eos_nyxia

.... >insert something later<

Maybe you're homosocial? It's pretty common, I think. There are a lot of men who strongly prefer being around men socially, and only accept and respect qualities associated with "masculinity". The opposite seems true too, that there are many women who only truly enjoy being around women, identify with "femininity", and are generally more interested in women's issues by default. I would not be surprised if this is, in fact, most people. Maybe you're "biromantic", but not bisexual? Are you sexually interested in women?

Better than being treated like an animal in public and a fragile princess in bed, I guess?

Seriously though, I think I crashed this site for a few moments with that post, which is why I don't post very much. No more internet for me!

I know I end up writing practical essays, but still....:

I'm trying to think about how to sum it up simply. In a nutshell: I make a point of striving to be continuously emotionally and physically available and receptive, as much as possible (and as desired). Not just sexually, but with touching as a form of physical affection, as that's very much his thing. This didn't come to me naturally because even though I'm pretty warm and affectionate by nature, I grew up in a household that was very cold emotionally (not to mention abusive in certain ways), so I had to slowly learn new habits, and open myself up more and more, bit by bit. I don't just rely on spontaneity and "being in the mood", because it's easy enough to prioritize a bunch of other things that you tell yourself matter more in the moment, because other stuff in life, other stressful events, being overly busy and focused on other goals, and even illnesses. For instance: I keep in mind how it feels for him to say, proposition me sexually, and for me to turn that down. (And the effect that has when you keep doing that over and over again, feeling rejected.) So I either try to not to say no at all, or at the very least, make up for it in some other way. In general, I trust and have faith in him, because he's shown that he has my best interests at heart and is willing to listen, and he gives words and gestures of appreciation everyday, so I do not feel taken for granted. He prioritizes me not feeling taken for granted, practically to the point of hypervigilance. He makes a point of always minding my emotional state, my comfort level with various things emotionally and sexually, how safe I feel (due to childhood trauma), how satisfied I am (sexually or otherwise), and can take my feedback (even if sometimes it's hard not to take really personally). He's also just obscenely good at it, which always helps in terms of pure, positive reinforcement. He has a way of discovering new buttons I didn't even know existed, both physically and psychologically. That's something that's possible when you go deep (heh) into a relationship with one particular person; it's a consistent investment over the course of years. For him, I think there's some sort of pride/ perfectionism element going on there for him as well. The idea of being a man who is uninterested in doing what it takes to pleasure his partner is extremely alien to him. I think after a certain point, if you have enough orgasms in one session, your brain just kind of gets fried and melts into some kind of dopamine megafire and you can't help but be utterly raw, open, and fused to the person who is mercilessly playing your body like a fiddle, lol. It's great for bonding! (But seriously, I sometimes wonder how the world would change if women in general were actually sexually satisfied, or realized that this was an actual option. Or say.... even expected it.) Possible TMI, but likely informative: I know it's not for everyone, but it's not uncommon for us lately to have sex every day, where 20, 40, 60+ minutes pass and I know it's been a while, but I've completely lost track of time because my brain is fried in a good way. I do not skimp or rush when I'm taking care of him (let's just say I'm too sore or something), like I do not bring that attitude into the bedroom. I sometimes remind myself that if I am going to do this, I might as well put my whole heart into it, like it fucking matters. And I try to treat each time as a brand new time, and not like we have done it thousands of times before. I make sure I am as fully present as possible. We have a dynamic at the moment which allows him to be a little bit more feral than he was in the past, and it's also pretty fun. General relationship things: We respect and like each other as people, and generally have compatible values and priorities in life. While not directly related to sex, I also keep in mind things that I do that are grating or hurtful, and try to adjust myself continually so that every day is a bit more harmonious. (For me, it's my fierce temper.) We always had sexual and emotional chemistry. Personally, I'm not a believer in either party trying to start a relationship if there isn’t a strong spark to start with, and banking on it growing over time. I know it doesn’t work for me.

