Wouls you say you have those qualities ? or do you looking for something you don't have

sexually dominant
ok with me never initiating sex
<...>
Ideally actively happy with the fact I'm a slut

I am trying to be respectful to others' wishes, but... Am I the only one who feels some contradiction here, @Aella? This feels like very much a scenario of "pick at most two".

@b575 nah, I think there are plenty of dominant slutty men that are chill with (and maybe even excited by) aella also being a slut.

@EliTyre Yep, that would be a pick of two, namely the first and last. I don't think these same people would expect someone they perceive as a slut to not initiate things.

@b575 You sure? I think that there are men like that?

@b575 I think being sexually dominant correlates with being fine with your partner never initiating sex.

@EliTyre I think that, while it correlates in general, the last condition would work against that correlation.

Men who make more than you would suffer an enormous social -- and downstream of that, financial, even if self-employed -- stigma from dating an active prostitute that is publicly cucking him for both business and pleasure, while writing essays about it and being so famous that there's a decent chance his business/professional associates already know who she is. Even if he sincerely enjoys this relationship -- as many men in fact would, it would destroy his life, and men who make even more money than you do do not get there by being the kind of people who do things that would destroy their capability to make more money than you. Also, you'd stop wanting him if he was poor.

Men who want kids and are richer than you and are approximately your age already have them.

If they still want more kids and aren't already with other women (who they will prefer to have those additional kids with) -- they still will not want to have them with someone whose life seems as unstable and unconventional as yours, because that's not a good environment for a kid to grow up in, even if you are otherwise a perfect mother who loves them and provides for them.

You have put yourself in a position where you could not bring yourself to want someone who would want to be with you. The simplest solution is for you to marry a treehouse boy and make him your househusband, but I understand that we want what we want, and you may simply not be attracted to poor men. I do judge you for this, but also to some extent, I sympathize with you. You are a bright and wealthy woman who has made a series of life decisions that were each individually the best thing to do at that time... but, in total, you have made yourself the kind of person who wants a thing that a person like you can never have.

For these reasons, no, it will not happen for you -- unless you are fundamentally incorrect about who will make you happier than Nate did. I hope you are.

@TestProfilePleaseIgnore I sorta understand where you are coming from

However, no you are wrong lol. And I kinda agree with her that she shouldn't date poor men almost categorically

@TestProfilePleaseIgnore

Even if he sincerely enjoys this relationship -- as many men in fact would, it would destroy his life, and men who make even more money than you do do not get there by being the kind of people who do things that would destroy their capability to make more money than you.

Seems like you translate "Is financially successful" to "has high income and will likely continue to have high income in future".

I see financial success differently - more like "has earned financial security, will continue to have financial security in future." Where "financial security" means "does not have to worry very much/at all about future income streams" and after a certain point "has the freedom to do what they want to with their life regardless of how well it pays or doesn't pay".

@equinoxhq well, at a certain level financial success does mean that. However, Aella makes over $1.2 million a year, and she wants someone who makes more than that. Am I wrong in my belief that people at that level generally are actively doing things to make that money?

@TestProfilePleaseIgnore ah, I didn't know her income level. Probably in her age bracket that income level does mean actively earning (would need about $20-25 million in wealth to have that level of passive income). Was picturing a situation where lots of people in her age bracket and peer group, "financially successful" means "could have accumulated a million or two fairly young, given that tech workers make hundreds of thousands per year". At which point they don't have to get money from anyone (a sugar mama or an employer or earnings from company ownership).

Depends what she means by "financially successful", I guess. If that means "has >1 million in annual income, and intends to continue having an income like that into the indefinite future" that's a much tighter constraint than "is sensible and has saved enough that money will never again be a problem". Personally, the amount I live on means "has $1 million in assets that generate capital gains or dividends" is equivalent to "working for money is now optional", which seems like a reasonable definition of "financially successful". Others may define it differently.

@equinoxhq ($1.2 million is more like a bottom floor than a definite figure; anyways, I believe there to be less than 60k -- probably less than 50k -- heterosexual American polyamorous men who make more money than her)

My inference is that wanting someone who makes more money than her isn't really about them having the money, it's about her being attracted to people who are higher status than her. Also, she's said this on twitter, in more or less so many words.

She's been pretty clear on twitter, and said so less strongly than usual here, that "financially successful" = "makes more money than her"

The amount I live on means that having 50k invested makes working for a living semi-optional, but I optimized the FUCK out of my lifestyle to make that happen, so. Her idea of "financially successful" in a man means that she can only really see herself being attracted to someone long-term if they make more money than... every Roman emperor who ever lived? She talks about this on twitter.

@Synz out of curiosity more than anything else... how much do you think Aella makes per year?

@TestProfilePleaseIgnore

She's been pretty clear on twitter, and said so less strongly than usual here, that "financially successful" = "makes more money than her"

Well, if her income level is as you say, and her definition of "financially successful" is anchored to income, then a sane move on her part would be to redefine "financially successful" in such a way as to expand the number of people to whom that description applies, without giving up on it as a thing that is important to her. If it's a status thing, then a similar move can happen - maybe some introspection can lead to a clearer picture of what's important to a good life (the elements of being "high status" that actually matter to her, vs. those that don't) in such a way as to expand the dating pool without actually lowering standards, by better articulating what the standards are and why, and filtering only on things that matter.

