Discussion Women cannot love (response to @Draconian Times and other users from that thread).

[Moroccancel]

The first notion I was met with in the manosphere is that men cannot be loved by women. Women only love what men have to offer, as in the case of resources.

And this is an easily demonstrable reality because the notion of transcendence, of construction, of fighting from the mud to reach the highest point does not exist in women. The woman is a passive subject for which everything revolves around what she is, what she needs, what she will receive and what offspring she will have compared to hers, the object of her desire. The woman, as a passive and intellectually inferior subject, cannot love because loving is a transcendental, rational knowledge and an act of decision based on the inherent freedom of every human being.

That is true for the majority of men: their wives respect them, sometimes not even that, but they have no deep desire for their men. However, that does not mean women are incapable of loving men.

People don't know how to love. This is somewhat effective, firstly because people confuse the biological factor with another essential aspect, which is the perpetuation of this relationship over time. Physical attraction declines in the same couple over time with the same proportionality that couples get used to themselves. Basing love on biological variables is nothing more than the halo effect of expected results and tangible results. Animals with reduced or no consciousness do not love, because they do not have consciousness. The woman, in her little evolution, does not know how to love because she cannot transcend her primary instincts and because they are strongly conditioned to be possessors of the power of reproduction. Her elemental function is to be a semen storehouse for the fittest, while the man inevitably lives in the permanent dynamic of being accepted or rejected. In this Hegelian dichotomy, only man can love because he is basically dispossessed and has nothing more than his reason for survival, woman is subject to his ability to amass resources and protection that he understands as the central objective of his existence for a in turn, bring offspring.

A woman is attracted to a man's physical appearance and interested in his behavior. When a woman is stunned by the physical appearance and behavior of a man, she becomes deeply obsessed with him. When she is met with the opportunity to enjoy his body and know him with more intimacy, she desires him so much that she would rather die than live a day without him.

This is a masochistic instinct, which is contrasted with the sadistic instinct of the man who has the most access to the sexual market. This is elementary in psychoanalysis and in modern psychology. Masochism occurs in women as a way to enhance their survival, at unhealthy levels. Moreover, it is the denial of one's own being-in-itself because in this submission, the woman denies her freedom to submit. There is no love in submission because love is a rational act of freedom and decision. Therefore, women, cannot love.

The art of loving - E. Fromm

1. The masochist is he who, to gain satisfaction for his longing for freedom, takes pleasure in submitting to a will alien to his own, and who therefore destroys his freedom. [...] The masochist seeks to be controlled, to be humiliated, to submit to fate, to abase himself, because this gives him a feeling of inner security and the illusion of freedom from the burden of making choices. The masochist experiences a momentary 'dying' of his freedom, of his responsibility, of his separateness, and of his integrity, and feels merged with something greater than he himself. It is the sensation of a paradoxical 'oneness' with the very power which restricts and destroys him.

2. Masochism is the expression of a paralyzing lack of faith in one's own powers, the lack of courage to be oneself. It reveals the existence of profound doubts about one's own worth, doubts which are often only half-conscious and which are covered up by exaggerated strivings for perfection and by illusions of omnipotence."

3. Masochism is essentially an escape from the pain of separateness, the individual's feeling of being isolated, of being cut off from the world and from other human beings. The masochist tries to escape from this unbearable pain by becoming part of something greater than himself—by fusing himself with another person or by submitting to an all-powerful authority

4. The masochistic person becomes, as it were, the recipient and instrument of the punitive force against which he originally rebelled. His own rebellion against authority, freedom, and life is taken over by a punitive agency, to which he submits with total devotion

5. Masochism is the child of the unbearable pain of isolation, of the unbearable sense of powerlessness and separateness. It is a child who was driven out of the house, away from the warmth and security of mother and father, out into the cold and hostile world

