For real love to arise, romantic love must die. Part one.

I am going to start this with an email I received, with thanks to a young man named Jason who sent in a question that came with an overview of part of his life. In my mind that question was incisive and relevant enough that I want to answer it publicly, which he has granted me permission to do.

Without further ado, here’s the email:

I’m 21. I dated once when I was 16, and the way it ended hurt pretty badly. Naturally I blamed myself in the end, but looking back on it I see that, while I made mistakes, she was just as guilty. It took me until now to even discover the Men’s Human Rights Movement, and the more I watch, the more concerned with how cynical I become. I’m a University student attending school for a degree in Business Administration with a minor in Gaming Entrepreneurship with goals to go into the Esports Entertainment industry. I’ve never once considered anything other than the fact I was doing it for myself, so I’m not questioning my choices. However, there is one thing that I have become concerned about.

You are right when you state in multiple videos you’ve posted that humans are naturally inclined to pair bond. I suppose my biggest concern is that, knowing female nature, and knowing that society is largely to blame for allowing it to get this far, is it possible to still love a woman and accept that nature may still exist even if she does respect your boundaries and values? I don’t want to believe swearing off women forever is the answer like MGTOW suggests, but I also have a hard time buying that I’ll really ever trust a woman knowing these things about how most women are. Really, the question boils down to this; is being Red Pilled synonymous with being cynical?

Ok, that’s the complete message; two brief paragraphs that cut to the core of a very important crossroads for those just ingesting the red pill, especially those doing it in the earlier parts of their lives.

Jason is 100% right about the paradox of modern relationships from a man’s perspective. Most of my observations force me to conclude that we live in a culture where men and women collude to produce a female psyche that, as it stands, is nothing short of a miserably poor investment for men.

It starts with the way we laud and encourage women for showing contempt for us.

If you don’t believe that, think of it this way. One of the subjects we see visited and revisited in men’s movement literature is that of male bashing in commercial advertising. We take issue with retailers for their treatment of men and fathers as hapless idiots who can’t tie their shoes without instructions from the women in their lives. With some regularity, you still see commentary and comments about boycotts of these companies.

What we don’t talk about too much, perhaps because it’s painful, is that advertisers are only doing what works. Stumbling, bumbling, pathetic men are a go-to option for advertisers because that is what the majority of women consumers want to see. Belittling and insulting men triggers them to buy.

Not to keep flogging the dead horse, but for this and other reasons we instill a level of assumed entitlement in women that we could reasonably use as part of the diagnostic criteria for personality disorders. We passionately encourage women to indulge in and brazenly exploit double standards that favor them as a part of the natural order. We make heroines of women when they viciously use the powerful tools we put at their disposal any time their privilege is denied.

If you notice I keep saying we, it’s because I mean it. None of this crap happens in a vacuum, which red pill men are well-served to remember (and often don’t). Remember the hateful way advertisers sell to women? Well, the trashing of you, your sons, your brothers and fathers has zero impact on male spending. You can belittle, bash, berate and derogate men all you want and their typical response is to reach in their wallet and give you their hard-earned money.

Like I said. WE.

So, Jason, is being red pill synonymous with being cynical? Well, to some degree it better be but I imagine that short answer doesn’t get to the heart of your question.

What I am really getting from this email is the question of whether your informed outlook on women will rob you of the positive parts of the pair bonding experience. It’s worth exploring, because as Jason pointed out quite rightly, another bit of reality in this picture for red pill men is that most all of them will continue to pair bond. That being inarguably true, we need an answer to the very legitimate question of whether taking a red pill is dooming a man to consciously chosen isolation for life.

Are there only two options for red pill men, the often-lonely life of a monk that most men don’t want, or living in hypervigilance, constantly wary of the women they’re with – and the lingering sense loneliness that surely comes with that?

It’s almost enough to make a man want a red pill detox. Almost.

I happen to think I have figured out a path through this problem. It’s a narrow, difficult path, but one that can at least nudge the problem toward the solved category. And it has a big plus. It is ultimately a huge step toward end-game red pill. It reveals the incredible usefulness of red pill thinking that goes far beyond our choices about women by forcing us to walk through some fire about our relationships with them.

I can even present you with a specific formula to make it happen. I call it, ‘how to stay red pill in a relationship with a woman in three incredibly difficult, torturous and painful steps.’ OK, that’s a bit of an exaggeration, but you get my point. This stuff isn’t easy.

