True love only exists between men

Two faggot threads, a hypergamy thread and a bestiality thread all on the front page together

Thanks sharebIue

>not father and child
reconsider your life

Also two "nazis were so dumb xD " threads.

This, not even gay, bromance > romance, women don't understand honor and respect.

Yes, and it's called friendship. Roastbeef people aka women can't into friendship.

Regardless if this is true, this sounds 100% positively homosexual. Don't ever say this around another person.

Fatherly love is a social construct of the modern era.

>shareblue

Is that the new /pol/ boogeyman or something?

>True love only exists between men.
Yes.

>Fatherly love is a social construct of the modern era.
Also yes.

Is this the same poster both times? Rare to find someone who sat down to think for 5 minutes before posting pop culture bullshit on Veeky Forums.

Nah, more like non sexual, non familial, purely platonic comraderie only exists between men. Watch any film or read any book involving war and the bonds between men under hardship and ask a woman about it and she will literally not get it. Women cannot comprehend this stuff. Of course by the same flip of the coin there are likely bonds felt by women that men cannot comprehend either.

If you think in terms of the gene, its biological imperative, the collective of genes that is a man, the desire of a gene to spread, even if that means aiding copies of itself found in other collectives - the other tribesmen, and so on, and so on, you will explain a lot of social constructs like nationalism, family, brotherhood, and also love. It will put love as the bond between two men. Women will not lose as much if another tribe takes over, they will still spread their genes. They have no loyalty and no bond to the tribe. Men would be killed in such a scenario, and their genes would lose with every tribesman killed, and will be washed away from the surviving women by quantity of offspring and over time as the new people take over.

I am too tired to post about this shit, just giving you a direction to go in when thinking, sorry if I don't make sense.

T. Someone whose father hated him

1. Fathers in most mammals care little for their offspring.
2. As a male, your best reproductive strategy is to have sex and move on.
3. As a male, you can't even be sure you are the father of the child you supposedly love.

Even as soon as a couple of generations ago the father would just go to work, bring money, and not interact much with the child.
Why do you think we have all those dramas? Why do you think "ur dad haet u lol" came to your mind so naturally there?

youtube.com/watch?v=B32yjbCSVpU

I like fatherly love for a modern society, I think its a good practice that we are doing a good job forcing, but it isn't natural and it isn't something we've had around for too long.

a fathers love for the child is much more genuine and meaningful than the mothers

Faggots are still the major carries of AIDS, which makes you faggots literally the cancer of humanity. So you need to stop your degenerate propaganda and die alone!

yawn

/thread

zzzzzzzzzzzzz

men and young girls*
ftfy

Hey Rabbi, whatcha doing?

this makes perfect sense, don't worry.

on the flipside, i think women feel a stronger bond to their children generally because a man can have 20 children with many women without any significant effort, while women can only have so many children. plus there's the whole going through pregnancy and possibility of dying during childbirth debacle.

western society as a whole really just makes so much sense to me. it helps everyone spread their genes through monogomay (for better or worse) so men are happy and it keeps women and their children safe through communities that are protected by happy men.

>implying

>1. Fathers in most mammals care little for their offspring.
We're the few mammals that do.

>2. As a male, your best reproductive strategy is to have sex and move on.
Most men don't want hundreds of children. They want the few children they have to thrive and be happy.

>3. As a male, you can't even be sure you are the father of the child you supposedly love.
Irrelevant. A man can love a child he's adopted and raised.

>Even as soon as a couple of generations ago the father would just go to work, bring money, and not interact much with the child
Which cultures specifically, and at what exact time? Because in a lot of cultures children helped both their Father and Mother with work.

You did not get his point at all

dogs are shit and overrated hard by anthropomorphizing dogfaggots

>MUUUUUUHHH TEN THOUSAND YEARS OF EVOLLUSHSUUUNNNNSSS

nobody cares autist, get your overgrown rat to stop shitting in my front yard.

Perhaps. His argument was that Fatherly love didn't exist until the modern era, and he hasn't provided convincing evidence for his argument. What am I missing?