S. Freud:

1. Where such men love, they have no desire, and where they desire, they cannot love (Civilization and Its Discontents)
2. In the relations of sadism and masochism, the feelings of love and sexual excitation become associated, and it can almost be said that in this way the love between the sexes, romantic love, is derived. (Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality)
3. Love and need are interdependent, but still not identical. In the extreme case, when need has brought the most wretched object to love, its longing seems to be an outright masochism of the ego. (Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego).
4. In masochism, on the contrary, it is the other person, the beloved object, who does everything: the person loved uses the subject's body for his own enjoyment, inflicts the punishment, and takes all the decisions. (The Economic Problem of Masochism)

Being and Nothingness - J. P. Sartre :

Love is not just a feeling. It's an action, a decision we make every day. It's not something that happens to us, but something we actively choose and create. Love is a commitment to another person, a choice to see them as they are, with all their flaws and complexities, and to care for them deeply. It's a decision to be there for them, to support and nurture their growth. Love is a continuous act of freedom, where we affirm the existence and worth of the other, and in doing so, we affirm our own existence and freedom as well.

And that is represented by art in some sense. In the second part of Twilight, Edward has left Bella, and she is sending hundreds of emails to his sister, Alice, in the hope of receiving a return from his beloved Edward. She is screaming, hurting herself, refusing to eat, and locking herself away from society as she considers suicide in case Edward never returns.

That is, a masochistic act. And what is romanticism if not an illusion of the idolatry of a human being to the category of god?

Although Twilight is a fictional story, there are many cases of girls that committed suicide over breaking up with their boyfriends. Cases of girls that harmed their bodies, like slitting their wrists, because they could not fathom going separate ways. Girls that married their boyfriends and spent the rest of their lives with them without cheating.

Broadly speaking, it is the man who commits suicide in much larger proportions than women. The woman commits suicide because she in her childish mind cannot achieve her masochism goal. The man commits suicide because he is easily replaceable, because he understands that he is not fit to survive (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/suicide-death-rates-by-sex-who; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide)

Are they just songs or do they represent a deep desire for some men that a lot of women have?

You confuse the object of desire with love. If you desire an object, you don't love it, you idolize it. Idolize a statue, if you wish, there is no love or concept like it because there is only emptiness. The woman is unable to escape the halo effect, the woman cannot love by decision and rationality, but by changing and fluctuating emotions, which is, technically, not love.

And if you say it is interest in resources, how do you explain teenage girls that date teenage boys who have no car, no house, and no job? How do you explain women who sustain men? What about rich women who date down?

It's still not love. Even adolescent boys cannot understand love because their minds are not developed enough to understand the essential concept of experience. Sexual attraction is mixed with the desire for experiences. The adolescent sexual market is so dynamic that all these concepts understood as "love" fall apart before the liquidity of idiot pubescent relationships affected by their hormones.

Men can be loved by women, but they have to be physically attractive and engaging. And that is the best type of relationship, because she likes you, not what you possess.

You enter into a contradiction. Women objectively "love" what this man possesses, which is his genetics based on his phenotype. But they do not love being-in-itself but rather being-for-itself. That is, it is the idolatry of the body, and the desire for submission based on the cognitive dissonance between what the body represents and what this person rationally is. Therefore, the woman cannot love, only masochistically idolize.

High IQ. I remember believing in the "women can't love men" meme once. It's a massive cope. They can and do love men, they just don't love you.

Indeed, we "incels" are not loved because we are not objects of reproductive idolatry. However, you do not understand that the woman does not have the rationality or freedom in her "ability to love" to understand what love exemplifies. You can't even talk about love in the majority of human beings.

I could love a girl for what she is
A girl cannot love me for what I am.

This is a good assimilation of all that has been discussed above. A man, due to his hypogamous nature, can dispense with the idolatry of the body to perpetuate a vital project, while a woman cannot because a woman cannot love. She can only idolize her best sexual option because she has the power to replace any man in her most fertile stage.

They do, and their love is way stronger and more unconditional than men's. But only those with good genes are able to experience their love

This is flatly false by all the propositions previously assimilated. The only point in which a woman can love, and not even that under terms that do not enter masochism and freedom as the centrality of love, is "maternal love." The woman cannot love like the man, nor can she reach the centrality of love because the woman does not even have the capacity to reflect beyond her narcissistic and psychopathic egoism.

