based on this. The Lady Macbeth who invented romantic love sounds like a fascinating character to build a story around.

  21. My three cents.

    There are different kinds of love.

    To generalize first, a man is for the bigger part masculine with less feminine inside while a woman is for the bigger part feminine and less masculine. Degrees vary, of course.

    One is Eros, that is pure animalistic lust – it is connected with physical hunger, from a evolutionary psychology point of view. Both men and women have this. The masculine part of a person wants to touch, be aggressive while the feminine part wants to be touched, be passive.

    Another one is Agape, that is something which usually does not develop between a man and a woman, at least not often in our day and age. It is a form of love which can only occur between the masculine, the rational parts, of two people, it’s a long term development based on proven trust and it’s a creation of reason. A trust which isn’t given without trial, that would be unreasonable and fall in the next category. You could call it a friendship, a very strong one though. It’s funny when you see wedding dresses with ‘Agape’ written on it.

    That next category is what most men call love, besides the eros one 😉 . It’s that romantic fuzzy feeling. The one where the man sees the woman without make-up doing unattractive things and still gets that fuzzy reaction.
    This kind of feeling is not possible without the masculine part of a person’s psyche. That is why this feeling/state of mind is predominantly experienced by men. It doesn’t mean that a woman, who has less masculinity inside her can’t experience it, but it’s a much more rare occurence. It’s like – Those things which we are most of the time, we are not all the time – Of course I’m not saying you fall in love and stay in love all the time, those ‘love’ experiences occur over time, the frequency, intensity and duration varying.
    That fuzzy feeling is a kind of projection – the other person becomes a vessel for all the good things we want to attribute/fill into them. The metaphor with the vessel is not too far off because it’s usually men who fill the woman/vessel of their dreams – of their dreams says it again. It’s not real in the objective sense. I consider it still romantic in a way but a better awareness of what’s going on would help a lot of guys who are unable to detach themselves from that emotion.
    Not all men are looking for the same kind of experiences – This drive to want to look for the good parts of one-self in the other probably isn’t helping with material gains or physical pleasure full-FILLment but it is what it is and trying to cut parts of one-self out isn’t a solution all want to pursue. There is always a price to be paid but it’s always a different one.

    Don’t get me wrong though. I’m not saying a man should be a fool in love – Trying to become aware of what is happening first, then decide what you want to do about it.

    Here’s a link to a book I found interesting, about male and female psychology, it’s old but the ideas are fascinating.

    www. theabsolute.net/otto w/schareng.pdf (remove two blanks)

  22. The forms of love I wrote about are from the masculine side of the spectrum with Eros being shared with the feminine side.

    Another notion of love is the receiving kind of love. The I want to be loved for who I am, someone needs to love me, the static vessel, the being, the passive not the active, not the becoming, not the masculine spirit. That kind of love is a desire originating from the feminine part of a person. Men who want their feminine part of their psychology to be loved will find a hard time. Females are usually not the providers of the fuzzy, fill your vessel kind of love.

    To want to love (active) and to want to be loved (passive) says it all.

  23. Love is the natural tendency felt in one to look after those that sired you or those you have sired. I don’t think love can occur between a man and a woman who aren’t related, that’s more lust or attraction or something.

