What is the difference between romance stories targetted at women vs men?

I'm trying to figure out the difference in male vs female ideals of romance in order to write a romance that can appeal to both. This is what I've learned.

> men usually feel most loved when they are made to believe that a woman's love is not conditional in the cause-and-effect manner. Love is work for men, but it can be rewarding work when things are going smoothly and the woman is happy as a result. But the male romantic fantasy is to be shown that the woman feels the same way and stands by him when he's down on his luck, when the money's not there, or when he's not feeling confident. He wants to know that the love he believes he's earned will stay even when the actions that feed it wane (however temporarily). A good woman can often lift a man up in his times of need and desperation and weather the storm even when things aren't going well. The male romantic fantasy is an enduring and unconditional love that seems to defy this relationship of labor and reward. A man wants to be loved for who he is, not for what he does in order to be loved.

This is the difference between a boy and a man.

>women often call this romantic entitlement. An entitled guy is a dude who maintains an unrealistic notion of men's typically active role in love. Before acknowledging reality, this boy uncompromisingly believes that he shouldn't have to do anything or change anything about himself to earn a woman's love; he wants to be loved for who he is, not what he does.

>All men secretly want this, but there comes a day when they eventually compromise out of necessity. After that day, they may spend years honing themselves, working, shaping themselves into the men they believe women want to be chosen by. A massive part of what causes boys to "grow up" is the realization that being loved requires hard work. This impetus begins a journey where a boy grows into a man by gaining strength, knowledge, resources, and wisdom. The harsh realities of the world might harden and change him into a person his boyhood self wouldn't recognize. He might adopt viewpoints he doesn't agree with, transgress his personal boundaries, or commit acts he previously thought himself incapable of. But ultimately, the goal is to feel as if his work is done.

Can someone explain the equivalent for women? What is the women's fantasy of the ideal romance? What makes it unrealistic and merely a fantasy that it can't be applied to the real world?

I don't read a whole lot of women's romance but I've noticed that

> while the women heroines in male targeted romances are expected to be beautiful, in romances aimed at women, the women aren't ugly, but there isn't a big emphasis or pressure on her to be very attractive. And the guy doesn't love her for her looks or her body, rather something else. Obviously her personality, but there's more to it than that that I can't put my finger on.

Can anyone add to this?

Attached: spiceAndWolf.png (1000x1413, 2.03M)

men want manic pixie dream girl, some girl that appears out of the blue and is quirky and cute and helps you with your problems

And what do women want?

Yeah, the thing you can‘t put your finger on is hope for reaching one‘s potential. Romance geared towards females often includes a kind of transformation story, an ugly duckling coming of age. The whole trope of a princess who lived in rags until her white knight in shining armor comes along, brings her home to his castle and gives her the opportunity to blossom into the stunning princess she was always meant to be. Same for stories like 50 shades of gray. In it, the male prot goes as far as to make the female prot sign a contract where he‘s in charge of her diet and exercise regime. This is the hope that a strong capable male comes along, scoops up the sad heap of woman they are and help them become who they actually would want to be. Kind, loving, beautiful, youthful, diligent, disciplined, generous, etc. most often, they prefer this plot twist to happen out of sight, iow, he‘s not actually teaching her anything or forcing her to do anything, he just provides her with the ideal circumstances to become her best self. Thus, the trope of that guy usually being wealthy for example. It makes it possible for her to lean into her feminine ideal, doing stuff like gardening and playing piano instead of having to pursue a career.

Same is true for girls. But the manix pixie dream boi is actually a strong capable sane dream man. Yet he should also appear out of now where and wipe out all issues in the female prot‘s situation with a sweep of his strong hand. Basically, both men and women are hoping for their opposite sex angel to come and save them and make their life heaven on earth in every possible way.

That is honestly kind of hilarious.

Men want a woman who sticks with him through the tough times and accepts him for who he is. Women want a man who'll let her do whatever she wants and possibly do nothing forever.

Men want someone who loves them unconditionally even if they are, behave and stay shameful. Women want someone who loves them when they are and behave shameful but who will help them overcome their shameful reality. They not necessarily expect a man to take away all their problems, at least not in more realistic stories that aren’t straight up fairy tales, but they hope he’ll be able to help them overcome them. That can be as subtle as finding a man who sees the potential in her and helps her find hope that she has what it takes to reach it. The trope of him just taking care of wverything might sound like a relief, that‘s why it‘s just a fantasy and should stay one. Because that would be as unfulfilling snd unsustainable as getting liposuction when you should go on a diet and exercise instead. There‘s pathetic weaklings in both genders and even more, we all probably go trough short phases where we just feel like we can’t take it anymore and we dream about someone coming along and pulling us out of the dark hole we’re stuck in. I’d say that’s human and not pathetic unless it‘ all you ever do.

