Do you think it's possible for women to feel love?

[Moth]

I'm continuing in my quest to gather as much data about the .is userbase as possible (I'm a fed) and I'll report my findings in one large post when I'm done.

In spite of what the replies say, I'm STILL absolutely a glowie.

This question was insipired by my exchange with @Nicusor_delaBraila talking about NGU and his relationship with his wife:

Rehab posted something similar to this
Once he admited to life not being a bluepilled fantasy the normies turned on him
His wife was prob there for the password n money+ he was tall

I'm assuming you meant Swedish passport? Perhaps, but NGU wasn't rich, quite the opposite in fact. If she was after the Swedish passport, there were countless other Swedes she could've picked who were better-looking and better of financially.

This may be controversial here, but I think she genuinely loves him. Extremely rare, damn-near impossible, but it happens.

nah I dont think it
foids cant genuenly love
also he had 22M on a yt video so status in a way

You can see we didn't fully agree on the matter, so I thought it would be interesting to see what the rest of you guys thought, what your stance was.

 

[VanGobbel]

Never unconditional, only transactional.

 

[kay']

Women are niggers

 

[Pancakecel]

Women are niggers

 

[zd60]

Women are niggers

 

[DoomThreeKoala]

Definitely for Chad.

For everyone else? Only if they're her type.

 

[Rapistcel]

I'm continuing in my quest to gather as much data about the .is userbase as possible (I'm a fed) and I'll report my findings in one large post when I'm done.

In spite of what the replies say, I'm STILL absolutely a glowie.

This question was insipired by my exchange with @Nicusor_delaBraila talking about NGU and his relationship with his wife:






You can see we didn't fully agree on the matter, so I thought it would be interesting to see what the rest of you guys thought, what your stance was.

For chads

 

[Grimm]

Chad only

 

[Rapistcel]

Definitely for Chad.

For everyone else? Only if they're her type.

 

[SilentShadow]

Only for men they are physically attracted to and it's very shallow.

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

In our current modern society — where the most reprehensible parts of human nature are amplified, especially in women — love from them is only reserved to a select few, but it certainly exists. I suppose it depends on how you define love as well.

 

[autisticsoy]

Yes but to few

 

[Caichan]

Never unconditional, only transactional.

 

[Shark]

Only for chads

 

[EcstasyCel]

Temporarily they can definitely love but they would NEVER EVER sacrifice themselves out of love for another man. Its just infatuation that comes and goes for them.

 

[Ambatukam Alone]

Sure, don't see why not. You can take drugs or meditate to feel it, and they may love their kids and family and stuff. Romantic, too. I don't think such an ancient hormone mix or neurotransmitters or whatever would just disappear. However, I think they'd feel romantic love less and less the more used up they become.

 

[Todd Thundercock]

"Love" is effectively pussy tingles. Pussy tingles are only for Chad.

 

[fatass30000]

only for chad. Woman allow themselves to be verbally and physically abused for chad. It’s in their nature.

 

[Sex-Starved Beast]

They only love some men's traits and what they can give them, the same way some cats only care about their owners because they give them food but don't actually love them.

 

[Hohenstaufen]

only for Chad. Until Giga Chad arrives, then he'll receive the 'love'

 

[The Scarlet Prince]

I'm sure they can, but it's only a 'childish' love since foids never mentally mature past fourteen. Men and women inherently love differently.

Oh, and as others have said—it's reserved solely for Chad. If you're an Oofy Doofy, she doesn't actually love you.

 

[Nicusor_delaBraila]

I'm continuing in my quest to gather as much data about the .is userbase as possible (I'm a fed) and I'll report my findings in one large post when I'm done.

In spite of what the replies say, I'm STILL absolutely a glowie.

This question was insipired by my exchange with @Nicusor_delaBraila talking about NGU and his relationship with his wife:






You can see we didn't fully agree on the matter, so I thought it would be interesting to see what the rest of you guys thought, what your stance was.

They are transactional
Remember it took a 22M views video + Swedish Password for the guy to get the foid.

Foids only give love transactionally even if they dont realize it.
Its just that their brain automatically views genetic transactions as superior to material ones so this is why all the love stories written by women have tall attractive protagonists.

Although in theory even if you are not chad you could give some love in a foid by reproducing with her since humans are muh more monogamous and exibit more co-parental care than chimpanzees for example.
Though in the modern world you arent reproducing with a foid unless you fufill her genetic criteria.

