>all the girls who are only into hooking up are chill, laid

>>17755233
>>all the girls who are into long-term relationships are uptight, have no sense of humor, boring as fuck, basically future-trophy wives

but only to their partners, with their lovers they are chill, laid back, funny, cool, have interesting experience and are good company

>>17755233
When you stop being a little boy and become a man you'll see things very differently.

You're right, existence is now totally pointless. Women were all life had to offer.

I'd love 2 artists partnering up, but not any kind of hungry 2 cent artists. The smart entrepreneur types who can manage a large artistic team. The type who can make money out of anything, along with being funny, cool and laidback.
It would be the perfect.

>>17755249
>implying becoming a man means giving up on yourself
>implying there aren't millions of defeated 'men' with beer bellies who hate their wives and themselves because they decided to 'man up' cause the bible told them to

kill yourself

>>17755233
Turns out it's true for guys too.

>>17755233
For one your premise isn't very accurate and beyond that, what's the problem? Hang with the cool chicks, eventually she might want to settle down too.

Why would you want a long-term relationshit now? (Assuming you're in your early/mid twenties)

>>17755259
>The smart entrepreneur types who can manage a large artistic team.
How is that "an artist"? Sounds more like somebody with business sense but not totally oblivious to art.

>>17755310
>Why would you want a long-term relationshit now? (Assuming you're in your early/mid twenties)

Because I don't play your stupid "marriage should be built up to on the corpses of your past relationships" game. I don't waste my youth indulging in stupidities, drink, and song for the sake of getting a skank to suck my dick (which is not difficult btw, I don't understand why you retards celebrate mindless fucking so much like it's the sum total to life on Earth and the biggest challenge a man can ever face down. It's not.)

You can enjoy your herpes and chlamydia, I'll take my """"boring""""" monogamy.

>>17755274
see >>17755324

>>17755324
>"marriage should be built up to on the corpses of your past relationships" game.
More of "marriage should happen between two adults who know themselves" which needs life experience and is pretty unlikely with twenty-something kids. Specially if you're into monogamy, since there are no second chances.

>I don't waste my youth indulging in stupidities, drink, and song for the sake of getting a skank to suck my dick
And where was anywhere implied that THAT is the alternative? Besides, not being an idiot who bangs everything makes STDs a non issue.

You can have good time with quality people without jumping into relationships. Long term fwb and all. And if you don't care about sex, skip the fucking part.

>>17755243

This

>>17755351
>marriage should happen between two adults who know themselves

No adult 'knows themselves' before they get into a marriage. What a New Age hippy claptrap concept. If you think you've garnered enough 'life experience' in the ten years separating twenty from thirty, you are a fool and you shouldn't be marrying a mite at any age. Life experience is a continuous process that we gain in whether or not we have a partner or not.

Marriage should happen between two adults who are smart enough to understand the pressures from living together and sharing finances for thirty+ years.

>is pretty unlikely with twenty-something kids

There are plenty of functional marriages, both historical and otherwise, that started in high school or college years.

>And where was anywhere implied that THAT is the alternative?

Everywhere on this board. This board is devoted to idiot /b/tards and /soc/fags attempting to give their worthless pseudonormie advice to people dumb enough to seek it. Thus, the bar scene and mindless fucking get held over everyone's head ike a religion.

>You can have good time with quality people without jumping into relationships

Why are you even stating this?

durrr durrr you can make friends too you know!

no shit? Guess what: I already have them. FWBs don't last btw.

>>17755351
Not the guy you replied to, I'm OP

>You can have good time with quality people without jumping into relationships. Long term fwb and all.

Why not just call it a relationship then? That sounds the part of the whole dating thing I don't understand the appeal of. Why invest that much time in something that casual that you know is ultimately meaningless? I get the one night lay or someone you bang for a couple of weeks but then there's that iffy "kind of seeing but not really but kind of fucking but not really" phase that everyone seems to be stuck in

Idk that shit just seems exhausting

Can't believe anyone has said it yet but the reason is that cool, interesting and cute girls who just want to hook up can afford to not be overly picky with their fuckbuddies or one night stands.
The cool, interesting girls who want long term relationships have standards that are a lot higher. And are more rarely single.

>>17755379
>Life experience is a continuous process that we gain in whether or not we have a partner or not.
>Marriage should happen between two adults who are smart enough to understand the pressures from living together and sharing finances for thirty+ years.
Obviously and that's usually the case when you reached a certain point of accumulated "life experience", which tend to take longer than early twenties for most people; and which tends to be easier to reach if you had other partners.

>There are plenty of functional marriages, both historical and otherwise, that started in high school or college years.
What do you not understand about the word "likely". Most marriages that go to shit are between inexperienced kids, most inexperienced kids tend to be in their teens and later.

> the bar scene and mindless fucking get held over everyone's head ike a religion.
That's not even the case on /soc/ sans specific threads.

>FWBs don't last btw.
Neither do marriage or life if you want to be pedantic.

>>17755389
>Why not just call it a relationship then?
It's a lot less limiting and people tend to deal with ending such relationships better too.

> Why invest that much time in something that casual that you know is ultimately meaningless?
Because it's not about some nebulous end goal but simply life quality. Investing time into something would somewhat imply not enjoying the time spent with the person ... which kills the entire point. Also if you really work out and want it, one can always turn it into a more classical relationship.

>>17755421
>Obviously and that's usually the case when you reached a certain point of accumulated "life experience", which tend to take longer than early twenties for most people; and which tends to be easier to reach if you had other partners.

1. That is the worst usage of the semicolon I have ever seen in my life. Congratulations.

2. You completely disregarded my point. Fuck you.

>Most marriages that go to shit are between inexperienced kids

Wrong. Most marriages in general are between 30+ year olds... meaning most marriages that fail, the half of those that fail, are primarily older gentlemen. Now, if you wanted to make the case that younger marriages have a higher rate of divorce, you might be able to (though you still have no facts, figures, surveys, or studies to support such an assertion).

In addition, women's fertility caps out at 35. If you're planning on having kids, marrying old isn't an option.

>That's not even the case on /soc/ sans specific threads.

>I browse /soc/ regularly


No further comments necessary, your honor!

>>17755439
1. You're right, that was horrible.
2. Your point sucked even more.

>Now, if you wanted to make the case that younger marriages have a higher rate of divorce, you might be able to
That's pretty basic knowledge so shouldn't need any more proof. That said...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8331027/Couples-who-marry-young-are-most-likely-to-divorce.html
http://www.businessinsider.de/divorce-and-marriage-by-age-charts-2016-2 (got a qt graph)

>I browse /soc/ regularly
Doesn't mean you can actually process the information you encounter objectively. Kinda like the people who say that Yurope is overrun by Muslims even thought they are 5-7% in Germany and France respectively.

>>17755507
>telegraph
>business insider

>implying I'm going to click on your click bait

Link the actual peer-reviewed journal or don't link shit.

>>17755518
>implying both aren't somewhat respectable sources
>implying you need an actual peer reviewed study for something like that

Torygraph got their data from ONS (not that ONS, office for national statistics) and BI stuff is from IPUMS USA (basically census data)

>>17755233

>generalizing
>Stopped reading after the 1st sentence.

File: 6846284865.jpg (13KB, 300x198px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x198px

>>17755233
>>all the girls who are only into hooking up are
physically unattractive

>all the girls who are into long-term relationships
know what they've got and are looking to haggle for a bargain

live for yourself moron