Jump to content

Men in Love

From Alpha Up Wiki

Rollo Tomassi (The Rational Male blog) answers a commenter's question: "Can men really not tell when a woman doesn't love them?" His answer: usually, no.

Why men often can't tell

  • Men badly want to believe they can be loved, appreciated and respected for who they are. In Tomassi's view, men are the real romantics, even though culture casts women in that role.
  • He argues women's love is shaped by hypergamy (see Briffault's Law), so it's more conditional and opportunistic, while men tend to love for love's sake. The result is two different ideas of love, and men assume theirs is shared.

The "Iron Rule"

Tomassi's Iron Rule #6: women can't love men the way men idealise being loved. Not that women don't love, but that the unconditional, relaxed, fully trusting love many men imagine isn't how women naturally love. And once a man explains his ideal, it becomes an obligation, which kills its authenticity. See Women in Love.

How this plays out

A man grows up believing that somewhere there's a woman who will love him exactly as he imagines, if he finds her and becomes what she wants. He finds a woman who loves him, but conditionally, in her own way. He spends the relationship trying to get her to love him his way while working harder to keep her happy. That neediness erodes her attraction, and when her feelings fade he genuinely doesn't notice. Going back to what worked early on fails, because it's now obligation, not desire. Love, like desire, can't be negotiated.

Can the gap be bridged?

Another commenter asked whether a woman who understands this can try to love differently. Tomassi thinks it's possible in theory, but the bigger hurdle is men recognising it themselves. Both sexes have conditions for love; they're just different conditions. One reader suggested men should also find real support and openness among male friends, not only from partners.

See also

Summary of a post by Rollo Tomassi (The Rational Male, 2012).

This section collects Red Pill writing for discussion; inclusion isn't endorsement.