Step one is to get the difference between love and romantic love. This isn’t something you can intellectualize yourself into understanding. It is a big, big deal. It is so important that you are well advised spend a good deal of time thinking about it, and challenging yourself.

Romantic love, the kind that western humans have been steeped in for nearly a thousand years, is a gynocentric cancer that you have been afflicted with, likely since your days in the womb. You don’t need to be cynical to see this. You only have to have your eyes open and set in front of a functional brain.

Romantic love is a narrative of male sacrifice in exchange for sex and to some degree approval. It is likely based on and driven by the state of infatuation, a naturally occurring form of psychosis that serves human reproduction. Romantic love takes that temporary insanity and turns it into a mandate for men to maintain it in perpetuity. On its face, it’s a perfect storm of sexual selection, male sacrifice and male disposability, which is really just three different ways of saying gynocentrism.

It’s a fairy tale, gents; a dime store romance novel that should have no more place in the thinking of sane men than the synonymous self-castration. It is the “You complete me,” Jerry McGuire bullshit fantasy of love that delivers the upper hand to women. And it needs to be dispensed with.

It is funny how some westerners look condescendingly at arranged marriages. In other words, marriages between people who may not even have met, and who know next to nothing about each other. These are marriages that don’t originate with the spark of infatuation.

I have seen lots of westerners talk about these marriages in mocking terms, as though they were the quaint practices of some primitive cultures that are not up to their enlightened standards.

They sneer at the formation of arranged families, and fancy that marriages starting with a temporary, insane rush of neurochemicals is a more sophisticated standard. And in doing so they all but totally destroy the possibility of love.

Love and romantic love are two entirely different things. Love is a product of learned experience, negotiating conflicts and outright battles for control. It comes from enduring hardship as a team and to some degree developing mutual dependence.

It is an arduous, often bloody affair that requires both people share interests that serve them both, and sometimes to scratch and claw at each other resolve conflict. And interestingly, for couples first bonded by romantic love, it requires them to grieve the loss of that which brought them together. The expectations and standards of romantic, or more accurately gynocentric love, are simply impossible to maintain. And trying to only breeds a toxicity of which men are the primary victims. So, for love to arise, romantic love must die.

The point here is not to just compare east and west in how they traditionally choose to pair bond, but to point out that as a western, red pill man, your programmed beliefs about pair-bonding are deeply flawed.

Just because you have found great benefit in learning red pill philosophy doesn’t mean you are no longer affected by those beliefs. After all, ideas can change rapidly with new information. Beliefs, on the other hand, linger. They quietly and unconsciously pull strings in our thinking long after information to the contrary registers consciously.

Changing this requires a man to constantly challenge his beliefs. If a man thinks that women are responsible human beings capable of accountability, but he struggles to treat them that way, then it is because despite what he thinks, what he believes is that it is wrong to hold a woman’s feet to the fire. Thus, he feels guilty and stays silent and cowed.

Note what Jason said in his email. I am going to quote him again. “Naturally, I blamed myself in the end,” he said, “but looking back on it I see that, while I made mistakes, she was just as guilty.”

Naturally, I blamed myself in the end. Or, allow me to paraphrase him slightly here, ‘Blaming myself is natural.’

Straight out of the gynocentric handbook. A living artifact of romantic love, powerful enough to prompt any man who really looks at it to find an escape, into sexual isolation or perhaps into lifelong cynicism.

And here is where I am going to suggest that pragmatism is a lot more valuable than cynicism to a man contemplating pair bonding. The problem with romantic programming, which I remind you is your programming, is that infatuation, the very foundation of romantic love, prohibits pragmatism. It lends you toward creating an idealized picture of the woman, and then creating a fiction around her that fits your unrealistic view. In other words, it tends to have you making shit up because reality might destroy the neurochemical glow of infatuation.

How many times have you heard men say, “Oh, no, my Cupcake would never do that,” when cupcake is broadcasting at 50 thousand watts that she can’t be trusted any further than you could throw her car?

Most men, the lion’s share, are utterly doomed to mindlessly waxing poetic about Cupcake till she moves in for the kill. They are hopelessly mired in the gynocentric bog. They won’t be heard from again till archeologists in the 30th century unearth their mummified, and completely fleeced remains.

