Guys and girls I've always considered sex to be meaningless,

>>18717443
>the premise
>I've always considered sex to be meaningless,
>As such, I've avoided relationships

The premise is a non-sequitur. I think you're fucking retarded and have no idea what a relationship is about. I also think rather than you avoiding relationships, people have probably have probably avoided you. I don't even know you and just from this one post I think you're a silly cunt.

>>18717465
/thread

>>18717465
It actually makes sense if you read the bit in between.

>>18717509
No, it doesn't.

>>18717509
Yeah it makes sense if you said this
>I actually am normal not special so I want sex
>But im just such a pussy and so afraid of women I cant even admit that to the world
>jesus christ can u guys please help me?

File: 1503599633124.png (669KB, 698x477px) Image search: [Google]

669KB, 698x477px

>>18717465
>The premise is a non-sequitur.
Well sure, if you go subtract the actual antecedent. The main point is, 'I consider commitment and emotional attachment sacred'. The statement regarding sex was nothing but a referential frame.
What you've done is take A; (B -> X) and turn it into A -> X and complain that it doesn't make sense.

>and have no idea what a relationship is about.
Why do you think I'm coming to consult ostensibly experienced people? Regardless, my understanding of what a relationship is 'about' is emotional attachment, connection, agential choice and commitment. I suppose that's 'fucking retarded'

> I also think rather than you avoiding relationships, people have probably have probably avoided you.
Now you're just pulling shit out of your ass. 'Anon doesn't know how relationships work. Let's not hang out with them. For anything. Ever.'
Right.
Furthermore, I can't even remember how many people have shown interest in me over the years. It's in the double digits.

> I don't even know you and just from this one post I think you're a silly cunt.
Why? Because I won't rush blindly into something just because 'everyone else is doing it'? Because I had no inclination towards it? I waited till 20 to have sex too, while my idiot friends got knocked up in high school. I suppose I'm a 'silly cunt' for that too

>>18717649
>Why?
Your "reasoning" if we even want to call it that. Your claim that you whole commitment and emotional attachment as "sacred" and then go on to discuss a relationship in the most cynical way possible, basically wanting to use someone, treat them as disposable and not have a "real" relationship, just something that can entertain you, give you companionship and then discard later when they have served their purpose to you. So basically what you want is a "relationship" with no emotional attachment.

So your entire post is one big contradiction.
You are a total fucking hypocrite and retard.

>>18717443
The bible thumpers are wrong and so are you. Having relationships when you're young helps you find for yourself how you like to be treated and gives you examples of what is normal and what is not OK. You are far more likely to emotionally damage yourself by cutting yourself off from emotional attachments and intimacy for so long.

Stop acting like you're an alien visitor on human culture and just try out a relationship. You aren't poisoning yourself and your future long term partner will be grateful not to have to hold your hand through relationship basics.

>>18717667
>'There is no such thing as different degrees of relationship'
>Literally zero perception of willingness to reevaluate beliefs

The absurdity of your posts are mind-boggling.
Let me spell the OP out in brainlet terms:
Imagine if we were talking about sex:
'Hey guys I was raised to think sex is sacred but everyone seems to be banging and having fun with no issues should I just do it?'
'OMG YOU'RE FUCKING RETARDED AD-HOMINEM -A-PRIORI VENIVIDIPIZZA YOU SAID SEX IS SPECIAL AND THEN CONSIDER HAVING CASUAL SEX YOUR SO DUMB'

The best I can make sense of this is that for some reason, some sentiment in the OP triggered some distaste or sensation of judgment within you, so you lash out with half baked, barely articulated reasoning. You don't even know what you're saying - you're just annoyed and mindlessly spewing rubbish.

Please stop posting.


>>18717689
>Reasonable statements

Thank you

>You are far more likely to emotionally damage yourself by cutting yourself off from emotional attachments and intimacy for so long.
Really? My parents had exactly one relationship (theirs) and they met in their late 20's/early 30's. Same with my grandparents. I see a small number of other cases around me, and in all honesty it seems that by waiting until later life the chances for stability and success are actually *increased*..

>>18717716
>for some reason, some sentiment in the OP triggered some distaste or sensation of judgment within you
"For some reason"?

I explained it thoroughly to you. Maybe your reading comprehension and grasp of rhetoric isn't all you're cracking it up to be.

>Let me spell the OP out in brainlet terms:
>Imagine if we were talking about sex:
So you're going to spell out the OP by imagining it's about something it is? You already said the comment about sex was just to frame the premise and seemed to imply it was largely irrelevant to it when I referenced it in my first post, so which is it? Also your literally >YOU ARE SILLY.jpg line of argument is not impressive.

I'm not spewing rubbish, I'm telling you that your entire mindset is disturbingly cynical and the way you seem to view relationships as a sort of commodity is repugnant. That explains my attitude and why I called you a cunt. But it seems you have a total lack of self awareness so I'm not even surprised you have no idea what I'm talking about. If you lack even the most basic amount of empathy to understand why it's fucked up to waste someone's time and fuck with their emotions by forming a relationship with them already INTENDING to discard them later on then you are a lost cause anyway.

>Please stop posting.
Please stop breathing.

File: b6cd1715b9c49e4dd4d807756480e24d97f59651_hq.gif (2MB, 267x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 267x200px

>>18717742
>So you're going to spell out the OP by imagining it's about something it is?

God. Your inability to process and navigate nuanced discourse actually hurts. It really does. I'm done deconstructing why your statements are incoherent. I told you to stop posting. Save yourself the energy and stop posting.

>>18717769
>>So you're going to spell out the OP by imagining it's about something it is?
Sorry that's a typo. should have said "isn't."

Your inability to actually respond to anything I actually said and opt for instead a summary dismissal was predictable. The fact that you seem to think it takes even a modicum of energy to explain something as obvious as how ridiculous you are is amusing.

Anyway
Already got a reply agreeing with my first post and another telling you you're wrong, just more politely than I did, so if you can't get the picture already, sad for you.