eos_nyxia

more thoughts about this: 1) I mean it is rare, but there are at least a good handful of "legendary love stories" where there was a king/ emperor who had an actual harem or mistresses, or it was expected for him to do so, and still he chose one woman above all the others while having no sexual or emotional interest in the others. A famous example of this is the ruler who built the Taj Mahal. Consider also any number of mythic East Asian and Persian love stories which are based on actual historical figures. In reality, the poly drive is just a tendency; it's not actually set in stone. I guess this is where someone would say, "that's not a masculine man". What does this actually mean other than wanting to fuck anyone sufficiently attractive? Sheer testosterone? (Or, you're just horny, insecure, and unfulfilled, and possibly just wired differently.) 2) There is nothing "natural" at all about an institutionalized One Penis Policy. The drive to do so, yes, maybe. The institutions related to it, absolutely not. With traditional harems, a lot of the women came there because they were either the most attractive girls and women captured during war and sold into sex slavery and to become concubines, or their parents sold them as young girls. In modern terms, this is basically your parents sex trafficking you for a lifelong meal ticket, and basically brainwashing and/or forcing you to marry some older dude. That some women develop some actual attachment and feeling as a result of Stockholm syndrome ... when guys talk about "authentic female desire", this isn't exactly what you have in mind, is it? Actual chattel slavery? (fun fact: one of the actual underlying themes and purposes for classic stories such as "Bluebeard" and "Beauty and the Beast" was to reaffirm to young girls that marrying a crusty, old, ugly, and possibly abusive man (but powerful and well-monied!) was a worthwhile endeavour.) Like if the dick was soooo amazing and women were naturally compelled toward monogamy toward the most powerful of men exclusively, why were so many harems guarded by eunuchs, who literally had their balls (and often their dicks) chopped off so women wouldn't have sex with younger, better looking, more virile men? (If anything, eunuchs were guards to make sure other men never got in.) Why were harems and concubines deliberately isolated within the palace and often completely forbidden from interacting with the outside world? If this was "a natural" expression of female desire, there would be absolutely nothing to guard these women from, lol. Generally speaking, the punishment for royal women who had sex outside of their marriage (non-harems) was very severe, and often death. The king would have multiple wives, concubines, slave or serving girls, for his own pleasure and to make lots of mini-mes. The practical reason, aside from sheer jealousy and entitlement, is the belief in the intrinsic importance of patriliny, aka. making sure than your children as a man are biologically yours. If you look at earlier-stage societies, you will often see that this sort of aggressive institutional patriliny doesn't exist, because it had not been developed yet. Men getting violently possessive about their female partners having other male partners is a separate issue. Even female rock groupies in the 60s and 70s were mostly playing "collect a dick", like you'd collect stickers or count notches. They didn't just want to fuck one rockstar, they wanted to experience the whole itinerary, as much as possible. Just like the guys who have the rockstar fantasy of having sex with all the girls (who are into him and him only). A girl who is into the OPP, who isn't forced to stay, either has a fetish or is a doormat. Maybe they're Mormon. Take your pick.

I grew up watching a lot of old movies and musicals. Whenever I hear them complain, I hear this soundtrack playing in my head: (aka. "Why can't a woman, be more like a man"?) Spoiler Alert: he falls in love with the same thing he spent so much time complaining about, because of course he does.

But yes, why can they "not just help it"? Where did these patterns originally come from? Where did they learn that is an acceptable and legible way to channel their impulses? Who raised these people? The drive for love, attraction, and affection does not manifest inside a vacuum, and neither does its actual expression. This is even true even if some people are compelled to live at the utter and complete mercy of their emotions and urges. Like, is it pure social conditioning (from within that lifetime on a personal level), some harder-to-measure factor like intergenerational baggage, or is it more "biological", whether due to one's sex hormones or inborn personality traits and tendencies? A lot of people default to the simple determinism and invoke the God of Biology simply because it suits their own narrative/ agenda, and it's neater in the sense that it's simpler and more conclusive. Simple narratives have that appeal; it's a strong, decisive way to interpret data. Personally, I think that "intrinsic traits" are spread a bit thin when it comes to explaining why people are the way they are, and why they do what they do. We are a profoundly social species, after all. And with that, comes an equally profound malleability when it comes to social conditioning. .....within reason.

