silentnomad23 said:Salvador Dalí might have put it this way: "The only difference between a surrealist and me is that I am a true surrealist."
Existence essentially operates through "data points." What we perceive as non-existence—or that which falls outside our measurable reality—is akin to the void between two positions during a quantum leap. It is entirely possible that something exists within that gap, yet because it remains beyond our ability to record or observe, it effectively doesn't exist for us. Consequently, these "polarities" manifest even at the most subtle levels; a transition from one shade to another isn't actually a continuous movement, given that the very travel of light occurs in discrete jumps.
What constitutes an absolute truth, and what is merely a mental construct we've manufactured for ourselves? It is worth exploring this distinction more broadly. I would argue that the realities of convexity and concavity are fundamental necessities for our very existence. However, the complex structures and various phantasms built upon those foundations exist only because we possess intelligence. It is this intellect that allows us to take those basic physical certainties—and build entirely new worlds and perceptions of reality both on top of them and far beyond them.
It is an undeniable biological reality that the male anatomy is naturally drawn to the feminine silhouette—specifically the curves of breasts and hips. This isn’t some modern social construct or a psychological trick; it is a fundamental truth that has existed since the dawn of time. Why is this the case? Why does a man experience such an primal, instantaneous surge of passion when faced with those specific feminine contours, and why does a woman feel that same pull toward the lean, muscular definition of a man? On a basic level, we can point to the survival of the species as the mechanism that "programmed" these preferences. But if we look deeper, how does this actually manifest in the animal kingdom? Do animals also possess an inherent, instinctual blueprint regarding shape and form? If they didn't, sexual attraction would be entirely indifferent; a creature wouldn't care which member of its species it mated with, regardless of whether their primary drivers were scent, taste, or sound. Furthermore, how does a living being distinguish between different types of drives? How does a creature know that a particular stimulus is signaling a need for food rather than a need for reproduction? There must be a specific "form"—whether that be a visual shape or even a distinct scent profile—that allows the brain to differentiate between hunger and lust. To me, this suggests that a form of consciousness, perhaps even a rudimentary "fantasy" or mental template of what is desirable, exists within the biological coding of animals, even if they lack our high level of self-reflective thought.
Look, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the explanation is actually pretty simple—it’s all about curves. People just lose their minds over anything with curves, regardless of gender. That whole "losing it" thing? It basically short-circuits common sense and lets pure greed take the wheel. Some people are strong enough to keep their heads straight, sure, but most people? Not so much. If someone knows how to weaponize their curves, they can strip anyone of their logic in a heartbeat—and women have absolutely mastered that art. Let’s be real: nobody ever felt an attraction toward something flat and angular. And it’s not like women are attracted to a stack of flat, rectangular hundred-dollar bills—they’re attracted to the things you buy *with* those bills that happen to have curves. Since women generally have more curves than men, they usually end up being the ones stripping men of their sanity—mostly because they know exactly how to satisfy that craving for something soft and rounded once they've got them hooked. At the end of the day, curves are like a drug that both men and women are addicted to, but since women carry more of the supply, they’re the ones walking away with the bigger hit.
So, look—there isn't actually this big distinction between concave and convex relative to the floor. It’s really just about how much padding you're dealing with, whether it's leaning inward or outward. But honestly? In most cases, we're looking at convex. There's just way more volume in those outward curves than there is in the concave ones. Makes sense, right?
We’re talking about nothing more than drugs delivered via patches here. Honestly, since men don't exactly have the same curves as women, their greed isn't nearly as dialed in—they actually have options. It’s the same reason you see more lesbians than gay guys out there. Women are just inherently greedy and dependent on men, who don't even have to go out of their way to mess with a woman's head just to get them hooked on patches—they’ll do that to themselves, driven by nothing but envy and pure greed.
Look, I’m sorry if you’re feeling a little let down because "your" theory just doesn't hold any water. Really.
🤣