Agreed. Lying, bad. A lifetime ago, I would have said that all of the men who just wanted one woman were delusional, even to the point of gaslighting themselves. For me, it was the test of time that convinced me completely. Even years ago, I told my now-husband that I wanted him to be completely open with me about his sexual desires (and vice versa), to the point where I was poking and prodding him about it a lot. I think he found it frustrating and probably annoying to not be taken at his word. But we explored and talked about the prospect of an open relationship years ago, and again semi-recently. In retrospect, many years later (within the last 5), he said something like... he saw my picture online, and he somehow knew that I was "it". He had found "it". We met through an online social network site in a different era, but did have some mutual acquaintances. I said something like: that sort of conviction is probably one of the emotionally bravest things I've heard about, ever. (Like, by my own admission, this is not a good emotional self-preservation strategy AT ALL.) Admirable to be that committed to something you believe is worth it, but kind of crazy and perhaps suicidal. (After all, how many people thought they had found "it" but just ended up being wrong?) He said something like, it's not really bravery. Deep down, I know there was never any other real choice. It was always just YOU. To be honest, it is not something I fully understand, especially he was also a brutally cynical teenager/ young adult in so many ways. But every day, I am grateful that he believed in me in an unwavering way. I know the value of such a thing and I would be stupid to treat that as disposable, especially when I know it is the real thing. I wish I was certain back then. The odds were not in our favour. In retrospect, without my own original biases, perhaps I would be able to properly trust my gut and intuition (which otherwise has never failed me), and would also carefully watch what people say vs. what they do, as well the energy they project. The longer you can observe people at close quarters and observe for signs of inconsistency, the better. Generally speaking, the truth always comes out. Very very few people are world-class liars at lying to both themselves and others. IMO that's a very special skill. It's also exhausting to keep up and eventually crashes down. And TBH, even world-class liars seldom can't be assed to fully hide their own selfishness. More than anything, I do worry about women and girls. I feel protective of them and I don't want them to get screwed over, especially when it leads to permanent emotional damage. I see the damage it can cause, and where the bitterness, defensiveness, and anger come from. That's mostly why I'm being abrasive. I was the "mom friend" of my various friend groups growing up (until I stopped having so many female friends and instead focused more on boys). I'd say that I have often felt the same way about boys/ men, but I feel like my concern doesn't mean much if I will not pander to them either sexually and emotionally. Like, I've been carefully observing the manosphere/ red pill movement since its very beginnings, but ultimately I figured that men prefer to listen to other men. Fair play. It gets beaten into some of us at a young age that we're either not supposed to like male attention that much, or we ought not to be so open about it. I remember being about 8-10, and having a crush on a new boy from my school every week or month, and having 3 male movie crushes at a time lol.. At some point, I realized semi-consciously, without being put it into words, that this was somehow not normal or acceptable. You were supposed to only like one boy...or at least, only one boy at a time. And you were supposed to like him for a long time. He was supposed to be the boy that all the other girls had a crush on, or maybe there were 2-3 boys "acceptable" boys in your whole class or grade. Just like there appeared to be about the same number of girls that lots of other boys had crushes on, that their friends would definitely not make fun of them for having those crushes. (Maybe they had secret crushes too, IDK.) I realized pretty young that I was either not normal, or every girl who felt that way kept it to themselves. Then I got a little bit older (like mid-teens), and ended up being super close with the girls who were "boy crazy" and knew how to get what they wanted. Then, I became a lot more like them, at least for most of my teenaged years. Mostly with the flirting and crushes regardless of having a boyfriend, and how much of a struggle it was to actually focus on one guy at a time (especially if he just wasn't there for whatever reason).

For the record, I'm sure that there are people out there who are capable of pulling it off (men with multiple women) in a harmonious way, and maybe it could be an actual win-win situation for all. But I'm pretty "equal opportunity" when it comes to gender, I actually do think that the opposite is true as well (multiple men with one woman, where the men aren't beaten down or hoping to kill each other). It's kind of hard to stuff all of human sexuality into a neat little, gender essentialist evo-psych narrative. But while very few cultures are known for polyandry, at least a few more are known for wife swapping (the Inuit, and some African tribes, to my awareness). Here with our cultural baggage, I think people have trouble conceptualizing of wife-sharing without cuckoldry or some sort of belief in the inherent shame and emasculation of it. (When in reality, there are also people who view "wife sharing" as a sort of dominant power move. A separate fetish from cuckholdry, IMO.) Honestly I wish them good luck, for everyone to be happy and fulfilled; I'm not just trying to shit on men who want more, lol. But unless you truly love women as wholes, and not just their bodies and you have a NEED to be around femininity constantly, that it is moreso a pleasure and a joy rather than something you look down on or revile (openly or not)... how would this even work? How will you satisfy them and make them want to stay in the long term? In other words, if it does not truly come from a sort of compulsive need to "love" with your whole soul (albeit in a very physical way) rather than hate for women as they are and a miserly, possessive greed, what is actually being offered of sustenance? How will you be able to sustain this long term without driving yourself insane, with women being women, and women being women together with each other? More than anything I'm not easily convinced by people's armchair anthropology/ evo psych stuff. Like if I'm going to go that way, if anyone is, you might as well read actual academics, for all their flaws and shortsights. As for throwaway armchair theories of my own: men with multiple women who don't end up feeling forced or bamboozled in some way? Likely this actually isn't for hypermasculine types who don't have developed "feminine" aspects that they are at peace with, if it just involves desire and attraction, and not force or coercion of some sort. Like stereotypically, who do women throw themselves at? It's not Chad-warlord (this is more of a stereotypical male wet dream), it's those femmy artist types that some men scoff at.... Those men are not for me, but that doesn't matter in this discussion.