>mans bestfriend
Hardly, dogfags need to stop pushing this meme so much.

t. muslim and/or swarthy brown third worlder

>isn't obsessed with dogs
>must be a muslim
Faulty logic, yet one all too common.

I know faggots are such hedonistic degenerates they can't possibly know the difference but love isn't the same as cum.

>logic is good
redditor spotted
UH OWNING PETS ISNT LOGICAL UM... WTF WHITE MAN

irrational hatred of dogs=/=not obsessed with dogs

you are undoubtedly some shitty brown third worlder or some numale

Depends on how you define love

t. cat

sapristi, can you even IMAGINE all the shit that has to go wrong within the human brain for a dude to be sexually interested in another dude?

I mean, think about how normal men feel about women. Feeling that way for a dude is just so backwards and wrong it just boggles my mind. Like seriously, its incomprehensible.

and THEN they not only want you not to say anything about thwir completely skewered view, they DEMAND that you actually EMBRACE it! Can you even countenance such a thing? Ita literal insanity, and people just go along with it, dum de dum.

Its like all this Trump shit. You KNOW hes full of complete and utter horse dunh, ABSOLUTE bollocks, but there are a literal braindead few that go along with it like theres nothing wrong

I really hate the world right now, everyones gone totally goddamn mad, and its normal amd accepted, even expected.

You talk as if all the problems in the world are due to AIDS.

All your arguments cam be summarized by saying that, yes, this social construct does exist, and you follow it without being aware of it.
If you want to talk biological imperative, and not societal constructs, you need to talk genes. Things like "I love my adopted son" are not compatible with the conversation. This is strictly society and contrary to biological imperative.

>His argument was that Fatherly love didn't exist until the modern era

My argument is that fatherly love is a social construct. It was build over time, at different paces in different societies. It exists the same way "courage" or "beauty" or "justice" exist. That is, only in society, and only because society says they do. They aren't biological imperatives, and aren't "real" in the way that lust or fear are.

I'm fairly sure a mother's love is stronger than anything.

A mother's love is more tender, perhaps. You don't drink from daddy's teat, afterall(I hope). But a father's investment in his child is far greater than mom's. To put it bluntly, mom can kill your bitch-ass and have another one. Dad can't quite do that.

You might be right a lot of the time, but that is not a definite or even consistent thing.

And thank god for that since fatherly love surpasses motherly love.

>But a father's investment in his child is far greater than mom's.

But this is absolutely wrong, you shithead.
A father's investment in the child can be as low as having 5 minutes of sex.
A mother's investment in the child can be at minimum having sex, carrying it for 9 months, giving birth at a great risk, and it is then in her best interest to take care of it, because she can only copy her genes once every couple of years, and its risky.
Dad can copy his genes five times per day, any day, between the ages of 15 or 60, with almost no risk.

Men have biologically near zero investment in their children, and if we were "in the wild", so to speak, without society, you'd see fathers killing their sons to remove them as competitors. They can always make new ones in like 5 minutes.

A mother invests MUCH more, risks MUCH more, and thus has that biological imperative to take care of her investment, and we call that love. Mothers love more than fathers do, and fatherly love is almost entirely a social construct that was required by civilization, not a biological imperative required by the selfish gene.

>To put it bluntly, mom can kill your bitch-ass and have another one. Dad can't quite do that.

What?

Dude, men run out all the time. Men can have 1000s of children if he impregnates enough women.

Women can only have a child every year or so, at best, and they have to carry the child, go through a birth and then stay with them. You hear of very few women leaving children with the father, but men leaving them? All the time.

do homophobes ever get tired of hearing themselves talk?

I think he is one of those muh-soggy-knees guys. You know, not the ironic kind, or the sexual realist kind, rather the ones that actually legitimately and impractically hate women and don't consider them human.
Their group has been growing on Veeky Forums ever since the SJW movement got big online.

Why is it different from Motherly love?

see Mothers have a biological imperative to take care of offspring, because they can only have so many.
Fathers can produce a practically infinite amount of offspring, so don't have the biological imperative to care.
Mothers hurt more, risk more, invest more in a child, and have less of them, so they "love" them more. Pure biologically driven, selfish gene love. No society necessary for it.