Reflect deeply and realize that it is man who always sacrifices himself, it is man who has suffered the most in all arts and sciences. One who has understood the concept of love as a concept of eternity and permanence and not an object of sexual reproduction that can be replaced. Understand, brocels, that a woman cannot love because her only way of survival is to use others as objects of satisfaction, centralization of resources, protection and a source of the best sperm material. While man survives rationally understanding that permanence and stability is the only fundamental key to our evolution. Observe who are the best artists, the best scientists, the best writers, the best philosophers, the best in all aspects of thought. And they will realize that women do not reach even a minimum percentage of masculine rationality, because women cannot love, do not know how to love, biologically they are not evolved to transcend their nature as a socially domesticated animal.
@Draconian Times @PersonalityChad @Yan Babayan @laincel

 

[Drakul]

" Women don't fit my sperging definition of being capable to love = they don't love Chad so there's not much difference between me and him. "

 

[iamsubhuman]

lol

 

[Moroccancel]

" Women don't fit my sperging definition of being capable to love = they don't love Chad so there's not much difference between me and him. "

No, that is a fallacy of false relationship and irrelevant to the entire established text.

The woman cannot love either Chad or incel. The woman is not attracted to the incel by biological instincts of selection of the fittest; the woman does not love Chad because loving is not a biological mechanism, but a rationalization of permanence. Something that only man has built and has been able to build throughout history.

 

[Drakul]

No, that is a fallacy of false relationship and irrelevant to the entire established text.

The woman cannot love either Chad or incel. The woman is not attracted to the incel by biological instincts of selection of the fittest; the woman does not love Chad because loving is not a biological mechanism, but a rationalization of permanence. Something that only man has built and has been able to build through history

Yeah too bad unless you fuck men it's women that decide what love is and who get it and not some schizophreniamaxxed uggo with 600 posts in 8 days

 

[Asgard]

This is becoming Twitter.

 

[Moroccancel]

Yeah too bad unless you fuck men it's women that decide what love is and who get it and not some schizophreniamaxxed uggo with 600 posts in 8 days. @Drakul

The beautiful art of saying nothing using an ad hominem fallacy to absolutely make you the object of your criticism: postmaxxing.

The woman is irrelevant to the essence of the concept, because in that case, you would be subjectivizing the object of study, and you would be concluding that love is subjective. If love is subjective, then it is absurd to say that the woman loves or does not love, because it would be impossible to prove even if love exists. If love is objective, then we can treat based on what we are talking about.

If you affirm that love arises inexorably from lookism, then we are falling into the halo effect, and therefore, we are entering a bias again. Since love is not a quantifiable or perceptible concept in intelligently inferior species, we can only speak of love as an act of rational freedom, that seeks permanence, and permanence and its construction has always fallen throughout history by men. Women have only been the passive subject in man's construction of the totality of what is social.

 

[Lonelyus]

I hate talking to women, When i have to order my pizza at a resturant, I know its fake smiles and resturant policy, I also see her flirt with chad behind the scenes because that booth is wide as fucking open!

 

[Moroccancel]

I hate talking to women, When i have to order my pizza at a resturant, I know its fake smiles and resturant policy, I also see her flirt with chad behind the scenes because that booth is wide as fucking open!

You only have to listen to a woman to realize that her intellectual capacity is similar to that of a vacuum cleaner. The problem comes when the incels get absorbed in the bluepill and don't understand that gynocentrism is based on that: on the perpetual manipulation of man, including Chad. A woman does not feel sad because she has lost a chad to submit to, but she feels sad and may even commit suicide because she laments the inability to handle her best specimens.

 

[ZtarvationArmy]

dnr

 

[currycel⁰]

Read every word

 

[Qeasi Cou]

No, that is a fallacy of false relationship and irrelevant to the entire established text.

