if her personality isnt exactly like mine then she can eat the dirt

>>82653685
>However she is very cuddly and will never leave you on her own volition. Her
probably yes if she actually loves me and doesn't just use me
But that's just a fantasy and not possible irl

>>82653685
>She is also infertile
That is a plus
>you won't even get to take her virginity
I didn't get to take my ex's virginity either, don't care.
>Will you? Will you treat her well? Will you love her? Be safe space for her?
Yes to all. Now give.

>>82653685
>Would you a completely useless gf? She can't cook or clean or work in general and is a mess. She is also infertile and not a virgin (let's say, she got kicked out last time). This is included to nail the point about her being useless - you won't even get to take her virginity. She has nothing to offer whatsoever.
>However she is very cuddly and will never leave you on her own volition. Her eyes light up when you come home and she jumps you at the door. She always sleeps holding you tight. And so on.
>Will you? Will you treat her well? Will you love her? Be safe space for her?
You are describing a pet, not a girlfriend.
I could keep her around as a pet and date other women. I really don't wanna die alone I want to have kids so that hammer in the nail of her being INFERTILE is depreciating the final thing she could have been useful for so no, I would rather not take care of a human pet, I want a partner not a parasite.

>>82653685
I've literally dated this girl.

Its pretty chill actually, loved sex and hanging out at home.

There'd be lots of nonoptional anal sex I'd have with her, but I would give her the option to consent or not. Aside from regularly cumming in her butt I guess I'd be nice to her. As long as she doesn't make a mess or disrespect me I won't hit her. I'd eventually grow fond of her. Not love because it's impossible to love a nonvirgin woman. But I'd feed her and stuff.

Yes. I can fix her and turn her into a God fearing, kike hating uberbusinesswoman.

>infertile
Nice, unprotected sex.

>>82653685
yes, i dont care about cooking skills, it would be more fun to cook with her instead of her cooking for me. i dont want a child either

I would take her on as a fucktoy yes, she just has to accept I will fuck other girls as well.

>She has nothing to offer whatsoever
She has bobs and vegana, no?

>>82653685
No I wouldn't at all. Getting so fucking tired of useless women. If I want cuddles I can just pay a whore to do that. I want someone I can talk to. Someone I can do things with. Women who are fucking useless don't even have the ability to have conversations with you. You just end up being their entertainment monkey. These women also often ghost but in your make believe world this isn't going to happen. So I'm with someone who offers nothing to me at all and is an expense and a drain on my life for cuddles and supposedly will never leave me.

>>82653685
Yes to all your questions if she was a virgin.
>not a virgin
No. At best she can just be a fucktoy I use and then dump if I find a virgin.

>>82653685
No, a relationship is a partnership, two people working on life together and what you're describing is a human housepet. If I married an able bodied woman when got in an accident and was rendered this way, then that's a different matter; in sickness and in health and all that, but I would never sign up for this arrangement from the start.

>>82653752
>cuddle with whore
? Seems incredibly self defeating. Why seek intimacy with someone who openly only wants cash

>>82653708
>>82653788

A lot of people have pets and love them unconditionally. But I get its not for you.

>>82653735
She wont leave so you can fuck other girls but that will make her very sad since you could have just fucked her and she will cry all the time.

>>82653740
Yeah sure. And they are free to be used.

>>82653752
> ghost
We aren't talking about edating scam, she will live with you.
You can do things with her but they wont be productive. Something just for the fun of it, sure.

>>82653685
>not a virgin
dropped. sorry not interested.

File: 1344835110859.gif (533 KB, 250x250)

533 KB GIF

>>82653685
>Would you a completely useless gf?
I could use her

>>82653685
>Her eyes light up when you come home and she jumps you at the door. She always sleeps holding you tight. And so on.
That doesn't seem very realistic. Almost no relationship is like this past the first few weeks or months of dating.

>>82653685
If her affection and loyalty are unconditionally guaranteed, i would pamper her, feed her, give her presents and try to make her happy. If she doesn't get the ick that would be amazing.

>>82653880
4-5 years you can keep that

>>82653788
Or I can just find a woman who gives me whay I need and can engage with me. Not everyone in the world wants to take care of a human pet. I want to be able to do things with a person ibam in a relationship with. I want it to be more than shit posting and memes that most of you people are only capable these days.

I'm happy I have found what I am looking for because talking to women like op mentions is utterly abysmal.

>>82653685
Yes. Infertile is a bonus. as she can't add to my problems. I'd fuck her all the time.

What a stupid idea. Noone is that useless unless they are literally, medically retarded. I am a neet myself so I wouldn't mind a mentally ill neet girl as long as she had a good heart and a willingness to learn and put in some decent effort. She doesn't have to be a virgin or a master cook, I am willing to teach her to cook, clean the house etc.

>>82653685
A nice dream but ultimately the answer is no, I would not. I would try to love her and treat her well but under the facade I would only resent her for not being a virgin, an eternal reminder that I will never be anyone's first choice. No, thank you. I would drive myself mad.

>>82653906
you could even take her outside and introduce her to stuff.

A non-virgin woman has about the same amount of use as an onahole

>>82653880
I have experienced that. It's real.

>>82653944
>>82653928
>>82653850
If her loyality is guaranteed, what is the reason for it?

>>82653970
How can anyone love a woman that was getting fucked and hammered by another man, was moaning some other guy's name while she was writhing and squirming beneath him, being used as his cum dump? Seriously, how?

>>82653900
>. I want to be able to do things with a person ibam in a relationship with
I dunno why you read it as if she cant move or talk.
She just cant be useful. But what if she has lots of hobbies and reads a lot and such.

>>82653940
Why is it on us to do that. I was a neet most of my life. I still managed to develop something unique to myself. You are sitting st home all day and can't be assed to do anything. This is what I mean.. at least be curious about the world or something stop fucking doom scrolling and wasting time watching YouTube shorts. You have the whole fucking internet learn you something for fucks sake.

>she's infertile
>oh boy, I get to fuck her raw every night
>hit the 1 in 5000 stray chance of knocking her up
>she wants to keep it because she didn't think it ws possible
>now you're trapped raising a kid in a home where the other parent is also a burden

many such cases anons. don't believe her when she says she's infertile, often she's not as infertile as she's saying. Oh, and if you leave her with the child, the state will be taking the child from her because she is unfit to care for it, so it's up to you to keep up appearances so the state doesn't look into you.

>>82653906
I am not taking it all from this specific example, but lets say she has stuff severe ehlers danlos or cerebral palsy, so her issue of functioning is complex combination of shitton hindrances. Mentally she is sound but cant use it in any ways because her body is so hard to maintain and it takes up most of her energy.

>>82653979
She will do same for you.
I don't see any objective problems here. Unless you are a severe misandrist?

>>82653970
I could never truly love a woman who has laid with another man. That's the reason. I would look at you and see your ex. You go to kiss me and I would think "her ex taught her how to kiss and now she's kissing me" I wouldn't be able to hide the disgust on my face. I would look at you and be reminded that you are with me because someone else didn't want you, not because you want me.
If I were not a virgin I would not place as much importance on it. My entire life I have never been anyone's first choice for anything, as to pertains to love I will die alone before I settle for being someone's second choice.

>>82653986
This is all a hypothetical, so what's written is factual within situation.
>now you're trapped raising a kid in a home where the other parent is also a burden
Unfortunate situation that most parents have to face even when they believed that their partner was a functional adult. Oh boy having a kid changes everything.

>>82654011
I dated a girl with ehler danlos, and it was the bad kind that affected her heart, and she was bedridden a lot of the time, but even she cooked and made an effort to live like a normal person when her condition wasn't making it impossible for her. She also did some kind of bullshit shopify business to make a little money because it is something she could get done around her bedstuck time.

>>82654028
in a real situation, her claim of being infertile is also hypothetical. So is her claim of being unable to work, cook, or clean.

>>82654022
>someone else didn't want you, not because you want me.
Why do those stand in opposite?
You can want many things and not get some of them, but you dont stop wanting those other things.
I am missing a logical link.
Also I am not talking about myself itt, I am just asking what you all think.

> My entire life I have never been anyone's first choice for anything
So if you were a first choice, other burdens would be okay to tolerate? I mean the burden of having a useless partner

>>82653980
Then yes it would be someone I would consider. Most women who fall into the archetype don't even have a fucking hobby and that's the problem.

>>82654030
Illnesses affect everyone differently.
>>82654040
I am not describing "claim" just parametres.

>>82654057
>i'm describing parameters, not claim
but you don't get objective parameters, when you're actually dating someone, you get her claims and you get your own subjective evaluation of those claims. God isn't going to send an angel to tell you that her actual fertility rate is 0.0000000% or if it's 0.0005%

>>82654018
It's not the same. A woman gets penetrated and dominated during sex. She is made "dirty" by sex. That's why men fucking many women is celebrated but women being sluts is seen as bad.
Women are associated with things like purity and cleanliness and imagining your girl having being fucked by other guys just completely shits all over those concepts.
And yes, normal men are grossed out by the idea of other men having sex, most of all with their girl, even if it was in the past.

