Quote: (03-09-2018 02:22 PM)Spartacus Wrote:
What about those couples who meet when young, get married and stay together? how is that not one true love?
"Romantic love" also called "True love", and "Infatuation" also known as "Oneitis" aren't nearly that bad on a healthy patriarchal society as they are today because a traditional society acts in favour of the family institution. You need to learn more about hypergamy and gynocentrism, because the argument you are giving only had validity in the past century. Since no-fault divorce laws if you marry you hand your wife a loaded gun the moment children arrive. More than 50% of the couples that marry end in a divorce rape where the man is destroyed, more than 80% of the divorces are started by the woman even when they have good providers, women receive custody in more than 80% of child custody cases and suicide rates go up tenfold for men post divorce. Nearly no woman marries today still young and even most woman who seem traditional are traditional in disguise (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/1...917.html).
This is not about being a degenerate. Is about being a healthy masculine man in a female-dominated culture. We follow people like Roosh V because we need to be unlearn ours white knight behaviours and learn how to live without the sustained emotional intimacy that our gynocentric societies have denied to us.
I will leave you with some good quotes so you can begin your investigation:
Quote:Quote:
A wife for every Beta is the old order negotiated social contract function of committed monogamy. In a state of nature where 80% of men can never be assured of a genetic legacy, most men have no incentive to participate in an organized society. What the Regulated model of sexuality does (albeit inefficiently) is gives Beta males the incentive to cooperate in larger society by establishing monogamy as the predominant social order. And then, as Krauser mentions these societies tend to outperform those based on a Hypergamous, naturalistic socio-sexual structure.
The new, post-sexual revolution order is a model ostensibly based on ‘sexual freedom’, but what this really represents is a return to that naturalistic sexual order based on pre-agrarian, evolutionarily incentivized Hypergamy.
Quote:Quote:
Only in a feminized equalist society do men expect in-kind reciprocation from women. As a man, your “needs” are only important to you. Men’s disappointment comes from expecting a balanced return on his emotional investment and relational equity; this is the result of his egalitarian equalist conditioning. It sucks and it’s offensive to men because they’ve believed for most of their lives that there should be an equitable exchange of emotional and personal investments – his woman should have his needs and his best interests in mind. In fact it’s a recipe for failure, since it puts men into a position of neediness, and thus forces him to negotiate for his woman’s desire.
As a man it is important to understand that love will always, necessarily, be an unequal exchange of sacrifice for a woman. You simply don’t share the same concept of love with a woman. There are ”complementary benefits”, but never assume your investment with a woman will be an equitable tradeoff.
Rollo Tomassi, https://therationalmale.com/ (PUA point of view)
Quote:Quote:
I don’t mind knowing that women are hypergamous and learning how much they are functioning off of attraction, I mind being sold that I have to “win a woman over”, that monogamy is part of “true love”, that there is “the one” for me. All that crap served a social system that no longer exists – yet men are still playing it. The alphas have figured out that they don’t have to provision/protect to get laid and the Betas are getting fed up with the crap and the lies.
Quote:Quote:
The concept of men’s idealistic love`, the love that makes him the true romantic, `begins with a want of freedom from his burden of performance. It’s not founded in an absolute like unconditional love, but rather a love that isn’t dependent upon his performing well enough to assuage a woman’s hypergamous concept of love.
As the true romantics, and because of the performance demands of Hypergamy, there is a distinct want for men to believe that in so revealing their vulnerabilities they become more “human” – that if they expose their frailties to women some mask they believe they’re wearing comes off and (if she’s a mythical “quality woman“ ™) she’ll excuses his inadequacies to perform to the rigorous satisfaction of her Hypergamy. The problems with this ‘strength in surrender’ hope are twofold. First, the humanness he believes a woman will respect isn’t the attraction cue he believes it is. Ten minutes perusing blogs about the left-swiping habits of women using Tinder (or @Tinderfessions) is enough to verify that women aren’t desirous of the kind of “humanness” he’s been conditioned to believe women are receptive to. In the attraction and arousal stages, women are far more concerned with a man’s capacity to entertain her by playing a role and presenting her with the perception of a male archetype she expects herself to be attracted to and aroused by. Which brings us to the second problem with ‘strength in surrender’. The caricaturized preconception men have about their masculine identity is a construct of a man’s feminine-primary socialization.
This videos are also very informative (MGTOW point of view):
... and "The Red Pill" documentary (MRAs point of view):