If they are young, naive, driven by trauma, and stuck in a trauma loop, then "low self-esteem" is most likely just a statement of fact. Not everyone has the same stuff to work with, but people also make different decisions with similar circumstances. Some people are also brutally emotionally masochistic in a way I don't really get, but that would also qualify as "getting what they truly want", albeit in a more twisted, indirect way. I feel bad for them more than I feel judgemental, though admittedly there is some judgment and "ick factor" there, like a sort of visceral second-hand embarrassment on their behalf.

I moreso meant in first-world countries, especially in reference to some of the guys' power fantasies above. I just assumed that they weren't talking about going to a developing country and getting some women to technically consent to be exclusive with them because those women feel the need and obligation to send money to support their impoverished relatives. I feel like I am stating the extra-obvious, but being compelled to survive isn't the same thing as genuine sexual attraction and personality attraction... but it seems to do in a pinch for those who have the fantasy. And somehow the female attraction and fulfillment is implicit in these fantasies because they are fantasies?). That women are with you because you are SO awesome/ charismatic/ sexy/ successful/ bla bla bla is often the self-delusion. If they're in a first-world country and not fulfilling a personal fetish (which may or may not be rooted in trauma).... like, why would I ever look at that, and be jealous of what they have? Just because some low self-esteem and/ or opportunistic women decided to get together and slobber over his dick? (Literally or metaphorically). Nope. I'd feel sorry for them and think they'd need to do >insert therapy and self-work< and sort themselves out. And again, those men typically don't respect those women either because they don't respect themselves; they don't think they are actually worthy of any amount of undivided love, attention, devotion, genuine camaraderie, sexual satisfaction, etc. If that's what's driving them, that's low self-esteem. It's influenced by fear of what they don't want, rather than genuine desire. So emotionally and even sexually, there are limits to what they have to offer. Now if it's what they truly want, whether cuckolds or cuckquean, well... you do you. At least they truly want it, so I don't judge so much. In reality, what dudes are probably offering is subpar physical and emotional intimacy (because a certain degree of interest and ability to listen and general non-self-absorption is one of a number of things required to be actually "good" at sex), but divvied up into smaller portions, and this is supposed to be appealing for some reason? Like why? Like have your fantasies I guess, but what does this have to do with reality?

Like is it the same quality of dick you'd be getting in a monogamous relationship but divided into equal parts, like sharing a chopped-up candy bar? Is it supposed to be MORE because him sharing his dick with more women opens his heart soooooo much more? Am I supposed to get off from competing with other women (I know this is an actual thing, and I'm not actually shaming it, I really don't get it personally), because I need other women to demonstrate to me that this one dick is more important than every other dick? What is the actual benefit of abiding by the One Penis Policy (previously mentioned in this thread) as a woman unless you either have specific fetishes or you're in something like a bi triad?

I like how it's supposed to be implicit that this one dude is capable of sexually satisfying one woman, and also multiple women, let alone being emotionally satisfying, because it's not even mentioned or alluded to at all. Or it just doesn't matter because it's not part of the dude fantasy.

Ok, I get your point more clearly now. I think I've seen far too many people (usually men) use the "top 20%" argument to insist that "generic attractiveness" is overwhelmingly the top choice, basically what is often considered "good on paper". I think Emerald has a point in saying many women do not work this way, and it's pretty obvious that a lot of the people claiming otherwise simply did not grow up interacting with women and girls much, listening to their thought processes, and watching the choices they actually made, etc. It's the insider view instead of the outsider one.

I think I've always been too omnivorous by nature for this to be true, like I've been attracted to both conventionally good-looking people and people who are less so ("unconventionally attractive"), and even people who would be considered straight-up "conventionally ugly" (though often they have some special, unique personality features or talents that shine through in their demeanour and expression). Though in the last case.... no, they are not necessarily successful or recognized by others, if it's assumed to be a status thing. It's the eyes that instantly give it away for me, the presence and who the person is. No, it's not just "confidence" (and all the fake confidence and pretension that comes with that), but there is a sense of a developed, very individual personality of their own making. Like a "gravitas" without the heaviness and seriousness, necessarily. There is also a FEELING quality, like an emotional intensity as well. TBH I see maybe a handful of men I find genuinely compelling every year IRL, if that, if we're just talking about strangers and first glances. Maybe not so coincidentally, in those I have found most attractive, I also get the sense of being looked into my eyes and being seen more as a whole person and for more subtle qualities, not just the packaging. Like they SEE you. For reference, if relevant, apparently I'm considered conventionally attractive (enough for strangers to get super weird about it IRL), and fortunately for me, I can tell who is just looking at the wrapping and sees nothing else.

Right. So... the top 20% thing. Does everyone mean "on paper" (via mainstream or societal standards, like boring shit like simply having money, height, social clout), or something more personal and subjective? Because this really doesn't make sense based on people I've known throughout my life or my own experience. Please, someone explain for me.

How does drinking that much soy milk not give people the farts/ shits, lol. Also: East Asian people would never.

Who would actually pass these hypothetical tests though, like what would be the criteria? I suspect it probably wouldn't leave many people, or it would be an astronomically high bar to clear. What if people are mainly doing it to escape poverty? Is that a mentally sound reason? What if they're neurodivergent? (I suspect quite a few sex workers are...) This could mean anything from "classic mental illness" (and couldn't keep a job even if they wanted to) to "person who is actually happier in this arrangement despite social stigma and judgement, living a more typical lifestyle".

This is so general and completely without context.

When you get too many messages, answering them becomes a part-time or full-time job. You don't even need to have a lot followers for this to be true. Other reasons why people might not answer: They might be going through a rough patch or an emergency of some kind they might be really busy at the moment, and they have trouble keeping track of their messages. it's a lazy, low-effort message. Aka. the person has probably seen too many messages like that already. it's overly invested, upfront, in an overly personal way. It's disconcerting. they literally just don't feel like it. Whatever you want from them, it's not what they want from you. Not everyone is interested in parasocial relationships, period. Just because someone puts themselves out there on social media does not mean that they're interested in having personal relationships and interactions with their audience. >insert other reasons< I learned recently that there's an informal term called PDA (pathological demand avoidance). It's essentially a psychological self-protective mechanism. We all have to chosoe what we priortize after all, whether moreso on purpose or by going with the flow. There is only so much time (and often energy) any one person has. I thought this would be fairly obvious though?

I care about coral lifeforms.

I've been waiting years for someone to make this post! Seriously, way more interesting than people claiming to be stage Turquoise/ Coral/ whatever, haha.

His comment toward Taylor Swift made my ovaries want to shrivel up. EW, lol.

If anyone is still following the issue with international students and temporary foreign workers in Canada (I hadn't until recently), this seems to have escalated quite quickly: https://toronto.citynews.ca/2024/08/26/canada-international-students-deportation-protests/ In a nutshell: I wonder how serious our government is about enforcing this.

Not everyone is obsessed with white women.

Ah, yes. Let's go back to the good old days when women didn't have choices. Where if you're cheated on, you're just expected to deal with it "because men", where marital rape is legal and divorce was phenomenally difficult to obtain. You probably wouldn't like your choices taken away (whether you made questionable ones or not), so why would anyone else prefer it? What a bummer, you can't approach finding a partner the way you shop for a car or house these days. It's a two-way process and people aren't necessarily interested in helping you get yours if you don't already get it. And those who get it are already getting theirs, but you don't necessarily see them either. If it's not part of the mainstream cultural narrative and they're not talking, then you probably aren't seeing it. It doesn't mean that they don't exist though. On a more practical note, to the issue you mentioned: the type of woman that a traditionalist might be interested in very much exists (at least in liberal suburbia, where I grew up), but 1) they tend to pair off very early, usually with people they grew up around, within their social circle. For a woman who is conservative-minded by nature: marrying outsiders where there isn't a good "culture fit" doesn't happen very often. 2) they're probably not lounging around in bars, clubs, etc., and there is a good chance that they're an introverted person with introverted interests. If you see them at a bar or club, there is a good chance that they're young, wanting to see what it's about, or being dragged there by a friend. 3) they're not necessarily living in a big city, doing big city things, so you won't see them there. 4) the women that many men tend to be drawn to, sexually and emotionally, tend not to be conservative by nature. By this I mean flashy women. This very much includes women who cosplay their conservatism for the purpose of garnering attention and income. This includes your Candace Owens, Lauren Southern, and Serena Joy types. You can dress conservatively, associate with conservative people, and have conservative talking points, but still have an unabiding need for institutionally sanctioned power, attention, approval, and adoration from the opposite sex that is in actuality more important than any other value system espoused. SOURCE: people I knew growing up and in my 20s. FYI, if you're going to another country/ culture to outsource your relationship needs, whoever you're marrying is by definition NOT really conservative by nature. They're at best, a picker and chooser of what values they'd like to keep. It's probably going to be in a purely self-interested way and it may or may not be in your favour. They are.... after all, picking you. Likely, you are NOT the exception lol. If you can't identify character because you don't have the instinct and inclination to watch and try to understand people on their own terms and come to your own conclusions from there, then you're stuck relying on mental models about how people are without having comprehensive access to the whole group of people you are generalizing about. Not only is this not reality, you're probably going to get screwed eventually regardless of where you are. Realistically, no matter of culture, time period, and local social environment, some people are going to be more intrinsically conservatively leaning. At least if you're a woman, it likely has something to do with your intrinsic level of risk aversion on a social, emotional, and intellectual level. Anyway, if you play the capitalist game when it comes to personal relationships? You win capitalist prizes.

Why don't you tell me why you want to be here? Not with your thoughts or rationalizing side, as they're not on board. I mean, what do you feel?

Many of these dichotomies are pretty arbitrary and are the result of socially generated tensions particular to a certain time period and culture. For instance: the number of people across the world in "non-Western" cultures where women are both "highly traditional" and financially independent (or are capable of being so) while potentially working a demanding career. This is a common enough dynamic, especially amongst East/ South/ West Asian immigrants in Western countries. Although to be fair, exactly what is "equal" about pregnancy, giving birth, or having to be the one who terminates the pregnancy, while you as a man can just blow-and-go if you want to? 1) Was anyone actually ever stopping you guys, other than maybe a handful of hyper-radical people? 2) Isn't this typically more of a dude obsession with other dudes?

I read her book 10+ years ago. I am aware that this can be a phenomenally hard thing to not do, but how can you be free if you make war with a fundamental aspect of your human expression? Desire is more than about sex, romance, women (or your gender of choice). "Desire" is also tied to the will to live, to express yourself, to be creative, to have ambition, aspiration, and vision. The libido/ life drive (yes, even in the classic psychoanalytic sense) cannot so easily be divided and isolated in one aspect without affecting the other aspects. Not that it isn't possible, but you really have to be prepared to fully shut the door on the aspects you intend to minimize and/ or eliminate. You almost never see the required degree of commitment necessary to properly shut the door, especially outside of monastic spaces, for those of us who have to live in "the real world". It's basically a traditional ascetic path; I'm sure you've seen it before. You have to be willing to crush and erase yourself and your desires to serve some higher purpose (and not simply the avoidance of one undesired outcome or another), to not spare yourself nor make any exceptions, and to hide absolutely nothing from yourself. Otherwise, you get groups of like-minded people banding together over their shared bitterness, unresolved trauma, and unfulfilled desires. Like MGTOW, which is made up of men who appear to be doing the exact opposite of "going their own way".

@Javfly33 Do you not also find that an obsession with avoiding attachment is at least equally neurotic and misery-inducing as the attachment itself? I mean, yea. You feel like you're saving yourself... for a while. But then what? Say you want to get off this particular hamster wheel forever and that it is technically possible... I can assure you that there are no halfway measures here.

TBH, I don’t place much trust in novelty addicts, at least when it comes to people, even if I myself am capable of providing sufficient novelty to such people. I find it tiresome. Maybe this is because I've put a huge amount of energy in muting and transmuting these tendencies in myself across my own lifetime, as I didn't wish to live and die by my impulses, at least as they were. I also don’t place much trust in people who take things and people for granted the more they are present, though most of us tend to do this to a degree. There is often an unconscious self-loathing quality here that I find difficult to explain; I just sense it. I'm not as good as I could be at constructively managing emotional claustrophobia (without being distant and detached), but I've gotten a lot better at it over time. Patience and showing restraint in your judgement are phenomenal qualities of character, particularly to those which you have deemed worthy of personal love, and who are not likely to take you for granted overall (even if you are not so perfect in your ability to not take someone for granted). So is being mindful of your own potential flaws.