  24. Regarding my above comments 28 March 2013 at 12:05 a.m., One of our problems as men on average although there are exceptions and degrees of men and manly action is that we have placed too much value on eros or eros mixed with agape as the highest form of love. In fact, pure eros is the lowest form of love because it is the most animalistic of the four kinds of love. Pure agape is the highest form of love and is the least animalistic and the closest to being divine. Pure Storge and pure philia are in between agape and eros. If you mix agape and eros, then agape gets watered down, just like storge gets watered down with eros and philia gets watered down with eros. We as men should place higher value on the other forms of love called in descending order 1) agape, 2) philia, 3) storge over 4) eros. Notice the number and rank which I gave each kind of love in the previous sentence. Agape is the most unconditional love as well. If you choose to give agape then like Jesus of Nazareth, accept that you will be tormented, humiliated and destroyed by being in a metaphorical if not literal sense publicly mocked as well as falsely accused, publicly scourged plus publicly beaten, and publicly crucified to death. Agape should seldom be given especially to a woman you are in a romantic relationship. Agape is best reserved for your progeny is my opinion. Giving eros by its very nature requires that it be reciprocated, and when it does not, then it tends to leave the one giving it frustrated and upset. Eros should be the most conditional of love. Eros is best reserved for romantic relationships even long term romantic relationships including the traditionally most valued one, marriage in my opinion, It has been the feminine imperative which has been increasingly successful since the 1300’s A.D. for men to place the highest value on agape mixed with eros, the next highest on pure eros, and finally also on storge while all of us men discard philia and pure agape. Women will use agape mixed with eros and pure eros to use men as slaves as they do now and in the past as well as the forseeable future. Storge will be used to supplement agape mixed with eros or perhaps pure eros as well as persuade men to care for the children she has given birth whether they are your biological children or not. The reason women want men to discard pure agape is because if a man experiences pure agape which is the highest form of love, then he will be able to more clearly than the other kinds of love and act accordingly which would probably be against her feminine imperative. Women want men to discard philia because it is the second highest form of love and it encourages men to put “bros before hoes”. It is your duty as men to know as well as understand what each kind of the four loves is, to properly assign each form of love it’s proper rank in the hierarchy and to know what, when, where, why, whom and how to use each kind of love and when not to do so. To not know, understand and act accordingly increases your risk of leading to your own physical, psychological and spiritual destruction.

  25. Men have been led astray to think of courtly love which is the mix of agape and eros as the highest form of love. It is not. Here’s reality, the truth and of course a slogan. Courtly love is a mockery of love ,real love, and true love.

  26. Rollo, I’ve followed your writings back to sosuave. And it’s great to see how much the message has developed from back then. It’s clear, logical and pulls no punches. That’s real. And the more women protest, the more you know we’re on the right track.

    But in my opinion your message will die with your readers if we don’t start spreading this message to youth. I work with kids everyday and your message feels like a distant whisper. Boys are no less wimpy than the men in my generation (i’m in my mid 20′s). And I think most men of my generation are already a lost cause. There are few exceptions but the majority never move past the angry beta stage. If little girls are already being indoctrinated with feminists garbage and are treated like little princesses, then little boys need to learn asap.

    Just as the feminine imperative leaks into every facet of childhood and adolescence, I think the truth needs to be just as viral. It’s going to take some ballsy people to put their careers on the line to spread the word. And it’s going to take fathers in the home to not only have the mommy put in her place, but to be able to reach their sons’ with the truth and have it sink in.

    As everyone knows, it’s women who have more influence in children in their youngest years. It’s just the way it is, but in my observation, it’s the root of the problem. With so many women teachers, baby sitters and nannies, men are hardly an influence until it’s too late. The little boys that I do see thrive and show little hints of masculinity at a young age have very involved fathers with alpha traits. The rest just seemed like betas in training.

  27. Solid post, Mr. Mintner, and thanks to Rollo for bringing it to our attention once again. Mark, you really do need your own blog. I’d say, as others have, that this would be a good guest piece at ROK, but those pieces tend to be shorter and less detail oriented. Nonetheless, it’s outstanding,and I think the sphere needs an aggregator or magazine style site for longer, more thoughtful pieces like this one. An Orion for men, so to speak.

    Some commentary on Mintners’s piece:

    It seems obvious that the rise of female power is almost always presaged by a loss of male power, evidenced biologically. Power is always a zero sum game, and so for one group to usurp some, power must be shed somewhere. It does not come out of thin air.

    The recent rise of feminism began in the 1960s. During the 1950s, advancing technological progress and increased saturation of synthetic estrogenic chemicals caused men’s T levels to go down. There are some interesting studies on this done by the USAF on blood samples they’ve had from every new crop of aviators since the second world war, documenting declines in T since the immediate postwar era.

    So it can be said that the loss of male biological potency led to the society-wide shit test of feminism. This is not pure causation, but a contributing co-factor. Societal shifts like feminism are always multifactorial, of course.

    There may be evidence that the rise of romantic love as a concept was triggered in part by a similar set of circumstances. In the 10th-11th century, Europe was transforming, albeit slowly, from a more hunter-gatherer & pastoralist lifestyle, both high-protein & heavy on manual labor, into a more agrarian, high-carbohydrate, bread & alcohol driven society, which dramatically lowers T in the average male.

