Sometimes the fellows on MGTOWforums.com get all philosophical on us. At the moment they are discussing a question of great import: Are women incapable of love to the degree men love?
I suspect you can guess their unanimous answer – women are incapable of love — which is pretty much what you’d expect men who hate women to say about women and love. Some highlights:
Fairi5fair thinks women are monsters; he just can’t figure out which kind:
Women are just incapable of love period. The thrill of being able to use her pussy to get free shit is what women mistake for “love”. …
They are cold, grasping, selfish, and heartless parasites. They have no souls. They are all vampires. Undead zombies lurching from meal to meal.
Wait, so are they vampires or are they zombies? I think I can handle either one by itself, but if they are both at the same time we’re doomed!
Goldenfetus seems to be smoking something powerful:
Yes, they are less capable of love than men, or totally incapable.
One possibility I’ve considered is that in a natural … environment male ‘love’ (platonic) would be reserved only for other men, while women would be viewed as property or objects of reproduction whose value was derived from fertility and subservience without any basis in ‘love’ reciprocation. If so, I would identify feminism as the factor that misled men into extending this love, disastrously, to females – tricking them into believing that females have souls and are like males.
Loving a woman is like trying to pet a toilet, water a sandwich, or plow a parking lot and then wondering why you aren’t getting results. The defect (of understanding) lies with the man loving an object incompatible with love, rather than in the female whose nature precludes reciprocity.
Arctic thinks it’s all about the Benjamins:
Love to a woman is a man who is their servant 24/7 365 a day. …
The idea of love involving sacrifice to a female is as foreign as periods are to men. Why should she care about a relationship involving sacrifice on her part, when she is taught all her life to exploit men for her own uses? Sacrifice herself for a mere man? WHY? Why, when beta males are selling their souls to sniff her crotch? …
[I]ts safe to say the idea of women being in love begins and ends at the ATM of her committed male asset.
The Accomplice agrees:
Women do not seek love or companionship. Their main objective is to find a man of the highest status possible (Richest men, the toughest guys, most popular guy etc) who will protect them, provide for them and satisfy their selfish desires. … [T]he majority of women are too weak physically and mentally to do these things on their own, hence why they always chase after men …
A women’s idea of love is all hypergamy, nothing more.
Superion goes all Evo-Psych on us:
Women are incapapble of love is the great, horrible secret that society has tried to hide from men since the dawn of time.
Women are physically and mentally weaker than men.
In order to survive and pass on their genes they need the resources of the strongest and best providing male available.
To do this, women rely on beauty and guile to trick a male into being her slave.
Women do not love.
For men, love is a self-delusion.
We trick ourselves into wasting our resources on one particular female.
This makes no sense so we tell ourselves we’re in love to justify it.
Such an unromantic bunch! Maybe this will cheer them up.
Actually, screw them. Maybe it will cheer me up:
And if that didn’t do the trick, how about this?
also, i totally want to hear about the missing context that makes
not a fucked up thing to say
the idea of holding up David (or anyone else for that matter) as some sort of filter, or shield, to take all the nastiness out of the world or deflect it away from me is holy repugnant
i agree. if you dont read the comments on a fringe website for lonely misogynists totally unfiltered you are a failed human being
ffs – I’m not trying to use David as a filter against the world’s nastiness. Last I checked, I live in the freaking world. However, it’s common practice when on the internet to filter information in some way because there’s a lot of it. The internet is also a place where people are usually anonymous and don’t get a chance to edit – two things which leads to a lot of instances where people say very stupid things because they don’t think too hard before posting and feel like they won’t be held accountable for what they say. I rarely read the comments on obnoxious blogs because I already know that there are idiots in the world who think that having a vagina means you aren’t a human being, but I don’t feel the need, in my leisure time, to be reminded of it at length. I prefer to be reminded (as I am here) that there are people who think that misogyny as often seen on the interwebs is patently ridiculous.
Or what Sharculese said 😉
qwert666, if you actually read this thread you would see that many of the commenters have in fact gone and read the whole thread, many of them quoting specific comments that I ignored that are clearly as misogynistic as the ones I posted.
Again, can you give a specific example of how my edits of any specific comments have distorted their meaning? Otherwise your complaints are meaningless.
Obviously, every time I quote someone, even if I quote them in their entirety, I necessarily have to make some sort of selection. I can’t simply quote every single thing said in the “manosphere.”
Qwert666, love is a word used to describe the feelings caused by the interplay of dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, oxytocin, and vasopressin coupled with memory and interaction. Recent studies show a high correlation to increased levels of nerve growth factor. Love is generally accompanied by feelings of well being due to the dopamine and serotonin increases. Over time pair bonding can occur, accompanied by increased levels of oxytocin and vasopressin. Sensory input can even become more pleasurable when one is experiencing love due in part to the norepinephrine.
Of course this definition is just a long way of saying that love is in fact a feeling, and nothing more. What do you think love is?
I read the whole thread, and the stuff David quotes is representative. I assume he cut down the quotations with ellipses for the same reason I would: because these guys rant on and on and ON and it gets boring. A couple of paragraphs is more than enough to get the bile across, thanks.
I have to say, though, David did leave out some of the more hilarious bits. The first comment from which he quoted, for example, also contains this line:
Look at a woman’s sexuality: find me a woman who fucks because she really loves a man for who he is and wants to experience orgiastic union with him. I dare you!
That’s right, guys! Find him a woman who wants to bang his brains out! Right now! He’s daring you!
@Bagelsan
Ooh, you’ve got me all excited!
@Sharculese
Sorry, I’m not quite as intelligent or educated as you clearly are. Are you saying that, in fact, you can’t actually state what love is? Is it possible that no one can actually can define love?
@Nobinayuma
Misogyny, wretched sadness or whatever. These are peoples thoughts. Peoples thoughts and reasoning on life. If you disagree with them then fine. I’m not here to defend their beliefs and to be honest, I doubt these people really care what you think. My point is simply this: if you are going to belittle, attack, criticise or dispute these thoughts the least you can do is present them in the context in which they were originally made. You and David may not find this to be a big deal but it doesn’t sit quite right with me. Maybe David has, in fact, no agenda, who knows but him?
David has an agenda, it is to mock misogyny.
It is listed at the top of the page.
Those of us who read here regularly like his efforts.
That is all.
im saying that over centuries upon centuries of human civilization there are probably few subjects which have had as much ink spilled over them as the nature of love and demanding someone define it in a blog comment is just stoner sophistry
The cherry-picking accusation again. Will you guys please get some new material?
You know, it’s amazing how many times I’ve said this in the last few days: Dude. Look. At. The. Top. Of. The. Page.
We mock misogyny. On occasion this mockery leads to vigorous debate; sometimes it ends up in strange and completely off topic places. Sometimes it amounts to nothing more than posters making fun of the OP and arguing, in circles, with resident trolls. But it generally starts with mocking.
We mock misogyny. David presents it, and we mock it.
You’ve been provided with illustrative examples and detailed definitions of love, whether you accept them or not. Posters have stated, unequivocally, that they did in fact read the entire thread and found David’s selections to be accurate and representative. When people put their thoughts out on the internet, for all to see, there is a reasonable expectation that those ideas and “reasoning on life” will be judged by others.
So, either explain how -and I mean precisely how- David presented these quotes out of context or talk about why you’re really here. Because, frankly, we’ve already got a guy who specializes in “Well since y’all are so smart…” and you’re not anywhere near as entertaining.
Thank you everyone for your questions. Sadly, at this moment, I don’t have time to answer them all. Before you cry ‘flouncer’ (as you so often like to do) I do have some, somewhat important, things to attend to. David, I shall look forward to answering your specific questions tomorrow.
Hey, speaking of context, who was that great troll a month or so back who had the hypothetical situation of a wife wanting to spend $1,000, and the husband not wanting to spend it, therefore who should get their way? And he refused to specify how much money they had in the first place or if they had separate accounts or what she wanted to buy or what the couple’s agreed-on method for determining purchases of $1,000 was? And when everyone kept asking he started yelling “There is no context!”
Who was that guy? Remember him?
Because that was some good trolling.
I am also curious as to what my reaction is supposed to be to the original thread in context. My reaction was unadulterated horror. Was it supposed to be something else?
MizDarwin, that was NWOSlave that had the hypothetical situation about the couple not agreeing on buying a $1000 item. I kept insisting that me and my husband compromise on such issues, and he kept adding absurd variables to make compromise impossible. I should have told him in those rare situations where we disagree on an issue, and compromise isn’t possible, we settle things in A CAGE MATCH! Another solution we could use is a round robin tournament of rock, paper, scissors.
Women aren’t incapable of love. They love their parents and children. They’re just incapable of loving men. I saw a study just a couple of months ago that showed that men are very likely to be left when they suffer unemployment while women’s employment status has no effect on her risk of divorce. That whole thing about “sickness and in health” does not apply to women.
Buttman,
Citation needed.
‘Women aren’t incapable of love. They love their parents and children. They’re just incapable of loving men.’
So women are capable of loving every human…except men? Although you must realize that women have sons and fathers who are men. Which makes your comment fall into the realm of poorly thought out gibberish.
Yaz: If they’re related to women, then they’re not Real Men.
Wow, really, Kendra? How the mighty have fallen. He’s not nearly so good now, that’s why I’d forgotten it was him. “There is no context” might be the best troll statement I’ve ever heard.
(Particularly in reference to an economic question. Ought to have pointed out that if there were no context, there would be no $1,000, just little pieces of green paper. Economics IS context.)
@filetofswedishfish Real Men are born without need of a womb! It’s a whole immaculate conception sort of thing. Which sort of makes the whole MRA woman hating thing make a little more sense, I suppose.
**love is a word used to describe the feelings caused by the interplay of dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, oxytocin, and vasopressin coupled with memory and interaction. Recent studies show a high correlation to increased levels of nerve growth factor. Love is generally accompanied by feelings of well being due to the dopamine and serotonin increases. Over time pair bonding can occur, accompanied by increased levels of oxytocin and vasopressin**
One of the things that has been bothering me in this discussion is the lack of social context/social pressure in this discussion of “love.” Interplay-of-dopamine-yadda-yadda-yadda,” but no mention of the intense social directive that we are all supposed to couple up and find our own true love. LIke a lot of things we take for granted, “love” is a social construct. These demands that we “define” love seem to assume that there is some transcendent, absolute and determined thing that love is. But it’s not. It changes over time, history and culture.
That doesn’t mean we can’t care deeply and passionately for one another, and some of us can bond and trust and “love”–however we define it–for a long time, or forever, or til one of us decides it’s time to move on. But this idea that “love” has one definition, one absolute meaning–that is ahistorical and sloppy thinking.
As someone who has been lurking for awhile, I will say: I don’t read this blog because David is some kind of god or guru. I read it because he is smart and funny, and the interaction between the MRA nutjobs and the regular commenters here is hilarious, if often disturbing.
So I will confess to a perverse sense of humor–something I imagine I share with a lot of the people reading here.
JP
That’s funny. I’ve known plenty of women who stay with unemployed bums and drug addicts a lot longer than they probably should.
Real Men grow from sooper seekrit trees. When finally ripe, they fall to the ground, to Lone Wolf it through life, becoming tough, yet still capable of deep deep Love, creators and designers of this great world.