Since we were children, we have been bombarded with propaganda that romantic love is the ultimate relationship ideal. Hollywood movies, Disney cartoons, and literary fiction all portray romantic love as an absolute necessity in any wedding union, but how much of that narrative has been a lie? Is it possible that our pursuit of romantic love is actually preventing us from forming a lifelong pair bond?

I began to question the notion of romantic love when thinking about its emotional root. Love is a fleeting emotion, and like all emotions, it comes and goes like the clouds in the sky. Why have I been taught to select my life partner based on an emotion? I’m surely not encouraged to use emotion when buying a house, applying for a job, or doing my personal finances, but when it comes to choosing a human being that I’m supposed to spend the rest of my life with, I’m advised by the establishment narrative to use emotion for the biggest decision of them all.

Another major clue that romantic love is a childish strategy for choosing mates is the fact that countries with arranged marriages, where partners are picked based on purely practical matters, have lower divorce rates that in countries where romantic love is used to select mates (1, 2, 3). While there are multiple reasons for divorce in any society, it is rather coincidental that the countries most impacted by notions of romantic love happen to have the highest divorce rates.

Romance was invented


It turns out that your desire to use love as a precondition for marriage or pair bonding is an invented construct that had roots in destroying tradition and theistic authority. Romanticism, a movement that began in the 18th century, put romantic love at the forefront, not just for individuals but nations as well, all from a central thesis of individualism. It wanted you to take the focus away from boring old rules and traditions to focusing on how you feel.

The movement came primarily from bourgeois youth, who used family money to fiddle away on idealistic writings.

…the Romantic Movement was nothing more than a protest against bourgeois conventions, bourgeois society and morality. To be extreme and flamboyant and unusual and violent even at the risk of becoming grotesque was the desire of every young Romantic. The Romantics were, in fact, bourgeois origins, who were trying hard to escape from their own shadows. (Source)


Romantics believed that men and women ought to be guided by warm emotions rather than the cold abstract rules and rituals established by Bourgeois society. (Source

They sound a lot like modern day social justice warriors, many of whom are trust fund babies that lash out against “privilege” and “inequality” to relieve the psychological pain of being wealthy without having had to earn it. Combined with the fact that SJWs also trump feelings over logic, it’s clear to see how romanticists were proto-SJWs, whose individualistic ideas are just what the enlightenment needed to complete its destruction of tradition.

Romantics re-defined what relationships should be based on


Prior to the romantic era, companionate love was the relationship form often described in literature and other historical writings.

Passionate love is the arousal-driven emotion which often gives people extreme feelings of happiness, and can also give people feelings of anguish. Companionate love is the form which creates a steadfast bond between two people, and gives people feelings of peace. Scientists have described the stage of passionate love as “being on cocaine,” since during that stage the brain releases the same neurotransmitter, dopamine, as when cocaine is being used. (Source)

Besides Song Of Songs in the Old Testament, writers were not encouraged to muse endlessly about passionate love, and there is zero evidence it was used as the principal factor in forming new marriages, but it’s this passionate love that we’re told to strive for, of feeling like you’ve been swept up in an exciting whirlwind, before publishing the gory details on Buzzfeed or in a bestseller like Eat Pray Love, authored by a woman who is embarking on her second divorce.

Women of the romantic era played a big part in elevating romantic love, and why wouldn’t they? It’s much more fun to get swept up in the excitement created by non-committal alpha male than it does to do arduous daily duties before you husband, king, and God. Women were given the chance to pick between excitement or responsibility, and we know what they have chosen.

The works of the Romantic Era also differed from preceding works in that they spoke to a wider audience, partly reflecting the greater distribution of books as costs came down during the period. The Romantic period saw an increase in female authors and also female readers. (Source)

The modern era has doubled down on the notion of romantic love

Jewish psychologist Robert Sternberg proposed the popular triangular theory of love, which is often used today as defining the love ideal. This theory has caused immense harm for stating that all three forms of love are needed in equal measure for a successful relationship.


Anyone who takes an introductory psychology course, or who reads a pop psychology book, will be exposed to this theory, and walk away thinking that passion is absolutely required in a relationship. If it’s not there, the presumption is that the relationship is no longer “consummate” and far short of ideal.

Believing that romantic love and passion are necessary in a marriage makes it that much easier to exit out of it, because when a woman no longer “feels passion,” she will walk away knowing that experts like Sternberg would agree that the relationship degraded and was no longer worth saving. And this is exactly what modern women are doing in droves. They have shown an appalling disregard for their wedding vows, especially upon realizing that they initiate 80% of divorces.

Romanticism and the rise of nationalism


If nationalism came out of the romantic era, and passionate love was a mistake, does that mean nationalism is also a mistake?

One of Romanticism’s key ideas and most enduring legacies is the assertion of nationalism, which became a central theme of Romantic art and political philosophy. From the earliest parts of the movement, with their focus on development of national languages and folklore, and the importance of local customs and traditions, to the movements that would redraw the map of Europe and lead to calls for self-determination of nationalities, nationalism was one of the key vehicles of Romanticism, its role, expression and meaning.


Patriotism, nationalism, revolution and armed struggle for independence also became popular themes in the arts of this period. (Source)

Upon closer inspection, it’s easy to see that the ruling agenda of today, globalism, is essentially “world nationalism.” Instead of loving your neighbor, and only those who share your unique traditions or race, you’re supposed to love everyone in the world, because it’s evil to think that there are large differences between a German businessman in a Hugo Boss suit and a Tutsi villager with a lip plate the size of a grapefruit.

The romantic ideal of nationalism is not Adolph Hitler, but George Soros, who insists on loving everyone in the world from the depths of your heartfelt human compassion. A nationalism based on genetics and local bonds will no doubt serve citizens better than a “global nationalism” where you’re supposed to care for those who are nothing like you.

How should men choose their life partners?

It’s clear that using romantic love and passion as your primary standard for long-term relationships will lead to failure and maybe even personal catastrophe. You’ll easily come to this conclusion by evaluating your past relationships and the mistakes you’ve made on women who you had intense passion for.

Instead, practicality must be the order of the day. You must logically evaluate any woman you intend to be with for more than a casual relationship by weighing her values, beliefs, and sexual history. This is easier said than done because we’ve been so brainwashed to believe passion is important, but it simply makes the most amount of sense. Find a woman the same way you would find a new job or buy a new house, and be wary of women who picked you based more on passion than practical matters.

It may sound cold to search for your wife like you would a business partner, but that is exactly what she is. The day-to-day life of a family home is far more business and economics than love, and so you should come to the easy conclusion that that’s what you must use to form a stable home.