    Anthropology tells us that ancient men, our HG ancestors, had much higher T and much more muscle than the average man today, due to diet and lifestyle primarily. We likely lived through the lowest aggregate total testosterone level for male humans, ever. The tide is turning now, because of awareness of endocrine disruptors, because of fitness culture, and dare I say, due to the ‘sphere.

    We in the androsphere are at that inflection point where men begin to take hold of the reigns and begin to reverse the trend lower T and less masculine traits. We are reclaiming and building new masculinity with every rep of back squats, every grass-fed steak, every successful pickup, and every manosphere posts.

    We are, as YaReally has pointed out elsewhere the New Cool Kids, the new counterculture, and we have the endocrine swagger to back it up. (YaReally’s another fucker who needs his own blog and/or a long but good comment aggregator).

    We’re living the new ideal, bringing an edgy charm to the masculine sphere, driven by a thirst for knowledge, danger, play, sex, and power.

    Stay thirsty, gents.

  28. What the fuck are you all talking about.

    Love is a real thing.

    Stop sucking the dick of the most omega commenters on these boards, and stop talking about women like they’re automatons.

    If you’re still sexless after you understand how to attract, then you need a psychologist.

  29. I’m a litttle caught off guard here by this repost of a comment.

    “I’m surprised nobody has mentioned C.S. Lewis’s The Allegory of Love…”

    It was mentioned quite often in the reading. Quite often. This comment was quite long as it was, but Lewis factors quite heavily in many writers interpretation of 12th-14th century interpretations of writings on “love”.

    And another comment.

    “I just can’t take any of this seriously. “There was these noble dudes, and they were kind of red pill” etc. There are actual medieval scholars, you know, who gain their knowledge from original texts. They will laugh at this bro-history.”.

    Ok. This is a translation of an original work cerca 1176 AD, and no I didn’t read the original Latin version. And no I have not invested the effort nor time as these people. And it was an idea that came to me as I read Capellanus. But I can say this is an original text that is translated. And as far as I am concerned and can determine, it is THE original work. Nothing from European writers predates it. Perhaps there were others but this thing sits over there in the bin of “ancient texts”. And yes, I did get a great bulk of the history to which I refer from the preface from John Jay Parry. No, this isn’t the product of intensive and exhaustive research. It was something I just banged out into the comment box of Rational Male in response to a Rollo post on hypergamy and it just kept coming and got longer and longer.

    But I will say this, the whole notion of an abstraction is that it is a cultural framing of a metaphor. To ask what the word “freedom” means of a liberal and then of a conservative, you would get entirely different definitions. The liberal would say “I can do what I want”, the conservative might say “Freedom from government interference”. The two definitions are somewhat similar but we know the intention is entirely different. The liberal might have more of a “Ramones sex, drugs, and rock and roll” idea of “freedom” where the conservative has more of an idea of “Don’t tell me what to do” but acts within a framework of moral control.

    I don’t give a shit who you are, when you read a text, especially a text from a very long time ago, inevitably you carry your abstractions with in the interpretation of that text.

    If a scholar is predisposed to think of the abstraction of “love” as natural to the human condition, or see it is the “be all and end all of existence, the best thing about life”, then when he reads and researches those text then he does so with that interpretation.

    And I read it with Red Pill eyes. I read it with 57 years of watching women, of having a high partner count, of being on both the alpha and beta sides of the faces, and with the backing of the huge quantity of blogs, comment, and anecdotes and women and Game, some research into Evolutionary Psychology, a bunch of data, and so inevitably I come into it my own preconceptions and my own thesis to prove. So I read the text and see this is work as the Genesis of Feminine Imperative definition of love. And I know what it says is conditioning and basically a straight up manipulation.

    The above comment about the types of love is very good. And I think Ian Ironwood’s description of Eros and Caritas is excellent. In no way can any of us refute the existence of Eros with the dopamine rewards that it delivers and its connection to both the pain and pleasure centers of the brain.

    But what this “love” that Capellanus refers is cultural and social framing that allows all sorts of psychological associations to get attached to Eros and enunciates those social mechanisms of control by which women regulate and mediate access to Eros in a manner that maximizes their position both socially and personally. And it has been built and reinforced over time to consistently reinforce the power of women in mating and in society.

