5 ms·

definitely see this in my scene. the most attractive guys have many partners while the lesser ones don't have that many. more attractive guys are fought over an

definitely see this in my scene. the most attractive guys have many partners while the lesser ones don't have that many. more attractive guys are fought over and rifts are created because of it. It's really funny because a lot of them consider themselves anarchists politically...yet the few attractive men seem to dominate.

warent 6y ago
I wonder how much of this is perception vs. reality. Many women trip over themselves around me, but I'm monogamous and have only chosen to be in a couple of relationships because finding a match is really hard. Just because someone gets a lot of attention, that doesn't mean they're going around having endless casual sex or unlimited girlfriends.
- k__ 6y ago
  This. When you value intimate encounters with people you care about, there is an upper limit, even if you have multiple women waiting to date you. The only ways to get those numbers up without going casual is to remove other things from your life or get bisexual partners so you can consolidate, and well, even that has its limit.
  - bluntfang 6y ago
    This is operating on the assumption that sex requires caring about other people at a high capacity. I'd suggest a read of The Ethical Slut if you're actually interested in a world where sex and romantic intimacy aren't the same thing.
    - k__ 6y ago
      Didn't like that book, but thanks.
      - bluntfang 6y ago
        Regardless of whether you liked it or not, it has a pretty effective framework against your assumption: >The only ways to get those numbers up without going casual is to remove other things from your life or get bisexual partners so you can consolidate, and well, even that has its limit.
        k__ 6y ago
        It's arguing about the morale implications of casual sexual encounters. I didn't say they are good or bad. I just said if you don't want casual sexual encounters, for whatever reason, you don't have much optimization options.
  - tomp 6y ago
    The upper limit is, what, 4 or so new partners a day? That's probably how some rock and porn stars live (at least a part of their lives). But even being far below that limit (e.g. one new partner a month for a few years) will statistically place in the extreme tail.
    - k__ 6y ago
      I said, without going casual, so the limit is far lower. I don't work much, and besides friends and alone time I can handle 4 partners.
- sidlls 6y ago
  On the other, the pool of potential partners they'd effectively sequester for some length of time isn't really impacted by whether these men would engage with them or not.
- bluntfang 6y ago
  >Just because someone gets a lot of attention, that doesn't mean they're going around having endless casual sex or unlimited girlfriends. I'd say that's untrue if you're participating in a fairly healthy poly community.
  - warent 6y ago
    If someone said "Just because an apple is red, that doesn't mean it's a red delicious.", why would you reply "I'd say that's untrue if the apple is a red delicious." I'm not sure what this is called, but your statement is basically just redundantly agreeing with me. Edited for clarification.
    - bluntfang 6y ago
      I am not agreeing with you. Every poly community I've brushed with is filled will casual sex, especially the people who are given lots of attention.
      - warent 6y ago
        Ahh I see. So, your original comment "definitely see this in my scene. the most attractive guys have many partners while the lesser ones don't have that many. more attractive guys are fought over and rifts are created because of it. It's really funny because a lot of them consider themselves anarchists politically...yet the few attractive men seem to dominate." was specifically referring to poly communities. I thought you meant this was your experience in general, regardless of monogamy or polyamory. We were talking past each other because my comments were basically saying "It isn't like this in general" but you never intended to communicate that claim. You were only talking about specific situations.
- tomp 6y ago
  Just because Warren Buffet isn't spending his money frivolously doesn't invalidate the observation that economic gains tend to follow a power distribution (few winners take almost everything)

warent 6y ago

I wonder how much of this is perception vs. reality. Many women trip over themselves around me, but I'm monogamous and have only chosen to be in a couple of relationships because finding a match is really hard. Just because someone gets a lot of attention, that doesn't mean they're going around having endless casual sex or unlimited girlfriends.

k__ 6y ago
This. When you value intimate encounters with people you care about, there is an upper limit, even if you have multiple women waiting to date you. The only ways to get those numbers up without going casual is to remove other things from your life or get bisexual partners so you can consolidate, and well, even that has its limit.
- bluntfang 6y ago
  This is operating on the assumption that sex requires caring about other people at a high capacity. I'd suggest a read of The Ethical Slut if you're actually interested in a world where sex and romantic intimacy aren't the same thing.
  - k__ 6y ago
    Didn't like that book, but thanks.
    - bluntfang 6y ago
      Regardless of whether you liked it or not, it has a pretty effective framework against your assumption: >The only ways to get those numbers up without going casual is to remove other things from your life or get bisexual partners so you can consolidate, and well, even that has its limit.
      - k__ 6y ago
        It's arguing about the morale implications of casual sexual encounters. I didn't say they are good or bad. I just said if you don't want casual sexual encounters, for whatever reason, you don't have much optimization options.
- tomp 6y ago
  The upper limit is, what, 4 or so new partners a day? That's probably how some rock and porn stars live (at least a part of their lives). But even being far below that limit (e.g. one new partner a month for a few years) will statistically place in the extreme tail.
  - k__ 6y ago
    I said, without going casual, so the limit is far lower. I don't work much, and besides friends and alone time I can handle 4 partners.
sidlls 6y ago
On the other, the pool of potential partners they'd effectively sequester for some length of time isn't really impacted by whether these men would engage with them or not.
bluntfang 6y ago
>Just because someone gets a lot of attention, that doesn't mean they're going around having endless casual sex or unlimited girlfriends. I'd say that's untrue if you're participating in a fairly healthy poly community.
- warent 6y ago
  If someone said "Just because an apple is red, that doesn't mean it's a red delicious.", why would you reply "I'd say that's untrue if the apple is a red delicious." I'm not sure what this is called, but your statement is basically just redundantly agreeing with me. Edited for clarification.
  - bluntfang 6y ago
    I am not agreeing with you. Every poly community I've brushed with is filled will casual sex, especially the people who are given lots of attention.
    - warent 6y ago
      Ahh I see. So, your original comment "definitely see this in my scene. the most attractive guys have many partners while the lesser ones don't have that many. more attractive guys are fought over and rifts are created because of it. It's really funny because a lot of them consider themselves anarchists politically...yet the few attractive men seem to dominate." was specifically referring to poly communities. I thought you meant this was your experience in general, regardless of monogamy or polyamory. We were talking past each other because my comments were basically saying "It isn't like this in general" but you never intended to communicate that claim. You were only talking about specific situations.
tomp 6y ago
Just because Warren Buffet isn't spending his money frivolously doesn't invalidate the observation that economic gains tend to follow a power distribution (few winners take almost everything)