The woman cannot love either Chad or incel. The woman is not attracted to the incel by biological instincts of selection of the fittest; the woman does not love Chad because loving is not a biological mechanism, but a rationalization of permanence. Something that only man has built and has been able to build throughout history.

Words of pure gold, bro.

 

[Moroccancel]

Words of pure gold, bro.

 

[Cybersex is our hope]

" Women don't fit my sperging definition of being capable to love = they don't love Chad so there's not much difference between me and him. "

They are not sacrificial, protective nor proactive with the majority of men hence they do not love men like men love women. It's not difficult for fuck sake

 

[Drakul]

They are not sacrificial, protective nor proactive with the majority of men hence they do not love men like men love women. It's not difficult for fuck sake

Majority is they keyword.

 

[Cybersex is our hope]

Majority is they keyword.

It means they cannot love the average man hence they do not love men per se

 

[SmhChan]

Even their bet on masochism is misplaced when you see the growing number of single mothers.

 

[turbosperg]

Love is a FANTASY beta males build in their own heads so they can rationalize their tolerance for the abuse and exploitation they get from foids, his children, his parents, his community, society as a whole etc.

Although foids may risk their lives in borderline suicidal stunts in order to have a small chance of being noticed by Chad --- e.g.: many foids die taking selfies on waterfalls to post on social media for the tiny chance that Chad notices and decides to cum in her next. So, in spite of that, foids are NOT capable of sacrificing their own genetic self-interest for the benefit of someone else's, unlike men who die for their tribe, their wives, their kids etc. all the fucking time.

This is not some high brow philosophical question. This shit happens even in animals. When the male jaguar is shot, his female consort runs away. But when the female is shot, the male stays to defend her dying body.

Females CANNOT LOVE. This much should be clear for any non-bluepiller out there. A "woman's love" is in the same existential category as "a woman's penis".

 

[Qeasi Cou]

Love is a FANTASY beta males build in their own heads so they can rationalize their tolerance for the abuse and exploitation they get from foids, his children, his parents, his community, society as a whole etc.

Although foids may risk their lives in borderline suicidal stunts in order to have a small chance of being noticed by Chad --- e.g.: many foids die taking selfies on waterfalls to post on social media for the tiny chance that Chad notices and decides to cum in her next. So, in spite of that, foids are NOT capable of sacrificing their own genetic self-interest for the benefit of someone else's, unlike men who die for their tribe, their wives, their kids etc. all the fucking time.

This is not some high brow philosophical question. This shit happens even in animals. When the male jaguar is shot, his female consort runs away. But when the female is shot, the male stays to defend her dying body.

Females CANNOT LOVE. This much should be clear for any non-bluepiller out there. A "woman's love" is in the same existential category as "a woman's penis".

As it is, with nothing more to add, WOMEN DON'T LOVE, and that's it.

 

[FakeFakecel]

Women can love,but not in the way that people think. It's also very circumstancial. If a woman's Chad partner suddenly become incel tier subhuman all her love would immediately dissapear.

 

[Moroccancel]

Women can love,but not in the way that people think. It's also very circumstancial. If a woman's Chad partner suddenly become incel tier subhuman all her love would immediately dissapear.

Understanding that, what is considered love, in foids cannot be separated from mere sexual attraction and the concomitant halo effect of idealism that is associated with chad. Which, not that it's in itself, but also shows that foids don't love. They do not love, because the purpose and even the concept of love itself is a masculine concept of social stability. And it is not surprising, because in the end, foids simply acquire resources and the best genetic material. The man for practical purposes, is an instrument for the purpose of her domination.

 

[FakeFakecel]

Understanding that, what is considered love, in foids cannot be separated from mere sexual attraction and the concomitant halo effect of idealism that is associated with chad. Which, not that it's in itself, but also shows that foids don't love. They do not love, because the purpose and even the concept of love itself is a masculine concept of social stability. And it is not surprising, because in the end, foids simply acquire resources and the best genetic material. The man for practical purposes, is an instrument for the purpose of her domination.

