44
45

THEORYBack to the basics - are women capable of love? (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor

Before reading this post, it's assumed that you've read the previous posts in the "back to the basics" series. Some of the content of this post builds upon those posts. I'd also strongly recommend reading the recent posts by u/girlwithabike on the book "for women only".

What is love?

Love is a big word that means a lot of different things. The definition of love changes based on the context, but there's an overarching common theme to the concept of love - an emotion that brings two people closer together. The difference between different types of love is how they bring people together and in what way they come closer together.

The context and types of love are so different from one another that one type of love can be inappropriate in the context of a different type of love. For example, the parent/child relationship is one context for love, the husband/wife relationship is different context for love. If you love your child with the type of love that ought to be reserved for your spouse, you'd go to jail! If you love your spouse with the type of love that is like a parent/child type of love, you'll have many issues in your marriage! Understanding the context and type of love we're after is key for success. The rest of the post will focus on the varying types of love between men and women.

Men date down, women date up

This is true in many ways and has been discussed in a previous post. To expound on what has already been covered - the male and female love themselves also move in opposite directions. If love is the emotion that brings two people together + men date down and women date up = logic follows that male love operates in a 'downward motion' while female love operates in an 'upward motion' as will soon be explained.

Male expressions of love

A woman arouses within a man a deep seated desire to provide for her and protect her. Both of these can be seen as having a downward motion and fit perfectly with the idea that men date and marry down.

To be a provider entails a great deal of generosity. Indeed, a man will express his love through giving his time, energy and money to support the woman he loves and to do things that will make her life easier. Same is true with regards to being the protector. The man - as the one who's bigger, stronger and braver - is protecting his wife and children who are smaller, weaker and more timid.

This type of love is constant and steady. It's always there, never wanes. It's in a downward motion because it's to provide and protect for the weaker members of the family. This love comes with ease. It moves downward, with the force of gravity. This type of love is analogous to water that's always there, flows downward effortlessly, makes things stick together and is cold.

Female expressions of love

A man awakens within a woman a sense of awe and respect through being better than her and higher up in the hierarchy. Through providing the male type of unwavering, steady provision and protection. She looks up to him and that's sexy to her. Her deep respect, awe and admiration for him is what arouses her love.

This love goes against gravity and is not always there. Unlike the man who's steady like a rock and full of generosity - the woman is prone to mood swings that come with the ups and downs of the menstrual cycle. Furthermore, the woman's love and desire for her man is also not at all steady. It changes drastically all the time.

The woman must be there to nurture the child. Nurturing is fundamentally different from generosity. Generosity is to give new stuff endlessly, nurturing is to keep out all foreign stuff and to grow what you already have. Traditionally, men brought home the bacon and women turned it into a delicious and nourishing meal. The man was generous, the woman was nurturing.

But although the female love isn't steady (hence the saying - she'll never love you the way you love her), when it's there, it's much much stronger than the male version of love. Anyone who had sex knows that when a woman is truly turned on, she'll easily outpace a man. OTOH, the man can always be turned on, rain or shine, stressed or calm, exhausted or we'll rested. The man can turn on in relatively short order because his love is steady and always there. Not so with a woman who needs more time to warm up and when she warms up, boy does she get hot!

Which is why female love is analogous to fire that rises up, that needs constant fueling lest it burn out, that is all consuming and that can be extremely constructive or destructive depending on how it's used.

What we need from each other

Men crave respect because this indicates that she's looking up to him. Next, men crave sexual desire from their women because that's the result of her looking up to him. The male love that's always present and contained, like cold water in a bowl, craves to be brought to a boil through her fiery sexual passion that comes as a result of her deep admiration for him.

Women crave stability to counterbalance the turbulence of their emotional roller coaster. The rock in the stormy waters. What do women find sexy in a man? Strong arms, a strong personality and other displays of strength. When a woman cries and falls apart and her man helps hold her together, he will become sexually aroused (even if he'll try to hide it because it's inappropriate). When a man cries and falls apart, the woman becomes sexually turned off. She needs strength and steadiness from him. She needs him to remain cool through the turbulent thrashing heat of her emotions. She needs him to always be there and always be ready for her when her fire ignites.

Conclusion

Men and women love in different ways. Male love is cold, constant and steady. Female love is hot, turbulent and unsteady. This can be frustrating to men because when the woman's love is not openly present while his love is as steady as always, he's bound to feel that his love is not being reciprocated. That's why many men conclude that women are incapable of love, period. Truth is, that we each love in different ways. The female fire of love can be consciously kept alive in the heart and actions of a woman who consciously chooses to do so. Many women don't bother making this choice and that's cause for much male frustration. However, this is nothing new. King Solomon wrote in the book of proverbs - a woman of Valor, who can find her? He goes on to describe her as being a rare find. If you consciously choose, you can be this woman!

Cheers!