 

[Nicusor_delaBraila]

her type.

And her type is tall with different clothing or chad with different clothing

 

[Scandi_Incel]

This is how foids view men: sub5s = disgusting creatures they want to go extinct, normies = emotional tampons and Oofy Doofys they might eventually settle for but they will never love them, Chads = Boy toys.

 

[kfinuk]

I have no proof other than my own experiences, but I have seen girls with crazy Chads cheat. One 1 know looks exactly like Henry Cavill, rich, has a finance company, very good social skills, 10/10 body, everything. Her wife MTB still cheated

 

[Lifeisbullshit95]

I have no proof other than my own experiences, but I have seen girls with crazy Chads cheat. One 1 know looks exactly like Henry Cavill, rich, has a finance company, very good social skills, 10/10 body, everything. Her wife MTB still cheated

I mean Tom Brady got cheated and he's a GigaChad. I mean women love Chad but for like 1, 5, 10 or 15 years more than that is getting boring for them. I mean love is like a peptide or like a drug, your body will gonna develop tolerance and at that point you lose interest. Love is nothing but a chemical reaction in the body triggered by external factors which with time will gonna decrease because of tolerance.

 

[OverLoner]

I want to believe it exists it's just not for me.

 

[auxcking]

Women are niggers

 

[xxectrapieces]

Women are niggers

 

[Subhuman0ne]

They are capable of Eros (erotic love, conditional) but only towards Chad.

Philia (basically friendship) it's impossible for them but possible for us.

Agape (unconditional love) - it's only God's love to humans, maybe some individuals are capable of it but very rare.

 

[Taboo Buster]

Depends on how you define love. There's as many definitions as the Eskimos have words for snow. The love of your favorite snack is different from the love you have for your pets, or a relative, or a friend, or a movie, or a hobby, or of money.
Women can love men in any of those ways, but the question is: Does romantic love exist?
Is it true that you know The One at first sight?
I've been infatuated lots of times. How do I know it wasn't love? Love is supposed to be forever. My infatuations always died when I overheard the object of my affection talking to her friends about me. My fondness for her dropped like a duck shot during hunting season. I can't continue liking somebody who doesn't like me even a smidge.
I suppose it is possible for two people to grow old together because they are that much in love. But it's just as possible that they both consider getting a divorce to be more trouble than it's worth.
If there's one thing I've learned about the vast majority of women is that to them all men are alike. Not one is special to them.
My mother used to tell my sister, "It's just as easy to fall in love with a rich man as it is a poor one." My sister did end up marrying a rich man. And had a messy divorce because love had nothing to do with it.
Me, I've concluded that the only place you'll find "true" love is in a work of fiction.

 

[Django666]

Sure they can, but not for anyone from this forum.

 

[Moth]

In our current modern society — where the most reprehensible parts of human nature are amplified, especially in women — love from them is only reserved to a select few, but it certainly exists. I suppose it depends on how you define love as well.

What's your definition?

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

What's your definition?

Well, technically, love is just a cocktail of neurotransmitters and evolutionary conditioning. But real love, if it exists at all, would have to be unconditional (to an extent). What I noticed is that men tend to love idealistically; women love opportunistically. For men, love is often self-sacrificial. For women, it’s contingent on what the man provides, be it genetics, resources, or status. Now, obviously, all love is conditional to a certain extent, but whether it can really be seen as love depends on how conditional it really is.

 

[endoftheskies]

I'm continuing in my quest to gather as much data about the .is userbase as possible (I'm a fed) and I'll report my findings in one large post when I'm done.

In spite of what the replies say, I'm STILL absolutely a glowie.

This question was insipired by my exchange with @Nicusor_delaBraila talking about NGU and his relationship with his wife:






You can see we didn't fully agree on the matter, so I thought it would be interesting to see what the rest of you guys thought, what your stance was.

Totally inept and incapable of love.

 

[endoftheskies]

Well, technically, love is just a cocktail of neurotransmitters and evolutionary conditioning. But real love, if it exists at all, would have to be unconditional (to an extent). What I noticed is that men tend to love idealistically; women love opportunistically. For men, love is often self-sacrificial. For women, it’s contingent on what the man provides, be it genetics, resources, or status. Now, obviously, all love is conditional to a certain extent, but whether it can really be seen as love depends on how conditional it really is.

What an reductionist view. Human beings aren't determined by causal phenomena, as there is incredible breadth, width and depth between each and every individual being. Epistemologically dubious at best.

 

[Moth]

Well, technically, love is just a cocktail of neurotransmitters and evolutionary conditioning. But real love, if it exists at all, would have to be unconditional (to an extent). What I noticed is that men tend to love idealistically; women love opportunistically. For men, love is often self-sacrificial. For women, it’s contingent on what the man provides, be it genetics, resources, or status. Now, obviously, all love is conditional to a certain extent, but whether it can really be seen as love depends on how conditional it really is.

Incredibly well said and high-IQ. I agree completely. Obviously both men and women have evolved to love this way.

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

What an reductionist view. Human beings aren't determined by causal phenomena, as there is incredible breadth, width and depth between each and every individual being. Epistemologically dubious at best.

It's true though; all romantic love in the eyes of the female is dependent on certain conditions, which renders the idea of a true idealistic love unfeasible; in truth, even men still rely on certain conditions to maintain love. Most people — especially women — would leave the person they "love" if they were to become a burn victim for example, which alone demonstrates that there is a condition for love (i.e., physical appearance). If you are referring to my first sentence, then it is simply a physical necessity; all human behavior is predetermined and governed by laws of causality, as humans are physical objects. This does not necessarily harm any of the breadth and complexity of human consciousness; I also don't think love should be defined as narrowly as the idealized version of it is, as such love is practically impossible — to me, the idea of unconditional love is incoherent, so that is more of a question of how conditional it is, hence my original reply.

 

[endoftheskies]

It's true though; all romantic love in the eyes of the female is dependent on certain conditions, which renders the idea of a true idealistic love unfeasible; in truth, even men still rely on certain conditions to maintain love. Most people — especially women — would leave the person they "love" if they were to become a burn victim for example, which alone demonstrates that there is a condition for love (i.e., physical appearance). If you are referring to my first sentence, then it is simply a physical necessity; all human behavior is predetermined and governed by laws of causality, as humans are physical objects. This does not necessarily harm any of the breadth and complexity of human consciousness; I also don't think love should be defined as narrowly as the idealized version of it is, as such love is practically impossible — to me, the idea of unconditional love is incoherent, so that is more of a question of how conditional it is, hence my original reply.

All human behavior is not governed by the law of casuality. You are missing an certain point and that is the theory of complexity, beyond an certain point each individual layer of an certain object grows in complexity, develops new features and new mechanisms which were unbeknownest to it in the prior stages, i.e water is wet, but H2O is not. This is an dubious argument. It does harm the breadth and complexity of human consciousness as you are stating that human beings are determined by casuality or implying that. Unconditional love is not inchorent, for certain attributes have been endowned in human and human species as an whole which makes for those relationships to become possible under extremely rare circumstances albeit. You are suggesting that if two people were under the casual phenomena that they would go on to achieve the same actions and behavior, suggesting an determinism in the human condition and philosophy. I would much have this be looked at from an teleological perspective as the human mind and condition is vastly complex and incredibly breadthful, and are mostly importantly axiomatically non-deterministic.

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

All human behavior is not governed by the law of casuality. You are missing an certain point and that is the theory of complexity, beyond an certain point each individual layer of an certain object grows in complexity, develops new features and new mechanisms which were unbeknownest to it in the prior stages. This is an dubious argument. It does harm the breadth and complexity of human consciousness as you are stating that human beings are determined by casuality or implying that.

You’re conflating complexity with indeterminism. Complexity theory describes how systems exhibit emergent properties, but emergence does not imply a break from causality; it only means that higher-level patterns are not obvious from lower-level rules. Even if a system develops new behaviors that were unpredictable to us, those behaviors are still causally determined by prior states. Human consciousness, with all its richness and novelty, is no exception because it emerges from neural networks, biochemistry, and prior experiences, all of which follow physical laws. Humans are not exempt from the laws of physics, which means human behavior is, in fact, predetermined, or at most, random, as one could appeal to quantum physics which has been shown to not be as clearly predetermined.

Unconditional love is not inchorent, for certain attributes have been endowned in human and human species as an whole which makes for those relationships to become possible under extremely rare circumstances albeit.

