Repeating myself here, but just because you seem to struggle with an absolute and universal fact, because you project yourself personally into a, as you weirdly stated, doesn’t make it less valid.
And why do keep sticking to rape. It’s one of many possibilities to get laid. By money, by time and effort, by accident, luck or even forced means.
Just because YOU couldn’t AND also live in some theocratic hellhole where one couldn’t even buy it, doesn’t mean the guy next door couldn’t. Or the majority of the world.
Some rare exceptions where multiple points combine to a negative, does not invalidate a general rule. The larger part of a bell-curve sure can, in whatever way. Easier for some, harder for others, but possible. Otherwise I would wonder why earth is so crowded with us humans.
Finding real romantic love though. Can’t buy it. And it’s also that one single thing that gets worse the more money you have. Be rich, end up alone. Or fake being poor until you do.
Also, for the vast majority of the world, this commodity is ultimately harder to find.
BTW, here health insurance even pays for a hooker for disabled people, should they be unable otherwise to find sex. Regularly. At it is a mental health issue. And there are even specially hired prostitutes of both sexes just for that. And if you’re too poor, then state pays for insurance and still get the hookers.
So not even poor, ugly, disabled and being tiny would stop you. Love though, probably chances converge to zero.
You are absurdly cynical about the non existence of love. Most of us don’t have to pretend to be “poor enough” to find love, nor do we have the kind of funding to purchase sex “wherever and whenever” we feel like it. You talk like you’re wealthy and handsome like Brad Pitt that you think of women as golddiggers because they’re throwing themselves at you, and you’re so fucking PRIVILEGED that you don’t even believe that the vast majority of the rest of us don’t live like you when we tell you.
Most of us have roughly the same number of sexual partners as we find people who love us, because that’s how it works for ordinary men.
Most of us don’t have to worry about random women “of course she’ll have sex with me, but is she just after me for my looks or my money?”
We are not the same, and most people don’t live like you at all. You’re just wrong.
And yet again you talk about you and me, while I simply made a point about the rarity of two commoditites compared.
It doesn’t matter at all if I’m “brad Pitt” or not. It alters my personal abilities and won’t change the point.
And you still totally fail to grasp the point at all. Having the options to find sex “whenever and whereever” doesn’t mean you get laid three times day. You COULD be laid. Or maybe not you because your country hates humans, but that is the exception in civilized worlds.
Given enough money you probably also could, as laws are made for the poor.
Also I never ever said love is non-existant. It’s just nowhere being easier to find than sex as there is no option to buy or otherwise squire it without the other person actually feeling the same. Two people feeling the same for each other is ultimately more rare then two people just finding each other attractive enough to fuck.
It’s so simple. From love, sex will most likely always follow. From sex, love COULD follow.
You can dance around my or your personal ability likeever you want, it doesn’t change the facts.
Just because logical arguments don’t fit into your personal experience, won’t change them.
Try visiting some of our train stations. You’ll have to actually fight off people offering you a blowjob for 5 bucks. Even broke as fuck you could afford that. If one would be inclined to exploit drug junkies.
For you, sex is freely available, wherever and whenever you want, money isn’t a problem, and you can just spend a little time on tinder and get some, but love and affection evades you because you’re unable to trust, worried that it’s your wealth or body rather than you as a person that they want. You are in the top quarter of the sex wealth. You don’t even realise it’s unusual.
For me, love and affection is freely available. My family love me, parents, siblings, wife, children, niblings. My friends and some colleagues freely offer affection and if I want a hug, I can get one, wherever and whenever. I’m rarely more than walking distance from someone who would gladly greet me with a hug. But for me, if I’m away from my bed, or my wife is unwell, or not really feeling like it, sex isn’t happening for me. So with me having a slightly higher libido than my wife, no, I don’t get sex wherever and whenever I want.
You can lecture me all you like about a blowjob on the tube from a junkie or a visit to a theoretical brothel or turning me into a rapist, but they aren’t the sex I want, and certainly aren’t worth jeopardizing my marriage over. If I had the kind of level of interest in sex with me that you get from attractive women, maybe I would be more tempted to give up on the love I share with my wife, so I can’t claim to be virtuous, precisely because the opportunities you passionately believe I have or should have don’t actually exist.
One romantic partner, one sexual partner. That’s my world. Yours is one romantic partner, many sexual partners. You think my world is abnormal and your world is normal, and we disagree about that. We are not the same.
Maybe your life would be more full of love and affection if you spent more time on pouring out love and affection to others and less time getting as much sex as you like, but maybe women find you just as hard to trust that you wouldn’t go off for sex with someone else at any time, in any place, because of all that wealth and sexiness as you find it to trust them that they love you for you and not all that wealth and sexiness.
I really do like my life and love my family, and I wouldn’t trade, despite all the money and sex you appear to have. But it’s hard to feel terribly sorry for you, partly because of all the money and sex you have thrown freely at you, but mainly because you’ve been so unwilling to hear my perspective. Frankly, if you’re this dismissive with your romantic partners, I begin to see why love is so desperately elusive for you that you described the chances as vanishingly small.
If you really do want love and affection, work on the listening skills and the empathy thing, remembering that no one can hear “I love and value you as you are” at the same time as “you are factually incorrect about your life and completely wrong about how the world works”. Also women can’t offer you the love you seem to crave if it’s eating away at them that you seem to never fully trust in them.
I’m getting tired of just repeating my points over and over, if you just want me to acknowledge our life is different. I also probably like different colors that you do. Great. That’s settled. This is of such marginal importance to my initial point.
Maybe you struggle with abstractions and logic or I just have to accept that my point is invalid because your life isn’t like mine. If that makes you happy, so be it.
I truly wish you’d find romantic love and also get laid.
you just want me to acknowledge our life is different.
At last.
This is of such marginal importance to my initial point.
Maybe you could have admitted its nonuniversality a couple of days ago, or added an “in my experience” or “I find that” or two, instead of contradicting people trying to explain the world outside your bubble to you.
Maybe you struggle with abstractions and logic
Ad hominem isn’t a strong debating tactic in my view. I never respected people who need to devalue others to try to make themselves look good. In addition, I think that refusing to accept that your experience might be non-universal doesn’t put you in the “observant and insightful” category. Your overgeneralisation was neither abstract nor logical, and in particular, the existence of illegal or extreme methods to obtain something doesn’t indicate its universal availability as strongly as you seem to think.
I just have to accept that my point is invalid because your life isn’t like mine. If that makes you happy, so be it.
Thanks.
But I’m just an example and I’m not unusual, you are.
I truly wish you’d find romantic love
Either your reading comprehension isn’t up to your implied claims to greater intelligence or you’re playing the ad hominem again.
and also get laid.
Slightly higher frequency would be nice, but I shan’t be approaching any druggies for any blowjobs nor raping anyone as you suggested. Instead, watching a romcom together under a blanket whilst playing with my wife’s hair often but not always works to get her in the right mood. It’s not particularly quick nor 100% reliable, nor is it something I’m going to do every night, but it’s very pleasant indeed.
Before you suggest it, I don’t see the existence of rohypnol (however you spell it, I’ll not google that) as evidence that I can increase the frequency!
Ad hominem isn’t a strong debating tactic in my view
No ad hominem, just an obvious observation you demonstrated solidly again with that reply.
And if you really took that ad hominem, then so were lots of assumptions about my “lavish rich fancy lifestyle” or “one romantic, many sexual partners”. I didn’t bring me, personally, at all into this argument.
or you’re playing the ad hominem again.
Nope, I wouldn’t know you enough to form a dislike to attack you personally, just because I am out of actual arguments. It was honestly meant. Why should I wish you being romantically ignored by life.
