(I) "Women don't love men who aren't a little bad."
Are all women masochists? Actually, women just don't like rigid, clumsy, and uninteresting guys. Relatively speaking, "bad" men are more interesting. But this "bad" should have a special meaning, like that old-fashioned movie heroine who shyly turns around and pokes the hero's head with her finger: "You're so bad!"
Truly bad men are terrifying; smart women will quickly sense their wickedness and escape in time. But those who feign badness, commonly known as "playing cool," will soon become women's "idols." Moreover, "bad" men are now considered outdated, as evidenced by the popularity of the "good man" image portrayed by Leo Ku.
(ii) "Men like beautiful but foolish women"
To please the prince and maintain her slim figure, Princess Diana began vomiting after eating, which later developed into an uncontrollable vomiting disorder. Charles, far from being grateful, recalled with disgust, "My honeymoon was filled with the smell of vomit." At the time of their divorce, Diana's measurements were 35-28-35 inches, described by beauty experts as the "devil's golden ratio"—a perfectly proportioned discarded woman.
But Camilla, the old and unattractive woman who had captivated the prince for decades, even those who condemned her for breaking up the royal marriage had to admit: "To be fair, everyone who knows Camilla thinks she's a lovable woman. She's not only intelligent but also very witty." She was a queen at banquets, eloquent in literature, art, politics, and economics. In private, she was a passionate and unrestrained lover. At their first meeting, instead of a shy greeting like a young girl, she said, "My great-grandmother was your great-grandfather's mistress. What do you think?"
Beauty is something men value highly in women, but love isn't about looking at posters. When the initial attraction fades, how can life not be boring and tedious if you're facing a dull and clumsy lover every day? Of course, men who need to find confidence in front of women, or who use beautiful women to boost their status, might yearn for a beautiful but foolish woman. But what's so proud of the admiration and adoration of a fool?
(III) "A man should not make a woman cry"
Men are not saviors, and women are not clay dolls. In love, tolerance and understanding are essential; however, unlimited and absolute demands are unreasonable. Only through equality can healthy and profound love blossom between people. Men and women are both human, with their own tempers and habits, as well as their own strengths and weaknesses. Friction is inevitable; once it occurs, it is the couple who should adjust, not the man's unwavering tolerance and burden-taking.
Women's emotions are more fragile than men's, while men are more easygoing. Expecting a man to fully consider a woman's feelings is like asking a gorilla to play the violin, as Balzac aptly put it. Minor frictions, a few tears, and some angry words are nothing to worry about.
If this statement is interpreted as "Men shouldn't cruelly hurt women," then it should also be added that "Women shouldn't cruelly hurt men either." But then it's essentially saying nothing at all, so let's just leave it at that.
Besides, women are often sentimental, and shedding a few tears is a cathartic release for them, bringing them great comfort. It would be truly distressing for a woman to never cry for love. Just look at all those women who prepare tissues every day to watch "Romance in the Rain"—you'll know that for women, tears are often a form of entertainment, a way to express their poetic feelings and enjoy love.
(iv) "I don't ask for forever, I only ask for what I had."
The "third party" often says this when they first become the other woman, but later most of them cry and shout for "forever and ever." What's the point of deceiving yourself? Possessiveness in love is an instinct we can't avoid. When you're the attacker, you're busy preparing your ammunition; but when love grows old and you think about defense, how much you long for that safe "walled city"!
Another situation is that people are afraid of taking responsibility, so they agree beforehand to only focus on the present and not the future. I have a friend whose ex-boyfriend's most unbearable trait was always making it clear that "we might not get married in the future," as if she wanted me to cling to him. My friend finally got fed up and didn't even want the "once we had" relationship anymore. Her ex-boyfriend, stimulated by this, suddenly felt he couldn't live without her and actually proposed. And she, without looking back.
(v) "Being together because we don't understand each other"
The saying "separation due to understanding" seems to have been around for a long time. Its theoretical basis is "distance makes the heart grow fonder," meaning that what looks like a flower from afar becomes a tangled mess up close.
Therefore, this kind of love and marriage guidance has emerged, suggesting that couples should maintain a sense of mystery in marriage and avoid frequently exposing their nakedness to each other. A friend of mine recently got divorced, and his ex-wife followed this doctrine. Her husband was absolutely forbidden from entering her shower; if he accidentally did, she would scream and cover herself with a towel, as if she'd been assaulted. My friend's comment was, "Is that really necessary? What part of her body haven't I seen?"
Of course, it's said that psychological understanding can lead to boredom and leaving. But I want to ask: Is understanding someone really that easy? In just a few years, you've come to understand someone so different from you and grown tired of them? The proverb at Delphi, "Know thyself," has been a timeless lesson. If understanding oneself is so difficult, is understanding someone of the opposite sex so easy?
Conversely, only love built on understanding is profound and lasting. In the process of getting to know each other, one also comes to know oneself. The joy of this may not be as intense as sexual climax, but it is certainly deeper and more profound.
(vi) "We broke up because: we were destined to meet but not to be together."
Fate is a Buddhist concept, very profound, a kind of cause and effect. Now, when used to describe love, its meaning is actually quite shallow: how did we meet you among thousands of people? Meeting, knowing, and loving each other is so difficult; unfortunately, too many uncontrollable factors force us to separate. This is the ending of destiny, not our fault, but the fault of fate.
It may seem like modern people are talking about principles, but in reality, it's no different from ancient people calculating birth dates and times. When love is painful or unsuccessful, instead of reflecting on one's own reasons, one blames fate, saying that destiny is unpredictable. This is like a child who trips and falls, not admitting that he was careless, but instead hitting the stool and cursing it for being in the way.
In modern society, love and marriage are matters of free will and protected by law. Aside from extremely rare cases like serious illness or disaster, the failure of love and marriage is generally related to the personality traits of both parties. If incompatibility stems from differing personalities and lifestyles, a rational breakup is an option when these cannot be changed. If the problem lies in a lack of maturity or the art of love, then it's crucial to address these issues promptly. Bad relationships always have underlying causes; identifying the true reasons is the right approach, rather than blaming fate or destiny.
(vii) "Find someone who loves you, and forget the person you love."
In this statement, the person who loves you and the person you love are definitely not the same person. "Preferring to find someone who loves you" is quite pragmatic—only receiving, not giving. I've never heard of people leading divided lives finding happiness. Moreover, love doesn't seem to be entirely a business transaction; if the profit exceeds the cost, then you've made a profit.
On the contrary, in itself, loving is more worthy of blessing than being loved. Psychologist Erich Fromm, in his famous book *The Art of Loving*, said: "Good love is first and foremost about giving, not receiving, because giving is more joyful than receiving; giving is not a sacrifice, but rather an expression of abundance and vitality." Just as a poor person is pitiful not only because of their poverty, but also because they are deprived of the ability to give.
It's certainly sad to love someone but not be loved in return, but isn't it selfish and cruel to inflict that same sadness on the person who loves you? In college, some students who had their bicycles stolen would steal someone else's to compensate, resulting in even more bicycles being stolen from. It's a sad domino effect—because the first one falls, all the others fall.
The inability to love is an epidemic in modern society. If you can truly love someone and genuinely suffer for love, then congratulations, your mind and body are healthy, and your pain is not the despair of having no one in the world to love. Whether or not one is loved is beyond our control, but first and foremost, having the capacity to love is something to be blessed.