"Uncynical answer": seeing someone that you genuinely love be destroyed or negatively impacted, and thinking before you stick it in (or get it stuck in you), is motivation enough for a number of people. And clearly not for a number of others. (Dave Grohl lately lol, unless they have some secret private arrangement) Again, so is "uncontained female hypersexuality". I'm not sure what agenda you think I have, other than to point out various things which don't fit neatly into your particular narrative. Including the all the men you say are feminized/ brainwashed/ whatever, which I am not convinced is actually the case, especially in retrospect. (Originally I had this "all men want multiple women openly or secretly" narrative.) I will trust the words and actions of the few men that I have known closely and for a long time over others, naturally. The only "healthy dynamic" you can probably build is with women who have a fetish (which very often comes with a lot of BAGGAGE which doesn't fit into anyone's fantasies, because the reverse is also most often true with men as well, with the "wife sharing" fetish). Or else you most often get the very young, naive, and very traumatized. If what you're getting is any of the latter, no woman with self-worth and self-esteem is going anywhere near that. In that case, enjoy dealing with that or throwing them out when you're done with them? (Or alternatively, them realize that they ought to be getting better elsewhere.) Oh, maybe you're in a culture that is fine with mutual or one-way infidelities in a "don't ask or tell" way. Personally, I find the lack of openness and honesty to be highly dysfunctional. This might come from the same perspective for a male who has a certain kind of power fantasy, but it is not at all the same from a female perspective. How can you compare the "modern harem" to the historical forced harem, if the other woman also probably has her own "harem" and the choice to leave? That's just everyone fucking around and likely that's pretty egalitarian by default. Aka. the "Sex at Dawn" scenario. Naturally, maybe that still involves lots of women swarming around one man (IDK), but the reverse is probably true too (men swarming around conventionally attractive, sexual, socially open, charismatic women). About 15 years, with some time taken off in the middle to sort myself out. About the same amount of time it took for me to believe him truly and unconditionally, unfortunately.

