100ProofTollBooth
No bio...
User ID: 2039
100ProofTollBooth
1mo ago
I buy pants with those exact same dimensions and they are literally too skinny to barely fit my arms?
I know this is a typo, but it's a fun mental image. "Ahhhh, why don't these fit?!" as you shove your arms into teen girl sized skinny jeans.
You can get good results buying basic shirts online. Tee-shirts, polos, henleys, casual button ups. These can be bought size unseen.
Full on dress shirts - you need to figure out which brand / size / fit works best by trying a bunch on in person, but then you can reliably order direct from that brand online. Same for pants.
If you want to look good you have to do two things:
- Look good naked. i.e. be in good shape.
- As comment below says, tailoring. It isn't exactly cheap, it isn't exactly expensive. It's always worth it.
100ProofTollBooth
1mo ago
Couldn't agree more.
What is off handedly dismissed as "domestic female labor" is really "the construction and maintenance of basic pro-social behavior patterns that enable society to function."
Outsourcing those duties to the state has been a disaster. This is as obvious a fact as one can summon. The state does not care about you and never has. The level of involvement and personal sacrifice necessary for humans to raise their young is bananas. No other mammal comes close. It requires an emotional bond that is nearly transcendent. Some of us would call this a "holy" connection and duty.
But others would say "just add water" to make the family.
100ProofTollBooth
1mo ago
I hadn't thought of it until your comment, but this is another argument in favor of deeply held personal belief in a transcendent value system.
Yes, I'm talking about Christianity. Or, more inclusively any sort of tradition rooted religion.
Back to the main point - I think it's close to common knowledge that everyone develops a sense of identity throughout their life. Failing to do so, in fact, is recognized not only as a major developmental failure, but potentially a mental illness. What you anchor that identity in is incredibly important.
With the fall of religiosity and the rise of secular humanism, I'd say it's a safe assumption to make that people are now anchoring more and more of their identities in politics and culture. These aren't inherently bad things on which to build an identity. The problem is they can and will change. The above post makes this clear. For a long time, being a "good progressive" meant militant support for drug legalization. That happened and it failed. So ... which part of the identity gives? The past-identity that was pro-legalization, or the now-identity that is using evidence to update beliefs? Either way, it's a loss, because you'd have to point to your identity at some point in time and go "I was wrong." This is destabilizing even for the most ... stable person.
How does religion solve this? Religiously informed beliefs are, at their core, transcendental. They are most important in an after-life situation and can neither be confirmed nor disproved in this life in this world. That's a sort of summation of the notion of faith in general. From an identity perspective, this lets believers commit themselves to something they known will never change because it never "was" in the same sense that material things are. I'd be remiss not to tag @TheDag at this point given his post on materialism from earlier today.
The summation here is straightforward; castle made of sand, shifting foundations et cetera. Build "who you are" (whatever that means) on things that are, frankly, eternal. I've seen people who have rooted their identity in seemingly "forever" things have some nasty reality checks; military dudes ("I'll always be a Marine!"), career A-types ("Nobody can take away the fact I was the youngest VP in corporate history!"), and even family ("My sister and I will always be close").
100ProofTollBooth
1mo ago
This just evades the point, try again but for soda
He "evades" the point by offering directly contradicting evidence to your assertion? And then you literally move the goalposts by shifting the object from water to the substance that is single most responsible for the American pre-diabetic and diabetes epidemic.
This isn't just poor argumentation, it's a lack of understanding of the nature of consumer demand and vendor supply.
McDonald's continues to exist and generate profit because American (and foreign!) consumers really enjoy, and therefore demand, their product. Every time I hear someone go on about "the corporate overlords" I get a strong suspicion they've never worked in one of these large corporations. They're bureaucratic, slow, with pockets of poor management everywhere. Often, they're coasting on brand recognition and incumbent advantage. Sure, they may still have top line growth, but they're not innovating outside of buying potential challengers (see: McDonalds and Chipotle). The idea that there are these Gordon Gekko greed machines with incredible ability to manipulate the public is laughable. The lizard people don't exist.
The sad fact of the matter is that McDonald's CEO is a former soap salesman who did the handshakeful path of Harvard Biz School to Big Consulting. This is the kind of dude who looks forward to "networking with the family" for 45 minutes of Christmas Eve before diving back in to the sweet sweet womb of quarterly reports. He is a business nerd.
But you know who aren't business nerds? Construction workers getting their morning coffee, single moms too tired to cook, stoned teenagers, and (years ago) my drunk ass at 2 a.m. And we all like the convenience, predictability, and location density of McDonalds. And so we spend, together, billions of dollars on their product.
It would be more efficient if, for super-sized corporations, an agency stepped in and “auctioned” off the corporate positions and ownership according to who will do the job for the least amount of money
An auction. Yes. Like, perhaps, at a market. Like where people would buy and sell assets they own - their "stock" you could say. A kind of "stock market" if you will.
If that’s too much government interference, then allow the employees to form powerful unions.
So we solve government interference by creating organizations that are intrinsically tied to the government.
primitive capitalism
What does this even mean?
we should have some kind of Honesty Regulation
Tell some undefined "truth" or you're committing a crime? George Orwell would like to see you in the hall.
But in an intensive competition what they do is compete over psychologically manipulating the vulnerable
This is just outlandish and I'm beginning to think I'm being trolled.
100ProofTollBooth
21d ago
Some of the best commentary on dealing with (especially) old Testament literalism is from David Bentley Hart. The long and short of it is that the Old Testament should be read similarly to how The Odyssey and The Iliad are read. It's a highly stylized, almost poetic epic tale that uses vibrant language and imagery to convey its points. It's not a blow by blow catalog of facts. Add on top of this the translation-upon-translation issues and you can account for the fact that 900 year old men were popping out kids left and right when they weren't running away from Rapin'Burg after the Slip-'N-Slide from the sky overflowed.
100ProofTollBooth
1mo ago
Is there some sort of tactical school of thought on the efficacy or even purpose of early morning raids?
My suspicion has always been that the cops use them to literally catch crooks napping, but as @2rafa points out, it seems like the potential for "WTF IS GOING ON" violence really goes up.
I assume that surrounding the domicile would probably result in too many barricade events?
100ProofTollBooth
3mo ago
Agree with this. I have also never, ever seen a coherent definition of "rape culture" that didn't boil down to "young men gasp are interested in having sex with young women." There's this weird craze with the idea that in the inner sanctums of locker rooms and frat houses that otherwise median males are gathering together to trade strategy and tips on sexual assault. This is pants-on-head insane.
100ProofTollBooth
1mo ago
This is a major issue with a lot of Christian writing in that it uses a lot of densely loaded language as well as assuming the audience is already hip to that language. The first time I read Poverty of Spirit by Metz, I thought, "this is woo-woo nonsense." Now, it lives as first among equals of my non-scripture / non-catechism prayer aids.
When the lay person reads sentences like "Christ calls us to open our heart to him so that we may more fully live in his Truth" it easy to eyeroll.exe. I won't expand this post to cover that larger topic. Let's get back to the steelman task.
You will get what you ask for in prayer because built in to genuine, honest, and devoted prayer is praying for the right thing. Prayer is a process with hundreds of subroutines, and one of them is praying for clarity in identifying the true and right object of prayer.
Say you are having trouble paying your bills, obviously you would start by praying for more money. Well, more money is not an end in itself. You would use the money to pay your bills. Well, ok, the envelopes with the big red letter stop showing up, what does that actually mean? It means you have less anxiety. Ah, now we're getting somewhere. The end you're after is reduced anxiety, more confidence in the future, hope ... faith (oh, look at that!). So then you start praying for a more well ordered object, specifically; faith that, with the help of God, you will find a just and honest solution to your bill problem that will allow you to reduce anxiety and build your capital-H hope in yourself, your life, and, as always, God.
