Can a Woman Love a Man?

Blonde

Men often show irrational love for women, but can a woman truly love a man?

The idea of love is tossed around in our society as if it is inevitable that we will someday fall in love and stay in love our entire lives. But, only in modern times has it received such exalted status. Traditionally, it has been considered a very fickle emotion.

Going back to some of the founding religious documents of our civilization, we find that Eve is commanded to be subservient and obedient to Adam. It is interesting that Eve is not commanded to love Adam, perhaps because the Bronze Age men who wrote these documents knew that was virtually impossible. Indeed, the Laws of Game and Laws of Hypergamy are based on the fact that a women will love a man’s power, social status or financial status but not the man himself.

To answer the question if a woman can love a man, it helps to look at the history of marriage, which is today considered the ultimate act of love. But the Western idea of falling in love in order to get married and have a family is a recent one. In the past, marriages were more about financial arrangements between families than ideas of love. People used to marry young and stay together their entire lives.

They also used to have kids young, rather than waiting for the perfect “magic moment” that never comes. This, indeed is quite a contrast to today when most women have been passed around quite a few times before they marry and have children in their 30s if at all, a time when declining fertility puts reproduction at risk. In fact, a woman’s window of peak fertility extends from her teenage years to about the age of 25. After age 25 and especially age 30, it becomes statistically less and less likely she will conceive and more likely she will have complications if she does.

This practical use of marriage for the purpose of creating and sustaining the family has changed enormously into a legal ball and chain for men in modern times. It offers lots of obligations and responsibilities and almost no rights. A woman begrudgingly gives a Beta male sex in the marriage, and she can dispose of him at any time in today’s world and be awarded cash and prizes. (In the past, such a woman would have been shunned by society.) These facts help illustrate the use of men as a utility by both women and society, and also demonstrates a lack of love for men.

The history of marriage is an interesting one. The 5,000 year history of marriage along with Briffault’s Law shows us male roles in relationships are more about providing utility value, rather than a woman loving a man.

Bride_Gown

Marriage was originally intended to pass down bloodlines, property, and was used as a bargaining chip

Marriage: Practicality and Not Romance

Throughout much of human history, marriages have been arranged by families with the bride and groom having no say over the arrangement. This custom is still practiced in many societies today. Of course, having children and continuing family bloodlines, passing down property rights, and creating a stable environment for children were the reasons marriage came into existence. A dowry (financial reward) was often arranged to reward the groom for the difficult, lifelong task of taking on one of the family’s daughters as a wife.

Four thousand years ago marriage was used to preserve political power in Mesopotamia as kings married off daughters to form alliances, produce heirs, and acquire land. A couple thousand years later, the Anglo-Saxons saw marriage as a bartering chip to establish diplomatic and economic ties. This meant families wanted their children to marry someone at least as powerful and wealthy as they were.

Often, marriages took place without documentation and were based on people’s word. That is, until the 1200s when the Catholic Church declared marriage a sacrament. Following suit, Protestants later decided marriage was not a private institution. In the 1500s the Roman Catholic Church’s Council of Trent decreed marriages needed to take place in front of a priest and two witnesses to be considered valid. That decision made marriage a legal contract instead of a private arrangement, and is the beginning of the long arc that has led it to become all risk and no reward for men today.

Romantic_Marriage

Love was considered an emotion too fleeting to base marriages on in the past

Romantic Marriage

For most of human history, marriage was considered much too important to be based on a the fleeting emotion love. It was about men providing material value for their wives, and women producing offspring. Stephanie Coontz, author of Marriage: A History puts it this way:

If love could grow out of it, that was wonderful. But that was gravy.

Marriage and love have often been considered incompatible. A Roman politician was expelled from the Senate after kissing his wife in a display that was called “disgraceful!” And, the French philosopher Montesquieu wrote that any man who was in love with his wife was probably much too dull to be loved by other women. (The man knew a Beta male when he saw one!)

The idea of loving your future wife or husband is a recent development in human history. In our own civilization, it can be traced back a thousand years to the Middle Ages and the troubadours. Troubadours wrote songs and poetry during from around 1100-1350 A.D. that deal with love and courtship. Before this time, a father had to give consent as to who his daughter would marry. A daughter not marrying who her father expected was considered a major show of disrespect to both her father and her family, for not giving him a say in the family’s bloodlines.

By the time of the Enlightenment, philosophers began to write about the pursuit of happiness, and told people to marry for love instead of wealth or status. Our notions of romantic marriage today stem from these developments.