Understand, however, that we do not live in a traditional and patriarchal society that aids us in our search for a virtuous woman. Instead, society is encouraging women to corrupt themselves, sexually and physically, in the name of empowerment and independence, making our search exceedingly difficult. This is one of the costs we have to pay for living in the modern world. Some men will be able to overcome it, but many men won’t, and will fail in their search for a woman they can create a family with.

But at least we are now armed with the knowledge of what it takes to have a more successful long-term relationship. It’s not romantic love or butterflies in the stomach, but a matter of practicality. Logically evaluate her past, her values, and her beliefs to make sound predictions of how she’ll behave in the future. From this evaluation will come a logical decision that is likely to endure, instead of relying on emotion, which changes as readily as the direction of the wind.

Read Next: Women Who Own iPhones Lose The Ability To Love


  1. Laguna Beach Fogey September 19, 2016 at 9:15 am

    Thanks, dude. I wish you had warned me about this when I was about 17 or 18. I fell hard for a little blonde beauty at a nearby school in England. Fucked me up for a year or so after we broke up. We’re still in touch on social media today. But still…


    1. prepz September 19, 2016 at 12:01 pm

      I wish my dad had warned me against such ideological constructs that serve to enslave men to the bidding of their masters. Try escaping a 25 year marriage after such nonsensical requirements to not only live a romantically loving relationship, but be badgered by others (especially religious church zealots) to provide my wife with those “loving feelings’ despite her stone-cold emotional response towards me.

      Any romantic feelings a man has for a woman is probably is raging pent-up hormones generated by heat-seeking missile looking for a target to destroy. Society has brainwashed generations of men to believe that their natural lust for pussy is romantic love. It’s a trap! Romantic love is complete bullshit — a construct of social ideologues.

      It’s all bullshit. Now I don’t give a F’ if a woman feels loved. I get what I want from them. If they feel “loved” in the process, fine. If not, it’s not my problem, because it’s not my responsibility to provide that emotional drug to them. If I could find a supplier of Oxycontin, I’d pick up a supply and feed it to women like candy to give them that loving-feeling as long as I got what I wanted from their body. But my experience is that at some point I will tire of them and their bullshit, and that emotional connection, that “love,’ will turn that female in the psycho fatal attraction. Then, the very romantic love that is so essential to the relationship will fuel a form of violent insanity that fuels retribution against me.

      1. Morrison September 19, 2016 at 3:59 pm

        “I wish my dad had warned me against such ideological constructs that serve to enslave men to the bidding of their masters.”


      2. Wes September 21, 2016 at 8:15 pm

        Love is not a construct for men. We feel it after we have been with a woman a while. Monogamy is a construct. We can love more than one. We do not fall in love at frist sight. That is just us wanting what we don’t have plus lust.

      3. Morrison September 22, 2016 at 1:24 pm

        ” We do not fall in love at frist sight”

        Good point. I may, at first sight, want to titty-fuck the hottie attention whoring herself walking by, but certainly do I not feel so called ‘love’.

      4. Wes September 22, 2016 at 2:16 pm

        I’ve had almost overwhelming desire to grab hold of the girl. But it wasn’t love. Strangely the Girls I have loved. I didn’t feel that overwhelmingly passion about them right off the bat. They were both looking good. But the lust was not crazy

      5. George ironthumb June 7, 2017 at 3:58 pm

        I only felt this kind of “love” (butterfly in the stomachs) when I was an innocent teenager – sadly by that time me like most boys have been so brainwashed into this notion of “love”. I feel that my love for my LTR I call wife (we have 3 girls already) is much deeper than the stupid hollywood feeling – I think my feeling for her now is like my feeling of love for my children and loved ones – unconditional – no tingly sensations whatsoever but without each other will be very empty. Now I only feel “lust” for other random women and never this “tingly” love.

        TBH I find grown men who believe in “falling” in love to be quite absurd and naive.

      6. Wes September 21, 2016 at 8:11 pm

        I hate to confirm what you already know. It is men who feel love the longest and strongest. It is our instinct to love protect take care of a woman even when she can’t have sex with us ( part of pregnancy and after birth) if we did not love them when they could do nothing for us. We would be extinct

      7. prepz September 22, 2016 at 12:08 am

        Yeah, and that instinct trapped me for a decade longer than I should have stayed in a dead-end marriage.

      8. Wes September 22, 2016 at 12:47 am

        You need to use your head. But we can never be happy denying what makes us men. We can’t be stupid about it. But not cowards ether

    2. Aleksandra Zivkovic July 23, 2017 at 10:20 pm

      Thank you, but I think that this notion of romantic love hurt women the most.

  2. Laguna Beach Fogey September 19, 2016 at 9:26 am

    One of my favourite novelists, Henry Green (1905-1973), wrote this:

    “A man falls in love because there is something wrong with him. It is not so much a matter of his health as it is of his mental climate; as, in winter one longs for the spring. He gets so that he can’t stand being alone. He may imagine he wants children, but he doesn’t, at least not as women do. Because once married and with children of his own, he longs to be alone again.

    A man who falls in love is a sick man, he has a kind of what used to be called green sickness. Before he’s in love he’s in a weak condition, for which the only prognosis, and he is only too aware of this, is that he will go on living. And, in his invalidism he doesn’t feel he can go on living alone. It is not until after his marriage that he really knows how wrong or sick he has been.

    The love one feels is not made for one but made by one. It comes from a lack in oneself. It is a deficiency, and therefore, a certifiable disease.

    We are all animals, and therefore, we are continually being attracted. That this attraction should extend to what is called love is a human misfortune cultivated by novelists. It is the horror we feel of ourselves, that is of being alone with ourselves, which draws us to love, but this love should happen only once, and never be repeated, if we have, as we should, learnt our lesson, which is that we are, all and each one of us, always and always alone.”

    1. fatherofthree September 19, 2016 at 11:42 am

      Agree 100%.

      Some men can be married and still be their own men. I am one of them.
      Wherever the wife misbehave I give her a good slapping on the bum or if that does not help I just leave the house for few days. She’s cuddles like pussy when I come back.

      Still, I don’t recommend this to everyone if you’re not the kind of man and because most women will not tolerate this.

  3. Haven Monahan September 19, 2016 at 11:24 am

    The idea that romantic love was “invented” only relatively recently is one of those stupid, false ideas from the humanities like that the Irish weren’t considered white until recently. At least in the West, romantic love has always been an element of marriage. In a traditional, patriarchal Western society it wasn’t a destabilizing influence because women were dependent on men for sustenance and divorce was more or less impossible. It may seem like a false ideal to someone like Roosh who comes from a culture where the traditional ideal of marriage is marrying off a 12-year-old girl to her uncle. In the West, the average age for marriage for commoners, both men and women, was historically around 25 and marriages weren’t arranged. These marriages, especially the first ones (remarriages were common because of short life expectancies) usually grew out of ordinary romantic/sexual attraction, and it was common for the bride to be pregnant on the wedding day.