That outcome you will receive through repeated devoted prayer. Is it a trick of mental exercise? Is it just heavily ceremonial Cognitive Behavioral Therapy? Well, let's not turn the Sunday thread into more than it ought to be. (short answer: No. longer answer: Fuck no and the CBT people stole a bunch of their stuff from many different faith's prayer traditions.)
The main point here is that the sentence "And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith" builds in the assumption that you're praying for the right thing and that you are honest and genuine in your prayer for it (panic praying isn't good). More explicitly, the right thing is some version or compound of the core virtuous; Faith, Hope, and Charity (sometimes "Love" is substituted for Charity)
100ProofTollBooth
1mo ago
WW2 got it to as high as one in three military aged males, I believe.
Now, it's less than 1%.
But even thinking in terms of the 20th century and citizen-solider military is too late. I'm talking about the 19th century and prior where the martial structure was far more local.
100ProofTollBooth
3mo ago
That said, I weakly believe that both claims are more-likely-than-not true in a Rashomon sense of true: they reflect the internal experience of the women who made the claims.
Agree. It's hard to overstate just how extreme this can extend, even in a totally non-sexual context.
I once had an HR interview as a bystander to an incident between two other colleagues. It look me 15 minutes of variations on "wait, what are you talking about?" to the HR rep to realize what I had seen as an forgettable, minor disagreement between the two was reported as "verbal assault and harassment" by one party.
And that reporting party was a Dude.
This is why physical evidence standards, documented intent, provable patterns of behavior etc. are so important in any cases wherein emotional salience is so high. I think in both of these cases, a whole lot of that is lacking.
@FiveHourMarathon is objectively correct in stating that the award and verdict is an own-goal on the part of Trump. The compensatory vs punitive damage awards clearly indicate that the bulk of the $83 mm is to convince Trump that he should really quit talkin' shit about Carroll.
100ProofTollBooth
1mo ago
I've been using Obsidian since it was in beta.
I probably have another 40 years of life.
I am highly confident I will leave behind a finely tuned LLM of myself for my family.
This is my favorite comment I've ever put on the Motte.
100ProofTollBooth
3mo ago
Sorry to hijack a little.
One of the miracles of my life was becoming aware that I was a weird nerd at the end of High School, realizing it was a life sentence of neurosis, and very deliberately Chad-ing it up in college (Frat, did a sport). Fuck "be true to yourself" nonsense. I had leaned into maladaptive behavior for all of my adolescence and it didn't make me feel good. So, I changed it.
What's jarring to me in professional life now is seeing people who did something similar (albeit with maybe less conscious direction) flip their persona like a light switch based on the immediate social context. Product Managers in Big Tech, generally speaking, are much, much more likely to be MBA Chad/Stacey types. Yet, the second they don't get their way or face some sort of adverse group dynamic, they start sperging out with statements like "I know I don't "get it" like all of you do, I'm just trying to do my best here with what's a really awkward situation for me!" Contrast this with one of the better PMs I've ever worked with - a literal ex college football quarterback - who would often wrap up meetings with "Cool, cool! Computer dudes get after it!" And they would. Happily. Because he was being honest.
100ProofTollBooth
1mo ago
During the height of MeToo, >50% of men working normie corporate jobs implemented the Mike Pence rule, even if they didn't announce it.
For male managers / any position with real authority (hire/fire, performance reviews, etc.) this was >80%.
100ProofTollBooth
3mo ago
And much like other technology-to-political thrusts, people will intentionally mistake technological capability with moral rectitude.
"We have an alternative to meet that's cheaper, more nutritious, and doesnt hurt the cows."
"Cool, I'm gonna eat this cow."
"Why wouldn't you want cheaper and better and no-harm-cow?"
"I just like what I like. It's tradition for me."
"JAIL!"
Exaggeration and hyperbole because I'm on an internet forum, but this is the blueprint of a Clear and Present Danger (great move, BTW).
