dear love of mine

french lesbian

[funny-history]

[loversofsappho]

In the four hours I left her unsupervised, my girlfriend has brought home a ukulele. She know uses it every five seconds to compose ridiculous songs informing me of her very drunk decisions. Last one was to sew a tuxedo for my nephew's baptism. For my cat to wear. To a ceremony my cat obviously will not go to.

[loversofsappho]

Le Sénat français vient d'inventer le concept d'"ingérence intérieure".

A la question "sommes-nous en dictature ?", je sais trop bien quoi répondre.

[loversofsappho]

i dont wanna add on to ops jokey post with debate bc thats annoying but u r capable of understanding that your personal opinion of not liking men has no bearing on evolutionary mechanisms right. high quality male partners are like, ones that are healthy, genetically diverse, have access to material resources and social capital. whether hes an absolute menace is irrelevant bc natural selection bc that is not concerned with the emotional wellbeing of the woman, only how many babies an individual has and how good those babies are at surviving and also having babies.

Then I will not bore you with the significant decline of sperm health, nor the nature of the Y chromosome. No need to waste your time either on social phenomenons such as incels, "male loneliness epidemic", and the general loser type that is typically male.

There is no hypergamy when it is seen in relation to males. I rest my case.

Nature law is not "survival of the fittest", as many would like to put it, it is survival of the most mediocre, aka "not bad enough that it would result in extinction".

[meidotan]

the things you bring up in the first paragraph are irrelevant and you contradict yourself. yes, the Y chromosome degrades, but that is something that affects all males, so it is not a discriminating factor. male loneliness epidemic literally proves hypergamy, meaning most males are undesirable to choosy females who are only oriented towards a selection of very high value partners.

in the last paragraph you basically agree with me so i dont really know what youre trying to argue at all. i dont think you know either. good talk lol.

[loversofsappho]

I'll dumb it down then : all males are losers, on the basis that they are biologically parasitic. Hence there is no hypergamy when dating males.

[meidotan]

so we loop around to the original point. your or anyones personal feelings are irrelevant because, as you put it yourself, its just about good enough to not become extinct. a hypergamic selection pattern means the strategy is to seek the best possible partner (even if best possible is still Bad), rather than as many partners as possible (as is the male strategy)

[loversofsappho]

You literally switched your definition of hypergamy because you wanted to be right. You said "high quality partners", and I said that males neither qualify as "high quality" nor "partners".

You don't have to resort to such dishonesty to try to win a debate.

Unless you do.

[meidotan]

'high quality' is determined within the set, as i described in the original ask for males that is qualities such as health, resources, clout. a male whos an insufferable manchild but has no genetic disorders and makes 6 figures is technically 'a high quality' partner. and a partner *in this context* is someone you breed with so really it is women who dont qualify as partners for other women lol

remember, we are not talking about womens subjective experience as that is basically completely irrelevant to any sort of worthwhile analysis. we're talking about breeding patterns.

[loversofsappho]

We have different readings of the idiom, which is perhaps where our misunderstanding comes from.

Male violence, in the proportion it exists today, is in itself a danger to women and children, aka to survival. It is also what has helped them set such a system that they dominate, and renders the "breeding" easier but they keep being a danger to survival, in the terms that I described. As such, they do not qualify as partners, but breeders. In this, perhaps, we agree then.

That is why "high quality" doesn't work. A male who is more violent and stronger than most is not "higher quality", he just has better chances to reproduce.

I will now come back to my premise : in the state of things, there is no hypergamy for women. The male presents a non negligeable threat to her and to her children, as well as other women and other children.

Children need to be taken care of to survive. Men do not offer that by default.

[loversofsappho]

i dont wanna add on to ops jokey post with debate bc thats annoying but u r capable of understanding that your personal opinion of not liking men has no bearing on evolutionary mechanisms right. high quality male partners are like, ones that are healthy, genetically diverse, have access to material resources and social capital. whether hes an absolute menace is irrelevant bc natural selection bc that is not concerned with the emotional wellbeing of the woman, only how many babies an individual has and how good those babies are at surviving and also having babies.

Then I will not bore you with the significant decline of sperm health, nor the nature of the Y chromosome. No need to waste your time either on social phenomenons such as incels, "male loneliness epidemic", and the general loser type that is typically male.

There is no hypergamy when it is seen in relation to males. I rest my case.

Nature law is not "survival of the fittest", as many would like to put it, it is survival of the most mediocre, aka "not bad enough that it would result in extinction".

[meidotan]

the things you bring up in the first paragraph are irrelevant and you contradict yourself. yes, the Y chromosome degrades, but that is something that affects all males, so it is not a discriminating factor. male loneliness epidemic literally proves hypergamy, meaning most males are undesirable to choosy females who are only oriented towards a selection of very high value partners.

in the last paragraph you basically agree with me so i dont really know what youre trying to argue at all. i dont think you know either. good talk lol.

[loversofsappho]

I'll dumb it down then : all males are losers, on the basis that they are biologically parasitic. Hence there is no hypergamy when dating males.

[meidotan]

so we loop around to the original point. your or anyones personal feelings are irrelevant because, as you put it yourself, its just about good enough to not become extinct. a hypergamic selection pattern means the strategy is to seek the best possible partner (even if best possible is still Bad), rather than as many partners as possible (as is the male strategy)

[loversofsappho]

You literally switched your definition of hypergamy because you wanted to be right. You said "high quality partners", and I said that males neither qualify as "high quality" nor "partners".