"This person has to make more money than me because money = status and making less money than my 1.2 million USD/year = being financially unsuccessful" sounds to me like a viewpoint that will be subject to change upon further reflection, as soon as the constraints start to bite, for anyone who starts out there.

@equinoxhq yeah, so, you would THINK that that was true, but apparently she used to be LESS status conscious and then DID have an introspection about it and became way MORE turned on by status. I think that this is just a case of "the pussy wants what the pussy wants". She can't control that. I'd probably be happier if I was bisexual; I can't control that. This is the human condition.

Anyways, here's a twitter thread where she says these things

https://x.com/Aella_Girl/status/1842481723474575697

she wants a man to be a provider for her, in a sort of... symbolic way, that's divorced from any actual personal sense of scarcity. I think it's more about a sense of self-respect and romanticism and so on? I don't really know how a person could really force themselves to feel otherwise on this

https://x.com/Aella_Girl/status/1850959134100713633

The core thing that she wants IS unachievable, but like... she can't just change what she wants. That's pretty hard to do. And she has a clear time limit on it. She has... 3 years before she hits 35 and geriatric pregnancy starts? I think? Not 100% sure. Not that long. working backwards... 9 months to gestate the kid... 1 year of dating the guy to be sure about him... 6 months of searching before finding the perfect guy because she only gets 1 shot at this, and if she blows her 1 year on the wrong guy, that's fucked... 9 months + 1 year + 6 months = 2 years 3 months... leaving her 9 months to have the extremely convenient revelation that (after apparently dating treehouse boys for years, and concluding from that that she didn't want them after all) she really does enjoy them, and was wrong about her first several personal revelations on this topic?

If it wasn't clear, I find this scenario unlikely!

@TestProfilePleaseIgnore Market close time is 2031. Has she stated somewhere that she wants to have a biological kid with her partner and is unwilling to have a child beyond the age of 35?

@TestProfilePleaseIgnore Hm. I note that her markers of "status" aren't "makes more money than me", or anything to do with money. And also that her requirement per the second thread is that she not have to support the guy, and he's willing to buy her dinner. Doesn't have to be anywhere expensive, she says "I'll take Chipotle, tbh".

The first thread is contrasting the place she grew up, where she internalized the value that you shouldn't care too much about status or success (note: all people in this environment were relatively equal status, and that status was relatively low compared to other communities, so it makes sense that a principle of "don't value things nobody here has and look down on everyone here for not having them" would be widespread) with what she's come to realize, that she does value status a nonzero amount, and fantasy stories with large power differentials are hot. This seems not like, a status obsession or like it carries a huge amount of weight, and not a shallow understanding of status that could be translated as "must make more money than I do". Basically seems... fine? Like another instance of where the things she took in uncritically as a child, she's now questioning or rejecting as an adult? And she's OK with finding status hot, but not like she's gone full celebrity "status is all that matters, I must have a Birkin bag and my boyfriend must drive a Lambo or be an actual prince" or anything.

The second thread is about how her dating history involves letting the internalized aversion to caring about status get her into some situations where she had to support her boyfriends, and finding she didn't like that. Again, seems fine? I'm not exacty sure what a treehouse boy is, but it sounds like it might mean "broke dude"?

I didn't read down through all the comments on each thread to see if she somewhere else expressed different preferences, but I also know what she said about Nate after a breakup and it doesn't seem like the things she cares about there are particularly status-focused. From reading parts of his blog and also something I can't find right now where he describes communications protocols for interacting with him (and also knowing he has worked for a long time in MIRI, trying to sort out AI alignment and inform people about AI existential risks, paid well but based on their budget probably not millions of dollars per year) I am approximately 100% sure Nate is someone who is very focused on doing something important in the world, and very much not focused on successful status competition or optimizing for future cash flows. The fact that she finds him appealing indicates that she's not very status focused, just acknowledges status is something she likes, although she was raised to think that's bad.

Based on what I've read of her writing and Nate's writing, I would be very surprised if she finds making less money than her to be a dealbreaker. What it sounds like might be a dealbreaker is if the person can't take care of himself and occasionally take her out to a standard dinner.

@TestProfilePleaseIgnore ftr I do not now nor have I ever made close to 1.2m a year. Also my highest earning years I had to pay ~50% tax rate

@Aella

> ftr I do not now nor have I ever made close to 1.2m a year.

Huh. I thought you made 100k a year? What did you actually make last year, then?

> Also my highest earning years I had to pay ~50% tax rate

seriously? This country is broken.

@equinoxhq yeah, I dunno, maybe I got her badly wrong. She says that I'm wrong about her income, so maybe I'm wrong about this, too.

Let's... just ask her. She is nothing if not honest.

@Aella -- can you disambiguate who is right and who is wrong between our two interpretations of you, especially vis a vis "does the father of your children have to make more money than you?"

if the father of your children DOESN'T have to make more money than you, could you please specify a minimum income threshold in 2024 dollars, assuming that he lived in the bay area?

