I'm boutta busss, jk. I'm done buying into this fairy tale that casual sex is this boogeyman that that will consume you like its fent or heroin (at least when it comes to men). Guys that do it on the side have literally nothing wrong with them. I got a bunch of friends like that, one of them went through absolutely everything female and is totally content when he's in a committed relationship.I'm in a relationship and we are each other's firsts (well, we still didnt do piv because paranoia). I was a moralfag that waited and it seems it has brought nothing but yearning and frustration. Im away for college mostly and im so fucking frustrated and always wanted to just experience all flavors of women. Staying celibate has been getting to the point of diminishing returns at this point. Im this close from making a tinder account and just getting it out of my system so that I can fucking focus on studying for once.I'm at a loss, advices, experiences, everything is welcome ffs.
>>34403979It's a well known phenomenon how chads once they are done fucking everything with xx chromosomes develop a permanent aversion towards women and stop giving a fuck. They settle for a peaceful mid that doesnt cause headaches and never look back.
>>34403979You arent that guy, you arent going to clean up. You are going to destroy your relationship for a tinder whore that you pulled your hair out trying to generate numerous horrible conversations for. You missed the gold, silver and bronze ages of tinder. Especially if you're in college, just go to a party and say "hi"
>>34403979>Im this close from making a tinder account and just getting it out of my system so that I can fucking focus on studying for once.people often use that phrase, "get it out of your system", but with things like smoking or casual sex i think it's getting it INTO your system, more often than notdon't use the faggy """dating apps""" they're a nightmare
>>34403989>>34403993Ok so what im getting out of this is that instead of dating apps Ishould just try organic hookup? Thats it? Also what was the golden age of tinder and why it passed? I think its still solid outside of the west, or on the outskirts of it where I am.
>>34404007yea you should only use dating apps if you can get laid organically. I mean youll probably regret breaking up with your girlfriend though
>>34404032Getting laid organically sounds fucking tiresome, not sure if i have time for those games in stem.I don't wanna break up thats the shitty part.
>>34404037I tell you that dating apps are generally harder. A college party is probably the easiest way to get laid in all of existence. ALso, dont break up with your girlfriend then. Your brain is just playing tricks on you, because you are in abundance mindset. You have a girlfriend, you have more confidence in yourself, rejection costs nothing because you alreayd have a security blanket it her. Im telling you, youre going to regret it, and getting a new girlfriend wont be easier.
>>34404047>I tell you that dating apps are generally harderhow is that possible though?>security blanketyeah very secure bjs every 50 days>youre going to regret itIf she never finds out will I? did you regret it? everybody talks about this certain regret and I have yet to see it irl.
>>34403979>getting it out of my systemThat isn't how any habit in existence works. Habits are built up through repetition and broken down through abstinence. The problem you have right now is that you've built up the habit mentally. Moving forward with your mental addiction will only turn into a physical addiction. What you need to do is abstain from the mental addiction. Meditate daily on the fact that physical pleasure does not make a person happy or fulfilled. Meditate daily on how irrational your current obsession with self indulgence is, and how much more at peace you'd be if you simply put the desire to rest instead of chasing it.
>>34403979The unsatisfyingpilled answer is that most of these sorts of choices are fairly neutral. People can engage with things in a negative way or positive way and our outcomes are largely determined by our temperaments and ability to process/navigate interpersonal situations. Its like having a beer can be absolutely nothing to one person but to another person it can trigger a lifetime of crippling alcoholism. You're right. There really is no boogeyman. Its just us, making good and bad decisions but being incapable of internalizing it because its much easier to believe that all we are is a collection of influences that force outcomes on us. Casual sex is neither good nor bad. Depending on who you are, what you want, where you are in life and how you process intimacy it can have a huge effect or very little. Again, super unsatisfying answer but its the truth.
