I figured with the whole political discussion going on surrounding women's suffrage, now would be a good time to ask this.
>Are women capable of love?
I feel like women are incapable of love, despite the media portraying them as the romantic ones. The media is tricking and lying to us all.
Love is a male emotion, only men are capable of unconditional love.
A woman's "love" depends on your worth to her.
>>56711949
Yes, after all your mom raised a turd like you.
>>56712235
Well my mom never loved me, so...
i'm really not shitposting though. i genuinely am beginning to believe this and it's not like i'm thirsty for pussy either, i have a wife (but i am convinced she's only with me for status)
>>56712235
youre raising a good point. i believe they are capable of genuinely loving their children, but thats about it.
>>56712388
This. I do believe women are capable of loving kids unconditionally (even if my mom was not a good example) but i don't believe they're capable of unconditional love for anything else.
>>56712345
They can, but true unconditional love must first come from her unconditional love of God and His plan in both your lives. Then she'll see how precious a man's love is and keep it strong between you.
>>56711949
They're capable of fake love when it comes to getting what they want.
Women can fake love.
Men can fake an entire relationship.
![[DeadFish] Seitokai Yakuindomo - 08 [BD][720p][AAC].mp4_snapshot_13.06_[2014.04.29_02.37.35].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/HfrapVv.jpg "[DeadFish] Seitokai Yakuindomo - 08 [BD][720p][AAC].mp4_snapshot_13.06_[2014.04.29_02.37.35].jpg")
you fools
only 2D girls can love
I've never really seen any sort of unconditional love except between parents and their children.
>>56712465
i think its because children dont really have anything to offer other than their love to their parents so the exchange between mothers and their children is entirely emotional, but when it comes to relationships between men and women the exchange of love is just another factor.
>>56711949
Yes women are capable of love.
They are only capable of unconditional love for their children... not for their husband/partner. Men are biologically designed to be replaceable through large amounts of sperm production and low investment in the actual process of creating human life. It would be a evolutionary flaw if women wouldn't be able to move on with their lives if their man had died of plague or from war.
Simply put women don't really love you as a person, they love the idea of you and what you do for them.
They love money, so why not.
>>56711949
What makes you think this doesn't apply to all humans? People only love you if you have something of value to them.
>>56711949
my mom hates my dad but probably loves me even though she thinks I'm shit
paul erdos: men are slaves, married men have been captured, people who stopped doing mathematics have died
>>56712967
>>56712465
That's party of the fake love. They do it because they see you an a possible retirement plan if plan A fails.
hahahaha, you question should be, are humans capable of love? because the brain of men and woman are pretty much the same thing, with the same possible variations, we are not different species you turd
>>56713086
yes but to women this value is mostly of materialistic nature
Guys please. I'm in love with a girl and she says she loves me back. I'm broke as fuck, have no social status, and have nothing to offer her in general... How can she not love me? My dick is nothing special either
Have you heard the saying "women fake sex to get love, men fake relationship to get sex?"
But yeah, as a /vag/ owner myself, I know that women can genuinely fall in love. Why not? What an earth makes you think that all women were cold hearted bitches?
Pls explain.
>>56711949
Women have a biological imperative to only have superficial feelings towards men, and evolution has a lot to do with this.
For a long time in our past we were fiercly tribal and territorial and a lot of earlier evolution humans went through was that which selected groups of genes related to the tribe.
Males would slaughter the men of neighbouring tribes and take the women and add them to their own tribe. This meant that loyalty for women was something that was selected against, the more they could abandon the current tribe and assimilate into a new tribe the more chance they had at reproducing and passing on those future traits to their offspring.
That's why men tend to be crushed when a relationship fails and take it really hard but women tend to be a lot less affected by it. A huge number of relationships start when the female cheats on her current male for another man she see's as more valuable. This is the essence of hypergamy in women, AKA "trading up".
Also the resources and proection a man could provide to women was a strong gene selector, those women who abandoned lower value males for higher value ones stood a greater chance of successful reproduction and again passing on those genes that encourage those behaviours.
I don't think women are incapable of love, I think they just have well refined mechanisms for abandoning men without caring what happens to them and latching onto men with more resources.
>>56713441
You're probably in highschool so just being latched onto another human is a status symbol.