    1. fatherofthree September 19, 2016 at 11:44 am

      Why do they need to churn out so many romantic novels, films, popular music songs, etc, etc. all singing about LOVE?

      1. Haven Monahan September 19, 2016 at 11:59 am

        Because people like them and pay for them?

      2. fatherofthree September 19, 2016 at 12:02 pm

        People like and pay for heroin too and some people don’t even know it exist.

        How do you explain that?

      3. john03063 September 26, 2016 at 1:57 pm

        No. Women like them and pay for them. I don’t know a single guy who owns a copy of 50 Shades of Grey…..

      4. abz007 October 21, 2016 at 7:00 am

        I am a man & bought 50 shades of grey because I was curious. After reading half the book I realized that women only want a strong dominant men who will abuse them, beat them up & treat them like a piece of meat but remember that a women must be in ‘love’ with him (Gives her attention, money & good sex) or he would get nothing.

      5. john03063 October 21, 2016 at 2:20 pm

        Only true when they are young and beautiful and can get any alpha guy they want. Their attitude rapidly changes as they get older and realize none of the alpha guys want to marry them; they only wanted to screw them.That’s when they become reborn virgins or some other such nonsense and start looking for a beta schmuck to support them for the rest of their lives. Screw that. They made their bed when they were young. I’m an older guy with money and power. I’m not interested in dating a woman my age because it is easy for me to get the young women now. When will they ever learn?

      6. abz007 October 22, 2016 at 1:10 pm

        I’m still young (23) but found it very hard to become an alpha male so I rather work on saving a lot of money & fuck a professional hooker when i’m in the mood for sex. When mention power what did you mean by that?

      7. john03063 November 1, 2016 at 2:39 pm

        abz – you’ll be fine. I know it sucks now. Women your age are at the peak of their sexual market value and too busy screwing the alpha guys. they won’t notice you. But keep saving your money – creating a good life for yourself. Create wealth and influence. As you age your sexual market value goes up while the value of the pump and dump receptacles in your age group goes down. Soon you’ll be able to screw the younger girls who crave your power and influence while women your age come down off the cock carousel and suddenly wonder why no guy is interested in them. Girls have their turn first in life, but guys make up for it later. Isn’t mother nature a bitch?? Just make sure you don’t fall in love with any western woman along the way, don’t get them pregnant and never – under any circumstances – marry one…

    2. advancedatheist September 19, 2016 at 12:04 pm

      In the West, the average age for marriage for commoners, both men and women, was historically around 25 and marriages weren’t arranged.

      At least west of the Hajnal Line in Europe:

      1. Wes September 19, 2016 at 5:14 pm

        They may not have been arranged. But Dad said who could and could not cort his girls. And he had right of first refusal. A girl was not an independent adult by law until 21 years old. All the way into the 1960’s

        Parents had a lot of say in things. I’m even old enough to remember, that when you were dealing with the best of girls. You needed to make the girls parents happy. Or seeing her was going to be very hard

    3. spicynujac September 19, 2016 at 12:54 pm

      The average age for marriage in the west was NOT 25.

      Even in the USA the average age was between 20 and 22 until just a decade or two ago. There have been articles here documenting that fact.

      And romantic love is a relatively new phenomenon re: marriage.

      1. Haven Monahan September 19, 2016 at 1:05 pm

        The US had just about the lowest average marriage age the Western civilization had seen because of the abundance of land to settle on (the ability to provide for a family was always the limiting factor; the upper classes married as teenagers in Europe, too) but even at 20-22 the average age at first marriage was higher than what has traditionally been the norm in the non-Western world.

      2. Haven Monahan September 19, 2016 at 1:43 pm

        See Table 1 in this paper. The “Western marriage pattern” appears to emerge in late medieval times, although the early data are very sparse.

      3. Southern Man September 23, 2016 at 6:11 pm

        Perfect. It can be her first, and my second.

      4. Waldemar Pabst September 27, 2016 at 7:36 am

        It’s increases since then but still in the 20s. Women are considered old or leftover by 26/27. Also, the partner count for Chinese is very low. i would put it at 1-2. Compare that to the West, where women have dozens or even triple digit notch counts. We can anticipate all sorts of things will result from this, including much higher rate of HPV-related cancers among Westerners.

    4. OrthodoxChristian September 20, 2016 at 2:57 pm

      “In the West, the average age for marriage for commoners, both men and women, was historically around 25 and marriages weren’t arranged. These marriages, especially the first ones (remarriages were common because of short life expectancies) usually grew out of ordinary romantic/sexual attraction, and it was common for the bride to be pregnant on the wedding day.”

      Roosh is correct. Marriage was early, until economic hardship pushed the marriage age until mid to late 20s and the percentage of never married climbed “to nearly 20%,” Romance was invented to justify all the sex outside marriage and to seduce all the twenty something old maids. Things that happened only 500 to 350 years ago are merely “relatively recently.”

      Where in the mid-1500s in England,approximately 8 percent of women remained unmarried the inference would be that that figure was either the same or lower in the previous several centuries.[13] In Yorkshire
      in the 14th and 15th centuries, the age range for most brides was
      between 18 and 22 years and the age of the grooms was similar; rural
      Yorkshire women tended to marry in their late teens to early twenties
      while their urban counterparts married in their early to middle
      twenties. In the 15th century, the average Italian bride was 18 and
      married a groom 10–12 years her senior. An unmarried Tuscan woman 21 years of age would be seen as past marriageable age, the benchmark for which was 19 years, and easily 97 percent of Florentine women were married by the age of 25 years while 21 years was the average age of a contemporary English bride.[14][15]

      While the average age at first marriage had climbed to 25 years for women and 27 years for men in England and the Low Countries by the end of the 16th century,[16] and the percentage of unmarried Englishwomen rose from less than 10% to nearly 20% by the mid-17th century and their average age at first marriage rose to 26 years at the same time,

      1. Veni Vidi Vici September 21, 2016 at 2:07 pm

        Just prior and during the Age of Discovery 1450-1700 Europe had a population explosion and far more men left their countries to explore the New World then women not to mention warfare…

    5. Untergang07 September 23, 2016 at 6:36 pm

      It seems you are the one who doesn’t know much about history.

      To the west of the Hajnal line, about half of all women aged 15 to 50 years of age were married while the other half were widows or spinsters;
      to the east of the line, about seventy percent of women in that age
      bracket were married while the other thirty percent were widows or nuns.[12]

      Source: Wikipedia.