I don’t think that Jason has to be one of these men, and I don’t think that cynicism, or the isolation of a monk’s life is what is going to prevent it. If he chooses, Jason still has at least a shot at the only kind of love or contentment with pair bonding people ever really experience, as long as he is willing to hold his own feet to the fire, as well as any woman with which he gets involved.

I will be explaining all this in part two of this series, coming next.

Leave a comment

41 thoughts on “For real love to arise, romantic love must die. Part one.”

  1. awesome… well written…
    The hard hitting truth, that every young man needs to be told!

    Note: I understand it’s not for everyone, but some of us learned that we can love a substitute for that woman of our dreams, while others found happiness being that woman that another man wants… because who in their right mind would wish to live with a bossy entitled parasite that holds your kids to ransom for selfish gains?

    1. I suppose that bossy entitled parasites who hold one’s kids to ransom for selfish gains are much easier to find.

    1. I wish to expand on my initial comment made this morning. My post was abruptly interrupted in which I failed to include all I had to say.

      Allowing gynocentric love (romantic) to dominate is actually undeserved punishment…penalty for being male. Too, instead of the two being side by side as they start their journey through life together, it is as if he has to let her get several paces ahead, position her on a pedestal, and let her flaws go unchecked, while he grovels, even though his flaws might not be as severe as hers.

      It is begging. It is demeaning to men. It is sexist to expect him to purchase a shiny piece of earth (diamonds etc) as a gift for her when the two of them actually have the same start, the same goals, the same worth.

      For most of it to revolve around the woman, which is what romantic love is and always has been since its inception, is not equal.

      True love in pair-bonding is equal partners on an equal playing field in which the both adore one another equally. No reason to center all his responsibility and sacrifices around her if she is not to do the same thing in return.

  2. It is nature/nurture debate, one that I’ve been wrangling wth since I was an adolescent. Now that I’m old and seasoned, I lean toward the nature side of the argument. When it comes to male/female pair bonding, I don’t believe humans will change. Mating is a dance all animals do, including the human animal. In the Red Pill community, we’ve identified the evolution of “courtly love” as the source of the modern problem. However, the “dance” and the power differential between the sexes has always existed. It was identified in the evolution of Western literature beginning around the 12th-13th century, first by Chaucer in Canterbury Tales when he reveals ancient, esoteric knowledge, “That which women desire most to have is sovereignty”. Sovereignty is a word used to describe the ultimate power of gods and goddesses, kings and queens. But this understanding, and the instinct of “love” was recognized and identified in literature long, long before the Middle Ages…Homer’s Helen of Troy…Ovid lamenting the excruciating pain of unrequited “love”. It’s part of our human genes. It’s the human dance of reproduction. Maybe, in the future when I’m dead and gone, genetic surgery will give us the option to change the power dynamic between men and women. Until that time, it behooves all thinking men to empower themselves and be wary.

  3. The title – I instinctively knew this as a teenager, even knowing nearly nothing about relationships.
    It’s just really obvious to anyone who does any contemplation.
    GREAT article for those who don’t realize it.

  4. Jason

    its not just gynocentricism and feminism. Regardless of the leaders popularity, big government has unprecedented support thru “saving women from bad men”. it funds and uses feminist lobby to support the lies, and bury the truth, about men. Persecution of men is required to justify increased power and taxation for big government.

    while contemplating romantic and real love, give some thought to wether you want to leave yourself vulnerable to persecution, wether life as a man, and a relationship, may be better elsewhere.

  5. I think closely related to this is how western people treat their ‘lovely’ children. At least until they become teens or 20 somethings.

  6. Orion_TheHunter

    Nailed it! I’d add that everything he mentioned about the neurochemical glow applies not only to the woman to whom you are attracted, but to any women in the vicinity of said woman who may impact that woman. What I’m saying is: romantic love is a system of gynocentric entitlement, first and foremost. Women work together against us to enforce it. It is, in my opinion, that part that makes it hard to escape and is defeating: you have to be ‘on’ all the time, even if the girl isn’t the one you’re after because…..gossip, etc. We drink the kool aid so young because

    1.) biologically, that neurochemical glow increases the likelihood of producing vigorous offspring &
    2.) we have to because the opinions of women work as a system. It’s easier to drink the kool-aid.

    It’s 1 on 5 in basketball. The hopeful part, in terms of the gratification of getting laid, is that 5 on 5 is possible. A team of men who go out & work together can pose ‘too much’ for women’s entitlement to overcome. I’ve seen it & experienced it, despite not really being an alpha personality type. All of the ‘alphas’ make full use of this fact. It isn’t ‘them’ that’s getting ‘them’ laid; it’s the systemic way they are approaching it.

    What I hope the emailer realizes is that it’s the permanence of that situation, the notion of romantic love, that comes with ‘scoring’ that is the problem. We don’t owe them romantic love, but that belief is part of the kool-aid. I’m older now, but I want the young man who wrote this to know you don’t have to be cynical about satisfying, robust, sex (which is what we want as men – biologically verified fact). The part that has to die is what you believe sex means. Personally, as someone who comes from a very religious background (which I have rejected), placing importance of romantic love in front of the gratification of f*cking your way through life is a form of gynocentric parental control and infantilization.

  7. I love this!

    Romantic love, as I have discovered, is false! Arranged marriages work better, and for a simple reason. They don’t let idealistic ideas of false love get in the way. A contract is a contract. I find it unbelievable how stupid we can be.

    1. We have seen this in front of our face the whole time, yet we still went in to these modern marriage arrangements because everyone was doing it. Women, whether consciously, or unconsciously, go into the marriage with the right mind set. In other words, if this thing doesn’t work out, I’m taking all I can get and high tailing it out of here. Men…….we have this bogus notion of chivalry that we must go down with the ship no matter what. HELL NO! Time to swim for yourselves ladies. And forgive my “chivalrous attitude” when I say “Ladies first!”

    2. In an arranged marriage, you go in with the proper perspective. You are safeguarding your family, and are focused on the commitment of others, not just yourself. The lovey dovey crap will die out before the honeymoon period is out. So, basically you need something other than romantic feelings to base your marriage on!

    3. Love is not a feeling, but a choice! I choose to love my wife for the kids benefit, hers, and not just my own. I look at it more like a graph, and not a fixed point in time! In the latter, I must stay immobile in a fixed consciousness, and frame of mind, that is highly resistant to change, and therefore entirely too weak to support an ever evolving, and growing relationship. In the former, I can realize that there will be good, and terrible times, where I might even want to choke my wife. And of course, my wife and kids will want to choke me. I know, you’re totally shocked I can tell. But it’s true! We are imperfect creatures who need love when most of the time we are anything but lovable!

    4. A less emotional union is more adaptable to the changing fluxes of two people, totally different, living together amidst the challenges of marriage, kids, and work. You are not self-centered, but relationship and family centered. You sacrifice some of your most cherished dreams, for companionship, love, safety, and not dying alone.

    This is a much more extensive list, but I think people can get the point. I didn’t read the article before I posted, now I am going to see how I did! LOL

    1. No matter what you base marriage on, it won’t work in the legal environment that feminists have created today.

      1. True. But as we are seeing, that environment is facing the oncoming, and imminent, planet-killing meteor impact of reality as we speak. I have every desire to see the portals of escape closed off to that world. It must be allowed to start anew. Free of the corruptive and toxic influence!

    2. Even arranged marriages can fall into that trap. Look at Prince Charles, for example – his was an arranged marriage and he ended up with a scheming nutcase who threw herself downstairs, poked her finger down her throat, cut herself and went on hunger strike because he had one mistress in comparison to her platoon of dubious suitors. And, of course, he emerges as the villain. Her sons are now going the same way, bleeding in public, emoting for the TV cameras and claiming to be fashionably mentally ill, “all the money in the world and what good is it…?” There are no short cuts. Any marriage is a dangerous leap of faith nowadays.

      1. I am sure she did. However, Prince Charles was a royal arraignment. Not the same as the average arranged marriages in the East that I am referring to. There is no perfect system, and it is worse by design now thanks to feminism.

        1. Yes, royal, no doubt, but they’re still people, and dust is their destiny too. I don’t think arranged marriages would work in the West, where at least if it’s a choice, any mistake is your own to make and it’s not inflicted upon you. I prefer freedom anyway, so I’m only commenting as an observer really. Also, the women in the West are too spoiled and pampered and you’re never going to reverse that. These mean little girls want to keep their own toys and snaffle all ours too – what do you do with people like that? To paraphrase PJ O’Rourke, “Don’t marry! – it just encourages the bastards.”

