Love and Relationships According to The Little Prince

**Go to www.reddit.com/r/PothePerson/ to discuss this video.**
My Valentine's Day special in which I defend my apparently cynical views on romantic love.
I forgot to explicitly recommend The Little Prince, but if you haven't already you should definitely read it. It takes less than an hour to get through and the pictures are really cute.

[@Minnowonsay]

St Exupery's Salvadorian wife Consuela won a court case by proving that she was the rose. She was a petulant and unfaithful wife and St Exupery couldn't live with her and couldn't live without her. In such situations it is painful but your commentator is right he decided that he would love her anyway.

[@Nickademus77]

This is exactly the advice I needed. Thank you. You're a wonderful person, Po.

[@TansuTansu2]

I will give my mum a heart-shaped creme brulee for Valentines Day.

[@holidaysalmon9565]

Tansu Erginsav aw

[@borgimplant]

It's special because it's MINE. I have the same perception about this little park that I've been going to since childhood. Playing there as a kid, pacing around its periphery and worrying about the latest test score as a college student, sitting on the park bench and reflecting on life and the world as an adult. It's the most ordinary, humdrum little park you've ever seen, but to me it's precious, because it is one of the threads which weaves my life together as a coherent tapestry.

[@mariaaldred3058]

I feel the same about Valentine's Day. Thanks Po.

[@thebibosez7949]

The "soul mate" myth is distinct from the "true love" myth. Han Solo's true love was Leia and his soul mate was Chewie. The myths can overlap but what fun is that? Soul mates think in sync and true lovers complement each other.

[@brittanyh2628]

My hubby buys discounted chocolate for me after Valentine's day and I love it :) I also wanted to say that I agree with what you're saying. Have a great night!

[@kettlehead8994]

What is love, baby don't hurt me, baby don't hurt me, no more...

[@TakeoFR]

Lol. We got the same favorite book :) "S'il te plaît... apprivoise-moi ! dit-le renard."

[@heftyalan1152]

Q "I want to know what love is" A It is a theoretical ideal which not many couples manage to live up to and no surprise more women have higher expectations than men and if men do not live up to this image then divorce is initiated but not as catchy as "I want you to show me" :)

[@andyjones7121]

Hefty Alan Well done :)

[@heftyalan1152]

Andy Jones Cheers

[@Qscrisp]

Bad memories in a relationship = baobabs?

[@perrybrown4985]

Dear Po, I greatly admire your insightful videos and appreciate your efforts in sharing them. Regarding "the one", you may appreciate an Australian comedian Tim Minchin's view kzbin.info/www/bejne/f5a9fnydncqNqNE BTW my wife and I married on Valentine's day (in 1987). (we are still married - but children sure create strain) (and yes, I am another old guy... sorry)

[@farrellhuff3889]

so the more we talk the more likely we will pay attention and the more attention reveals the more you can see what you like or dislike . and then what - an educated shopper . or your soul mate .

[@renegadedalek5528]

Valentine's day is the christian replacement of a fertility festival of the ancient romans, The Lupercalia was held on 15th Feb and it's celebration is a bit pervy by todays standards. But apparently the ladies liked it, but laws had to be passed to stop maidens younger than 14 from indulging.

[@renegadedalek5528]

apologies, I slapped an apostrophe into its. i must have my predictive text set on "greengrocer mode"

[@danielsteel5251]

1:50 - 2:25 "There was absolutely no way ... I really believed it ... but here we are." Your courtship ritual reminds me of the mating habits of newts: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rIfUopedp9h9es0 (2 min) We humans are animals after all. (All of the 'emotional bonding' stuff circa the 9:00 mark doubtless has some scientific explanation too.)

[@danielsteel5251]

Also this: 1. www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jan/14/love-is-getting-answers-right-to-36-questions 2. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4466912/ Sorry for unweaving the rainbow. But even if you're disabused of your notions of romance, you'll still be hardwired to feel the same awful feelings of attachment, affection, excitement, arousal, etc. I've been trying to science them away for years ... yet still find myself orbiting little girls like you. Funny that your audience is a bunch of old men, hmm? (Also sad. But Nature is what it is.) Do you get a dopamine-hit from the attention? Or has that subsided by now. Don't worry about whether developing a sense of realism about "love" will negatively affect your relationships; it needn't. You can still enjoy chocolates and "romance" on Valentine's Day. Knowing how and why a stove is hot and _feeling_ its heat are two different things.