[–]MissNietzsche 30 points31 points  (6 children)

OP, I usually think what you spout is 50% BS...but this piece of work is immaculate. You showed that it is in fact possible for women to love a man, something that many of the men over at r/TRP disagree with. Granted, many bluepilled females would still think that you're painting women in a negative light with this post, but that is not the intended case. This is accurate and simply how the general trends of human nature are.

I am quite pleased with this.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 9 points10 points  (4 children)

Thank you very much!

something that many of the men over at r/TRP disagree with.

I found TRP 4 years ago, in the spring of '14. I also follow several RP YouTube channels. Over the years I've come across a lot of debate regarding this idea and I myself have contemplated this idea extensively. The above is a summary of my opinion on the matter (obviously).

What I found is that those who are still in the anger phase, tend to say - women are incapable of love, period. Those who are more settled and past the anger phase or RP rage are more likely to realize that women are indeed capable of love, but like everything else, it isn't the same as male love. The question that then remained to be answered was - what is male love and female love and why is female love so infuriating to so many men?

In old fashioned thinking, men and women were never the same, so there was less room for such frustrations. However, due to the indoctrination of equality of the genders meaning that we're the same, certain expectations are in place by default and when the other gender falls very very short of your expectations, frustration ensues. (There are many examples where modern women have similar frustrations based on the assumption that men and women are the same).

[–]Rhynocobear 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I'm inclined to agree. Most men i know care more about stability and loyalty than emotion and passion.

I think rp men are scared to commit from the understanding that most women are more interested in hypergamy, getting what they want now, than building something that will last. This in turn causes the men to care less about the long term and invest more in their own short term. Which causes women to distrust men, become selfish and turn to hypergamy...

As seen, a vicious cycle. Doesnt help that no one tries to work things out. Change takes time, but with love and support anything is possible.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

The problem is that the law and culture encourage unrestrained hypergamy. The problem itself is the unrestrained hypergamy, which is female nature. The men enable this problem to continue.

Change takes time, but with love and support anything is possible.

As long as the laws remain what they are, not much will change on a societal level. On the contrary, things will continue to get worse. For now, you can change the way you speak and act and I can change the way I speak and act. Maybe if enough people make changes, the laws and culture will change too. For the time being, they're still moving further away from sanity.

[–]Rhynocobear 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I concur

[–]HarleyWalker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The "women love different" thing is TRP 101

[–]KittenLoves_Endorsed Contributor 18 points19 points  (3 children)

What is love?

Baby don't hurt me... Sorry, I couldn't resist

This post is interesting but I think there is something important you've overlooked:

Traditionally, men brought home the bacon and women turned it into a delicious and nourishing meal.

If we're speaking solely of the context of hunting, yes this is true. However humans are obviously not only carnivores, and at the time when we were hunter-gatherers, the role of the woman wasn't just "stay home and take care of the children", it was also to aid in gathering food. If we're speaking figuratively, this idea of the woman remaining in the home, not working, just taking care of the house/children is also not exactly accurate historically unless we're only taking into account the upper class (a small portion of the population), and even then it isn't entirely accurate (nobility designated cooking/child rearing to servants). While a woman's job wasn't to hunt, to assume that she wasn't working equally outside the home is an error. Generally, all capable adults tended a farm together, outside. Farming, not hunting, was the major source of food, even meat. And in Greek and medieval societies, women held jobs (inn-keepers, merchants, artisants, etc) outside the home just as men did, and not in insignificant numbers. Pre-capitalist division of labour was far more egalitarian, and the idea of a woman's place being in the home while father brings home the bacon is an incredibly new one, definitely not traditional, unless we're assuming that tradition only spans from the time of the industrial revolution. ;)

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Very good objection! Let's put this a little differently.

A man is generally the one who takes on roles that create new things out of "thin air". Whether it's inventors or entrepreneurs or anything like them, men dominate those fields even today when both genders are equally as free to pursue their dreams.

Women OTOH dominate fields such as nursing and kindergarten teachers. These jobs don't create anything new. On the contrary, they nurture what's already there. Helping the child grow, helping the sick patient heal etc.

Likewise, to go and hunt an animal is to go out into the great wilderness - the great nothingness - and bring back something. To gather berries is to scour in the close vicinity and pick up what's already there.

This is a key difference between male generosity and female nurturing.

[–]Rhynocobear 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Men also tend to assume the "dangerous" tasks, eg hunting, building, defending

Women tended to take "nurturing" tasks, i.e. growing, eg gathering, cooking

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, absolutely.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (7 children)

What is to be said of men who take their nurturing woman for granted and ultimately drive her away?

I have been hurt many times by my exes who took advantage of my nurturing nature, they did not want to provide for me, but they did take and take..

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 3 points4 points  (6 children)

What is to be said of men who take their nurturing woman for granted and ultimately drive her away?

You already said it, takers drive away their partners. Reciprocity is a requirement for a healthy relationship.

There are users of both genders. TRP is about understanding male and female nature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each gender.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (5 children)

Why do you think some men are like that? I want to understand them.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 8 points9 points  (4 children)

Not all people are good. This is something that religion generally understands. Man fell from grace when he ate that fruit and as a result, people are flawed. Whether you are religious or not (I am not) you can look around you and see that even good people are flawed and there are plenty of people who are simply not good.

You are asking "why are some men bad" the answer is simply because they are. It is a question you will never find a satisfactory answer to.

u/loneliness-inc's post is speaking about the best in us.

You must look for men who are, like you, striving to be their best self. The constant in your question is you. If you aren't chosing the right men, men who understand that relationships require a balance, then your nuturing can be taken advantage of. We could dedicate an entire post to examining your past relationships (and I believe we've delved into your dating issues in the past iirc). What specifically is happening could be a number of options. But what you are asking here "why are men like this" ... because not everyone is good, not everyone is capable of healthy relationships, not every man is steady and giving, not every woman is nuturing.

Why are some men assholes and take advantage of women? Because they are. Why are some women bitches and take advantage of men? Because they are. Humanity is flawed in all different ways for all different reasons. You seek the people who understand that and are trying to overcome their flaws.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

👌

I'll add to your great comment with some wisdom from Dr Jordan Peterson. (I'm paraphrasing here).

If you believe that people are not capable of evil and you trust them, you're a fool. If you know that people are capable of all kinds of horrible things but you make a choice to trust them because as far as you can tell, they're keeping that capacity for evil in check - that's real trust!

In TRP we strive to understand what actions naturally lead to what reactions in men and women. When doing so we may conclude that both sexes are filled with evil snakes crawling around within us, trying to pounce at every opportunity and that would be correct! We are all fully capable of being terrible people, you, me and everyone else.

Now, when we have reason to trust each other and we do, that's real trust. When we allow ourselves to be vulnerable and love, that's real love. Because we aren't filled with sugar and spice and everything nice. Because we're really filled with snakes and scorpions, yet we choose to be kind, loving and generous.

The remaining question is - what can reasonably be expected from men and women in such settings?

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Because we're really filled with snaked and scorpions, yet we choose to be kind, loving and generous.

I'm going a bit out into left field here (wait, do we go into right field on RP subs? :-P ) ... but this ties in a bit with the Masks of Masculinity post that is currently up. This is sort of the key that is missing in that post/book (which suggests that men wear socially determined masks).

Because we are flawed (and selfish and lazy and a host of other negative qualities) we do have to make these choices to be better. Someone who thinks the world is sugar and spice would see these as a masks preventing them from being their "true self". The problem is our true natural selves can be terrible if we allow them to be...

/earlymorninghalfthoughts

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I noticed a typo in the line you quoted, it's now fixed in my comment above 😏

This concept is also an old one. That Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By doing that, they internalized good and evil. Meaning, every character trait can be applied in a manner that's good and in a manner that's evil. Human nature is what it is, it's up to you to choose to be a good person, a good spouse, a good parent, a good anything.

[–]Rivkariver2 Star 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Looking for men who desire to be good—exactly!

Someone with the desire to always be better and moral is a better partner than someone who knows how to act socially acceptable but only because it’s expected.

[–]Ok_Philosopher 15 points16 points  (18 children)

No, no and no. There's a lot of loathing in this, along with woeful generalities taken to the extreme.Yes, women and men are yin and yang... but to generalize women and the way we love as "turbulent, unsteady and unbalanced" is, to me, a crock. This ignores that of both genders, men are arguably more impulsive, and prone to outbursts of anger owing to their higher testosterone levels. This isn't all too different from women being sad around their menstrual cycles. Women are more emotional more often--fine. But to extrapolate this to say this means they are not capable of providing stable love while men are just naturally stable is fallacious reasoning.

Adding to this, I notice many undertones that one side is better (after all, men marry down, apparently. If every man marries down... take that to its conclusion and what does this say of women, few of which apparently possess valor?).

And what is up saying that "the woman's love and desire for her man is also not at all steady. It changes drastically all the time." Anyone else here happily married shaking their heads over this? I find it a sad way to view relationships when that's not at all my reality, nor, I'm assuming, the reality of many happy couples here. It's also an insult to the woman who has had to be the bedrock of the family during difficult times--during illness, when a man goes through a mid-life crisis, etc.

I don't want to stir the pot here, but RP forums and MarriedRP forums automatically give women the boot when posting in their subs. They want the space to express their masculinity free from female scrutiny. I appreciate that we honor a man's viewpoint, but posts like these make me understand why RP subs restrict posters to the designated gender.

This post is like a giant affirming the consequent fallacy (along with circular reason to support a highly questionable conclusion): "women have these traits, and men have these traits. Some women don't show steady love and some men do; therefore, it must be owing to the inherent traits of both genders."

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 17 points18 points  (14 children)

It changes drastically all the time." Anyone else here happily married shaking their heads over this? I find it a sad way to view relationships when that's not at all my reality, nor, I'm assuming, the reality of many happy couples here.

Actually, it resonated quite strongly with me. I've said before, I'm imprinted on my husband like a duckling. He is the top person in my life and as much as love can be unconditional, I love him unconditionally. When he was unemployed, I did not love him less. When he was heartbroken over our pet who died, I did not love him less.

However my passion and need for him ebbs and flows. We have sex every night with a few exceptions. However, the intense drive that I feel for sex, or affection or cuddling, that comes and goes situationally. If I'm ovulating, I can't get enough of him. If I'm sick, I need him to hold me and no one else will do. If he talks to me in "that Voice" I melt then and there. But all those feels are sparked by something. If he does something that annoys me, I have a difficult time brushing the feeling off. If I'm tired, I don't want to be touched. Half the month my response to sex is reactive not proactive (ie: I can be responsive to him, but left on my own, I'm just as happy with ugly pjs and a book). And, though it pains me to think about, I know that if he died and I'm honest with myself, I'd probably remarry.

My husband on the other hand, wants me constantly. I don't think his passion is situational. I believe that I am what drives him to get up and go to work every day, out of love, not obligation. He wants to spend an extra half hour holding me every morning before we get ready for work. I truly don't know that he'd remarry if I died. His behaviors are consistent and constant in a way that mine are not. And my husband has a ginger's fire and temper in other area of his life. When it comes to me he is steadfast and true - and I've been told this from outsiders. He'll be hot and worked up yelling about politics with friends and I've had someone turn to me and say "but it's clear that no matter what else he's doing, he adores you like nothing else ... just... the way he looks at you"

Now because I can recognize the differences between us... we have sex every night, we have snuggle time every morning, I drag myself out of bed to make his breakfast before work. Because I want to meet his consistency. But that doesn't mean I feel the drive to do these things. Rather I rationally want to show him that I love him and that requires me to meet him on his terms sometimes, but I feel like staying in bed and telling him to make his own damn oatmeal.

From the outside looking in, I don't think anyone would accuse me of not showing steady love. My actions show steady love. My emotions don't always follow suit. They are always there, I always love him enough to show a steady constant love and affection. I don't always feel the same level of intense emotion, passion, desire.

after all, men marry down, apparently. If every man marries down... take that to its conclusion

I don't think this should bother you as much as it seems to. If men need respect to feel loved then they need a woman who will respect them. You do not respect someone who you view as lower than you are. Someone else in the thread correctly clarified that men marry across or down and women marry across or up. This can be on any scale that works for those two people. Socioeconomically, my husband grew up in a blue collar environment and I grew up middle class. My ex was closer to upper middle class, but that didn't change the fact that I didn't respect him. My husband has built his life and career with no help from family. He's brilliant. I respect those things, I feel like I married up.

Personally, I need respect too, but to feel the passion that I feel for him, I also need to feel cared for. So from his perspective he "married down" in that he has to take on the head of household role and care for me in order for us to keep our passion alive. This man put me through school, encourages my career and I feel like he's very proud of who I am and what I've done in my life. But he's proud of himself for it as much as he's proud of me. I'm his accomplishment as much as I am my own accomplishment.

Up and down are perhaps bad phrases to uses but I don't know better ones. I'll always look up to him as someone with a more impressive mind than my own and I like and respect myself a good deal so don't take this as me looking down on myself.

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike2 Stars 8 points9 points  (8 children)

If you died, not only would I never remarry, I would take up sculpting and make statues of you from blocks of marble.

[–]Rhynocobear 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is absolutely adorable.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not bronze castings?

I'm going first. You have family longevity on your side. I planned for that.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] -1 points0 points  (5 children)

Marble is stone and gets very cold, you sure you wanna make love to that? 😂

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike2 Stars 1 point2 points  (4 children)

I didn't say I'd never sleep with another woman again, just that I wouldn't take another wife. I'm only human.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 3 points4 points  (3 children)

I can think of a woman or two who'd be lining up at my funeral to console you ;-)

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike2 Stars 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Of course. You're all vultures. Sexy, delicious vultures.

There would be an even longer line of women hoping to have a statue made of them instead.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes. I know. That's why I have developed friendships with them. Keep your enemies close and all.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Of course. You're all vultures. Sexy, delicious vultures.

Vultures feed off carcasses. Women are all dead meat in the eyes of other women. 👹😈

There would be an even longer line of women hoping to have a statue made of them instead.

Sweetie, I'm tired tonight. Would you go fuck the sculpture instead of bothering me? Thanks 😂

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Too bad I only have one upvote to give you because your description of how your love is not steady, his love is steady and how that doesn't mean you're a shitty wife (on the contrary, understanding your nature helps you be a better wife!) Is just brilliant! Absolutely brilliant! Good job.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

:-D Thank you.

[–]SKRedPill 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A man's system is always on - it takes next to nothing to drive him to an orgasm. Besides that men's hormonal profile is remarkably stable.

Disrespect is the easiest way to lose a man's affection. It won't stop his system and his urge, but he will simply not have any intention to indulge in a woman who doesn't respect him.

[–]Rhynocobear 1 point2 points  (1 child)

That was eloquently put, much appreciated

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

thank you :-)

[–]Rivkariver2 Star 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well the problem stems from an incomplete definition of love. If love is a feeling only then it can never be steady for men or women. If you are super stressed or depressed or ill. If we define love as willing the good of the other, wanting everything good for them no matter what, then it becomes a choice not based on fickle emotion.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We make generalizations about men and women because they're generally true and the knowledge helps us lead better lives.

Women are more emotional more often--fine. But to extrapolate this to say this means they are not capable of providing stable love while men are just naturally stable is fallacious reasoning.

Emotions by definition are the opposite of stability. Look up the origin of the word emotion and you'll see that it's a stirring and agitation. Stability is the opposite of stirring and agitation.

Furthermore, it's quite clear to anyone who's married, that the man is naturally much more consistent with his love and sexual desire. As the saying goes, through thick and thin. OTOH, the woman tends to be much more unstable in her love and sexual desire, but when it's there, it's much stronger (as is explained in the post). This isn't a character judgment as will be explained momentarily.

Adding to this, I notice many undertones that one side is better (after all, men marry down, apparently. If every man marries down... take that to its conclusion and what does this say of women, few of which apparently possess valor?).

This is the crux of your issue here. You read what I wrote (and thoroughly explained) and concluded that I mean to say that men are better people than women. Nowhere in any of my posts or comments do I make such generalized character judgments because it's impossible to generalize on a character judgment! You can generalize on human nature, male nature and female nature and I do this all the time. You cannot generalize on the character you build with the tools (nature) you were given because to be a good or bad person is up to the individual.

It's an indisputable fact that men are generally taller and stronger than women. Does this mean that every man is taller and stronger than every woman? Of course not! But as a generalization, this is generally true. In terms of strength and size, women generally marry up because "up" in the realm of size is physically bigger and "up" in the realm of strength is physically stronger. Does this mean that the man is a better person because he's taller and stronger? Of course not!

Another fact is that female sexuality requires that the man be better than her in some way. That she "look up" to him in some capacity. Whether he's taller, stronger, faster, smarter, richer, whatever. Reality is that he has to be better than her in some capacity for there to be sexual attraction from her to him. Does this mean he's a better person? Absolutely not! What makes you a good or bad person is what you do with the strengths and weaknesses that you were given.

[–]WarViper1337 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Been in an LTR for 6 years now and I can tell you without a doubt that my womans level of interest can vary drastically. It just a fact of life. Women are more controlled by their emotions and hormones than men are. I don't even need a calender to know exactly where she is in her monthly cycle because a single sentence is all it takes for me to gauge exactly where her interest are leaning that day.

[–]star_angela[🍰] 2 points3 points  (19 children)

I really liked this post in general.

When a man cries and falls apart, the woman becomes sexually turned off.

I think this is so untrue. Women like their Captain to be Rock when times demands it but women dont literally love a rock. People love each other for their vulnerability, for their authenticity. Goes both ways i'd say!

Nevertheless, great post!

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] -1 points0 points  (18 children)

To a degree.

If a woman cries every day, it won't kill her man's sexual attraction to her. If a man cries every day, it will kill his woman's sexual attraction to him.

The reason why men do their best to not become too emotional is because women punish them for becoming emotional through the loss of sexual desire.

How many women will become sexually aroused from soothing their crying husbands? None.

How many men will become sexually aroused from soothing their crying wives? Almost all.

That's the difference.

[–]KittenLoves_Endorsed Contributor 4 points5 points  (9 children)

If a woman cries every day, it won't kill her man's sexual attraction to her.

Perhaps not his sexual attraction, because she can still be physically appealing. But I doubt any other kind of attraction (emotional, mental) would escape this multi-day cry-fest unscathed.

How many women will become sexually aroused from soothing their crying husbands? None.

Well I'm not married but I think we can change that number from 0 to 1. 🙄

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 2 points3 points  (8 children)

Well I'm not married but I think we can change that number from 0 to 1.

Really? Because when my husband is upset, it tends to kick in my maternal drive which will make any sexual drive go a bit dormant for the time.

As I said in a comment above, I'm always attracted enough to him to have responsive sex... but proactively being attracted... as soon as the maternal/nurture drive kicks in that overrides the rest.

I'm not doubting you so much as confused because I'm not wired that way at all.

[–]KittenLoves_Endorsed Contributor 1 point2 points  (7 children)

To be clear, I definitely don't think this is the normal reaction, but there probably are a few other people like me out there. I think it has something to do with wanting to use sex as a means of comforting him.

It probably also has a lot to do with the reason why he may be crying. He's cried twice in the time i've known him, and both were as a result of very intense, emotional fights where the future of our relationship was uncertain. (Basically, he'd fucked up and he knew it. :P) I doubt that in any other context, especially a traumatic one, my response would be the same.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 1 point2 points  (2 children)

As someone who has atypical reactions to things, I understand what you mean. Even when I know I'm weird, I rarely think I'm unique, so yeah I'm with you.

But also, what you said about the reasons why... I can wrap my head around that. I don't feel that way after fights, but I get where you are coming from. :-)

[–]KittenLoves_Endorsed Contributor 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I don't feel that way after fights, but I get where you are coming from. :-)

Out of curiosity, how do you feel after fights?

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Our fights don't get bad anymore <knock on wood>. So now when they are over, I feel like they are over pretty quickly and my emotions reset to normal. Also since we communicate better, I often feel more heard so I am calmed down -- which makes it easier to reset.

When we were less good at fighting, I'd need a lot of space afterwards and I really wouldn't want to be sexual for a day or two. I'd want to be near him for the reassurance that we were done, but I didn't necessarily want to be touched. I'd really need to cycle through all of it and the emotions it stirred up, usually with my BFF who is an RPW and adores my husband (so no risk of her giving me bad advice or thinking less of him). Once I'd talked through it a bit, I could go back to normal. But it always took some time before I was ready to be sexual.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 3 points4 points  (3 children)

He's cried twice in the time i've known him, and both were as a result of very intense, emotional fights where the future of our relationship was uncertain. (Basically, he'd fucked up and he knew it. :P) I doubt that in any other context, especially a traumatic one, my response would be the same.

He cried twice in all the time you know him. That's hardly enough times to establish any kind of pattern. And as u/girlwithabike pointed out - if something happens with you, it doesn't change the rule.

The point still remains. There's a reason why he only cried twice, during really big things. There's a reason why most men don't cry nearly as often as most women. It isn't because men don't feel emotions. (Men certainly feel emotions!). It's because this is almost guaranteed to cause a drop in her sexual attraction, arousal and receptivity to sex.

This was tried en mass in the 90's and 00's when men were strongly encouraged to show their emotions and cry. Many men did try this advice. There's a reason why so many men began to reject this advice. Because it was causing pussies to dry up like the Sahara desert.

[–]KittenLoves_Endorsed Contributor 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I'm not trying to dispute the rule. I'm bringing up my personal exception for discussion.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Sometimes the men forget that women's talk meanders and that doesn't mean that we are debating the initial point - just exploring the various side ideas.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lol! Point taken 😉

[–]star_angela[🍰] 3 points4 points  (5 children)

I really have great deal of respect to Red-Pill Values but i think we are doing an injustice to the RPW community by promoting this narrative that Women will lose sexual/emotional/intellectual attraction towards their SO if they shows some vulnerability/cry/lose his frame*

Nope, u can cry in my arms. I take that as a big compliment that I could open u up. Men are raised and given that "being tough" schooling. If u can open him up Applause - u have just opened the most hidden and vulnerable part of ur man, ur on ur way to be his precious treasure for life. If a woman loves u, She is going to be there for u in heaven and hell. It's inbuilt in all women. There is a reason why women are called * THE nurturers*!

I would like to know the statistics as to how many women punish their SO for being weak sometimes. I would like to say atleast the RPW would not do this, because it's so against the RP values.

For first, I really don't know of a woman who cries everyday. Neither of a man who cries everyday. Sure there must be folks of those kind around, but they are rarest of rare and doesn't apply to majority. Also every man/woman has an upper limit to how much crying heshe can handle. So crying, opening up, discussing something which is killing them inside should be more than welcomed.

How many women will become sexually aroused from soothing their crying husbands? None Probably not sexuallyaroused. But I am sure any woman's nurturing instincts will kick in here and she would be very supportive.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Women will lose sexual/emotional/intellectual attraction towards their SO if they shows some vulnerability/cry/lose his frame

As I said below. I believe that in healthy relationships with mutual sexual attraction, what happens when men cry or show emotion (or are sick or vulnerable in certain ways) is that it kicks in our maternal drive in order to care for them.

Think about it, if your SO was upset because his dad just found out he had terminal cancer - you aren't going to feel sexual towards him - you are going to feel nurturing and maternal towards him. If he wanted sex in that moment (because death and sex are linked in weird ways sometimes) would you be turned on? Probably not (unless you are a weirdo like u/KittenLoves_ ;-) ). You would be empathizing with him and nurturing him. For me at least, it's difficult to make that 180 switch.

Of course we want them to cry in our arms and of course we want them to open up. But the underlying assumption here is that we are talking about a strong masculine man who we respect and are incredibly attracted to. The attraction and respect are built over time so you have a history of seeing him being strong and masculine to fall back on in your head. One completely understandable instance, isn't going to destroy your view of him.

Where it is a problem is when you have a man who is emotional (or weak or immature or indecisive or or or) more often than not, and your maternal instinct kicks in so often that you start to perceive him as a child instead of a man. You see relationships where the woman clearly treats her SO like her child or pet or second. The relationships I see like this in my life are low to no sex.

TRP talks about it as though you cannot lose frame ever because they are working on early relationships where you are still building her perception so there is less room for error OR spinning plates where there is no room for error. What we are looking at on RPW is a completely different type of relationship BUT it is important to be aware that these things happen.

I would like to know the statistics as to how many women punish their SO for being weak sometimes.

You know perfectly well that there are no such statistics. What would you measure? Who would you survey? How would you gather the data? This is silliness.

And who said punish. One core RP belief is that you cannot negotiate attraction. You can't help how you perceive him. This isn't about "my man cried, bad man, I am going to not have sex to punish him" that's an incorrect interpretation.

TRP exists because the internet allowed men to get together and start sharing notes. Many men have seen these behaviors. What we don't know enough about (maybe) is what their weaknesses were that drove away women. Since we're dealing with self reporting, we only know their perception of it...but when man after man after man says "this happened to me" you start to see a pattern emerge.

For first, I really don't know of a woman who cries everyday. Neither of a man who cries everyday.

I believe that u/loneliness-inc was being hyperbolic to make his point, so don't dwell on the logistics of this too much. Just see it for the takeaway point: "men handle females being constantly emotional and still want sex, women do not handle men being constantly emotional and still feel sexual attraction"

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

You know perfectly well that there are no such statistics. What would you measure? Who would you survey? How would you gather the data? This is silliness.

It's always a good fall back argument. "What you're saying makes perfect sense but it makes me feel hurt, therefore I'm going to ask for solid proof and statistics even when that's an impossibility".

And who said punish. One core RP belief is that you cannot negotiate attraction. You can't help how you perceive him. This isn't about "my man cried, bad man, I am going to not have sex to punish him" that's an incorrect interpretation.

We all reward and punish people for the way they treat us. It usually isn't the "sit in the corner" type of punishment, but that doesn't mean we don't do it and it doesn't mean that it isn't a punishment.

A punishment is a negative consequences that results from an an action. Example - you drive through a stop sign and have to pay a fine. That's an example of a person consciously imposing a punishment upon you. A different example would be hurting yourself because you jumped off the roof. That's a natural consequence that punishes you.

What we're speaking about here is somewhere in between those two extremes. On the one hand, it comes naturally. OTOH, it can be conscious.

Case in point - the natural consequence of male vulnerability is the female loss of sexual desire. (Without getting into whether it's justified or not, temporary or permanent etc). The woman may not intend to punish the man for being vulnerable, it's simply natural for her not to be sexually aroused by comforting him just like it's natural for him to be sexually aroused by comforting her. However, the resulting loss of sexuality on her part is a punishment to him because it's a negative outcome as a result of his actions!

I believe that u/loneliness-inc was being hyperbolic to make his point, so don't dwell on the logistics of this too much. Just see it for the takeaway point: "men handle females being constantly emotional and still want sex, women do not handle men being constantly emotional and still feel sexual attraction"

Indeed, I was being hyperbolic to emphasize the point.

I'd add - it's natural for a man to become very sexually aroused as a result of comforting a vulnerable woman. This is when he's in protector mode and being a protector is what makes him sexy. However, most men know that her emotionally messy state causes her to shut down sexually speaking and that's why he'll try to hide his arousal as he holds her and comforts her. This is one of those areas where we're opposite from each other.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 1 point2 points  (1 child)

A punishment is a negative consequences that results from an an action.

There are a few variations of the definition of punishment. I was interpreting her words along the lines of :

the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense.

which is sort of what you are saying but indicates an intentional act (to inflict or impose are intentional acts - the ground didn't impose the punishment on you). I was thinking in classical conditioning terms.

At any rate, if we simply eliminate the word punishment and replace it with consequence (or even talk about it in terms of cause and effect) then I'm with you. We are quite literally debating semantics and interpretation of someone else's words.

I'd add - it's natural for a man to become very sexually aroused as a result of comforting a vulnerable woman.

Toxic masculinity. There is no other explanation. (/s for anyone who reads this far and can't figure out this is tongue in cheek)

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We are quite literally debating semantics and interpretation of someone else's words.

Yes. That's true lol. I got the above idea, to use the word punishment, from Dr Peterson. I just couldn't remember the context, that's why I didn't quote it in his name.

Toxic masculinity.

Ha! 😂

If only women knew how much male kindness and caring is (unconsciously) tied to lust and sexuality....

Anyway, tongue is the absolute best cut of meat and cheek is second only to the tongue. Those two are the best parts of the cow. It's all in the head 😉

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Before I respond to your comment, I want to point out that it's difficult to read because of all the shorthand you use. Please spell out your words. Example - use your, not ur. Thanks.

I really have great deal of respect to Red-Pill Values but i think we are doing an injustice to the RPW community by promoting this narrative that Women will lose sexual/emotional/intellectual attraction towards their SO if they shows some vulnerability/cry/lose his frame*

There are several problems with your statement.

  1. This narrative you speak of is either correct or incorrect regardless of how it makes you feel. Some truths are difficult to swallow. This is true for men and women. If you think it's incorrect, please go ahead and make your case.

  2. If an idea is correct, it will be discussed here. This isn't some sort of propaganda being "promoted".

  3. Your representation of the idea itself is inaccurate and leads to your misunderstanding. No one is saying that a woman must lose all respect for her man the second he slips up and loses frame. No one is saying that a woman can't rise up against the natural tendency to lose respect and as a result, sexual attraction because he lost frame. What is being said here in this post and has been discussed here many many times is - that action A results is outcome A. In this case, man being emotional results in a natural reduction of woman's sexual attraction. Does this mean that this is a fatal reduction? No. It can be a momentary reduction and many such reductions can eventually result in a permanent loss of attraction. What's "promoted" on RPW is how to rise up above this tendency and to focus on the areas of life where you do have deep respect for him, so you keep your marriage alive and well!

  4. You being offended by the idea that women punish their men for being emotional, vulnerable and the like, doesn't make it any less true. It's a fact that men will open up emotionally to their buddies ten time faster and ten times more often than to their wives. Why? Because absolutely nothing changes in the friendship as a result of opening up (if anything, the bond gets deeper). Whereas opening up to the wife will bring judgment and a loss of respect/attraction as a result. Even if this is a temporary loss (say for a day), it's still a loss. This is why men hesitate to open up to women. It's a reality of life. If you can rise above this nature and create an environment where your man can open up without consequence, all the power to you!

For first, I really don't know of a woman who cries everyday. Neither of a man who cries everyday.

That was a bit of an exaggeration to emphasize a point.

[–]lespetiteschoses 0 points1 point  (1 child)

How many men will become sexually aroused from soothing their crying wives? Almost all.

I don't know where you're getting this weird idea from but it's just not true

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I read the article you linked. It concludes that a woman's crying will reduce the man's sexual desire. No one said otherwise. Here's what I did say.

How many men will become sexually aroused from soothing their crying wives? Almost all.

Your crying is a turnoff. Him soothing you and the bonding that results from it, is a turn on. The longer he spends soothing you, the more likely it is that he'll become turned on.

[–]lolahaze11 1 point2 points  (1 child)

This is an excellent write up. I really enjoyed reading it and Im saving for later, thank you for this! :)

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're welcome.

[–]Tony_Weiss 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Thanks OP. Men expression of love and women’s expression of love? Must be taught in schools.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yea...

A lot of things should be taught in schools, but the schools are currently brainwashing centre's....

[–]Szymmy 2 points3 points  (2 children)

"A man awakens within a woman a sense of awe and respect through being better than her and higher up in the hierarchy. Through providing the male type of unwavering, steady provision and protection."

In your opinion has women's entrance into the work place and higher education made it harder for women now to love their husbands than in the past?

In a situation where a woman is relatively equally educated to her partner (as is the case with most couples), where she may earn a similar salary to him (an increasing trend in modern times) and where the use of the police and self defence firearms make male protection less necessary, how can a woman try and create this type of respect/reverence for her man?

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 8 points9 points  (1 child)

In your opinion has women's entrance into the work place and higher education made it harder for women now to love their husbands than in the past?

Yes. It's quite clear that marriage and lasting romantic relationships have taken a nose dive since women's lib. There are several factors at play, but this is certainly one of them.

how can a woman try and create this type of respect/reverence for her man?

Find something (or somethings) to admire about him and focus on that.

A garden that's watered and tended to will produce much more and much better vegetables than that which grows in the wild. So too, when your love (and tingles) is consciously tended to and nurtured, it'll be much more powerful and lasting than if you left it to the whims of tingles that come on their own.

[–]MissNietzsche 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This.

I have a higher IQ than my SO. Because intellect and rationality are my guiding virtues in life, this is something that originally automatically disqualified him from my dating pool.

That said, he was so giving to me, I would be an idiot not to date him.

I make a conscious effort to recognize how superior he is to me in other aspects of life. There's the most pronounced physical superiority (comes quite handy in BDSM), but there's also the fact that he has a higher EQ than me, is much more intelligent than me in practical things, and seems to be less neurotic than me.

Being exposed to my femininity has also greatly improved his masculinity. He used to say "I'm a man" but then make some kind of flippant remark in order to redact it. Now, he proudly tells me that he's a man, and I am so proud of him.

It is not up to the man to do all the work in a relationship.

[–]Astroviridae 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Excellent post! And I love that you concluded it with Proverbs 31.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I couldn't resist 😉

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We don't recommend most men casually post on RedPillWomen, because a lot of them aren't very good at it. You're always welcome to lurk and read, but if you're going to participate, your familiarity with the norms and values of this sub should be apparent when you post.

If you intend on posting here, you must be familiar with our sidebar, particularly the sections about male participation. Start with these: If you’re a guy and you’re here read this and Commitment or GTFO

If you do not have time to write a fully developed and complete comment, you should wait until you do have time to fully explain your thoughts.

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[removed]

[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You are welcome to not be here.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

    [–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

    Toxic masculinity is a nonsense feminist construct. We are an anti feminist sub. You are also welcome to not be here.