Scott pilgrim

>>All men secretly want this, but there comes a day when they eventually compromise out of necessity. After that day, they may spend years honing themselves, working, shaping themselves into the men they believe women want to be chosen by. A massive part of what causes boys to "grow up" is the realization that being loved requires hard work. This impetus begins a journey where a boy grows into a man by gaining strength, knowledge, resources, and wisdom. The harsh realities of the world might harden and change him into a person his boyhood self wouldn't recognize. He might adopt viewpoints he doesn't agree with, transgress his personal boundaries, or commit acts he previously thought himself incapable of. But ultimately, the goal is to feel as if his work is done.
Yeah I'm not doing any of this shit. Once you realize the ideal isn't real, you need to question whether you actually want the reality. A hole isn't worth it.

>we all probably go trough short phases where we just feel like we can’t take it anymore and we dream about someone coming along and pulling us out of the dark hole we’re stuck in
I'd be content with companionship that doesn't require me to act like a sociopath in order for the woman to stay.

The basic female romantic fantasy involves two ideas:

a) Pussy's market value is infinite. In other words, the most mediocre woman's reproductive facility is worth more than all the worldly goods that any man, even the most successful, has to offer.

b) Although a mediocre woman is, by definition, not very different from dozens of others, an exceptional man may still fix on *her* specifically and henceforth be blind to all other women.

The 'reproductive factility' consists not just of the capacity to have children (women get this as a default skill) but the capacity to care for those children. Therefore a female fantasy will tend to emphasize the heroine's character virtues associated with motherhood (kindheartedness, firmness, fidelity).

Women's attitude to other women is ambiguous. On the one hand, there is a certain degree of solidarity in that it is in women's interest collectively to drive up the price of pussy as high as possible. A woman who sells it cheap hurts other women, and they will vilify her for it and call her a slut, a tramp, etc (in the same way that a strike-breaker in an industrial dispute is called a scab). On the other hand, women view other women primarily as competitors for men.

Women desire the resources and security necessary for child-rearing; they also want their children to have the best genes possible. So they want, not just a rich man, but a rich and genetically superior man. (A woman doesn't really want an inferior man who has simply inherited wealth, for example.) Where the resources and genetic superiority are present in two different men, a woman's instinct will be to try to have the best of both worlds — i.e. marry the rich man (or use him as a sugar-daddy) and reproduce with the genetically superior man. However, this is obviously an imperfect situation for many reasons, so wish-fulfillment stories will tend to steer clear of it. It's sometimes covered, and usually the tone is pity for the adulterous woman, 'driven' into the arms of the other man by her stupid / weak / impotent husband who didn't understand her / give her enough attention / whatever. The Horse Whisperer and The Bridges of Madison County are fairly trashy examples; Lady Chatterley's Lover a more 'literary' one. The same idea crops up tangentially in Middlemarch. Dorothea Brooke marries Mr Casubon, but he, though well-off financially, is old and boring and can't give her orgasms. He dies, and leaves her his money in his will, but with the caveat that she will lose the money if she marries Will Ladislaw (the genetically superior but penniless man, who CAN, presumably, give Dorothea orgasms.) To be fair, this is a bit spiteful. But the important thing is that, from the female perspective, Casubon ought not to have done that, since it is the duty of an old, rich man (alive or dead) to give resources (directly or indirectly) to women so they can raise children.

But this type of story is really outside our concern here.

[1]

In summary:
A woman's basic fantasy is a superior man who has conquered the world and acquired large resources being himself conquered by her and giving her all those resources in return for her reproductive capacity. A woman's biggest fear is that such a man will desert her for another woman (either before or after marriage), so these fantasies tend to involve some rival figure — but crucially the man will have no interest in her at all. This is like a soothing cold compress to the feverish insecure female brow.

Needless to say there are millions of unreadable trash novels which use the formula in the most banal way. But the more well-regarded titles aren't so different. Let's look at some examples.


—— Pride and Prejudice (Jane Austen)

Quintessential. Darcy is hyper-eligible — rich, youngish, healthy, intelligent, etc. Also — typically for this sort of story — he has a certain sternness of disposition. A woman wants a man who is basically ruthless to the rest of the world but gentle to her.

Darcy falls hopelessly in love with Elizabeth, who is, objectively, fairly mediocre. Notice how the book doesn't have her jump at the chance, because although women are generally practical — i.e. mercenary — in matters of the heart, they don't like to think of themselves as mercenary and certainly don't want to be viewed as mercenary by the world. More often than not, therefore, these stories have the woman *rejecting* the powerful man over some moral or emotional scruple, thereby demonstrating — to him, herself and the world — that she is *not* mercenary. Obviously, however, she has to get the resources at the end.

Notice also the 'other woman' character. Miss Bingley has designs on Darcy but she's a cow and he has no interest in her.

[2]

—— Emma (Jane Austen)

A later book, and more subtle and complicated. Emma is already rich but the same basic desire applies — she still wants the most eligible man for herself. The equation is most nakedly apparent in Emma's scheme to arrange a husband for Harriet. Notice how Emma values Harriet way too highly and Harriet herself goes along with this valuation quite happily. (Left unchecked, a woman's instinct is to put an infinite value on pussy). This is all made explicit when Emma persuades Harriet to reject Robert Martin's proposal and Mr Knightly is furious and he and Emma argue about it. Mr Knightly points out that Robert Martin is more than good enough for Harriet and Emma says no he isn't. (Notice that Jane Austen herself clearly understands that Emma is in the wrong here. Intelligent female authors are not incapable of self-awareness.)

Emma is only brought to her senses when Harriet sets her sights on Mr Knightly himself. Emma was fine with Harriet wildly over-valuing her SMV but this stops instantly when Emma sees her own genetic prospects endangered. An excellent example of the "sisterhood/rivalry" thing going on in the female sex as a whole.

Feminists would surely hate Emma if they understood it. There's some sane & perceptive psychology in there.


—— Jane Eyre (Charlotte Bronte)

All the tropes from P&P are here in force. Jane Eyre is poor, (very much) not pretty, and not brilliantly accomplished (remember the scene where she plays the piano). But her qualities of character are exactly those which will make a good mother. Despite her superficial mediocrity a rich, powerful man falls for her.

Then we have the 'rejection' thing where she leaves him because of moral scruples, even though it means poverty (literally almost dying of starvation — CB doesn't do things by halves, haha).

The 'other woman' is there too in the shape of Blanche Ingram. She's very similar to Miss Bingley in P&P — cutting a brilliant figure, trying to charm the man. But he is most unimpressed with her, just as Darcy is only annoyed by Miss Bingley. (There's obviously another 'other woman' in the shape of the mad ex in the attic.)

[3]

—— Rebecca (Daphne du Maurier)

Rinse & repeat. The heroine (narrator) is poor, plain, unaccomplished. Rich, powerful man falls for her (sort of inexplicably, but as usual, it's mostly because he's impressed by her essential goodness of character.)

This time the 'other woman' is his dead ex-wife. So it's basically Jane Eyre (or, if you prefer, it's the story of what might happen if Darcy actually married Miss Bingley, then realized what a cow she is, and only met Elizabeth Bennett later.) Notice the very specific echo of JE in the mad ex-wife burning the house down (yes, in Rebecca it's Mrs Danvers who actually strikes the match, but mythopoetically it's clearly Rebecca behind it all).


—— 50 Shades of Gray (Grey?)

Of course in terms of literary quality we just jumped off the edge of the Grand Canyon, but it's the same basic engine under the bonnet. Notice the emphasis on how OBJECTIVELY MEDIOCRE the woman is. She has literally nothing to offer except a) a functional uterus and b) a kind disposition, but that is enough for a man who could literally have any woman to fixate on her.

I have only read two paragraphs of this and watched about four minutes of the film, but there's one bit which struck me as really the essence of the female fantasy. The heroine is sent to interview this mysterious billionaire and after she's asked him about two-and-a-half questions he's so mesmerized he gets his PA on the intercom and tells her to cancel some important meeting he has scheduled. That's the female psychological g-spot right there. Billionaire CEO cancels vital meeting because he met POOR LITTLE ME.

Notice also all the same incidental tropes (she rejects him, he chases after her, there's a potential rival but he isn't interested in her, etc).


—— Twilight (Stephanie Meyer)

Same basic idea, obviously. MC is a bit of a socially-awkward ugly duckling but the powerful man inexplicably falls for her. Why? HE JUST DOES, OK?? The male lead is called "Edward", after Edward Rochester in Jane Eyre, IIRC. Women only have one brain; they just share it.

[4]

—— Gone With The Wind (Margaret Mitchell)

Rhett Butler is the powerful and superior man who acquires vast resources (through blockade-running in the Civil War). He falls for Scarlett even though she's objectively not all that great. (The first words of the book are "Scarlett O'Hara was not beautiful..." Obviously Hollywood ignored this completely when they made the film, as they always do.) The difference here is that it's a semi-tragedy: Scarlett is actually misguided for too long (or almost — MM holds off from pure tragedy at the end, leaving open the possibility that Scarlett really will win Rhett back).


—— Frankenstein (Mary Shelley)

Her husband might indeed have helped her with the prose but I can fully believe that Mary came up with the basic story. It's not straightforward romantic wish-fulfillment, but it's a product of the same basic world view. The difference here is that Frankenstein is the powerful, capable man who (in the view of the female author) FOLLOWS THE WRONG PATH — i.e. he tries to go through life without a woman, and suffers disastrous consequences.

This can be summed up very well by Mary's own comment on the book. She said "It's the tragedy of a man who tries to have a child without involving a woman." Enough said.


Notice how many intelligent female authors are quite self-aware about the nature of relations between the sexes. Here's a passage from a short story called "The Deluge At Norderney", by Isak Dinesen:

She had been brought up by a pious governess, of the sect of the Hernhuten, who thought much of female virtue. In those days a woman's being had one center of gravity, and life was simpler to her on this account than it has been later on. She might poison her relations and cheat at cards with a high hand, and yet be an *honnête femme* as long as she tolerated no heresy in the sphere of her specialty. Ladies of her day might themselves fix the price of their hearts and minds and of their souls, should they choose to deal with the devil; but as to their bodies, those were the women's stock in trade, and the lowering of the sacred standard price for them was thought of as disloyal competition to the guild of the *honnêtes femmes*, and was a deadly sin. Indeed, the higher a young woman could drive up the price individually, the greater was her state of holiness, and it was far better that it should be said of her that for her sake many men had been made unhappy, than that she should have made many men happy.

[5]

>Men want someone who loves them unconditionally

People almost always say this, but what it truly is is a very uncharitable reading of men ideally wanting a relationship which is not a 24/7 power struggle, and in which they can let their guard down now and then. Like I think very few men who are honest with themselves would unironically wish for a woman who would enable their vices, it is much more likely that they'd prefer a woman who they can confide in and who doesn't make him jump through hoops and shit tests constantly in order to prove his worthiness of her pussy.

*make them

*prove their worthiness

men dont like women with moustaches even if its for one day
women dont like weak, low status men
whats so hard to understand?

Women don't naturally grow facial hair in the way men do. That you'd think that's a valid analogy shows you're a worthless hole.

and naturally men dont go around crying about their feelings to women, they had other men for this. Get the fuck out beta incel and make some friends

Yes basically the funny part is that men seek comfort in romance, often from real war, whereas to women romance is the war.
On the surface It seems like the fantasy for women is to have a powerful man to protect them or make them feel desired or whatever but in reality the reason they want a powerful man is purely to dominate him and thus have the highest degree of power for themselves.
And men foolishly think they can escape this but they are simply wrong that's just how it is. If you choose romance this is what you choose.

There's a difference between "crying about your feelings" and simply behaving like a human because you know if you drop your mask at any moment the other person will leave.

you cannot understand the female viewpoint because you cannot imagine having thousands of women lining up for you at any moment, as women have with men. Based on your faulty man worldview dominated by scarcity you cannot make any conclusions about how you'd behave if you had access to so many mates as a woman has
basically have sex

That user has a point, though, even if it's abrasively worded. Historically speaking emotional comfort was not a role wives were expected to fulfill either among the elite or the poor. Wives are for sex and children, and political alliances among the elite, no more, no less.

Doesn't matter. I expect them to behave with human decency. Since they can't I do not want one.
Again, the issue is not emotional comfort. Where did I say I needed a woman to coddle me?

its easy to not want something you cant get

Shakugan no Shana.

You're welcome.

Emotional comfort does not imply being coddled.

Less competition for you, so it's to your benefit. Enjoy.
Apparently behaving in any way resembling your normal personality requires "emotional comfort."

youre attacking a strawman at any rate. Women are very polite, especially with those they dont want to have sexual relations. So they behave like normal people with you but they dont want to fuck you, not sure why you find this offensive

I'm not talking about women's behavior to acquaintances, I'm talking about what goes on once you are in a relationship with one.

they're polite with you in a relationship as well, they just dont want to fuck you anymore if you are too weak, again what's so offensive. Do you think its impolite to tell others you dont want to get fucked by them anymore?

I thought of something similar. Women seldom upset those who have no unreasonable expectations. An outlet for your carnal desires, and a source of children : seeing them as anything more is just projecting your fantasies on a woman.

Women don't have moustaches unless they have a hormonal disorder that would cause them to have uterine cancer.
However 100% of men are "low status" ie. have tough days, some of the time.