All love is ultimately contingent to some degree, even if certain traits make relationships more likely. The rarity of these circumstances only shows how exceptional such love would have to be, not that it exists in any general or meaningful sense. Also, claiming that “endowed attributes” in humans somehow guarantee unconditional love conflates compatibility or predisposition with love itself. Love is an active, ongoing process, and any withdrawal or change in those attributes can alter or dissolve it. Hence, even in these rare cases, what appears as unconditional love is still conditional upon the continued presence of favorable factors. The fact is, all one has to do to prove love is conditional is simply appeal to the absurdity of a purely unconditional love. What if the person being loved suddenly looked completely disgusting, or was put in the body of the opposite sex? Of course, this leads to the question of identity. Does one love the physical manifestation of the individual, along with their personality, or merely the personality? In either case, some form of conditionally dependent love must exist. The bigger question is where does one draw the line of what real love is — when is it too conditional — and to me this appears like a sorites paradox.

 

[Grodd]

Yes but not for me.

 

[ParasiteToSociety]

Only for chads

 

[Moth]

Yes but not for me.

 

[endoftheskies]

You’re conflating complexity with indeterminism. Complexity theory describes how systems exhibit emergent properties, but emergence does not imply a break from causality; it only means that higher-level patterns are not obvious from lower-level rules. Even if a system develops new behaviors that were unpredictable to us, those behaviors are still causally determined by prior states. Human consciousness, with all its richness and novelty, is no exception because it emerges from neural networks, biochemistry, and prior experiences, all of which follow physical laws. Humans are not exempt from the laws of physics, which means human behavior is, in fact, predetermined, or at most, random, as one could appeal to quantum physics which has been shown to not be as clearly predetermined.

I am not at all. Complexity describes how systems have emergent process and I was using it as an rebuke for any attempt to categorize human attempts based on prior level knowledge or experience. Humans are not exempt from the laws of physics you are right, but humanity is not deterministic. It is an erroneous attempt to conflate consciousness with its prior layers, considering that each and every layer leads to the creation of new and emergent properties. While I agree that humans have constraints, especially of physical ones, that does not lead to determinism or deterministic properties. The search space is simply too large to undertake such an task unless from an higher perspective(e.g Laplace's Demon), even if Laplace's Demon were able to scour the entire search space, it still would not be able to obtain any information based on the constraints imposed on human consciousness, so this seems to me as an incomplete argument as any knowledge at the most pure or essential level would be of no use to the demon.

 

[endoftheskies]

All love is ultimately contingent to some degree, even if certain traits make relationships more likely. The rarity of these circumstances only shows how exceptional such love would have to be, not that it exists in any general or meaningful sense. Also, claiming that “endowed attributes” in humans somehow guarantee unconditional love conflates compatibility or predisposition with love itself. Love is an active, ongoing process, and any withdrawal or change in those attributes can alter or dissolve it. Hence, even in these rare cases, what appears as unconditional love is still conditional upon the continued presence of favorable factors. The fact is, all one has to do to prove love is conditional is simply appeal to the absurdity of a purely unconditional love. What if the person being loved suddenly looked completely disgusting, or was put in the body of the opposite sex? Of course, this leads to the question of identity. Does one love the physical manifestation of the individual, along with their personality, or merely the personality? In either case, some form of conditionally dependent love must exist. The bigger question is where does one draw the line of what real love is — when is it too conditional — and to me this appears like a sorites paradox.

Love is an process with varying lengths and degrees. To conflate all love as an ongoing process is incredibly vague and confusing. Unconditional love is love for somebody based on their identity, of course, this love cannot be extended for everybody. Unconditional love negates the process of love, as their love for an person wouldn't be hampered by said persons actions or properties. This comes from a direct misunderstanding of love. I am not saying that it gurantees unconditional love, just that humans have the capacity for said unconditional love. Again, unconditional love is the purest form of love as it is based on identity, and not essence. Essence, would mean that love would be able to apply to anybody else and including for the target user, that makes love conditional. Unconditional love is loving person based on their identity, which cannot be imitated in other ways, or loving the representation of said one. After all love has to have an target or recipent. This seems to be more about an argument about semantics.

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

You still haven't shown that humans following the laws of physics would led to determinism or randomness.

The laws of physics are either deterministic or random because humans are entirely physical beings, thereby making them bound by the laws of physics; for example, if you accept block universe theory, then everything is, in fact, predetermined — special relativity necessitates it. Quantum physics does complicate matters, but at most it makes things random, or leads to MWI.