      During the betrothal ceremony, the families negotiated the terms of the marriage, before the wedding took place. The negotiations were primarily over property and bridal payments by the groom and bride’s families. There was no specific duration for the betrothal and this
      phase would go on until one or both of the couples were mature enough to marry. The male was considered eligible for marriage at age 14 and the lady at age 12.

      Source(s): Amt, Emilie. Women’s Lives in Medieval Europe.New York, Routledge:1993

      I could go on but the very fact that the age of consent was so low (12-15 depending on the country) tells me the following things:

      1. Upon first menstruation, most girls would transition to womanhood and be regarded as full fledged women, even if most parents would make their daughter wait a few more years (up to 15-17 range)

      2. Even for the peoples within the Hajnal line, the average marriage age for women was considerably lower than for its modern counterparts considering fertilty issues and pragmatism (a 25 year old has never been considered a model of virtue to be treasured by most men, not even today, let alone 200 or 500 years ago).

      3. Infant mortality was something to be considered, even in the Hajnal line. Every birth was a risky situation and the older the woman, the riskier the whole business was.
      4. An average age of marriage at 25 for women was impossible, so far fetched that such a practice was not codified. Otherwise consent ages would be much higher than 12.

      Moreover studies such as the one you are citing are not reliable for a simple reason: Most documentation of the Middle ages has been lost. Nowadays most people in Europe is unable to trace their ancestry until the Middle ages. Most can’t get past the 1700s. In theory this should be easy since the parishes kept detailed records of baptisms, marriages and funerals. However in reality the following factors account for a lack of reliable information in many places:

      1. Deterioration of documents whose care was not deemed important until recently due to their historical value. In many cases this assessment came too late…
      2. Wars and conflicts account for the destruction of most records, specially in countries of Central Europe. Even today churches are being abandoned, turned into mosques/parking lots and their records, artworks and other articles are sold to the highest bidder, so for research purposes that data is lost.

      3. In the Middle Ages thousands and even millions of persons had experienced the presence of the church only through the regular visits of wandering priests (Kamen 2013), since there was not a church in their town. Hence most marriages, funerals and baptisms, even if they were conducted by wandering priests or monks, wouldn’t be written down in a formal document and stored in a dedicated library thus most of these improvised records were lost in time.

      In a nutshell, OrthodoxChristian is right, if there was a rise in the age of marriage for women it was due to the economic circumstances, it was fairly recent (last 300 years), it was a hotbed of promiscuity (not even then, let alone now would most women and men for that matter tolerate 25 or more years of celibacy…unless they decided to lock themselves up in a monastery and take the vows) and therefore the perfect environment to nurture romantic fantasies and build the perfect excuse for extra-marital sex. Maybe if Dennison stats are right, the high age of marriage for women in the Nordic countries explains their attitude today…

  4. fatherofthree September 19, 2016 at 11:29 am

    Put yourself in women’s shoes. Deep down inside yourself you realize that you are weak in almost every way – physically, mentally and intellectually – but this big, handsome and smart man loves you so deeply and romantically that he is prepared to do anything for you including bringing down the stars for you.

    What would you think of him?
    You could not help but doubt his intellect and strength, which in turn would make you fear for your safety and eventually resent him.

    This is why women shit test.

    1. Rhyme Or Reason September 19, 2016 at 4:15 pm

      Nice shiv.

      The very idea of being faithful to a woman will cause her to resent you, or think she can do better.

      1. Aldous Huxley September 27, 2016 at 1:08 pm

        And the only antidote is for society to be structured around beating this out of women from a very young age.

    2. Clark Kent September 19, 2016 at 4:27 pm

      I’ve said it before… The catch-22 of being a slut is that she can never fully respect a man who’s willing to commit to her.

    3. Southern Man September 23, 2016 at 6:12 pm

      Or, she may conclude she is the most desireable ‘princess’ of the universe…

  5. advancedatheist September 19, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    Romantic love also doesn’t make sense because women age sexually a lot faster than men. In your youth you understand intellectually that old women start out as young women – but you haven’t lived long enough to see this happen to any young woman you knew early in your life. After a few years, though, and you can see just how fast the girls you had crushes on or dated in high school and college – you remember, the ones you delusionally thought at the time completed you, and you couldn’t bear to live without them – deteriorate into sexual discards. But your own sexual aging doesn’t correspond to the rate of sexual aging in your female peers; in your 40’s you can still look at women half your age and see them as age-appropriate sexual prospects.

    I suppose we could try to educate young men about this reality, but they still have to experience it on their own before they really understand it.

    1. Morrison September 19, 2016 at 4:16 pm

      “After a few years, though, and you can see just how fast the girls you had crushes on or dated in high school and college – you remember, the ones you delusionally thought at the time completed you, and you couldn’t bear to live without them – deteriorate into sexual discards ”

      As much as I think the internet has destroyed the quality of life – at least with social media like facebook one can look up their highschool sweetheart from years ago and see the fat cow she’s turned into, realizing one avoided stepping in a landmine.

      1. Wes September 19, 2016 at 5:05 pm

        Some of us look her up and shit. She was as hot as ever. Thank goodness ten years latter she finally hit the wall

      2. Morrison September 19, 2016 at 10:57 pm

        “Some of us look her up and shit. ”

        It never is a pretty picture, and at least we have today’s social media to thank for being able to see her now.

      3. Veni Vidi Vici September 21, 2016 at 2:14 pm

        From another brick In the wall to hitting the wall, oh how you’ve aged…

      4. Westray27 September 21, 2016 at 8:39 am

        Mine turned into a fat, mannish democrat. I say ‘mine’ not in the sense of gf but in the sense of ‘oneitis on Kratom’. For clarity, the kid in “Dead Poet’s Society” who never gave up on the starlet meant an awful lot to my youth….damned shame. Extraordinary waste of time. The Blue Pill is damned strong.

      5. Morrison September 27, 2016 at 9:25 am

        “, the kid in “Dead Poet’s Society” who never gave up on the starlet meant an awful lot to my youth….damned shame. Extraordinary waste of time. The Blue Pill is damned strong”

        This pretty much describes me in my late teens / early twenties.

      6. Aldous Huxley September 27, 2016 at 1:13 pm

        Looking at my highschool crushes reminds me how happy i am i chose to be alpha and face the truth, unlike all the numales out there.

    2. Morrison September 19, 2016 at 4:26 pm

      “But your own sexual aging doesn’t correspond to the rate of sexual aging in your female peers; in your 40’s you can still look at women half your age and see them as age-appropriate sexual prospects”

      I kinda doubt that. Roosh did a couple of articles on when men peak – and that time is around age 35. That, plus I get the impression that young women consider any man at age 28 as ‘old’. This was not always the case, but today attitudes of american women of all races are extremely fucked up. Oh btw, do not be a white guy; they are the least sought after men in the age of mud-sharking and dinduism.

      1. jz95 September 20, 2016 at 6:43 pm

        Dude, you usually have good comments.
        “Do not be a white guy; they are the least sought after men…”
        Bullshit. If you’re a western white male, you are at the top of the sexual hierarchy. Always have been, always will be.

      2. Morrison September 21, 2016 at 9:51 am

        My observations in america tell me the opposite, however I will get out more and try to see in more depth what is going on. And I will be the first to admit if I am not correct.

      3. Veni Vidi Vici September 21, 2016 at 2:24 pm

        Agreed, Especially once you leave North America. Also I hear Asian Men have it worse here..

      4. Southern Man September 23, 2016 at 6:15 pm

        Survey’s of American women consistently show they find asian and hispanic men to have the least SMV to them.

      5. Veni Vidi Vici September 23, 2016 at 11:54 pm

        With a name like Manuel I see why.

      6. Waldemar Pabst September 27, 2016 at 7:40 am

        I have to agree. Perhaps it varies geographically, but living in NYC, it does seem white men are at the bottom of the food chain. I see white girls dating men of every other race: black, asian, indian etc.

        I truly think White women actively hate their own men.

        A masterful media campaign has been waged against the White male: he is now derided as an uneducated, uninformed, lazy slacker. Never mind that literally everything was invented or discovered or penned by a White man.

        And I think people who like to claim Asian women date or marry outside their race in higher numbers are deluding themselves. Perhaps decades ago but now it seems there is a newfound pride among Asians and Asian-Americans: they can tell their lot in life is rising and the position and power of White men is fading. The Chinks stick to their own. They marry young. They have low partner counts. They have harmonious lives.

      7. Morrison September 27, 2016 at 9:23 am

        “I truly think White women actively hate their own men”

        Yup – we see this not only in the USA but also in nordic wrstern european countries such as Germany and Austria.

  6. Dwrd Cfla September 19, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    Its true The West was into troubadours until the Crusaders saw how Saladin and company kept harems etc. but I’m not a big critic of Romanticism.

    At the same time the moguls in India were playing Parcheesi with captives as the game pieces, which is yucky. And Mayans were into large scale human sacrifice. The alternatives didn’t meet any kind of dignity,

    Reconciliation with today’s world, yeah the vestiges of 18th and 19th century Western idealism are a mess but science without a human goal leads to another blind alley.

  7. spicynujac September 19, 2016 at 12:51 pm

    Arranged marriages were typically best because wise elders (fathers) made the decision for their children. This is especially important when the parties marrying are below age 35 and don’t know very much.

    I think back to the WW1 dramas where guy meets girl, they have a brief courtship period of a few weeks, then he is ordered to the battlefield and proposes. If he makes it back, he has a sweetheart and they marry. They barely knew each other (and it helped that in the time a guy could be fairly certain that whatever woman he was courting was a virgin), but somehow if the guy survived, they would return and build a big family, and it worked. Certainly they stayed together at a far higher rate than today where we choose to marry for love and the marriage fails half the time.

    Contrast this to today where I dated a girl for 2-3 years and still didn’t feel comfortable enough to decide to wife her up (granted–the wise decision in that case turned out to be to NOT marry her). In a sane, patriarchal society, I think a guy could marry almost any of the local girls in their early 20s and things would work out well. But marrying in the age of feminism is a completely different ballgame.

    1. Wes September 19, 2016 at 5:01 pm

      I think you are right. When all the girls were virgins or close to it. When the expectation was a woman stays married, if not she is a whore in the eyes of everyone. And a man who would leave his family is below mere contempt. Marriages lasted and in the vast majority of those marriages. They were very happy with each other.

      There is no fucking soul mate out there, you choose to make things work.

      1. spicynujac September 19, 2016 at 5:12 pm

        When there’s no abstinence before marriage, what does marriage even mean? Just a medium term partner to raise a kid with? I would look down on a man or women who cheated or ended a marriage in the 1960s culture. Now, I can’t say I blame a guy for sleeping around in most cases. And yeah, it’s disgusting for a chick to cuck her husband, but really, if she banged 20 guys before he put a ring on it, adding Chad Thundercock #21 a year after the wedding isn’t all that shocking.

      2. Wes September 19, 2016 at 5:32 pm

        I’m beginning to understand your cold outlook. Its not cold so much as it is just looking at the world as it is now. Not as it should be. Only a fool marries up a girl with a 20 notch count and 20 is not so rare anymore

    2. Southern Man September 23, 2016 at 6:17 pm

      In the contemporary remake, they are in the trenches fighting together. And she saves him via her strength, cunning and bravery, in spite of his weakness/screwup/whatever… *puke

    3. Aldous Huxley September 27, 2016 at 1:15 pm

      And the data supports this. Virgin brides have a 20% divorce rate, even with alimony and no fault divorce.

    4. Ravi Macho September 30, 2016 at 9:31 pm

      “But marrying in the age of feminism is a completely different ballgame.”

      Well, I would say it’s almost “Suicidal” !!!

  8. Wes September 19, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    Romantic love. No its not new, what is new is searching for it. Romantic love used to be what happened after a wife was chosen for purely practical or political reasons. For a girl being traded by her parents worked out very well. She got about as good as her market value would demand. The best they can get is what women really love. For a guy, we just tend to fall for women when they have been around a lone time. The old way, romantic love would come about after the marriage and before the first year was up.

  9. anon1 September 19, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    I do think that when it comes down to what you want in a long term spouse , as with the law of abundance, radical honesty is important.

    What I mean by that is, you should push away 90% of women and be extremely selective in who you want to couple with.

    So long as you have taken care to make yourself an inherently high value man, these demands are perfectly acceptable as there will be women who will fit them.

    If however you are low value, or worse no value at all you will feel desperation and it will reek from every port of your being. And a loser cannot trick himself into getting a good long term partner.

    Ultimately even low iq thug game leads to imprisonment for the man and degeneracy for the woman.

  10. Clay99 September 19, 2016 at 5:39 pm

    In some ways I agree, but also consider the fact that women are just like men when it comes to possessiveness and jealousy and ownership. They also want their man, just as you want your woman.
    Something not talked about in this post is biology. Yes, my friends, even the animals are monogamous. Geese, ducks, wolves, and coyotes are monogamous. They do not look at things logically. They do not consider the future. They act on raw feeling, just as humans do. Problem is that we are logical. We have the capacity to think, “wow, she has a hot ass, much nicer than my wife’s ass.” We are also able to be sneaky, something that animals don’t understand. We can plan out affairs, and complete those affairs. Then we can lie, very good.
    In a nutshell, I believe that all men and women are looking for that sexy, friend that we are happy with, and happy to stay with.
    There’s a thing called a soul mate. This is a person that fits like a glove. She may not be the hottest girl in the universe but there is just that something that you didn’t have with the other girls. She is marriage material. Sadly, if she’s not smart, she will pack on the pounds and then you’ll screw the secretary, while hiding it from your wife because you really still do love her.
    The good thing about being a pua is that you will have the opportunity to meet many soul mates, and then pick the one that you really want to stay with. And if you don’t find her? Who cares. You can screw women until your in your mid 70’s and no longer have the urge to screw women. At that point you can buy a fishing pole and fish at your favorite fishing spot, breathing in the smell of the pines and the pristine air, maybe even practice Buddhist meditation, while peacefully looking forward to you death. Don’t worry, when you get there you will understand that death is not a scary, nor sad thing.

  11. just a human September 19, 2016 at 6:08 pm

    Guys-have you noticed,that so called “romantic feelings” are able to create in our minds only young, good looking women? I have never met a women after age 28-30 who triggered in me those blue pill thoughts. But when my 22 y.old plate (tall and slim) comes in – those stupid thoughts are jumping in my mind. Thoughts about making this girl my girlfrend or even wife.So- this is that magic liquid that nature puts in young women, to make man fight and fall for them…It’s like a computer program that is installed in us, and will work till the end of our existence.

  12. TSK September 19, 2016 at 6:51 pm

    There is a reason why arranged marriages still occur in Asia.

  13. CloseHauled September 19, 2016 at 11:59 pm

    I think falling in love is mostly but not always a decision with men. If it was a decision, it is harder to just fall out of love.

    Men can love women deeper than women love men. I’ve seen guys messed up years after a breakup or divorce but never a woman for long. Women move on quicker.

    A man loves from the point of view of the protector and the women the protected.
    These are not equal types of love.

    A woman’s love is conditional. I think God gave made woman that way so man would know how it felt to be loved conditionally too.

    1. Jed Mask September 20, 2016 at 3:37 pm


    2. Darwin October 2, 2016 at 7:23 am

      It’s probably evolutionary psychology. There must be some reason for it and some way to explain it based on biology.

      The way humans think and act is rooted in millions of years of evolution, not centuries of modern history.

      My conjecture is that men are meant to impregnate any girls they encounter on a romantic basis. Making a kid with them is like an unbreakable bond, unless the kid perishes or mom abandons him–which is uncommon due to maternal instincts. I understand that people bring up divorce, child support and such–but these were only invented within the last century.

  14. MCGOO September 20, 2016 at 1:54 am

    Roosh points out that arranged marriages are more successful over the long run. Few people in the west can rely on elders or parents to oversee the selection of a mate. Western parents have been excommunicated from the process of steering and arranging their continuing clan bloodlines. Some brainwashed western parents even advocate having their daughters sterilized. I’ve heard white shitlib parents tell their white daughters “whatever you do, don’t get pregnant” as they send them off to basketweaving college.

    For young western men, parents aren’t openly advocating their sons to pair with compatible vetted young virgin women either. Tradition is maliciously shamed and the shaming has taken an enormous toll. The western parents seem clueless of history and of what works and functions for the long term of their seedline. It’s like the western tribe seedlines have been adultrated with a ‘terminator seed’ plat instruction. It is a simple issue of negative brainwashing that is arresting the propogation of the lines.

    With western families dismembered and broken and with standing parents shitliberalized to the point where they aren’t capable of giving usable advice and guidance to their own young breeding age offspring, young westerners luckily can still look to their red pill peers for direction. In fact, as far as pair-matchmaking, I personally have discovered a few perfect matches for friends of mine. The friends never knew it and doubted they’d get along with so and so, but here’s the thing. A trusted outsider can see what you can’t see. They notice things in people and couples. Outsiders observe things that the couples themselves overlook. You can spot an incompatible couple headed for disaster just by looking at them. The couple is oblivious they’re headed for a brick wall, but everyone else can see it.

    With perfect made matches also, outsiders pick up on nuances and likenesses that the couple takes for granted or is unaware of. So basically, your red pill brah’s who know you well can fix you up with a better mate than you could pick yourself. For an individual finding a stable mate for themself without outside help, it takes a lot of time and resources to vet and go through many pass/fail women and your dick gets tired. When your shitlib parents are of the generation that can’t even see quality in choosing virtuous mates for their own descendents, then maybe western red pill brah’s should begin acting as SURROGATE PARENTS and arranging marriages for our red pill bretheren.

    Hmm. That gives me an idea. Maybe Roosh could have the many ROK followers locate an ideal mate for ROOSH! A virgin who loves Trump et al. Kind of like the reality show ‘America Hook Me Up’ only we would procure not a carousel slut but an intelligent virgin with good straight teeth and a taste for spices and able to produce quality cooking and wide hips for trouble free deliveries. We’d be ready to mass shame her if she flaked just like an old family clan would enforce shame if the arranged spouse flaked. We’d also praise her for good service. We’d send gifts and toasters. Just a thought.

    And maybe a second wife that can proofread or sew. I still argue that two wives form the ideal structural integrity for clan stability and resilience.

    Polygamy is shamed in the west but when basic monogamy is ruthlessly attacked, watch what happens. The drive for family to survive spills over like a boiling pot. And lo patriarchy returns with a walloping DOUBLE DONKEY kick. “Haay-YAAH”. Amen.

    1. Jed Mask September 20, 2016 at 3:37 pm

      No… NO “polygamy”.
      One husband, one wife is how God ordained the “marriage system” to work. Amen.

    2. Southern Man September 23, 2016 at 6:23 pm

      “If you want a guarantee, buy a toaster.” – Clint Eastwood

    3. I'm not fat I'm just curvy lol October 11, 2016 at 8:23 pm

      Elders can see through shit.

  15. 123 September 20, 2016 at 10:54 am

    What do you know about love, Roosh….?

    1. Westray27 September 21, 2016 at 8:44 am

      Who needs to know about it?

  16. Steve H September 20, 2016 at 11:00 am

    This is all academic masturbation. When you meet a woman who checks off all the check boxes and you enjoy fucking, you will want her to stick around and give you kids. You cant game it or know when it will happen. But when it does, you will know it. You will likely still get fucked down the road, but you gotta take some chances some times in life. Life is never easy.

  17. jbird669 September 20, 2016 at 12:28 pm

    Roosh, I wish you and this post were around in my 20s. Would’ve avoided the marriage mistake I made.

  18. Armchair General September 20, 2016 at 12:54 pm

    Depiction of Romanticism as rebellious towards bourgeoisie world is extremely flawed. Romanticism IS bourgeoisie.

  19. SlickyBoy September 20, 2016 at 3:04 pm

    “…and be wary of women who picked you based more on passion than practical matters.”

    Wait, Roosh, think about this one a minute: A young woman with a ton of passion and love for her man can be molded into a permanent partner – ***provided she has a low notch count.***

    Unfortunately, by the time the average western woman begins to take seriously the notion of settling down she’s had an army of dicks. Only then does she finally get practical, albeit belatedly, to the point of being a mercenary. That is, once she’s worn out her vagina with a triple notch count and passed her sexual prime will she begin to think in terms of what sucker can be the best provider for her from the down side of 35 onward, or at least until the next best deal rolls along.

    Hence, the typical modern woman interested in settling who “picks” you to be the husband will not be thinking about vagina tingles, but coin jingles. The difference nowadays is the average shlub who settles is truly the last man in the multi-year gang bang. He gets a well used tramp with no ability to pair bond and a very high likelihood of leaving him once the funds run out, the tingles get missed or she’s just plain unhaaaapy and wants to cash out of her boring marriage. Whereas in the old days she’d have had a far lower notch count and be happy with a lifetime of one male provider and a herd of kids, these days such a life is an unimaginable reality to the majority of modern “liberated” women.

  20. jz95 September 20, 2016 at 6:50 pm

    Interesting article Roosh. I have had the same thoughts in regards to romantic love and marriage.
    But again, I must question your embrace of nationalism. If nationalism is based on genetic and local bonds, then clearly you have no place in western civilization, and for that matter eastern Europe, no?

  21. Windy Wilson September 20, 2016 at 7:59 pm

    “To love, honor and cherish until, perchance, affections cool”?

  22. Windy Wilson September 20, 2016 at 8:04 pm

    Consider the lovely lemon tree.
    Love is like a lemon tree, very pretty and a sweet flower, but like a lemon tree the fruit is impossible to eat.

  23. Genie September 21, 2016 at 8:39 am

    Emotions can blind you from seeing serious flaws in a partner. I agree that there has to be more to consider than going with how you feel, physically or emotionally. But there has to be initial spark to be motivated to spend time with the person and get to know them. Practical qualities aren’t known just by looking at someone and men and woman typically don’t date people they’re not attracted to, and it’s only by dating and getting to know the person that you would find out what those qualities are. I don’t think we can completely disregard emotions when choosing someone to marry but it has to be paired with logical considerations.

  24. Freddy September 21, 2016 at 10:19 am

    Interestingly enough, feminists in Spain (and I guess other places too) were calling against the notion of romantic love, as an invention of the patriarchy.

    1. Roosh September 21, 2016 at 12:56 pm

      What did they replace it with… just sleeping with everyone?

      1. Better Dead Than Red September 21, 2016 at 3:40 pm

        They replaced it with single motherhood and welfare.

  25. Aaron H. September 21, 2016 at 12:45 pm

    @Roosh V

    Agape. Eros. Philo. The 3 types of love demonstrated in the Bible.

    I think everything you’re saying herein actually backs up what’s presented in the bible as a picture of God’s love towards us. Whether you wrote it with that in mind or not is curious.

    His first and biggest expression of love towards us happened after “the fall” where he imposed all kinds of boundaries and restrictions known as the 10 commandments. Those weren’t designed to be oppressive and controlling/authoritarian as much as they were an unfolded expression of his father/provider love for us. I.E. in obeying and living the 10 commandments, we would be expressing love to our creator and love towards our fellow human being. Not emotional love per se, but love based purely on rather cold principles by comparison. I would call this a kindof “fenced in” love. We clearly failed to handle the nearly unbridled freedom he gave us in the Garden, so God knew he needed to fence us in a bit. I can see the fatherly provider/protector in this. We fucked up but even in our mess and rebelliousness, he “lovingly” instituted discipline and protection to keep us from total demise.

    Then you read a bit further into a book like Song of Solomon and there’s a clearly poetic expression of a more erotic/emotional/passion oriented love. The book is widely known to be a symbolic expression of the passionate side of God. The passion that he has towards his Bride I.E. his chosen people. He was passionate about what he created. He loved his bride passionately, but I believe we’ve convoluted what this kindof passionate love really means from a divine perspective. Without getting too scholarly (I’m not a scholar), I simply believe that God’s expression of an erotic “eros” love towards his Bride tells us that the passion he built inside of us (men) when expressed towards our respective brides actually gives them life. I mean the highest form of erotic expression from a man to a woman is sex, right? And the cum inside of us is what gives life, right? I don’t know if that’s entirely accurate, but God is a man and it does seem to fit his character. The book (S.o.S) when completed demonstrates that His passionate love towards his Bride cleanses and perfects her. It doesn’t mean he worships her.

    Whatever the purpose behind having this book in the bible, it’s been convoluted even by the modern church and is now shown as a “fine example” of just how passionate a devoted Christian beta male husband is supposed to love his wife. The feminist undertone in the modern church has confused this purpose-oriented “eros” kindof love into something mainly emotional.

    Why is the divorce rate as high in the church as it is outside of it? A reality that even the church begrudgingly admits and is perplexed by? Simple…
    The church is too influenced by our feminized culture and is attempting to push and reconcile the two “truths”. One is the obvious nature of God’s principle-based unconditional love towards us (agape) but instead of presenting us with the also principle-based “eros” love, the focus is inverted, God is feminized, and the principles behind “eros” become muddied and unclear and are replaced by emotionally-based “love”.

    The particular kindof modern American “love” is no longer based on anything concrete. Is it Agape? Eros? Philo?
    I don’t know, but I love my life. I love food. I love women. I love I love I love.
    WTF does it mean?! The word no longer has a foundation.

    Even romantic love is heavily backed up by principle and intellect in the book that claims to be the very first and oldest recorded expression of true love (the bible).

    Your research is correct. To the men who have just read through this long ass comment, please don’t be too surprised. If the world is corrupting and feminizing the most Masculine character the world has ever known (The real God of the bible), why wouldn’t the world also be trying to feminize us?

  26. Veni Vidi Vici September 21, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    Soulmates should be goal of the relationship not a criteria…

  27. Baph September 21, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    “It’s not who you want to spend Friday night with. It’s who you want to spend all day Sunday with.”

  28. TheLastConservative September 21, 2016 at 6:28 pm

    Almost convincing… except it’s clear you’ve never been in love. Neither have I but I’ve known exactly 2 cases in the real world where it existed.

    It isn’t by any means widespread, but it does exist.