Yes,I agree. Hence why I said ''not in the way people think''. Their ''Love'' is nothing like how it's portrayed in hollywood and shit. As you said materialism and sexual attraction can not be separated from the female love.

 

[Lifeisbullshit95]

And this is an easily demonstrable reality because the notion of transcendence, of construction, of fighting from the mud to reach the highest point does not exist in women. The woman is a passive subject for which everything revolves around what she is, what she needs, what she will receive and what offspring she will have compared to hers, the object of her desire. The woman, as a passive and intellectually inferior subject, cannot love because loving is a transcendental, rational knowledge and an act of decision based on the inherent freedom of every human being.

People don't know how to love. This is somewhat effective, firstly because people confuse the biological factor with another essential aspect, which is the perpetuation of this relationship over time. Physical attraction declines in the same couple over time with the same proportionality that couples get used to themselves. Basing love on biological variables is nothing more than the halo effect of expected results and tangible results. Animals with reduced or no consciousness do not love, because they do not have consciousness. The woman, in her little evolution, does not know how to love because she cannot transcend her primary instincts and because they are strongly conditioned to be possessors of the power of reproduction. Her elemental function is to be a semen storehouse for the fittest, while the man inevitably lives in the permanent dynamic of being accepted or rejected. In this Hegelian dichotomy, only man can love because he is basically dispossessed and has nothing more than his reason for survival, woman is subject to his ability to amass resources and protection that he understands as the central objective of his existence for a in turn, bring offspring.

This is a masochistic instinct, which is contrasted with the sadistic instinct of the man who has the most access to the sexual market. This is elementary in psychoanalysis and in modern psychology. Masochism occurs in women as a way to enhance their survival, at unhealthy levels. Moreover, it is the denial of one's own being-in-itself because in this submission, the woman denies her freedom to submit. There is no love in submission because love is a rational act of freedom and decision. Therefore, women, cannot love.



That is, a masochistic act. And what is romanticism if not an illusion of the idolatry of a human being to the category of god?

Broadly speaking, it is the man who commits suicide in much larger proportions than women. The woman commits suicide because she in her childish mind cannot achieve her masochism goal. The man commits suicide because he is easily replaceable, because he understands that he is not fit to survive (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/suicide-death-rates-by-sex-who; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide)


You confuse the object of desire with love. If you desire an object, you don't love it, you idolize it. Idolize a statue, if you wish, there is no love or concept like it because there is only emptiness. The woman is unable to escape the halo effect, the woman cannot love by decision and rationality, but by changing and fluctuating emotions, which is, technically, not love.

It's still not love. Even adolescent boys cannot understand love because their minds are not developed enough to understand the essential concept of experience. Sexual attraction is mixed with the desire for experiences. The adolescent sexual market is so dynamic that all these concepts understood as "love" fall apart before the liquidity of idiot pubescent relationships affected by their hormones.

You enter into a contradiction. Women objectively "love" what this man possesses, which is his genetics based on his phenotype. But they do not love being-in-itself but rather being-for-itself. That is, it is the idolatry of the body, and the desire for submission based on the cognitive dissonance between what the body represents and what this person rationally is. Therefore, the woman cannot love, only masochistically idolize.

Indeed, we "incels" are not loved because we are not objects of reproductive idolatry. However, you do not understand that the woman does not have the rationality or freedom in her "ability to love" to understand what love exemplifies. You can't even talk about love in the majority of human beings.

This is a good assimilation of all that has been discussed above. A man, due to his hypogamous nature, can dispense with the idolatry of the body to perpetuate a vital project, while a woman cannot because a woman cannot love. She can only idolize her best sexual option because she has the power to replace any man in her most fertile stage.

This is flatly false by all the propositions previously assimilated. The only point in which a woman can love, and not even that under terms that do not enter masochism and freedom as the centrality of love, is "maternal love." The woman cannot love like the man, nor can she reach the centrality of love because the woman does not even have the capacity to reflect beyond her narcissistic and psychopathic egoism.