>>82653685
I don't want to spend most of my life alone and I'm terrified of dying alone. But the person you're describing sounds more like a pet or a child than an adult, this is a person without agency/autonomy. A person that's so functionally useless that they're incapable of doing something as basic as cooking or cleaning and can never work? Might as well date a mentally retarded person. My crippling fear of loneliness doesn't outweigh the burden that would involve taking care of someone that's 100% emotionally and financially dependent on me. Is this was my only alternative to dying alone then maybe dying alone isn't so bad after all.

>>82654049
In her ideal world her ex never kicked her out. There isn't a logical link, I am a crazy person and this is how I think. She's not choosing me because she wants me. She's choosing me because what really wants is no longer available. There's a world of difference between those two things.
The qualities listed in the OP do not make a useless partner but yes, I would devote myself to a "useless" woman if she were devoted to me. I don't see cooking, cleaning, or having a job as important qualities to being a human bean or a loving partner. I think the emotional connection between two people is the most important part of relationships, not the transactional parts.

>>82653685
Yes, only if I love her. I wouldn't consider her useless.

You described a lot of traits but nothing about who she actually is.

That's why I love, who she actually is

>>82654022
It depends who she met first. If she left you for someone else and fuck them then it's over and you'd want nothing to do with her. I can understand that

>>82653685
>However she is very cuddly and will never leave you on her own volition. Her eyes light up when you come home and she jumps you at the door. She always sleeps holding you tight. And so on.
>She has nothing to offer whatsoever.
But she does offer love. Presumably if she does all of this, she loves me at least. Or at least what I can provide. I would want her to be be able to eventually stand on her own two feet if I disappear, at least. I would want her to be okay if she loves or loved me.
>Will you? Will you treat her well? Will you love her? Be safe space for her?
Yes, yes, yes and yes.

>>82654136
Maybe her ideal world is one where she met you first instead.

OP here. The guy she fucked in the past was black btw. Does this change anything for you guys?

>>82653685
This describes my current gf like 90% tho except she was virgin and can at least clean but otherwise too mentally ill to hold down a job and doesnt cook. Well she cooked for me once and there was nothing wrong with it but she hates cooking generally but thats fine cause I like cooking myself. Generally very affectionate but honestly I guess im only with her because the sex is good and shes attractive enough and she will probably kill herself if I dump her so I feel some kind of misplaced responsibility for her. So answer is yes I guess.

>>82654079
>A woman gets penetrated and dominated during sex
She doesnt have to dominated. Dominion expresses the idea that you can force a person to do something they otherwise wouldn't want to do. However, sex can be consensual in its entirety, with both sides eager.
>She is made "dirty" by sex
Kinda wacky concept. Sex creates life and sperm itself normally does not have any germs. So there is nothing turning dirty here.
> That's why men fucking many women is celebrated but women being sluts is seen as bad.
I thought it was about signifying having impulsive personality and lack of ability to bond. Hence why normal people use word slut for women with 5+ bc, not non-virgins.
>>82654136
>In her ideal world her ex never kicked her out.
If she left herself, so she choose him at one point, and then didnt anymore, would it change anything in your perception?

>>82654140
What defines who person really is?

>>82654539
Alright some dude cums in your ass or on your face OP. You don't think that's dirty? You retarded son? Lol.

>>82653685
I would not, I'm not looking for a dependent. Women are trash enough without nerfing them further.

op you are useless already <3 so what you're really asking us is if we'd want to date you :3

>>82654539
The person "is".
That is what is perceived,. As she "is".

>>82654271
It really does feel good to know that this is not true and that he is worth nothing

>>82654539

> Kinda wacky concept. Sex creates life and sperm itself normally does not have any germs. So there is nothing turning dirty here.

the first normal thing i have read on this godforsaken website

>>82653784
No
I was going to post an explanation but >>82653752 encapsulates my thoughts pretty well, I think a lot of you are underestimating how much of a drag it would be.

>>82654612
How do you describe it? I may add some bits

>>82654568
Sperm is supposed to go into vagina though, not on outside surfaces.
I mean extra liquid on skin is kinda inconvenient. But women also excrete liquids like that, yet no one says that a man is dirtied when a woman rubs her pussy juice all over him. Meanwhile pussy juice is just objectively dirtier, its full of microbiota

>>82653685
Yes to all except the virgin part.
I don't mind taking care of a pet neet girl dealing with basically 100% of adult responsibility in the household.
But she has to choose me first. I'm never gonna be someones fallback option because plan A didn't work out.
I have to be your gold medal, your first prize, not the consolidation award.

>>82653970
someones first time is bound to be one of the most influencial core memories in a humans life. a life altering experience.
Even 80yo's probably remember their first time pretty damn clearly.
A core memory that strong is practially bound to appear in the end-of-life memories compilation you see flashing before your eyes on your death bed.
The thought that the person who I considered my soulmate and spend decades of my life together pulled a "Rose from Titanic" on me? (As a grandma on her deathbed, she doesn't think of the man she's been married to for decades and had a family with, she spends her last moments thinking of that one handsome chad she had a 3 day fling with on some cruise ship)
Nah, knowing that would fucking destroy me. Cant do it.
I will either loose my virginity to someone who is also a virgin and we can experience that together, or (at this point more likely, since I'm a mid 20s KHHV posting on /r9k/) I'll just die a virgin.
If I just wanted benis in bagina without all the emotional implications of wanting to share that core memory together with the person you love the most and want to spend your life with, I'd just visit an escort.

>>82654022
This 100%

I'm practically traumatized by school PE-class when teams were selected, I was never once the first one to be picked into a team, always towards the end.
This one time in my life, for this one most important "pick" that matters the most this lifetime, I want to be choosen first or I'm just not gonna participate.
Fuck you and all the popular highschool kids that always get picked first, I'm going to my room and play video games or something instead

>>82654720
>Sperm is supposed to go into vagina though, not on outside surfaces.
I don't think the "dirty" that anon uses implies something actually unhygenic. Or even the presence of any residues at all.
Its a conceptual dirtyness.
Like even if a professional cleaner team put maximum effort into cleaning a public toilet, that toilet bowl is probably more "clean" (less bacteria or detris etc) in a scientific sense than the plates in my kitchen are even fresh from the dishwasher.
Yet still, the thought of having to eat a meal out of the public toilet is kinda repulsive because you still know in the back of your mind that thousands of people shit in it, no matter how well its been cleaned.
Any scientific measurement can tell you this porcellan bowl is as clean as it could be, and there is 0 health risk eathing a meal out of it, my subconcious mind would scream at me thats repulsive and dirty. It is metaphysically dirty.

>>82653685
Yeah, sure. Sounds good to me.

>>82654271
Perhaps, would be a bit sad for her but nothing would change.
>>82654539
>would it change anything in your perception?
No.

>>82654907
>Even 80yo's probably remember their first time pretty damn clearly.
Doesn't even have to be their first time, just their most memorable time. ETERNAL REMINDER: "Rose" from the Titanic thought about the shipboy she fucked on her deathbed, not husband or children.

>>82654907
do you realize IRL is not a movie, it doesn't matter what she thinks on her deathbed

virgins are better partners in general for other reasons, but it isn't everything, you obsess too much with avoiding humiliation even where it is meaningless perhaps because of trauma in your early life

>>82655004
This is such a dumb allistic mind.
Literally just pure emotion not based on anything.
I guess this is why cbt works for normals, because when you start taking their thoughts apart they are just pure bullshit. All my own emotions are grounded in practical experience, so the whole concept of rerationalizing shit seems very dumb.

>>82655373
>it nothing would change.
But why? The complaint here was about being chosen, so if she doesn't choose him as best, then logically the whole concept changes.
I would personally prefer if she was kicked rather than leave herself, because it signifies that she herself stayed loyal and consistent.
But if she left herself then that means she fell to some temptations and is constantly looking out for better options.
>>82654907
>Even 80yo's probably remember their first time pretty damn clearly.
Have you asked?
I doubt that. You all keep parroting around some shit from titanic, but that says nothing about the prevalence of this shit and she didnt remember her loss of virginity, she remembered a situation that was accompanied with extreme trauma and stress. Of course you would remember a person that literally saved your life.
Not ideal, but loss of virginity can be rather mundane. Teenagers often lose it without any understanding of what happened and what it implies. Its not actually life altering, nothing changes. You won't become different person from sex. You can become different from long exposure to certain people, not from sexing them.


Also, how about making some new core memories with a partner?

>>82655556
>Literally just pure emotion not based on anything.
aren't all relationships pure emotion anyways?
Like, if I'm with her based on something tangential, transactional, it would make sense to just abandon the relationship if something better comes along.
I do not want to leave my hypothetical wife even if she gets cancer, even when literally every materialistic rational metric tells me I'd be better off without her.
Because in this hypothetical scenario I love her, pure emotion, and even it is to my detriment, even self destructive, I will never abandon the person I love.
It doesn't need to make sense. There is nothing rational about love.
So the concepts that I idealize in my brain (e.g. "purity") that shape my perception as to why i love someone do not require rational reasoning either, its transcendental.

>non-virgin
Subhuman used goods lovers. "logical/practical" my ass

>>82655388
yes, probably.
Ergo marrying a non-virgin is always a bad desicion

>>82655420
>it doesn't matter what she thinks on her deathbed
Does it matter what she thinks in life?
Would you be okay with a wife that doesn't love you and only sees all interactions with you as transactional, as long as she 100% fulfills all the "wifely duties" to the letter?
Because to me, not just the outcome matters, hell the outcome is fucking secondary to the emotional connection
Isn't this basically what this thread is about, if ppl would want a girl that is practically useless in all aspects except having a great emotional connection?
My answer is yes, I don't care about her being "useless" as long as we actually love each other and share that deep emotional "soulmate"-bond
Except for me, having that shared core memory of one of the most significant experiences a human can have in this lifetime is an integral part of this emotional connection. The ultimate sign of trust and closeness and giving each other their whole being, wanting to spend a lifetime together and raise a family
I would never want to have sex with a person I wouldn't also want to marry and spend the rest of my life with
If someone else thinks differently about that, thats their free choice, all power to them.
But I believe someone who has this view on intimacy is just incompatible with me as a partner

>>82655556
I know my first time with the person I love and value and trust the most in this world, the first time sharing my essence and entire being with someone would be a life altering experience FOR ME. I know I would never forget till the day I die.
Titanic is just a popculture reference tangential to the described core problem, it isn't the blueprint, just an example, possibly even a bad one as you described, but the emotions people try to describe with that example are real.
They are real to me. Like this guy: (>>82654022), I would know. And hence I wouldn't be able to properly pair-bond with that person.

>>82655708
Love is choice.
It is choosing dedication.
Why I choose dedication is grounded in some transaction, sure, but you are doing all the same. You say that
> even self destructive, I will never abandon the person I love,
yet will say that you can't do it because non virginity will cause you humiliation. So you are cutting off self destructiveness here at the root. You are approaching it pretty much rationally in regards to yourself, the irrational one here is your opinion on what is humiliating.
On the other side, I just want a person who is easy to be with and with whom I can share tenderness and trust to not betray me. Those are all questions of practical well being, it's a transaction but not a materialistic one. If they suddenly started to be cruel to me or if they cheated, I would stop loving them in a romantic sense. Sensible? Sensible.

If we are talking about that irrational transcendental love, you wont actually get to choose who you love so all standards are irrelevant, but it is besides the point of this thread. Transcendental is like the love of god, "not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs; it always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres" - It's just incompatible with standards at its core as it is an embodiment of ultimate mercy. And most people won't have it, they do not have it in them, but mundane love is also fine, and will greatly increase your life quality if you choose based on compatibility, not fantasies about some ideal fairies. Purity is not real - the only way it contributes to life is that it is lost and according to some, already at the conception(original sin and shit and honestly they are right because we are all disgusting dirty meatbags). Loyalty and kindness are, they have real physical consequences for people around them.

>>82653685
If I had the money then yes. She wouldn't need to do all of that

>>82655964
>My answer is yes, I don't care about her being "useless" as long as we actually love each other and share that deep emotional "soulmate"-bond
Except for me, having that shared core memory of one of the most significant experiences a human can have in this lifetime is an integral part of this emotional connection. The ultimate sign of trust and closeness and giving each other their whole being, wanting to spend a lifetime together and raise a family
I would never want to have sex with a person I wouldn't also want to marry and spend the rest of my life with
If someone else thinks differently about that, thats their free choice, all power to them.
But I believe someone who has this view on intimacy is just incompatible with me as a partner


I got you. Thank you for your thoughtful contribution. So for you, its is important because you want her to believe the same things about life. Thats valid.

OP you sound like a massive retard and a faggot and you need to KYS.

>>82655556
>off by one
RIP
>The complaint here was about being chosen
It's about being chosen first.

>>82654322
In the trash she goes.

Just so foids know, this is on the same level as fucking dogs.

>>82656194
I see sex with any person worse than sex with a dog.

File: finally.jpg (186 KB, 1209x1800)

186 KB JPG

>>82653685
If I had money that would be perfect.

>>82656596
Get a job. It's perfect to me and I'm poor with a job.

>>82653685
>can't cook or clean
She can learn
>is infertile
For the spirit of your thread I'll accept that conditional, HOWEVER, I have known MULTIPLE women told by their doctor they were infertile for various reasons and they all have children now (they didn't bother using BC (with their husbands) because they were told they were infertile lel).
I'm on the fence about children. I would like them, however I don't think it's in my future right now, so really the choice presented by your hypothetical is "be alone (with no kids) or be with woman (with no kids)".
>isn't a virgin
The closest thing to making me pass. It would bother me a lot. However I'm not one either so I could maybe, MAYBE give it a pass if everything else is perfect, she'll never talk to or see the guy again (nor will I), etc.