To be clear, I'm a techno accelerationist who is incensed that we continually step on our own foot and prevent amazing human achievement for very vibes based reasoning (candidate 1: nuclear power) .... but I am a cultural traditionalist that believes that supporting tradition in culture - even when it falls out of vogue - is the only way to prevent the sky robots from reading our brainwaves. (I'm having fun today).
Here's an example you may not have thought of; e-mail addresses. E-mail addresses are now de facto on almost every legal document you will encounter. This was not the case well into the 2000s. Now, if you decide you do not want to use the "miracle" of Al Gore's internet, you are self-selecting out of a massive amount of economic opportunity in the western world. Nevermind a telephone number / cell phone.
It's fun for me to point and laugh at Vegans right now, but their moralistic hectoring and willingness to weaponized emotional propriety are the exact same strategy and tactics as the Transcult. They are coming not for my Big Macs, but my right to exist as a Big Mac enjoyer.
100ProofTollBooth
1mo ago
A lot of these ideas are good, and Iappreciate you sharing them.
Let me offer an opposite but not opposing perspective here.
Short dates can be really good for the early part of a relationship. A lot of people still default to the dinner date framework; (maybe) drinks, followed by a full dinner with conversation that can range all over the place, and then either more drinks after (danger, Will Robinson!) or maybe some sort of planned not planned stroll. Your median western guy is going to try to get a kiss out of it to solidify physical attraction and setup a next date.
This isn't bad, per se, but it's the dating version of a multi-part SSC post. I can't read that shit on my phone while i'm taking a ... nevermind, you get it.
Short dates give more bang for your buck. One of the best discoveries I stumbled upon back in my gaming days was a lunch date on a weekend. Pressure on both parties is far reduced, you time bound it up front, single location, conversation is generally less deeply personal (you talk more about third part stuff, general observations, etc.) and more flirty-fun. If anything physical does happen, it's also similarly "breezy."
The outcome is a feeling of just pure fun. That's a big win early for a lot of folks, especially women, who are used to prepping for dates like they're depositions, and then doing an after action report with their girlfriends. Furthermore, if it's a totally no-match, you have Friday / Saturday night still open to do whatever you want to get that bad taste out of your mouth, instead of doing the awkward post-bad-date shuffle back to your place and watch shitty netflix while the frozen burrito reheats and rotates.
100ProofTollBooth
3mo ago
Tactical advice:
Don't bring this up with your partner. Insecurity kills relationships. If you don't talk about it, will it still manifest in other actions and behaviors? Maybe. But actively talking about it is certainly a powerful catalyst.
But forget the Tactical advice. When you start seeing relationships as a game with tactics you're missing the point. Sure, you can "win" them, but you're no longer in a relationship. This is what the Tate-style redpillers don't get.
My more earnest advice is to start the long, gradual, and difficult process of ceasing to look for personal validation from other people. That's an emotional addiction cycle you don't want to start. This does not mean falling into the grotesque postmodern mindset of demanding the world accept and celebrate you - warts and all. You need to continue to use the feedback from other people as a gauge on your own behavior or decision making. But not essential self-worth I know it may sound a little squishy and almost like a semantic quibble. The distinction is powerful. You have intrinsic value as a human, and you have control over your behavior and decisions. Use feedback from others to improve that behavior (according to your own well defined moral code) while maintaining a base level of self-validation based mostly on personal adherence to a virtuous moral code. This will take you through even the craziest extremes of poverty/wealth, sickness/health, social esteem / banishment. (Side note: I'm not recommending anything like the "Sigma Male" bullshit. Be a responsible and productive member of your community)
The old adage is that "women like a man with confidence." If you're constantly opening that core level self-validation in hopes the world will support it, you have zero self-developed confidence. If, on the other hand, you're an obstinate, arrogant asshole, you're failing to incorporate meaningful feedback from others and continue patterns of behavior that are anti-social, exploitative, etc. One of the best compliments I ever received was from a girl (ironically, that I wasn't sleeping with ...and never did);
"I can call you on your bullshit and you'll acknowledge it, but you won't immediately change up because I said something. You know who you are."
If you're worrying about your sexual performance in relation to past lovers, then you don't know who you are absolutely; you're seeking validation in a relative-identity way ("where do I rank on this list?"). You can get to the place of "I do sex real good" without reference to anyone else. If you truly do believe that, it'll show through in your behavior.
100ProofTollBooth
1mo ago
(I should write the full story about this)
I once had a similar situation, except all of the info had to be filled out by hand on paper for every iteration of the same visitor parking.
At the time, I was dating a stripper (decisions were made!). She would roll over to my place after work, so 3 am on Thurs, Fri, and/or Saturday. Having to pretty much fill out an insurance survey every damn time got old for her.
Her solution was to flirt hard with the front desk guy, who proceeded to cut her visitor parking passes without so much as her first name filled out on the sheet.
The flirting involved what one could call a "free show" in the package room of that particular apartment building.
Everybody got choices, that's what I'm trying to say.
100ProofTollBooth
1mo ago
I broadly agree with this, but want to add a sort of different framing option.
Instead of just looking at general "luck", I like to look at it as shots on goal or number of at bats. Those middle class strivers operate with the background knowledge that if their big risk doesn't pay off, they can bounce back to "just" a boring middle manager job and, maybe, try again.
I contrast this to an ex-girlfriend's cousin who, upon saving up $500 for his own power washer, agonized over actually pulling the trigger to start his pressure washing business because he wasn't sure if the garage he was working out would re-hire him if he quit.
Risking everything you have (right now) on one bet knowing you can rebuilt that "Everything" in a few years is one version of "luck." Risking everything you have right now and also everything you would have had over several years is another. "Opportunity cost" means something really different based on class.
100ProofTollBooth
1mo ago
I'll admit I may have written my comment with a little but of antsy in my pantsy. I'm only human, after all.
In general, if I ever throw out "Satanic," one can simply substitute in "perverse" or "inverted." It's not about being literally Of The Devil (i.e. the touched-by-an-angel christian boomer concept), it's about a sort of self-defeating backwards logic that also profoundly damages things around it. To put it in another context, I'd argue that the hardcore transcult logic goes along the lines of "we need to protect the children from possible emotional discomfort over all things. If this results in permanent physical disfigurement and sterilization, we will have accomplished our goal"
100ProofTollBooth
21d ago
Some of the best examples of this are the Millenial/Gen-Z Catholic YouTubers who post video monologues with clickbait thumbnails and have been cycling through the zesty topics of Porn, Exorcism, and anti-Feminism recently.
But I guess they have a point - The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius mostly involve sitting quietly for several hours. There can't possibly be an audience for that
100ProofTollBooth
3mo ago
I'd say the difference is in perception and, unfortunately, what's termed "mood affiliation." Excuse the squishyness of my reply:
Lower class single motherhood is, now, seen as an inevitable reality and par for the course for a huge amount of young women. I wouldn't say it is "approved" of, but, accepted the same way physical injury on the job is assumed / accepted for working class men (every construction worker / roofer / tradesman who's been working longer than 10 years has a dozen scars from accidents, probably a bad knee or shoulder, and maybe some eye damage). Divorce perception is very similar; "Y'all tried, sometimes it doesn't work out. Gotta keep movin on."
Contrast with PMC divorce mood affiliation. It's usually a long, drawn out process (partially because there's more money involved and, therefore, more incentive to use the legal system to divide the pie) full of emotionalized soul searching ("how could it come to this?", "we were so in love"), followed by some semi-established period of Second Singledom (divorced dudes dating bimbo-ish ladies 20 years their junior, divorced women getting "glow ups" and having trysts with "interesting" men of almost any age. High likelihood of European or California temporary relocation), maybe followed by a second marriage (or just long term dating partner) that's really more about mutual companionship than family.
