Self-sufficiency vs. Love

Recently there has been a fun discussion at the Red Pill Woman subreddit ( ). There, a commenter said this:

“My incentive to continue maturing is to be an independent and successful person. I never want to rely on anyone for my happiness and comfort although I would love to someday join up with another independent man to start a family. And in order to start that family successfully and be a good mother I would need to be mature, so yes I have plenty of incentive to continue my personal growth.”

She also added that she has great expectations about her future career, and wanted to love a man who was her equal. I think these goals are unrealistic and give you neither love, nor self-sufficiency.

First, I think love and emotional self-sufficiency are mutually exclusive. Through personal experience, I discovered that self-sufficiency and love in general do not mix. If you are self-sufficient, you essentially don’t care so much about others, and won’t be hurt if they are gone or in trouble. But when you truly love, their happiness is important for your own, and you aren’t enough for your own happiness anymore. Some people claim to love others without being hurt when they are hurt. They are usually the new agey types who claim to love all living things, or religious and claim to love everyone like they love their family. I don’t in general believe these people truly love everyone as much as they say. But I do believe they are convinced of it, and could even engage in self-destructive stuff for a while, to prove it. But then, some people are convinced positive thoughts have cured their cancer. It doesn’t make it so.

Second, I don’t think diving into career means you don’t depend on anyone for your happiness and comfort. A career does not happen in a vacuum. It’s a social thing. It depends on your employer, or your clients if you’re your own boss. If you’re after prestige, your reputation definitely depends on the opinion of many people. Therefore, being into career makes you depend on other people for happiness and comfort.

And so I don’t think love is any more dangerous to self-sufficiency than career. Both certainly take a huge chunk out of it. But the only way to be emotionally self-sufficient is to have and want nothing. To live like a Buddhist monk or a hermit in the woods. The more you have, the more you can lose, the less you are happy with just yourself, decent food and OK shelter. Self-sufficiency is great, but I choose love.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Self-sufficiency vs. Love

  1. Chin Up, Chest High! says:

    You’re absolutely right. Truly being in love and loving requires a certain level of (healthy) co-dependency. Otherwise you treat a relationship like a business contract.

  2. M3 says:

    (healthy) co-dependency <- i like that.

    To be truly independent from other people in a relationship is like asking 2 sociopaths to try and find a reason to care for their partner above their own interests.

    Yes.. i don't NEED my girlfriend to survive, and she likewise doesn't need me. But she comes to count on me to be there for her when she requires it, and i likewise. If she never truly required me for anything… i'd feel useless, like a piece of furniture simply occupying space.

    Is it possible to fall in love with someone who has zero vulnerability and has zero problem replacing you on a whim or a moments notice if the prevailing winds shift?

    • emmatheemo says:

      I dunno about others, but I wouldn’t be able to be take it. I have to have some vulnerability from them, and don’t want to be replaceable. To me, they would not be so easily replaceable. Sure, if they part ways with me or die, I can eventually love again, but it won’t be quick and easy.

  3. Eric says:

    Speaking of sexual self-sufficiency, I don’t know if you saw the article David Fat-trelle posted yesterday, but he’s taken a demographic survey of his commenters and regular readers. Needless, it proved what we’ve always suspected—they are a collection of social misfits.

    Anyway, I would like to give your thoughts on this statistic: Futrelle’s readers identified themselves by gender as 59% female and 30% male. Since you’re into mathematics, you no doubt noticed these numbers add up only to 89%. Futrelle explained that the other 11% were divided about equally between the following:
    1. Transgenders (going in both directions)

    2. Intersexuals

    3. Non-binaries

    4. And 2.5% responded ‘Other’.

    I’m wondering if you could shed some light or theories on what the last three categories could possibly mean, since neither myself nor anybody I’ve talked to in the Manosphere has the slightest idea.

  4. Clarence says:

    An actual ‘intersexual’ is what is known as a hermophrodite. Some have both internal ovaries and testes, some don’t have any identifiable external sexual genitalia, and some have male/female organs on the outside/opposite sex ones on the inside. Yes, such people exist though they are not able to self fertilize.
    My understanding of ‘non binaries’ is it includes people. -some of whom are mentally whacked – who either decide to change their ‘declared sex’ at a whim or whom don’t identify as human at all.
    Given those two categories I don’t have a clue in the world what ‘Other’ is unless they are robots, aliens, or just people who don’t want to say.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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