I think both parts are the same issue: it's not unusual for women to be attracted to physically strong men, and it's not unusual for women to be attracted to rich and influential men. The idea that a woman in her position—with her dating pool of rich, influential finance figures—might like to see herself as being as high enough up on the chain as to be fucking around with "the men who control 'most major world governments'" isn't entirely surprising to me.
What is unusual is for anyone to phrase it as bluntly as she has. The other part is that most women (and you can explain this cynically or optimistically) aren't so openly mercenary as to leave their long-term partner the second a marginally better option comes along. From everything I've heard about this woman, I suspect that she is. Which may be connected to how nakedly she phrases her "type" as a calculus of strength and influence.
Indeed, and that's more or less what I was thinking in the back of my mind, given what we know about the circles she was in. The bluntness is definitely what makes it so odd and surprising though.
Yeah, lol. Probably very few women want to be the dominant one and even the ones who say they want to dominate actually really want to be dominated back.
Isn't that just most men, for most women? Unless the "you" is specific, which would be weird and kind of funny.
Dunno, have you seen a lot of these ultra low T zoomer guys? Bet she could chew through their sticks-for-arms with her beaver teeth with ease.
Yes, that part was pretty typical, it's the 2nd half that I bolded which was rather weird.
I think both parts are the same issue: it's not unusual for women to be attracted to physically strong men, and it's not unusual for women to be attracted to rich and influential men. The idea that a woman in her position—with her dating pool of rich, influential finance figures—might like to see herself as being as high enough up on the chain as to be fucking around with "the men who control 'most major world governments'" isn't entirely surprising to me.
What is unusual is for anyone to phrase it as bluntly as she has. The other part is that most women (and you can explain this cynically or optimistically) aren't so openly mercenary as to leave their long-term partner the second a marginally better option comes along. From everything I've heard about this woman, I suspect that she is. Which may be connected to how nakedly she phrases her "type" as a calculus of strength and influence.
Indeed, and that's more or less what I was thinking in the back of my mind, given what we know about the circles she was in. The bluntness is definitely what makes it so odd and surprising though.
Yeah, lol. Probably very few women want to be the dominant one and even the ones who say they want to dominate actually really want to be dominated back.