    And they only gain by that power by cultural conditioning that we receive literally from birth, and is reinforced over and over and over. Inevitably we always default to learned cultural framing and it takes a concerted mental activity to “know yourself” and peel back the layers of it.

    To also paraphrase Capellanus “I would be in love’s service if after a dreadful and perilous journey he brought his sailors safely to port”. But it doesn’t.

    The thing to me that is most fraudulent thing about “love” is this “judging” thing that is inherent in it, that when a woman leaves, and usually they do, the guy is left a wreck because he feels so “worthless”, that he has been judged “lacking”.

    I got an email from a Suicide Hotline counselor and he said he believed that almost every man whose wife filed for divorce and left him, at some point, ponders suicide. And he took on his job because there were no professional resources to which he could refer the men. And make no mistake, the majority of the callers were men in the “dark days” of divorce. And when you can say that about about one gender and not the other, then obviously something is very skewed. The “blues” are the blues exactly because it is a sickness of the soul that men suffer, and to my knowledge there are no “pinks”.

    All the major men’s blogs have their merit, their flavor, and their contribution.

    But the value of this blog, Rational Male is that this writer is the first to propose a realistic and mature awareness of the reality of both, women and love, to understand the psychological and biological mechanics of the opportunism and conditionality with which women make choices, and to discard adolescent ideas of love.

    I frankly think men would be much better off if when they feel the “love”, they immediately understand “Oh yeah, that’s just the dopamine talking.” And at a breakup, when they feel distress, they understand, “Oh yeah, that’s just the dopamine addiction talking”, that they understand the whole dynamic of the process is the interplay of both chemical, biological, and psychological reaction to mating. Mating. Not your fucking cultural existence, not your fucking reason for being. Mating. It is just a more intense version of hunger, a biological desire for food for a biological reason. But basically no different.

    There are no soulmates. You are not ennobled because of love. Your contributions and actions as a man are not superior merely because you do them with the love of a woman in mind as you do them.

    Women pick you because you are the best deal they can find for the moment. No more; no less.

    And as sure as that better deal comes along, if it comes along, that woman will leave you bleeding and dying in the street if it suits her.

    And if this essay can assist, even the slightest little bit, in fostering that awareness and idea in the minds of men, then good.

    So to any Medieval scholar that would say, “Oh no, you’re wrong.” I say,

    Fuck you.

  30. Mark, maybe the cs lewis comment was about the comments and not the article. No idea personally but I’d believe it if the writer said so. The other one has just one important part: the word “bro-history”. That is genius. If I really do the work of writing a book can I have that? I can share royalties.

    Anyhow: I suggest that “love”, if it means anything at all, is a reference to an act of cognitive human agency to be tied to or committed to someone or something else. Most like agape it is unrelated to any feeling unless the feeling is the occasional physical pain accompanying the decision. It has nothing at all to do with eros and the false collusion of love with eros, as this site makes abundantly clear, is a crime on the so uls of men everywhere.

    About the suicide hotline operator … actually I have nothing to say. That just hurts. Rollo, make it louder.

  31. Women pick you because you are the best deal they can find for the moment. No more; no less.

    And as sure as that better deal comes along, if it comes along, that woman will leave you bleeding and dying in the street if it suits her.

    Yep. It’s like cards, a la Aunt Haley’s recent post. A man can find a winning hand and stick with it. He knows it’s not the best hand, and that there is a small chance (statistically speaking) that he may be able to draw for a better hand, but he also knows that it is still a winning hand.

    Many woman will find a winning hand, like it for now (“Right now I feel like…”), but still feel somewhere deep inside that they are passing up chances to do better. So they will discard winning hands and try to keep redrawing for a better ones. In other words, hypergamy and emotion-based decisions tend to be highly correlated with lower skill at mathematics and statistics… not to mention poker. Or is that vice versa?

  32. “Yep. It’s like cards, a la Aunt Haley’s recent post. A man can find a winning hand and stick with it. He knows it’s not the best hand, and that there is a small chance (statistically speaking) that he may be able to draw for a better hand, but he also knows that it is still a winning hand.

    Many woman will find a winning hand, like it for now (“Right now I feel like…”), but still feel somewhere deep inside that they are passing up chances to do better. So they will discard winning hands and try to keep redrawing for a better ones. In other words, hypergamy and emotion-based decisions tend to be highly correlated with lower skill at mathematics and statistics… not to mention poker. Or is that vice versa?”

    Let’s not get into extreme simplifications and idealisations of genders, guys. Some men will cheat on great girls, and some girls will stick with their man, even if he just lost his job.

    As far as I can tell, hypergamy DOES exist. Right. But you need to realise that this hypergamy can be controlled through culture. It has been done in the past, and it will be done again. Yeah, some women will go from mate to mate anyway, but the vast majority of them won’t take any chances, and they WILL be reasonable.

    Describing hypergamy as uncontrollable is counter-productive, because feminists will use you and say “well blame nature, not women”, pushing their agenda even further away. It’s also disrespectful for women (the good ones at least), because they are not kids, they CAN control themselves.

    I am in NO WAY rejecting the idea of hypergamy (which can be described as an optimisation of one’s chances, and which can be found in BOTH genders), but I reject the idea that women are complete slaves to it. And if you want to have a good, deep impact in the future, you will have to make it damn clear that hypergamy CAN be overcome.

  33. I think the suicide issue depends on the person and the circumstances. In almost all cases, its the man getting screwed in the divorce, so that makes sense. I have worried about my ex in that way, but the only thing he lost in the divorce was a personal relationship with me. He still sees his daughter just as much- probably more, actually- and his finances were the same as before. As the person leaving the marriage and taking on a lot of debt to buy him out, I was extremely depressed though not suicidal. I was after I found out the guy who vanished on me had clearly lied about who he was. In an event I never expected to have happen, he contacted me last night. His emails were full of regret and apologies. Eventually he told me he got married about a year ago. This is hard to hear. Really hard, actually. But I am glad to have a sense of closure and a chance to exchange apologies and forgiveness. Knowing that he still thinks of me and wishes he had made things work for us may be my antidote against ever wanting to die again. I think I am through the worst of all of this. I feel strangely blessed and only better things can come my way. My brain is quiet on that story now and it has haunted me for years.

  34. What I was trying to get at and got sidetracked on is how a person treats you when they end things. If they steal your stuff and are personally awful,its going to be terrible. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Women should feel responsible for dealing with their spouse in a fair and dignified way. Is there ever a justifiable reason to destroy another person?

  35. I think A Man For All Seasons pretty much nailed it up there. Mark Minter might want to believe that there’s no such thing as love, but there definitely is. To say there’s no such thing as love would to really throw the red pill baby out with the bathwater.

  36. I love everything Rollo and Mark Minter write but I also read the articles at Thelastpsychiatrist and this is what he had to say regarding this issue (the overall theme of the article is the deconstruction of the successful woman).


    Here is the part I’m referring to:

    You don’t go for all this love crap…. You’ve figured out that love was a construct pushed by the patriarchy to keep women tied to the home, to deny them orgasms with multiple penises and vaginas; to prevent them from getting jobs, money, power. Am I right? Ok, then let’s play by your rules, let’s say you’re right that love was used to keep women down– then what does today’s suppression of love signify? Could it be that the abandonment of love doesn’t also serve the system’s purpose? Or is only the former the trick, the latter a discovery made by your genius + sophistication+ expert reading of human emotions?

    You think you’ve figured out that true love doesn’t exist, that it’s all been a kind of romantic lie sold by TV and the media, that real life isn’t like that; but what I am telling you is that you didn’t figure this out, you were TOLD this. Now, constantly, by every modern TV show, by Lori Gottlieb and the zombies at The Atlantic, by your friends, by your parents– the trick was to get you to think you figured it out on your own. Grey’s Anatomy is a terrible show but at least season one had the decency to be about having careless sex along the road to finding The One. You know where their passions lie now? Running a hospital. Yesterday’s episode featured 11 minutes of two young, superhot doctors orgasming over the new X-ray machine and how great it is for both efficiency and patient care, it’s almost as if the Disney Corp is doing it’s part to convince America that hospitals aren’t in it for the money, they’re warm and fuzzy places that are committed to helping patients with their fertility.

    The system’s ideal woman is the single mother, she’s produced with her uterus and is willing to go all in on production/consumption, she has no choice. I’m not saying she wants to be a single mother, I’m saying that’s what the system wants her to be. That’s feminism. You can get married too, as long as he’ll make it so you get in at 8.