>She says she loves me back
People say shit that isn't true literally all the time. Especially women.
>>56711949
No, women are driven solely by their instinct for self preservation and are comepletely unaware of it too. They're animals, barely one step above niggers.
>>56713473
Cause of female hypergamy bae. Haven't you noticed that since womens lib+divorce+the sexual revolution, it's easier to get pussy from many different women than ever?
>>56713473
Inb4 no gurls on internet.
That's called being bitter and being conditioned with solely stories about betrayal, knowing no other.
I used to know unconditional female love.
But i'm bitter myself.
>>56711949
this group of chinese sociologists statistically proved that the number of orgasims a female has is directly linked to the wealth and assets of the male, whereas Males do not exhibit that trait.
>Are women capable of love?
Nah. Maybe a small minority. but mostly No
omg you bunch are such woman hating kekolds... there are more than 7 billion people in this world, if you think you can split it between (man:can love/woman:can't love) you are short sighted to the extreme
>>56711949
they are.
but their sense of love is different from ours.
it doesn't make them any less bitchy cunts, but yeah, they can love.
>>56713441
how do you know she isnt willing to upgrade when given the chance? many women will settle for lower tier men just for companionship and will dump their partner once someone better comes along.
>>56711949
they're emotion driven you dingo,so yeah, is just you're too bad at understanding such thing so you can't get to atract one and blame it into your lack of self achievement.
your lack of testosterone disturbs me.
>>56713473
Because people like OP spend the majority of their time locked away in their homes with minimal contact with women. Admittedly alot of women are picking up the "lets just fuck" attitude as a counterattack to the way most guys are but its a societal dilemma and cant just be pointed at women or men, look at what the media is pushing to you and youll see what they want us to behave like.
you can emotionally own a woman, why do you think so many women stick around in abusive relationships lol
>>56711949
i think you got lost on your way to wizardchan, beta op
>>56713607
You see the question and then you try to solve it with your evolutionary view of the world and so you come up with evolutionary conclusions, that does not mean they are correct. I'm not saying you're right or wrong but know that your conclusion relies completely on the angle from which you view the subject. You try to make sense of something using a paradigm.
Women are capable of love.
It's just buried under layers and layers of bullshit.
>>56713699
I'm slightly bitter too. Or maybe bitter is the wronf word, but I feel like I have already used my love, caring and energy for someone. I find it hard to imagine myself falling in love with someone again.
>>56714098
Yes, the culture encourages us to ditch the traditional values and just embrace the hook up culture. I know.
There's a reason why women were opressed for 10.000s of years. And that's not because the extra work connected to keeping them down was so fun.
It was to ensure a stable society ruled by the iron fist of logic.
Women are decieving creatures. They pretend to be human on the outside, but inside they are vile, instinct driven creatures with everchanging agendas.
A woman might feel like A in the morning and like B in the evening. For her there is no disconnect here. After all her feelings dictate her reality.
Society is so fucked, because weak-willed beta faggots have empowered women. They basically unsealed the devil by allowing women to vote and to freely decide about their reproductive organs.
Women are what will bring our society to it's knees. Unless women are properly enslaved for the next 100 or so years our society will be a goner.
Islam is also no solution, becuase it's just the next system of irrational crazy rules. If islam will conquer europe the people enforcing it's retarded rules first and foremost will be females.
Women have no goals, no dreams and no ambitions other than to get fucked by as many men as possible.
If something breaks a woman will ignore it and just accept that it's broken, as long as it's broken for everyone else too.
If women had their way we'd still be living in the caves and competing for pussy with axes and clubs as long as females get enough sparkly stones and furs.
The historic mythological image of the succubbus is no coincidence.
Women tie and bind men's creative and driving force.
In our society the highest conquest is not space, exploration new frontiers but floppy, infertile (thanks for the pill jews) vagina.
Chasing women has basically become a skinnerbox for the modern male. In the past millenia, chasing a woman and fucking her had the result of offspring. Now that women are infertile on purpose thanks to the pill, that skinnerbox system has become an endless loop, triggering the mating-instinct of males over and ova
>>56711949
If you're talking about "romantic love", then no, they're not. Romantic love is a Western invention from the Victorian era and you'll see with some research that the vast majority of people on the planet find this concept to be alien and hard to grasp.