Despite that, I would now repeat my same points again, only for them to get ignored, and I really don’t like that. I drown in sparetime but it’s still too precious to waste it on a lost cause. No offense meant, it’s just fruitless to continue this.
Repeating myself here, but just because you seem to struggle with an absolute and universal fact, because you project yourself personally into a, as you weirdly stated, doesn’t make it less valid.
And why do keep sticking to rape. It’s one of many possibilities to get laid. By money, by time and effort, by accident, luck or even forced means. Just because YOU couldn’t AND also live in some theocratic hellhole where one couldn’t even buy it, doesn’t mean the guy next door couldn’t. Or the majority of the world. Some rare exceptions where multiple points combine to a negative, does not invalidate a general rule. The larger part of a bell-curve sure can, in whatever way. Easier for some, harder for others, but possible. Otherwise I would wonder why earth is so crowded with us humans.
Finding real romantic love though. Can’t buy it. And it’s also that one single thing that gets worse the more money you have. Be rich, end up alone. Or fake being poor until you do. Also, for the vast majority of the world, this commodity is ultimately harder to find.
BTW, here health insurance even pays for a hooker for disabled people, should they be unable otherwise to find sex. Regularly. At it is a mental health issue. And there are even specially hired prostitutes of both sexes just for that. And if you’re too poor, then state pays for insurance and still get the hookers. So not even poor, ugly, disabled and being tiny would stop you. Love though, probably chances converge to zero.
You are absurdly cynical about the non existence of love. Most of us don’t have to pretend to be “poor enough” to find love, nor do we have the kind of funding to purchase sex “wherever and whenever” we feel like it. You talk like you’re wealthy and handsome like Brad Pitt that you think of women as golddiggers because they’re throwing themselves at you, and you’re so fucking PRIVILEGED that you don’t even believe that the vast majority of the rest of us don’t live like you when we tell you.
Most of us have roughly the same number of sexual partners as we find people who love us, because that’s how it works for ordinary men.
Most of us don’t have to worry about random women “of course she’ll have sex with me, but is she just after me for my looks or my money?”
We are not the same, and most people don’t live like you at all. You’re just wrong.
And yet again you talk about you and me, while I simply made a point about the rarity of two commoditites compared. It doesn’t matter at all if I’m “brad Pitt” or not. It alters my personal abilities and won’t change the point. And you still totally fail to grasp the point at all. Having the options to find sex “whenever and whereever” doesn’t mean you get laid three times day. You COULD be laid. Or maybe not you because your country hates humans, but that is the exception in civilized worlds. Given enough money you probably also could, as laws are made for the poor.
Also I never ever said love is non-existant. It’s just nowhere being easier to find than sex as there is no option to buy or otherwise squire it without the other person actually feeling the same. Two people feeling the same for each other is ultimately more rare then two people just finding each other attractive enough to fuck.
It’s so simple. From love, sex will most likely always follow. From sex, love COULD follow.
You can dance around my or your personal ability likeever you want, it doesn’t change the facts. Just because logical arguments don’t fit into your personal experience, won’t change them.
Try visiting some of our train stations. You’ll have to actually fight off people offering you a blowjob for 5 bucks. Even broke as fuck you could afford that. If one would be inclined to exploit drug junkies.
For you, sex is freely available, wherever and whenever you want, money isn’t a problem, and you can just spend a little time on tinder and get some, but love and affection evades you because you’re unable to trust, worried that it’s your wealth or body rather than you as a person that they want. You are in the top quarter of the sex wealth. You don’t even realise it’s unusual.
For me, love and affection is freely available. My family love me, parents, siblings, wife, children, niblings. My friends and some colleagues freely offer affection and if I want a hug, I can get one, wherever and whenever. I’m rarely more than walking distance from someone who would gladly greet me with a hug. But for me, if I’m away from my bed, or my wife is unwell, or not really feeling like it, sex isn’t happening for me. So with me having a slightly higher libido than my wife, no, I don’t get sex wherever and whenever I want.