Reflect deeply and realize that it is man who always sacrifices himself, it is man who has suffered the most in all arts and sciences. One who has understood the concept of love as a concept of eternity and permanence and not an object of sexual reproduction that can be replaced. Understand, brocels, that a woman cannot love because her only way of survival is to use others as objects of satisfaction, centralization of resources, protection and a source of the best sperm material. While man survives rationally understanding that permanence and stability is the only fundamental key to our evolution. Observe who are the best artists, the best scientists, the best writers, the best philosophers, the best in all aspects of thought. And they will realize that women do not reach even a minimum percentage of masculine rationality, because women cannot love, do not know how to love, biologically they are not evolved to transcend their nature as a socially domesticated animal.
@Draconian Times @PersonalityChadk @Yan Babayan @laincel

Dude what the fuck is this mental gymnastics.

If women cannot love that means men cannot love too. Let's not forget you came out of a woman.

You as a man you don't love a woman because you love her. You love her because she can offer you x, y and z. Basically you idolize that woman because she came with the standards that you want and seek. If you're ugly and you ain't shit and cope with philosophy your standards will be "just have a hole" zero.

Chads(handsome men) are the heartbroken slayers because they look good and have unlimited options. They can fuck whatever bitch they want and they dumping bitches without remorse like your crush, oneitis dumped you. And you came with that bullshit cope that women cannot love only men can.

Dude when you got no option it's over. All the Philosophy is just a way to cope. It was a way to cope for men who where alone at that time. This applies even for philosophers who got a woman but they still felt alone(like Robin Williams).

When you got the genetics of Wilt Chamberlain(this man fucked 20.000 women) you got no time for love and philosophy. You're to busy satisfying your pleasures.


My beef with you is that you assert that only men can love. That statement is cope of the highest order.

Love exist but love is not selective what is selectiv is Lust and Desire.

Becouse for the first time when you are born and you open your eyes, you start to seeing faces and things and guess what? The comparison appears.

The comparison is a body's tool that use to choose the best products for himself. Basically you cannot survive without comparison and I give you a anology that works for everything:

("When you choose an apple you choose the best big healthy apple not a rotten apple").

Falling in "love" for the first time is nothing but desire and lust, because when you look a person for 0.05 sec, your eyes makes a calculation and analysis of traits very quickly and with that calculation&analysis your eyes sends to the body the message " is perfect for me or is bad for me". You see here is a comparison and comparison is selectiv. Check the words Lust or Desire and you'll find out you as a human you cannot experience LOVE.

Back in the old times word LOVE was the best manipulator word that was/is because this word LOVE hides many plans and hidden agendas for that and that(respective men or women) they want just the benefits.

Evan your conception is nothing but a sperm battle jfl at our moms telling us that "I love you honey you are made out of love. " Mhmmm sure you choose the best man you can get with money, looks, status to procreate, shortly :desire and lust but not love just think deep about it.

When you choose(compare) a person you have standards for that person and that's not LOVE that is bullshit. That's idolatry.

A human when he's born into this world he is by default selfish, egoistic, etc bla bla bla;

You have to learn to share in order to survive and to receive benefits.. it's like an investment and you as a human you cannot experience LOVE becouse the human is egoistic by default and wants the best for himself.

How a human chooses the best for himself? well the answer is the comparison. e
Everything that a human sees he's comparing and that means desire, lust, etc but no love, humans cannot experience LOVE.

Love cannot be experienced by the humans not even mother-baby love connection it's nothing just pure comparison of mother(coming from herself, innocent , cute or ugly. Here depends some mothers like their child some not or.. are forced by society to raise that child or.. some are making babys for welfare, neetbux benefit.. shortly said to have that parasite foid a good life).

For mothers who are saying " it's not true.. I love my baby with all my life i
I will die for my baby. Mhmm empty words all these motherfuckers are virtue signalling and tbh all mothers who are saying this..are old and miserable and have nothing to lose because they are old... OLD = invisible no attention anymore..