Bride-Tail

Marriage has become all risk and no reward for men in the 21st century

Marriage Today

Marriage and the family have taken a slide in the 20th and 21st centuries, perhaps because we have lost sight of the practicality of marriage for society in trying to base the entire institution on an emotion. The age of first marriage has been rising and the divorce rate stands at over half. However, before the time of the Civil War divorce was exceedingly rare.

And up until 1970, when Governor Ronald Reagan signed the first no fault divorce act into law, women had to prove their husbands had been guilty of cruelty, desertion, or sex crimes to get a divorce. This law set off a cultural seismic wave that weakened the family. In a hilarious footnote, up until the divorce revolution women often took the stand to play the victim card and make false claims during divorce cases, showcasing women’s natural talents for dissimulation. One California Supreme Court Justice recalls:

Every day, in every superior court in the state, the same melancholy charade was played: the “innocent” spouse, generally the wife, would take the stand and, to the accompanying cacophony of sobbing and nose-blowing, testify under the deft guidance of an attorney to the spousal conduct that she deemed “cruel.”

Perhaps the reason it was so hard for obtain a divorce in the past is reflected in these facts: women are flighty, and they’re often irresponsible. Today, four out of five divorces are initiated by or caused by women. Women often divorce for spurious reasons, or as seen above, totally fabricated ones.

By 1985, in response to changing cultural mores and women playing the victim card, every state in the country had no-fault divorce laws. But, many of them have punitive laws on the books for men which can literally enslave men for life with alimony to someone they were only married to a few years. This is further detailed in Anglo American Women Are Risky to Your Wallet and Your Freedom. The law has, in effect, pedestalized women and trampled men as Anglo society has a long tradition of doing. With women getting preferential treatment in the workplace and having godlike powers in the court system, they do not have to pretend to love men anymore. An anthropological survey shows us how they act when given total power.

Ebony

Like it or not, the vast majority relationships between the sexes break down to an economic transaction, men trade utility for female fertility – not love

Briffault’s Law

Adding to the case that women only want men for their utility value is Briffault’s Law, given to us by social anthropologist Robert Briffault in his epic work The Mothers:

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

When combined with what we know about gaming women and hypergamy, it is easy to see a woman does not love a man as much as she uses him a resource. H.L. Menken supported Briffault’s idea:

Primitive society, like many savage societies of our own time, was probably strictly matriarchal. The mother was the head of the family. What masculine authority there was resided in the mother’s brother. He was the man of the family, and to him the children yielded respect and obedience. Their father, at best, was simply a pleasant friend who fed them and played with them; at worst, he was an indecent loafer who sponged on the mother. They belonged, not to his family, but to their mother’s. As they grew up they joined their uncle’s group of hunters, not their father’s.

This matriarchal organization of the primitive tribe, though it finds obvious evidential support in the habits of higher animals, has been questioned by many anthropologists, but of late one of them, Briffault, demonstrated its high probability in three immense volumes.

It is hard to escape the cogency of his arguments, for they are based upon an almost overwhelming accumulation of facts. They not only show that, in what we may plausibly assume about the institutions of early man and in what we know positively about the institutions of savages today, the concepts inseparable from a matriarchate color every custom and every idea: they show also that those primeval concepts still condition our own ways of thinking and doing things, so that “the societal characters of the human mind” all seem to go back “to the functions of the female and not to those of the male.”

Thus it appears that man, in his remote infancy, was by no means the lord of creation that he has since become.

For most of history, and in many other species the male is only a sperm donor who is discarded once the task of mating is completed. After a temporary move towards patriarchy and giving men roles in society other than sperm donor, the rise of feminism and the misandrist court system in Anglo America has once again legally reduced human fathers from “house-band” (he who holds the home together, or husband) to sperm donor. These lines of evidence point to one hard to swallow answer to the question posed by this article: Can a woman love a man?

Spreading

Giving fathers a role in society and the family is a relatively new concept for our species; from the history of marriage to a study of anthropology to today’s sexual market, females do not associate with males that provide no benefit to them

Answering the Question

The history of marriage shows that romantic love is a recent concept to base marriage on, and marriages have endured without love in the past. It can be said that in reality marriage breaks down to economics for both sexes: Men have a surplus of strength and production capacity, that they trade for a woman’s valuable 10-15 year window of fertility. Briffault’s Law which was gleaned through enormous amounts of research also confirms this idea.

Therefore, human history and anthropological research shows female “love” for men is really more of a love for his resource provision, wealth, status, or power more than it is any emotional attachment. For if the man loses his ability to provision, or his status or power, we see it time and again that he will find himself alone because no woman wants a “loser.” We also see it with the 80/20 rule in today’s society. Women reward the minority of men with sex and attention while leaving the vast majority sexless and alone, no matter what nice guys they are. Men are a utility to women, and once the utility has been consumed she will no longer be interested.

This brings us to a harsh conclusion: From being coded into religious doxy as a commandment to Eve to serve and obey her husband Adam rather than to love him, to the fact marriage has existed as an institution that did not concern itself with love through most of history, to the fact since the sexual revolution women abandon lower status men almost completely, evidence mounts that no, women do not love men the way men love women. Men must realize this and control their emotions. Arthur Schopenhauer wrote about these fundamental differences between the sexes:

Because women in truth exist entirely for the propagation of the race, and their destiny ends here, they live more for the species than for the individual, and in their hearts take the affairs of the species more seriously than those of the individual. This gives to their whole being and character a certain frivolousness, and altogether a certain tendency which is fundamentally different from that of man.

In summary, women want the best genes, whether it be for provisioning, protection, domination or all three. They could care less about the man the genes come from, only the utility provided by them. Oscar Wilde, posthumous Red Pill man knows the time of day. He wrote: Deceiving others. That is what the world calls romance.

Help us grow by making a purchase from our Recommended Reading and Viewing page or our Politically Incorrect Apparel and Merchandise page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also Sponsor The New Modern Man for as little as $1 a month.

6 comments

  • Are Prostitutes Better Than Normal Women?
    A Short Essay by John Doe

    Is it cheaper to have sex with normal women than with prostitutes? No, and here is why.

    When you have sex with a normal girl, it’s by no means “free”. You have to take her out to dinner, buy her drinks, and you might have to go on two or even three dates before you will have sex with her. If you add up the total costs of these three dates, it would be approxiately around 400 dollars.

    Now let’s look at the cost of the average high quality prostitute. You can bang a prostitute for 2 hours for 250 dollars.

    What are the benefits of using prostitutes instead of dating normal women?

    1. The average prostitute is far hotter than the average normal woman you can date.
    2. YOU get to do the choosing, and the power of choice is in YOUR hands, instead of in the woman’s hands
    3. With a prostitute, you have sex with her and that’s it. No emotional drama, no mind games, no bullshit, like there is with normal women.
    4. You don’t have to waste hours of your valuable time that you could otherwise spend on making money, taking women out on dates or trying to pick up women in bars and clubs. No, instead you pay a prostitute for one or two hours of her time, have sex with her, and leave.
    5. You choose WHEN you want to have sex. So let’s say you’re a busy businessman, instead of wasting 5 hours at a bar or on a date, instead you’d spend only one or two hours with a prostitute, and that at your convience too. YOU are the one who chooses WHEN, and so you save a LOT of time.
    6. Prostites are DEFINITELY cheaper than getting married. Overall, through a 10 year marriage and divorce, you’d end up spending at least 250,000 dollars. Now let’s take that number and divide it by 250 dollars, which is the average price of a high quality prostitute in a Western country. That is sex with 1000 different high quality prostitutes. Now if you talk to any married man, who is HONEST, he will admit that sex with the wife after the first 6 months or year starts to get boring. And this is why people in long term relationships barely have sex, because it’s BORING having sex with the same person time after time. Variety is the spice of life! You could have sex with 1000 different women for the same price it would cost to marry one woman and have sex with her. And considering how unstable most western women are nowadays, the chance of divorce is around 60%, with the woman initiating the divorce 90% of the time. You are likely to lose at least 50% of your assets and savings in a divorce, and so marriage to a western woman may end up costing you up to 500,000 dollars or even a million dollars, once you add in the divorce costs and long term child payment and alimony costs.

    So let’s take that number, one million dollars, and divide it by 250. That’s 4000 DIFFERENT women you could pay to have sex with, instead of marrying one woman who will just end up turning into a bitch and divorcing you anyway. So it’s your choice guys. Would you rather marry one woman, who will get bored of sex after 6 months, and end up stealing all your assets and savings in divorce, or would you rather have sex with 4000 different beautiful women for the same price?

