The Love Equation

I know everyone thinks of love as an emotion, but I have never been the romantic type. To me, love is very logical. No, I don’t mean people behave logically when they are in love. I mean what makes people fall in and out of love is very logical. Allow me to explain.

Although many people aspire to be more unconditionally loving toward their fellow man, let’s be honest, there are people we like, people we don’t like, people we love, and people we hate. As we meet people throughout our lives, only an extremely small percentage ever win our love. Why is this?

Actually, it’s very simple. We each have our individual needs and desires. When we meet people who fulfill our needs and desires, we like them. If they do a damn good job at it, we fall in love with them. This may make love sound very selfish. Well, there is a good reason for that: love is selfish. If we get what we want, big time, we fall in love (as long as we don’t mind giving back what they want). If we don’t get what we want, or don’t want to give what they want in return, love doesn’t happen.

It’s all very logical. In fact, it can even be expressed as a mathematical formula.

Let’s say a man like Roosh has the following wants in a woman:

1. Nice ass
2. Beautiful face
3. Does not waste his time playing games
4. Does not demand he spend his hard earned money on her
5. Makes interesting conversation
6. Stops making interesting conversation and leaves after sex is over

Then his love formula is:

Nice ass+ Beautiful face+ No games+ Good convo+ No snuggling = Love.

Since this woman doesn’t exist, he hasn’t fallen in love lately.

Let’s say a man like Chaco has the following wants in a woman:

1. Nice ass (hey, great minds think alike)
2. Cute face
3. Highly intelligent
4. Shares mutual interests and outlook on life
5. Gentle disposition devoid of drama
6. Is respectful of Chaco’s need to be The Decider

Then Chaco’s formula, like Roosh’s, is all those things added together = love. Since Chaco has met a woman just like this, he is in love.

Therefore, love is not some random event that strikes us when we least expect it. It’s actually quite predictable according to the formula above. When two people meet who match each other’s formula’s, a deep bond will form.

Understanding this formula is critical for keeping relationships strong. So many couples that fall in love end up falling out of it. Half of all couples who get married and take vows to love each other forever not only end up falling out of love, they often become bitter enemies.

The love equation explains this perfectly. When people start out dating, they usually try their best to win the other’s affection. Men are generous with their money, dress their best, shower women with compliments, and try hard to please sexually. Women wear their best outfits, spend extra time on their makeup, laugh at all of his dumb jokes, try to seem impressed with his ‘power job’, and also try hard to please sexually.

After the relationship has been going on for a while, or worse, after marriage, it’s a different story. Now the partners stop trying in the same way they used to. They get lazy and think that their prior feelings or solemn vows will sustain their relationship. This is a fatal mistake.

Once you recognize that love is based on a very logical formula, it should not surprise you that if you stop trying, the person who used to love you won’t any more. If someone fell in love with you because you matched an equation that looked like:

Cute+ In shape+ Fashionable clothes+ Sweet personality+ Hot sex = Love…

But now you are now like:

Plain+ Out of shape+ Frumpy clothes+ Annoying nag+ No sex = Pain in the ass…

Then I assure you it’s 100% predictable that your relationship will deteriorate and the love will be lost.

Men, you don’t get cut any slack here. If you once matched a formula like:

Handsome+ Buff+ Sharp dresser+ Generous+ Confident leader+ Dominant sex = Love…

But now you are like:

Soft+ Sloppy dresser+ Cheap bastard+ Pussy-whipped beta+ Lame sex = Loser…

Then it’s certain you will be divorced and financing your ex-wife’s trips to Paris with her new lover.

So let’s take the mystery out of love. No more being astounded when the love of your life loses its passion. No more demanding to be loved when you no longer provide what your partner wants. Love is not something you are owed, it is something you earn. If you are in a relationship and want to keep it strong, figure out what your partner values in you and never stop providing it. As long as you match your partner’s love formula, keeping their love is natural and automatic.

Are You A Heterosexual Man With Standards?

Join 40,000 other men on my free email newsletter and learn how to meet women. Articles include: 7 Tips For First Dates That Lead To Sex, How To Tease A Girl, How To Handle Flakey Girls, and a whole lot more. Enter your first name and email below...

I guarantee 100% privacy. Your information will not be shared.

Related Posts For You

  • Virgle Kent

    “No more demanding to be loved when you no longer provide what your partner wants. Love is not something you are owed, it is something you earn.”