If you really believe that, then fine. What can I tell you? If you are just an animal, then fine. But what is love to an animal? We don't live in the wild. These days, a mother's investment can be as low as a subsidized abortion after a few weeks. I suppose I presume a lot in order to make such a statement, and as I said it is not always the case. I don't want to shit on mom. But I guess I just can't fathom looking at people as just animals. Too much of a magical thinker for that. If your concept of love is just instinct... I can't connect with you. I feel like it must be hard to live life that way.

Do you feel? Or is everything you do just compelled by instinct? Are you just an animal? That kind of thinking is revolting to me. What value, then, do your feelings hold? Or anyone's?

I buy your argument for an animal. But we aren't animals. A stallion can 'rape' a mare and that would be the end of it. A man cannot.

What makes man? Is it not his ability to transcend basic instinct? Is that ability not the foundation of society and even this thing we call love? Base emotions are close to instinct, but to say they are entirely reliant on it for validation? Can dad not love and invest in his offspring just as much as mom just because mom acts as any animal would where as dad's love is more human?

You shock me. Have you never truly loved? Have you lived your whole life under the control of instinct and a denunciation or outright refusal of humanity?

Is my love for work more significant because I invest more time and it is more important to my survival than my love for shitposting, &c? The one earns me a living and the other is a low effort affair with little to no importance? I can assure you, I love the latter much more than the former.

I suppose you're right. But I still think there are individual cases that go against your argument, such as shit mothers. How would you explain them?

Mentally ill people don't follow their biological imperative. Some don't eat, others have no sexuality, or the case you propose.
The fact that those are rare exceptions only highlights the overwhelming status quo that confirms the rule.

>muh feels tho!!!! muh feels.... ;((((((

Your inability to comprehend simple written english and get offended by facts is almost as disgusting as all that "poetic" language you use to mask not having an argument.

You can't leave society for 2 seconds to discuss things that go beyond it.

My father touched my peepee once.

>love between men means gay buttsex
Quit projecting, faggot.

Nope. More like twisted, perverted and degenerated love.
Make no mistake, faggots are degenerate, you are the cancer of humanity, especially with HIV. It's better you just stop such disgusting behavior or just KYS.

Yes these people need to take the lavender pill.

But do you agree, that despite fatherly love supposedly being a societal construct, it's still not less powerful or influential than motherly love? Most men don't really think about their biological imperative when considering their children.

>But do you agree, that despite fatherly love supposedly being a societal construct, it's still not less powerful or influential than motherly love?
I didn't comment on that at all. Social constructs, when deeply entrenched, can be powerful. The social construct of courage perfectly counters the biological imperative of fear.

>Most men don't really think about their biological imperative when considering their children.
This isn't relevant to the argument either. Most people aren't aware of their red blood cell count or similar, yet they function. Also as I said, I didn't comment on how strong the social construct is, only that it is in fact a social construct, and not a natural one. Men don't care for children, so to make society tighter, we shamed them into caring and promoted caring for thousands of years. These days there is literal state propaganda and intentional or unintentional mass media and popular art push towards it, from songs and movies to advertisement and goods. Fatherly love is commercialized as well, it sells. So it is very strong, and very well supported, in society. It doesn't exist outside society however, while motherly love does.

Not that user, but are you brain rotten or degenerate? "Love between men and gay buttsex" are exactly what "faggot" represent, you fucking retard.

>social construct
And? The fact it is not some primitive instinct makes it all the more meaningful.

Leftist sophistry is a blight.

Ration your strawmen. Neither did he say its not meaningful, nor did he say anything "leftist".

You are souless, man. You must be a blast to hang out with. I hope your dad is a dick, because I'd hate to have a son who thought of me that way.

You seem adamant on proving OP right at any rate.

I am drew upon other information to reach my conclusion.

I have an excellent relationship with my father, who is a great man.
My ability to look at things objectively instead of emotionally is one he shares too, and we have engaging conversations.

OP talks about "true love", which he doesn't define, so I don't prove him right nor try to.
I am saying that fatherly love is not a biological imperative, and that it was constructed by society to strengthen it, and later to keep men from being overly aggressive, free or independent, and to sell things to men.
This is fine, since I enjoy not having lone wolf types in my settlement, deciding its worth the risk killing and robing me.

You constructed two strawmen, and drew upon those strawen to reach a conclusion that doesn't function in reality.

So you are implying there is no true love between your dad and mom or women are just breeding machine for men? You fucking ungrateful disgusting psychotic misogynist faggot!

Oh, now I get it! You're a broad! Nah, you're right hon. Men have no built in love for their kids. Or their mates. And there is no such thing as an instinct toward the protection of kin. Women do it ALL and men have no part in it. Good thing we managed to shame them into behaving though! Don't worry, I won't question anything you say anymore. My penis means I'm indifferent and need to stay quiet.

You continue to continue to argue from emotion while having zero regard for reason.
Leave society to discuss society, stop using memes to pretend that you observe biology.

Nothing of what I wrote is controversial, it is super simple basic stuff.
Men don't invest much in offspring, since they can have sex multiple times per day, and create a child each time. They can also create healthy children for as long as 50 years of their life.
Women on the other hand can only create children once per year, and take a physical and emotional toll bearing them, and are left weak during and after pregnancy. The act of giving birth can kill them or injure them. They must then take care of the child for years to ensure its survival, and they can't just let it die, because unlike men they don't have the potential to just plant hundreds of seeds, confident that some will catch. Women can also have healthy children for a limited part of their life, maybe 20-30 years. Each pregnancy making them less fit for the next.

Women invest more in a child, and thus have the biological programming to care more for it. Each individual child is a very high percentage of all possible copies of their genes, while in men each individual child is a small percentage, since they have many possibilities to copy their genes over their lives, and don't need to invest in any one child.

Fatherly love is something created by society, for society's sake, and not something created by the gene, for the gene's sake.

>ur a womyn lel ur dumb
You will find that talking form reason instead of emotion is not exclusive, or characteristic, of women. I am certainly not one.
Make an argument instead of posting more muh feels shit.

>love between men and gay buttsex
That's basically what homosexual/faggots do, which is why people call them homosexual or faggot, you fucking faggot!

I disagree. A man supporting and protecting his offspring is just as important to their survival and development as the mother in many instances. Without providing physical protection from threats or supporting the needs of the child, the child is likely to die from competition, other potential mates, or malnutrition. This is clearly evidenced in the traditional role of the father as a protector and provider. Often, fathers are not as nurturing as mothers, but they don't need to be. They need to protect their offspring from external threats. Having two parents greatly increases the chances of a child living a materially successful wife, finding a good mate, and having/supporting many offspring.

How can a biologist claim a male has no investment in his offspring? Just because it helps your argument? You are being dishonest, or you are deluded.

More to the point, you claim mom's love to be superior because instinct compells it and that dad only loves because he is human. Is going to the store to buy food because you are hungry morally equivalent to buying food for the local shelter? One is completely selfish, while the other is altruistic. If mom's love is greater because it is routed in instinct, then it is a selfish love. She loves baby like she loves to eat, or to fuck. She loves baby not for baby, but for herself. Dad's love is true love. Love not for himself, but for another.

>implying anything can compete the love between me and my doggo

A man supports and defends his tribe, where some of his genes are found in all the men and all the women. He does this so that he is allowed to spread them further, having more sex, and to preserve his current self to continue having sex. He doesn't specifically protect his children more than he protects his brother, his uncle, or that other guy who had a shared relative with him 3 generations ago.
Women will protect their children above their brother or sister, despite having as much genetic investment in them.

The rest of your post, the two parents, money, and stuff like that, is already within modern society. You assume the nuclear family and ignore the collective women and elders taking care of children while the dads go do their own thing. You are already in society, and work with social constructs (like the nuclear family).

You ignore the post completely, re-read it and respond again, or I will stop replying to your nonsense.

