Can women love?
" If you really love someone, you need to give them total freedom, to do as they please, because you want her/him to be happy, even if it is at your expense, even if it means she/he has an affair. You should be very happy for that person because you love that person and your concern is her/his happiness."
ve been in love and wouldn't leave the person for someone better, but I don't know if it was unconditional love. It may have not been. If the person changed, I probably would have too.
"So no, you're right. I'm capable of love, but not unconditional love. I change like the weather."
" Actually, a study was done. It was an extensive survey done by a scientist over a couple decades. She found that women obviously go through stages, but when they are ready to mate, they subconsciously look for two types of mates. One to bear them a strong child and one to be a caregiver to take care of the child. She came to this conclusion after studying the survey answers and looking at how other primates behave, especially the ape family.
So, in a way, you''re right. Women biologically have a drive to push the situation into their favor for breeding. Now, this is a little controversial as a theory, but it makes sense as a survival trait not only for the female, but for any child she may give birth to. It's innate according to this study; not for everyone, mind you, but for most of the female population.
Source(s):
Scientific American article. I had to check this one because I thought it could be wrong. It turns out, she had good sources and credibility on the research."
"Men will often test a woman's "unconditional love and support"
"Men in Love" Therationalmale
"Women in Love" Therationalmale
"Unconditional Love From A Woman Is Impossible." - Returnofkings.
Let's settle this once and for all advice. Can women and men for that matter, love?
>>16560645
I know it's wishful thinking on my part that I think a random subset of 4chan browsers will settle one of the biggest questions of humanity in a matter of seconds, but hey, why not try?
>>16560645
If humans can invent the concept of love, they can do it
>>16560704
So if I invent the concept of time-travel I can do it right now? Please be serious for once.
Monogamy is the deevolution of love purposefully driven by a single greedy fuck head, perpetrated almost a hundread years ago. Wake up.
>>16560645
>I have a source!
>No sources
Thanks for trying to disguise your r9k-esque opinions as scientific fact.
Fucking redpillers. Go back to your masturbatorium, creep.
I want to be taken, possessed and claimed. Too much freedom means no commitment, responsibility or priority and I usually end up cheating. It depends on the girl, I'm part of the shitty percentage of women who needs a a jealous man.
>>16560645
Love cannot be defined, because it's different for everyone; who all love something or someone to a certain extent.
>>16560655
>can women love
>one of the biggest questions of humanity
This is not "one of the biggest queations of humanity," OP. It's not even a question at all, unless one starts with the baseless and creepy assumption that women aren't people. And by holding it, you show that it is you, not them, whose capability to love ought to be called into question.
>>16560904
bait me harder
Actually, your happiness is equally as important. Unconditional love in a romantic relationship is a farse and frankly stupid. Both people need to put 100% effort into the relationship and forgo alot of personal preferences, self centeredness, and that's just the only way it will work. Don't ever sacrifice the expectation of loyalty and commitment for someone else's happiness. Ever. Love is a two way street and if they can't be happy being completely commited and devoted to the relationship kick them to the curb in Lue of someone capable of being in a commited relationship. Finding someone who is happy to do that for you is the key...not being someone who is a doormat for someone else's happiness.
>>16560869
More like you lack self control
>>16560732
No anon, we also "invented" the concept of happiness and sadness and regret. you feel a thing and you give it a name. therefore when the first person felt what we call love, and said "I'll call this love" he is by definition, in love. because he decided what love means. Humans can't give a name to a specific thing they feel and non of them actually feel it.
>>16560762
How can a person be this shit at constructive? You literally never fail to amaze me with how worthless your input is.
>can women love?
somebody didnt get hugged much as a child.
somebody call /r/redpill one of their autists eacaped
>>16561574
>bait me harder
Ewww.
And yet, I don't see you denying any of it. Did I hit a nerve, creep?
I've always thought that is was funny how humans only had one word for something experienced in a myriad of colors.
Certain types of love exist all around you, but the color of love OP is referring to...
I always considered it near impossible- out there maybe , but not here, not now, so seldom witnessed- let alone experienced.
So you shouldn't feel bad if you or someone you know has trouble loving.
Humans might not have evolved enough yet.
I really tried to believe therationamale stuff. really bought into it.
Then he kept using /r9k/ buzzwords and I just lost respect for him.
That's more an English thing than a human thing. Lots of languages, past and present, have multiple words for the markedly different emotions that we lump together under the single word "love".
>>16562687
>Then he kept using /r9k/ buzzwords and I just lost respect for him.
And that's just it: there is very little about "therationalmale" that is in any way rational. He's nothing more than a common /r9k/er; a little better with English than most, but that makes no real difference.
