
In love, women are professionals, men are amateurs.






François Truffaut, master of cinema and interpreter of the human heart, once declared: “In love, women are professionals, men are amateurs.” In this sharp and playful saying, he unveils a truth that the ancients themselves often whispered—that women, by nature or by experience, seem to understand the subtleties of the heart more deeply than men, who stumble and strive as learners in a game already mastered. His words are not scorn, but admiration, an acknowledgment of the wisdom and skill that women bring to the realm of love.
The essence of his teaching is this: love is not a simple passion but an art, one that requires patience, intuition, sacrifice, and vision. In Truffaut’s view, men often approach it clumsily, dazzled by desire, while women, sharpened by centuries of expectation and experience, move with the grace of seasoned artists. It is as though men enter the theater of love as apprentices, while women take the stage as masters of the play.
History bears witness to this dynamic. Consider Heloise and Abelard of the Middle Ages. Abelard, the great philosopher, thought himself the teacher, yet it was Heloise whose letters revealed the deeper understanding of devotion, sacrifice, and suffering in love. Her words endure as some of the greatest reflections on passion and fidelity, showing that she was no amateur but a professional of the heart. In their story, as in Truffaut’s quote, we see how women often carried the greater wisdom of love.
This saying also reflects the weight of culture. For centuries, women were taught to measure their lives by the art of relationship—learning to read emotions, to heal, to nurture—while men were taught to seek conquest, wealth, or honor in the public sphere. Thus, when brought into the intimate world of love, women carried with them a refined craft, while men entered less prepared, like novices stepping into a sacred temple.
Let this truth be remembered: in the dance of love, mastery is not always equal, and wisdom often lies with those who have been forced to study its depths most carefully. Yet the amateur may learn from the professional, and in time, both may rise together. François Truffaut’s words, though spoken with wit, pass down an eternal teaching: that love is not conquered by pride or force, but by humility, attentiveness, and the willingness to learn from those who carry its mysteries in their very soul.
GDGold D.dragon
I find Truffaut’s view on love to be somewhat limiting. While the idea of women being 'professionals' could be seen as flattering, it feels like it undermines the emotional complexity of both genders in relationships. Shouldn’t we move beyond seeing one gender as the 'expert' in love and instead focus on how both individuals contribute to a fulfilling and balanced relationship?
TNtrang nguyen
Truffaut's quote seems to romanticize the idea of women being more skilled in love, but what does it really say about gender roles in relationships? Could this view be rooted in outdated stereotypes that frame women as the emotional leaders and men as less in touch with their feelings? Does this imply that men are less capable of understanding love, or is it just a playful comment on traditional dynamics?
PMKeo dai Pho mai
This quote could be seen as an oversimplification of love and relationships. It suggests that women have some sort of natural expertise, while men are novices, which doesn’t take into account the individual dynamics between people. What makes someone 'professional' in love anyway? Is it experience, emotional intelligence, or something else entirely? Shouldn’t love be viewed as an equal partnership, where both parties have unique strengths to offer?
PTphuc tuan
Francois Truffaut’s quote seems to imply that women are naturally more skilled at love than men, which feels like a sweeping generalization. While it’s true that women may often be socialized to be more emotionally attuned, does this mean they’re 'professionals' in relationships? Isn’t love more about mutual understanding, communication, and growth, rather than one gender being inherently better at it than the other?