lumigan tramadol tadalafil

How Real Is Her Love?

2008-10-18
By

Binary Property

I love you. Three powerful words. They change lives. Are they real? Unlikely. Men and women blithely utter these three words as easily as politicians promise tax cuts. Do they mean it? Odds are, no. The test below will tell you for sure.

Half of marriages end in divorce. What is a divorce, really? Besides being a legal process and a destroyer of families, it’s a biopsy on a marriage, a diagnostic evaluation of a failed union. On the altar, bride and groom pledge love as the primary component of their wedlock. As petitioner and respondent in a dissolution, which the wife initiates 70% of the time, they bicker over the loss of assets and children — not love. So, the biopsy reveals no evidence of love. What happened to it? Did it just vanish?

Unlikely. People marry for a variety of ulterior motives — money, lifestyle, loneliness, security, convenient sex, career, appearance, parental pressure, legitimate children, and Green Cards — none of which is love. In fact, in the entire history of marriage, love as a uniting force is a relatively new concept, and a weak one at that.

My contention is that love in a failed marriage or relationship was not real and never existed. To use a scientific analogy: If love is the chief component of marriage, it cannot disappear into thin air, without a trace. Think of love as having a binary property: either it exists or it doesn’t. By the same token, glass is the chief component of windows; it can’t just evaporate one day, defying all laws of physics and chemistry.

There are people who believe they’re marrying for love — but only because they don’t understand its meaning. Almost any dictionary mentions “passionate affection” in its definitions of love. But, most of us have experienced passionate affection, numerous times, with our spouses and paramours. If we’re honest, though, we’ll admit that those encounters weren’t necessarily love. So, a big problem is that, by and large, we don’t know the meaning of love. It’s a nebulous concept. Yet, we recite it, believe others who pledge it to us, and base wealth-depleting decisions on it. Total insanity.

Four Pillars of Love

What is love, then? How can one know whether he truly loves a woman or is receiving true love from her? This is a critical question, because one never should express or accept or base his life on anything he doesn’t grasp.

Allow me to offer a reliable, easy-to-remember love test. Simply, the four pillars of love are mutual and sustainable lust, obligation, veracity, and equality. For the structure of love to stand, all four pillars must be present. If one pillar is missing or deficient, the structure collapses, and there is no love. If the pillars are not mutual (supported by both man and woman) and sustainable (able to endure for years), there is no love.

Let’s examine these four pillars of love:

Lust — Lust is a powerful sexual attraction between mates. Without lust, two people are just companions. Lust is the result of mutual connection — physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, philosophical, political — manifesting as respect, admiration, and desire for intimacy. Lust cannot be sustained without the other three pillars (see below). Without lust, people get bored and stray. Women often are counseled by their mothers to disregard lust as unnecessary in a marriage (just catch a good provider); that’s why so many women cheat on and divorce their husbands. Many men find lustful women intimidating or offensive; that’s why they marry boring wives and then cheat on them. It’s a myth that lust is a short-term phenomenon. When asked why he never strayed in his 50-year marriage to Joanne Woodward, Paul Newman said: “Why should I go out for hamburger when I have steak at home?” Note: a quick way to kill lust is to eat like a pig and avoid the gym.

Obligation – Obligation is the mutual commitment to watch each other’s back, to defend each other, to speak well of each other in public and to the children, to rally each other, to be there for each other in difficult times (except in the case of self-destructive behavior like drug addiction), to consider each other in all major decisions, to be responsive to each other, to follow through consistently on promises to each other, to be faithful to each other, and to put each other first above all else and everybody else. Obligation, in this case, is meant not to be drudgery but voluntary and heartfelt. If you cannot imagine living up to or receiving these obligations one year or five years hence, love doesn’t exist in your situation. And, if one of you attempts to harm or destroy the other, at any time (including divorce court), love never existed between you.

Veracity – Veracity means truth.  Two people must communicate the truth to each other — about their feelings, thoughts, likes & dislikes, intentions, agendas, and actions — and they must do so willingly, frequently, and effortlessly. Alas, most people do not live this way, and that’s why most relationships fail. If two people meet online, and their dating profiles contained lies (age, weight, photos, etc.), they’re already doomed. There’s a myth that women convey their feelings more easily, willingly, and truthfully than men. Not only is this a myth, it’s a downright lie. If two people don’t have mutual and sustainable veracity, starting with initial contact, they have no love.

Equality – Equality is the antithesis of entitlement. Equality means that neither man nor woman is treated better or regarded more highly than the other, period. With equality, neither partner has rights or privileges superior to those of the other. A woman who expects that a man will wine & dine her, “because that’s the way it’s done,” doesn’t believe in equality. No love here. Conversely, a man who expects a woman to pick up his dirty socks, “because that’s the way it’s done,” doesn’t believe in equality — if she consents, neither does she. If a woman’s attraction to a man is predicated on the carats, casas, and cars he provides her, she doesn’t believe in equality — if he consents, neither does he. No love here.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

Life is simple, but people work hard to make it difficult. Love is simple to understand, as the test above proves. Either love is present in your relationship, or it isn’t. You might feel a lot of attraction for her, and she for you, but that doesn’t make it love. Only if you have mutual and sustainable lust, obligation, veracity, and equality can you have love. If one of those pillars is missing or deficient, you don’t have love.

It’s OK to be in a relationship without love, as long as both of you are clear about it. If such is the case, never say, I love you, and never accept it from her — because both of you would be living a lie.

How real is her love? How real is yours? If the test shows not real, you have some big decisions to make.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is a globally known radio/TV personality and author of 90+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719). Mr. Rudov, the 2008 recipient of the National Coalition of Free Men’s “Award for Excellence In Promoting Gender Fairness In The Media,” is a regular guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto and The O’Reilly Factor.

Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2008 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

3,106 views
Didn't make Oprah's Book Club. And Ronnie doesn't care. Man up. Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.


  • http://thenononsenseman.mensnewsdaily.com Marc H. Rudov

    Randyf,

    What proves I’m right is that these approving people, who were indoctrinated with nonsense about love and then tried unsuccessfully to practice it in their lives, have validated my model as correct. Then, you did likewise in your comment. More to the point, my model works.

  • randyf

    I’m sorry, Marc. The fact that many people agree with you, doesn’t “prove” anything, other than a lot of people agree with you. Not that you’re “right”.

    I’m one of them. It’s a good definition of what “love” should be in marriage (romantic love).

    But there are different kinds of love. Brotherly love, sacrificial (“agape”) love, righteous love, etc..

    But gentlemen, Marc is right: in romantic love, if you don’t have lust, a sense of obligation, veracity (truthfulness), and equality, then you’re in a relationship that could really be a nightmare. Been there. Done that. No more.

    I would only say this: many of us tend to put our mates above ourselves, going beyond equality. It can even be reciprocated. It was in my situation. The problem with that is, communication (veracity) can take a hit. So as not to hurt feelings, we keep things unsaid. Resentments can then build. And problems. It happened to me.

    So, always think of yourself. You can still be sacrificial, but do it without resentment, and as a real choice, not as a reaction to emotion. And don’t be masochistic.

  • http://thenononsenseman.mensnewsdaily.com Marc H. Rudov

    MMX,

    I am The NoNonsense Man®. I do not countenance anyone’s foolishness, and I never will.

    Foolishness is the cause of the high divorce rate, which I pay for by funding out-of-control female-ly courts and living in a deteriorating society of fatherless children. Foolishness is the cause of Joe Biden getting reelected and reelected and reelected, and his misandrist VAWA passed and reauthorized. My role is to help men conquer their foolishness, not to relish and continue it.

    I defined love in this article because I know what it is, and what it is not. The many letters I have received — even from men in their 70s — prove that I am spot-on.

  • MMX

    For the record, Marc. I agree with you. There is no such thing as unconditional love. Especially not with someone so flawed as another human being.

    However, your belligerent manner of speaking to those who still foolishly believe in it suggests that you’re not as grounded in Love as you want us to believe.

    If you can’t handle other peoples’ foolishness with a firm, peaceful, and loving hand – then why should we believe that you deeply know what Love is?

  • http://thenononsenseman.mensnewsdaily.com Marc H. Rudov

    A couple of comments:

    1) This is not a religious article, and I don’t want it to become one. If you want to debate theology, I respect that: please write your own article and debate it there.

    2) I do not need to take a long walk, Amfortas. There is no such thing as unconditional love. It is a myth. Just ask all the people who got divorced. Anyone who continues to love an abusive person not only doesn’t love himself but also is a moron, an idiot, a masochist.

  • amfortas

    “…something Seriously Important is missing”. I put it ‘simply’ in my first post. And several have taken it up and named it.

    For a ‘relationship expert’ to dismiss Unconditional Love, a Grace, as masochistic, stupid and moronic, is akin to a guru sitting on a mountain claiming to have ‘seen the light’ but denying that the Ocean exists. Sitting there contemplating one’s navel is a life of sorts, but a tad limited. Dismissing as ‘Travellers Tales’ the accounts of those that have travelled a lot further than the Guru has and then claiming wisdom is pure irony.

    Marc, you have been on the mountain, cross legged, too long. Take a long walk, my friend. Go explore. All those rocks and the snow that you have experienced all your life are not all there is.

    Sit on a beach and read Bohm, a particle physicist. He has some nice equations as proofs of a level of reality well beyond the hard Explicate Order that we experience daily. Dangle your toes in the Ocean. See the light differently as it skips off the waves.

  • merck

    mruffolo said,
    —“The bible does not mention unconditional love. Uunconditional love concept is for new Christians, amateur psychologists, and or puppy dog love.”

    _______________________________________________________

    These words are from the Bible.

    If loving your enemies who curse you, that hate you, despitefully use you, and persecute you, is not unconditional love, then what is?

    Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

    But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

    That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

    For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

    Anyway, I don’t claim to be an expert in scripture, and rarely use the Bible to make a point, and for the most part, don’t pay much attention to people who do.

    There are way too many false profits out there; hiding behind scripture, and endlessly finding ways to twist the words to suit their perception or agenda … and it’s been said … “They shall have their reward.”

  • mruffolo

    The bible does not mention unconditional love. Uunconditional love concept is for new Christians, amateur psychologists, and or puppy dog love.

    A man’s standard (his definition) will aim high. Aim for perfect kindness, patience, generosity, dependability, and grace-giving without condition. This way when he falls short, and he will, he will be excellent in his thought and action with another.

    A man’s definition of attributes like love, wisdom, justice, and truth ought not to take into consider a corrupt system like government’s marriage/divorce rules, even cultures stereotypes of the same.

    Aim for perfection, so when we fall short, we will be excellent.

  • http://thenononsenseman.mensnewsdaily.com Marc H. Rudov

    Merck,

    I suppose it is possible for someone to have lust, obligation, veracity, and equality — and still never know what love is. And, it’s even more possible that whoever fits this category also doesn’t know that it is daylight at high noon.

  • merck

    I just wanted to expand on my previous comment a little.

    The sum of “lust + obligation + veracity + equality” = lust, obligation, veracity and equality, which may even translate into a working marriage.

    A couple could have all of these things going for them in a successful relationship with each other and still never know what love is.

    Love transcends human relationships.

    Love is a way of life.

  • http://thenononsenseman.mensnewsdaily.com Marc H. Rudov

    There is no such thing as unconditional love, and anyone who seeks or demands it is a fool. Unconditional love means love with no conditions, including taking abuse while continuing to give love. Stupid. Moronic. Masochistic.

    Living with one’s head in the clouds, in pursuit of something that doesn’t exist in the real world, is the best way to end up in a miserable, toxic relationship with empty pockets.

  • mruffolo

    Another definition of love, that I acquired from a study bible, is consistently seeking the good of another without condition. Good is defined as being patience, kind, generous, grace-giving, dependable.

    In the bible, it is also interesting to note that a spouse telling another spouse that s/he loves the other occurs only once, though out the approximate 900,000 words of text.

    I observe that the capacity to keep a commitment made (good: dependable) is an important attribute. Relationships are build on commitments made and commitments kept.

  • merck

    This article addresses a relationship between intimate partners as if love could not exist outside of those narrow parameters.

    I think Jesus may have been the only being, to walk the face of this earth, who truly understood the meaning of the word love.

  • http://thenononsenseman.mensnewsdaily.com Marc H. Rudov

    MMX,

    Equality is not the wrong word. I chose it carefully and with great consideration. Without equality, in the home or the legislatures or the courts, there is no justice. Think about it.

    The reason men see no justice in the American gynocracy is that the gynocrats THEY elect ignore equality, which the Constitution mandates.

    If you read my articles and books carefully, and with sensitivity, you will see that I tell men what to do and not do do. Of course, you will filter my words through your own prism, and that is beyond my control.

    Based on the enormous feedback I’m getting on this article, people are overwhelmingly telling me that I am spot-on.

  • amfortas

    You missed out Philosophers being a ‘bugger for the bottle’ as well, Marc. Quite a few of them if one were to hum along to Monty Python. :)

  • MMX

    I like Marc Rudov’s writings when he is telling men what NOT to do. But I find them lacking when he tells men what TO do.

    I like his attempt here, but Equality is simply the wrong word. If he were to replace Equality with Justice, he’d have a better feel for what’s going on – but I don’t think he has the sensitivity to feel the crucial differences between those two words. (Not to mention that LOVJ doesnt make any sense… :) )

    So I suspect that Marc will just dismiss my claim, simply because he doesnt feel my point. Fine by him, I suppose. But not very helpful to anyone trying to push the definition of Love further, towards a higher truth or a deeper meaning.

  • amfortas

    You are a generous man, Roger, and right in that I did not accord Marc the praise due. It was a good contribution to a search for explanation that has gone on for an eon. A correct full and comprehensive formula is usually the simplest but as Einstein said ‘don’t try to make it more simple than that’. There is one hell of a lot behind E=MC2 and experience tells us that there is more behind Love too.

    Tell you what. I will give another hand to Marc. He gives it a go; I would not dare try to explain Love. Not here at any rate. Good for him.

  • http://thenononsenseman.mensnewsdaily.com Marc H. Rudov

    Amfortas,

    Poets, most of whom are stoned or drunk when they write, have contributed vastly to the confusion about love — leaving people in search of an amorphous cloud. People have no idea what it means to say, I love you, and less idea what hearing it means. The failure rate in relationships proves it.

    Love is not a complex concept, but people make it so. One of the main reasons is they’ve never seen a concrete definition. That is why I have simplified love to its essence — and have shocked a lot of people into reality by doing so.

    Assignment complete.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/rogerfgay/ Roger F. Gay

    I find Marc’s article quite interesting. I have this general philosophy that a lot of fuzzy touchy-feely stuff that poets can’t explain can actually be understood concretely and that many of the explanations, once found, will turn out to be simpler than we imagined. It’s kind-of a “Why is the sky blue?” view of the world from a scientist’s view (yes, we know why) rather than a poet’s (among the things we’ll never know).

    amfortas – Sometimes I think I get you better than anyone else – although maybe others get you a lot too. If you want a more concrete understanding of love, I don’t think there’s any other choice but to come to your own conclusions. I agree this is a very fuzzy touchy-feely concept and expect it will take more than twenty-five minutes of contemplation. Until you come to a conclusion on your own, you’ll still have that feeling that it’s not quite there.

    I think Marc’s thoughts on the subject look like a very interesting contribution – perhaps the best place to start. Going from fuzzy to concrete is somewhat of a scientific endeavor – and the best end up saying they were able to see farther by “standing on the shoulders of giants.”

    Maybe you’ll end up improving or expanding Marc’s explanation or maybe you’ll end up accepting it if the meaning of his words eventually settle in the right places in your own contemplation. In any case, I think Marc has shared some very interesting and potentially very valuable practical thoughts on the subject of love.

  • amfortas

    I have taken some twenty-five minutes reading and considering this view, Marc. I am left wondering why I still feel something Seriously Important is missing. I bet the hundreds of philosophers and poets down the ages will be wondering why they didn’t get the simplicty of the four pillars as easily and succinctly.

    I see these two people approaching one another across the field, running, arms outstretched, hair blowing in the wind of their own making. They will meet but will they blend? Or will they bounce?

    Love is the sum of parts. Hmmmm. My eyebrow is arched.

    Nah. Sorry Marc. Not convinced. Maybe its the way you tell it. Maybe it is what you don’t tell about.

    3/10. Do the assignment again.

  • http://thenononsenseman.mensnewsdaily.com Marc H. Rudov

    David Usher,

    I disagree with your “summary” of my article. You can’t just say you love someone and follow that up with just any behavior. That’s what most people do. And, that’s why most relationships are totally screwed up. “Whatever” is not love.

    I put a specific, concrete, understandable definition to love because people desperately need to have one. Based on the letters I’m getting, they are grateful for it.

  • David R. Usher

    In summary, love is what you do with respect to the person you say that you love.

  • daveinga

    good stuff marc.

    good analogy with the pillars and capstone balancing atop for millennia. that structurally near perfect balance and strength needed to sustain integrity.

    i can see from the many storms of my parents near 60 year marriage, that even though one or two of these much needed traits at times showed signs of severe stress, others were there strong enough to hold, at least until the winds of marital destruction had died down.

    imho – this is exactly what is lacking in today’s dishonest discourse on love, marriage, and it’s too inevitable companion… divorce. honest analysis, discussion, followed up by actions aimed at digging out and replacing the bad soil undermining this long standing structure, and then skillfully repairing and replacing the damaged/fallen members, are absolutely necessary for the long term survival of our society.

    more, more, more.

  • T Finnan

    Marc, The problem for women is that they let their girl friends influence them. Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. Woman’s lonely, divorced girl friends want to have companionship. It is junior high school again and these divorced lonely woman seek to entice others to provide the companionship they lack.

  • Denis

    Well done Marc. Exactly right.







Right.

Man up.

Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

Search

RSS Amy Alkon

RSS Donna Laframboise