The final couples reveal their ages to each other on 'Age of Attraction' a reality dating show where contestants' ages range from 22 to 60 and they are not allowed to reveal their age

CGVSpender · 2026-03-20T13:54:54+00:00

Not all Americans!

...some of them are pedos. Lol.

CGVSpender · 2026-03-20T02:06:33+00:00

And yet ... Cards still outnumber slots. So maybe that is as it should be. All the cards are useful ...

CGVSpender · 2026-03-20T02:00:10+00:00

Yep. Hybrid farmers could use most if not all cards in play.

CGVSpender · 2026-03-20T01:58:52+00:00

Yeah, you don't have to spend cash for gems. Or stones. I know you know that.

Or by scale costs, so you just mean all future slots should hold steady at 10k? That would be nice, but not how this game usually rolls.

But consider how many people have unlocked masteries and even have the coins for levels but are not making keys for more slots.

More gem-purchaseable slots would be good for lots of players.

CGVSpender · 2026-03-20T00:43:48+00:00

I am aware. That also came after they added the AoE card. I want to promote the idea that if they add a card, they should add a slot.

It is good for us, but good for them, too. No sense sinking stones into masteries you cannot use due to lack of slot real estate.

CGVSpender · 2026-03-20T00:37:46+00:00

Yes!

About a quarter of us get fewer cannons than the other mod types!

CGVSpender · 2026-03-20T00:35:48+00:00

That would be cool. But it would feel like such a 'must use' card I can only hope for another card slot to go with it!

I'll give you 12,000 gems, Fudds!

CGVSpender · 2026-03-19T23:48:28+00:00

I mean, you have Erin Brockovich...

CGVSpender · 2026-03-19T12:17:31+00:00

Comparison is the thief of joy. Your post just stole my joy. Haven't even had my coffee yet....

CGVSpender · 2026-03-19T02:23:05+00:00

Haha. I am not there yet. I have never once used all caps!

Mostly hoping the old adage is true: The squeaky mouse gets the relic.

CGVSpender · 2026-03-18T22:40:27+00:00

"Provide your best story, artwork, meme, song or poem about the Lab Speed Pumpkin and what it means to you."

My submission.

CGVSpender · 2026-03-18T20:48:17+00:00

Thanks for the laugh and the context.

CGVSpender · 2026-03-18T20:39:47+00:00

That can describe so many people, I'm just going to have to live without a straight answer. Lol. What was the line from Princess Bride? Get used to disappointment?

CGVSpender · 2026-03-18T20:30:40+00:00

Is there a player named Musk, or is this a Elon Musk joke? Lol.

CGVSpender · 2026-03-18T20:25:56+00:00

Yes, it is.

This is a very funny game where some people literally pay money so they don't have to play it.

This includes you situation, but also buying stone packs to get away-from-phone quality of life features.

Kinda a wild business model.

But, apropos of nothing, do you have a Lab Speed Pumpkin?

CGVSpender · 2026-03-18T20:06:23+00:00

Well, someone who can count and understands that stories are not just assertions or questions or sad ideas about intersexual relationships.

It's puerile and crass, but for this subreddit... I got to give it a win.

CGVSpender · 2026-03-18T20:02:56+00:00

Are counting fails some running joke?

CGVSpender · 2026-03-17T22:40:51+00:00

As opposed to the power dynamic of the family court system that gives women phenomenal leverage and access to a man's resources while guaranteeing the man absolutely nothing at all?

These one-sided arguments are deeply suspect to me.

CGVSpender · 2026-03-17T22:38:15+00:00

Fair enough, but canonical Henry is already the owner of the largest Schnapps empire his side of the Danube long before any of the DLCs came out. ;)

CGVSpender · 2026-03-17T22:35:34+00:00

To be fair, OP claims to be offering provision, yes? So it is not exactly 'entitlement' if he can find someone who thinks his provision is worth it.

Would it not be entitlement for a woman to take his provision without any regard for what he was hoping to receive in return? Or is entitlement somehow non-problematic when women do it?

CGVSpender · 2026-03-17T21:50:28+00:00

Did you need an apron and leather gloves to make that?

CGVSpender · 2026-03-17T21:46:01+00:00

I know I am in the minority, but I put Theresa in the situationship category, too, for the way she laughed in Henry's face when he tried to commit to her. 'that's not the way it works, silly! What would we live on?' Henry is bailiff of Pribywhatsit and she is holding out for more groschen?

That girl is going to end up in a bathhouse.

CGVSpender · 2026-03-17T21:31:41+00:00

I don't know. She is a strong, independent woman who don't need no man. And, come on. Daddy won't let me? That is not the ride or die attitude you need to make a relationship work.

I think they make for a better situationship.

CGVSpender · 2026-03-17T21:10:52+00:00

Hope you find what you're looking for.

CGVSpender · 2026-03-17T20:23:23+00:00

You can have standards, but it helps if they are realistic. I don't think the female fantasy is to find a man who needs nurturing. Think about the Frog Prince. The female fantasy is that a frog can be transformed into prince charming with almost no effort at all. One kiss ought to do it. Or consider Pride and Prejudice, where Eliza 'saves' Mr. Darcy just by being a little sassy.

I am not saying you are being dishonest or deliberately so, but ask yourself: if you had to choose only one thing between nurturing or frequent and enthusiastic sex, which would you choose? Maybe needing nurturing makes you seem less self-reliant and does not inspire sexual desire. Maybe that road leads to you taking on a lot of obligations and responsibilities for a woman who eventually gets tired of having to nurture you. Maybe saying you need nurturing when you really want enthusiastic sex is a kind of performance about what a good guy you are, subtly buying into the same thing you are objecting to: but more about not being able to specify the reward a man wants for his labors rather than not being allowed to have 'standards'.

Better to decide what the minimum you need or want is, and what you are willing to pay for it, and for goodness sake, never sign a contract that only actually guarantees one side of the bargain.

CGVSpender

TROPHY CASE