>She is cuddly and etc.
Eh. I could go either way on this, however the implication being
>she loves you
doubt. No one else has, why would she.

>>82653970
I'm not going to write (another) dissertation on this, but the tl:dr; is that for humans, most attraction and emotions have a psychological basis. I am quite frankly turned off by it. I look at her and would occasionally think "oh, someone else has fucked her. gross."
I could go on and spout off (true) arguments of marriage success rates, pair bonding, and etc., but the simple fat is it's a turn off no different than obesity, mental illness, alcoholism, smoking, etc.

>>82654018
>I don't see any objective problems here.
Objective? No. Subjective? Yes.
Her writhing under another man means that (you) aren't special. She did it with someone else after all. But there's more to it.
Did she leave him? Did he leave her? Did he die? (Did she die and you're actually dating a zombie? Let's skip that one)
If she left him, why wouldn't she leave you? The sex wasn't enough, she probably told him she loved him too, but she still left. What's keeping her around? Her current feelings? Those obviously changed for the first guy.
Did he leave her? How do you know she wouldn't prefer him over you? "Her feelings changed!" Yeah okay. If he never left her, then you met her, would she leave him for you? No? You're not special enough? I see. If she would have left him for you, how do you know she won't leave you for the next better guy?

>misandrist
>hurr durr you hate women!
It has nothing to do with hate you faggot.
My refusal to date men doesn't make me a misandrist nor does it make me a homophobe. And my refusal to date black women doesn't make me a racist.
I will also refuse to date fat women though I will also admit that one is due to hating fat people.

>>82654539
>>She is made "dirty" by sex
>Kinda wacky concept.
Would it make more sense for you for us to say "imagine if she spent her adolescence servicing the family dog"? After all it's "just sex bro, it doesn't make her dirty". Sure, some people would agree with it, others would find it to be a turn off.
As said, attraction is a psychological thing. Some people are deathly afraid of cockroaches, others work with them for their career or even have them as pets.
There is no objective "truth" to attraction, only what works for whatever individual in question. As such, you can ask questions with the intent of understanding, but no amount of "what about this nuance of the situation?" will get the other person to go "oh wow, I never thought about it like that, I guess her fucking dogs is okay then lol".
I don't even need to get into the microchimerism bit proven to be true or I'll start linking all kinds of scientific journals.

>>82654907
>someones first time is bound to be one of the most influencial core memories in a humans life. a life altering experience.
https://neurosciencenews.com/sexual-experience-desire-20090/?
>First Sexual Experience Influences Women's Future Sexual Desire
Oops I started linking articles again lol.

>>82656194
>>82656381
Sex with a dog can be a fetish thing or a sheer horniness thing. It's not desirable but it's not "that bad" because nothing comes of it. It's an act of only lust.
Sex with another human contains some measure of love, even one night stands. It's a different thing entirely. Not to mention it carries the risk of STDs, of pregnancy, etc., so it means poor risk assessment as well.
Doubly more so for fucking a nigger. It means that she was, however small, willing to entertain the possibility of producing a mulatto. Very gross.

>>82654720
It's not in the description. It's in who she is

>>82657577
Those are the only kind of girls who would ever date Mike OP.
Why would you call him out like that.

Don't worry Mike I'm sure you'll get your mary or molly or elizabeth or whoever you've been posting about for months now like an OCD autist.

>>82658434
Cool, send feet

File: b4e0d577f3c2fdac5d36b4512(...).jpg (100 KB, 697x697)

100 KB JPG

>>82657199
> but no amount of "what about this nuance of the situation?" will get the other person to go "oh wow, I never thought about it like that, I guess her fucking dogs is okay then lol".
Not in the moment but over time I have convinced quite a lot of people to change their opinions on subjects. Besides that I am not even stating much, just asking. So the one you are arguing with in such situation is yourself. If stirs up emotion, you already have seeds of doubt in you.


Also to conclude the thread I want to announce that this was experiment on basis of idea that men can experience unconditional(true) love ( in which it is all about just being there for each other) . As we see here, it is not true for around 75% of male population. Idk about women but seems like their dating propspects are just as soulless as the other way around. Cheers.

>>82658929
I don't know about your example but if there's a way for me and her to grow together and understanding each other better then why wouldn't I concede to her in whatever The issue is if I am in the wrong? Even if I'm not in the wrong why does it matter? She matters more to me than that stuff anyway

>>82653685
What's the point if she isn't a virgin? Why not just fuck a hot chick at that point

>>82653685
Nope. If she's not a virgin she's worthless.

If she's a virgin all can be forgiven.
If she's not a virgin nothig can be forgiven

>>82653685
No. Ive lived with a woman like this. Its horrible. At first you'll appreciate being liked but you be the only provider, youll he working long hours, youll come home to a filthy house, no meals, nothing but a happy face because she sat around snacking and making mess. You cant rely on her for basic tasks and eventually youll be an over worked provider and caregiver, sex wont be good anymore or was never good to begin with, if you get sick youre on your own, injured? Its the same shit.
You think youll be fine with it but you wont, over time youll get sick of her shit. There is REASON she got kicked out. Eventually youll figured out youre better off alone and do the same. Youll pull the leech off and some other idiot will take her in and the cycle repeats. Shes not clinging to you because she loves you, shes hoping that the guilt will make you let her stay nut doesn't know how to ease the pressure to keep the guilt running.

File: For you.png (1.11 MB, 1686x1672)

1.11 MB PNG

I'm not going to be distracted by doubts and insecurities of others.

I choose to trust her overall else

>>82662222
Quad 2222s and I see my post on letter thread was made at 1:23.

Everything's going to be okay and I'm thankful for it

>>82658929
>Also to conclude the thread I want to announce that this was experiment on basis of idea that men can experience unconditional(true) love
Your premise is incorrect from the start.
Men experience unconditional love however it's love that sprouts organically.
Meeting your highschool sweetheart? True love that comes about from shared experiences over time. Office romance with coworker? Same thing. You come to love someone unconditionally, not do so immediately (at least in a romantic sense, not referring to love of thy fellow man here).
As well, the unconditional love having benefits to you does not negate the unconditional aspect of it.

>hey femanons would you love a homeless drug addict who beats you, cheats on you when you're not around and kills your parents so they can bum the inheritance money off you?
>WHAT?!
>womyn can't into tru wuv then ;(

Most retarded post of the night.

>>82662226
You've been sperging about Mario in the letters thread for a year or more now.
By sheer statistical probability you were bound to get digits eventually.

But instead of shitting on you I'll actually give you genuine advice because it also suits my ends:
When you're feeling grateful, feel grateful. Maybe say a quiet or silent thought / prayer of gratitude. Don't post it like some attention starved woman.

>>82662222
0my sentiment exactly china. get fucked

That confirmed for me that it was right to say it out loud and I'll be sure to do that from now on.

>>82653685
Sounds pretty nice
Could I take her anal virginity?

>>82653685
>Would you a completely useless gf? She can't cook or clean or work in general and is a mess.
Ye-
>She is also infertile
No.
>and not a virgin (let's say, she got kicked out last time).
No.

>>82662241
The premise is correct, you are reading wrong things into it. I know that true love comes spontaneously and that is exactly why it has no standards. But people here do have them.
Women get entangled with useless and abusive bums all the time, but that is not even what implied in the OP. The theoretical girl in op is not addicted or abusive, you just can't extract any material good from her.

>>82653880
>That doesn't seem very realistic
It's not suppose to be.

>>82653970
>loyalty is guaranteed
>not a virgin
So not loyal enough to wait for you

>>82654018
My girlfriend sleeps with other men.
But she sleeps with me too if I do enough housechores.
Why would I care if she sleeps with othwr men? I'm no misandrist.

>>82662367
The pure love that started in highschool had standards too.

>Gee Becky. It's our second date, why are you late?
>I was sucking off Jimmy lol. Thanks for waiting.
>Wow that's gross but true love means no standards lol
Would never happen.
Would someone be tolerant of cheating some years in? Maybe sure, once they developed feelings.

But you're asking us to look past all these flaws with no feelings, no love yet. That's what I mean by faulty premise.
>can't extract material good
You also never explained why she can't cook or clean or learn how. Sure not everyone knows at first but is she retarded and beyond learning? If she can learn then bam, extraction queued.
You far underestimate the word "useless".

>>82663026
I probably wouldn't date a non virgin, but to be fair loyalty only starts once you become aware of the person at the very least.
It's plausible she thought she would marry the guy and then he left her or even just died. The only argument possible would be that the loyalty would be to the previous guy forever, rather than not you because previous partner.

>However she is very cuddly and will never leave you on her own volition. Her eyes light up when you come home and she jumps you at the door. She always sleeps holding you tight. And so on.
That's a value I can't get at the moment, or rather, one I had regretfully rejected a few times out of perceived duty. I'd fully embrace her and be able to love her, protecting and cherishing her, so long as we never part

>>82658929
>of idea that men can experience unconditional(true) love
No, but neither can the majority of women. Unconditional love doesn't exist no matter what anybody tells you.

>>82655999
Blah blah blah
Should have stayed a virgin, roastie

>>82663052
Sorry but high schoolers don't experience love. They only play love, and since it is all theatrics to them it is all about superficially cool qualities. They are just testing grounds for adulthood with their sexual shenannigans, and in general are extremely judgemental and unaccepting of other people on deep level. Basically all teenagers are temporary narcissists.

>You also never explained why she can't cook or clean or learn how
She can learn(or knows already) but not actually do it because she doesn't have energy or willpower or whatever. I dunno where you take it that learning means doing.

Is she hot? And also importantly: does she initiate everything? I mean: did she ask anon out first? Is she the one simping you and starting evwry interaction?

IRL, if a hot woman was giving you attention and love, most of these touch starved niggas will fold and love her back.

I wouldn't count on this relationship lasting though. The fact that she isn't a virgin certainly will bother them, and for good reason. A nasty pebble in the shoe of the relationship. But, you know, sometimes the wife cheats on a marriage and they stay married, but of course never again truly happy.

But seeing her put in zero effort will be the killer of the relationship. Unless she is on disability. If you come tired from work, and she spent home all day doing nothing and then you have to cook and clean.
>Oh but she's cuddly!
Being cuddly is easy. And if she actually loved you, she'd work and help out. Unless she was disabled

>>82653685
Uh, I already have a cat.

>>82663063
We dont even want unconditional love

>>82653685
>Would you a completely useless gf? She can't cook or clean or work in general and is a mess. She is also infertile and not a virgin (let's say, she got kicked out last time). This is included to nail the point about her being useless - you won't even get to take her virginity. She has nothing to offer whatsoever.
>However she is very cuddly and will never leave you on her own volition. Her eyes light up when you come home and she jumps you at the door. She always sleeps holding you tight. And so on.
>Will you? Will you treat her well? Will you love her? Be safe space for her?
Yes.

>>82663058
>loyalty only starts once you become aware of the person
This mentality ruined the modern world.
Loyalty should start before you meet the person, it's for your future spouse.
Something something old people plant trees.

But we can explain why is we use logic to build morality.
>Humans don't want a partner who has/or had sex with other people
>they feel its gross, it's less special, and you feel like a cuck
>Therefore, you shouldn't have sex with other people
>Even before meeting your partner


But technicallly it's not cheating!!! Yes, the world gets worse because you technically did nothing wrong even though you totally did

>>82658929
Holy fuck this is proof that femcels are insane.
Oh you won't let me be a leech who puts in no effort? That means you don't actually love me. Let me leech off of your hard work. Oh you have a problem with me not being loyal? If you loved me, you wouldn't care.

If men can't love a woman that actively hurts them on purpose, they don't feel real love.

And since most men don't want to love women to this idiotic degree. That means that women suffer too. Yes, lets forget that men get 0 prospects and 0 love. Men get no love. Women get love, but not to the degree where the guy allows her to be a leech and allows her to be disloyal

being useless is a choice, so nope. i'm not being with a person that wants to be useless just because she feels entitled to someone else's protection. unconditional love my ass.

>>82666389
I agree with you actually, it's just a different perspective on the same stance.
You should have loyalty for your future spouse. But where does that "end"?
I dated a girl for 5 years. We had sex. I thought I was going to marry her. We moved in together even. She broke up with me. It's been another 5 years so I'm okay now but still.
Even if you say "should have married her lol" divorce also exists.

Yes you absolutely should do things while thinking of your future / future spouse in mind, I'm just saying that it isn't always as black white as you make it out to be.

>>82663237
>Sorry but high schoolers don't experience love. They only play
Oh hoh, this is great. So tell me at what point precisely is love possible. 18? College? 25 after brain development is largely done despite most women historically having children before that?

I would say your statements about highschoolers are actually reflective of humans in general, most are not emotionally or intellectually mature even well into adulthood.

>she doesn't have the energy or willpower
She is now reduced to a bedridden humanoid plant then, basically.
Which the overwhelming majority of people both men and women are not. This really isn't helping your hypothetical.
Was she always like this? How did we even meet to start the love process if we can't even interact due to her low energy? No energy to cook means no energy to hike or go on nature walks even.
Did she develop this condition afterwards then?
In which case the "love" developed beforehand and not upon presentation like you're attempting with this hypothetical. Do you see what I mean?
It would have been much better to have attempted the thread with "you fall in love with girl, but then after marriage she developed severe chronic fatigue syndrome". But then you couldn't easily control the "oh also she wasn't a virgin or whatever before meeting" because the important part you were wanting to test would fall apart.