  29. Zyzz September 21, 2016 at 7:15 pm

    If i had to choose two it’d be commitment and intimacy. I think that is the foundation for a strong lasting relationship

  30. Zyzz September 21, 2016 at 7:26 pm

    I read the article linked to the 80% of divorces are initiated by women and my god what a terrible beta write up. He pretty much takes the stance that it is us men who have to improve(no acknowledgement of any fault of the woman). second, he mentions nothing how women have stronger social groups and therefore have better support systems to weather a divorce, amongst things. What drivel!

  31. Baph September 21, 2016 at 8:19 pm

    Whenever you hear a girl saying she´s a romantic. SHE´S A SLUT. SHE´S NOT ROMANTIC. SHE WANTS ROMANCE. And somebody has to give to her. Guess who? You. But after a while. She´s just like any other bimbo you´ve fucked. Her sex appeal dimishes and you have her personality.

  32. stevie tellatruth September 22, 2016 at 3:45 am

    We owe to the Middle Ages the two worst inventions of humanity – romantic love and gunpowder.” – Andre Maurois

  33. Ben Sanderson September 22, 2016 at 7:34 am

    This article filled me with a sense of tolerance, diversity and vibrant enrichment.

  34. disqus_2015ScorpioWater September 23, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    The modern relationship these days is not much different than that between a sprostitute and a client. In many ways the latter is better because the latter does not have to deal with the emotional and psychological bullshit from the woman, and most relationships rarely last, even the more durable relationships break after a decade or so, usually end up with a child which goes to the mother. So why bother with this horseshit?
    I hear feminists saying prostitutes get exploited but its not true, most modern women are no different than prostitutes and use the modern legal system and their bodies to extract financial compensation from men, in other words they are prostitutes but not in the traditional sense.
    Donald Trump is the “traditional man” in our modern America but if you compare him to other men in the past, his family is the archetype of dysfunction if you compare him to a family from the 1950s. He has been divorced two times. Has children from three different women. Not exactly a traditional family.
    His second wife was his mistress. Trump’s mother and father stayed together from marriage until death.

  35. Albert Wesker September 26, 2016 at 1:13 pm

    So, I guess I generally agree with this. However, placing more emphasis on practicality as stated in the concluding paragraph doesn’t seem to [theoritically] yield a longer relationship. I think the article mentions looking at a relationship interests as BOTH a business partner AND an investment, and those two aren’t always compatible.

    Choosing your woman like a business partner make sense, as most strong business partnerships are based on making good decisions, mutual trust and respect, and desire for success going forward.

    With investments, however, there are times in the business world when other opportunities surface and you need to act on them (think about a stock that you were originally going long on, but then noticed an opportunity to short and profit more from it). Investments change based on practicality and sound business sense.

    So if a woman looks at a man as an investment (like buying a house or a stock), then that investment is only good until the next one shows up. It seems to put men back in the same spot (women leaving because of “how they feel/lack of passion”) but ACTUALLY JUSTIFIES IT (a better, more handsome, richer guy came buy and why would she NOT go with him? It just makes smart business sense).

    Additionally, successful business partners also have PASSION for what they are doing, which is why they are able to persevere through the ups and downs of the business. In a relationship, there has to be a mutual passion for something otherwise it won’t survive the ups and downs of a relationship.

    So while I agree with the general idea of the article, I think we should take a closer look at how “PASSION” and “BUSINESS PARTNER” and “INVESTMENT” play into it.

  36. john03063 September 26, 2016 at 1:55 pm

    I agree that women often leave once they no longer “feel passion”. But the gyno-friendly legal system we have in the US makes the problem worse than it should be. I think a lot of women would work to find passion again or maintain passion if there wasn’t a big payout waiting for them in the divorce court…..

    1. Ravi Macho September 30, 2016 at 9:50 pm

      That again proves that femicunts are Selfish, Cunning, Manipulative and good only for Banging and Breeding (B&B). To hell with the femicunts !!!

  37. Abi Tha September 27, 2016 at 5:57 am

    great article

  38. Brad Willoughby September 29, 2016 at 6:58 am

    While I don’t think romantic infatuation is a solid base for a relationship, I’m going to quote Deads Poets Society here….

    John Keating: We don’t read and write poetry because it’s cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion. And medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for.

    Connection with others is what gives purpose and meaning to our lives and romantic love is a part of that – not all, not the most important, but a good part of it.

    In my own experience I’ve found that the person I fall for represents qualities that I perceive and want in my own life. Sometimes it worked out sometimes it didn’t – but it takes two to tango and when you want magic in your life you have to accept that it may be an illusion but it’s the outcome and wonderment that matter. No one writes or listens to a great piece of music because they think it’s good – they feel it’s good. It’s just some constructed sounds but the outcome, the inspiration it can create is greater than the sum of its parts.

  39. TerminallyChill September 29, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    Crucial red-pill knowledge. Not sure where else you would something as important as this in writing.

  40. Darwin October 2, 2016 at 7:13 am

    Outstanding post. Your writings have really affected my outlook. It’s life-changing material.

    Even my mom has succumbed to this notion of romantic love after she moved to the USA decades ago. It’s also infiltrated her home country by now–leaving several of her nieces there as spinsters. Unfortunately my dad is a beta provider who is ill equipped to deal with her constant complaints and nagging.

    I did experience a bad relationship in the past just as you state. I’m sure many of us have gone through it. I’m glad your material has shown me the light.

  41. keithpr January 20, 2017 at 11:42 pm

    I don’t necessarily agree that love was a man-made invention as much as a twisted distortion of infatuation. Think about it, when we were young, we met that beautiful girl, developed an instant crush, and if things went our way, we got to experience that dreamy-effect of total infatuation aka “being in love” where our emotions are in overdrive and the world actually seems, temporarily, like a better place during our relationship with them.

    Of course it never lasts, as I also discovered that familiarity breeds contempt, an age old philosophy (arguably a close relative of ‘absence of the heart grows fonder’), but in my experience, because western women are so emotionally wrecked via programming at a young age, they fall out of love quicker than men based on pretty much everything this site has already covered.

    Love is a thing, I believe, a twisted ideal based on a very real and temporary emotion. But also, I gave up on romantic love more than 20 years ago, after years of heartbreak and emotional turmoil/ Some might call me bitter, but I’m just cynical by nature (a realist IMO).

  42. King Wu Tao August 17, 2017 at 8:14 am

    “There is nothing to your love: if you don’t get what you want, what happens to your, ‘I love you darling, dearie, honey bunch, shnookie putsie, sugar britches, petite shu-shu, sugar booger?’ If you don’t get what you want out of all that, what happens to your lovey-dovey?

    The only relationship you have with anybody in this world is “What do I get out of it?”

    That’s all you care about. Other than that, there is nothing to it!”

    (U.G. Krishnamurti).