You need to understand the two types of love. There's unconditional love and conditional love. The former is sacrificial, and it's the Disney one which loyalty and devotion stem from.
Women can only unconditionally love their children.
Men can unconditionally love their wife and children.
So a man must hold up the house, for everyone. A wife can and should focus on the children. The father gives more love than he gets, but it is he who ultimately decides the quality of the children and family.
It's no coincidence that homosexuals and gang members both come out of father-less or father-weak households.
I've heard this crap before, it's pseudoscience put out by those 'red pill' dipshits. They attempt to prove it via 'biotruths' and 'evolutionary psychology', both of which are heavily criticised by the respectable scientific community. Generally, people who trot out crap like this are status quo warriors and/or reactionaries.
This is an interesting theory and it almost makes sense, but I don't buy it. A woman can love a man unconditionally, but if she's strong that won't be enough to keep her attached to him if he's too weak to provide. And even after she's left him, that love is still there and she may even continue to sacrifice for him, but she will no longer let him take too much from her once it's done.
Can you elaborate on your point that a woman can love a man unconditionally?
I think you may be confusing love and attraction here. What's so interesting about male attraction vs female attraction is this: the ability to provide and protect are factors in how women find men attractive. It's not a matter of women not loving or hating weak men; they are simply unattracted to them.
Fair enough, but you contradict yourself. You are saying that women cannot love men unconditionally because they would only be attracted to a man who they perceive as superior and that love only stands as long as his status as protector and provider holds, no?
Therefore, by this logic, should such a man become dependent on the woman, she can then love him unconditionally, but will no longer be attracted to him.
As an example, think of the marriage between an elderly couple in which the man has lost his mobility. He's can no longer provide and he's certainly no protector. Those are his wife's duties now and yet she stays and cares for him because she loves him unconditionally.
IIN to think children first is a fallacy
← View full post
You need to understand the two types of love. There's unconditional love and conditional love. The former is sacrificial, and it's the Disney one which loyalty and devotion stem from.
Women can only unconditionally love their children.
Men can unconditionally love their wife and children.
So a man must hold up the house, for everyone. A wife can and should focus on the children. The father gives more love than he gets, but it is he who ultimately decides the quality of the children and family.
It's no coincidence that homosexuals and gang members both come out of father-less or father-weak households.
--
satanniggasandpopsicle
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
llamalover
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
Thats not true. Girls can unconditionally love their husband
What kind of lies is that?
--
bubsy
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
They cannot. We can only selflessly love those weaker than ourselves (dependents).
If a woman sees her a man as her equal or inferior to her, she won't be attracted to him.
--
satanniggasandpopsicle
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
Freedom_
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
What if both the male and female see each other as equal?
And where is your crazy theory coming from anyway? haha
So I cant love someone stronger? Your vision is weird. And wrong.
Love is about a relationship. You love by getting to know someone. I dont know what you would classify as "weaker" anyway.
Your wrong though
--
bubsy
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I won't be able to convince you of anything, I can only point you in a direction: look into masculinity and femininity.
--
charli.m
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
-
satanniggasandpopsicle
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Or you could...y'know...point to any factual evidence of this. Say, research? No? Anything to prove this isn't just your personal belief?
We can wait.
--
wigz
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
See More Comments =>
I've heard this crap before, it's pseudoscience put out by those 'red pill' dipshits. They attempt to prove it via 'biotruths' and 'evolutionary psychology', both of which are heavily criticised by the respectable scientific community. Generally, people who trot out crap like this are status quo warriors and/or reactionaries.
i already know about those haha
and your still wrong
This is an interesting theory and it almost makes sense, but I don't buy it. A woman can love a man unconditionally, but if she's strong that won't be enough to keep her attached to him if he's too weak to provide. And even after she's left him, that love is still there and she may even continue to sacrifice for him, but she will no longer let him take too much from her once it's done.
--
bubsy
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Can you elaborate on your point that a woman can love a man unconditionally?
I think you may be confusing love and attraction here. What's so interesting about male attraction vs female attraction is this: the ability to provide and protect are factors in how women find men attractive. It's not a matter of women not loving or hating weak men; they are simply unattracted to them.
--
Freedom_
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
Freedom_
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Fair enough, but you contradict yourself. You are saying that women cannot love men unconditionally because they would only be attracted to a man who they perceive as superior and that love only stands as long as his status as protector and provider holds, no?
Therefore, by this logic, should such a man become dependent on the woman, she can then love him unconditionally, but will no longer be attracted to him.
As an example, think of the marriage between an elderly couple in which the man has lost his mobility. He's can no longer provide and he's certainly no protector. Those are his wife's duties now and yet she stays and cares for him because she loves him unconditionally.
wow, you're so dumb