    Love is dying, the system is killing it. The only acceptable portrayal of fulfilled love is with vampires and BDSM billionaires, not because those men are great but because there’s no worry you’ll meet one, enjoy your little fantasy. Now back to work, whore, you need fulfillment.

    And my favorite comment someone left:

    Wow. Well said. It was inflation that pushed women into the workplace, not “feminism.” Feminism was co-opted by the government so that women would embrace their own enslavement for a “seat at the table.”

    It was a trap, and everyone fell for it.

    What do you guys think? I am a little confused about the whole thing now.

  37. @ scotch. That’s an MRM issue. I’m enjoying the decline, and I consider those little peckerwoods to be my competition for the prime trim well into my dotage. Screw ’em.

    @ Mark M. Excellent post, thanks.

  38. To those who say that love exists, or love does not exist:

    Love is a grand delusion, one that can work for you, or bury you in the landslide of one-itis.

    How can one say that the delusions of a madman actually exist?

    But how can the man, mad with love, drunk on its heady power, say that it doesn’t?

  39. “And I say, no it doesn’t. It exposes the reality of the impossibility of “love” because “love” is entirely a manufactured ideal. And modern Feminism has brought about the recognition of the impossibility of it and rubbed it in the face of men. If you pine for it, it you whine about it, the end of it, the lack of it, then you deny the truth of it.”

    Spot on.

  40. There is no such thing as love. I don’t believe in love at all. Love? Your gadgets and family will treat you a lot better than a random bitch ever will. Love was invented by women. Fuck love, earn money.

  41. Kate I think that most people, not all but most, on the manosphere see the personal pain imposed on men by divorce as being more a function of the system than as a function of women. I have to qualify that a lot of calories are burned straining to compare notes and uunderstand how women operate and it seems existential because male/female are like yang/yin, ya know? But existential though it sseems its really about like this: all men buy cars and all women sell them, or reverse it, it doesn’t matter. Point is buyers compare notes to understand how they were sold crap or got good deal an so struggle to understand sellerss and vice versa.
    Anyway sorry that was belabored. Point is: I know women are hurt by and in divorce and even as just a commenter I know you are cool. For all the philosophizing and psychologizing I think that if men felt they got a square deal: say the same rights as women to surrender parenthood or a fault based divorce system nullifying aliminy, childsupport and community property and awarding custody to the nonfault divorcee, you would have the kvetching or the suicides for that matter. Women could divorce when they became unhappy, that sucks for a guy but life deals you blows, and this blow would be ok because she’d have to live with her own shit instead of airlifting it on the family court express to his bed so he has to sleep with it.

    To me, that is about a system, not any particular woman, and props to you for having integrity, not that you need the props from me though.

  42. Am working out, thinking, had a thought, want to share.

    I remember good times in my 20s and more lonely times. The key diff between the two is mostly whether or not there were girlfriends hanging out and partying with my guyfriends.

    I remember one night when my guy friend group didn’t have a lot of girls to hang out with us so we wnet to a strip club. I think it depressed most of us.

    Now arguably several of us were players and very definitely there were many good times with many good women but we didn’t understand “game” then even if we were players and I can say now the most alphas of the pack all did the alpha single beta taken thing later on.

    But on that lonely night lets just say we were all beta. You could put a title on it: “beta boys to beta girls, where are you we need you?”

    And I remember that now because a little older it is so so so opposite, at least for those of us who are single. It is so “beta girls calling (used to be) beta boys, we need you”.

    I don’t know about love. No one can tell me I don’t love my kids. We observe acts of love in the real world. The acts are real why is the love motivating them not equally so?

    But if we spend 600 more fomments debating it will we settle anything?

    I suggest that nevermind love. We are mammals. We are human. And we need each other. The system is just so FUBAR we are each adrift. The best we can do is understand the currents pushing us around.

  43. Here is what I tell my son about love:

    1. Your aunts and grandma’s will love you unconditionally, your mother and wife never can.

    The stronger the man, the more they pull back and faster (a function of knowing that the risks associated with being alpha/sigma dictate you may not come back to the cave, ergo they have to be able to detach. They don’t have to detach from a beta, they never take risks)

    2. get your emotional support from fraternity.

