Definition of love, gender specific?

Discussion in 'Sex, Love & Relationships' started by Digital Veil, Nov 19, 2014.

  1. I usually don't bother posting this kind of 'Game' stuff but this article got to me, considerably.  This is one big reason I think so many men get devastated in relationships then turn into the classic women hater. Plenty examples of this littered throughout Grasscity.  Thoughts?
    My opinion/experience is very much like Rollo's.  Men love much differently than women but we expect the same sort of love in return.  We've been conditioned to this train of thought our entire lives and the reality is we have been lied to.
    I'd like to hear from both sides, please keep it civil!  Yes there's always exceptions to the rule, no need to point out the obvious.
    \tWomen in LoveBy Rollo Tomassi
    Men believe that love matters for the sake of it. Women love opportunistically.
    Today's pull quote comes from Xpat Ranting's blog. The discourse there is brief, but insightful:
    <blockquote>I really, really, really hope the myth that girls are the hopeless romantics gets kicked to the curb ASAP. Everyone needs to realize that men are the “romantics pretending to be realists” and women; vice versa
    </blockquote>I found this particularly thought provoking – Men are the romantics forced to be the realists, while women are the realists using romanticisms to effect their imperatives (hypergamy). This is a heaping mouthful of cruel reality to swallow, and dovetails nicely into the sixth Iron Rule of Tomassi:
    Iron Rule of Tomassi #6
    Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.
    In its simplicity this speaks volumes about about the condition of Men. It accurately expresses a pervasive nihilism that Men must either confront and accept, or be driven insane in denial for the rest of their lives when they fail to come to terms with the disillusionment.
    Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.
    In the same respect that women cannot appreciate the sacrifices men are expected to make in order to facilitate their imperatives, women can't actualize how a man would have himself loved by her. It is not the natural state of women, and the moment he attempts to explain his ideal love, that's the point at which his idealization becomes her obligation. Our girlfriends, our wives, daughters and even our mothers are all incapable of this idealized love. As nice as it would be to relax, trust and be vulnerable, upfront, rational and open, the great abyss is still the lack of an ability for women to love Men as Men would like them to.
    For the plugged-in beta, this aspect of ‘awakening' is very difficult to confront. Even in the face of constant, often traumatic, controversions to what a man hopes will be his reward for living up to qualifying for a woman's love and intimacy, he'll still hold onto that Disneyesque ideal.
    It's very important to understand that this love archetype is an artifact from our earliest feminized conditioning. It's much healthier to accept that it isn't possible and live within that framework. If she's there, she's there, if not, oh well. She's not incapable of love in the way she defines it, she's incapable of love as you would have it. She doesn't lack the capacity for connection and emotional investment, she lacks the capacity for the connection you think would ideally suit you.
    The resulting love that defines a long-term couple's relationship is the result of coming to an understanding of this impossibility and re-imagining what it should be for Men. Men have been, and should be, the more dominant gender, not because of some imagined divine right or physical prowess, but because on some rudimentary psychological level we ought to realized that a woman's love is contingent upon our capacity to maintain that love in spite of a woman's hypergamy. By order of degrees, hypergamy will define who a woman loves and who she will not, depending upon her own opportunities and capacity to attract it.

  2. Your post is just one psychologically opinionated piece from
    a singular source.. and would only be correct if gender was
    tangibly bound, which it isn't, it's just a label.
  3. Rollo Tomassi?  The same guy that justifies rape to give men more control.  He is what is known as a "male supremacist".   Sorry but I would only wipe my ass with his opinion on male/female relationships.  The man doesn't even make sense most of the time. 
  4. What does the article writer mean by "plugged in beta"?
    This is going to be difficult to explain.  The author contents that men come in two types.  Alpha and Beta. The alpha being dominant.  A Beta is subordinate.  He believes that women are attracted to alpha males due to their dominance.  He believes that male/female relationships work if the man is in control and dominating the woman.   A beta male (once again his opinion) is one that is dominated by a woman out of fear of losing her.  A plugged-in beta is (somehow this is tied into the movie The Matrix) one that is deluded into accepting feminism and that women should be in control.
    A very bad interpretation of Social Darwinism (a bigoted ideology that no longer has any relevance in today's society).
  6. Wasn't asking your opinion on the man, I agree with you in that regard and dislike him for the most part.
  7. I'm just wondering if the "men are romantics pretending to be realist" had any validity.
    Then he goes on to say men have Disney-esque expectations.
    Um, why would men expect the princess story arc from a Disney movie?
    You dislike him for the most part but you accept his twisted writings on relationships?   I'm sorry but the man is part and parcel with his writings.  He is a militant misogynist who advocates violence against women to establish dominance. 
  9. I can't speak to the source you've posted; clearly there are some strong opinions on the author. I'll be honest and admit that I didn't even read the excerpt.
    But I just read something similar coming from a man I do respect the opinion of (minus an issue or two). Michael Crichton, in his memoir Travels, briefly mused on the differences between men and women in love, suggesting that the perception of roles (woman as the romantic, man as the realist) are actually reversed, as you're saying. A conclusion he came to after connecting some theoretical dots.
    Crichton's ideas, not mine:
    Women are always telling men not to talk about the details of their sex life with their buddies. They seem to think we spill every single detail about it, but I don't, and neither do my mates. Not really. Not like a woman, who will tell her girlfriends everything. We critique in others the things we find bothersome about ourselves, right? Women bang on about romanticism; they're the less romantic ones. Men get on women about being practical; we're the impractical ones.
    I'm not sure if that makes sense, or even if I subscribe to it, but it's interesting to think about.
  10. I feel like, as with most anything when it comes to love these days, they blame the man. Men everywhere apologize for being men, as if it's a bad thing. But, men in general are great as they have ever come. Can you name another class of being that has done what men have done? I mean, only man looked at the moon and know what? Let's get there.
    There is no reason to hate being a man, man, we've done great great things in this world.
    We should be loved, damn...
    But, some women, I feel like, are capable of loving me how I want to be.
    My family loves me just fine, actually. No complaints there.
    Love is unconditional, but if we're being honest not many or woman...are capable of that.
    I think, rather than playing the blame game, a general effort should be made by all people to understand what love is.
    Because most people don't.
    I wonder what my social class is...
    Also, I wonder why women are so attracted to resources...
    It's just stuff, you can't take it to where you're going.
    6 feet under, back to the dust.
    Might as well call it for what it is. Why pretend?
  11. Basically he's saying that all men are the same and have the same needs and all women are the same and have the same needs.

    He says women can't love men the way they want to be loved but I think I missed exactly how he thinks men need to be loved.

    And anyway, I reject the idea that all people require the same type of love. They don't. People are complex and there's no formula for loving anyone.