[@narbert100]

Makes lot of sense...

[@mykillmielia5640]

Wow, 12:56, what ratio is this? Between 90:10 and 95:05 male to female xD?

[@kord3468]

I understand people being romantics and hoping for that "one special person" to come into their life and sweep them off their feet, but I'm just a bit too cynical for that. Just sounds like wishful thinking on their part. Although this is coming from a mgtow, so I don't really think I'm all that well qualified to speak about this subject.

[@thebibosez7949]

When a man's seeking out a good partner, A #MeToo crazed chick's a non-starter, Perhaps best overall, Is a plastic sex doll, So much better than being a martyr! #PissOffFeminists #ShoutYourLoveBot

[@paulcaskey]

The Little Prince pop-up edition? I must have one. It will go well beside my pop-up Brothers Karamazov.

[@SunRise-ul7ko]

I made the learning experience of falling in love when I was 17 years of age. After the constant nagging winging & complaining from my first relationship, I tried a second relationship, this time with out falling in love. The same thing, nagging winging & complaining again. I learnt my lesson, never ever ever fall in love. I have never made that mistake again. I'm so happy to be free, to be able to go into a relationship, not feeling any guilt after there nagging & to tell them to leave, rather than put up with the crap.

[@oscarl.3563]

The only problem with the "it's the time that you spend with someone that makes them special" fox wisdom is that it's entirely possible to fall in love with someone at sight. Be that a child, a sibling or a stranger. What makes it magic, in my opinion, is the moment that you _choose_ that person. And if you don't you will never feel connected to the child, to that sibling and the stranger will remain a stranger. Even if you fall in love that is a fresh product. You have to act upon it before the moment slips and you have to yield to the situation and say 'this is it'. You take a chance and you stick with it. And you make it grow and the relationship will return your investment. However, I don't need ten years to love someone. I love immediately without delay, I don't need a millisecond. In fact it is always there, ready to be pulled on as soon as I decide to do so and when I withdraw that I become stone cold on a moments notice.

[@harebrain5239]

Haven't read it in awhile but here's my theory: it's about how love is not equal. The rose doesn't love the prince, but the prince loves the rose. The fox loves the prince, but the prince doesn't love the fox. It's because the rose tamed the prince, and the prince tamed the fox. Taming is essentially domestication: taking something wild and free and making it dependent on you. When you're in love with your tamer, what that means is you depend on him or her -- you can no longer function independently. It's because we can only love someone (love in the romantic sense) who we perceive to be more powerful than ourselves.

[@danielsteel5251]

For men: health = strength; for women: health = beauty. Hypothesis: the metaphor extends to _persona._ How/why? Evolutionary Biology suggests we seek out 'health' in partners, de facto, because (the genes of) those who don't seek such things out rarely propagate very far. No purposive explanations are required.

[@rossdavis428]

You are wise beyond your years; I hope that you can take great pride and great usefulness from that fact. I was only in love once, but that one time was all that was required to understand how love works.

[@peterclark4685]

Love is wanting the very best for the object of your love. It can only be experienced when you know what that is, because you can see the world through their eyes.

[@wouldbegood]

Love is trying. Love is needing. Love is understanding. Love is caring.

[@zaidbolarin5739]

very thoughtful and level headed.

[@Kricen]

Many people are in relationship, but there is no love between them, or only one of them is in love. I think these people always talk about their relationship and how to make it work, but often end up divorcing sooner or later.

[@holidaysalmon9565]

This is beautiful conceptually and it doesn't just apply to romantic love.