    Jesus christ Chaco Dating blogs are going to lose their shit on this one, but it’s the most honest thing I’ve ever read on the subject.

    Get it!

  • entropy

    Chaco, that was a great post.

    I don’t know if it is so easy to discern what you love in someone and what they love in you, but your logic definitely makes sense. Moreover, it will likely solve a lot of problems with the many stale relationships out there.

    Of course, this doesn’t take into account the new/fresh quality of any new relationship, but it does help. There are only so many times that you can tell the same joke or follow the same sex routine before things get boring. Longevity also requires a desire by both parties to constantly change things up and grow together in new directions.

  • KassyK

    Hmmm. I don’t know if I agree here. For me love has only happened once and it was a huge event that hit us both really hard in a good way.

    I think your formula works more for the long term. Not the initial falling in love. But we may fall in love differently.

  • Colin

    Great post. I was just thinking about this sort of thing the other day – unconditional love. Some people want or require that, but it’s not very realistic. Just like our (semi) capitalistic society, everything is traded – money, stocks, labor, even love.

    Consider the term partner in a relationship. Partner implies working together towards a common goal just like a business. To be successful, both people must adapt to life, their environment, and each other.

    It makes sense that you can boil down love to what each person wants out of the other in an equation. Some people’s equations maybe be more complicated, say the calculus of love. Those people might have a harder time finding someone to fall in love with.

  • Lisa

    “If you are in a relationship and want to keep it strong, figure out what your partner values in you and never stop providing it.”

    That’s true. I would also add the natural flip-side to that statement: If you are in a realtionship and want to keep it strong, figure out what your partner values in themselves and never stop praising it.

    People will love you when they think you get them – in any kind of relationship, not just romantic.

  • The Dude

    Wow- what a tremendous over-simplification. This blog has become the totally black-and-white dating for dummies.

    Your formula makes me sad because it does not take much into account and reveals that you are a very young, very shallow, man who has not experienced a wide variety in his life.

    Love can change and grow and it certainly is not as simple as meeting a specific formula that you have here. It is certainly accurate that couples frequently meet and have such simple requirements, but the test of a long term relationship has little to do with the formuala continuing to be met. Instead, most long term relationships endure because the couple can change and adapt and continue to work together through crises and new circumstances. Look at the couples that have been together for a long time- frequently you see things like one spouse battling cancer, moving to new cities, children with illness, money problems, etc.

    Your world view makes you a perfect candidate for divorce because you are so incredibly inflexible. According to your view, everything must stay completely the same and meet your requirements- but it won’t. Additionally, your mate’s needs will not stay the same either for that matter.

    If there really is a “love equation” it sounds like you are in elementary school addition and subtraction. Love that will endure in the long run is a lot more like calculus.

  • KassyK

    I also agree with the Dude here. It sounds as if you and Roosh have such an oversimplification of “love”…who said its that easy to FALL in love? Or stay in love? I have met many men that fit my qualifications and yet I have not fallen in love with them. Its just not that easy. And it shouldn’t be.

    You are completely discounting feelings–which are just as huge as specifics in the equation.

  • Colin

    I would argue that your “feelings” are based on the logic implied by the equation. You feel a certain way because a person (or anything you may love), meets the qualifications required by your brain and created by your logic. These requirements could be subconscious or not, but the equation is still made. And I do agree that the equations must adapt, i.e. the calculus metaphor.

  • Jo

    Nice post. I agree with the Dude. In the beginning stages of a relationship that’s what makes us fall in love, but once you’re in a long term relationship things change.

    Anyone who’s lived with their SO or gotten married can tell you that. It no longer becomes about the cute/sharp outfit, but how you make the other person feel. But, it is important to at least try to stay sexy. Lounging around in sweatpants and a Tshirt all day and gaining 30lbs won’t make anyone want to bang… but it’s the person who still finds you sexy in sweatpants who’ll stick around.

  • mm

    I don’t know, chaco. Sometimes love is blind. We all have these certain traits when we’re single that we expect our next love to have, but sometimes we meet someone that lacks a few of these and still manage to fall in love with them. Although meeting someone that posessed all these traits would greatly improve your chances of falling in love with them, it’s not always a given. Who we love is not really something we can control.

  • DF

    I disagree with this formulaic over-simplification. Your sample variables are the basis for a relationship to either form or dissolve, not the creation of love necessarily. True, love is not something you are owed but it is not something you earn either, it is an addiction you acquire. A state in the brain’s chemistry that creates extraordinary attachment to someone, and that is meant to serve a biological purpose. Moreover, to claim that getting what we want will expedite this state is also wrong. How else would you explain unrequited love?

  • Chaco

    Kassy and Dude – to write about the topic in all its complexity would require a book, not a blog post. Yes, I simplified the principle given the space I have to work with. But I would argue the principle applies for complex cases too if you think about it.

    And Kassy, on your first point, it makes me think you don’t get where I am coming from. You fell in love once. Why him and not someone else? because he fit what you were looking for in another person at that time in your life. The guys you have met that don’t fit what you are looking for are not the ones you fall in love with.

  • Chaco

    “Anyone who’s lived with their SO or gotten married can tell you that. It no longer becomes about the cute/sharp outfit, but how you make the other person feel.”

    Then the love equation for you is:

    Makes me feel great+ strong committment+ Whatever else matter to you = Love

    Guys, this is, so I wrote about cute butts and nice outfits, but the formula is whatever applies to you. Falling in love is not random – you fall for particular reasons. Like Colin said, it those reasons may be utterly subconscious. You may not be able to express them even if asked, but the rules apply to you.

  • Jo

    What I meant by that was that if your relationship works, the equation will change with time. Then again, my ass will always be part of the equation for my boyfriend aparently. Guys and girls see this very differently as usual.

    Oh, and unrequitted love is masochism.

  • The Dude

    Chaco– I dig what you are writing and don’t get me wrong, I know this is, just figured I would voice my counterpoint.

    Still- you say: “but the formula is whatever applies to you. Falling in love is not random – you fall for particular reasons. Like Colin said, it those reasons may be utterly subconscious. You may not be able to express them even if asked, but the rules apply to you.”

    I think this is where the rub is. I agree with you wholeheartedly about the falling in love part. You are totally spot on. However, the formula aspect as the relationship continues (IF it continues) is not accurate. There may in fact be SOME formula out there, but I assert it is not so simple (not just addition and subtraction of particular elements).

    There has actually been some research done about the early parts of relationships and the chemical effects it has on the brain etc., which eventually dies down and the relationship enters its next phase called companionative love. Based on my belief in this research and personal experience, I believe you are correct with respect to initial stages of dating, but in the long term, your analysis is simply incorrect if not overly simplistic.

  • KassyK

    Chaco–Thats the thing. The person I fell in love with didn’t have any of the things I was looking for at the time. He was almost the complete opposite but I fell for him bc it was magical, chemical, just a pull on both sides for both of us. I wasn’t what he was looking for either but he too fell for me. It just sometimes happens that way. We were lucky.

    I do see your point 100% and I find this a thoughtful post but sometimes love just hits you…and its not what or who you expect.

  • Colin

    If anyone watches the Showtime show “Bullshit” with Penn & Teller, they had an episode about love about 2 years ago. It was very interesting and provides opinions from both sides of the scientific aspects of love and the more non-scientific side (they interview the author of “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus”). Ultimately they were saying “love” is bullshit as is monogamy based on scientific evidence. That’s just one side, and this really all boils down to one’s opinion of what love is. I just so happen to agree with Chaco :)

  • Anonymous

    kassyk falls in love ONCE, is totally unable to get over him when i’m sure he has moved on, and thinks she is an expert.

  • anonymous

    Can you please find another means to suck up to your fiance?

    You know those annoying, love sick couples who only talk about themselves? The couples you cannot stand being around? You’re one of them.

  • Irina

    I’m also very logical about love, but there’s a point when that logic dissapears. Love is the magnetic pull between two people. True love is when that magnetism doesn’t go away even if one or both of the partners get fat, sick, old, and ugly.

    For me, I can never truly love without logic. My man has to be attractive and smart and hard-working. Funny. Gentle. But give me 100 guys who fit that equation, and it won’t work. It works with my boyfriend because of that magnetism.

    But you can ruin love by being selfish. Nagging, cheating, loss of sex life usually follows a long period of selfishness and bad communication.
    For example, in Roosh’s post about why pierce brosnan is still with a “cow” like his wife, I can say that he’s just genuinely in love with her. Someone who’s never felt that can never understand. She must be so nice and supportive, that he just loves HER, even if her body isn’t that nice. If she, however, was an annoying selfish nag, he’d be like, “you’re fat, I don’t want to have sex with you.”

  • reader

    I think that anybody who thinks that there is a “formula” for falling in love probably has never been in love. How many times have we all met people who we think fit all of our supposed dating criteria, only to discover that there just isn’t any chemistry? I think the problem with setting a formula like this is that you assume that you know yourself well enough to know exactly what your needs really are. I think very few people really know themselves on this level, and few ever will. Falling in love isn’t a formula– its a connection and a feeeling that you will only recognize when you find it.

  • Chaco

    Irina – that extra intangible quality that creates magnatism between you and your boyfriend is part of the equation for you. Yes, love is an emotion. But we don’t feel it for anyone. What causes the emotion to arise is what I am getting at.

    Kassy – has it occured to you that maybe you are not good at knowing what you actually want in a man? If you go for guys who seem right but then disapoint you, and fall for guys you never would have guessed you would like, then maybe you need to think harder about what you truely want. Serious question, not a flame.

  • Irina

    Chaco- I think you are right in a way. I DO need magnetism, but… it can go away in a second. Many many people can feel magnetism in the beginning of a relationship. That feeling quickly fades if all other things are not in place. If you have magnetism + all other components + continual respect/communication/ selflessness… then you may be able to achieve a great longterm marriage.

  • Stephen

    Chaco’s right. And love isn’t that mysterious. I got my graduate degree writing a statistical model on dating behavior.

    We want love to be mystical…but its not.

  • Watch out for the Big Girls


    When a pharmaceutical company tries a brand new experimental drugs and patients start dropping like dead birds, do they continue on with the study????? Of course not, it ends because we know the drug is good at killing people. Could you please stop this sham that is “Chaco” Fridays and either find somebody who lives an exciting life or post pics of brawds asses that you meet at happy hour events/clubbing. I didn’t even bother reading this shit because I know dude has the qualifications to lecture about love/ass like Tom Cruise can lecture clinically trained docs on the effects of medicine. This shit is beyond Matt Lauerer Glib dude!! I think i’m gonna ghost ride my Toyota Prius down Wisconsin, right at the top of the hill by Gtown Library….


    I think love is way too complicated to be put in an equation. And if you are going to do so, the equation should at least some multiplication and division in it! But this was a great posting. Way to get responses.

  • Roissy

    i’m not surprised chaco’s post has inflamed the ire of the women more than the men. women want to imagine love is undefineable and magical, probably because being the more “in demand” sex they can afford to indulge this superstition. but he’s right. there is no such thing as unconditional love.
    you love a person for what they are.
    that’s the condition.

    just because you find yourself falling in love naturally and without a conscious list of conditions does not mean that your love is unconditional.

    irina (love that name, btw), magnetism is just poetic short-hand for a particular constellation of personality traits, biologically-grounded and neuronally-transmitted, that flip your emotional triggers. if those personality traits of your SO change, let’s say through an extended bout of depression or a brain tumor, then you will slowly find the magnetism fading. in the same way, a guy who feels a magnetic pull with a certain girl will almost certainly cease to feel it if she packs on 100 lbs or suffers facial disfigurement from an attack by an acid-wielding schizoid, no matter her other admirable character traits. in this sense, i would take chaco’s discrete list of conditions and enlarge it to include universal conditions. to some, it will seem heartless. but there’s nothing to prevent anyone from reconciling the brutish nasty undertow of human nature with the transcendent and beautiful.

    know what love is, but get lost in it anyway.

  • Anonymous

    Satisfying the conscious needs alone may not trigger that love part of your brain because one also has the subconscious need for a certain emotional temperature.

  • KassyK

    Anonymous–Again, why so angry? Who claims I am an expert? Not me. I am over my ex-I broke up with him actually and I am telling Chaco MY experience.

    Yet again someone here to bitch about me. You are way too original.

    Chaco–I don’t know what I want in a tangible way. That’s true.Maybe thats bc this is the first year I have been single since I was 20 and now I am 28. You know? You’ve all been dating for decades it seems–to me that is foreign. Just going by my past, that’s all.

  • Blog-Anon

    looks like someone finally read his copy of Atlas Shrugged. hehe

    Suprisingly, there isn’t much talk about the economics of love anymore, but it is incredibly relevant to living a full and satisfying life.

    I’m curious why there wasn’t more mention of values. This is more important, in my opinion, than cute face, nice ace, etc….

    I’m an atheist, and therefore, any girl who wears a cross, no matter how hot she is, and there are some hotties out there that do, I avoid anything more than simple acquaintanship with them. I’m not interested in dating them simply because of the backwards values they carry.

    As a capitalist, I do not date any girl who values communism or socialism or see’s that it is sometimes necessary for any government to push morality (whether it be marxist or christian ideology, or otherwise).

    These two values alone limit me to such an incredibly small selection of women.

    Only after this do I consider other values, such as phsyical fitness, intellectually improving oneself, a passionate professional calling, the ability to not give up her dreams and goals for me or anyone else, and of course physical attractiveness.

    If they fit the first two criteria, they certainly have the values I seek in other people as friends. From there do I begin considering those extra values which bring about true love for me and how I’ve defined it for myself.

    Life, to me, is not just about finding love, it is about building incredibly passionate relationships, whether they be platonic or romantic.

    Btw Chaco, you mentioned “similar interests”. I can’t discern whether you mean values or truly ‘interests’. Too many kids today build relationships based on the fact that they like the same bands, movies, celebrities, or even the same religion. (religion, in this case is a common denominator, but as diverse as any particular religion can be, so to is a particular church preaching to those who themselves weigh religiosity in different ways).

    You’re absolutely right about LOVE being SELFISH. Anyone who says they can love unconditionally shows that he/she loves thier partner just as much as any random stranger they can meet. Love must be conditional.

    I think you’re missing some points on that post, but it’s nonetheless refreshing to see one on such a specific feature of relationships that is avoided in society.

  • Chaco

    Stephen – I would LOVE to read that paper. Is there an online journal citation? Or can you send a copy to Strike your name is your want to be anon.

  • Anonymous

    Everyone has both a list of tangible things and an emotional temperature they want. Men it’s like 60/40 but with women more 40/60, not just due to being the in demand sex, but the emotional chemistry is the biological way a woman tests for your flavor of alphaness to bond with you. Women have a hard time explaining this plus they are brought up to be indirect.

  • Roosh

    Chaco: Great post. When I read this, I was thinking that the commenters would accuse you of stating the obvious. I had no idea that they would take the word ?formula? out of context and think you were saying love was a rigid math problem.

    What Chaco is describing is COMMON SENSE. Love is just sliding scale: the more needs that are met — including chemistry or magic fuzziness or whatever else your Cosmo horoscope told you this week — the more likely you will fall in love. It’s not an on-off switch.

    The Dude: What’s going on with your ridiculous comments lately? Maybe you and Liz need to meet and whine about this site together.

  • Irina

    Blog-anon: have you ever been in love?

    having most of your needs satisfied can certainly been considered love. or it can just be considered a list of things you need in your partner in order to keep that person around and always benefiting you. once he/she is no longer meeting your needs, then what? good bye? what if you have three kids together?
    but true love, something that feels like passionate love and logical love in one- is rare. good luck to all for finding it and learning how to hold onto it.
    sorry for the sap

  • Colin

    I didn’t want to be the one to bring up Atlas Shrugged, so I’m glad someone else did. I tend to think along the lines of what that book represents, love being a part of that philosophy.

    In terms of passion, that passion is there for a reason. It’s not mindless, and to think otherwise is also irrational. Why do you feel the way people feel the way they do? Sometimes they cannot provide an immediate answer. Digging deeper, there usually is, people just don’t want to admit those reasons to themselves in order to avoid personal responsibility.

  • anonymous

    why don’t you read the book “one” by richard bach. Look past all the hippie shit, and pay attention to the chapter when they’re flying above the water, discussing why one should love conditionally. Here is a link for those who are interested:

  • Irina

    i think it’s bizarre that people are really trying to define love for the billionth time. love is a feeling, like anger, sadness, joy, etc. feelings are hard to define and explain, and are different for different people. whether passion can be explained or can’t, it’s there.

  • Colin

    touche (i dont know how to make the little accent over the e)


  • Roissy

    irina, love can be defined. as can sadness and all the other emotions. MRIs show which parts of the brain light up when a person is told to think about their loved one, and that part is pretty much the same for everyone. certain hormones are released when actions precipitate emotions and those hormones are the same for everyone. it’s not as mysterious or individualized as you and most people would like to believe, but what i am arguing is that despite the rather prosaic biological underpinnings of abstract, amorphous ideas like emotions it is nothing that should stop you from delighting in the rapturous embrace of passionate feelings. knowing the machinery underneath it all needn’t be a license to declare bullshit to the pleasure it provides.

    in fact, romantic love is the only thing in this world that isn’t bullshit.

  • Tacoma

    The equation makes sense, of course people being people their equation for love will change with time as the demands on their life change– one time my husband was upset about some mess in the house, I’ve NEVER been tidy, and that hadn’t been one of his requirements for LOVE, but now that we lived together it was. So we worked on it.
    Blog-Anon, Have you considered dating Jackie Paisley Passey? I bet you’d make a PERFECT couple. Look her up.

  • Blog-Anon

    Irina- I am in love right now, with an absolutely amazing woman.

    For context:

    We were friends first. Our first time hanging out together we talked till the sun rose. 7 Hours of just talking. Incredible communication at the start. But still didn’t mean much to me, or her, simply because I had not known her long enough to understand her in a value-oriented way.

    Before she moved to Pennsylvania, and a year after we started hanging out as friends, we tested the relationship waters. By this point we had had the time to gauge each other, both as value-holding individuals, and as potential partners. She was agnostic (which is fine by me…i’m a practicing atheist but technically agnostic anyways. A free agent, if you will), she was going to PA to work on her PhD, and though politically apathetic, her roots as an immigrant from communist russia helped her develop a strong belief in individual rights and capitalism (topics we still converse on to this day)…but she equally dispises both Republicans and Democrats simply because they prohibit true individual freedoms and force morality (whether from a government-as-god or a supernatural/mystical god standpoint).

    And, while I don’t believe you’d understand this, or even accept this as true, she would have written the same thing I’ve written above, though only different wording.

    Put together, we are fantastically close, both intellecutally and romantically. The only roadblock we’ve encountered is distance: I’m currently living in the Midwest. But it’s a setback we both can handle, and have talked in great detail about how we’ll reach closure in this department: like i said, it is important for me to find a woman who wont sacrifice her dreams and goals for anyone else, just as this same conviction is important to her.

    To answer your question in full: I love this woman, but I also though I had loved other women. However, the more I wrote about this subject, of the economics of love, values in finding love, I realized that I didn’t really ‘love’ the other women I had dated in the past. I didn’t even know, at that time, what love meant to me. And it took me until I was 23 to really figure this out. You can’t tell someone you love them unless you know what love means to you, and more importantly, that you know who you are as an individual (ie, if you don’t know who you are, then how could you possibly say you loved someone else?)

    And of course, as Chaco has nicely pointed out, I sacrificed my values for these other women, as I’m sure some did for me, and we all ended up unhappy and bitter. The love was very unconditional, and was only emotionally-oriented. None of my relationships had ever crossed the six month boundary (until now).

    Irina, what ‘needs’ do you speak of? If I had some clarification, I will certainly respond.

    P.S. it IS a passionate and logical love. But I’ve invested a great deal of time, patience, and introspection to find it. And so has my lover with respect to me.

  • gunslingergregi

    Cowards die many times before their deaths;
    The valiant never taste of death but once.
    ~William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, 1600

    I was graced to be able to choose whether I was willing to lay down my life for my Love of my woman. I made the choice to save her and thought I was going to my death. I did not and things worked out. Even that love changes to something else very difficult for things to always stay the way they where. You go from blind love where you don’t know your trying to keep the relationship strong to being cognicant that you want to work to keep the relationship strong. You can I believe keep the love by providing the love fromula just the “love” will change over time regardless.

  • Blog-Anon

    Tacoma – yes i’ve heard of her, but never read anything about her. i’m checking out her blog right now.

    Irina – if love is just an emotion, then how can you discern how you feel towards another man from the little bar of chocolate you just had? or liquor. or pasta. or ad infinitum…

  • Blog-Anon

    gunslingergregi – really dig that quote.

    Tacoma – we’d hit it off really well I’m sure. She’d make an incredible friend. Other than that, I won’t make any more assumptions until I’ve spent time with her.

  • Jo

    I think this argument is about two different things.

    The chemical/hormone side of it is simply lust. If you feel that and you think you’re in love sorry to burst your bubble. That’s the part that you CAN define with an equation and a mathematica/chemical formula.

    Real love, as in what Irina and some others were mentioning, is what makes you look at your SO and realize that you can’t imagine your life without them and that they make you a better person. That’s not something that can be calculated, it’s either there or it’s not.

  • The Dude

    Hey now Roosh,

    Been here a looonngg as time and I love the site.

    I just don’t buy into some of these recent guest posts.

  • Mandy

    I agree that Chaco oversimplified, but he’s right: whether it’s subconscious or not, we all have a formula.

    HOWEVER, a TON of people simply aren’t honest about what they want. Or maybe they don’t know what they want.

    The reason Roosh has so many readers is because he’s bluntly honest about his needs (many of which are physical, such as having a nice ass. Unsurprisingly, this irks a lot of women, but hey, we read it anyway, don’t we?)

    I think that if you fall in love based on your compatibility (you fit each other’s idea of the perfect partner), there are deeper stages. I look forward to one day when, after sharing a life of travel and jokes and a family, I’m with someone who has a good heart. And sure, a nice ass wouldn’t hurt 😉

  • druggie

    you bitches….as long as you’re bickering about the nature of getting laid, go download a fucking free cd from this place….

    free cd’s bitches!!! gotta download winRAR to convert them…but who gives a shit!

    hows that for relevant…you can thank me later

  • Mow Em Down

    gunslingergregi is poaching his quotes from Rome:Total War

  • Mow Em Down

    “Come home with this shield or upon it”

    -A Spartan mother to her son.

    See, I can sound just as learned and well read as gunslingergregi. Go buy the game for $20 at Target, douchebag.

  • gunslingergregi

    lol not poached from a game.
    here’s another
    ?There is no such thing as a favorable wind for a man who has no idea where he is going? -Seneca

    or how about

    If we would only give, just once, the same amount of reflection to what we want to get out of life that we give to the question of what to do with a two weeks’ vacation, we would be startled at our false standards and the aimless procession of our busy days. ~Dorothy Canfield Fisher

  • gunslingergregi

    or in your case

    David Brinkley
    A successful person is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks that others throw at him or her.

  • Pagan Marbury

    I love the formula theory. I’ve blogged about this before. Everyone likes what they like, and they deserve to have it. That is, up to a certain point. I know a lot of girls who have a laundry list of likes and dislikes and they are single and miserable. On the other hand, if you like blondes with big tits, you like blondes with big tits. Marry one.

  • b

    I believe your mathematical equation is explained well enough, but can be summed up with a word: Compatibility = If enough of your shit and her/his shit fit each other’s needs to an acceptable level, then all is set and done.

    I don’t wanna tell you how to post, but I am concerned that you’re oversimplifying the equation.

  • Jewcano

    As someone who does a hell of a lot of math for a living, if you think this equation is sound, forget about it. Ask yourself how many people you know who seemed to have everything you look for but you couldn’t care less for. Ask how many people you couldn’t stand but couldn’t help but be pulled towards. That’s the beauty of hanging around complicated people. If you’re trying to game love, you’re wasting your time.

    Honestly, I’m only posting because I’m ‘tied up with’ Marbury, who’s like 46 with three kids or something. We need another happy hour, I don’t know who any of these people are.

    Oh, and gunslinger – “I was graced to be able to choose whether I was willing to lay down my life for my Love of my woman” – Look, we can talk about love without bringing up World of Warcraft. That elf was probably a dude anyway.

  • gunslingergregi

    I have played UO where I was an Urk “gib ee shinies umie”. Gunslingergregi comes from delta force 2 where I pk’d over 150,000 and part of
    *][-][. I now do real life adventures without the games IRL. Lifes to short not to do some crazy shit, to have some real stories to tell the kids one day.

  • Simon Carnal

    1. As a social psych major, I’d like to contribute some ideas to Chaco’s formula.

    According to psychological theories, attraction is based on 3 primary factors: (1) familiarity (2) similarity and (3) proximity. Of course, these factors are very broad and general, but they certainly whittle down the potential mate pool tremendously.

    You can’t be attracted to someone unless you are physically proximate to him/her and that is why long-distance relationships rarely work. Similarly, if you’re apart from someone, the level of familiarity with that person also decreases. So these two factors pretty much limit your options to those who live in your city, hence all the complaints about the attractiveness of people in DC and conversely, the revolutionary nature of online dating. So if you’re a 30-year old single heterosexual man and assuming that there are 150 million women in the U.S., absent online dating, you’re really whittling it down to the, say, 100,000 women who live in DC/MD/VA and are between the socially conforming ages of 22-32. From this pool, the similarity factor helps narrow this down even more.

    Notwithstanding the progress in interracial dating, I’d still argue that, in general, we feel similar to people who share our race/culture. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule but if we’re honest with ourselves (or just do a quick survey), I bet most people are coupled up with others from similar cultural/racial backgrounds.

    2. My second point is that although people may argue that the “variables” we are attracted to change, it may be that these people weren’t honest with themselves about, or didn’t know, what they wanted in the first place. You could say, “This guy didn’t have any of the qualities I was looking for and yet I fell in love with him, so love can’t be formulaic.” But I think you meant, “This guy didn’t have some of the qualities I was looking for but he had the basic qualities I was looking for (i.e., good heart, warm, etc.) and the other qualities were negotiable.” If you’re a white girl and you suddenly fell in love with a black feeble, passive midget, THEN I might give weight to the notion of spontaneous magical love.

    3. Here’s my rough attempt at a formula.

    For men: (.50)(female’s weight) + (.25)(face) + (.15)(personality) + (.10)(intangibles) = Total score

    If we give each a factor a score from 1-10 and set the “passing score” as 7, we can try some hypotheticals.

    Morbidly obese woman who is hot, with great personality, and special “intangibles”: (.50)(1) + (.25)(10) + (.15)(10) + (.10)(10) = 5.5 (not passing)

    Hot woman with great body but horrible personality and no redeeming intangibles: (.50)(10) + (.25)(10) + (.15)(1) + (.10)(1) = 7.75 (passing, which is why there are stories of men are duped by hot women)

    For women: (.50)(height) + (.10)(face) + (.25)(personality) + (.15)(intangibles) = Total score

    Hot guy with great personality and intangibles but is a lot shorter than the woman: (.50)(1) + (.10)(10) + (.25)(10) + (.15)(10) = 5.5

    Tall guy with average personality, average face, and average intangibles: (.50)(10) + (.10)(5) + (.25)(5) + (.15)(5) = 7.5

    Of course, each person may have a different passing score or attribute different weight to each factor, but you get the gist.

    Try your own formulas, very fun!

    * Note: Don’t take my comment too seriously, just playing along with the theme of the original post!

  • Simon Carnal

    You could even extend my formula to interracial dating. For example, let’s take the two racial subgroups that have the lowest rates of marriage — black women and Asian men.

    If you take the characteristics of a “stereotypical” black woman and run the formulas for how a black man and a white man may “stereotypically” perceive the woman:

    Black man perceiving black woman:
    (.50)(7) + (.25)(7) + (.15)(7) + (.10)(7) = 7

    White man perceiving black woman:
    (.50)(4) + (.25)(4) + (.15)(4) + (.10)(4) = 4

    Asian woman perceiving Asian man:
    (.50)(7) + (.10)(7) + (.25)(7) + (.10)(7) = 7

    White woman perceiving Asian man:
    (.50)(4) + (.10)(4) + (.25)(4) + (.10)(4) = 4

    I am assuming of course that the “average” black woman tends to weigh more (I could be wrong) and that white men feel dissimilar enough from black women so that the personality and intangible scores would be low for that combination while high for the black-black combination.

    Also, since Asian women tend to be shorter than white women, their relative perceptions of the average Asian man’s height will be different (i.e., a 5’4″ Asian woman won’t mind the height of a 5’7″ Asian man as much as a 5’7″ white woman would). And black men, who stereotypically don’t mind bigger women, would view black women more favorably than the average white man would.

    Again, I’m just using “stereotypes” for the sake of argument. There will always be individual cases that are exceptions to the “rule.”

  • Engineer

    jesus christ. you went to school to learn that shit? wow.

  • Engineer

    (directed towards simon)

  • Chaco

    Simon, you are a man after my own heart. Brilliant and I agree completely with everything.

  • Pagan Marbury

    Jewcano- You may not be reading it but I blog about sex and drugs and concerts and partying. I definitely don’t have kids, and I’m 29 for another month. I don’t know what I’ve done to offend you; I’m just here to enjoy Roosh and Chaco like everyone else.

  • b

    i was a psych major too. We learned how to bullshit, not the bullshit itself. The association of it all is close enough to what you said 😉

  • To Hi Stephen

    Okay, firstly, nice try on the love equation there, but the form isn’t linear. What you need to do is instead look at probabilistic equations. That’s what I did, I looked at how folks signaled themselves and how they signal to others on

    Chaco, you can contact me offsite…Roosh has my address

  • Lis

    in one word: genius.

  • Pingback: My Doug » Roosh V()

  • Seduction Chronicles

    I think you’ve got this sussed out Roosh. On the money.

    Seduction Chronicles’s last blog post: Sinn (Seduction Masters Interview).

  • lazyfox

    That was a fucking great post!! Well said mate.

  • Milena

    I will be very simple here too (my brain is slightly masculinized). Anyone who tells me love is logical has probably never experienced it.