History books? And what would be the motivation for this being left out, since it is so very often written in? Like literally, it was what was expected and no one batted their eye? Was that also women and feminized men editing history books? Lol. Right, and it also makes zero sense for abundant, attractive, desirable women who want to have sex with hot men not to, if they also have the ability to fulfill their desire without consequences. Why do you think women have been punished and ostracized for so long for being "whores" and "sluts", especially before the sexual revolution? It's because some women are more promiscuously inclined and have a very high, impulsive sex drive (just like some men likely have an intrinsically higher sex drive than other men). I had best friends like this growing up, and they knew how to work their way around the system to avoid being treated badly due to "developing a reputation", which is especially an issue in high school. Lots of stuff gets hidden. At that age, I certainly didn't know that I had more in common with them than I realized, but I did make very different choices over the long term. (For example, I've never given a shit about who other women find attractive, and I naturally tend to be attracted or very open to a wide variety of men on a physical level very frequently, but it's the personalities and ... entitlement I could really wish I could leave at the doorstep, including the "pre-selected" men, especially if they have a worse attitude.) I don't even identify as monogamous as a sexual orientation, so it's not like I'm arguing for universally monogamy-enforcing viewpoints. If anything, I'm less monogamously inclined by nature than my partner, both emotionally and sexually. Some people are just better than the alternative though. Look. I don't think men in general are thinking about having mindblowing tantric sex with a woman period, because that would require patience and an attention span, getting to know one person's body, mind, and emotions well enough in order to reach into something transcendental. To put it more simply, from a personal perspective: many men in general, they can't fuck well. (Not even of the caveman variety, though seriously.... why not both in one sexual session with one person?) I don't have to fuck them to know this, their sloppy attitude and lack of truly caring about a woman's pleasure and experience, and also not being able to be present with their own bodies and emotions, it makes that clear enough. Many men with egos think they can fuck... but do not have the necessary things. How can they, when they don't have the heart and soul to put into it? The eyes to see clearly? But without that, pure primal intuition tells me what I need to know. Also, other women's stories. Thinking that they can make up for that with other things... status, women thinking they're hot, money, bla bla bla bla.... Like great, they STILL can't fuck. (Or love well, by extension, because the way in which our bodies, minds, hearts, and imaginations are intertwined.) I wonder when the women having sex with them will wake up and realize they're getting grifted and being fed something completely insubstantial, like candy-flavoured air (at best). But then, it's hard to miss something you've never had, I guess. More than ever, I am willing to accept that there are at least some people who do not feel this way strictly because of societal conditioning, and are capable of making up their own minds despite any conditioning there actually is, that have thoroughly enough come to terms with their primal urges, and know their mind, emotions, and instincts sufficiently to judge this to be true... and for this to be accurate. I accept their personal truth.

This is more just talking about yourself and the people you know, isn't it? Source: I married someone I've known for almost 20 years. It's where I learned that finding someone attractive isn't the same as wanting to fuck them, and literally "not all men". I honestly didn't believe him for a good number of years either, because I've always been pretty jaded. I ended up becoming less cynical as a result, and started wondering if monogamy as an intrinsic (but still possibly still competing) drive isn't as uncommon as people think. As in, it's not just as result of society trying to stop men (or women) from having sex either by shaming and judgement or creating a sheer lack of abundance and opportunities. Where does this "oneitis" drive come from, anyway? In other words, I won the monogamy lottery without even identifying as intrinsically monogamous myself. There isn't even porn, visual or written, or any anecdotal stories that I've heard, that even come close to describing how good the sex and intimacy are now, TBH. It is insane. And it was always intense and there was always chemistry to start with.

more thoughts about this: 1) I mean it is rare, but there are at least a good handful of "legendary love stories" where there was a king/ emperor who had an actual harem or mistresses, or it was expected for him to do so, and still he chose one woman above all the others while having no sexual or emotional interest in the others. A famous example of this is the ruler who built the Taj Mahal. Consider also any number of mythic East Asian and Persian love stories which are based on actual historical figures. In reality, the poly drive is just a tendency; it's not actually set in stone. I guess this is where someone would say, "that's not a masculine man". What does this actually mean other than wanting to fuck anyone sufficiently attractive? Sheer testosterone? (Or, you're just horny, insecure, and unfulfilled, and possibly just wired differently.) 2) There is nothing "natural" at all about an institutionalized One Penis Policy. The drive to do so, yes, maybe. The institutions related to it, absolutely not. With traditional harems, a lot of the women came there because they were either the most attractive girls and women captured during war and sold into sex slavery and to become concubines, or their parents sold them as young girls. In modern terms, this is basically your parents sex trafficking you for a lifelong meal ticket, and basically brainwashing and/or forcing you to marry some older dude. That some women develop some actual attachment and feeling as a result of Stockholm syndrome ... when guys talk about "authentic female desire", this isn't exactly what you have in mind, is it? Actual chattel slavery? (fun fact: one of the actual underlying themes and purposes for classic stories such as "Bluebeard" and "Beauty and the Beast" was to reaffirm to young girls that marrying a crusty, old, ugly, and possibly abusive man (but powerful and well-monied!) was a worthwhile endeavour.) Like if the dick was soooo amazing and women were naturally compelled toward monogamy toward the most powerful of men exclusively, why were so many harems guarded by eunuchs, who literally had their balls (and often their dicks) chopped off so women wouldn't have sex with younger, better looking, more virile men? (If anything, eunuchs were guards to make sure other men never got in.) Why were harems and concubines deliberately isolated within the palace and often completely forbidden from interacting with the outside world? If this was "a natural" expression of female desire, there would be absolutely nothing to guard these women from, lol. Generally speaking, the punishment for royal women who had sex outside of their marriage (non-harems) was very severe, and often death. The king would have multiple wives, concubines, slave or serving girls, for his own pleasure and to make lots of mini-mes. The practical reason, aside from sheer jealousy and entitlement, is the belief in the intrinsic importance of patriliny, aka. making sure than your children as a man are biologically yours. If you look at earlier-stage societies, you will often see that this sort of aggressive institutional patriliny doesn't exist, because it had not been developed yet. Men getting violently possessive about their female partners having other male partners is a separate issue. Even female rock groupies in the 60s and 70s were mostly playing "collect a dick", like you'd collect stickers or count notches. They didn't just want to fuck one rockstar, they wanted to experience the whole itinerary, as much as possible. Just like the guys who have the rockstar fantasy of having sex with all the girls (who are into him and him only). A girl who is into the OPP, who isn't forced to stay, either has a fetish or is a doormat. Maybe they're Mormon. Take your pick.