This is even true for modern, developed, first world societies like Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, ect. Speak to your average Korean man and listen to what he thinks of women and love, and you'll see having a roaring East Asian Tiger economy makes little impact on their cultural psyche.
When European missionaries were sent out to civilize and convert natives all across the globe, they would often complain the scriptures were untranslatable into these tribal languages because they lacked a word for "love" and you can't quite deliver the message of Christ without the idea of love. Not only was the idea of romantic love alien, but the idea of love itself was alien.
Our biology gives us the reason for this: Women are interested in reproduction and then the subsequent survival of their children. Women aren't born with an unlimited supply of eggs to be fertilized, so they must act on their instinct to become pregnant with those who can provide. Over the course of human history, 90% of all females successfully reproduced. For men, it's about 10% because the most successful men breed with all the women.
So, there you have it. Romantic love as we know it isn't real, nor is it instinctive. Also, women have a biological predisposition to breed with those who can provide, not with those they think they "love".
It would make no sense if women would love men unconditionally. Love is just a biological thing to make sure people stay together: a woman cant defend herself from a bear or hunt some animal when she's about to give birth to a child. The man's value in this situation is defined by whether he's able to provide for and defend her. The woman however doesn't give any value to the male, except for the child. So evolution made men love their partners unconditionally. Otherwise the men would just leave the women - which would make more sense on an individual level. But it would produce less offspring (if the woman would provide for and defend herself, the chance of her not surviving would be bigger)
Due to this, women love men for their ability to provide, defend. (Aka looks money status) Without these things a men is just a carrier of his genes, quite useless. You only need one man to impregnate a 1000 woman. However a woman is loved just for being a woman: having a womb that can make offspring.
>>56711949
You're probably around the ages of 18-26, an age gap in which women really are almost impeccable of love. After that age they start being serious.
>>56711949
The truth when it comes to love:
The reason men try to not show that they have feelings is because their feelings is so deep, it's their weakness. They don't like "romantic" movies because the hard parts of it, like when she cheats, hurts them to watch.
The reason females watch romantic movies is because they have so little of those kind of feelings, so they long for them.
>>56711949
>Romance
>Love
Romanticism killed the west. Germany has destroyd Europe two times through war. But the German weapon of mass-destruction which we really cant beat was Goethe. He singlehandedly switched the iddeal of love (something slow and mutual build over time) into romance (pure caothic narcisim).
Unconditional love still happens now and then. But 9 of 10 women (5 of 10 men) will never master the patience to get there.
>>56711949
It's the idea of what love is that is skewed. Most shit men do is to gain status and get pussy, whether we like it or not.
Here's a tip to all of the people explaining love as something chemical or evolutionary or bla bla bla
1. Hit the gym
2. Start dressing better
3. Learn to talk to people
you'll realize that love actually exists and that youre just incel because you have shit personalities inside of shit bodies
top kek.
>>56714529
No that's not really correct. Evolution is either something that's true or not, and the truth of the conclusions are either true or not.
The fact is that females on average are more hypergamous and they are capable of hopping from one relationship to another much easier than males are, these are fairly well documented human traits that are part of our sexual dimorphism.
Humans are a product of their genes and so anything that has to do with our nature has some explanation embedded in our evolutionary history.
It's not something that can be dismissed as a paradigm, unless you have counter evidence to demonstrate this isn't true. But we have really good genetic evidence and historical evidence that tells what our past is like and how different bloodlines of tribes merged, what percentage of men reproduced vs women and these kinds of things. It's not particularly controversial science.
>>56714956
Why do you think men are able to love them? From that very same perspective men shouldn't waste their time on just one hoe, but to make sure his genes are being spread as wide as possible.
>>56715083
Both can be true. You can have a lasting relationship with a woman while still understanding that we're just molecules with evolutionary imperatives.
If we didn't have these imperatives, men would have no desire to be around women at all whatsoever.
>>56712817
/pol/ is so based, i really think that this is all true but somedays im asking to myself if im only thinking this just beacose im virgin kissless beta male withouth female friends and posting on /pol/ right now instead of having conversations with people of the real world
>>56715287
>Both can be true. You can have a lasting relationship with a woman while still understanding that we're just molecules with evolutionary imperatives.
And you can explain a symphony as a series of mathematical events and vibrations, too. Anyone who speaks of music that way, the same with love, is an insufferable autistic nerd that is a pain to be around
>If we didn't have these imperatives, men would have no desire to be around women at all whatsoever.
lel
Most normal beings actually really enjoy spending time with their significant other ahdn it has nothing to do with "evolutionary imperatives" of passing along genes
Sometimes reading /pol/ feels like I'm reading angry bitter aliens trying to mimic human behavior but can't quite grasp it.
>>56715083
This.
Bunch of beta faggots that can only complain
>>56714744
"Love" in the traditional Victorian sense seems to me quite clearly to be referring to the cocktail of chemicals that your brain receives as a reward for pair bonding, you get that for about as long as it takes to mate and produce a bunch of children, that's about 3 ish years.
A rational world view says that we get this rush of chemicals because of an evolutionary process that created these systems because those people who didn't have these systems more often didn't go on to reproduce and their genetic line died.
Just like with everything else, humans put in a place holder into things they don't understand, when science comes along and explains it we expand our rational view of the universe and the myth of love, or religion or whatever your irrational views happen to be, they just disappear.
>>56715048
>Unconditional love still happens now and then. But 9 of 10 women (5 of 10 men) will never master the patience to get there
What is that and how do you get there?
>>56715096
>they are capable of hopping from one relationship to another much easier than males are
I just found statements like this weird, cause it's usually always the guy who can't/doesn't wanna commit. It's the guy who pants to screw around. I'm not even talking about my own perspective but generally. Women are the ones chasing men and hoping that they got serious, where as most men aren't willing to. So there's no other option for women than to keep it light and date several men. And men are doing the very same.
>>56713312
>men and women are completely the same, hormones and other chemicals in the human system are a social construct
>>56715544
>I just found statements like this weird, cause it's usually always the guy who can't/doesn't wanna commit.
You're asking people who never had girlfriends and never discuss with women to explain the complexities of human relationships?
What do you expect?
>>56715393
-some- women are capable of genuinely loving their man. BUT. This woman would not be a neurotypical female. What some of you are looking for can be found in high IQ aspie females. Think 140+, has a college education, has a good job. Find one raised by a Christian family.
>>56715512
>is an insufferable autistic nerd that is a pain to be around
So all the researchers and scientists and biologists who study this subject are autistic nerds? I find lectures on this topic fascinating. Listen to a Lewis Wolpert lecture on the subject, how is that considered insufferable? Why does this upset you so much? We're humans, aren't you curious what makes our clocks tick?
>with their significant other
That's fine, but within the grander scheme of things, any social circle will have a predominate majority of one gender. No matter age, race, or income, boys tend have more boy friends than girl friends and men tend to have more male friends and then female friends. This is just because we're different and have different interests. It's nothing nasty or ugly or scary, it's just how we are and I accept that and find it fascinating to read about.
You, on the other hand, seem to bridle at any explanation other than "feelz man" about any aspect of our sexuality or biology.
>>56715554
>Implying hormones and other chemicals are exactly the same for every man/woman
>implying hormones and other chemicals have 100% control over your personality and nurture have 0%
>implying humans are animals without reason
Women are not capable of being grateful.
>>56715544
>I just found statements like this weird, cause it's usually always the guy who can't/doesn't wanna commit. It's the guy who pants to screw around. I'm not even talking about my own perspective but generally. Women are the ones chasing men and hoping that they got serious, where as most men aren't willing to. So there's no other option for women than to keep it light and date several men. And men are doing the very same.
This is because what men and women want is generally different, women start with a high SMV (sexual market value) and find getting sex easy because men want that, but they find getting commitment hard because men want to be promiscuous.
Men start with a generally low SMV and find it hard to get sex without significant effort.
This dynamic gives women the upper hand and gives them selection preference for sex and dating, but men have the same benefit for commitment, it's in short supply so they get to be picky.
This all happens before any kind of serious LTR or marriage, what I was referring to in my prior post is how men and women behave when in a LTR, females when given the opportunity to date higher values males can abandon their current partner more easily than men can.
>>56711949
>>Are women capable of love?
Think about this OP:
1) Women don`t really love a man, women love how a man makes then feel, that is different.
2) Women`s perception of love is very heavily influenced by hypergamy.
3)Love is a chemical reaction in your brain to give you the stimulus to breed and transmit your genes anyway.
