To think men only love what women do for them, not who women are?

[NotYourPeacekeeper]

I was watching an interview with Cristiano Ronaldo and when he was asked what he loves about his fiancée, every single answer was about what she does for him: how she cooks, takes care of the kids, supports him, keeps him grounded, etc. Not once did he mention her personality, humour, intelligence or anything that showed real admiration for who she is as a person.

That interview said a lot without saying much.
So many men describe love through utility - what a woman brings to their life, how she maintains their peace, how she meets their needs. It’s rarely about her spirit, ambitions or individuality.

And the irony is women are the ones constantly told to be nurturing, supportive, selfless, yet when men describe love, it often sounds like a job description:

“She cooks for me.”
“She’s always there when I need her.”
“She keeps me in check.”

Erm… that’s an assistant, not affection.

Too many men love the way women love them, not the women themselves.

So yes, make sure he’s at least providing. If you’re doing the emotional labour, he can cover the bills. Minimum.

I’ve always had male friends - and in fact most of my friends were male in early adulthood. All totally platonic. None of them ever tried any funny business… until we all hit our mid to late 40s and people started getting divorced.

And then two of my male friends, who I’d known since uni, tried it on with me. It was so, so sad and disappointing. (And also kind of like being propositioned by a little brother 🤢)

I didn’t have the sense it was primarily a sexual thing - I had the sense they were desperate to find a woman to come and sort their lives out, and were too lazy to look further than their immediate social circle.

I have also noticed that the older I get the more of my friends are women, largely because the men in my circles have become very grumpy and set in their ways and can’t be arsed going out and doing anything interesting. Whereas the women I know have stayed lively and engaged with the world and one another.

Yes, and yes to it being a thoroughly good sign in a man. I wouldn't have contemplated a serious relationship with a man who didn't have good female friends. It suggests someone who doesn't purely see women in a sexual light, but as just people .

That tells you about him. Not men.

Exactly, and a man with female friends is rarely going to default to weird traditional gendered expectations of you; and you won't get that "views women as female appliances" thing I keep reading about but have never once encountered in real life.

Once in a while I encounter men who only socialise with other men and it's a bit horrifying - the same is actually also true when I meet women who only socialise with other women, in a different way. I can't believe people live like that. They see everything through the prism of gender - you're a man or a woman before you're a person to them.

Of course there's a difference between how it's talked about and how it's lived. Fairytales, Disney and boy bands have a lot to answer for! If you buy into the unrealistic, schmaltzy, OTT version of love that you find in pop songs, of course you're going to be disappointed by the love of real-life normal men. Cristiano Ronaldo is at the other end of the scale. Personally, I prefer a happy medium and regard over-romanticising and beautiful pronouncements of love as a bit of a red flag. Of course men who aren't selfish and entitled love actual women.

Didn't he purchase a baby from a surrogate? Or am I confusing him with another rich egotistical twat?

To be honest, I think most people love their partners because of what they do for them. I don't mean on a practical or task-based level like the OP is describing.

But, at a deeper level, I think all love is [and should be] based on what a person brings to your life, what they do for you in the OP's parlance. Love for a partner isn't innate, it has to grow and be learned. To grow and learn to love someone they have to bring something to your life, to do something for you.

For example, saying "I love DP because he's funny" doesn't really mean DP is funny. It means DP makes you laugh - that's something that he does for you.

I think generally speaking, people are more willing to compromise on personality traits if they believe a potential partner could sustain or raise their social status.

For men, someone aesthetically attractive is who can do that for them, though money/status can play a part.

For women, it is more about assets, class and wealth..

For me what you are describing are the emotional avoidants. I would say that in the main they have gift giving and acts of service as love languages and very often 2 avoidants rub along very nicely together so both partners enjoy the mutual givings and takings from the relationship and would not be particularly emotionally connected by conventional definitions.

This is why I've given up on men and have been happily single for 8 years. Every man I was in a relationship with was only interested in what I could do for them,not who I was. The last bloke I was with wanted his meals cooked, laundry done and sex when he felt like it and treated me like a cash machine. Yet he couldn't have told you what my favourite meal was,or my siblings names,or even remember my birthday half the time. Basically,he had zero interest in me as a person. So I thought enough was enough. I honestly don't expect or want to have another relationship with a man,ever. And I'm happy this way.

I think its less about the sex of the person describing their partner and more about the length of relationship. Courage, humour, determination, intelligence etc are all well and good and part of what attracts people to each other. In the long term though, how a person behaves towards you is going to have a bigger impact on your quality of life than how brave and funny they are.

Or perhaps to be slightly more fair, there are far more men who see value in what their wife does for them than there are men who see the value of who their wife is in terms of personality and intellect.

It’s a sweeping generalisation but does apply to many men I know.
If you asked my ex what he liked about me (not now, it would be nothing) when we were together it would be my looks and what tasks I performed. He’d struggle to describe my personality and why he was with me beyond what I did to serve his needs. He’s not unusual, a lot of men think in this way.
It would be lovely for a man to respect intelligence, humour, values, integrity and lots of other attributes, so if you have one of those rare humans that does, hold onto them.

Agree, actually one of my biggest green flags is a man who can appreciate my humour and not try to one up me with bantz, look stony faced when I crack a joke or actually just ignore it (weirdly common I've found). I am the funny one among my female friends but only some men ever laugh and it often feels like they can't quite compute a woman might be funny at all. IME those are the red flag men.

Crikey I'm shafted then as currently I don't think I "do" much for mine. Well i don't do anything he doesn't do as well. He'd struggle to take the Ronaldo approach as wouldn't be able to say what I did, err she takes the child to skating on a Thursday but I do it on Friday - oh yes, she trims my eyebrows when they are wild. He's a monster obviously.

That sounds like my mother (minus the sex and cash thankfully).

My partner has said several times that he loves me for my sense of humour; my intelligence; how I'm passionate about things I care about; the fact I can find the joy in the most inane things; the fact we have loads of common interests; thebfact we can be ourselves with each other - no one is rpetendingto he something they're not.

Yes, he also loves that he feels he's a better person for being with me and thar I challenge him etc but that's part of.amy relationship. We all gain and learn things from being with each other whether it's changing our opinions on things or learning a new recipe!

I but if that's all.you can say, something has gone wrong.