@NBAP fertility gets harder and harder after 35. if she is currently 32 now, then in 2031, she will be 39. Given her February birthday and a close date of January 1st, I think it's reasonable to think she means "will I have kids by the time I'm 40?" and rounding. Given that 40 is the bottom of the range for start of menopause, it's reasonable to believe that what she really means is "will I have a kid before that becomes literally physically impossible for me?" -- but the body does start winding that down at 35, not at 40. I do not believe that if she has not accomplished her goal by 35, she will accomplish it by 40. I want good things for her, and am rooting for her to succeed, but she must be realistic about her timeline.

Personally, I think that the easiest sacrifice for her to make is unpair the question of "who will be the biological father of my children?" from "who will be my primary romantic partner?", though I understand that that may be unpalatable for her. Still, I believe that she could sleep with many men who pass an STD screen, a genetics and medical history screen, and so on. There's no reason that she couldn't have a child with very very fit genes, while also returning to Nate or dating whoever else she wanted. If single parenthood seems logistically hard, she can (I had thought?) afford to hire a full-time nanny; I would suggest a recent or even sponsored hispanic immigrant, as they are cheaper than native labor and the kid could grow up bilingual, which has a large number of cognitive benefits.

@TestProfilePleaseIgnore

I dunno, maybe I got her badly wrong.

Here's a summary of this conversation from my perspective:

TPPI: Aella, it's very unlikely you will find someone who is financially successful in terms of making more money than you. You have gotten yourself into a trap which will lead to sadness.

Myron: That isn't what "financially successful" means, necessarily. One can live on passive income from a million bucks.

TPPI: It's what it means to her. She cares a lot about status and links money to status, and makes a ton of money. Also, I optimized my life to live on extremely little, I only need $50,000.

Myron (internal thoughts): That is different from my impression, but it's hard to form an accurate impression of someone online based on reading bits and pieces of their twitter and blog and never actually talking to them, I could be mistaken, this person seems to be very confident. Possibly we have similar attitudes towards money, as I've optimized my life harder than I indicated above, wanted to go with a number that was more mainstream-plausible and mine is in Canadian dollars while theirs are probably USD. But $50,000 USD implies living on $2000 USD or $3,000 CAD at a 4% safe withdrawal rate, and I couldn't do that, so maybe their attitude towards money is super extreme.

Myron (external words): If that's so, a good move would be some introspection and refinement of what matters to her in a partner, so as to widen the dating pool without lowering standards.

TPPI: She did introspect and moved more towards caring about status. Here's some links where she says what I said she said.

Aella, in links: So, I grew up in an environment where everyone was pretty poor and was basically indoctrinated with the belief that caring about status was shameful. I've now swung to the opposite end of the spectrum, where I recognize that status is an OK thing to like and lots of people do. Also, this status consciousness has now moved me to the point where I want someone to buy me dinner at Chipotle instead of having to always pay for them.

Myron (internal thoughts): That is not the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of caring about status! Holy cow. This has actually moved me towards thinking she's less status conscious than I would have guessed if someone asked me to guess, but TPPI thinks it supports the view she'd reject anyone who didn't make millions in income.

End of summary. But the last part, it's analagous to if you (TPPI) had said "I know Aella is a hardcore sadist, and that's going to limit her dating pool, here are links where she says so" and at the links had been:

Aella: So, I was taught as a child that kindness is an extremely important virtue, and any unkindness is a terrible sin. I have since moved to the complete opposite position, where I no longer feel I have to smile at everyone all the time so that they'll get positive vibes off me, I sometimes have a neutral expression. I've learned this is normal and OK, guys! Sometimes I even <sotto voce>frown</sv>.

(exaggerated, but only slightly).

@equinoxhq

> living on $2000 USD or $3,000 CAD at a 4% safe withdrawal rate, and I couldn't do that, so maybe their attitude towards money is super extreme.

Well, I think of 7% as a safe withdrawal rate if you're doing it for a few years, but live somewhat above that... I probably can't do this indefinitely and am actually looking for a job right now... but not very hard, and only after being out of work for years while I tried to build my own business, which didn't work out for me. I live on something more like $12k a year between me and my wife, so... $6k a year? But we actually both have more money than when we started doing this whole semi-retired at 30 thing, because this has been a really good couple of years in the stock market

Also, I did this by living in third world countries, where I lived well above the standard of living of 90% of the locals + somewhat above what I could have achieved in America with similar amounts of effort, so like... I'm not an ascetic, I'm just really flexible on where I live, which lets me do trade-offs that I'm really happy with.

> TUPI thinks it supports the view she'd reject anyone who didn't make millions in income.

there were some other posts that I couldn't find that supported my view more. Twitter's search function is very bad. It is easy to misunderstand what someone means on the internet, and it wouldn't shock me if I was wrong and you were right. Anyways, @Aella herself has already said that I got her income wrong. That should raise all of our priors that I got other things about her wrong. Hopefully, Aella herself will explain what's what, and that will be that.