Jirh

@Miguel1 I don't think you're an extrovert. A natural extrovert genuinely likes being social without rules or expectations. It is actually a refreshing and recharging experience for him/her. A natural extrovert is not out there playing games to manipulate or get something. He is just being himself. Enjoying being social because that in itself is rewarding for him.

Maybe your acting is terrible and you're making too many detours around the original script that was handed to you. It would be wise if you stick to your role and stop making me doubt my precious solipsism. Let's say it together: only Majed is real and the rest are all imaginary 😅

@StaraX There is an experience; something that has actually happened. And then there is an interpretation of said experience; a mental layer on top of that experience. When someone cannot explain their reasoning behind something, it's often because they haven't truly thought about it, or maybe thought but not deeply enough to make sense. If I claim that my coworker ignored me on purpose because they don't respect me, that's the interpretation. The actual experience was: they walked past without saying hello. Maybe they were distracted, had headphones on, or were deep in thought. But if I fuse the two, I'll start acting cold toward them, and when asked why, I'll just say "they disrespected me" as if it's a fact. I won't be able to explain why I think that, because I never separated the raw event from my story about it. I just felt it, believed it, and reacted. By the way, you killed me with the lion zebra broccoli metaphor 😂

@Carl-Richard Some people adopt the mindset of personal responsibility above all else. For these people, leaving a toxic environment is the ultimate act of agency. So, when they bring up leaving, they are nudging towards that end. It's not my stance, but at the same time, it's not always motivated by maleficence. But I haven't read the entire dialogue, so I may be missing important context.

Yeah, everyone would choose the higher-paying job if they had the choice, man or woman. But we aren't talking about work here. We are talking about attraction, the raw desire to have intimacy with someone. We are talking about the involuntary reflexes that tick the right boxes deep inside, not the calculated pragmatic choices that someone makes for a transactional arrangement. Those are two entirely different registers. And citing socioeconomic statistics and using them to prove a biological claim about desire will not work.

@Natasha Tori Maru 🤝🏻💯

Well, when you say "a con", it feels like a minor issue, not that big of a deal that requires instant solutions, or even simple consideration. On one hand, it sounds like: "It's just a con, I'm pointing it out, take it or leave it." But then on the other hand, the amount of intellectual and emotional investment and effort that's put into it feels like an overkill. Note: I'm more in agreement with you. But I'm just playing devil's advocate to try to bridge the gap between the two perspectives.

@Natasha Tori Maru I waited for something of substance to come up but nevermind, I'll answer for him because I think I know the framework he's using without knowing that he is and because I wanna hear your thoughts. I think "being above" frames the relationship as a strict hierarchy, where one partner holds the dominant leadership position and the other is expected to be the compliant follower. In that context, the premise rests on the assumption that all women are inherently submissive and that their primary role in a romantic relationship is to fulfill that dynamic. The logic suggests that a woman's admiration for a man is the mechanism that triggers her submission, and by turn deep attraction, therefore unlocking traits like obedience, loyalty, and deference. It's the same red-pill nonsense that keeps appearing everywhere nowadays that misses the point entirely about confidence and independence (objective traits) being universally attractive, while dominance and leadership are more relational context specific positions rather than strictly fixed roles let alone objective traits. Also, dominance and submission are not a binary or a one-way street. Someone can be dominant in one area and completely submissive in another. I wish that people could think more independently. That would be a lot more attractive.

I think this is the literal definition of cognitive empathy, which is a feature of more developed species like us humans. I think it speaks more to emotional intelligence. Solipsism never truly made sense in this light, because I tend to view others in a similar way by default. Not that I have thought much about it, although I did think about it briefly.

It will never work because it's severely skewed to the man's advantage and against the woman's. One penis policy. Zero commitment to rotation girls. Girls get nothing but feeling cheap.

Maybe in some cases. But from what I have seen it's also often an invitation towards consistency between theory and practice. It's like a double-bind where: If you stay then it's not as bad as you claim it is, maybe not bad at all, or the pros outweigh the cons. If it's truly bad then you have to leave to stay coherent with your convictions. I think it often implies this double-bind, and is not as rhetorical as it might seem.

That's interesting! I never thought of it this way.

🤦‍♂️

@zurew Well, yeah. That's the problem with language. It is limited and circular like that. There's no way around it. (Pun intended) I asked Google and it gave me the compound "bring about" instead of "produce", which is even worse 😅

I don't think most women are hypergamous. Most women are mostly reasonable. They just want a man who's not a liability. It's really not much to ask for. But you're right. I don't want most women. I don't want the average materialistic woman. My ideal preference is a spiritual woman who's also self-sufficient and at a similar level as me and who loves me for who I am. I had a few relationships like that. I fucked up in the first two and learned. And the last one fucked me up lol, but it was totally worth it.

Well in this case, the user @hyruga did provide a definition between brackets:

Yes, exactly. A healthy woman is mostly self-sufficient on her own too. Why would anyone want a liability? And on the flipside, hypergamy could also signal unsafety and instability. Because there's always someone richer or higher status than me, and she will not waste the chance once presented. So, I cannot experience safety in a long-term relationship with a woman like that. Very transactional in nature. I'm always one step away from being replaced. It's the same red-pill mindset projected onto women. Always flip plates. Always look for more. Always look for better. Never settle. Never be content. It's mostly unsafe to be with people like that for long-term. Because everyone is so cheap and easily replaceable. I cannot imagine anyone with proper self-respect and self-esteem to want to live in such a dynamic. And they come up with all kinds of crazy rationalizations for why that is the normal way of life. As if we're still living in caves. Or worse, as if we're barbaric savage animals. Can we develop? It's sad.

All language is circular in that sense. But I agree with you on this topic. Just stating the definition of causation does not prove it exists.

Most women just want a self-sufficient man who's confident and capable. Nothing more. To me, a woman that embodies hypergamy is a low-quality woman. I would run miles away from women like that.

@Hojo 💯

Maybe just stop being this way.

I never said they are completely relative. But they are way more relative and subjective than you realize. And the subjective is more powerful than the objective in most cases. Yeah, I don't compete for a woman's attention. I never had to. I know when a woman is interested in me, and whether or not I am interested in her. That's enough for me. I'm not answering your question because it's irrelevant. What difference would it make to you if I've fucked a billion girls or a few or none at all?! I'm speaking of a completely different paradigm. Everything you claim about your skills and experience mean nothing to me. It could be true or false. I don't care. I only care about what you say and whether it aligns with my reality and experience.

What is my ideology?

Well, that's atypical. And it's certainly sad. Personally, I'm mostly against using meds for mental health. Because my understanding is that environment and genetics are the most important factors in mental health. We can change environments but we cannot change genetics yet. And meds do not really solve anything in most cases. They only suppress, and that's only useful in some cases.