It's literally the loss of experiencing a partner incapable of appreciating you. The only difference to men is the time lost with an unappreciative partner and the same time spent on oneself. For men, It's the loss of a romantic fantasy, for women it's the loss of commitment, which is apparently also not as important to them once attained. The difference is, men's investment in romance is lucrative for women but always taxing for men."

That's what you said.

So, you seem to think that thr only way a woman can truly appreciate her partner is via commitment.

And the only way a man can truly appreciate is partner is through romance, which is a fantasy according to you and is overly taxing on men.

So what you're saying, is that men offer women the fantasy of romance in exchange for commitment but women don't value commitment once they have it.

Yet you think engaging in love building, a.k.a. romance, with your partner is too taxing for men and not real anyway. So once you have the commitment, you drop the romance and love building because it's not real to you anyway and too damn hard to cate about your partner's well being.

Okay.

I really wish you men would learn to thi k before you bloviate nonsense opinions and stupidity all over the internet and beyond.

Because if I were to point out that women will lose energy and desire for commitment when committed to a partner who is disinterested in maintaining the love bonds that commitment was forged upon in the first place, y'all would lose your damn minds and have a testerical meltdown and scream misandry and emasculation and lord knows what all.

And yet, you and men like you are the ones who said it in the first place.

Think before you speak.