Do you believe that Women whose Children are born through surrogate Mothers love their Children less than Women who give birth to their children?

Adding on to my last question , do you believe that Men who have low sperm counts or other difficulties in fertility love their children, when they reproduce via InVitro Fertilisation, more than Men who reproduce regularly?

You are referencing societal constructs here.
The men and women in your example will have no biological imperative to love or raise these children, and in fact the biological imperative is to not waste our time with them, unless its your sister that gave birth to it, thus copying some of your genes.

You can still have social constructed love, the way fatherly love is today. Its not less "real", its just a society thing, and not a biology thing.
See this guy This is 100% society. There is absolutely no biological imperative here. You don't copy your genes or increase your chance of doing so by wasting time, effort and resources on ensuring one dog lives well and for long. Yet it happens.

You have repeatedly claimed fatherly love is entirely social. It is not. You lied or fucked up.

This thread is not an argument about biology. It is an argument about love. You are changing the subject. Yes, mom biologically invests more in her kid than dad. That one user? BTFO. You got him. What don't you seem to get you fucking fool? You are too hardheaded. I'm done being nice, you uptight little shit.

Love is not biological. It is human. Your fucking dog doesn't love you any more than you love to shit. It is just a natural respone. If, as you claim, mom "loves" because of biology, it is not love any more than your dog's affection. As you claim that dad's love is a social construct-- that is, human-- his love for baby is then greater.

What the fuck are you arguing? The OP is long fucking gone, obviously. Just what the fuck point are you trying to make?

This is a human issue. You accuse me of taking on science with humanity, but it is you who are taking on humanity with science!

>'muh feels' the post

I was referring to modern society, yes, but lifelong marriage is a common feature among most successful civilizations spanning many thousands of years. Natural selection acts quite quickly to support and reinforce these actions. People in the past lived more collectively, but their children were still their own and had to be trained to continue the profession of the father and to be useful contributors to the family. This is important for succession, maintaining power and prestige, and securing the most desirable partners. This is not a feature of "modern society" but of society in general. To differing degrees, children are raised collectively. Throughout the majority of history, people weren't particularly mobile between communities and outsiders were deeply mistrusted. Men did not go around impregnating as many women as possible (unless raping rival tribes' women or collecting a harem).

Fatherly love (that is, protection and support) serves an important purpose for ensuring viability of offspring.

I've never been in "love" with a woman before. But I hope it comes close to the love I had for my comrades.

I'm confused. What is the cause of this difference in Biological Imperative? Is it how much suffering having a Child brings, and the potential for having further Children?

If a Man with fertility problems finally gets a Child after years of trying, would he love his Child more than a Man that easily reproduces?

Likewise with . If suffering in reproduction(emotional and physical) and potential for Children are the cause of the differences in Biological Imperative, the two cases I mentioned above will have a different Biological Imperative compared to other members of their sex.

>You have repeatedly claimed fatherly love is entirely social. It is not. You lied or fucked up.
>This thread is not an argument about biology.
You do things for two reasons: biology or culture. If its not biology, its culture. Things you do for reasons other than biological imperative, you do for cultural imperative. Such things are societal constructs.
I will stop responding to you now, since you are incapable of holding a normal discussion. Good day and good luck.

If you only start investigating in civilizations, you will obviously miss how things were before civilizations.
Examine animals, examine how human culture even evolves over time. Fathers have only gotten more and more involved with raising children over time.

Fathers protect their genetic heritage by protecting the tribe overall, not their children specifically. You have some of your genetic payload in every tribesman, and since you invest very little in each child you have, you don't need to particularly protect them.
Women invest much in a child, and protect children particularly. In tribal war, women will join the conquering men, rather than fight them away, unless culture compels them otherwise. There are many examples of women betraying the small number of their genes in their clan for the promise of having a much larger share in a few children they give birth to with the new clan, and of course men fighting to protect their own clan rather than joining the conquering enemy so they can have more sex and more children that way.

You basically need to go further than marriage and the nuclear family, since those are aspects of settled life, private ownership and civilization, and not of the human animal. We don't pair bond for life, divorce rates and infidelity proves as much about our biology, and men are definitely compelled to have as much sex as possible with as many women as possible, and only culture holds them back.

t. mr "condoms are allowed but discouraged"

>What is the cause of this difference in Biological Imperative?
The imperative is the same, the strategies for achieving it are different.

Both men and women want to copy their genes as much as possible.
Women copy their genes very inefficiently, it costs them a lot of time, effort, resources, and they can't do it as much or for as long. Since every copy is expensive and one of few possible ones, they have to ensure that copy survives and copies itself.
Women copy their genes very efficiently. As a man you can easily father 50 children within a month if you really tried. Even if 90% of these dies, you still have more copies of your genes created in that one month than a woman can expect to create her whole life.
Because men can create so many copies so easily with so little effort, each individual copy has little value to them, and they optimize for their own survival, and the survival of the group that promotes their genes and their survival, than of each individual copy.

>If a Man with fertility problems finally gets a Child after years of trying, would he love his Child more than a Man that easily reproduces?
This man has the same biological "programming" as a healthy man, so no. You are looking at broken specimens here, those don't reflect the overall condition. Men born with defective feet still feel the same urge to go over yonder hill and explore, even if it makes no sense for them.

And try as I might to discuss the cultural (human) aspect, you refuse. Once I finally get that point through your thick skull, that this is in the realm of the humanities instead of biology, you decide not to talk about it. Bravo. And don't "sign off" with that gay "Good day and good luck." shit. It makes you seem pretentious.

>This man has the same biological "programming" as a healthy man
Then it's a matter of genes then? Experience doesn't determine the nature of the Biological Imperative, but genes? If so, then there would exist Motherly genes and Fatherly genes responsible for the difference in the Biological Imperative. Is this what you believe?

>As a man you can easily father 50 children within a month if you really tried
Not without fighting for access to those women, which will be guarded by their mates and their tribes. Most men will never be able to father anywhere near that many children, and will never be able to have access to nearly that many women. Women desire stability and protection, and you cannot protect those women or your offspring. Having a mate you have exclusive access to, and having offspring you can protect and ensure they get to reproductive age is a more sure means of ensuring your genetic continuation than fighting for access.

As said, you completely dismiss the cultural aspects which contrary to your assertions still existed prior to civilization. These cultural aspects are not separated from biology but the result of it. You cannot examine biology in a vacuum. This is why your assertions have little to no relation to reality.

are you implying by
>There is absolutely no biological imperative here. You don't copy your genes or increase your chance of doing so by wasting time, effort and resources on ensuring one dog lives well and for long
that humans have no instinct but to reproduce? Instinctually, I want to survive, and not even that long ago, dogs help people do that. Dogs can be taught to hunt, or protect the owner when he is sick or injured, in return for my resources he provides those services. Thats even ignoring the human need for social interaction, which dogs provide a semblance of

You want to survive, so you can reproduce more. You want to be healthy, so you can reproduce more. You want to eat, so you can reproduce more.

Humans are a collection of genes that exist together in some pattern to optimize their chance to copy themselves.
Everything else is supporting this copying, including culture and all its own constructs.

if step 1 is surviving and step 2 is reproducing, its not like the only reason i want to do step 1 is so i can get to step 2

>Experience doesn't determine the nature of the Biological Imperative, but genes?
Of course yes. This is such a basic fundamental thing I didn't even consider you could doubt it.

You are talking about civilization and society and their constructs.
Consider this:
1. Love existed before society.
2. Love was invented by society.

If 1 is true, then you have to stop bringing up society and civilization when talking about love, since they came alter, and don't define it. This follows my reasoning and proves that fatherly love is a social construct.
If 2 is true, then love is a social construct by definition, including fatherly love.

In any case, fatherly love is a social construct, which was the premise. Are you now shifting the conversation towards proving if motherly love is too? I'd use different strategies there, showing different examples to prove motherly love exists before civilization. I havent thus far, since its not necessary for the current argument of fatherly love.

The only reason the cells in your body form your body is so you can reproduce. Everything follows from that. It is the prime mover of the human creature, or any life.