People Should Love Their Partners Like Their Pets

Dalrock talked about how red pill knowledge increased his empathy for women . I’m of the same conclusion (although I’m not sure it means much, since I’m not a man). For me, red pill stuff means one thing: we’re all animals. Smart animals with the ability to learn and improve, but still animals. And instead of making me think worse of men and women, it actually makes me feel better of them. Because I like animals. You know how some people feel more sorry for an animal being hurt, than a human? Well, it’s that effect, except now it can’t go on.

It also makes me think we should love our wives/husbands/bfs/gfs like we’d love our pets. How do people love their pets? Unless there is something wrong with the human, they take care of their pets, feed them, pet them, play with them, and don’t spare money when their pets get sick. They also often treat them as real friends and don’t throw them away when the pet gets a little old.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Personal emo stuff and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to People Should Love Their Partners Like Their Pets

  1. Jay says:

    People love their pets unconditionally. And their pets love their owners unconditionally. In relationships we place SO MANY CONDITIONS upon one another… You make an excellent point

    • emmatheemo says:

      Thanks for the comment 🙂

      I just thought of something more. This pet analogy goes slightly further. I feel it has a slight negative side to it. Have you heard the rule that we’re responsible for everything we tame? Once you get a pet, you can’t release it into the wild, especially if you had it since it was very small. It won’t be able to survive. I wonder if by loving someone unconditionally, we make them slack off and be very unprepared for dating life, if they should even need it again. But, I think it’s not as bad as releasing a pet into the wild. Most divorcees, about whom I hear, seem be do fine, although they perhaps have to relearn dating skills, update themselves on the dating culture and work harder.

    • Entity says:

      Pets don’t always love their owners unconditionally. A recent study that equipped cats with video cameras, to see what they get up to, discovered that several cats have more than one home

  2. I own 3 cats and 2 dogs. I love each one of them, each of them loves each other, and all of them love me. I do not get jealous if I see one of my dogs cuddling up to one of my cats. I do not get jealous if my dog wags its tail if approached and stroked by a stranger when I am out walking him.

    When my pets are happy, I am happy, it is simple as that.

    Best of all, I know that the love is genuinely unconditional, and not based upon the evolutionary urgings from my selfish genes within forcing me to replicate them through a particular chemically induced illusion called ‘love’.

    I can’t think of a worse example to justify the selfish female paleolithic mating paradigm than the unconditional love for pets.

    • emmatheemo says:

      Right, that is the only point where the pet analogy doesn’t work. However, if you pick the right partner, you won’t have to worry about cheating, and the pet analogy works just fine. I’m not selfish and don’t want all men to have a sexuality just like mine. Instead I look for one that willingly gives me commitment, of his own free will. When a man and a woman give each other what they want, despite their differences, magical things can happen. But you wouldn’t know, or want it. Which is perfectly ok, because your sexuality doesn’t make you any less moral 🙂

    • emmatheemo says:

      Will you get offended if I made a whole post on this? I have trouble reconding well in comments.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      Oh hell with it, I will post it now. I hope you can compartmentalize. That is, disagree with me without holding back on one matter, and agree wholy on another. All without turning into enemies. It would be silly to turn into enemies over such tiny issues.

    • ParaPhilip says:

      Face the art form whose medium is sound and silence, any female within the primate order generally doesn’t stirrrr things up inside you anywhere near as much as the sight of a domestic cat does.
      HNNNGGGGGG!!!!!

  3. Eric says:

    Emma:
    Most women already think that all men are dogs. And look how they treat men because of it. What I would suggest is that women started loving men in the same way that men love them (i.e., like human beings).

    As for Dalrock, he’s a typical gynocentric white knight. He refuses to see that women have no empathy for men; regardless of how much we have for women.

    • emmatheemo says:

      Eric,

      I was hoping to turn the stereotype of “treating someone like an animal” on its head and show it in in some ways better than treating human like a human. Have you seen how women treat their dogs? Often, you’d probably get more affection from them if you were a dog.

      Also, don’t take the post too literally. It’s for fun. For example, it doesn’t mean we should also cage our beloved and take them to a doctor without asking first (which is what we must do with pets).

    • emmatheemo says:

      As for Dalrock, I like his writings for the most part, but yeah, he’s a Christian. However, how is he a gynocentric white knight? I never saw him excuse women’s bad behavior. It’s possible to feel increased empathy for someone who also did something bad, and without excusing or saving them from the consequences of their actions. To be a white knight, you have to do those things (excusing/protecting from consequences). So what has he done?

      • Eric says:

        Dalrock especially aggravates me with this continual fusion he promotes between Christianity and Game. He’s even written articles like “Why all Christians Must Learn Game.” Game is about the most gynocentric philosophy imaginable to begin with; but it seems Dalrock is preaching somewhat of a back-handed version of Mark Driscoll’s white knightism (with Roissyism substituted for Driscoll’s ‘manning up’).

    • emmatheemo says:

      And while I’m not a Christian, I feel empathy for a lot of people who almost hate me. I know they do, but I also think they are deluded and stuck in a world where things like that will hurt them. It’s liberating not to hate them back, because there is no point and they are hurting themselves already.

      • Eric says:

        Emma:
        There’s certainly nothing wrong with feeling empathy—the US, as you know, is a highly narcissistic culture where empathy is extremely rare. And many Christians here BTW are noteworthy for their complete lack of any empathy.

        As far as being empathetic towards women, I believe that men have a natural tendency to empathize with others. I have really come to doubt that women feel much, if any, of it anymore. After I’ve seen enough of the sheer ruthlessness and cruelty women routinely exercise against men, it’s hard to believe that compassion is very deeply ingrained in their psychological makeup.

  4. Clarence says:

    LOL!
    I’m trying to figure “Eric” out.
    Maybe it wasn’t him but one of the main complaints about me at a certain anti-something-or-the-other blog was that I didn’t seem to like “game”.

    I wonder if this “Eric” ..assuming it’s the same one I remember – will tell me if he changed his mind and now it’s “Anti Game Wednesday” or something?

    • Eric says:

      Clarence:
      It sounds like you’ve got this kind of Game down pat:

      http://www.no-maam.blogspot.com/2009/03/bonecrker-25-on-asshole-game.html

      • Clarence says:

        Oh dear!
        Eric the Awful it IS you.
        When last seen you were going from place to place accusing me of all sorts of bullshit that you couldn’t begin to prove. It was quite a mancrush.

        Anyway, I see you are bereft of actual factual arguments again. You could have (would have taken you all of one second) clarified your stance on “Game”. I thought you were pro-game. I consider MYSELF pro-game and pro MGTOW (which means no man has to use game or be shamed for avoiding women) too.

        Now since you are an ugly little troll, I doubt I’ll get a half way intelligent response, but hopefully my clarification will let your dear little heart rest at ease and you won’t have to try to guess about my motives and various things that must take up so much of your time.

  5. Clarence says:

    Oh by the way, you can take this entire thread and my dissing of Typhonblue and her dissing of me and stroke yourself with your buddies over at Mr Anti’s place:

    http://www.genderratic.com/p/2798/male-disposability-mary-p-koss-and-influencing-a-government-entity-to-erase-male-victims-of-rape/#comment-54986

  6. Clarence says:

    Dear Eric:
    I’m sorry to inform you but your crush is unrequited because I am straight. There’s no need to bring up threads I’ve been in that have you in them in the hopes that I’ll see you in a different light and requit your man-love. I suggest you get a new crush. And by the way, ask yourself why I should know anything about you at all unless I’ve been doing what you have been doing to me – making a shrine and a scrapbook with photos in it. YOU weren’t at Stand Your Ground 7 years ago, or at Mancoat before it became Mancoat. And if you want to say I should know you from Dalrocks, well, Dalrock has like over 200 occasional commenters and probably a good 20 to 40 regular and semi regulars so it’s rather hard to ‘keep track’ of everyone. I also don’t recall seeing you at Feminist Critics or Hooking Up Smart, other places I’ve spent alot of time at. In short, I have no idea why you should expect I would know you from a hole in the head. Indeed, I find it hard to differentiate you from the hole in my ass.

    Anyway, dumbone, I’m glad you at least are ready to admit I’m not Typhonblue in disguise. That had to be one of the stupidest ideas I’ve ever seen and you and your compatriots are the only ones I’ve ever seen make it.

    • Eric says:

      Yes, Clarence. I firmly believe that you’re not paying attention to everything that goes on in the Manosphere.

      If you were, you would have noticed that the comment at Antifeminist’s that has you on the brink of hysterics right now wasn’t even posted by me…

      http://www.theantifeminist.com/how-to-spot-a-femra-evilwhitemale/

      Now before you make an even bigger ass of yourself in front of a nice lady like Emma, maybe you should take a few deep breaths (and go get a haircut too).

  7. Clarence says:

    Hysterics? Hysterics of laughter , maybe.
    Seriously,when someone makes a habit of following me around from thread to thread (someone they don’t know except from fewer than 5 posts at a single website) at various websites claiming the person they are stalking is some sort of Ninja Super Espionage Agent, it does range into Deranged Stalker territory, and last I saw it wasn’t any of your other compatriots performing this backstabbing ‘civic’ duty. So perhaps I got one of your deranged accusations mixed up with someone else’s deranged accusation. I didn’t see you argue against that deranged accusation, now did I?

    Regardless, you can run along now because I’m bored with you.

  8. Eric says:

    Clarence:
    ‘When someone makes a habit of following me around the internet &c.’

    In case you’ve already forgotten, you were the one who interjected himself into this thread. Go back and re-read your first comment, Dunderhead. Do you see any previous comment on this thread where I so much as mentioned your name?

    It does, though, sound like you’re bored; running around screeching like a chickenhawk, still pissed off because Antifeminist banned you for trolling. I only comment as his blog: I have nothing to do with making the commenting policy over there.

  9. Clarence says:

    Eric m’dear:
    Do I have to pull up the various threads at Eivinds, theantifeminists, and here where I said not a word to you but you accused me of all sorts of things?
    Or are you man enough to admit your misbehavior?
    All I did in this thread was ask you a simple question.
    You had 3 choices that wouldn’t have resulted in us even arguing:
    A. You could have answered and cleared up my confusion.
    B. To totally avoid trouble you could simply have lied and pretended not to be “that” Eric.
    C. You could have ignored me. I certainly wasn’t about to go on Eivinds blog (or make a fake account with a differeint ISP and different computer and different screen name) and bother you on the antifeminists place. It’s not THAT big a deal.

    But you chose to be your ‘charming’ self. Anyway, it’s been fun.

    • Eric says:

      Clarence:
      First, you’ve done an outstanding job of bringing all kinds of suspicions on yourself with your own boorish and provocative behaviors; especially your habit of invading blogs and deliberately trying to pit commenters against one another. That’s the kind of thing that got you kicked off of Antifeminist’s and Scarecrow’s blogs. So, yes, I’ll ‘man up’ (if you call it that) and admit that I have pointed these flaws in both your character and logic out before.

      Now that you’re over your tantrum, did you check out any Saturday morning cartoons?

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