So there you go, make of this what you want, but those are the facts. I think is wrong to look for "love" as men or media/culture understands it in a woman, is just not there.
>>56713441
She will say she loves you simply to make the current relationship work for convenience factors. My ex used to tell me she loved me all the time.... She was also cheating on me. When we split up after being together for 7 years, she claimed she wouldn't want to be with any other guy and would need a year at least to try and move on.... She was dating a new guy within a month and said.... "it just kind of happened"
>>56712496
Can women love? As men do? Unconditionally?
They can, but true unconditional love must first come from her unconditional love of God and His plan in both your lives. Then she'll see how precious a man's love is and keep it strong between you.
\thread
>>56711949
Love for another man, probably not.
Love for their children they gave birth to, definitely capable.
>>56711949
>A woman's "love" depends on your worth to her.
This is what all love depends on.
Serious question OP, are you old enough to use this website? Love is not some sort of profound, mystical thing that is greater than ourselves. It's a biological mechanism that bonds families and mates.
Your parents love you because you are their genetic continuance and they have invested tons of resources into you.
You have great worth to them.
You would never love anyone who was worthless to you.
You want a womanwho loves you for your, right? Guess what? Your habits, your connections, your appearance, even your career and yes ypur possessions, ALL of that is a part you, even your car or lack of one is a result of who you ard. You cannot arbitrarily separate what is and isn't you just because if doesn't work in your favor.
tl;dr OP is a faggot (and a pansy)
>>56712994
>Simply put women don't really love you as a person, they love the idea of you and what you do for them.
Can you explain what exactly this means?
Because if you weren't pleased by the idea of your woman, and if she did fuck all for you, I think she pretty quickly would lose her status as your woman. If not, you're a massive beta.
You're basically saying that having any standards, any desires, any self interest whatsoever to the point where you don't love someone unless they please you somehow, means you are incapable of love. This is fairytale BS that only someone who has nothing to offer and low self worth would assert. No one loves a person who is literally worthless.
>>56716473
>As men do? Unconditionally?
No one loves unconditionally.
>>56713473
>What an earth makes you think that all women were cold hearted bitches?
They think that love is an unattainable, almost esoteric concept. And, you know, they haven't found a girl who will inexplicably fall in love with their mediocre selves yet.
This syndrome mainly affects English users for some reason. A lot of languages don't make such a big deal about love, but even recently, in English speaking countries the word has only become such a big deal in the past 100 years or so. Before that, it wasn't uncommon for men to declare love for a woman who they'd barely spoken a word to.
>>56711949
yes
my wife is proof
I am a smoker and my wife gave up trying to get me off from smoking so she is balancing it out that I only it healthy food, it means no Mc Donalds or Instant food, only fresh and healthy.
Every Morning if I go to a business meeting for our company she makes a lunch box for me to carry.
also when I was a neet for a year she supported me and helped me get back up.
>>56717527
This. People can come close to near unconditional. Like when a person sacrifices their lives for another, and the condition is that other lives would be preserved.
>>56715197
>Why do you think men are able to love them?
They're not any more capable of your childish view of love than women are.
>From that very same perspective men shouldn't waste their time on just one hoe
Most don't. Those that aren't able to snag other women exercise that urge through porn. Either way, they're not committed.
My mother loved me in my youth, she's still pretty cool today.
>>56715658
>This woman would not be a neurotypical female. What some of you are looking for can be found in high IQ aspie females. Think 140+, has a college education, has a good job. Find one raised by a Christian family.
Why would this woman ever date that anon?
BTW, higher IQ women tend to cheat more often simply because they are better liars and often more masculine.
Take your fanfiction and shove it up your blown out asshole.
>>56716913
>Another man
Confirmed gay.
why isnt this thread in its containment board?
>>>/r9k/
>>56711949
>A woman's "love" depends on your worth to her.
True enough. Women only love men who they respect and perceive as dominant.
>>56711949
beta detected
>>56713312
The chemical balance in male and female brains tend to differ deeply. Of course, you have a level of variation which can bring to people of different sex together in terms of chemical balance, but you can generally see a big difference.
>>56715083
So love is conditional. If you don't dress well, are awkward in social settings and if you aren't in shape there is no love?
>>56712235
thats not romantic love
