Women are attracted to relativity

[BlessedLion]

On 6/21/2026 at 9:19 PM, LordFall said:

It's true. I like mature women and milfs a lot but a lot of popular culture seems to be against older women. 

I actually totally resonate with this, i feel like there is something really sexy about WOMEN, the maturity, grace, poise, and actual development into a more refined femininity, whereas the typical "20 year old hotties that all men are competing over" are wildly immature, too energetic, have huge egos, low attention spans and very little life experience so they can't talk about deep and nuanced things. I find them boring and childish. Whereas older women, especially single mothers, man something so sexy about that.

[Schizophonia]

13 hours ago, LordFall said:

Of course. Women love women so it'll be really fun type of relationship to be in. Fair enough, I would try to at least experiment and get out of your comfort zone before settling though! 

One of each colour 😏

I don't think most women would want to be shared

It also looks difficult to manage.

It also steals other men's potential girlfriends, and that bothers me; unless you're willing to share your own girlfriends lol, but I'm not interested by that.

[Schizophonia]

8 hours ago, Yimpa said:

*Mow

 

 

Plot twist it’s you on ketamine 

[StaraX]

2 hours ago, Jirh said:

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.

There's little to no difference between conscious and unconscious women when it comes to dating. All women want a guy who's above them.

Like I said earlier in this thread, mating is central to our survival, and therefore analyzing women's behavior from a postmodernist or pluralistic perspective produces horribly misleading conclusions. 

 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

3 minutes ago, StaraX said:

There's little to no difference between conscious and unconscious women when it comes to dating. 

Explain to us your logic here and how you came to this conclusion?

[Miguel1]

9 hours ago, Jirh said:

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.

Well said. I am happy to see the maturity you express.

Dating a woman that is stuck in hypergamy is exhausting and a short-term game. What happens when a ”higher value” than you comes along? And there will be plenty of them. Wasted energy and time.

Edited 1 hour ago by Miguel1

[integral]

10 hours ago, LordFall said:

Well communism relies on the premise that human beings will willingly flatten all competitive hierarchies and distribute resources perfectly equally, removing the drive for individual status.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/4005748402891291

Communists only want to abolish private property: tenants should own their homes, workers should own the factory.

They are not coming for your personal stuff.

Capitalists are the ones actually taking your personal property, through subscriptions and rentals: phones you finance, movies you stream but don't own, housing turned into rentals.

The goal of that trend: you own nothing, they own everything.

Communists want to guarantee your ownership, not take it away.

What a business looks like in communism:

If you need to hire workers Instead of you owning the company and paying wages to employees who own nothing, the standard communist answer is a worker cooperative, the people who work there are also the owners. They share profits and have a say in decisions. So you'd start the business, but as it grows, the workers become co-owners rather than just employees.

Holacracy. 

This system probably doesn't work for a lot of organizations because the visionary is the most important thing and some people are better at that than others, So there would be a special role just for the visionary, be compensated accordingly, but at no point would he owed 100% of the company.

Resources should be pulled into a company pool and then distributor accordingly to everyone in the company.

The idea that one person should get 100 times or 1000 times the pay as someone else in the company is dumb.

Communism at the government level is a whole another animal, we're talking about it in terms of policies of how a system should operate. It should still be a democracy at the government level

Edited 1 hour ago by integral