[@sicklygreyfoot]

I see what you're trying to get at--that patience is a huge part of any relationship, and patience is what creates all that shared time together. But part of your sermon I think is wrong. You conflate all the different kinds of love: romantic, familial, and friendship. Yes, none of those are any "better" than the others, however, they are utterly distinct, to the point where they're barely even related. You don't have coitus, and subsequently offspring, with your brother/sister/parents, or your friends. And that's a HUGE difference. Again, not better or worse, just completely different. So to say that longtime girlfriend/boyfriend or spouse is the same as a friend or a sister is nonsensical. The other thing I think you're missing is that those "shades of gray" where compatibility is concerned only exist when we're forced together, but in the modern developed world, we AREN'T forced together. That's why--and how--we're free. That's the freedom that you, as a libertarian, cherish so much: the freedom to avoid people you don't like. Of course, I can get used to anyone with whom I have no choice but to share space. But that would be because I had to. Does that diminish any kind of love that would develop? No, it doesn't. What I'm getting at, though, is that what actually makes romantic partners "special" in modern Western society is that they choose to be with one another, as opposed to just the default. Apologies for going geek on you, but I'll use *Star Trek: TNG* as an example. The character Data put it succinctly: "As I experience certain sensory input patterns, my mental pathways become accustomed to them. The inputs eventually are anticipated and even missed when absent." As an android, Data can only experience things in these terms, in this very default, matter-of-fact way. That isn't unlike people who are forced together. They eventually HAVE to get used to each other or the situation is literally intolerable. And those situations are often catalysts for the bonds that form. Sebastian Junger suggested this in his recent book. This is not so with the majority of the modern developed world. Because we have the choice, those bonds we form actually are special.

[@sicklygreyfoot]

That's a fair point. However, there aren't any cultural institutions surrounding friendship or siblinghood/parenthood. When friends break up, or families become estranged, people lament it, but that's where it ends. When a marriage or relationship breaks up--and happens anywhere near as often as those other estrangements--then people bemoan the degeneration of our culture. This is because they see the romantic love (and I'll stick to your definition of it) as special in comparison to the others.

[@sicklygreyfoot]

Correct. Friends and family members aren't known as "significant others." And while there are services and websites that can help you find friends, it's obvious the focus is on dating, which dominates the market. Few people attempt to "set you up" with friends, or to even bring you closer to your family. And I think this all stems from procreation, or at least the potential for it. Which is why I say the romantic relationship actually is special in that way.

[@mr.dirrerpish2804]

I wish you well Po. I've enjoyed all your content thus far.

[@FalleDuLogis]

Hi, I wonder if you have read the book by Jungian analyst Marie-Louise von Franz "The problem of the Puer Aeternus". She illustrates the puer aeternus /peter pan complex by examining The little Prince. I must say it was a fascinating read , I read it many years ago and the ideas in it impacted me profoundly. I'd be curious to see what you thought about it . I found a lot of her ideas resonate in J Peterson lectures. Thank you for your videos!

[@raymondstrunk4770]

In the spirit of sharing, I like to think of love as a decision. Comparing your significant other to other potential significant others is indecision. The complication is that the significant other gets to decide as well. So there's an element of quid pro quo that can seem like a poor deal. But I think you're right. The time and effort invested in positive experiences builds a relationship's value, and makes the decision easier.

[@chrisbanion]

I don't really believe in Valentine's day either... oh, chocolate!!!

[@govhater4632]

You're a Smarty/Cutey.. Just saying. ;)

[@ericfisher1360]

I think the story is a bit more subversive than a story of true love. The Prince is of course the man in the relationship. He has all the responsibility of maintaining the woman in this relationship, who is of course represented by a beautiful rose. She continues to emotionally manipulate the little prince giving him "shit test, after shit test." Eventually he leaves and finds out that there are other women and they are all the same. Then he meets the nu-male, represented by a Sly Fox who convinces him to "tame him" to later prove a point. This is obviously a lie because you do not tame the willing, you tame the wild. (It is worth noting that when a creature is tamed there is a mutual respect achieved between the tamed and the tamer something which is obviously NOT achieved with the Rose.), The Sly Fox then tells the Prince that he cares about the Rose at home because he has spent time with her and has cultivated her Comparing Cultivation with taming. (Apparently Cultivating an abusive relationship) The Little Prince then goes on to tell all the other Roses (Women) That they are not special but his abusive wife is. Turning away from a possible new relationship and being a good guy and continue to be loyal to someone who is not loyal to him. In short the Sly Fox guilt's the Prince into feeling like he needs to be back home taking care of a woman who takes no accountability of her own actions and is emotionally abusive because that's what men have always done.

[@witcheater]

Within some sectors of mgtow it is said that men love and women love to be loved. But that is today and today's women have been the most marketed-to demographic for at least 150-plus years (I saying it has been at least 3000 years). Women have allowed themselves to be the pawns of the real patriarchy... the schmucks of general society not even being close to any patriarchy. Yet women continue to blame to an ever increasing extent the schmucks. That is how rabid it all has become... and the good women are lost in a maze of feminist bs that is currently accepted by the vast majority of women in every nation... and yes, I have shared (too many, but not quantitatively many) relationships with women in their countries.

[@witcheater]

I cannot speak for mgtow but I can say that I want to keep on learning until the day I die. Listening to what you say allows me an opportunity to learn that of which I may not be aware of. I am not an engineer, only an industrial grease monkey, but learning is part of my job so much as it is part of my life. I admit when I am wrong and am willing to learn anew. And I do so even at the age of 62. At your age, can you do the same?

[@witcheater]

Hoping? No, do so, not for humanity, but only for yourself... for you have to understand for yourself that your self is worth such from yourself for your self.

[@witcheater]

I am ruining your KZbin statistics I suspect for re-watching your video so many times. I do so for I understand that I do not understand initially the nuances of what one says, or the nuances that I interject that the narrator never intended, for my own sociological conditioning. Once born we are conditioned, maybe not by the brightest or the best intentioned. It is a struggle to weed out the bad from one's self... a major struggle. As jaded as I am today, I do feel that a woman can love all a man can be for the one woman. As jaded as I am today, I do feel that romance can be shared naturally. However, though I have shared as such, and I have failed as such, is romance a fabrication for only my failures? Striking to me was all that I allowed to be learned by my last relationship with a female. The relationship with the one particular female was the best thing that ever happened to me. However, the relationship with that one particular female was also the worst thing that ever happened to me. Interestingly I understand that I did the same wrong thing twice in a row for the same wrong reasons even though I thought the second relationship was so totally different... I thought... I imagined... I dreamed... I wished. The first was mechanically correct, and I was mechanically correct. Emotionally I was involved in the first, but the first kept on trying to change the rules of the game. The second played the game way better than I could have imagine, it not being really understood until the "Dear Gerry" email that I accepted understanding what was happening. And it is that I fantasized for knowing how easy it is to just keeping on loving another while the other is delving into the manipulation of another. Historically men and women bonded that were not at all good looking by "standards", and played their part. However, seldom did the idea or concept of a soulmate ever come into the conversation. My last (and probably final) relationship with a female had all to do with a woman that was my soulmate... I thought and I imaged (it seems now). Sure I changed, but I did so to better our relationship. I was willing to adapt to please the "her". However, in my case, what is now sociologically acceptable I cannot stop a woman from doing. I am jaded for I know that romancing a woman is fun and interesting and what a woman wants at least some times. But I am confounded by a woman who comes to not wanting to be romanced but to be only be gifted in unfathomable ways... one being in financial ways, but in others as well materialistically. The biological had become thwarted by the social-economic. True loving of the human lost out to the females true loving of other shit that other men could produce. Long before MGTOW I was living alone. Long before MGTOW I had my issues with females. That what I do today (and then) coincides with what MGTOW claims to be is but a coincidence. It is the multitude of women that I have had relationships with that created me. I was the moist clay that was to be molded, and the women that had their hands on me molded me in a disparaging way enough for me to want so little to do with them. Reality is that I have had more than the two obvious women in my life, who loved(?) me, end up loving another... enter hypergamy? My view, at the age of 62, will forever be tainted. Like that or not, that is the reality. What I have come to know may not be you in the least, but what I am sharing is the truth from my perspective. If you are willing to be all a woman can be for the man you are investing in, I am happy for you. If you have questions that you want some insight into, feel free to ask even though you will be asking a man that has failed every time.

