General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Rose S
PsycHacks
comments

Comments by "Rose S" (@roses6564) on "LOYALTY means DIFFERENT things to MEN and WOMEN: working through the misunderstanding" video.

How about this plan: 1. Make sure she is actually in love with you pre-marriage. 2. Don't change from the person she fell for. Don't bait and switch with courtship, then revert to emotional unavailability or other autistic behavior. Ta-da. Problem solved. She won't leave.
7
@1976brenden Well ... when the grass doesn't turn out greener, it's called stupid divorce. That would hardly be a good argument against all divorce. As they say, if stupid was the end of the world, no one would learn. As Ennis Pepper says in his excellent book "In Defense of Divorce...," it is hypocritical and irrational to do so much hand-wringing around divorce while barely batting an eye at questionable, early or rushed unions in the first place. We let them jump into marriage willy-nilly, and there we keep all couples locked up no matter how bad that marriage? If we can't prevent stupid marital decisions and poor matches, which clearly we can't, this means some degree of failure at the population level must be accepted upfront. People must be allowed to learn from mistakes, or not learn. Up to them. Either way, it is insane to lock everyone in a marital prison, regardless of the map updates post-marriage, just bc grass may not be greener. If not, keep looking for grass, see if you can return to the previous grass, or just throw in the towel. Life calls for adaptation.
5
@johncrow5552 They choose what's available not what they are truly attracted to/inspired by; bc what they are attracted to may not choose them.
2
@TheLlywelyn Ridiculous. Love is love. It starts out with that which is what leads to commitment in the first place. By your logic, we could pick anyone we have zero feelings for, just by virtue of having a pulse, and stick them in a role (a vacancy we have open) - then commit to love them. It is religious schizo stuff like this that makes for so many mate selection errors, divorces and miserable lives. This "love is a choice" trope needs to bite the dust once and for all.
2
@adiosmiamigo Um...in today's age this is not the most important thing for a marriage. Providing is not the primary job of either spouse. The primary job is for them to be right for each other internally; to provide each other with emotional and mental support, which is what the nuclear family requires. Bc food both can get from a job easily. Get the paycheck, then run to the grocery store.
2
@usun_current5786 Worked for what? For materialism and social optics? Who told you this is what modern men and women need from their relationship with one another? What they need is love, companionship, and emotional support from each other. Not materialism, status and optics - which is what arranged marriages were about.
2
@adiosmiamigo We ARE in modern times. Have you checked the calendar lately? Both men and women need a lot more from their marriage than just food and reproduction. Move up Maslow, it's high time.
2
@copperwopper6429 Those 70% rate of divorce women initiate is not all fault-divorce. No-fault divorce is a perfectly legitimate reason for divorce which often means the couple run into irreconcilable differences. It's that simple. No one owes anyone else a life of misery, regardless of what you feel about the validity of those reasons. They are not for your to judge. It's called individual autonomy and dignity. What man wants to be with a woman who doesn't love him anymore? What woman wants to be with a man who doesn't lover her anymore? Oh, many ... right? Materialists caught up in co-dependency, convenience, social optics and such. Nah. No-fault divorce is here to stay but hopefully society will move forward and remove marriage as a contractual business altogether. Then relationships will have to be self-sustaining and authentic - on their own merit. People today expect fulfillment from a relationship, not just food and offspring.
2
No, it isn't. It is loyalty to the person you love as opposed to a contract.
1
Unconditionally. What if she tells you she's in love with someone else, since...you know, fee-fees. Still loyal to her unconditionally?
1
@ameliadeshane9192 OK, so if you made the decision to stay with a cheater, then find your peace and embrace polygamy. Staying "committed" to a decision you made at point x in the past, in the face of all evidence that says you must change course is not virtue. It is mental illness.
1
A woman can stop loving you. It's that simple. Do you want to F a body you somehow think you "own," even knowing her heart/consciousness is elsewhere? Then you are a Creep Show.
1
@rayrwyr What pathetic creatures to think nothing of forcing sex on a wife who may not want to have sex at any given point. So marital rape basically. Worthy man don't need to rape. The woman is all over him anyway. But pathetic ones need this degree of control. If anything, y'all are boring.