 

[endoftheskies]

The laws of physics are either deterministic or random because humans are entirely physical beings, thereby making them bound by the laws of physics; for example, if you accept block universe theory, then everything is, in fact, predetermined — special relativity necessitates it. Quantum physics does complicate matters, but at most it makes things random, or leads to MWI.

Yes humans are bound by the laws of physics, but that those not show determinism, as the search space is too large to conclude such an finding, and any finding at the most purest/elemental level could be negated, due to the lack of relevant information towards the higher levels of complexity. And plus, emergent properties can be found which contradict those at the most elemental level. The constraints are too expansive and pure at producing any sort of deduction or rationale for such an argument. Free will can emerge from deterministic physics, as systems can obtain emergent properties that contradict their previous ones.

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

Yes humans are bound by the laws of physics, but that those not show determinism, as the search space is too large to conclude such an finding, and any finding at the most purest/elemental level could be negated, due to the lack of relevant information towards the higher levels of complexity. And plus, emergent properties can be found which contradict those at the most elemental level.

Determinism is a claim about how the universe evolves, not about whether humans can survey every variable. A system can be perfectly deterministic while being computationally intractable and chaotic. Weather is a classic example as it is unpredictable, yet governed by deterministic equations.
Thus, the objection fails because unpredictability ≠ indeterminacy.

This should be obvious, but you cannot have higher-level states that violate the underlying physical evolution without invoking non-physical causes. Saying “we lack relevant information at higher levels” again only limits our modeling, not causal closure. Something can be emergent and highly complex, but it will never violate the laws of physics, as that's impossible.

Within the 4-dimensional spaciotemporal manifold, all times already exist, which means the future is predetermined and exists at some point ahead of us — regardless of any other factors; this is a framework that is backed up by modern physics.

 

[endoftheskies]

Determinism is a claim about how the universe evolves, not about whether humans can survey every variable. A system can be perfectly deterministic while being computationally intractable and chaotic. Weather is a classic example as it is unpredictable, yet governed by deterministic equations.
Thus, the objection fails because unpredictability ≠ indeterminacy.

This should be obvious, but you cannot have higher-level states that violate the underlying physical evolution without invoking non-physical causes. Saying “we lack relevant information at higher levels” again only limits our modeling, not causal closure. Something can be emergent and highly complex, but it will never violate the laws of physics, as that's impossible.

Within the 4-dimensional spaciotemporal manifold, all times already exist, which means the future is predetermined and exists at some point ahead of us — regardless of any other factors; this is a framework that is backed up by modern physics.

You completely miss the point. I am talking about determinism as being abject and able to be calculated or accounted for. The simple truth is that the search space is too large and humans are incapable of being determined by casual phenomena for this to happen. I am not saying that emergent properties would violate laws of physics, but I am saying that emergent properties might have properties that contradict properties at the base level, due to their organization of their new logits of units which leads to new things. Your point about complexity is moot and is unnecessary. Again, human beings cannot be determined by casual phenomena, the simplest proof is that, human beings have an wide array of diverse beliefs, personalities and ideas, and have free will not being able to determined by most casual phenomena and conditions. Beings with two identical similar conditions can have an different life or ending point, which leads to an inherent contradiction as any argument centering on determinism ought to realize. Chaos, and computationally intractable is an unnecessary point, considering I have proven that no such system exists for predicting casual phenomena.

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

Love is an process with varying lengths and degrees. To conflate all love as an ongoing process is incredibly vague and confusing. Unconditional love is love for somebody based on their identity, of course, this love cannot be extended for everybody. Unconditional love negates the process of love, as their love for an person wouldn't be hampered by said persons actions or properties. This comes from a direct misunderstanding of love. I am not saying that it gurantees unconditional love, just that humans have the capacity for said unconditional love. Again, unconditional love is the purest form of love as it is based on identity, and not essence. Essence, would mean that love would be able to apply to anybody else and including for the target user, that makes love conditional. Unconditional love is loving person based on their identity, which cannot be imitated in other ways, or loving the representation of said one. After all love has to have an target or recipent. This seems to be more about an argument about semantics.

Even in what you would call “pure” unconditional love, there exists a tacit set of contingencies since the person must remain the individual you recognize and value. This aligns with the sorites-like paradox I mentioned. At what point do changes in identity, behavior, or circumstance transform love from seeming unconditional to conditional? The closer you look, the harder it becomes to identify a truly unconditional love in a practical, meaningful sense.