Throughout all of this, however, is the conception than the divorce wasn't a failure or an unfortunate reality of the times, but that it was simply a "stop along the way" to your truer, better, more You-er self. Going back to the idea of scars, how many pop songs and instagram poetry posts essentially say "our physical or emotional scars are what makes us beautiful!" Contrast this to the welder who can plainly state, "No, I really do wish that falling I-beam hadn't smashed off my two little toes. It hurt a lot, I couldn't work for some time, and I still don't quite walk right" or the Appalachian single mother, "It is fucking hard to feed and raise my kids without a man in the house. I do not have the time to "get an education" to try to increase my wage. My eldest keeps getting arrested but, because he's a 17 year old boy, there is no way I can physically intimidate or control him. Very few men will consider dating me because they do not want to help raise a family that isn't theirs - and I wouldn't want to do that in their position either."
Dealing with suffering and failure is part of any life. When it's your own damn fault, you ought to use it as a learning experience and an impetus to better choices and behavior. Other times, it is utterly random or, worse, cosmically unfair. That's when you exercise some sort of value/faith/anti-fragile/discipline system and decide whether or not (or how much) to descend into cynicism or existentialism or just undirected anger and frustration. Nobody's perfect or even very good at this, you just do as good as you can.
Far, far worse than any of those choices, however, is turning personal failure or even random chaotic unfairness into purely joyful and self-reverential deterministic positive affirmation. It's an insane (literally, not correctly functioning cognitive system) level of delusion that can only lead to repeated poor decision making and/or distorted risk appreciation, to say nothing of the personality and character defects it will likely nurture.
Before anyone jumps in with "but a conservative Christian world view doesn't prevent this." Yes! I agree. One of the things I detest the most about pop-culture mainline American Protestants are copes around hardship that are the same "purely joyful and self-reverential deterministic positive affirmation."[^1] You just lost your job and can't pay your bills, "The Lord is just testing me. But I know it's all part of the plan!" Maybe think why you lost the job? Were you bad at it and failing to perform? (Your fault). Has the economy taken a downturn and it wasn't your fault? That's cosmically unfair. What steps did you take to manage such a risk? Or, more forward looking, do you have a concrete plan to regain employment?
[^1]: Intra post self-quote. I am so.fucking.cool.
100ProofTollBooth
1mo ago
The worst thing that happened in the 90s was literally Limp Bizkit.
Alright, I get it, you won't be following my Limp/Creed/Nickelback playlist on Spotify. Whatever, that's just like, your opinion, man.
blowjobs became mandatory acts in private,
(nervous Catholic laughter)
Also - from my observations there is an absurd disheartening and nihilism ( and not the fun kind) that moves trough western society youth.
Hard agree - and this is where alarm bells go off for me. Every generation gets to a point in their 30s where they start uttering their first "kids these days!" I saw it when the Gen Z slang began to pop up in mainstream adds. There were literally sentences I could not follow. No cap. Okay, I guess I'm no longer "with it" (cure Grandpa Simpson meme).
Then I started listening to some SuicideBoys and BONES. The messages there are beyond dark. This isn't hardcore gangster rap that glorified ultra violence. As terrible as the values implicit to that are, at least there's some message of group solidarity, competition but possible victory with rivals, and a celebration of demonstrated capability ("me and my homies will murder all of the people who don't like us and then drink alcoholic beverages and consume schedule 1 substances while discussing those incidents of homicide in jovial terms. Also, copulation with curvaceous women is probable") Gen Z dark/emo rap is screaming into the void while simultaneously accepting the inevitability of it all. It isn't learned helplessness, it is unshakable faith in a tangible helplessness [^1]. The description of drug use is worth highlighting; across many genres of music since Rock 'n Roll in the 1960s, drug / alcohol use and abuse has been shorthand for "look at my amazing crazy life." You do have songs here and there about the dangers of that kind of life etc. Grunge takes it to talking about the horrible feedback loop of addiction but also, sometimes, recovery. Gen Z talks about substance abuse a desperate sprint to oblivion. Far from "I love to party!" or "Damn, I wish I could shed this ball and chain" it's pretty much "Get fucked up in a big way as often as possible. Just fucking do it." Suicide by another name.