>>34404073>If she never finds out will I? did you regret it? everybody talks about this certain regret and I have yet to see it irl.Yea I had the same thoughts as you. I thought I was a stud and my girlfriend was holding me back, and I wanted to hop on tinder and be chad. So one night we got into a drunk argument and I went home and downloaded tinder and realized all the women were disgusting and paled far in comparison to my girlfriend. I felt horrible, the worst feeling I ever felt. Maybe youll feel differently, but thats just me.
>>34404090>>34404096very helpful, thank you gentlemen
>>34404101>paled far in comparison to my girlfriendin terms of personality and morality, of course whores on tinder lose that, but is it physical looks too? Maybe your gf is a bombshell that you shouldve never considered cheating on. As I said, Im not in US or even UK and surrounding area, maybe there is a slampig single mother bias in those places that are in post-tinder era.
Why isn't your gf enough? Sure you can go thru a whore phase but don't drag others into this who want no part in it.
>>34405313We are long distance for the most part and even then she's really bad in bed aside from decent blowjobs I guess. And no pussy inftercourse whatsoever because she is autistic and paranoid.Im also struggling with the fact that I may never end up fucking women of other races and milfs much other than me. The latter especially has been my dream since I was a fucking kid.
>>34405739Not him but the long distance is probably what's creating those desires then. I bet if you guys lived closer she'd get better at intercourse in general and you wouldn't be having these thoughts. You obviously aren't sexually satisfied right now, so if whatever's keeping you with her isn't that strong of a reason or you won't be near her any time soon I would think about leaving.
>>34405794Nah I don't wanna leave as evil and as hypocritical it sounds. Of course, she doesnt deserve to get cheated on but she would also be worse off if I left instead of getting cheated on and never finding out, I feel like. It's just that I can't help with all the baggage and hypersexuality I carried since I was a kid (no i wasnt molested).
>>34405803Main reason I mentioned tinder is because i'm somewhere around chadlite area. Could pull off maybe 8.5/10 rating with the right camera angle and lighting.
>>34403979The idea that casual sex damages your ability to pair bond is 100% pure meme. But it's also less satisfying than being with someone you actually like. So, if you're single and you want to have some casual sex, go for it; but it is absolutely not worth compromising a good relationship to do it. Don't cheat on your girlfriend, and don't break up with her just because you want to fuck someone else - that, you will regret.
>>34405841>The idea that casual sex damages your ability to pair bond is 100% pure memeStats showed that the number of women's premarital sex partners is directly correlated to divorce rates. Don't know about men, I'd be surprised if there's any correlation at all.
>>34405841disagree, the more people you have sex with the less its gonna mean to you. its the most intimate you can be with someone else
>>34403979Why don't you just do it then? You want me to talk you out of it?
>>34406258>retard in advice board doesn't know what advice means
>>34405863I think those statistics are completely misinterpreted since few people understand how to interpret anything.Women who are younger will have fewer divorces, since they are younger. Women who are older will have more divorces, since they are older. Those statistics do not prove causality at all.
>>34406261>thinks /adv/ is about advice
>>34406277>Those statistics do not prove causalityIt's impossible to empirically "prove" causality for such thing, you can only gather as much data that correlates that it might as well be causation.
>>34406350No, that is a layman's take on how science works. Correlation does not imply causation. Without proven causality, the cause could be simply that old people have worse marriages than young people, due to being old as fuck.
>>34406361>that is a layman's take on how science works>old people have worse marriages than young people, due to being old as fuck.>due to being old as fuck.just stay silent
>>34405863>Stats showed that the number of women's premarital sex partners is directly correlated to divorce rates.Yeah, no shit. Of course it is. But that doesn't even BEGIN to imply that the number of partners *causes* divorce. Some people are good at relationships, and some people are shitty at relationships. People who are good at them will generally find the right person to be with early on, make the relationship work, and stay together for the long term. People who are shitty at relationships will have a long string of failed relationships behind them, and their current relationship or marriage will probably fail too, for the same reasons that all of the previous ones did. It's not exactly rocket science to say that a history of relationships going bad is somewhat correlated with a higher chance of the current relationship also going bad. But there is no reason AT ALL to think that there is anything else going on here.