[@ApolloOverDionysus]

The concept of love as an action is one that needs to be rescued. The idea of love as a passion, of something that happens to you, is perhaps the most widespread today as it is the result of associating “love" with the experience of “falling in love”. This view is nurtured by countless romantic movies and novels. The high rates of divorce are evidence for the weakness of this idea of love as a foundation for lasting relationships. Anyone can “fall in love” but apparently only few can build upon this experience towards something that will transcend this initial phase. Whether love in this sense is something that needs to be learned or a capability one must develop is the thesis of Fromm’s book, The Art of Loving. The thesis is implicitly shared by old religious traditions (“love your enemy”). According to this view, love can only be the outcome of a mature psychological character, and has the features of caring, responsibility, respect and knowledge. These characteristics are common for all forms of love. You may even want to make a video of this if you want to pursue this topic further. Then, the issues that arise are related with our biology, as it is our biological impulses, and not traditional or cultural norms, which regulate the interactions between the sexes most commonly today. Hence it is worth asking how much is our biology compatible with the more “elevated" concept of love and what is needed to attain this, and whether there are sex differences which affect facilitate or impede this.

[@timothyfoster6215]

Everyone should hear this, and I wish you would do a full break down.

[@PothePerson]

Glad you liked the video. What do you mean by a full breakdown? I'm thinking of doing a video soon on a similar subject, so I'm interested to know what you'd like to see covered

[@timothyfoster6215]

@@PothePerson I was being a little selfish, but work has a lot of lessons on being a good man. I guess hearing it from you reminded me of that, and I wished to hear your thoughts on the entire thing.

[@hughtrevor-flopper3214]

I recorded this speech of yours. It's likely that it will help me in my life.

[@DavidMFChapman]

I’m 65 and I’ve thought about love a lot, and even advised others, but’s it’s complex. I agree that the “soulmate” concept is a myth. Who you meet is somewhat random. There are many “good enough” people in your life you can fall in love with. It’s easy (and fun) to become infatuated with a person, but to make love last, you need to work at it. They say opposites attract and I believe there’s truth in that. Certainly, the strongest couples have complementary strengths. Eventually, infatuation fades and a deeper love takes its place, perhaps not as thrilling, but more endurable.

[@danspencer1281]

So sunken cost fallacy? I'm such a romantic.

[@davedogge2280]

I could fall in love with Katie Hopkins. Didn't the author of the little prince get stranded in the desert around WWII time ? and started hallucinating ?

[@matthewrichmond4139]

The Little Prince is easily my favourite short story! Edited..Oh I meant The Happy Prince. I got confused. Have you read the Happy Prince by Óscar Wilde. By the way, I'm a new subscriber. I enjoy your channel. Thank you.

[@jato72]

I have been married for 26 years and I don't know (the mechanism) of how we have managed to stay together. A lot of other people around us have gotten divorced. I have always chalked it up to good luck. However, you have given me something to think about on this issue.

[@PeterFellin]

👍

[@andyjones7121]

Great video! I never heard of that book but I'm checking it out in 30 seconds. I think love gets confused with "falling in love", where the latter happens without any effort and is something that just happens, like being scared, tired or excited. Its an adjective. Real love is a verb.

[@mykillmielia5640]

Very famous book. (At least in Europe, counting France, UK, Germany, I'd say.)

[@Bri_bees]

you came close but you missed the most obvious marriage destroyer. women remember the bad and all the bad things that he has ever done not men. this is bad for the reason you said but from the male point of view there is much worse. watch any episode of family guy and you can see Peter is an idiot. The problem is that the woman he loves is the only won who points this out and she dose it every chance she gets. So when your talking to friends and you tell a"cute" story about you're husband doing something stupid and every one laughs try and remember men have emotions too. try and imagine how you would feel if he did the same.

[@frankbrown4780]

Aren't successful relationships about compatibility and balance? You need to have much in common with each other and you both need to act as a counterbalance. If the balance shifts to much, the relationship fails, at least that was my experience. Things and people change, there are many forms of love and people fall in and out of them all the time. Happy valentines by the way! ;)

[@frankbrown4780]

Their has to be enough commonality to get along, whether it's hobbies or ideas, otherwise it makes it hard to share each other's company in social settings. If you can't find some common ground, it makes it difficult to get along. Counterbalance is the opposite, it's about the differences you bring to the relationship. When one person has a weakness in one area, the other can step in and apply their strengths. If you look at a marriage as one complete unit, instead of two separate ones, you want to maximise the skill set. It's a bit like breeding strong genetics in that sense.

[@dcpack]

Commonality is VASTLY overrated. The expectation a large amount of "commonality" can ruin many relationships before they start.

[@frankbrown4780]

Mutual respect is a perfect example of commonality, it doesn't have to mean exact sameness, I don't expect a partner to think and feel the same way as myself on every topic or principle, but shared principles are a huge benefit. And if you don't share common goals as a cohesive family unit, how do you work together for your future? Commonality in a successful relationship may be subtle and dynamic, but it is needed.

[@frankbrown4780]

My point exactly. Having the same Myers Briggs type, is a commonality. I don't think it's possible to fall in love with someone who doesn't share some sort of trait or point of view, in fact I've fallen out of love over radically different views, although it didn't stop me caring for that person.

[@AssaultSpeed]

There is nothing irrational about the idea of the soul mate, you just have to drop the idea of fate and that there is somebody out there that was "made" for you. You can have a soul mate, a self made soul that shares the same values and sense of life that you do.

[@BrandonCourt]

Interest. Help. Thank.

[@MrYoung-ty4hn]

Great video Po!

[@harrywhite7287]

Can't speak to the little prince but you seem prone to finding the good in a given situation. What happened to change your mind about your husband and his chance of getting together with you? Very thoughtful. I've been married for 38 years and our relationship has changed many times. Love is not "soulmates" and pretty flowers. It's work but it has been worth it so far.

[@oscarl.3563]

I wrote of dragon-taming yesterday. Girls are essentially wild dragons, but if you can find one that shows promise, and manage to harness it, then all of the focused attention that you put into her offers a return that is much higher than if you had split your attention and chased after all the dragons. The good things in life require more effort, like how an open fire is infinitely more satisfying than electrical heat by radiators. Or a cooked meal to McDonald's. It's the same with relationships. One has to wear to pants, typically the guy, and shape the relationship into something extra-ordinary.

[@oscarl.3563]

A woman could "wear the pants" but men have more testosterone and they are bad at submitting. It would be a constant struggle. Women are rarely iron-ladies, and men are rarely submissive, although that could work it is not typical. Taming goes more one way than the other for many reasons, although the feminists would beg to disagree. It's nature. Do you want the responsibility to lead things, anyways? Just something to consider. (Besides, women have sharp nails and take care of their scales until it's shine and gloss, some would even say that they breath fire - just like a dragon!)

[@oscarl.3563]

First off there shouldn't be any arguments in a good relationship, should there? This is where the dynamics become relevant. When two people meet someone will always be dominant and the other submissive. Obviously one may be vastly more beautiful than the other, but the other is more skilled at some task. So relevancy comes into play. The dominant must become good at leading, the submissive must become good at yielding. This is how you have a functional relationship, when each master their role it becomes great. There can be no harmony if it's fights and arguments. One will have to yield to the other, and that one will come to learn that it works and be amazed just how well it works. Which is, typically, the woman. This was never about arguments, or yielding in arguments. This is about yielding before there are arguments. I, for instance, enjoy considering women dragons and describing them as such. A woman will either enjoy my provocative imagination and choose to submit to me so that she can enjoy it or she could find someone else that she likes. But I'm not gonna waste my time with someone who makes a fight out of everything that I come up with. It continues on from there, like dancing, one to lead another to be lead. To me, "wearing the pants" just means to lead the relationship.

[@oscarl.3563]

I wrote something once, an aphorism if you will. "Women must submit to their male partner to master humility and to have all that their men can offer them". I was told that just about no one would be able to see past our contemporary feministic values to see the literary truth of my message. Anyways there you have it, if you ever need it. You can always come back to consider it. Fwiw there is no way that I'd lose respect for a woman who knows how to stop trying not to submit. On the contrary I'd see that she has everything going for her. Everything.

[@oscarl.3563]

I can not help it that you interpret what I say as you do. I suppose that you're just gonna have to trust someone eventually, or not. You're married? That decision was yours. Do you not trust your husband? You could have chosen any partner. Let me refer to another youtuber for a females perspective. kzbin.info/www/bejne/o5PFeXeagc56i68

[@kungfujoe2136]

soundsl ike you are confuing love and relationships (imho) love is just a chemical reaction in the brain (you can actualy make it manifest in meditation)

[@tulliusagrippa5752]

You’re a star. It’s so nice to listen to someone who is sensible. Most mistake hormones for love.