>tfw too intelligent for gf Is anybody else here too

>>35273285
i can't be bothered to put up with their shit

>>35273285
Maybe. I kinda want a gf, but then I realize I wouldn't know what to do with her, as I don't see much females being interested in the things I spend my time doing.

There is always sex, but I think it would get boring after a while. My sex drive is abnormally low for my age.

I think I need a friend more than anything.

>>35273285
I realized cats are better in every way and sex does not matter

File: 1483754693448.png (26KB, 293x389px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 293x389px

>>35273285
>This brainlette didn't check the catalog.
My intelligent post has been up for 24 minutes. Your brainlette post has no business spreading it's retardation.

>>35273285
No woman is smart enough to satiate the intensity of my high level mind. My brain and thoughts operate on a level of abstraction and purity that even Nietzsche is child's play to the deeply philosophical thoughts which I oft' ponder.

>>35273285
Some women are definetely too intelligent for bf. Having a 130+ IQ as a woman really makes relationships hard, and it has a similar effect on males as being a nice guy has on females.

Most men will say they want to date a "smart" girl, but very few men want to date a "genius" girl that is actually better than them at most things.

Same thing happens to nice guys. Many girls say they want nice guys, but these guys don't get them wet.

File: 1488600847216.jpg (489KB, 2000x1859px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 2000x1859px

>>35273572
>tfw no intelligent 150+ IQ gf
All these brainlet females really get my neurons firing.
Will I ever find a female companion with a thirst for knowledge as intense as mine?
I suppose only time will tell, my fellow intellectuals.

>>35273456
You do not show ownership with "it's." That word can only be used as a contraction for "it is." Instead, in the context of your post, you would convey ownership with the antecedent Go be a brainlet somewhere else; we're busy being too intelligent for happiness.

>>35273572
>girl that is actually better than them at most things.
>implying genius women are better at shit that matters
tip top kek.

File: 1486677834988.jpg (69KB, 562x530px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 562x530px

I'm a full wizard. Dunno nigga I think im just a broken dude with APD and depression and anxiety. Ain't smarter than any trick just feel better alone. I tested high in IQ tests but I drank and smoked those cells away.

>>35273719
>Apostrophe used to imply possessive
> rules swapped for one word.

English is an inefficient language conceived by brainlettes.

>>35273724
There are. Believe it or not, there are 0.001% genius women out there who are better problem solvers, more rational, more realist and more emotionally stable and more grounded all around than most males you could find, traits stereotypically associated with the male half of a relationship.

Basically, not only are they completly infertile drama-wise, they are judgemental and look down on everyone else, including their male partners. This makes it even harder for them to be attracted to males in the first place.

In the very high ranges of IQ (and the very low ranges too), women are scarcer than men, so at least the competition is lower, but the males in these ranges aren't attracted to them either.

Basically, superhuman intelligence isn't favored by natural selection.

>>35273285
>tfw too smart for plebian taste
feels like a lonely island