Mistic
Senior Don Juan
This is an insight I am having that I feel may need a serious study to confirm. I was first tipped off by Biffaults Law. See thread if unfamiliar.
Love to a man is generally translated by our innate qualities of wanting to protect, defend, and provide for who we care about. These qualities are most exemplified through parenting. If you have a child, or an animal, or something you love, there is nothing you wont do for it.
By this definition, love and sex have no relationship to each other whatsoever. You can love something without needing to also fvck it.
For women, the only quality of love they express is nurturing, since they typically do not, protect, provide, or defend anything.
So, now bringing these definitions to male female interaction. In almost all cases of relationship, a man is willing to protect and defend his partner. He may also provide for her, however this has become less common. The ways a woman can nurture you in a relationship is by cooking, cleaning, and tending to your other needs like massages and other expressions of servitude. A mother is in service to her child without conditions. Even if the baby is a stinky whining little a$$hole, she will not deny it milk and comfort.
So, if you are in a relationship with a woman who does not offer you any nurturing services, is it fair to say there is no love in the relationship?
You may spend time together, fvck eachother, have conversations and go out to eat, but none of these are innate qualities of love.
If you were living with a woman who you are having sex with, spending time with etc, but who you are unwilling to protect, defend, or provide for, is it fair to also say that relationship is without love?
Most of the women I have observed that claim are in love with me, are actually acting more by Biffaults law, rather than simply being a source of nurturing.
What they are thinking is love is actually a mix of Value Assessment, Genetic Desire for children, and great sex. Which explains why once I stop fvcking them, make it clear I dont want kids with them, and stop giving them time/energy/money, they move on.
Women dont get sex, money, or more children from their children, yet they do not lose interest in them. However, even if I stop fvcking her, spending money on her, or trying to knock her up, I would still defend and protect her from danger.
Based on this theory, which needs more research, I would conclude this:
If you are in a relationship with a girl who is not freely providing nurturing services to you, you can safely assume she is only with you based on the value she see's in you compared to her other options, probability of pro-creating, how good you fvck her, and how much energy, time, attention and money you spend on her.
Because another man can come along and out do you on any one of these specifics, whereby she drops you like a hot potato with zero remorse, you can safely assume that she has no love for you.
Love to a man is generally translated by our innate qualities of wanting to protect, defend, and provide for who we care about. These qualities are most exemplified through parenting. If you have a child, or an animal, or something you love, there is nothing you wont do for it.
By this definition, love and sex have no relationship to each other whatsoever. You can love something without needing to also fvck it.
For women, the only quality of love they express is nurturing, since they typically do not, protect, provide, or defend anything.
So, now bringing these definitions to male female interaction. In almost all cases of relationship, a man is willing to protect and defend his partner. He may also provide for her, however this has become less common. The ways a woman can nurture you in a relationship is by cooking, cleaning, and tending to your other needs like massages and other expressions of servitude. A mother is in service to her child without conditions. Even if the baby is a stinky whining little a$$hole, she will not deny it milk and comfort.
So, if you are in a relationship with a woman who does not offer you any nurturing services, is it fair to say there is no love in the relationship?
You may spend time together, fvck eachother, have conversations and go out to eat, but none of these are innate qualities of love.
If you were living with a woman who you are having sex with, spending time with etc, but who you are unwilling to protect, defend, or provide for, is it fair to also say that relationship is without love?
Most of the women I have observed that claim are in love with me, are actually acting more by Biffaults law, rather than simply being a source of nurturing.
What they are thinking is love is actually a mix of Value Assessment, Genetic Desire for children, and great sex. Which explains why once I stop fvcking them, make it clear I dont want kids with them, and stop giving them time/energy/money, they move on.
Women dont get sex, money, or more children from their children, yet they do not lose interest in them. However, even if I stop fvcking her, spending money on her, or trying to knock her up, I would still defend and protect her from danger.
Based on this theory, which needs more research, I would conclude this:
If you are in a relationship with a girl who is not freely providing nurturing services to you, you can safely assume she is only with you based on the value she see's in you compared to her other options, probability of pro-creating, how good you fvck her, and how much energy, time, attention and money you spend on her.
Because another man can come along and out do you on any one of these specifics, whereby she drops you like a hot potato with zero remorse, you can safely assume that she has no love for you.
