All you need is love. Also, misogyny, and a side order of homophobia.

Love is in the air! On The Spearhead, WF Price has penned a piece with the intriguing title: “What’s Wrong with Wanting to be Loved?” To that I would answer: nothing.

Let’s see what lovely sorts of things Price has to say about the subject:

[S]till we have people whining about “misogyny.” Young feminists whose most important concern is the ability to have sex entirely free of consequences, and who shamelessly raise their voices for the right to kill their children in the womb. Lesbian gender feminists who wreck families for profit and sex. Male feminists who boast about fathering children and shuffling their responsibilities onto some duped cuckold, and who malign their fellow men for a crack at college girls.

Huh. Not sure how exactly this bit of nastiness is supposed to advance the cause of love.

(Also, I think that last bit – the line about those “who malign their fellow men for a crack at college girls” – is supposed to be a reference to … me, and the talk I gave on Monday at Northwestern, to which he has added his own little fantasies, like he did in his original, highly fictionalized, post on the subject. The man is obsessed.)

In the comments, Spearhead readers offered their own thoughts on the topic of love.

Revver started things off with this lovely thought:

Having seen and heard a great majority of women, being “unloved” becomes lighter and lighter a burden with each passing year.

How easily they make themselves look like fools.

Opus spat forth an opus; here’s an edited version:

Women judge men by pre-selection.

If you have been dumped, then a member of Team Vagina has deemed you unworthy, so as in Snakes and Ladders you start from the bottom again. There is simply no point seeking female solace, because the woman will see that you do not seek her, and thus, offended, accuse you of unsolicited attention, or alternatively act offended that you are not interested in her. (I speak from experience). …

Women as we know are programmed to get over even the worst relationship in no more than three months, whereas for a man (even when in hindsight it was Xmas come early) we are often talking decades, for to be ditched is to take away all that it means to be a man (provider, nurturer). … Now, why am I betting that Futrelle did not mention these things last night – and why am I also betting he has not got one single phone number from any female at Northwestern Univeristy?

(You guys are really are obsessed. Aren’t you supposed to mention my weight as well?)

Greyghost managed to work the phrase “gina tingle” into his ramblings:

Men actually have the capacity to love. Only a man can write an article like that. Women just don’t have the capacity to love. Women gina tingle. …

The big lie was and is that a woman can love. Romance is what men do women receive it. …

The MRM with women on board on not will never ever change the nature of women. No matter how much awareness of the pain men and even children are in, women will vote and demand what is in therir childish perception of their interest. ( It will always be uninhibitted status and hypergamy)

In a later comment, he added these creepy afterthoughts:

Women do not and can not love the way you do and can. The best a man can get is some good emotional gina tingle. Never ever forget it. It can be a very emotionally pleasing and soothing time for a man but a man can never forget he is a man and right or wrong is a keeper of civilization.

The emotional trauma brought down on men when the realization of the lie hits [is] off the charts. It is where murders and suicides come from.

Georice81 offered up a rather elaborate excuse for slut-shaming:

My observation is that when women have been sexually promiscous their ability to submit and be very loyal to a single man is very diminished. … They can’t respect that one man that may actually love them since they are contemptous of a man that could love someone like them. Men in the 1950′s understood this and would not marry someone who was not a virgin since they did not trust those that were not.

We men can love and want to love. We also have a huge capacity to forgive. Modern western woman don’t seem to comprehend this because of their own hangups.

Binxton, for his part, seemed to be posting from an internet café on Gor:

Women are by nature emotional, self-centered creatures. Absent controls on their behavior, they lack both morals and objective principles. They are too easily manipulated by their environment to allow them to be free.

Ultimately, female emotional nature requires men to control women.

Women will love when they endure hardship and respect higher authority, i.e., patriarchy.

Western women must acknowledge a male-centered world where they can enjoy the labors of man only if, and when, they show due deference to male authority. Those who fail to do so must be disciplined and punished as examples.

Joe set forth some similarly, er, traditional notions:

Women are capable of love but there’s a reason St. Paul tells wives to “fear” their husbands. Because women are just much more like children in their moral reasoning and in their emotional “resilience” (or capacity for cruelty). So for a woman to love a husband is much like a child’s love for his parents. It is a love that is requires her to be in a dependent position. This is why marriage in a feminist society of independent and irreligious (I don’t mean women without superstition, but women without fear of moral judgment) women, cannot work.

I think I’ve had enough of The Spearhead’s notions of love. Let’s try ten hours of Haddaway instead: