Many thanks for the finesse shared on your site. Your language, wit, humor, and suave is the crème de la crème. You remind me of Don Draper from Mad Men, except a feminine version, of course. He always knows what to say and he exudes that confidence and unbothered energy. And homegirl is in her 40s?! I have a thing for refined vocabulary and your mental dictionary is up to par.
I’ve scanned the bottomless pit that is your IG and site articles and have come up empty-handed on your take towards a specific topic that floats around in the comments on a lot of the OG masculinity pages.
Lots of men complain that “a woman and a child are loved for who they are, but a man is only loved under the account that he provides, blah blah" *queue the sob story and sad violin playing*
Obviously this is a victim stance and a reason for them to complain, but do you agree that a man loves a woman, despite? And a woman cannot love her man unless he demonstrates his strength and manliness via provision and protection, because respect comes first and love follows suit for the masculine man?
I’m deeply aware that a man shouldn’t be seeking unconditional love from his woman—that only comes from his mother and from God. So, is it true that a woman only *really* loves a man under the premise of him doing something for her? I think a classy and dignified woman is still “doing” something to make her man stick around, right?
No woman can just sit still and look pretty and expect to be ravished with all the perks. Her “work” comes in via her support and encouragement of him, and ensuring his home is running as smooth as possible, while children, on the other hand, can really just be children and their innocence remains intact—thus ensuring they are loved regardless, provided the parents have a sensible heart. Do you agree?
Questioning "Unconditional" Love for Women
I find that entire line of (faulty) reasoning that "men are only loved for what they can provide and women will never love men unconditionally" fatally flawed.
I also find it absurd that the red pill claims to be proponents and very vocal advocates of "human nature" and they often use "male biology" as their own personal get out of jail free card.
"Men love women under 25 because biology."
"Men love women who are fertile because biology."
"Men love women with massive breast implants because biology (too bad massive breast implants are not natural and therefore do not lend themselves to biology in any way, shape, or form but I digress)."
All this does is confirm to anyone with a thinking brain and a pulse that "unconditional love" for women according to red pill men is, in fact, very conditional–they often freely admit that a woman's youth and beauty is her "only currency." It's the single most aspect about a woman that makes her worth a damn and therefore worthy of any worthwhile man's investment.
Again, I find that to be extremely conditional. If a woman is not young, beautiful and fertile, she isn't even seen by the vast majority of red pill men to even be human. Many of them freely admit this out loud in hitting women upside the head with insults about "the wall" implying that a woman has no inherent value beyond what she can provide to a man sexually. "Unconditional," my ass.
I know many women in my age group and older who are utterly invisible to men. And if they're not completely invisible, they're treated with open derision and hostility. So how can these people insist with a straight face that women are loved "unconditionally"?
If women were in fact freely loved unconditionally, age wouldn't matter and they'd have a line of suitors. Their infertility after menopause wouldn't matter. The size of their breasts wouldn't matter. The wrinkles on their faces wouldn't matter and they wouldn't be filling their cheeks, foreheads, lips and chins to the point of indistinction with injections. You get the point.
Youth and beauty is prized in women. This isn't anything new or revolutionary. Yes, it is a biological fact. So these charlatans should just say that out loud without insisting or implying that women can be easily loved unconditionally and sought after without it.
Also, women prize masculinity, virility and strength in men–this also isn't anything new to anyone who doesn't have a big chip on their shoulder and believes they're entitled to unconditional love from beautiful women and thus are bitter in women not lining up to grant them their entitled wishes.
Bottom line is both MEN and WOMEN desire the best and most viable and biologically sound mates to pair up and procreate with.
For men, that means beauty. For women, that means male strength. These are pre-CONDITIONS that people place on others for biological investment.
And as far as a man loving a woman unconditionally, he most certainly can. In fact, unconditional love is the only thing that makes a man stay and be willing to weather watching a woman deteriorate physically over 50 years of wedded bliss.
If a man truly and dutifully loves you, he doesn't see your "flaws" but instead embraces them and loves you in spite of them.
Same can be said of women. When women truly love a man, they will do whatever is in their power to make the relationship work. They will be ride or die–that defines unconditional love from a woman.
We hear about women all the time who are completely devoted to men who are underemployed, incarcerated, even lacking in the male endowment department and have lots of baggage. This is in fact unconditional love because if it wasn't, why in the hell would these women stay with men who underperform in every observable aspect that would be deemed socially unacceptable to any person using their brain?
I would advise you to stop listening to red pill men and their naive and unrealistic views concerning women because:
a) They've never had a woman love them unconditionally (aka be ride or die) thus they don't even know what that looks like or feels like, much less can they try and understand it.
b) Their entire view of women is steeped in arrested development where their coombrain does all their bidding–they don't know what women find attractive and desirable in men so they insist having money and provision is the only male requirement to receive unconditional love from a woman.
c) They don't even see women beyond a certain age or physicality as human. So how can they judge the human capacity for men or women to love others unconditionally, even less so, over a lifetime?
Take everything they say with a grain of salt. People who have no real life experience beyond what they see in porn, have never been in a loving, long-term relationship and have never had children are the LEAST reputable resource on any real and important life matters concerning love.
Love and Many Blessings,
Questions or comments on this column? Have an advice question you'd like answered?
Write me: firstname.lastname@example.org