    I don't even need to go into the idea of women being attracted to "resources."
    You're overlooking about 2,000+ years of male dominance over women.  There was a time when men and women were equal.  The power shift came when egalitarian societies began domestication and the gathering of resources.  This created a surplus.  The beginning of the haves and have nots.  Raiding and plundering became a serious issue.  People started banding together forming communities that protected their lives and resources.  Alliances formed.  The best way to seal an alliance is through marriage.  This was when women stopped being equal and were considered a commodity to be "bought and sold".  Rights were stripped away.  Religious traditions shifted shutting out women.  There was a time when Semitic tribes had a male and female deity co-ruling and co-existing in harmony.  Women had equal status in society.  The female deity was eventually phased out and became the mother of all demons over time.  Lilith.  
    These tribal taboos and restrictions carried over into the Christian and Islamic traditions.  Women were nothing more than property.  Most of the time treated worse than livestock.  Women had absolutely no rights. It wasn't until the suffrage movement of the early 1900's that women fought for the right to vote.  To this day there is discrimination and institutionalized bigotry against women.  Equal pay for equal work ring a bell?   How about the new anti-abortion laws that keep rolling out every month or so.  A woman's right to make decisions about her own body are constantly under assault.  
    You talk about men going to the moon but didn't realize that female scientists had an integral role in getting us there.  You never heard of Ann Dixon or Frances Northcutt?  Larue Burbank?  Dorothy Lee?   There were a number of women mathematicians and engineers in the Apollo program that played key roles.  Some of them dreamed of being astronauts but were barred because of their gender.  
    The issue isn't hating men.  It's hating male dominance.  A societal construct that should never have happened.  Most First Nation societies are matrilineal and women had equal say in governance.  The Haudenosaunee great law of peace of the Iroquois Confederacy (which the Constitution borrowed heavily from) made provisions for women in governance.  Nothing was decided on without the women's counsel giving the o.k..  Unfortunately due to European views on women this was left out of the constitution.  
    I could go on and on but I think I need to stop here.  1. I need sleep (haven't slept in days) and 2.  Anyone can find this out for themselves.  What Tomassi is trying to do is put the cork back in the bottle.  To try and retain the male domination that has held sway for so many years.  Times are changing.  For the better.  You either get on board or you get stranded on the wrong side of history.  
  13. #13 gumisgood, Nov 19, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 19, 2014
    It's an interesting train of thought I honestly appreciate the feedback...
    I feel like the societal construct that you claim has subjugated women is actually more an exercise in the domination of man, by woman. There are no real genetic differences in the homo sapien species other than that of gender. Race, language, culture, nationality, class, power....these are simple divide and conquer tactics that women have perfected and rely on until today, largely for their own personal ends. Women are the more dominant gender, perhaps not societally, but definitely overall. This is apparent to anyone who understands the nature of dominance. I feel like the notion of equality between the sexes is a pipe dream. Men and women are fundamentally different, we play different roles in life and it isn't wrong that this is the case, it is simply fact. Women bear children, are the vessels of human life, whereas men largely don't and can't. Man is not woman's equal and woman is not man's equal. Men and women are compliments, but not equals. It has nothing to do with an artificially placed construct and everything to do with our differing, but complimenting, biologies. The fact that those constructs lead to a different conclusion speaks more on the subjugation of man, and the dominance of woman. This isn't to say that individual women haven't been the victim of god awful behavior from man, they obviously have, but rather to say that victim-hood isn't unique to them. People in general have been victimized throughout history.
    Male domination has little to do with the subjugation of women though it may be a consequence of it. Dominant males are not in the business of dominating women, specifically. Dominant males dominate other men, as a rule, as much if not more so than they dominate women. Frequently it is the case that the resources are largely held by men and as such, a dominant man concentrates his efforts on men...women too, if they happen to be in that position, but it has little to do with the sex of the person. You underestimate the drive to conquer as you look at it from a gender specific point of view. We are all individuals primarily and our own person fundamentally. There is no great conspiracy, the world is not male vs female nor is it male vs male, though that is a part of the divide and conquer strategy frequently employed by some. There are individuals out there, both men and women, that see the world as "their person" vs "it all" and if that is the domination you're fighting...from either males or females...I'm not the one who will find myself on the wrong side of history.
    To the victor goes the spoils. The defeated don't ever get much..except perhaps the peace of mind that "at least we're not like them".
    I don't buy the hype that women are especially mistreated anymore than how people in general are mistreated, women included. That isn't to say that women don't face their own unique forms of mistreatment, and have throughout history, but it is to say that so has everyone else in one form or another. It's a harsh world out there and if it's not because you're female, then it'll be because you're an "other". It's easy to look at the world from a "man vs woman" lens, but it is severely limiting and leads to misunderstanding. Instead focus on "you" vs "the world". Self actualize and be your best person possible. 
    Like I said...I genuinely enjoyed the feedback.
    Most of what you typed is complete bullshit.  Nothing against you personally but everything you presented flies in the face of history, facts, statistics, and quite frankly, the truth.
  15. #15 gumisgood, Nov 19, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 19, 2014
    it flies in the face of history, facts, statistics and "the truth" as it has been presented to you by others. it's not uncommon, i've noticed, for men to not think for not look within their own minds to figure out what it is they think, who it is they are, what their opinion actually is, rather they let other men do the thinking for them. whether it be through history, alleged facts, statistics and science, religion...the truth isn't something most men have a good grasp on. i'm just saying, from my own are taught to defer. men are taught from a young age to not be themselves, and to "be men". whatever that means. but, the systemic removal of man's individual soul, his inner essence, is just as institutionalized in society, as much as bigotry and hate towards women is, as alleged by you at least.
    i don't agree with that though, i don't feel women have had it worse than any other group. not that they haven't had it bad...but history is full of examples of groups of people getting the shaft. life isn't easy for anyone. not woman, not man. if you're jewish or or white...african or arab...even hitlers "aryan" one point or another, life has sucked.
    the nature of life is struggle and rather than blame men for the struggle women have faced, like whoever this author is is trying to do, it's better to just accept the struggle of life and work on your own individual self. whether you be woman, or man. your social group doesn't matter as much as being as great as you can be, whoever it is you happen to be. that's all you can help and the victim mentally of "poor us we're so oppressed" won't help you...
    what will is helping yourself.
    hopefully i clarified my point. but if you still find it disagreeable...we can agree to disagree. it's not a big deal. it's just an opinion...and they're bound to offend the sensibilities of some. we can move on haha. peace :)
  16. That is pure bullshit. Ask any Dom man that has a sub/slave for his lady. She makes him the happiest man in the world and he would kill to protect her.
  17. This is BS, I know what I want and I've had it before. Everyone is different and it's just hard to find someone to accommodate your specific desires. Besides the point of loving someone is what you want for them, not from them. 
    Oh my god.  please tell me you're just trolling.  You can't possibly be serious here.  I don't even know where to start.  o_O
    haha just my thoughts. dead serious. it's all good. love. :)
  20. #20 Kittycolas, Nov 20, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2014
    You commented on men becoming women haters...... did it ever occur to you that men like you turn women into man haters?

Share This Page