1
If a woman had the kind of control over her feelings that you seem to order, she would not be able to love like a woman. Subconsciously you want a dude, so it might just be time to come out of the closet.
1
It doesn't work. Policing never does.
1
@ScarletRiley The doctor is right about the sex differences in loyalty. Women are loyal to a man they love, not necessarily to roles, institutions, and statuses. It gets confusing bc they often conflate the role (husband) with the man they love. When these overlap, it's all good and they they think they are driven by duty, just like men. But when they are not, they will err on the side of the man they love. This is a good thing, not a bad one - bc it is not rooted in hypocrisy, face saving and social convention.
1
@richien8472 As a woman, I agree. Duty is a functional masculine virtue but what people don't get is that it sucks when it comes to actual love. No wife has ever wanted to be loved "out of duty." She needs to know she inspires him. As a woman, imagine your husband screwing you out of duty. Horrifying. Likewise, imagine the pain of a lover consistently thrown under the bus when the husband in love with her would rather lie and save face to look like a family man, than keep his integrity and divorce to be with the woman he actually has feelings for (which doesn't have to mean abandoning his children). But men have huge egos. Just like a woman's sense of duty shouldn't be counted on, neither should a man's feelings. Deep down men are incapable of love. Just duty - which is not the same as love.
1
And you think they were in the past? Even worse.
1
@MartialistKS Many men do the same thing. The family/reproduction obsession can corrupt the union.
1
@johncrow5552 Not when they face serious constraints like bio-clock. Very narrow window.
1
@johncrow5552 Women only have so much choice and so much time to find the man they are holistically attracted to on all dimensions (not just physical). So they settle. Simple as. A few luck out. You cannot control original attraction which is the magic reaction that initiates the entire process of mate selection: interest --> falling in love --> love ---> commitment --> marital quality. As long as people refuse to understand and accept the natural mate selection process, there will always be problems. A couple must start out with pure reciprocated love first to stand a chance for a great marriage. Not with conventional rationalization. That includes physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual attraction - and a holistic chemistry that ties it all together. It is irresponsible to tell people, men or women, to not be so picky and just be "realistic," as in adjust standards so you go with someone you are not fundamentally into. "Realistic" makes for rationalized, settled marriages. In love (even with a turd) gives much better chances of success. Yes, people need to be actually in love first to stand a chance for long term marital goods. Rarely do rationalized marriages turn to marital bliss. The pre-vow/commitment love is made of compatibility, symbiosis and chemistry -and it is an inherently egocentric, appraisal-driven process. It is what triggers the "in love" state which must be free of rationalizations (bio-clock, family dreams, financial stability, "good character," fear of loneliness, tradition and pleasing parents or God, fear of ending up a cat-lady or an incel, fear of Chad then settling for a perceived "5," bc at least she'll be safe, etc). All of these are corruptions of the mind and soul and will never ever work de facto, even when the marriage lasts 'til death. There will be conflict, nagging, temptations, devitalization, possibly cheating or yearning for someone who actually fits, mental unwell, poor quality of life etc. As long as people don't get that PURE LOVE must exist first (yes, the romantic core), there will always be problems with the marriage. This is what creates the preconditions for a marriage to not only last, but last happily. Everything else is gambling with poor odds and an invitation to poor life satisfaction over the long term. Counting on "hard work" to make the marriage work is foolishness. Now that society no longer controls marriage with draconian dogmas and laws, you get a lot of error and failure bc in essence, people try to "make work" relationships that are not naturally to be. Settling is the default in human history except in the past the bar of marital satisfaction was low, the institutions were severely controlled by dogma and laws, but the odds of a decent matches were better since people selected from very homogeneous mating pools. This ensured some degree of compatibility by default. Now it's wild West and the odds of landing someone who turns are unsuitable over time, are much higher. Now it's liberalized so people need to get it right.
1
@icandreamstream You can continue to protest or you can accept male and female biology as it is. Your arguments are strawmen. I am not trying to shift any blame on anyone, just like Taraban doesn't either. He simply tells you how it works. He is exaggerating here a bit to capture an essence. Reality is much more workable than you hear. But there is a risk of oversimplification for people with a black-and-white mentality. Just make sure the woman is genuinely in love with you for the REAL you. She admires you for fundamental qualities/traits that NEVER change, not for the dating persona or "games" he played just to catch the woman, then relax back to the dull, disconnected person he actually is. If you turn out to be something else than what you sold to her in the beginning, her feelings WILL shift. Your employer would kick you out too if they found you faked your CV. If she fell for the real you, the odds of her emotions /genuine feelings just "fickling" away at some point are low. Women are not as arbitrary as men make them sound. In fact, if you start out with great compatibility on all fronts, the odds of both of you bonding over time go up, so in the future her feelings for you will get even stronger. She will be even LESS likely to leave than in the beginning because she got attached to you for who you truly are. That's called pair bonding. A woman's feelings are, in fact, a great internal navigation system unless she's stupid, shallow and crowd-driven. You don't want stupid anyway. Generally speaking, both men and women have a hard time finding a great match who they fall deeply for. So if you find each other, her chances of finding another one later on, who inspires her even more than you do, are very low. The danger appears when she settled for you. Women experience a lot of pressure to settle, including bio clock, fear of being alone, all her friends got married, wants to please family/social pressures, wants family, wants to live better financially, you name it. People get into relationships all the time for all sorts of reasons except excellent compatibility which produces love (read "she wants to be with you come H or H water, married or not"). Aim for that. She won't leave just bc you hear women's emotions are "crazy and fickle." Depends on the woman. Pick substance. If you pick an idiot...then yes, her emotions will be very fickle, but that's because she's stupid, not bc she's woman. Regarding your questions about men leaving if she puts on 30 lbs: if that was his main selection criterion and there's nothing else there to stay for once she gets fat, he absolutely should leave! He stopped loving her because she's fat, so now she would be in a loveless marriage. No one wins. Who wants to be in an empty marriage? Neither can you force someone to be stay for things that are not meaningful to them. On the other hand, you can get can a man like Pierce Brosnan - literally God's gift to women, with enormous optionality, who became pair-bonded to his wife, soulmate style. When she put on weight, that didn't change the way he feels about her bc they have so much more there. So he chooses to stay even though he could replace her in half a second.
1
@icandreamstream I've responded but YT deletes my messages all the time. Very nasty censoring habit, so forget it.
1
Dear men: if you don't like women's definition of loyalty (= LOVE), which is part of our biology (yes, female biology is biology too), then here's a solution: marry a man instead. Interesting how men are big fans of nature, biology, and Darwin until they must accept female biology. Then they cherry pick.
1
@Imdoinggoodlol Sounds awesome. 👍Now watch some square head give you a lecture about true love without understanding that for some, That Is their version of true love. Lol
1
Wouldn't you just love to dictate even how or whether women are allowed to feel? How you feel about someone is a natural right and sits at the foundation of female mate selection. Live with it.
1
@parshuram8031 BS. Studies show otherwise.
1
castiel4746 Thank God, it's not losing it fast enough. Male-female unions today should be called something else. This ridiculous institution has done nothing but seek to control the autonomy, consciousness, soul and love of humans with ... contracts. It may have made sense in primitive times, but it needs to go the way of wherever it came. It was designed for the agri-era, not for a high-tech society where eating is no longer the reason why men and women want to be together. Time to move up Maslow, thanks.
1
@j.k5654 Nope. It is for even the worstest of the worst (remember burying bodies?) with one caveat: she must be in love with him. Don't confuse marriage with love. Thanks.
1
@thalmoragent9344 Thank God. Build back better. Let's make some other kind of "unit." How about something based on actual sustainable love instead of contracts, ownership, symbolic "vows," manipulation and such?
1
@Yohemchannel Friggin' marriage vows area the most vicious form of control" especially when unassuming young are dragged into them. "I want X to vow to me so the Universe can guarantee my a** will be covered no matter what." Really? How about instead of vows say nothing ? How about just do - let nature take its course? Those meant to bond together for life will do so naturally, out of their own volition. Not bc someone will hold vows and contracts over their heads if things naturally expire. Maybe for once humanity will decide to be real. If marriage is going down, good riddance.
1
@borgy7085 You should do the same! Try it sometimes. Why the Heck would you want to be with a person you don't love anymore? And do you think she feels great that you stay with her out of "duty," even though you don't love her anymore? Bevause we all know every woman's dream is for her H to find her unattractive and screw her out of duty. But hey, it's so honorable! Warms the cockles of my heart.
1
@kevinfancher434 You're right - and that's great. It will be an awesome day when people quit using vows as manipulation symbols and "calling dibs" action. How about instead of saying anything, say nothing, promise nothing, and JUST BE loyal if that is your true love, as proven by time. Why promise anything? Don't ever make any promises. Just honor that love in deed to the best of your ability. But the words. Promises and vows of any kind are a form of insanity since love is not subject to control and an individual's soul remains autonomous, vows or not, contracts or not. So say nothing.
1
@carolehcheng1 Maybe you should. As they say, marriage is a great institution, if you like to live in an institution.
1
That's exactly how it works. Now that you understand, make sure you continue to inspire your woman.
1
The idea that you can predict and control the future is craziness. No one can know for sure they will love someone in the future just because they (think) they love them now, since people and circumstances CAN change dramatically. You can only promise you will legally stay with someone even when you no longer love them. Or even if your heart goes to someone else whom you love even more. Even if sky falls etc. And even then it's not sure you will be able to justify that promise at that future point. By that time, you will turn into a mad man. Anything beyond this is fakery, which is why standard marital vows should not be taken seriously. Love is not controllable and vows are mere symbols or attempts to control life. People would be better served if they focused on love and excellent matching at the front end, since this reduces the chances that the partners would want to go somewhere else, vows or not, contract or not.
1
@castiel4746 Individuals are autonomous. You are advocating keeping them in a marital prison against their will because DA CHEEELDREN. How generous of you. If she doesn't want to be with you anymore...what kind of arrogance gives you the right to exert that kind of control and power over another human? Quit using children as a justification to control. A divorced husband and wife can easily cooperate to care for their children. How about be decent that way and let go of control? What you want is using children to control and impose a miserable life on an autonomous soul. There is a reason divorce is not a crime punishable with prison time. But wouldn't you wish.
1
Sometimes it is. A lot greener.
1
Yeah, too bad.
1
No, not even remotely. The "man" loves an actual contract, not a human! It is perfectly possible for a man to fall out of love with his wife and in love with a woman who is NOT his wife ...and then the Bastard will betray his heart and consciousness and choose to stay in a dead marriage for his ego (would never break a contract so society won't think bad of him). How unfair to the woman he loves, the woman he no longer loves, the family too. Who wins? The contract! ROFL This is not selflessness and virtue, it is collateral damage all around.
1
Oaths, vows, promises are irreverent human manipulations. They should be considered blasphemies. Only God can make promises. It pretty much implies a human can know better than nature, divinity, god - whatever may happen in the future. One should never EVER make a promise. Only the promise to do their best within the humble limits of their abilities. How can anyone be so arrogant and deluded to think they have that kind of absolute control over the future, including the evolution of their own soul? Don;t wanna break a promise? Don't make it! Who would want to keep someone prisoner who doesn't love then anymore just bc they made a promise in the past? Your soul/heart/feelings whatever flew away? Leave. There's nothing worse than sanctimonious people flaunting vows and oaths. It's sheer control.
1
@EntertheGam3 Sadly, women are taught to ignore their instincts, what you call "feelings," and so many do "the right thing" which never works out well in the long run. A woman's intuition is exactly what should never be ignored.
1
@TharsisianRegion I will take a female intuition over moralizing any day.
1
@ThorMaximus How the man makes them feel is due to the actual man. So sure they fall in love with the man! It's men who don't fall in love with the woman. They fall in love with a role (wife) which is like a position in a bureaucracy. Highly replaceable.
1
@Mr.MT3 It is absolutely not self-centered behavior. In fact, it cannot be any more centered on another. Those feelings are caused by another human - and that's where the focus is: THAT MAN/that individual, not abstractions like role ("husband") or contract (could have been signed with anyone), etc. The woman values the individual, not an abstraction. She absolutely, hands down is the superior being when it comes to love. Love is not duty and contracts. It is LOVE. Nothing like it.
1
Thank you!
1
@gerhardswihla1099 Right, because the alternative is to be loyal to a piece of paper and symbolisms like "oath" when the actual person in question is someone you simply don't love anymore. Integrity of heart matters. Humans are not pawns in a bureaucracy.
1
@johncrow5552 They don't see the autism, do they.
1
@danieljohnsilva This is not about "getting hard." It is simply about the reality that you do not love that person anymore and that your heart is with another. If you did, you would stay regardless of how hard things get. It's that simple.
1
@ElliotRose Do you know why all this happens? Dirty little secrets: 1. She was not in love with the husband to begin with, except the husband never knew. She settled heart-wise for bio-clock, family, social integration, financial stability and this is often subliminal. The husband was never THE ONE she'd be willing to ride or die for but she rationalized herself into the marriage.. 2. She lost whatever partial love she had for the husband because her heart finally found what she had been looking for her entire life. At that point, it doesn't matter how hard the husband tries to do a.b.c. He is not the man her heart is with. And this kind of stuff is non-negotiable for women. Being in love is a woman's life pinnacle so if this opportunity arises, she is willing to give up EVERYTHING for that.
1
@dayven1 To love the one her heart is with. When a woman's heart is no longer there, she's virtually imprisoned in the marriage.
1
@wisdomandy9361 So many clueless men who insist that women should "do their duties" with zero regard to the square reality that the woman simply doesn't love them anymore. What kind of creature wants to force another to stay with them when they are no longer wanted? Care for the kids? Sure. Care for the family and other practicalities? Absolutely! That can be done divorced. But force another to be with you when you are no longer wanted? That can only come from a deranged person. Pay her for whatever services she provided and let her go.
1
@coldstream11 It CAN, for a certain person.
1
@pazzodi3 They will never get it. They want the contract to be enforced but then turn around and live more or less like before, as if they don't need to do any pair-bonding.
1
@letssee9 You don't owe anything. Married people's souls are autonomous too.
1
@nolan6137 You absolutely SHOULD be better than all other 3.5 billion men FOR HER. If you do not manage to be that in her eyes, she does not belong to you and you do not belong to her. It's simple.
1
@steveos5112 They complain because they were never in love with the man to begin with.
1
@steveos5112 Ridiculous. With unconditional, unchangeable loyalty - men demand tenure regardless of behavior. Employers don't offer that either.
1
@samjohnson3124 Truth.
1
@returningtoperfection Anyone who is loyal to a contract regardless of the quality of the actual relationship - is a robot. Then they wonder why the woman can't be loyal. 'Cause you're a robot?
1
@kevalan1042 Could it possibly be that the "firm and constant support or allegiance" came from a feeling/sentiment to begin with? Why the heck would I support and have allegiance to something I feel zero for and means very little to me, at least compared to someone else who means a lot? That's brainwashing.
1
@spicyginger4289 Right. That's the male definition. Now quit projecting and accept nature as it is, including female biology. Women's loyalty = LOVE. If she doesn't have it for you anymore, her loyalty is gone. Accept it. Quit trying to make a woman into a man. Never gonna happen. If you don't like it, marry a guy. There.
1
Being loyal to a contract is the opposite of loving an actual human. Feelings concern an actual human. Yes, they may change as this is part of the human condition. Rather than trying to control the deeply personal with contracts, it is best to accept how nature works. Women's love and loyalty are natural, by far superior to men's, since it is not driven by contract and bureaucracy. It is real.
1
Sure it does, if the woman has those feelings for her life partner. Tell you what: have a life partner who has feelings for you. Tada. Now she's loyal to you. See how easy it is?
1