Women are attracted to relativity

[Basman]

The most extreme version of this polarity is harems. A bunch of women who don't work a day in their life and who's only purpose is to be sex objects for some king, a peak status male. Literal bird cage shit. 

Granted, they where mostly slaves and didn't have a choice in the matter, but you could argue that proves the point of women not being valued for material survival. If they where it wouldn't make sense to lock them up. You'd make your sex slaves till the fields, fish and build houses in between cheek busting.

[LastThursday]

On 17/06/2026 at 1:12 PM, aurum said:

I think this is too far.

Physical beauty is still a relative notion. If every woman looked equally beautiful, you would not find it as meaningful.

It's worth contemplating what this means. Perhaps if every woman was (nearly) equally beautiful you'd still want the most beautiful ones. And maybe that is already the case?

[LordFall]

35 minutes ago, Basman said:

The most extreme version of this polarity is harems. A bunch of women who don't work a day in their life and who's only purpose is to be sex objects for some king, a peak status male. Literal bird cage shit. 

Granted, they where mostly slaves and didn't have a choice in the matter, but you could argue that proves the point of women not being valued for material survival. If they where it wouldn't make sense to lock them up. You'd make your sex slaves till the fields, fish and build houses in between cheek busting.

I mean the historical version is just an extreme example of class warfare. Need more capital -> Go invade a foreign land -> Kill and enslave the men -> Take their women

You can argue it's still what's happening today just with lower stakes.

I think a harem is a really great idea and setup. You're motivated to work hard as a man and you get femininine women that revolve around you and live with you. I'm working on scaling my business to have the cashflow to support a polycule by myself. I think having your women with with you on your business is the peak possible lifestyle. 

[Jirh]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Does not matter. They are all hot.

Maybe to you.

But it does matter immensely to other dudes.

I think you're underestimating how much ego goes into this, probably because you don't have much ego yourself.

Your initial claim was that girls with so many options will have little interest in low status guys.

But now we have all the hottest girls in one single room. (Miss World, for example)

Who will get the most attention? That's the question.

Because attention is the currency in that determines a woman's worth and her pool of options.

It's not possible that all the hot girls will get equal amounts of attention. Some guys will prefer to spend their attention on a specific girl or group of girls. Then a hierarchy will be created again, and there's a new hottest girl in the room, and she will choose the most suitable guy for her. And the rest will compete for the next hottest girl, and so on. Until the least hottest girl will have to choose the lowest status guy.

Edited just now by Jirh

[Xonas Pitfall]

4 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

But there are huge variations in what people agree on. It's the logic of the argument that needs to be elaborated on, else it makes little sense

I also think the logic behind this argument is flawed because you could just as easily argue that status itself is "objective" to some extent, as well. If someone is wealthy, competent, charismatic, physically strong, or influential, those qualities don't disappear because someone "better" enters the room. They may rank lower relatively, but they still possess those traits.

I'd argue that both beauty and status are relative within a group, but they also have objective components. Neither is purely objective nor purely subjective.

If a very attractive woman walks into a room of less attractive women, she'll likely have the highest status in terms of desirability, and most men would pursue her. But the same applies to men. If a very attractive, high-status, or physically dominant man walks into a room of less impressive men, he'll likely become the highest-status man in that group.

Now imagine placing that same attractive woman in a room full of equally attractive women, or that same high-status man in a room full of equally successful and high-status men. Neither of them suddenly loses their qualities. Their objective traits haven't changed. What changes is their ranking relative to everyone else in the room.

So I don't think the premise of this argument really works. Yes, a hot woman is still a hot woman, but if there are 50 even hotter women around her, she'll simply rank lower by comparison. Likewise, a rich or high-status man doesn't stop being rich or high-status just because he's surrounded by billionaires. His money, competence, and status don't disappear. They're simply less exceptional relative to the people around him.

Both beauty and status are comparative. Ranking changes depending on who else is present, but the underlying qualities themselves don't suddenly vanish. The same principle applies to both men and women.

• Put the model in a room of average-looking people. She'll likely be perceived as exceptionally attractive.
• Put that identical woman in a room of supermodels. She'll probably still be attractive, but she won't stand out nearly as much.

1. Put a millionaire in a middle-class town. He's extremely high status.

2. Put that same millionaire in a room of billionaires. He's still a millionaire, but he no longer stands out.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

I'd argue that both beauty and status are relative within a group, but they also have objective components. Neither is purely objective nor purely subjective.

I agree. It is a scale. It is a false equivalency to frame it as binary.

How far on either side of the scale between objective <-----> subjective is where the meat of the argument is.

I think the above is the only sensible stance.

Leo's frame appears (to me) an attempt to justify his own taste by framing it as objective. But the argument folds harder than origami on inspection