Red Pill's Romantic Confusion

Here's Rola Tomasi again.

Give me five aspects of femininity or women that you would find, you know, would be what you would want in a long term relationship with a woman?

Okay. Iman, loyalty, submission, being a good mother, obedient, forgiving, respectful, patient, not argumentative, not materialistic, observant, insightful, well read, with good comprehension, humble, appreciative, supportive, dutiful. Okay. That's more than five.

And I can only think of one. That's genuine desire because anything else that guys can I want her to be feminine? I want her to be a good conversationalist, and she's gotta be a good mom, and she's gotta none of that makes any difference unless she has genuine 100% unmitigated, unconditional, unnegotiated, genuine ass hot monkey sex desire for you. If that's not there, none of that matters. All of it is a contrivance.

It's all contrived if there's no desire there. Alright. Is she a ride or die girl? Okay. Well, is she a ride or die girl when the stock market crashes and you don't have any money?

Okay. There's so many problems with this. First of all, obviously, he dismisses completely some of the qualities that are sought by men who he regards as high value men when they're looking for a spouse such as good conversation, intelligence, being a good mother, oddly enough things that pretty much all men seek in a spouse, he dismisses them as insignificant in their own right. To him, they only have value if they are based upon hot monkey sex desire, not say genuine love, respect, and commitment to family. You can't help but notice also that this is a very woman like romantic expectation or demanding a spouse, albeit stated a bit more crudely.

For her, it's rose petals on the bedspread, candles, Valentine's Day at Eiffel Tower. For him, it's hot monkey sex desire. Either way, it's a pubescent idea about adult relationships. But further, he refers to her commitment and that it should be based on desire, even if you have no money. But his whole ideology maintains that women are literally incapable of that due to their allegedly hypergamous natures.

In fact, he teaches men to accept women's hypergamy and to manage their relationships knowing that their spouses are interested in the wealth and social status that they derive from their marriages, that the women are with you not for who you are but for what you can provide them. So how in this idea is there any room for unconditional desire from a naturally hypergamous woman? The only way something like this is even remotely possible is if the woman is someone with some degree of character and depth who is not motivated exclusively by selfish ambition for advancement socially or economically, but is sincerely interested in a man's inner qualities. But Red Pill denies that this is even a realistic possibility because notice he's talking about long term relationships, he's not talking about one night stands. Well, in order for anyone, man or woman, to have a successful long term relationship, they have to be someone with some depth of character and a multitude of qualities that enable them to appreciate their spouse on many levels.

And any love and desire they feel grows from that depth fed by the corresponding deeper qualities of their husband or wife. If desire is to have any longevity, it has to be the byproduct of character, virtue, depth and mutual appreciation of one another over time and experience. But again, in Rolo Tomasi's conception of the world, this is unthinkable. I mean, for someone who purports to study human behavior, he seems thoroughly unfamiliar with the way human beings actually feel and behave to such an extent that his ideas appear to even confuse himself.