    Another very relevant point is that the world of modern dating has become quite risky. Most women see nothing wrong with making a false rape accusation against a man. Most rape cases are fake and are done out of a motive of REVENGE by the woman. Did you break up with your girlfriend? Watch out, she might make a false rape accusation against you just to get revenge. Did you cheat on your girl with another girl? Watch out, she might make a false rape accusation just to get revenge on you. Forgot to tell your girlfriend “happy birthday”? Watch out, she might make a false rape accusation against you in order to get revenge on you. At least 90% of rape cases are FALSE, the sex was CONSENSUAL and the woman later changed her mind AFTER the act and decided “oh it was rape”. LOL. And this is why the police no longer take rape cases seriously, because literally 90% of women who claim to have been raped are LYING!

    So that is another HUGE benefit of prostitues. A prostitute won’t make a false rape accusation against you.

    What’s another GREAT reason that men choose to use prostitutes? Because by paying for sex, they can have sex with a MUCH hotter quality of woman than they would normally. For example, if we rate women on a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of beauty. The average guy will be able to pick up and have sex with a 4 or a 5 from a bar, a club, or Tinder. Meanwhile, if the same man paid for sex with a high quality prostitute for $250 dollars (about the same amount of money he would spend picking up a 4 or 5 from a bar, club, or Tinder), the prostitute he would have sex with would be an 8 or 9 on the beauty scale. So for the same amount of money, he can have sex with a much hotter woman, and with much less effort too. Think about all the effort you have to put in to go to a bar or club. You have to buy good clothes, you have to spend lots of money on drinks and food, and also have to spend a lot of money on making sure your apartment is cool and stylish so the girl will feel comfortable there. So unless you’re a man who was blessed with the looks of Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise and have women chasing after you, the easiest and cheapest option for most men to have sex with the hottest quality of women is to simply PAY for sex with a hot prostitute. One guy was asked why he paid to have sex with prostitutes and his reply was “If I’m being brutally honest, the hottest women I’ve ever had sex with have been prostitutes … I would never be able to have sex with women who are ridiculously hot unless they were prostitutes.” I can also personally testify to this point. The types of chicks I was getting from Tinder were mostly fat or at best mildly hot, I would have rated them between a 3 and a 6 on the attraction scale. Then the first time I went to a prostitute, I was blown away with the options and the QUALITY too. Here were super hot girls who I could bang for such a cheap price. Needless to say, I gave up on dating and ONLY bang prostitutes now. I’m a much happier and peaceful person as a result.

    Another couple of reasons that men gave as to why they choose to have sex with prostitutes are:

    “Getting a prostitute is so easy: no strings attached, you can choose the woman you want before you purchase, then they arrive at your door. Couldn’t be easier.”

    I can also testify to this. Getting a normal girl to have sex is a real pain in the ass and involves so much struggle, drama, and mind games. Then of course after you have sex with her, you have to deal with her stalking you, calling you so many times, and with her unrealistic expectation that you are going to have a committed and exclusively relationship with her. All that compared with the EASE of banging a hot prostitute, and the choice is simple. I chose to not waste time trying to date women anymore and only bang hot prostitutes now.

    “We want to have sex without all the bullshit of pretending to be really interested in a girl. When you pay for sex, you don’t have to swap numbers at the end when you know you won’t call. You pay, have sex, she leaves. Everyone’s happy.”

    This goes along with the above point. With normal women and dating, you have to PRETEND to care about her and PRETEND to be interested in her, when in reality all you want is to have sex with her. With a prostitute, there is no pretensions and that really is a beautiful thing because ultimately then sex becomes about the raw physical act as well as the pure attractiveness of the woman, and thus you are able to enjoy sex a lot more.

    Lastly, let’s touch on the issue of legalization. On average surveys, 70 percent of men said they would vote to legalize prostitution, meanwhile 60 percent of women said they would vote to keep prostitution illegal. Now it’s pretty obvious why women want to keep prostitution illegal. Women use sex as a weapon to control men. So it would disrupt the economics of women’s control over sex if prostitution was legalized, because then MEN would have control over WHO they want to have sex with and WHEN. Forget all those arguments about morality, the REAL reason women want to keep prostitution illegal is so that they can CONTINUE to control men with sex. In effect, women are like a mafia that is desperate to keep control of the sexual marketplace. If prostitution was legal, men would be a lot less inclined to put up with women’s bullshit just to get sex from them, when they can go pay for sex from a much more attractive woman and without all the hassles and drama that dating and normal women bring.

    What about STDs some of you might say? Well the whole STD scare is mostly a MYTH that has been blown way out of proportion by feminists and conservative religious leaders in order to scare men away from having sex. In reality, the rate of transmission of AIDS is 1 out of 700 during heterosexual sex. That is, if a man had penis to vagina intercourse with an AIDS-infected woman, it would take 700 times on average before he would contract it. The only way people get AIDS is through using needles to inject drugs, or having anal sex, especially with homosexuals. So the whole AIDS thing is a huge scare, a MYTH, that has been blown way out of proportion.

    What about Herpes? Well studies show that 80% of the US population already has Herpes in one of it’s forms, so that is not really an issue.

    The only other STD that you would have to worry about is Chlamydia, and it can be easily cured within 3 days with antibiotics.

    Now, that is UNPROTECTED sex. If you are using condoms to have sex with, then the chances of getting any of these STDs becomes less than zero. And that includes oral sex as well. Most prostitutes will insist that you always use a condom, even during oral sex. So as long as you are using condoms, then STDs are nothing you should even remotely worry about.

    So what are some of the main reasons why prostitution should be legalized?

    1. If prostitution was legal, it would reduce the STD transmission rate by about 50% amongst prostitutes.

    2. If prostitution was legal, it would reduce rape by at least 150%.
    Many studies have shown that legal prostitution reduces rape, sexual assault, and other sex crimes by a lot. The same studies have shown that legal prostitution reduces the STD rate amongst the general population by about 50%.

    3. The real number of human trafficking victims in the prostitution industry is actually less than 5%. But if prostitution was fully legal, the tiny number of women who are forced into prostitution involuntarily would be able to go to the poliec to get help and escape from their pimps. Keeping prostitution illegal hurts prostitutes the most, so it’s funny how feminists want to keep prostitution illegal and yet at the same time claim they care about women’s health and women’s rights. Feminism is nothing but the biggest pile of bullshit hypocrisy the world has ever seen.

    4. Feminists say “my body, my choice”. So if 95% of prostitutes are VOLUNTARILY engaging in prostitution, then why should those women have the RIGHT to choose what to do with their own bodies, even if that includes trading sex for money? What right does the government or anyone else have to tell two consenting adults that they cannot exchange money for sex?

    5. It would save a lot of money and resources from our police and government. Tens of millions of dollars a year are wasted by our police and government arresting and putting prostitutes in jail. If prostitution was LEGAL, on the other hand, and taxed and regulated, it would bring in tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars a year in tax revenue for our government, as well as freeing up valuable police time for REAL crimes like rape, theft, murder, assault, etc.

    6. If prostitution was legal, prostitutes would have legal rights and would not longer get taken advantage of by pimps and other shady figures, including corrupt police officers. Yes, the police also contribute to the oppression of prostitutes because there are many corrupt police officers out there who blackmail and extort prostitutes for money and/or sexual favors. If prostitution was legal, all of this would end and prostitutes would finally have legal rights.

    7. Prostitution is the world’s oldest profession. It is NEVER going to stop no matter how much the police or government tries to stop it. There are ALWAYS going to be men who are willing to pay money for sex, and there are ALWAYS going to be women who are willing to give sex to men for money. Prostitution has also been an integral part of many cultures and thus trying to stop it is literally impossible. And why should it be stopped? No one has the right to tell two consenting adults that they cannot exchange money for sex. So rather than waste time trying to stop it, just legalize it and tax it, the same way we do with cigarettes, alcohol, and now marijuana.

    All in all, I believe in personal freedom. I believe that no one has the right to force their own sense of morality onto others. In some very ancient cultures, prostitutes were actually given very high status in society and considered as spiritual people who could heal men of their problems through sex. That was thousands of years ago though, before self-righteous modern western religions were invented and started violently forcing their concepts of morality onto people. Funny how societies that were thousands of years old were actually far more advanced than we are in the modern age in terms of sex and prostitutes.

    It took almost a century for people to wake up and legalize marijuana, which is a completely harmless natural plant that hurts no one. In the same way, society and people in general have to EVOLVE and realize that they have no right to force their own sense of morality or control onto others. The modern society is actually a very sexually restrictive society, compared to cultures and civilizations of the past. And it’s this sexual restrictiveness which contributes to so much psychological neurosis, sex crimes, and frustration in general. Is it a coincidence how people in America are so quick to anger and lose their temper, whereas in a place like Thailand where prostitution is legal and accepted, people are very laid back and cool headed? People need to stop seeing sex as such a big thing, and just realize that sex is a normal and acceptable part of life.