The mothers who are young, makes babies for status, boredom, welfare money house, existential crisis, locking up a handsome man in relationship etc...

They virtue signalling hard they don't love their babies, they are passive empty about it because... Because she from the beginning her desire was to make a baby for her(She wanted to own a baby) respective desire. Basically you are born from desire(comparison) not love jfl.

Just wait until you grow older and you will see and hear: remorse, arguments, standards, comparison with other people... "why you are a loser and he is successful why why why" .. That is not love that was from the beginning of your conception lust and desire, you are a plan.

Even sorrow and grief is nothing but desire.. have you ever looked at 'grief, sorrow ' in the face and tried to understand what it really is? Of course not.

Are you grieving for the few pleasant experiences and the many painful experiences that your "loved one" has missed in the years to come? Or, are you, really and truly, grieving for the pleasures and conveniences that you will no longer be able to receive from him, her?

Emotions are nothing else but comparisons and if you look deep so to speak from the beginning of your conception, ghow emotion are created you will see that is nothing else but comparison.

To experience emotions such as sadness, sorrow, happiness, ecstasy, etc... You need objects and living organisms to create these emotions.

The base of a emotion is seeing.. when you see you compare automatically whether you like it or not and you create emotions by comparing with the visual, hearing experience.

Seeing is a tool of the body to survive in life which you unlock it at the moment you came out from your mother womb and to Survive you need to compare what is good and what is bad for you... what is good for you generates happiness, hope, etc... and what is bad for you creates unhappiness, sorrow, grief, pain.

To be human means to be dependent on external things in order to live, in order to survive. You see, some things are good some are bad in life from here you choose(compare).

Lust, desire = Comparisons

Comparison is an instinct. It is a need in order to survive but LOVE not evan close you cannot experience LOVE as a human.

Humans treat eachother like objects female seduce male in order to receive an orgasm and vice-versa, if they couldn't get an orgasm they flee or they try to get rid of eachother because no benefits.

It's all about benefits, it's all just trading, it's just business nothing else.

Love is a scam, when you are horny or feel alone that's Mother Nature way of tricking you to procreate.

To procreate in this existence full of suffering is low iq.


Humanity is laughable....

 

[sudhir]

Love is a FANTASY beta males build in their own heads so they can rationalize their tolerance for the abuse and exploitation they get from foids, his children, his parents, his community, society as a whole etc.

Although foids may risk their lives in borderline suicidal stunts in order to have a small chance of being noticed by Chad --- e.g.: many foids die taking selfies on waterfalls to post on social media for the tiny chance that Chad notices and decides to cum in her next. So, in spite of that, foids are NOT capable of sacrificing their own genetic self-interest for the benefit of someone else's, unlike men who die for their tribe, their wives, their kids etc. all the fucking time.

This is not some high brow philosophical question. This shit happens even in animals. When the male jaguar is shot, his female consort runs away. But when the female is shot, the male stays to defend her dying body.

Females CANNOT LOVE. This much should be clear for any non-bluepiller out there. A "woman's love" is in the same existential category as "a woman's penis".

Women can't love non-Chad males

 

[Moroccancel]

Women can't love non-Chad males

Women cannot love, at all. This debate always revolves around the same controversy because we assume that women can abstract as we men do a higher concept: perpetuity values.

 

[Schizoidcel]

Females are eugenists pretending to be romantic and to love their man unconditionally. Unlike the man becomes ill, loses his looks or his money.


View: https://youtu.be/dsmKuE-_XIs

 

[Med Amine]

lol at writing all this shit unless you're going to get paid

 

[Moroccancel]

lol at writing all this shit unless you're going to get paid

You are the first infiltrator here, Amine, shut the fuck up.

 

[Med Amine]

You are the first infiltrator here, Amine, shut the fuck up.

yeah whateva, sandnigger.

 

[Moroccancel]

yeah whateva, sandnigger.

It's always the same, Amine. You are more irrelevant than the shitty country you come from, fool.

Argue something coherent or shut the fuck up.