Damn, that's deep
(media.communities.win)
Comments (100)
sorted by:
Now complete the comic where the women mock the men that do cry. This whole feelings schtick is just a way to subjugate you.
well, sometimes. women are just kinda dumb. they've been told since birth that men should cry and be vulnerable to them. But, this invokes a disgust response in women, instinctually. The whole story is just jew subversion. Men and women don't know how to live together now. Families are disintegrating. It's all intentional.
No it isn't. The issue is one of commitment.
Women do not want to commit to men who require too much emotional maintenance to keep going (which is a fair complaint). If a man is showing emotional fragility and weakness early on in a relationship, asking her to basically mother him into emotional stoicism is an incredibly big ask to a young woman.
However, if a husband is showing vulnerability and emotion, for which the wife knows she is the outlet for, supporting and re-orienting him is a quick way to get him back to his normal confident self.
Women are weary of "high-maintenance men". The problem we have in society is that everyone is basically high-maintenance because hardly anyone was raised properly. Women are so broken, entitled, and confused they both want and need the strongest possible masculine figures to partner with. Simultaneously, men are so aimless, socially underwhelming, and emotionally incontinent that they are effectively all low status men, and would need to be re-raised to get back to normal masculine expectations.
What you've said is true, BUT the larger issue at hand, which is implied (badly) by the meme is that anything women say they "want from a man" these days is effectively a shit test, even if they don't even know the they are doing it.
Female culture is largely based on some kind of weird collective where women say (and probably believe) what is "popular" in that culture. While in the past that culture may have been calibrated to what women actually want and need (a reliable man with masculine qualities), these days, it's popular for women to say how they want a "sensitive man" or some such trash, yet of course they actually want and need no such thing. This has something to do with the rise of feminism and the feminisation of society, which promotes crappy feminine values like vulnerability and being emotional as "good" qualities, at the expense of useful masculine values like stoicism (which feminists completely misunderstand as a denial of emotion, but that's a separate issue).
Of course, the reality is no one really needs these feminine values, at least not expressed to do level they currently are in society. Expressing vulnerability is perhaps useful for building trust between people (if someone doesn't take advantage of you when you are vulnerable, then they are more likely to be trustworthy). Emotions can be useful heuristics, but it is much better if they are used to guide behaviour; they certainly shouldn't be used to govern behaviour completely.
This means that high maintenance women, which express these qualities to a high degree, are also a problem for men and society. But men put up with women expressing these values since they want sex, and the pussy cartel gets to set the price of that. In fact, men could do the world a favour by not just being masculine themselves, but by insisting that that women stop being so emotional. Here, I'm not suggesting that women (on average) will be less emotional than men (on average), but rather that just because women tend to be emotional doesn't mean that men should tolerate all and any emotional displays from women, or allow women to use emotional manipulation to get their way. It's time to hold women to a higher standard. And the only real way of doing this is being willing to say "no" to a bad deal from women.
Women do need to shit test men. The problems are:
If women had better social structures to rely on, including even traditional institutions that guided male conduct, they wouldn't need to shit test men. Instead, they have almost nothing to rely on in the way of social, family, or institutional structures or traditions, so they end up having to shit test them to be secure.
It would be a lot easier for a woman to know whether or not she could trust her man if he was required to operate under some sort of perpetual ethic in how he was to treat all women, all lovers, and all wives, in that order. Some kind of... chivalrous required conduct. Where if a man was not prepared to address a woman as "my lady", or was not prepared to hold her hand in a respectful way in greeting, he would have already failed the shit test.
But God is dead and it is we who have killed him, so you get to build these systems all on your own.
This is what you're talking about with "female culture". That's not really a thing. You're basically talking about mainstream feminist identitarian culture, which is drilled into all young women as the sole correct interpretation of the universe. Which is why they are repeating feminist tripe ("I like soft sensitive men"), while their actions are in stark contradiction to that ("Why do I keep fucking Trump supporters?!!")
I was actually gonna say. Both sexes need some masculine and feminine values in order to even relate to the other gender. Exclusive masculine males and exclusive feminine females are nearly incompatible with each other because they have no reference point of which to interact with the opposite sex.
No they don't. They might need to test men. But they don't need to shit test men. A shit test is basically testing if a man will refuse to be emotionally manipulated by her. While men should be resistant to emotional manipulation, they shouldn't have to tolerate their wives constantly trying to emotionally manipulate them as a test of "manliness".
The rest of your comment is gynocentric tradcon "poor milady" trash. Both men and women need to have standards of behaviour. Yet, the tradcon view is that it's all on the man to act like an adult, while the woman can do whatever she wants and the man just needs to put up with it. Of course, traditional societies did actually have standards of behaviour expected of women, yet talking about these is taboo in the gynocentric thinking being pushed by both feminists and "traditionalists" (the only such standard so-called "traditionalists" seem to care about is sexual propriety, yet that was only one of many expected standards of behaviour of women).
As I said, things will only get better when men stand up and are willing to say "no" to crappy women.
Okay, I accept your definition because I was using it differently than you.
I don't know where you are getting that. I've repeatedly said the thing that no gynocentrist perspective will ever accept: "women's responsibility".
I don't disagree, but the problem here is that men have to be the ones to take the initiative and solve this problem. I've said this before, but women's agreeableness, and even desire to be dominated, effectively means that the only way any of this gets solved is with men becoming more masculine and effectively "taming the shrew" of western degenerated society, and manufacturing a civilization atop the fallen one.
I didn't say women don't have a responsibility here. And frankly, your dismissal of my points on women's problems is ludicrous because their problems are quite severe, and effectively unsolvable without men.
lol, you are almost as deranged as Imp.
Not defending captain "da womenz are literally hitler-satan", but there are a not insignificant population of women out there that really will do this shit.
It's not something to generalize ALL women with, any more then you'd generalize all men with some negative behavior, but you also shouldn't ignore the fact that this is a real behavior that exists out in the wild.
Obviously, you shouldn't ignore bad behavior. Hell, you could persuasively argue that this whole cancel culture thing is a very feminine way of destroying your enemies - which relies on the destruction of someone's reputation rather than overcoming him physically.
That said, I don't like vilification of whole classes of people. There's good women and bad women, just like that's true for any group of people.
I would argue that this isnt vilifying a whole class of people. Women that would encourage you to share your feelings are the same women that would be turned off by that vulnrability. Both a sub class of all women
Ok but it's biological. On the whole men and women have physical and mental differences leading to different behavior. Women evolved by manipulating men on an emotional level.
I don't like this meme. It says nothing of significance. "There's good Taliban and bad Taliban, just like that's true for any group of people." "There's good pit bulls and bad pit bulls, just like that's true for any animal." ???
Though I don't think there's as many "evil" women around as some people here seem to believe.
Its a way of not having to take a stance and still feeling like you are right and a good guy. Its how cowards always run when they get too close to noticing things that they are scared will get them labelled bigots.
Imagine thinking a woman would mate with you if cried in front of her.
Look at the part with which I took issue. And there are very good evolutionary reasons why women would not like crybaby men.
Apparently you’ve misread, you cited the dependent statement. My statement is that women will tell you they want you to show emotions, this is a lie. If that guy had cried they would have never seen him as a potential partner. The memes bad because it shows blatant falsities.
Look at who you're responding to. All she does anymore is wait for Imp or anyone who talks like him to comment and then she deliberately takes offense to something they say. I swear she's turning into jester but instead of defending the juice she handwaves any bad behavior by wahmens.
I can't tell if you are calling AoV "she" out of mockery or confusion.
Yes.
Whenever women say that they actually mean "I want men to emote like women do" they're turned off by it because their biological urge says to be.
Men can mourn without actually crying, it's not weird and shouldn't be scrutinized.
Who says that? And those who do certainly do not mean 'go be a crybaby'.
What is the falsity? It's a stupid meme, but you seem to be raging for no good reason.
I can’t tell if you’re dense or just redundant. The meme is literally the women complaining because he didn’t cry and said he must have no emotion. That should answer both questions you just asked.
This meme makes fun of those women, so what exactly are you complaining about? I don't think I'm the one being dense here...
What?
Comedian Lila Hart made a great comment about this the other day: https://twitter.com/lovelilahart/status/1546013490695004160
I have been called attractive by a random woman exactly one time in my life, not counting things like obvious flattery. I was literally struck dumb by it. I had no idea what to do because I hadn't even considered the possibility it would ever happen. I'm more mentally prepared to encounter an alien species than be complimented. Women can't even begin to fathom what it's like to live that way.
And before an unfunny person accuses me of just being some hideous incel who cannot into woman, I'm married.
Even ugly chicks get complimented daily if they're on dating apps or spend any real time in public.
You married the girl that complimented you, didn't you?
Actually, the compliment came well after I got married. But had it not, I can assure you I would have taken her out to lunch before never hearing from her again.
So the one you married never called you attractive?
Is that odd? Usually we're chasing women trying to convince them to give us the time of day. Any attention we get in return is good enough. Calling us attractive is not a prerequisite.
(and yeah that sounds like being a simp, but I'm talking about normal courtship too)
She wasn't a random woman. Someone you're dating telling you you're cute is expected.
I was mostly being facetious.
But it does make for an interesting anecdote/lesson/narrative when it's presented as "the one woman who ever complimented me wasn't even my wife".
Yeah, women are routinely shocked when men actually express their normal conditions of:
When they are confronted by how men live their normal everyday lives, they are: shocked, hurt, and feel horribly alone. They literally have no idea what men go through on a normal basis when we are not even having a bad day.
Iirc Norah Vincent, a lesbian who spent some time dressing, looking, and acting as a man to see what it was like "on the other side" was really beaten down by the experience (probably an understatement, really). Wrote a book about it too, Self Made Man.
What's interesting to me is that book is 16 years old now so I'd love to see another woman do the same thing today. I'd imagine all the troubles Vincent ran into would be a lot more intense today.
In fairness, I don't think all of it was just about being a man. Part of it was that she had basically given herself an identity crisis, not too unlike gender dysphoria (without actually being dysphoria). The shock to your morale from a "loss of self" can be very brutal if you're not prepared for it, and there's no way that she was.
I’ve heard women complain about men not showing emotion. Then they dump a guy because he showed emotion
Only allowed to show pre-approved emotions, and only if you're feeling those emotions vicariously for your lady friend. You can't be sad something bad happened to you, but you damn well better be sad something bad happened to her. Also, anger is not an approved emotion, so please refrain from ever being angry, it's toxic, and even when it's supposedly approved for use, please keep it constrained.
Is it possible that you just have a asshole filter for women?
Endeavor to never show actual vulnerability to a woman. It's surface level tripe and she will lose respect for you.
Women tend to say one thing and mean another, think they want one thing but it's something else entirely.
"He doesn't cry" is womanese for "The drama part of my brain itches and I have a short list of things to complain about" or "I need something to chew at while conversing with my friend here", which isn't an invitation to talk about your feelings. "Do men even have feelings" is an acknowledgement of a masculine difference in a coat of feminine self-aggrandizement.
As for the man, you shouldn't lament having to not be a loser. Hardwork isn't just part of being a man, conceptually it is a PART of the man himself. Only within strength of character can love and affection be matured. "Success" is all you, plenty of people are "successful" doing diddly squat, what's more important is being a provider aswell as having self-assuredness.
There is also no such thing as "deserve" as a man beyond its transactional meaning. You don't have a nesting role and it'll just hold you back. A man is free from "deserve", as he instead builds his future - the world is pregnatable and he is a potent force therein.
You've never spoken to a woman and it's very fucking obvious, lmao. Try actually speaking to some.
Do elaborate, this isn't reddit.
It's obvious your operating off of extremely negative stereotypes about women.
I'm not surprised, lots of predominantly online young men are exposed to pretty shit women, but that doesn't mean that women will never support you when you are vulnerable. In fact, that's a major responsibility of women in a relationship in order to ensure that their men stay strong.
I said that you should strive to not be, which is an impossible task if you intend to live with someone, you're going to break atleast once.
I'll let you in on a personal detail, I've had my heart eviscerated thinking I could just trust a woman's words at face value, thinking I could just open up about my feelings, my ails, my past - then that relationship became eroded by uncertainty; respect was replaced by pity, pity was replaced by resentment. It didn't happen overnight, I wasn't even lost in self-pity, but I made a serious mistake in breaking infront of her.
I lost everything because I opened up and broke down. So no, it's not "obvious". You don't have a single fucking clue as to what it took to rebuild myself or the realizations that followed. Every interaction I ever had behind closed doors, what women say, what they do, it began to make sense that within each is "janus" - operating on two entirely different planes of thought, it's never directly conjured or consulted at surface level, but what they say, what they mean, and what they do don't tend to align. They speak an entirely different language and this isn't a singular experience - most are like this to some greater or lesser degree. This was manifest in every relationship platonic and romantic. In a snap, life around women became easy.
Therefore I keep it in mind to keep my mouth fucking SHUT about my feelings unless it is important. I don't ever want to be pitied again, nor go through another two year death spiral because I thought I could have a vulnerable moment.
I don't think it is necessarily a negative realization.
I'm sorry that you got exploited in that way, but I think your realization, which is really more of a coping-mechanism, is almost entirely negative.
What will be the inevitable result of your behavior is the exact same problem.
As you refuse to be vulnerable in a relationship, you will have a significant lack of intimacy and trust, which is what relationships are built on. Your relationship ended before you even started it, because you are not prepared to be vulnerable, with the exact person you are supposed to be vulnerable with.
A woman's purpose with a man is to be his animus, his animator. The thing that is his goal, and the thing that helps him recover from his trials. By refusing vulnerability, all you have ensured is your own resentment and hatred of your spouse for not supporting you as you work for her benefit.
In return, since you never develop the necessary intimacy and trust, your relationship never gets past the point of her needing to know where your line of regular support actually is. Since she's used to not supporting you, the inevitable moment you show vulnerability will be a surprise for her that she isn't prepared to support you in. You will have effectively emotionally lied to her, or behaved wildly out of character. In either case, the trust in your relationship is eroded because you aren't who she thought you were. This feeling of being lied to and cheated forms the resentment on her part, as you resent her for not supporting you enough (even though you denied her the opportunity to do so).
So yeah, you've set yourself up for the exact death spiral you're trying to avoid the moment you try to form another relationship.
The incredible value in a good relationship is based on the fact that both of you can be completely vulnerable to each other when needed. She can be vulnerable and submissive to a dominant, caring, and stoic masculine presence; while you can be vulnerable and open to a welcoming, healing, and fulfilling feminine presence. Now, that vulnerability must be done at a place in your relationship where you trust each other with that vulnerability, but by denying that vulnerability outright, you are crippling your next relationship before it starts, if you don't poison it from starting anyways.
Prior I was never the way I resigned myself to be currently and my life is much easier for it. So far so good.
It doesn't mean not showing reciprocation of these very jungian ideations of anima and animus in other ways - I simply don't do it in a way that threatens stability or the bigger picture.
There are some burdens a man should absolutely bare alone, sure a good woman wants to be your partner in crime but I don't think women are nearly as interested in male feelings as they say they are.
Once that's on the table, if that interest is misplaced, you're a "high-maintenance" male.
Some of the most caring and non-judgmental friends I've had have been women, and every single female partner I've ever known has been BEYOND supportive whenever I have showed emotion, and have encouraged me to continue over and over again, and have shown me nothing but kindness, and frankly I'm kind of a nobody, not a particularly good looking guy (though those women disagree, but I think most people would not consider me good looking), and literally in poverty. Every single one liked me for who I am. I'm dominant (sexually and socially) and always take the lead in most group situations, and I think that might be a big part of the appeal. Whenever I split from a partner, it was on good terms and due to some sort of situation neither of us can control.
If you feel like every single woman you've been in contact with has been bad to you, then either you are the problem with how you interact with them, or you've had EXCEEDINGLY bad luck, which is a legitimate possibility. I found all of these girls in online video games (mostly MMOs) or online chat rooms, and from what I've seen, there is no better way to meet quality women these days, if you like games and such. They have all been great - fun to talk to, intelligent, extremely submissive and kinky, loyal. ALL you have to do is not to be a thirsty fucking beta orbiter. That's it. Show interest in a reserved and dignified way and you're already above literally 95% of other men.
Being socially dominant means saying whatever the fuck I want to say if I believe it is the case, and it's very clearly the case with you.
That is exactly how it is, actually. You genuinely described it pretty well.
Thing about me is that I am schizophrenic, I didn't know for a very long time. I struggled for a long time, I was a violent unmedicated hermit for about a decade and came from a very abused, violent, and malnourished upbringing. I don't think I am very relatable as a result of my circumstances, whenever I talk about certain things I lose people. I've done things that people run away from me when they hear about it. I can water crops with my tears. I've had to build myself up from the dirt just to get kicked over again, then gutted by the world. Seems when I get it together I lose it all over again.
I don't know what I put off to attract certain types of women, I tend to get dates on merit of being very well-respected in my field. They start off the way you describe and all is pretty well, the fall off is where I probably share too much or it's something else like - she's actually already married, or she wasn't actually looking for anything serious and it moved too fast, was stringing along two other guys and I found out, etc.
If we're talking women I've been around, male "feelings" are a curiousity, but I don't think they know what that entails, or just how bleak this world is towards men - you are dispensible, you are the corporate bitch, you will NOT be appreciated or remembered and to actually FEEL it comes off as uncertainty, no woman wants uncertainty or to be around indecisiveness, but that's what you get with tears. They're looking for something else usually. On some superficial level the more liberal girls allege wanting to see their boyfriend cry because they think males are repressed, but they don't actually want it.
I genuinely think there is a pipeline between pity and just losing people, regardless of my own specific circumstances and a man should be as decisive as possible with vulnerability at the furthest seat in the back of the bus, aiming towards being a lot more reserved, as some things are respected more at a distance and I believe male emotions are like this. Especially if you're like me and one peep turns you into an uncertain prospect, gotta hold onto certain cards, especially if we're speaking two different languages.
The mistake is in taking anything a woman says seriously. Literally every word is instinctively calculated for maximum social utility.
?
Even if I agreed with you, these two things aren't in contradiction to one another.
That which is socially useful is not irrelevant.
To this day, my absolute top comment on Reddit was from going to AskWomen and explaining to women how male friend groups treat each other is not an unrelenting stream of abuse and fragile toxic masculinity, but integrity tests to ensure that their emotional walls are strong enough to endure the shocks of life.
It started as a result of a woman complaining that men were constantly berating each other in what she saw as masculine dick-measuring contests; and I had to explain what she really saw, and why those are so important.
5 years later, and still probably 1-3 times a year, someone swings by my messages to tell me thanks.
I think the biggest takeaways that I saw were that:
Women never built up emotional walls, and were always stunned, surprised, or hurt, when men interacted with them like men. Women built up each other's egos, but had nothing to protect them with.
Men who never experienced normal socialization always thought every ball was a brick, and so reacted badly, accordingly.
It's totally a thing among normal boys and men.
I always had trouble relating with how other guys would behave when we were among eachothers. How they would talk shit at eachothers and laugh. Constantly.
Could be extremely vulgar at times, but it wasen't random ( I don't know how to explain. the phrasing? tone? the non-verbal cues? ). Like how there is a clear difference between boys playing rough and boys having a fight?
Any temper lost was quickly regained with no grudge.
At work, I see older men who are friends still do that.
I can't do that, but can tell when coworkers are trying to ''play'' that way with me too and it's just akward. It's obvious they're just doing that, not being jerk. Just including me in it but it dosen't work.
P.S. : I did experience that socialisation, but never got over the ''everything is a brick'' when directly involved. Initially it got me alot of (deserved) shit because well, I ''responded with bricks'', but later I stuck with ''if I have nothing nice to say I'll just shut up'' and made friends again.
Always found it interesting to see my friends do the insult-the-shit-out-of-eachothers.
It's because there is an understanding that no one is actually under any real threat, where as you were responding in an insecure manner because you struggled to emotionally accept that you and your social value were not in jeapordy.
Same reason you can steal a cookie from a baker and he'll be annoyed, but if you steal a cookie from a homeless man, by taking it out of his mouth, he might stab you over it.
What this means is that you will need to continue your efforts at socialization and develop more emotional stoicism. Saying nothing doesn't help because it doesn't allow you to build social bonds that form relationships, which form the basis of your life generally.
Oh I didn't stay quiet, I developped a good sense of humour and made good friends who appreciated my company and I appreciated theirs too.
I just never got the hang of the shit-talking.
Sometimes the jokes were almost shit-talking with close friends, but never going half as far as my friends took it.
This could only happen after the ''shut up if you have nothing nice to say'' phase which got me friends.
( And never with coworkers. )
P.S. : Oh now I remember : Social anxiety : pathological fear of negative judgement from others.
It's a personality trait you're stuck to manage forever so it stays under control.
Unless you want to end-up freezing with you hand on the door knob because if you go outside, people will see you, and you don't want them to think you exist.
And like you said, managing that involves going out of your way to do things that don't come-up naturally to you : go out and be around people, listen and talk to them.
Great read, thanks for sharing!
No problem
Surprised some jannie never deleted it out of spite.
I was fucking surprised to. I actually sent an apology to the mods for "taking up too much space" which was a thing that the feminist mods always did. They never responded. I think some of them might have learned something.
"Where did all the good men go?"
Where the good women are--Europe and Asia.
Any of you guys actually run into any women in the wild who say men should cry more or be more emotional? It's all over the online discourse, but I haven't seen it in real life, even when interacting with liberals.
Do Feminist teachers count?
Sure. It's been a while since I've been in school. I wouldn't be surprised if this shit was in a lot of classrooms, especially for shit like sociology.
Should have stopped there. No, no one 'deserves' to be loved.
Put the black pill pez dispenser down for a bit, AoV.
I think we can say that most people "deserve" to be loved by someone. "Deserve" doesn't mean it's a "right" you should be guaranteed, it's a declaration of an ideal.
"Good people deserve good things" doesn't mean you have a right to receive these things, it means the ideal outcome would be this statement.
Well, but this is the point:
A lot of people use it in exactly that way.
It's not a black-pill! It's just a statement against entitlement. You do are not entitled to the love of other people. It is a free and undeserved gift, so you should be all the more grateful for it.
When I was a kid, my Middle Eastern family's love for me felt a bit suffocating. I sort of felt like it was the natural order of things, and maybe even resented a little. But now that I am a bit older, I realize just what it is, and how much you have to be thankful for.
Here we're talking about a different kind of love. But the same principle applies.
"Judge a man by his deserts and who will escape a whipping?"
All kidding aside, this resentful meme does not sound like "the ideal situation would be where someone would love me".
And there are many, many people who think that they are entitled to others because they are "nice guys" or "nice girls" or whatever.
I wish people would stop dropping the "self" when using the word entitled. That's what you actually mean.
You're entitled to a lot of shit, you're entitled to compensation for your labor, you're entitled to your property, you're entitled to your rights. Doesn't matter if those rights are trampled, you're just losing something you're entitled to.
People mean "self-entitled" which means you demand something you have no actual right to.
Perfect example of language "evolving" in confusing ways that hurt communication. This always happens every generation but now with social media words are changing definitions every few years.
IIRC the word "literally" is another example of a word that completely flipped meaning at least twice in history.
Everyone does. Because everyone had parents who should have done so and there is nothing a child could do that should change that. In which case you learn to love yourself as a consequence of growing up properly in such an environment. The lack of both these things is how men get caught in these death spirals.
You have gone so far into being the contrarian you can't even think beyond "nope nu uh, its wrong!"
I can think of plenty of reasons. And if your parents do love you, you should be grateful for that, as not everyone has that, rather than regarding it as an entitlement or your birthright.
[alwayswas.jpg.]
If a child commits any of those reasons, you can just as easily blame the parents for failing to raise them properly to lead to this conclusion. You fucking up, and then getting to opt out of your part of the bargain makes you the shitty person.
You being entitled to it doesn't absolve you of being grateful. That's just moving the goalpost to a completely new requirement now.
If you think so little of yourself, it actually makes sense now why you are arguing this point so strongly.
Isn't this just another way of denying free will?
Why should one be grateful for something that is an entitlement?
I think being contrarian has a fair amount of value, if it's not done mindlessly.
No, because the child still has their free will to do as they please, and so does the parent. However, the child has been influenced in their personality, values and thereby will by the parent's rearing. Unless you want to argue that people are 100% nature, their will will be influenced incredibly heavily by their parent's. Ergo, they hold considerable blame when a child, who we do not hold to the same standards as an adult as they are still maturing, commits an action.
Which means it is pure selfishness and denying their own culpability when they now deny that child love over something they do. They have the freedom to do so, regardless.
The same way I say thank you when someone whose job is to do something does that something. Taking something for granted has always been a negative act, regardless if it is in fact granted.
If you think this level of contrarian isn't mindless, then you really are losing your edge. Because all its doing is making you look dumber and everyone else double down because of how easy it is to pick your argument apart.
Except in cases of abuse, it is pretty close to 100%. People do not want to hear this, but it is the truth.
The intention was not at all to deny anyone's culpability. Only to say that people are entitled to nothing.
It is far more likely to be taken for granted if you present it as an entitlement.
And yet no one did.
Sure man. Whatever makes you feel more intelligent.
It's not contrarian, he's expressing it as a concept of entitlement. You are not entitled to Love, which is a very specific duty that your spouse/lover engages in with you as an individual responsibility and commitment to both you and the family you cultivate.
No it is being contrarian because "oh I meant this one specific definition of the word (that I never specified in the slightest) instead of the general everyone uses" is below his level of intelligence and retarded, so I won't entertain it.
Even going into that pit, you are absolutely entitled to love with your partner/spouse. If they are not providing that, then they are not keeping up with one of the expected, or outright stated, halves of the bargain and are grounds for being terminated. You are not entitled to anyone you choose loving you, but if someone enters a relationship with you you are absolutely entitled to their love.
Unless you/he want to argue that relationship's, and women, are purely transactional things that exist only for strict utilitarian means and emotions are just pure gravy on it.
Maybe it's just your location where it's different, but this is absolutely how "deserved to be loved" is used in common parlance where I, and apparently he, are at.
That love is an out-growth of that relationship. You are not entitled to such a relationship in the first place. It must be earned, and will never be granted.
You're still taking it the wrong way. Deserves and entitlement are used interchangeably in common parlance, and as such, there is no entitlement to being loved.
Trying to make one point of "this is exactly the definition that he was using and everyone I know uses" and then a different "these words are interchangeable and flip floppy about their use" really isn't a strong foot.
Regardless, you, like he, are doing everything possible to take the conclusion (a hard, strict 100% no one deserves love) and then working backwards by adding qualifier after qualifier to make that work when someone points out simple and easy times when someone does.
I'm taking it exactly as he said. "No one deserves to be loved" and have already disproven that. All you've said is "no no, we in (Europe like he is from) mean completely different things when we say common words."
Yes those are the words I also said repeated back to me, yet packaged as a rebuttal somehow.
It's not working backwards, it using the word 'deserves' in the way that it is used. You are using a different definition.
I am not. You just keep trying that as the solution because its the only way that I can be considered wrong.
Here is the exact quote from him. Tell me in what way deserves is used in this sentence wherein I am wrong in saying a child deserves to be loved by their parent. Because apparently pedantic word games is the level you want to bring this to.