No, I would not say that the issue is being "impolite." Either you are a woman of you have accepted the situation. I would rather not deal with it at all.

alright the solution is simple then, if you want a woman to tolerate your temporary weakness just tell the other 1000 men waiting to fuck her on social media to not overinflate her ego by giving her attention daily

Not him but if this is the attitude it makes perfect sense why men use their strength to control women. I wish you were more honest about this desu, so that we could return to that.

That's really the solution. Nothing is gained by allowing women to have freedom.

women really is the most interesting discussion topic there is, keep it up kings

wait until you realize its not women who gave themselves freedom but other 1% men. Fully knowing they will have access to unlimited pussy since all the other men are priced out of the dating market.
Why do you think women get middle management and HR roles easily in companies? Especially if they look good?
Who made the laws to give women freedom?
Who runs the state that rapes low status men with divorce laws?
You're fighting with phantoms and unwilling puppets (women), but the truth is the aristocracy never left. And women love princes not worker bees

women and the way they work is as simple as a brick, there's very little to discuss. It's not the theory that most guys fail at, but practice.

>there's very little to discuss
could have fooled me

>wait until you realize its not women who gave themselves freedom but other 1% men. Fully knowing they will have access to unlimited pussy since all the other men are priced out of the dating market.
That's not the reason it happened. The people actually in control of these matters are part of the elite and don't have to worry about this. Women were "liberated" in order to turn them into economic units so that the workforce could be inflated, prices driven up, etc.

do tell what's complicated about women. if anything men are infinitely more complex because at least man is a creature of both instinct and reason rather being like a venus flytrap.

thats exactly what I'm saying, its the elite (men) who decided women should be free fully knowing what will happen

its also men who spends thousands of dollars buying shit cookies from women
So in the end it's the fault of men as it always was

Attached: 1638039037736.png (657x564, 409.61K)

then why does Yea Forums constantly discuss women huh

>a hungry man constantly thinking about food makes food an intellectually deep topic

Doesn’t the unconditional love angle not work when we consider the knightly fantasy, of being big strong warrior man who kills the dragon and thus earns the woman by merit of his virtue?

I was being facetious. If you're trolling me you're pretty funny but it seems like you're just blindly combative.

Attached: 2a3.jpg (568x376, 34.34K)

Am I wrong to feel a great feelings of disgust at this, to think this very petty?

Yes, you have to accept that women are soulless subhuman monsters who view you as nothing more than a workhorse to extract money and semen from, and still love them and provide for them anyway. Good luck.

And real men consider women to be just baby factories that need to shut up and cook, and women love this. Only weak men have a problem with it

Realized women are shit when I popped one in the face back in high school and she ended up liking me afterwards and wanted to date me.

Attached: 0874.jpg (1024x768, 210.41K)

Yeah. At least for women in an ideal state they are genuinely happy to fulfill the role of fuckdoll and baby factory for the right man. As a man, even if you manage to fuck the woman of your dreams it will always nag at the back of your mind that she's just playing a role to extract resources from you and will turn on you the moment a better candidate will appear within her reach.

Did you fuck her?

this wouldnt happen if you were man enough to set your own rules and enforce them. However bigger men than you have decided that women should have all the freedom in the world as they make better consumers than you, it is what it is

No. She was a coalburner anyway.

Your readings of these are about as legitimate as those of academics who go out of their way to interpret anything remotely "masculine" in a book as subconscious justification for rape. Yes, of course the motivations you speak of exist to a greater or lesser extent, of course they are sublimated due to cognitive dissonance, but these books were written with (exoteric) motives more related to class and social improvement than anything to do with romance. If you want to hold hyper-reductionist esoteric beliefs about everything any woman has ever written, be my guest (and I'll admit that in dealing with ugly realities, you are closer to the truth than the average person who is unwilling to consider these ideas to any extent), but there's no reason to waste your time writing out paragraphs of handwaving, unfalsifiable, willfully historically ignorant "readings", and there's no sober observer who could fail to see the intellectual laziness of your approach.

I don’t think he’s wrong and you’ve not said why his readings are bad.

>are about as legitimate as those of academics who go out of their way to interpret anything remotely "masculine" in a book as subconscious justification for rape.

Why do female academics hate masculinity so much when women love it so much in men?

Though I guess some men are like that, too. Femininity when invoked by men are often talked about in its negative aspects rather than the positive ones such as maternity or behavior that is endearing to men.

Anything that implies anything bad about women is wrong, stupid incel.

because everything a woman does is a shit test including being a feminist, do you think she'll stick true to her word and remain a feminist if she gets deported to afghanistan?

Very insightful, cheers user.