As somebody who use to bonk skanks and now has a loving girlfriend, can confirm...

As somebody who use to bonk skanks and now has a loving girlfriend, can confirm. What do the lovers of Veeky Forums think?

it is natural for men like you to crave the validation of their existence and get depressed if they fail to feel relevant, responsible, dutiful.
The best way for a man to cater his need for approval is to serve some woman (and some of her children) through emotional&financial support, which he sees as ''a childish useless submissive woman'' [or whore and he feels betrayed by her]
Men are pleased to contribute to someone else life, to support their family.

Why women are a good way to feel relevant? Because women love to be provided for and each woman will always find a man ready to please her.
[for most men, the best feeling of feeling real is when the girl moans from your cock in her pussy, or for the most impotent, their tongue in the pussy]

THe problem for men is that they are disposable in the eyes of each woman, since all men wish to serve the few women who talk to them.
Men must thus invent several ways to please women, invention and creativity which strengthen their feeling of being worthy, relevant, in touch with reality.
Men are too impotent to find other way to feel real.
Once that the a woman replaces a man by another provider, the man gets very upset and depressed.
THis leads men to think that they are better than women, stronger, smarter and that they must built a life outside women. Some men manage to indeed built an empire, but they will always loose it for some women.
Women give meaning to men and betas, no matter how successful outside women, will always give up everything for some relationship with some woman who claim to fancy them.

Uh... Duh? Do men not get this?

This passage is truthful but hardly insightful.

My neck hurts, you cunt.

Confirm what? That sex is more interesting than working for Kamaswami?
Yes of course sex is better with someone you have feelings for and take time to please in return, who told you otherwise?

...

Siddhartha?

It's a man's world, but it wouldn't be nothing, without a woman. No, but seriously, get out you feminist cuck.

The alpha/beta paradigm. And the fact that it is hard to find a healthy relationship these days.

If you want a healthy relationship with a woman, it starts with seeing women as humans. Food for thought, bless.

Yeah, I know man. Not looking for one seems to go a long way too.

>it starts with seeing women as humans

Literally a vacuous statement.

It's not. Objectivying woman is one of the cancers of the west.

Yep

Let me be difficult.

My thoughts? Some people find their calling in love and lust because it gives direction so easily. Some never find their own independence before puberty kicks in and their biology shouts at them to find someone to lean into. They never question this drive, and it can be disastrous should whatever relationships they form break later in life. I have made my fair share of ham-fisted attempts at romance, but through the necessity of rejection have turned my attentions to finding happiness in my own abilities, and facing my own fears. It gets lonely sometimes, but I wouldn't wish the person I was upon anyone for being a terrible burden. Now, though, those painful experiences give me the benefit of wisdom. Having dealt with my own boatload of issues, I'm either gifted at seeing them in other people, or am incredibly paranoid. Either way, I find very few people attractive, and currently can't imagine what kind of person I could be so totally devoted to.

Bitch pls.

I've been here mate, not a bad space. Usually a prelude to a real relationship that happens spontaniously.

101 logic not found.

You literally said women are objectively human. How can you say you didn't just objectify women right then?

I FUCKING HATE WOMEN AND YOU WOULD ALL BE BETTER OFF BY RENOUNCING THEM AS I HAVE DONE.

WOMEN ARE DRIVEN BY EMOTION AND AREN'T AS ONTOLOGICALLY INSCRIBED INTO THE WORLD AS MEN ARE.

WOMEN CANNOT TRULY BE ETHICAL, THEY CANNOT TRULY LOVE, AND THEY CANNOT TRULY BE LOYAL.

WOMEN ARE NOTHING BUT MERE HOLES; THEY'RE ONLY REDEEMING FEATURE IS THEIR MACKAREL REEKING CUNTS, BUT NOWADAYS THEY ARE ALL DISEASED FROM TAKING HUNDREDS OF COCKS BEFORE THEY'RE 20.

WOMEN ARE NOTHING BUT INSECTS TO ME, AND THEY HAVE NO POWER OVER MY MIND.

THEY ARE INFERIOR. THEY ARE WORTHLESS. THEY ARE WHORES. TAKE THE REDPILL

There's no logic involved at all. Everyone objectifies everyone, men women, and women men. And it doesn't matter.

Confusing the calling of a woman a person objectively with seeing woman as only objects.

Redpill ie. emotional cyanide?

Just because something is beheld as an object does not mean it is viewed as less than it. Don't use semantics to confuse the condescending way in which "objectivying woman" was implied.

>Just because something is beheld as an object does not mean it is viewed as less than it.

It's ironic you should say that, because that is apparently your opinion

>use to

It's like you don't understand how words can have more than one meaning. Learn to identify context.

I do know that words have more than one meaning, but if you're implying that objectifying women is ethically horrible, but women objectifying men is somehow totally fine, you're a hypocritical moron.

Are you implying that the west only does this? Or are you implying this is one of the few things still wrong with the west?

I'm not the guy you're responding to, but my word you're a moron.

>not banging bald frightful-looking broken-down prostitutes
You pussies.

Happy for you man.

Does her butthole smell nice, lad?

Neither, it's however quite prominent in the west.

You can't be helped. I didn't imply any of that.

She's not into butt stuff, but I've never smelled anything displeasing from her.

>Siddhartha
We high-school now.

>I didn't imply any of that.

Then what did you imply?

Nothing. I just stated that treating woman as objects is a thorn in the side of western civilisation.

And it's retarded that you think it is. Because everyone else is an object to everyone.

I didn't read it in highschool, so should I never read or talk about it? Either way, the alchemist is way more highschool tier than siddhartha.

I wish I read Siddhartha on HS...

There's clearly a gap you aren't breaching here. As I said, you can't be helped. Let's just do you a favour and stop right now.

You're clearly a butt hurt feminist who no one objectifies

>quite prominent in the west.

I'd argue it's without a shadow of a doubt the least prominent in the west, even if it does exist

Not even. I believe in the value of individuals, not genders.

You realise how large "the west" is right?

>You realise how large "the west" is right?

Erm... yes it's just as big as "the east"

what's the point even kek

The west as big as the east, wow, you have outdone yourself user.

You know that you are retarded for saying that "the west is breddy big hurr", right?

Dividing the world in half will yield two equal divisions, mastermind. And if you say that "hurr it's not equal since the continents aren't displaced equally" well congratu-fucking-lations you just shot yourself in the foot since the Orient is by far the biggest of the two in size alone.

Aka you are dumb, and we both know you know it

what chrome extension does that

This idiot.

"The west" is pretty much used as a shorthand for, "look, I have no fucking clue about Asia, but in this part of the world...etc, etc"

Ok define the West then? I would argue it's prominent in many parts of the world( west or east). On top of that, we ought to define objectification too now because I'm getting confused.