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]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Does not matter. They are all hot.

Maybe to you.

But it does matter immensely to other dudes, which I think is worth contemplating.

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 on a larger scale, for example)

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

Because attention is the currency 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. It's much more complex than this in practice, but just to illustrate the point.

There's also the element of confidence (and personality in general) that factors into a girl's hotness, but most guys will deny that and say it's just her physique.

Edited 1 hour ago 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 

[Monster Energy]

16 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Rofl 😃 you're such a little shit, but I love it. 

I don't hate AI. I dislike how users plug urguments into AI (those they want to refute, or their own) and use it for nefarious ends. Just to win. Are we here for truth? If you argue only to win, you aren't really trying to discover the truth (and it's frequently half way between both sides when the discussion is protracted and systemic) AI can be abused to outsource critical thinking. It's rather obvious who does this. Many do on the forum here, and the internet at large.

Using AI to brainstorm for you is so, so bad for cognition. Use it or lose it. I don't see many people able to critically asses simple concepts that arrive from social media! Red pill, looksmaxing, insane misandry disguised as feminism, MGTOW, blaming women or men for systemic issues out of their control. People fall for it, hook line and sinker, because they do not use critical thinking enough for it to be the default. 

I'm not saying that you should never use AI for this. But it is not something you should frequently outsource. It needs to remain sharp. And to do this requires use.

It's also antithetical to what actualized.org stands for.

I have this printed and use it when thinking about new topics or working through complex systems (such as the topic here):

Critical thinking cheat sheet

Solid perspective. That framework’s pretty damn good, actually.

 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

5 minutes ago, Monster Energy said:

Solid perspective. That framework’s pretty damn good, actually.

It is a great tool for inquiry - my words were a bit strong I think.

It doesn't destroy critical thinking - it can weaken it though. We already have issues with low critical thinking, so I might argue it is reasonable to put forth many users do not use it in a way that fosters this ability (especially if they never had the skill at all to begin with!). 

Overall I really like AI though  

Edited 2 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Xonas Pitfall]

3 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

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 

Yes! I think Leo's past blog posts, and comments suggest that he has bought into the traditional bias that masculinity is more objective, logical, etc. He seems to overlook just how much of both masculinity and femininity is shaped by relative, emotional, and social factors. And he seems to enjoy identifying with it, and often mocks the feminine as being more fear-based, emotional, or something along those lines, which is quite silly.

If you're charismatic, that's a real skill you'll be recognized for in most social groups. If you're wealthy, your ability to make money doesn't disappear just because someone richer is in the room. If you have an attractive, masculine physique, that doesn't suddenly vanish either. They are, to an extent, "objective" traits.

[Monster Energy]

9 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Overall I really like AI though  

Haha, good. I knew you weren’t a full-on AI hater.

 

[Jirh]

You know, the word "hot" is kinda interesting.

This forum has this feature where a thread is tagged "hot" temporarily when it gets flooded with comments.

But that's a false metric system, because it only targets the number of comments within a period of time.

It doesn't care about the quality of comments. Just the quantity. Even if it's spam, and that's mostly the case. I've seen so many low quality back and forth that the word "hot" lost all its meaning here.

I think this kinda applies to dating too. Because a girl can get spammed with low quality attention, and even she will not consider herself hot (if she's high quality).

So not only the quantity of attention that matters, but also the quality, and I think quality is much more important, and a much more trusted metric for determining value.

But this gets regressive and complex.

[Monster Energy]

What is Leo doing here? He knows objective truth doesn’t exist, yet when it comes to women, suddenly it does? Some things may come closer to truth, but that doesn’t make them objectively true.

 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Xonas Pitfall Leo does fall into reductionism regarding the masculine/feminine frame. I agree. You cannot cleanly lacerate out the two biologies without factoring in a whole ecosystem of influences. It is all systematic. Hormonal variation, culture and institutions, economic structure and incentives, individual personality variation etc etc. The framing men aren't as emotional is ridiculous to me. It could be simply bias too - sometimes men aren't even conscious they operate from emotions or embody them, and so think they do not make decisions (or are influenced) as such. Ha! Visible emotional expressions aren't the only emotions or indicators of them. The argument I get behind more frequently is that men can often use logic to override emotions more often than women (in general). Even then, people are so delusional they often twist logic to attend to their emotions and justify their decisions in this way... 

This isn't to deny biology and sexes have very real effects.

Edited 1 hour ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Xonas Pitfall]

5 minutes ago, Monster Energy said:

What is Leo doing here? He knows objective truth doesn’t exist, yet when it comes to women, suddenly it does? Some things may come closer to truth, but that doesn’t make them objectively true.

1 minute ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Leo does fall into reductionism regarding the masculine/feminine frame. I agree.

I think the next "Guys... I have a newfound level of awakening" for Leo will be deconstructing the biases surrounding femininity and masculinity. Leo's "Alien Mind" is really the "Feminine" mind  (Joking, a little bit . . .)

Edited 1 hour ago by Xonas Pitfall

[Jirh]

Finally, "HOT!" in a true meaningful way.

Or maybe it's just my subjective opinion 

[Monster Energy]

7 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

I think the next "Guys... I have a newfound level of awakening" for Leo will be deconstructing the biases surrounding femininity and masculinity. Leo's "Alien Mind" is really the "Feminine" mind  (Joking, a little bit . . .)

That would be a very Leo move. Just when you think he’s done, he finds another rabbit hole.