You don't have to resort to such dishonesty to try to win a debate.

Unless you do.

[loversofsappho]

i dont wanna add on to ops jokey post with debate bc thats annoying but u r capable of understanding that your personal opinion of not liking men has no bearing on evolutionary mechanisms right. high quality male partners are like, ones that are healthy, genetically diverse, have access to material resources and social capital. whether hes an absolute menace is irrelevant bc natural selection bc that is not concerned with the emotional wellbeing of the woman, only how many babies an individual has and how good those babies are at surviving and also having babies.

Then I will not bore you with the significant decline of sperm health, nor the nature of the Y chromosome. No need to waste your time either on social phenomenons such as incels, "male loneliness epidemic", and the general loser type that is typically male.

There is no hypergamy when it is seen in relation to males. I rest my case.

Nature law is not "survival of the fittest", as many would like to put it, it is survival of the most mediocre, aka "not bad enough that it would result in extinction".

[meidotan]

the things you bring up in the first paragraph are irrelevant and you contradict yourself. yes, the Y chromosome degrades, but that is something that affects all males, so it is not a discriminating factor. male loneliness epidemic literally proves hypergamy, meaning most males are undesirable to choosy females who are only oriented towards a selection of very high value partners.

in the last paragraph you basically agree with me so i dont really know what youre trying to argue at all. i dont think you know either. good talk lol.

[loversofsappho]

I'll dumb it down then : all males are losers, on the basis that they are biologically parasitic. Hence there is no hypergamy when dating males.

[loversofsappho]

i dont wanna add on to ops jokey post with debate bc thats annoying but u r capable of understanding that your personal opinion of not liking men has no bearing on evolutionary mechanisms right. high quality male partners are like, ones that are healthy, genetically diverse, have access to material resources and social capital. whether hes an absolute menace is irrelevant bc natural selection bc that is not concerned with the emotional wellbeing of the woman, only how many babies an individual has and how good those babies are at surviving and also having babies.

Then I will not bore you with the significant decline of sperm health, nor the nature of the Y chromosome. No need to waste your time either on social phenomenons such as incels, "male loneliness epidemic", and the general loser type that is typically male.

There is no hypergamy when it is seen in relation to males. I rest my case.

Nature law is not "survival of the fittest", as many would like to put it, it is survival of the most mediocre, aka "not bad enough that it would result in extinction".

[meggriffin24]

Right women are hypergamous but in every culture where polyamory is accepted the man has multiple wives and not the other way around.. Okay

[meidotan]

hypergamy means competing for a limited selection of high quality partners ("dating up"), not having very many partners lmao

[meidotan]

also factually untrue although youre right that polygyny is much more common polyandry has been attested in cultures where land is a scarce resource, for example, tibet

the reverse is more common because generally the limiting resource for reproductive success is female health and pregnancy duration.

[loversofsappho]

"high quality partners" and males are antithetical.

[gnomebutch]

any woman with bf looking for a third with her ugly ass bf is literally like a terrorist to me

[loversofsappho]

I've noticed that your way of expressing yourself often carries a surprisingly condescending tone. I thought it was worth mentioning. Hopefully it's something you'll keep in mind going forward.

I don't give a shit. You probably deserve to be condescended to.

[loversofsappho]

Had an altercation with a male earlier. Once again proving how braindead and violent they are.

He had his dogs unleashed and out of sight in a residential area. They obviously took chase after a cat and almost got it twice before I could stop them. He did not aknowledge any of it and almost went hit me.

[trans-masked]

I mean in this instance when I’m talking about a disease that affects the uterus then yes people with a uterus are going to suffer from it and people without a uterus aren’t? Yall are going to call me a TERF for believing in cervical cancer next

[loversofsappho]

Nobody meaning men. Way to show phallocentism.

[cherrylimeade-l3sbian]

emeleedahla on TikTok

[loversofsappho]

AND men are too stupid to debate anyway.

[svintsovoe]

i think youve said before that you think lesbianism is psychologically or genetically related to not wanting to have kids. am i misinterpreting you?

yes i have, my logic is the following: NATURALLY speaking so without technicalities like ivf or sperm donation or artificial insemination or surrogacy and so on, children are the result of heterosexual intercourse exclusively -> lesbians are wired against heterosexual intercourse, which is unnatural for us -> procreation and pregnancy are unnatural to us, because they are exclusively heterosexual phenomena -> not wanting biological children comes with the female homosexuality.

[freakoutgirl]

"all you ever do is complain" that's not true. I also resent.

[gokusclit]

“Girls w boyfriends aren’t your enemies” I mean I wish that was true but too many women let their bfs take them over like the symbiote So

[radioactivewisdomreactivated]

Although men state pedophilic preferences, their relationships only function when the woman is very much an adult, and takes on most of the heavy lifting and adult responsibilities. Women on the other hand, claim to be repulsed by the idea of pursuing a partner for youth alone, but are consistently “one upping” each other by stating how much mothering they do for an infantile man. Men seek an adult in a child’s body, while women uphold the reverse in their “relationships.” Heterosexuality doesn’t function between equals, especially not psychologically. Both parties put on an elaborate social performance, but behind closed doors, they each embody the exact opposite.