I grew up watching a lot of old movies and musicals. Whenever I hear them complain, I hear this soundtrack playing in my head: (aka. "Why can't a woman, be more like a man"?) Spoiler Alert: he falls in love with the same thing he spent so much time complaining about, because of course he does.

But yes, why can they "not just help it"? Where did these patterns originally come from? Where did they learn that is an acceptable and legible way to channel their impulses? Who raised these people? The drive for love, attraction, and affection does not manifest inside a vacuum, and neither does its actual expression. This is even true even if some people are compelled to live at the utter and complete mercy of their emotions and urges. Like, is it pure social conditioning (from within that lifetime on a personal level), some harder-to-measure factor like intergenerational baggage, or is it more "biological", whether due to one's sex hormones or inborn personality traits and tendencies? A lot of people default to the simple determinism and invoke the God of Biology simply because it suits their own narrative/ agenda, and it's neater in the sense that it's simpler and more conclusive. Simple narratives have that appeal; it's a strong, decisive way to interpret data. Personally, I think that "intrinsic traits" are spread a bit thin when it comes to explaining why people are the way they are, and why they do what they do. We are a profoundly social species, after all. And with that, comes an equally profound malleability when it comes to social conditioning. .....within reason.

If they are young, naive, driven by trauma, and stuck in a trauma loop, then "low self-esteem" is most likely just a statement of fact. Not everyone has the same stuff to work with, but people also make different decisions with similar circumstances. Some people are also brutally emotionally masochistic in a way I don't really get, but that would also qualify as "getting what they truly want", albeit in a more twisted, indirect way. I feel bad for them more than I feel judgemental, though admittedly there is some judgment and "ick factor" there, like a sort of visceral second-hand embarrassment on their behalf.

I moreso meant in first-world countries, especially in reference to some of the guys' power fantasies above. I just assumed that they weren't talking about going to a developing country and getting some women to technically consent to be exclusive with them because those women feel the need and obligation to send money to support their impoverished relatives. I feel like I am stating the extra-obvious, but being compelled to survive isn't the same thing as genuine sexual attraction and personality attraction... but it seems to do in a pinch for those who have the fantasy. And somehow the female attraction and fulfillment is implicit in these fantasies because they are fantasies?). That women are with you because you are SO awesome/ charismatic/ sexy/ successful/ bla bla bla is often the self-delusion. If they're in a first-world country and not fulfilling a personal fetish (which may or may not be rooted in trauma).... like, why would I ever look at that, and be jealous of what they have? Just because some low self-esteem and/ or opportunistic women decided to get together and slobber over his dick? (Literally or metaphorically). Nope. I'd feel sorry for them and think they'd need to do >insert therapy and self-work< and sort themselves out. And again, those men typically don't respect those women either because they don't respect themselves; they don't think they are actually worthy of any amount of undivided love, attention, devotion, genuine camaraderie, sexual satisfaction, etc. If that's what's driving them, that's low self-esteem. It's influenced by fear of what they don't want, rather than genuine desire. So emotionally and even sexually, there are limits to what they have to offer. Now if it's what they truly want, whether cuckolds or cuckquean, well... you do you. At least they truly want it, so I don't judge so much. In reality, what dudes are probably offering is subpar physical and emotional intimacy (because a certain degree of interest and ability to listen and general non-self-absorption is one of a number of things required to be actually "good" at sex), but divvied up into smaller portions, and this is supposed to be appealing for some reason? Like why? Like have your fantasies I guess, but what does this have to do with reality?

Like is it the same quality of dick you'd be getting in a monogamous relationship but divided into equal parts, like sharing a chopped-up candy bar? Is it supposed to be MORE because him sharing his dick with more women opens his heart soooooo much more? Am I supposed to get off from competing with other women (I know this is an actual thing, and I'm not actually shaming it, I really don't get it personally), because I need other women to demonstrate to me that this one dick is more important than every other dick? What is the actual benefit of abiding by the One Penis Policy (previously mentioned in this thread) as a woman unless you either have specific fetishes or you're in something like a bi triad?

I like how it's supposed to be implicit that this one dude is capable of sexually satisfying one woman, and also multiple women, let alone being emotionally satisfying, because it's not even mentioned or alluded to at all. Or it just doesn't matter because it's not part of the dude fantasy.

Ok, I get your point more clearly now. I think I've seen far too many people (usually men) use the "top 20%" argument to insist that "generic attractiveness" is overwhelmingly the top choice, basically what is often considered "good on paper". I think Emerald has a point in saying many women do not work this way, and it's pretty obvious that a lot of the people claiming otherwise simply did not grow up interacting with women and girls much, listening to their thought processes, and watching the choices they actually made, etc. It's the insider view instead of the outsider one.

I think I've always been too omnivorous by nature for this to be true, like I've been attracted to both conventionally good-looking people and people who are less so ("unconventionally attractive"), and even people who would be considered straight-up "conventionally ugly" (though often they have some special, unique personality features or talents that shine through in their demeanour and expression). Though in the last case.... no, they are not necessarily successful or recognized by others, if it's assumed to be a status thing. It's the eyes that instantly give it away for me, the presence and who the person is. No, it's not just "confidence" (and all the fake confidence and pretension that comes with that), but there is a sense of a developed, very individual personality of their own making. Like a "gravitas" without the heaviness and seriousness, necessarily. There is also a FEELING quality, like an emotional intensity as well. TBH I see maybe a handful of men I find genuinely compelling every year IRL, if that, if we're just talking about strangers and first glances. Maybe not so coincidentally, in those I have found most attractive, I also get the sense of being looked into my eyes and being seen more as a whole person and for more subtle qualities, not just the packaging. Like they SEE you. For reference, if relevant, apparently I'm considered conventionally attractive (enough for strangers to get super weird about it IRL), and fortunately for me, I can tell who is just looking at the wrapping and sees nothing else.

Right. So... the top 20% thing. Does everyone mean "on paper" (via mainstream or societal standards, like boring shit like simply having money, height, social clout), or something more personal and subjective? Because this really doesn't make sense based on people I've known throughout my life or my own experience. Please, someone explain for me.

How does drinking that much soy milk not give people the farts/ shits, lol. Also: East Asian people would never.

Who would actually pass these hypothetical tests though, like what would be the criteria? I suspect it probably wouldn't leave many people, or it would be an astronomically high bar to clear. What if people are mainly doing it to escape poverty? Is that a mentally sound reason? What if they're neurodivergent? (I suspect quite a few sex workers are...) This could mean anything from "classic mental illness" (and couldn't keep a job even if they wanted to) to "person who is actually happier in this arrangement despite social stigma and judgement, living a more typical lifestyle".

This is so general and completely without context.

When you get too many messages, answering them becomes a part-time or full-time job. You don't even need to have a lot followers for this to be true. Other reasons why people might not answer: They might be going through a rough patch or an emergency of some kind they might be really busy at the moment, and they have trouble keeping track of their messages. it's a lazy, low-effort message. Aka. the person has probably seen too many messages like that already. it's overly invested, upfront, in an overly personal way. It's disconcerting. they literally just don't feel like it. Whatever you want from them, it's not what they want from you. Not everyone is interested in parasocial relationships, period. Just because someone puts themselves out there on social media does not mean that they're interested in having personal relationships and interactions with their audience. >insert other reasons< I learned recently that there's an informal term called PDA (pathological demand avoidance). It's essentially a psychological self-protective mechanism. We all have to chosoe what we priortize after all, whether moreso on purpose or by going with the flow. There is only so much time (and often energy) any one person has. I thought this would be fairly obvious though?