You can lecture me all you like about a blowjob on the tube from a junkie or a visit to a theoretical brothel or turning me into a rapist, but they aren’t the sex I want, and certainly aren’t worth jeopardizing my marriage over. If I had the kind of level of interest in sex with me that you get from attractive women, maybe I would be more tempted to give up on the love I share with my wife, so I can’t claim to be virtuous, precisely because the opportunities you passionately believe I have or should have don’t actually exist.
One romantic partner, one sexual partner. That’s my world. Yours is one romantic partner, many sexual partners. You think my world is abnormal and your world is normal, and we disagree about that. We are not the same.
Maybe your life would be more full of love and affection if you spent more time on pouring out love and affection to others and less time getting as much sex as you like, but maybe women find you just as hard to trust that you wouldn’t go off for sex with someone else at any time, in any place, because of all that wealth and sexiness as you find it to trust them that they love you for you and not all that wealth and sexiness.
I really do like my life and love my family, and I wouldn’t trade, despite all the money and sex you appear to have. But it’s hard to feel terribly sorry for you, partly because of all the money and sex you have thrown freely at you, but mainly because you’ve been so unwilling to hear my perspective. Frankly, if you’re this dismissive with your romantic partners, I begin to see why love is so desperately elusive for you that you described the chances as vanishingly small.
If you really do want love and affection, work on the listening skills and the empathy thing, remembering that no one can hear “I love and value you as you are” at the same time as “you are factually incorrect about your life and completely wrong about how the world works”. Also women can’t offer you the love you seem to crave if it’s eating away at them that you seem to never fully trust in them.
I’m getting tired of just repeating my points over and over, if you just want me to acknowledge our life is different. I also probably like different colors that you do. Great. That’s settled. This is of such marginal importance to my initial point.
Maybe you struggle with abstractions and logic or I just have to accept that my point is invalid because your life isn’t like mine. If that makes you happy, so be it.
I truly wish you’d find romantic love and also get laid.
At last.
Maybe you could have admitted its nonuniversality a couple of days ago, or added an “in my experience” or “I find that” or two, instead of contradicting people trying to explain the world outside your bubble to you.
Ad hominem isn’t a strong debating tactic in my view. I never respected people who need to devalue others to try to make themselves look good. In addition, I think that refusing to accept that your experience might be non-universal doesn’t put you in the “observant and insightful” category. Your overgeneralisation was neither abstract nor logical, and in particular, the existence of illegal or extreme methods to obtain something doesn’t indicate its universal availability as strongly as you seem to think.
Thanks.
But I’m just an example and I’m not unusual, you are.
Either your reading comprehension isn’t up to your implied claims to greater intelligence or you’re playing the ad hominem again.
Slightly higher frequency would be nice, but I shan’t be approaching any druggies for any blowjobs nor raping anyone as you suggested. Instead, watching a romcom together under a blanket whilst playing with my wife’s hair often but not always works to get her in the right mood. It’s not particularly quick nor 100% reliable, nor is it something I’m going to do every night, but it’s very pleasant indeed.
Before you suggest it, I don’t see the existence of rohypnol (however you spell it, I’ll not google that) as evidence that I can increase the frequency!
No ad hominem, just an obvious observation you demonstrated solidly again with that reply. And if you really took that ad hominem, then so were lots of assumptions about my “lavish rich fancy lifestyle” or “one romantic, many sexual partners”. I didn’t bring me, personally, at all into this argument.
Nope, I wouldn’t know you enough to form a dislike to attack you personally, just because I am out of actual arguments. It was honestly meant. Why should I wish you being romantically ignored by life.
Despite that, I would now repeat my same points again, only for them to get ignored, and I really don’t like that. I drown in sparetime but it’s still too precious to waste it on a lost cause. No offense meant, it’s just fruitless to continue this.