>>34406365>Let's assume a woman gets divorced every 5 years.>A woman who is 20 years old on her first marriage will have a divorce rate of 0%, because she hasn't even reached the age of 25 yet to get her first divorce.>A woman who is 25 years old and had her first divorce and remarried now has a divorce rate of 50%.>A woman who is 30 years old on her third marriage now has a divorce rate of 66%.Just stay silent
>>34406212>disagree, the more people you have sex with the less its gonna mean to you.Disagree if you wish, but you're objectively wrong. I have a body count of 40, but I'm 13 years into a wonderful relationship, and still deeply in love, and the sex is amazing. Sex, and your ability to enjoy it, isn't something that wears out. If it did, then having sex a hundred times with your spouse would damage your ability to pair bond to exactly the same extent that having sex once with a hundred different people does. This is pseudo-science, I'm afraid.
>>34406388youre literally equating having sex with 1 person a 100 times to having sex with 100 people lmfao shut the hell up. Go ahead and tell me how ssris don't fuck up brain chemistry either.
>>34406350>It's impossible to empirically "prove" causality for such thing, you can only gather as much data that correlates that it might as well be causation.Pic related.
>>34406398I see that you're trying to play smart and saying that the "act" itself isnt damaging but nobody's talking about that, you arent getting plowed through a glory hole. Btw F or M?
>>34406398Learn what a reductio ad absurdum is. Then learn what a strawman is. Then get back to us.
>>34406409I knew what that is and im here and youre still a retard. Are you M of F again?
>>34406365>just stay silentThis is what someone says when they know they've lost the argument. >>34406350It would help if you understood how Occam's Razor works. When you have multiple possible explanations for some observed evidence, the explanation you should choose is the one that requires the smallest possible modification to existing theory. Or, to put it another way, if you want to provide evidence that there is a previously unknown phenomenon at work, you have to eliminate ALL possible explanations based on phenomena that we already know about. For example, we observe that the more partners a person has had, the more likely it is that their marriage will end in divorce. One possible explanation for this is what this anon says: >>34406387 That's an explanation that involves only known mechanisms, so it is a BETTER explanation than "having sex damages your ability to pair bond" which depends on the existence of a previously unknown and undocumented mechanism. Now, of course, you could design a study that eliminates that explanation: if you can show what people OF THE SAME AGE are more likely to get divorced if they have a higher number of previous partners, then clearly the age of the person can't explain the results. But it still doesn't prove that previous partners cause divorce, because this is still a viable explanation: >>34406373 - and since that also depends only on known mechanisms, that is also a BETTER explanation of the results than yours. Now, you might able to devise a study that explicitly corrects for "people being naturally good or bad at relationships"; and perhaps such a study has been done; and if it has, I strongly encourage you to post a link to it! I would be very interested to read it. But unless such a study exists, there is *NO* evidence to support your hypothesis, and you really need to internalise that fact.
>>34406429>Are you M of F again?The fact that you even think that matters tells us everything we need to know about your intellectual abilities. But if it makes you feel better, I'm an XY male.
>>34406467This is a very good post, not to mention the fact that most men have watched thousands of women getting fucked on the internet. So to be consistent in their beliefs, one would have to consider that maybe all men have damaged pair bonding due to having simulated experiences with thousands of women. Which may or may not be true, but there is no proof to support this.
>>34406675>one would have to consider that maybe all men have damaged pair bonding due to having simulated experiences with thousands of women.desu we have, unless we abstain for a solid period of time
>>34407270That would indicate that a woman just needs to abstain for a solid period of time and she's as good as new.
>>34407312through deep prayer and repentance, yes
I just got an idea, would snap be better?
