Guys. Do failed normies who have had sex in the past and lost

>>34404163
Married, so basically the same thing, and I can say: Unless they are good at it, like really genuinely good at sex (and its a skill, trust me) then you (and I) are doing fine without it anyways.

why ask the question? will a yes make you feel any better about your situation?

i could describe myself as a failed normie if you wanna be a dick about it. had friends in the past, fucked up big time and now it's been 3 years since ive seen or spoken to them. havent had sex in a while as well.
at first it broke my will to live, but now i feel like i've grown stronger out of the situation
fuck people dude and fuck thinking other people have it better (worse) than you do

At least they now know they are capable of getting those things.

>>34404163
I'm a guy who had sex and a gf then lost it and went full autist incel friendless loser. I'd say I have it better than true robots. Sure no one actually believes me, but at least I know I've succeeded at least once. I'll at least always know I actually had sex before, so I don't feel entirely left out. No matter how much people laugh at me for being a perma-virgin, I'll always know that I'm not actually a virgin at all.

>>34404163
It's said to have been better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all.

We can interpret this as NO

File: supportive-normie.png (119KB, 1519x960px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1519x960px

>>34404163
No they don't, if they were capable of getting some in the past they're still capable of getting some now. Contrary to true robots they have the social skills and stopped purely by choice. Robots never had the choice.
And talking about your heroin example, even if society is a cunt, it is better to be in it than outside whereas it is the contrary for heroin. NORMIES GTFO REEEEE.