  44. Great read Minter. Almost made me think I was back in college again. A slight dissent about Hefner. As a kid in those times, I didn’t give a shit about his feminist/leftist claptrap. I assumed that was part of his Game that got him laid and more publicity from the fems that would drive more young hot chicks into his harem. Kept the Steinhams of the world from shutting down his soft porn empire. Brilliant, if you ask me. As to what it has to do with love I have no idea.

  45. Great article, tho I’m not sure about the assumptions of female hypergamy. Many of the troubadours were into what they called “fin’ amors,” which meant non-sexual or “true love” which wouldnt necessarily chime with the hypothesis of sexual hypergamy.

    There’s a new article on A voice for Men on this entire subject which may be of interest: http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/chivalry/the-rise-of-chivalric-love-or-the-power-of-shame/

  46. BC “Isn’t the H/T to Mark and Rollo great?”

    Na, the author over at A Voice for Men has been writing about this topic there for at least a year. So my guess its probably more a case of a H/T by Mark and Rollo to him. Of course its possible to arrive at the same conclusion about chivalry and love independently cause this stuff is easy found and understood re the impact on modern world.

  47. @Mr. Minter:

    “It did not exist at all before in European culture, this idea of “soul mates” and “intertwined” spirits and “the ennobling qualities of love”, love as the be all and end all, the very reason to live.

    And it was made up.

    By women. Duh?”

    I don’t see the “obvious” logical conclusion that women made love up. Wouldn’t lower class men have benefited greatly by inventing ‘love’ in order to mate with or elope with otherwise unattainable women? The motivation was certainly there. This seems like an incredible oversimplification of events to me.

  48. “Wouldn’t lower class men have benefited greatly by inventing ‘love’ in order to mate with or elope with otherwise unattainable women?”

    In half the cases it appears men could only love from a safe distance. there was no eloping, especially not with unattainable women. Seems it was more about male service than anything.

  49. You’re slacking.

    I requested a Rollo T. smackdown on the concept of “love” many months ago. I knew you were probably a little tentative about exposing The Last Great Myth for what it is so I suppose the Minter comment was the perfect opportunity but I am a bit disappointed that you didn’t at least add more commentary.

  50. I’ve long been of the opinion now, even prior to getting red pill’ed, that love isn’t a thing that can truly exist among man and his sexual partner. I’m less and less open to the idea that there are married couples out there who are an exception. Seems that the more you know them or the more you can get a husband to be honest, there’s animosity in every marriage. I “believe in love” with siblings, parents/children, and maybe some extended family, but the fact that it probably does not exist for a man and his woman is certainly one of the toughest bits of the pill to swallow. Maybe I’m wrong, but it certainly seems to be the case.

  51. “It is an incredibly clever play to pin an amorphous, idealized term to a powerful blend of emotions. The feminine imperative has a monopoly on the term. We cannot combat the term on it’s own grounds, debating the meaning of love. Rather we need to develop entirely new words to shake the frame of this monopoly.”

    Or a qualifying term. I’d suggest feministized love as it indicates how they think they should be loved (exceptionally and unconditionally), and not how they love; or bastardized love to emphasize its lack of connection (in this case, to reality).

    This sounds like a silly semantics argument, however a statements like:

    “It exposes the reality of the impossibility of “love” because “love” is entirely a manufactured ideal.”

    “There is no such thing as love. I don’t believe in love at all. Love? Your gadgets and family will treat you a lot better than a random bitch ever will. Love was invented by women. Fuck love, earn money.”

    have many further implications those commenters would be unlikely to endorse.

    Additionally, the lack of strong semantics in the “manosphere” is becoming more apparent. For instance, CH titled a post “The Fundamental Premise,” the majority of which actually contradicts “the fundamental premise” of most of his other writings and few even noticed.

  52. Women didn’t make love up ,they twisted it. There is no marriage in heaven, so it is clear an individual’s soul mate (if you want to call it that) is God, NOT another human being.
    Paul says a married man is inferior to a single man spiritually, yet all the Protestant pastors are married men. Everything is twisted by Satan, father of lies.

  53. “All you need is love?”

    Bah, humbug. All you need is an analytical debunking of it.

    There- those feelings of blissful unity were just Femnist brainwashing.

    Whew, almost had me there.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: