True Love not only Feels but Serves and Provides Support as well

Vivian made a comment under the “Response to ‘What if Something Happens To Your Husband?’ at Simple Southern Spirit” post that I would like to respond to; this paragraph in particular:

“True love is when a woman marries a guy when she doesn’t need him. By “doesn’t need him” I mean, she doesn’t need him to support her financially and she can live just fine on her own, BUT she chooses to be with a man out of love and desire for that man. See the difference ? In a woman who doesn’t need you to live, but yet wants to be with you ? Versus a woman that needs you because she needs someone to pay her bills ? To me if a woman needs a man to pay her bills, there is no real love there, she is with him mainly for what he can provide financially and he is replaceable, hence your statement about remarrying if her husband dies so a woman can find a new provider. That’s not love, love is when someone can’t be replaced, no one else will measure up. Women remarrying for financial support means any man will do as long as he is paying her bills.”

First off, let us define what we mean here by this concept of “true love.” For Vivian “true love” seems to mean love not “contaminated” or “corrupted” by other interests or factors such as needing the other person to “pay the bills.” I would define “true love” in another way, to love someone completely and fully with all your heart and all your capabilities as a man or a woman where you are putting the interests of the other above your own idealistically.

Love, romantic love in the context of marriage, is a multi-part thing. It is not just “being in love” or “feeling love;” there are duties in a marriage and a higher purpose the marriage is meant to serve, a purpose greater than just the feelings of the man and the woman involved.

Love, the feeling of love, exists within a wider context and is meant to serve a particular purpose. Love does not exist simply as a stand alone entity for its own sake, a kind of consumption item to be consumed for ones own pleasure. Love is a signal of duty and obligation towards the beloved or the object of ones affections. You love the other person because you are meant to serve the other person, your feeling of love towards them telling you that you want to serve THIS PERSON more than any other person. The person you love the most is the person you want to serve the most, is the person you want to give your life to to the exclusion of all others.

Love is a reward or an incentive; it serves a very practical function and purpose. When you love someone the object of your affections gives you great pleasure. You enjoy looking at them because they are so beautiful, you like the sound of their voice, you love interacting with them and the beloved paying attention to you; you especially like approval from and affection and physical intimacy with the beloved. All of these interactions with the beloved give you rewards that you get specifically from the beloved and no one else. “No one makes me feel like you do” being the refrain. The purpose of all this is to create a very strong incentive to “be with” the person you love. This then is the motivation to serve the person you love so that the object of your affections will agree to allow you to be in close proximity with them and be intimate with them. Love creates the incentive to “be near” one person in particular more than any other person which then is combined with service towards the one you love so that the one you love will allow you to be near them and intimate with them.

Love must always be combined with service as the whole purpose of love is to motivate and reward service in the first place. One of the key aspects of loving someone is wanting them to be happy and wanting to please them and wanting to benefit them; wanting to make their life better. This emotional attribute of love certainly fits well with the primary purpose of love which is to motivate service to the beloved. Love without service makes no sense and is abusive and manipulative towards the “beloved” who is owed service but denied it.

Another thing, love is derivative of attraction; you love most whom you find the most attractive. Attraction however is based on the other person’s ability to serve you the most. Attractive qualities in a potential mate are precisely those qualities that best indicate that other person’s ability to serve you and benefit you so the whole reason why you find someone attractive in the first place is because their qualities and attributes indicate their high capacity to serve you best, better than the other members of their sex. Finding someone attractive means you perceive their attributes will serve you well, that they “feel good” to you. Of course you then hope they will be able to fulfill the benefit to you indicated or “promised” by their attractive features, that their attractiveness was a “true signal” of their worth rather than a false or misleading signal. If someone possesses attractiveness but then fails to follow through on their duty of service to their romantic partner then their signal of attraction in the first place was corrupt and fraudulent meaning the feeling of love they generated in the person who became attracted to them was based on false premises and was illegitimate at its core.

A woman is owed financial support whatever man she marries. In other words the man “paying the bills” should be a given whatever man a woman decides to marry. “Paying the bills” is a fundamental first duty or first principle of what being a man is all about. If a man can’t “pay the bills” then he is not even ready to get married at all to any woman, he is not even meeting the basic minimum standards of what he as a man owes a woman in a marital relationship. So a woman should not be marrying a particular man because that particular man is ready and able to “pay the bills.” All men available for marriage should come with that attribute and that benefit so that what makes a man “better” or “special” will be based on some other positive characteristic that is unique to him or a special strength of his. A woman should indeed choose a particular man above all other men because that particular man generates love and desire within her more powerfully than any other man. At the same time the man has to pay the bills regardless because that is just a basic fundamental thing.

It needs to be kept in mind; romantic love is competitive and exclusionary by nature. You marry one woman and fully devote yourself to that one woman and in return you expect and demand that that woman forsake and reject all other men in favor of you. What this means is that when you marry a woman you are not only giving to her what you have to offer her but in addition you are denying to her whatever your strongest romantic competition had to offer her instead. So if you fail to support your wife financially remember that you are harming her in a very serious way as you are not only failing in your duties to her as her husband, you are also blocking her access to better men who would not shirk their responsibilities towards her like you are doing.

So what about a woman marrying a man “just for the money” whom she doesn’t really truly love? A woman may indeed be abusive to a wealthy successful man in this way; a man particularly successful financially will have to be wary of this and look at his prospective wife during the courtship process carefully to make sure that she “truly loves him” and is not “just after his money.” This doesn’t mean however that it is wrong for women to evaluate a man based partially on his earning capacity and net worth; the money and earning capacity a man brings to a relationship is a very important part of what the man has to offer the woman. Most importantly it needs to be kept in mind that a woman is intrinsically dependent upon a man when a woman chooses to enter into a romantic relationship with a man as the primary moral purpose of marriage is to free women from the masculine world of work for money so that the woman can instead devote herself fully to the feminine realm where she is at her strongest and most competent and through which she can contribute to the lives of others the most. The primary purpose of marriage after all is service to those dependent upon the woman (in particular children) through the empowerment and support of women’s femininity through the mechanism of husbands financially supporting their wives.

As a man I most definitely want to be married to a woman who is dependent upon me and needs for me to “pay the bills” in order to be able to do all the things she wants to do and that I support her doing as a woman. I want a woman to not only love me because of my attractive characteristics which signal to her my capacity to serve her as a man but also to love me because of my actual service to her and my actual benefit to her life. I want to be loved not only because of my desirable characteristics but also because I am actually good and treating my wife well and giving to her both what she desires and also what she needs. I want to be a good man and loved and appreciated as such by the woman I love the most, more than any other woman in the world. That to me is true love, the kind of love I want most from a woman.

Advertisements

About Jesse Powell TFA

Anti-Feminist, MRA, Pro-Traditional Women's Rights Traditional Family Activist (TFA)
This entry was posted in Relationship Dynamics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to True Love not only Feels but Serves and Provides Support as well

  1. Vivian says:

    ” Love is a reward or an incentive; it serves a very practical function and purpose. When you love someone the object of your affections gives you great pleasure. You enjoy looking at them because they are so beautiful, you like the sound of their voice, you love interacting with them and the beloved paying attention to you; you especially like approval from and affection and physical intimacy with the beloved. All of these interactions with the beloved give you rewards that you get specifically from the beloved and no one else. “No one makes me feel like you do” being the refrain. The purpose of all this is to create a very strong incentive to “be with” the person you love. This then is the motivation to serve the person you love so that the object of your affections will agree to allow you to be in close proximity with them and be intimate with them. Love creates the incentive to “be near” one person in particular more than any other person which then is combined with service towards the one you love so that the one you love will allow you to be near them and intimate with them. ”

    I was just answering more towards your ” remarrying to find a new provider ” in reference to when a woman loses her beloved husband. In the world you describe, a woman shouldn’t support herself financially because doing so would be going out into a “man’s world” and working outside the home for a paycheck is seen as “masculine” to you, for a woman to do. This places a woman in the precarious situation of, if her husband dies,she will now be forced to find herself a new provider because she can’t support herself and if her husband died while the couple was young, she will definitely need to remarry again or else be a burden to her parents. What if she was just in love with her husband and never wants another relationship again after he dies ? She just loved him and now he is gone and she doesn’t want any other guy to ruin her memories she had of him ? And lets say she is young, in her 20s or 30s ? How is she suppose to financially support herself if she didn’t earn a degree and it’s “masculine” to work outside the home ? Women can’t be a burden to their parents forever if no man wants to marry her, or be forced to remarry again if her husband dies, because she needs a provider. It would be nice if she studied and has a high paying career and if she never wants to marry again after her husband dies, and she’s in her 30s, then she will be fine on her own supporting herself.

    A woman can still come home from work and clean the home and cook and do the feminine things around the home, while the man still has his responsibilities around the home as well. It’s all very doable. You would not be apart from your significant other, I mean, you will be working around the same shifts and coming home close to the same time. It’s not to say you are less of a man if she is working for a living outside the home and is making just as much money as you. Just look at it as a her being a financial helpmate… and isn’t that the point of being together as a couple ? To have a friend, helpmate, lover and companion for yourself ? There’s no need to make someone helpless and dependent on you for their survival. You are setting her back by her not working outside the home. She isn’t able to survive on her own later in case something happened to you and she never wanted to marry again, she’d be forced to marry for financial support or else be a burden on her parents. You shouldn’t disable someone in that capacity.

    • wildcucumber says:

      I would never argue that a woman should not work if she wishes to, or even that all couples can live on one income.

      However, I simply can’t agree that a woman *must* work in case something happens to her husband. A husband who is willing and able to support his wife and children financially while he is alive is also able to provide for them after his death with life insurance and proper financial management. This is one of the first things a mature man will see to as he prepares for marriage.

      For those young couples who are just finding their feet, it may well be necessary for her to help with the finances, until they learn to budget properly and live within their means. Once that is achieved, the decision as to whether she will choose to continue working can be made based on conscience, not risk.

      The ability to live within one’s means and the maturity to prepare for the unthinkable should be taught to all young couples planning to have a traditional marriage.

  2. @ Vivian:

    It’s not to say you are less of a man if she is working for a living outside the home and is making just as much money as you. Just look at it as a her being a financial helpmate… and isn’t that the point of being together as a couple ? To have a friend, helpmate, lover and companion for yourself ?

    A man most definitely is “less of a man” if his wife is working outside of the home making as much money as he is making. What a disgrace! What the hell purpose is such a man serving as a husband in this kind of situation? Is it the husband supporting the wife or is it the wife supporting the husband? The main point of being a man is to support women so if a man is not in fact even supporting his own wife then he is definitely less of a man.

    This idea of a wife being a “financial helpmate” is totally outrageous. A wife is indeed her husband’s “helpmate” but she is a helpmate regarding the husband’s higher idealistic purpose and service to God. Her job is not to facilitate the husband’s irresponsibility or laziness by doing his job for him; that is the wife undermining the husband rather than supporting her husband.

    The point of being together as a couple is not to make each other feel good and it is not even for the husband and wife to support each other in a selfish sense; the purpose of being together as a couple is as a vehicle for the man’s masculinity to support the woman’s femininity in the woman’s service to others.

    Another thing, I don’t get what all this business is about not remarrying if your husband dies first. I don’t see anything wrong with remarrying. If I died before my wife I certainly would want my wife to remarry after I’m gone if that would benefit her in her life after me. If a woman doesn’t want to remarry then fine, then it is reasonable for her to pursue a career as a single woman. I have no objection to single women pursuing careers. A married woman however should not work because working is her husband’s job, not her job. It is her husband’s role in society, not her role in society.

    @ Wildcucumber

    I would never argue that a woman should not work if she wishes to, or even that all couples can live on one income.

    Just because a woman wishes to work that does not mean it is morally right for a woman to work. I would say that a married woman definitely should not work if her husband is opposed to her working as a wife should be under her husband’s authority and the wife not working is consistent with the public good. Also a husband has no right to “order” his wife to work if she does not want to as support of the wife is the husband’s responsibility.

    Also, all married couples should try their hardest to live off of one income, the husband’s income. The vast majority of the time under normal conditions this will be possible especially in the materially rich environment of today. It certainly should be the standard and the expected norm that a married couple will live off of one income; the husband’s income.

    • wildcucumber says:

      I actually agree with you on all points, but morals can’t be forced on others any more than you can squeeze toothpaste back into a tube.

      I’ve walked a mile in both sets of shoes, and I have a lot of sympathy for couples who wish to live traditionally but are still fearful of doing so because of lifelong indoctrination from a feminist society. It takes a lot of courage to break free of that, and there is little support to be found for traditional choices. Worst of all, as I tried to say above but perhaps was not clear, is that the young are not taught to plan their lives properly and usually lack the emotional maturity to see the wisdom in the traditional roles of husband and wife. They have no role models.

      I’m now at home where I feel I belong, My husband is a happier man for it. My two sons support their wives, as well.

      You’re right, it is entirely feasible but it’s not always easy and our society prefers easy, doesn’t it! I just think it’s better for us to lead by kindly example than to preach and point fingers.

    • Vivian says:

      LOL.

      No ! the man is not “less of a man” just because his wife works outside the home. Come on ! Women need money to buy things they want to buy without having to ask the husband for money or permission to do so. She may want to buy things for herself he thinks are of no importance and may not want to spend the money on it. Also, unless the woman is just really lazy with ZERO ambition in life, she would WANT to have a job and earn her own money, as a human being you just feel productive earning your own money. I mean…. there’s only so much to do around the home, cleaning and cooking is not a 9 hour event every single day of the week.

      What’s to happen when the man gets tired of his old aging wife and he leaves her for a much younger woman ? Ouch, how does the wife bounce back from that ? Let’s say she’s 50 and it’s too late to start a career ? What now ? She has dedicated herself entirely to her husband who has now stabbed her in the back in old age. I see this happening much too often, I do clinicals in the hospital and there are plenty of older doctors who have traded in the wife for a newer model. How sad for the wife right ? She did nothing with her life except cater to her husband, and then he decides after she spent her entire youth on him, that she is no longer good. Sure she might get alimony, but really, what helps you feel good about yourself is how productive you are in society and that’s done by working, by having a profession, making a difference in the world, putting your own stamp on it.

      If it works for you and your wife that you work and she stays home, and you love her and wouldn’t leave her, great, she’s got a good man, I think the couple should do whatever works for them. You sound like a responsible, courteous person though, I just think you place too much responsibility on the guy and what he should do in a relationship.

      • Debra says:

        Vivian, I agree with you!!! As a woman and as a human being, we all need to feel productive. For me, there was no better source of self-esteem or self-respect was when I finally learned to stand on my own feet and support myself. It does not feel good being dependent on others. I can attest to that, being the submissive and passive person that I was, I always found myself adjusting my life around others. My family, then my husband,(now ex-husband), that I began to question my own sanity. When you allow others to make all or most of the decisions that affect your life, you begin to feel like you do not have any control of your own life. Such was the case with me.

        But since I have moved out on my own, this is the happiest I have ever been. It really is true that work gives a person a sense of purpose and pride, and that there is nothing more empowering then knowing that you can support yourself.

        But do not think that I am opposed to marriage. I think marriage is great if both partners respect and nurture one another. Support should be a two-way street. Bu unfortunately, it is the wife who does most of or all of the supporting, which I believe, more often then not, will lead to resentment over time.. That is not the nature of just women, but everyone. Human nature transcends gender or race. When you build your life around someone else, not only does that person lose a sense of him or herself, but that person that build your life around is taking on an extra burden…not just oneself but another person as well. For what? One’s ego?

    • Debra says:

      I cannot believe what I am reading. A woman most certainly has the right to work and earn an income. If any that objects to women working or having the right to exercise any control over lives do no belong in a free, democratic society. Sorry, but if a man opposes women working should probably move to Afghanistan, and live among the Taliban. You share much in common with them.

      • wildcucumber says:

        Woah there Debra, don’t you think you’re over reacting a little with the Taliban crack? The fact is that there is room for all sorts of choices in a free and democratic society, including those couples who choose tradition. That’s the whole point of freedom. Choice.

        “When you build your life around someone else, not only does that person lose a sense of him or herself, but that person that build your life around is taking on an extra burden…not just oneself but another person as well. For what? One’s ego?”

        I’m sorry, but that is just not true. Love is all about building your life around the other, as they build their lives around you and parents builds their lives around their children. It is through this that ego is tamed.

        Debra & Vivian – both of you seem to assume the worst of men and belittle women for making a choice you don’t understand. Perhaps one day you’ll find that people live up or down to our expectations of them. There are very good kind supportive men in the world who do not trade their wives in for newer models and are happy to support them, as well as women who find the role of traditional wife to be incredibly fulfilling.

        The problem here is partly about language. In modern usage words like “authority”, “surrender” and “submission” are understood differently than they are traditionally or in a religious or spiritual context. Perhaps Jesse would like to address that, I don’t want to hijack this thread any more…

        Christine

      • infowarrior1 says:

        Women can work from the home did you not know? And also did you not know that being a SAHM is a privilege and did you not know that women had the option to go to work before feminism?

  3. infowarrior1 says:

    There is the implicit assumption and inequality and authority is abusive. Hence they are bad.

  4. Mhornbeam says:

    I gotta say, I do not understand why working women would want to be part of this movement. What is in it for them? If this were how society was set up – only men and single women work – what would be the incentive for a woman who does not want to only stay home to marry at all? Most women I know prefer to work at least part time and do not just want to be taken care of if the trade off is no say in your own life.

    You do not sound like an atheist with the way you talk of God, there is a strong patriarchal society in fundamentalism. Why not court one of their girls? Look into No Greater Joy and sites like that and you would find a girl who shares most if not all of your philosophy and has been raised knowing how to cook, clean, and raise children. I would think you would have great luck and be very happy.

  5. @Infowarrior1

    Yes a woman can work from home for money but a married woman should not be expected to work for money either at a separate work location or from home. Financial support is the husband’s job, not the wife’s. Being a SAHM (stay at home mother) is a fundamental right I would say (assuming the woman is married), not a “privilege.” Support for the wife by the husband should be assumed for all married women. Yes, a single woman always had the option to go to work before feminism and a married woman had the option to work with her husband’s permission before feminism though married women working was definitely discouraged before feminism.

    @Mhornbeam

    You ask why would a working woman want to be part of my movement? Obviously I am not looking for feminists to join my movement, my movement is specifically anti-feminist. I just want to communicate that women working is harmful except under particular conditions; that women should in general work in occupations and in roles consistent with their feminine strengths as women and that specifically married women should be strongly discouraged from working at all. A woman can choose to be single if she prefers or to marry but marriage involves obligations to others, in particular obligations to the husband and to the woman’s children she will have within the marriage. These obligations a wife has to her husband and to her children is the reason why working should not be allowed against the husband’s wishes and why in general a married woman working is a bad idea.

    I am an atheist who thinks the moral philosophy of religion makes a lot of sense and works quite well. I consciously seek to imitate religious ways of thinking in many ways. I still am an atheist in the literal sense however of not believing in the reality of a literal supernatural God. I view the source of the nature of life as being evolution. Men and women evolved complementary characteristics and strengths which then lead to the patriarchal social system being the best social system for mankind.

    As far as courting a religious fundamentalist woman, I would be happy to marry a strongly religious woman. I might worry the woman would have a hard time accepting my atheism and that the religious community she is a part of would try to discourage her from marrying an atheist like me but from my point of view marrying a strongly religious woman who shares my views due to her religious training and beliefs would be great. Of course an atheist woman who shares my beliefs and values would also be good. I do want a woman who is idealistic however and has a strong “God concept” that she lives by.

    Thanks for the tip regarding No Great Joy and similar sites; it’s always good to know from a practical point of view where good women can be found. 🙂

  6. Mhornbeam says:

    Ooh, fast response. I like that in a blogger 🙂

    I wasn’t speaking of necessarily feminists as I had never thought that only feminists believe in married women working outside the home. Though I admit I have never ever considered that. Most of my experience and knowledge of this comes from the church groups that I was involved with in college and my half and half conservative/liberal church now where most of the women don’t announce that they are feminist but married women who work are everywhere.

    Just to clarify – is this a society-wide movement you would like to see but are pretty sure it wouldn’t happen anytime soon or are you after a small slice of society much like the fundamentalists occupy now? If the first what changes do you see needing to happen in our culture to facilitate that?

  7. I wasn’t speaking of necessarily feminists as I had never thought that only feminists believe in married women working outside the home. Though I admit I have never ever considered that. Most of my experience and knowledge of this comes from the church groups that I was involved with in college and my half and half conservative/liberal church now where most of the women don’t announce that they are feminist but married women who work are everywhere.

    This is an interesting comment for you to make here. Historically speaking advocating that married women should work is definitely feminist and even fringe and “extreme” in terms of how such an idea would look 100 years ago. Today married women working is so taken for granted that even the thought that married women shouldn’t work in the ordinary course of affairs is foreign to most people and even religious people who see themselves as conservative will still often have the wife working and not think that much of it. Just goes to show how thoroughly feminism has taken over things.

    Just to clarify – is this a society-wide movement you would like to see but are pretty sure it wouldn’t happen anytime soon or are you after a small slice of society much like the fundamentalists occupy now? If the first what changes do you see needing to happen in our culture to facilitate that?

    To answer this part, I am ambitious. I am not after a “small slice” of society, I want the whole thing. Patriarchy is good while feminism is bad; therefore the whole society should be patriarchal. It is really as simple as that. The “fundamentalists” occupy a small counter-cultural niche today but that doesn’t mean religious fundamentalism Christian style will stay small. I see my role as basically promoting patriarchy into the wider culture in the secular sphere without the religious barrier part blocking non-religious people’s access to the patriarchal cultural system. I want people to see that patriarchy is good at the rational logical level without a need for religious justification to sustain it or explain it.

    As far as what needs to change in the culture to bring about the bright patriarchal future? Feminism is degenerative, let’s not forget that. Children are always worse off than their parents under feminism. This naturally leads to rebellion against feminism as the feminist cultural environment becomes depleted with nothing to offer anymore. At that point rebellion against feminism becomes completely rational regardless of how much the feminists kick and scream and try to punish those no longer loyal to their ideology. This is how the rebellion starts and since feminism is constantly in a state of deterioration the motivation to escape from feminism becomes greater and greater over time leading to more and more rapid defection away from feminism towards patriarchy. This phenomenon is system wide or society wide, this is why patriarchy will not stay contained to small pockets but will instead ultimately take over the entire culture.

    I am just doing my small part in this process with my blog trying to promote patriarchy in the secular sphere since secularism is my specialty, me being an atheist and all.

  8. mhornbeam says:

    Thank you much for your response. A bit clearer now I think.

    Married women have been working outside the home longer than I have been alive – the late 60’s – so for me this was a totally normal way of growing up. My mom worked, my grandmother worked, my friends’ mothers worked. I was never told that this was some feminist ideal, my mother was never interested in that kind of stuff. In the early 70’s growing up my friends and I had no interest in what was going on in the world. I only heard about the ERA in sitcoms on tv and wasn’t sure at the time what it was or why it was important. I never heard my parents discuss these issues and 70’s tv – the stupid and jiggly comedies may have touched on feminism but never in any depth – didn’t show much feminism. The women working on tv tended to be single, Mary Tyler Moore, That Girl, etc. So for me at least, feminism wasn’t even on my radar.

    I grew up with a mother who loved her job. My aunt loved staying home with her kids. I grew up thinking I could work if I wanted or not, totally up to me. So as I say, my personal experience in my childhood and all through my growing up and my adulthood has been women work or don’t as they will.

    Do you see the total deterioration of feminism happening as quickly as in your lifetime or do you think it will take generations to accomplish?

  9. Pingback: Intimacy, Dominance, and Service | Secular Patriarchy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s