All of this is set against the backdrop of a society where material conditions have never been better, yet there is constant cultural strife.
It reminds me of some of the documentaries on Norwegian Black Metal in the 90s. There's a couple of former artists and journalists from that scene who said some version of, "Living in Norway in the 90s was so fucking easy that it became meaningless." You can point to secularism, you can point to the removal of the Russian threat, you can point to the start of pan-Europeanism and the homogenization of already incredibly homogeneous societies. The cause is irrelevant, the outcomes are more stark; brief and constrained as it was, Norwegian black metal resulted in real damage, death, and murder (look up the Church Burnings and Varg vs Euronymous).
Panning back to American Gen Z, the elevated suicide rate is component 1 of their brand of nihilism. I wonder if we aren't already seeing component 2: nihilistic murder. The Parkland High School shooter was Gen Z and had a grocery list of nihilistic / degenerate / isolated life circumstances. More culture-war-y, the Covenant School shooter was a Trans Gen Z'er. I think it's undeniable that some portion of the hardcore Trans Cult is essentially nihilist in that they relish denying basic biology as well as using conversation as a panacea for any and all mental health issues.
So, while I am confident that a lot of the Millenial / Gen X anguish over Gen Z is simply "Kids-These-Days"-ism, there is some level of nihilism that will not be assuaged by Hot Topic stickers and baggy jeans. It will express itself through an ultraviolence directed both internally and externally. I'm not sure how to solve that, and I'm not sure there's been a post-WW2 generation anywhere that is this predisposed to lack of respect for human life.
100ProofTollBooth
3mo ago
I also think that women, in particular, when they've grown up being showered with male attention, and the had their pick of suitors, they expect that they'll still be a hot commodity once they're out of their marriage. They have been out of the game so long that they don't realize that a 30+ woman, possibly with kids, is simply not going to command the same sort of attention, especially with newer models on the showroom floor.
A buddy has a theory that this is how the "Karen" archetype comes into being. A former hot girl abruptly stops getting heretofore assumed male attention because of the tyranny of age and gravity. For some subset (the Karens) their brain cannot process how or why this might be. They cannot shift to a "graceful" aging. Instead, they turn up the volume and demands as they simply believe the world doesn't realize what a hot commodity they have in front of them.
I've never been one for armchair psychology, but this theory is, at least, sort of fun?
Aella is the planet pluto.
There are thousands like her but, for some reason, the rat community has decided to deem her special and different.
Edit: At the time of my initial post above, I thought Aella had just had a, you know, birthday party.
A 42 person gangbang............there are no words.
Excellent encapsulation of the root problem.
And this is exactly what the concept of non-family arranged marriage has tried to solve for thousands of years. You (women) get to be the sexual selectors and a pick a mate. No one can force you, and men must compete. But once the choice is made, you have to stick with it so that society doesn't collapse in on zero-sum Chad-The-Warlord mating patterns.
This is the reason conservatives, like me, point to no-fault divorce as so incredibly damaging. It means mating patterns revert back to a situation that was worse for 99% of men and >50% of women (i.e. most of everybody). Stable marriages make stable communities with longer term outlooks. This is a great way to build society. Fluid marriages with easy opt-out clauses as well as a material incentive in many cases create a constant state of next-optionism and institutionalized anxiety. It's easy to see why your average secular-humanist married couple are neurotic basket cases. They are dealing with the >50% odds that the person they wake up with and go to sleep with will leave them and, maybe, take half of their stuff at any moment.
I see the polyamory movement as a weird cope to some basic realities. They're smart enough to accept human nature, but not pro-social enough to understand the value of discipline and final choice in marriage. So, they settle for what becomes a shared Chad-harem and a weak peace. I don't see how polyamory works out for your median non-Aella woman, however, as mate stealing just becomes (covertly) more acceptable and thus favors inherently more manipulative and anti-social women.
More options
Context Copy link