    With that said, I believe that I have covered all the points as to why prostitution should be legal and an accepted part of society, and so this essay comes to a close. Please feel free to copy, paste, and distribute this essay as my goal is to influence and educate as many people as possible, the only thing I ask is that you do not change it or edit it in any way whatsoever. Thank you very much

    Sincerely,
    John Doe

    Liked by 1 person

  • It’s important to consider something, though:

    Is love necessary in a marriage in order for a civilized society to exist?

    Think about it. If there’s love between a married couple, the family unit as a whole will be much stronger, which results in better raising of the children. Without the cohesion that love between the husband and wife brings, the children would naturally notice the rift in the family. It might not be to the extreme of a couple who wants to get divorced but chooses to remain married in order to responsibly raise the children in an intact household, but wouldn’t it be similar?

    This then raises another question to think about: what’s the difference between caring about your spouse and loving your spouse?

    Personally, I think the term “love” as been co-opted today to mean more than it actually should. Either that or there’s a term that’s missing altogether. The head over heels in love type doesn’t last. I don’t think it lasts for anyone.

    But the genuine caring for the well-being of your spouse, I think that does last. Or at least, it can. However, no one ever seems to think of love this way today. I don’t know if people used to or not, but I sure know they don’t today.

    Women leave their marriages because they claim they “don’t love their husband anymore”

    I think all of this bullshit is because society only considers the head over heels type of love as being love. With the massive amount of propaganda propagating this, women see no reason to stay with their husband when that inevitably wears off. There’s no sense of integrity or honor in this stunted definition of love.

    Consequently, it has the added, unexpected effect of destroying the genuine caring for your spouse and your family that real love actually is. This is simply because women see no problem in completely abandoning their family (regardless of if there are kids or not) as soon as they no longer feel the head over heels sort of love.

    This is a huge problem in today’s society. People today aren’t encouraged to ever actually care about anyone. People today see no reason to want to help others succeed. At least not in the Western world.

    My last ex-girlfriend was from China. The love we had was more along the lines of what I consider real love. But because the Western garbage is spreading all around the globe, the Chinese are beginning to view love increasingly as the head over heels kind, rather than the commitment to building each other up kind.

    Ultimately, this contributed to our relationship ending, among other things.

    Excellent article, let me know what you think about what I said here.

    Like

    • Relampago Furioso

      Great points, and I agree with everything you said. In fact, many of the points you laid out here would make for a great follow-up article. Marriage today has become about women taking advantage of or pillaging men for material gain rather than, as you said, building each other up.

      “Without the cohesion that love between the husband and wife brings, the children would naturally notice the rift in the family. It might not be to the extreme of a couple who wants to get divorced but chooses to remain married in order to responsibly raise the children in an intact household, but wouldn’t it be similar?”

      Studies are showing, even though they are suppressed by the powers that be, that children raised in homes with two parents – a man and a woman – statistically turn out better than those raised in any other type of home. Breaking down the family, as has been done in the West, renders lonely, socially isolated individuals susceptible to control.

      I don’t know if you saw my mentions of anthropologist J.D. Unwin here on the site, but he conducted a study of 80 tribes and 6 civilizations and ZERO – not one of them – stayed civilized after easing restrictions on monogamy. Families immediately broke down, and the tribes/civilizations went back to an uncivilized, matriarchal model in which men are reduced to little more than sperm donors.

      Like

      • Oh no, I definitely wasn’t suggesting that those parents choose to get divorced. I completely agree both by anecdotal observation and by seeing multiple studies like Unwin’s. After all, Western society as a whole is one giant anecdotal piece of evidence for this.

        What I meant was more of a spectrum. On the one end we have the destruction wreaked on children that divorce brings. On the other end, we have a happily married family that remains intact and cares not only for each other, but for the children as well.

        The point I made in my first comment would fall on the half of the spectrum that divorce is on. So a couple that stays together, but “doesn’t love each other” wouldn’t cause as much damage as if they got a divorce, but it wouldn’t be nearly as beneficial for the children as the happily married family.

        Additionally, I think there could be another point on the spectrum on the half that the happily married family is on: the couple that loves each other (in my definition), but chooses to outsource the raising of the kids. At this point, the children would benefit from an intact household with two parents that love each other, but it wouldn’t be as good for the children since the parents aren’t really raising them.

        Just like I have a different understanding of what love really is, I also have a different understanding about what it means to raise your children. Just as my definition of love is more complex that society’s, so is my definition of raising children.

        Like

      • Relampago Furioso

        Great insights and observations. They add a lot to the discussion. The idea of a spectrum is insightful, too.

        Like

  • Love no respect yes.

    Like

Join the Discussion | Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s