Elliott

I believe that. At the parties, it mostly seemed to be couples that came together. A lot of women(and men) just really like to dance though. At the classes is where all the singles were, party was after the class. Well, I guess this is no help, @Howtolive,

I'm anti-hookup culture, and I like the Latin and other ballroom dance scenes and the women into it. I actually can't think of any women I thought were there being promiscuous, I go to group classes and we alternate through all partners. Women are definitely there looking for boyfriend material though, and guys for girls.

You're.... being an "armchair therapist" too by dismissing it. I think you harm women(and yourself) and what you promote harms women(and the men), and I think you do too hence why you're so defensive to minor comments on it by strangers. I'm not saying it should be criminal, or that some instances aren't healthy, I think some are but I think people need to think more about doing this or not. You can't just write it off with a blanket 'okay', it definitely harms some people. Clinical Advisor https://www.clinicaladvisor.com Sexually risky behavior more common in women with mental disorders than ... Aug 10, 2017 — Women with a mental disorder are more sexually active than their male counterparts, and characteristics of antisocial personality disorder Verywell Mind https://www.verywellmind.com What Is the Impact of Casual Sex on Mental Health? Sep 23, 2025 — 7 Some studies have found a correlation between casual sex and a variety of negative mental health consequences such as anxiety, sadness ScienceDirect.com https://www.sciencedirect.com Intimate Relationships and Sexual Behavior in Young Women ... by PJ Burke · 2018 · Cited by 26 — Depressed young women may limit intimate relationships, yet engage in frequent and unsafe sex to cope with their symptoms. " and Miller hypothesized that attachment style would be an important factor driving the pursuit of risky sexual behaviors. Specifically, they predicted that securely attached adults would tend to form long-term monogamous relationships, while insecurely attached adults would be more likely to have multiple concurrent sex partners and engage in condom-less sex. The result of their meta-analysis supported this hypothesis, but with an interesting twist. key finding was that insecurely attached adults, whether of the anxious or avoidant type, tended to have more lifetime sex partners and were more likely to have concurrent sex partners than those who were securely attached. This observation meshes well with the abundance of data showing that secure attachment is a key factor in successful monogamy. It seems that insecurely attached adults have more lifetime sex partners—at least in part—because they’re other third of American infants seem to learn that their mothers aren’t very responsive to their needs, and as a result, develop an insecure attachment."

https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/20/europe/britain-air-base-access-us-iran-intl-hnk-ml Britain blocking use of air bases Trump says would be needed for strikes on Iran, UK media reports

It doesn't seem the U.S. has any chance against Iran Amazing analysis here, goes over their capabilities quite thoroughly in this article https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/2026/iran-builds-layered-missile-and-mine-shield-against-u-s-carriers-in-strait-of-hormuz "Iran’s defensive design for a clash with the United States is built less around winning decisive naval or air battles and more around manufacturing sustained friction at every layer of the campaign. The intent is to pull U.S. forces into a dense, overlapping threat environment where time, interceptor inventories, and political tolerance become the real centers of gravity." "At the core is an institutional split that is operationally meaningful in wartime: the regular Navy for a broader Gulf of Oman presence, and the IRGC Navy for the Persian Gulf and Strait fight, paired with “mosaic” decentralization meant to keep local commands lethal even under heavy electronic attack and decapitation pressure. This matters because U.S. plans rely on compressing the battlespace through rapid suppression of air defenses, maritime surveillance dominance, and the destruction of launchers. Iran’s answer is dispersion, redundancy, and volume: many small launch points, many cheap shooters, and enough mid-tier systems to complicate every phase of a U.S. air-sea campaign."

A ton of women want casual sex, much of them using it as an outlet for daddy issues(the guy is taking advantage of the woman in an emotional state, in these cases)(hookup guys are also dealing with issues(usually)). I don't consider your FWB situation to be any issue at all, it's about as healthy as it gets if you both know each other already, as healthy as most marriages as I'm sure you'd like I acknowledge. But if you're learning or practicing pick up, while hooking up, it's likely in the category of taking advantage of the woman, not always, but most times, (technically, the guy is often being taken advantage of too(doesn't make it right though)).

Women tend to be naive and believe men are interested in them as a person when men talk to them, even when the guy only cares about having sex. When you speak to a woman like a person, she tends to believe you're interested in her as a person, not just as a vagina. It's usually deception if you're approaching for sex. Even if you two have sex, she's probably thinking "I have a boyfriend now". I appreciate it, I say stuff flippantly.

What do you consider to be "feminine"?

I didn't imply that, that's just you knowing that it is deceptive and abusive, and your emotional overeaction making that assumption is just more attempt at deception. I like casual sex, never done pickup though, I don't go out for sex or target women for it, that's what losers do. Sincerely, I don't mean the good guys are losers. I think PUA for a girlfriend is cool, I don't consider guys like that to be losers. Really, I think they're awesome, some girls don't socialize enough and need that. I was just using the term flippantly.

I Think an offshoot turned into that. It started as guys just trying to have sex, and mostly still is, even the guys on here, sure they want a girlfriend, but pickup is primarily about sex for them. That's the conventional albeit malicious, meaning of loser. I apologize for using the term, it's just the most accurate in colloquial language. I meet people as an adult, socializing. I don't. You're jumping to wild conclusions over a narrow and concise statement, seemingly to overcompensate for your hidden beliefs on the subject.

I think all that's required for that is more unity amongst the people. You tax corporations heavily, encouraging and growing competing small businesses. And hopefully people become more conscientious about their purchases and also who they work for. Obviously government spending should be toward small businesses too, no corporate public construction for example. And ban bank corporations (they're... too big to fail!). Make a sovereign fossil fuel wealth fund like Norway. Ban defense companies, government start making their own. Sort of like you were speaking about educating people about communism, I think you can educate people against corporatism.

Nero, roman emperor. Unironically, he was a pedophile too... Leopold II Henry VIII Caligula Timur

No. I thought he would, but he's so stupid he keeps digging deeper holes. These people are the dumbest criminals. I think he'll die or go to prison within 5 years. The coming corruption trials from this administration is going to require an entire investigative department.

Possibly not, but at least close https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Gang President Harding But beyond corruption(wasn't considered corrupt for kings), depending how far back you want to consider, there's been much more evil leaders in history.

PUA was not the generational solution to dating, we just dated normally, we dated people we met socially, our friends set us up with people. I'm a younger millennial and had to just now look up what RSD stands for. PUA was considered to be for losers.

I consider the Christian church to be the church of Satan, anyway. We've had many terrible 'leaders' like Trump before.

I'm optimistic about a generational swing, everyone keeps calling MAGA an extinction burst of neoliberalism(low corporate taxes) and theocracy. All it will take in the u.s. is a Democrat Supreme Court and that will be the end of the proper republican party, giving rise room for the others and the small ones like Progressives('socialists'). Society evolves.

Women like sex and want it, just not Bro sex.

It's not a 'life purpose', but will probably lead you to one. It's a direction, you're not aimless, you just don't have a map.

Capitalism just means we use capital, private ownership, it means nothing in regard to social programs like welfare or UBI, nor does it mean anything about how we tax, which I believe you're insinuating. Scandinavia is capitalist. I think we need constitutional direct-democracies, in regard to social programs like UBI and welfare, which I support, this would be capitalist. "pure capitalist" is a misnomer, it's not even a real concept, it's just capitalism, you probably mean neo-liberalism/corporatism(pseudo-free market), no I don't support those.

I'm not promoting it, I'm a capitalist. I don't think it would work with the current level of common intelligence(why it requires violence). I was just trying to show the vast differences and inherent conflict between the two.

The idea is yes, it's utopian. The idea is that there's a lot of waste in capitalism, just to run our dysfunctional system, think of all the bad things done because of scarcity mindset. The idea is socialism will be more productive, in the desired ways.

Is business what we as people or society ultimately desire? That's capitalism, not socialism. There's no 'mix', they're two different systems, welfare is a capitalist program. Think of socialism as collective ownership. Capitalism as cash transaction system, with charity. Think of tribal times, before paper, before written ownership, but now add back in; civility. In tribal times people robbed each other, but they also shared everything, they traded with foreigners, but not with currency(capital). Capital/cash, Social/everyone has equal ownership of the world, no capital. Consider what capital/cash actually is. It's created-debt. That's what socialism does away with.

The thought is that people, society in total, will be more productive in the important ways, if basic needs are first met. For example, the thought is that there is untapped potential, untapped genius, right now in impoverished areas(half the world). And that there's a lot of waste, just to run our dysfunctional system, think of all the bad things done because of scarcity mindset.

Every person is given what they need.