          1. Honestly, the girls out East are probably meaner, and many much more pampered. There is no guarantee. Never has been. But for one thing, the SC case in June that struck down the Unwed father rule was huge. I believe it was Santiago vs Santiago-Ramirez. Something like that. If there is no incentive but freedom to divorce, there will be fewer divorces. And if they need to marry, then they will have to realize they must share an equal risk.

  8. Jason:

    Temptation stands on every corner and she howls your name .. .. ..
    You thinking is light-years ahead of me when I was your age. Keep doing what you’re doing and you’ll find contentment and it will not come from a women.
    Remember, GOD is real and the prize awaits us in the afterlife.

  9. “Not to keep flogging the dead horse, but for this and other reasons we instill a level of assumed entitlement in women that we could reasonably use as part of the diagnostic criteria for personality disorders. We passionately encourage women to indulge in and brazenly exploit double standards that favor them as a part of the natural order.

    Here’s a perfect example from a main stream feminist of double standards as it pertains to reproductive rights. Cassie got it wrong because MRA’s are advocating for men to have reproductive choice before birth (or conception), not after birth but still… watch how she goes into great depth explaining how important reproductive rights are to women for them to be an independent and autonomous person in control of their own lives…while in the same breath completely dismissing the same standards and principles for men. She is blatantly saying that men do not deserve any choice after conception and she fully expects them to be a slave to the woman’s choice. This is the Feminist version of equality that permeates our culture of entitled women.

    1. I’ll copy and paste the comment I made in YouTube here:

      “[…]men have ‘right’ to take responsibility for contraception
      and birth control […]” Then she takes a long way giving excuses how
      women should not have this righ… I mean, responsibilities, and how it
      is about free-agency (for women only, of course). Here is the key world
      – responsibility -, women have more ways than men to prevent
      undesirable pregnancy yet it is oppression if she have to exercises this
      righ… (sorry again) responsibility. What a hypocrite!

      In time, birth control is not illegal in Brazil, the government even
      gives condoms for free. Also, even abortion is not completely illegal
      here as there are exception like for save the mother’s life or in case
      of rape resulting in pregnancy! Hypocrite and a liar.

      1. They never expected us to want the same rights that they have….they always expected us to oppose them “for the good of society” (Patriarchy). They don’t know what to make of it.

      2. There’s far too many of her sort about, but I think people are switching off now because they know it by heart. A young girl came on the TV over the weekend and said, “We live in a patriarchal society…” and I thought, ‘Fuck OFF!’ I didn’t hear the the rest of it, but I know I’ve heard it a million times before. It’s verbal wallpaper now.

    2. She never answered the questions. She named only responsibilities she thinks men should be bound to. Then she went on to obsess over rights and privileges women should have in her opinion, leaving out any equal concept for males. Either she is a bimbo that is totally clueless or she is scheming. Likely, both.

      When she watches herself there, I wonder what goes through that selfish mind of hers.

      1. Clearly, men’s reproductive rights should include: the right of parental surrender; the right to equal access to their children after birth; reasonable child support amounts; and the right to custody of a child the mother wants to put up for adoption (this is essence female parental surrender). What else is there? What am I missing?

        1. You may have asked this question to a person that indeed can state another reproductive right men should have, that is if men are to enjoy complete humanity.

          However, unless this topic is the unlikely theme of an article here, I’d rather discuss this with you elsewhere or in the future. A broad way to say it is 50/50 procreation power…or perhaps 55/45, her favor. Go to socfreespeech if you’d like to know more, drop me your email address and I will respond.

      2. She is allowed to say all this while she drives her car, uses the roads, uses electricity, lives in her house, eats her food, flushes her toilet, and enjoys her rights all manufactured and supplied by men. And men don’t say jack shit about it!

        Gawd, these entitled bitches that expect and take for granted all these tremendous benefits, and still think they have the right to call men assholes while demanding shit.

        We’ve beat this horse to death, but again it’s men who allow this to happen.

    3. She has forgotten that it is the “patriarchy” that invented the contraceptives that she insists she has a right to.

  10. I think closely related to this is how western people treat their ‘lovely’ children. At least until they become teens or 20 somethings.

  11. “‘how to stay red pill in a relationship with a woman in three incredibly difficult, torturous and painful steps.’”
    Hahahahaha! Well put. I don’t think women are worth all that, but that’s just me. Great article Paul.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *