Doesn't it seem wrong to you that we, men, obsess over women

Bump this is an important issue you robos must address.

File: 1487895324854.gif (664KB, 498x342px) Image search: [Google]

664KB, 498x342px

>>35420817
>women who are clearly inferior to us
Not sure what exactly you mean by this. Could you be more specific?

>When I care about women I feel like I'm being swindled by biology.
You're avoiding taking responsibility for your thoughts and actions by writing it off as biological hardwiring. You have the power to care less if you invest enough time and effort to change your perspective.

>I shouldn't care about women, but having a roastie of my own would probably completely turn my life around.
This is not a realistic perspective, and it contributes to you obsessing over women. It's not reasonable to predicate "turning your life around" solely on someone else. You are in control of your life and you shouldn't pray for someone to rescue you in this manner.

Also, you seem to forget there are millions of people who have a partner - exactly what you wish for - and yet are still miserable. Many of them likely shared your outlook, but instead of reflecting on themselves to make themselves happy, they had too much focus outward for someone else to do it.

>it seems like women are unreliable to the point of it being unwise to care so much about how they are and what they do.
This is a ridiculous generalization and sounds to me like a rationalization to help you feel better about not having a girlfriend.

>>35420956

>Not sure what exactly you mean by this. Could you be more specific?

Women are not entertaining or insightful and they don't produce good things. There's nothing about them that makes them worth pursuit except the fact that I'm a man and I like women because that's how sexuality works.

>You're avoiding taking responsibility for your thoughts and actions by writing it off as biological hardwiring.

What would it be except for biological hardwiring?

>This is not a realistic perspective, and it contributes to you obsessing over women. It's not reasonable to predicate "turning your life around"

Why isn't it?

>You are in control of your life and you shouldn't pray for someone to rescue you in this manner.

I'm not praying for a roastie to "rescue me", I'm acknowledging that having a roastie would motivate me control my life in a positive manner. I'm controlling my life now, but I don't see a reason to do anything with it.

>Also, you seem to forget there are millions of people who have a partner - exactly what you wish for - and yet are still miserable. Many of them likely shared your outlook, but instead of reflecting on themselves to make themselves happy, they had too much focus outward for someone else to do it.

Reflection leading to happiness is a meme.

>This is a ridiculous generalization and sounds to me like a rationalization to help you feel better about not having a girlfriend.

It's not a ridiculous generalization at all, people get divorces and break up constantly. People always have relationship issues too.

>>35421010
>Women are not entertaining or insightful and they don't produce good things. There's nothing about them that makes them worth pursuit
This is also a ridiculous generalization.

>What would it be except for biological hardwiring?
Your perspective. All men "care" about women because of the biological hardwiring, but most don't care to the point of obsession because they value other things more.

>having a roastie would motivate me control my life in a positive manner.
Why do you need a partner for that motivation? I understand it would contribute to motivation, but I don't understand why you can't put in the effort without a partner.

Also, putting in the effort to better yourself now will certainly make it easier to get a partner later.

>Reflection leading to happiness is a meme.
Self-reflection doesn't directly lead to happiness, it just helps you zoom out to get a better perspective.

My point was there are millions of people who wanted exactly what you want, put a lot of effort into getting it, and with varying amounts of luck, got exactly what they wanted, but are still miserable because despite getting what they "wanted," they were still miserable because they completely missed the root of their discontent.

>It's not a ridiculous generalization at all, people get divorces and break up constantly. People always have relationship issues too.
Attributing all relationship issues to women being uncaring and selfish is absolutely ridiculous.

>>35420956
NORMIEEEEEEEEEEEE GETTT OUTTTTTTT
GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT
GOD FUCKING DAMN IT THIS IS ORIGINALLLLOL YOU STUPID ROBOT FUCK RRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

File: 1458772392419.jpg (36KB, 480x403px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 480x403px

>>35420817
>having a roastie of my own would probably completely turn my life around
>this is what robots actually believe

File: 1475764602404.gif (1MB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x400px

>>35421228
This is not an argument rebutting anything I said. Please consider my points and offer a thoughtful opinion.

>>35421247
HERE I HAVE A THOUGHTFUL OPINION
FUCK YOU AND YOUR STUPID NORMIE PRETENTIOUSNESS
>OH LOOK AT ME I'M SO SMART LELELEL DO YOU HAVE FACTS TO SUPPORT THAT LELEL THAT'S NOT A REBUTTAL LELEL
JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU'RE NOT IN DEBATING CLASS YOU DUMBASS

>>35421209

>This is also a ridiculous generalization.

It's generally true, so it's not a ridiculous generalization. Almost all great people are men.

>Your perspective. All men "care" about women because of the biological hardwiring, but most don't care to the point of obsession because they value other things more.

Irrelevant.

>Why do you need a partner for that motivation? I understand it would contribute to motivation, but I don't understand why you can't put in the effort without a partner.

If not for a roastie, what would be the goal you're trying to reach?

>My point was there are millions of people who wanted exactly what you want, put a lot of effort into getting it, and with varying amounts of luck, got exactly what they wanted, but are still miserable because despite getting what they "wanted," they were still miserable because they completely missed the root of their discontent.

"Millions of people do X, so that means you're doing it too." Why are you assuming that a roastie can't be the key to a more fulfilling life?

>Attributing all relationship issues to women being uncaring and selfish is absolutely ridiculous.

That isn't what I said retard, I said they're unreliable.

>>35421296
I get that my posts read pretentious, but could you give me specific reasons why you disagree with anything that I said?

>>35421317
>Almost all great people are men.
You can't really cite history to make the argument that most great people were men considering the sexism and gender roles throughout thousands of years.

This is kind of a non-sequitur. There are millions of women that are entertaining and insightful enough for you. The "greatness" of 0.001% is irrelevant.

>>All men "care" about women because of the biological hardwiring, but most don't care to the point of obsession because they value other things more.
>Irrelevant.
How is this irrelevant? You explicitly said you "feel like you're being swindled by biology" and I gave you a clear reason against your claim.

>If not for a roastie, what would be the goal you're trying to reach?
Many people are able to value themselves without having a partner. The value in self-improvement and maintenance are self-evident if you care about yourself.

>I'm acknowledging that having a roastie would motivate me control my life in a positive manner.
Also, I don't know why you're avoiding my other point. A huge flaw in your argument seems to be your belief that the motivation is justified if you HAVE a partner, but the motivation is NOT justified to ACQUIRE a partner.

>"Millions of people do X, so that means you're doing it too." Why are you assuming that a roastie can't be the key to a more fulfilling life?
You completely missed the point. You know there are millions of people with partners who are still unfulfilled. My point of bringing it up is to give you a reason why it's illogical to predicate fulfillment completely on having a partner.

>>Attributing all relationship issues to women being uncaring and selfish is absolutely ridiculous.
>That isn't what I said retard, I said they're unreliable.
Then swap "uncaring and selfish" with "unreliable" and my point is still exactly the same, which you don't seem intelligent enough to understand, much less rebut. Your claim to blame women for all relationship issues is completely ridiculous.

File: Productartwork_Austin_resized.jpg (57KB, 500x354px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x354px

I'm gay, and I just don't 'get' attraction to women.

Most of what I hear about straight relationships is complaints. Men and women not understanding each other. Women getting sad/mad about stuff. A guy missing cues and getting confused about why she is feeling bad.

Don't you want to spend your whole life with your best friend? A dude who understands you? Who doesn't get mad with you over little things, or who if he is sad, will tell you why? Or who won't do things that you can't understand the reasoning behind?

>>35421726
PLEASE be my bf
Oriiig

>>35421650
>sexism and gender roles throughout thousands of years.
Letting someone oppress you and doing nothing about it is still pretty pathetic and women didnt even start feminism it was jewish MEN who did that.

>>35421812
>Letting someone oppress you and doing nothing about it is still pretty pathetic
It's not exactly oppression if it's normalized and accepted. It's a cultural thing. They didn't consider it oppression for thousands of years. Fundamentally, it's similar to how alcohol is legal and weed isn't.

From the perspective of an ex robot who has had women, you are completely correct. After I jack off, I no longer want anything to do with a woman. I know what they offer and it's very little outside of their holes. Though you may not know the feeling of the holes, take comfort in the knowledge that that's pretty much all you're missing out on.

>>35421786
I have one buddy. But you can find gay guys where you are, right?

>>35421918
My village has an unusually high population of gays.

>>35421944
Lucky boy. Download Grindr.

>>35421726
Being gay seems chill af, too bad it isn't a choice otherwise I'd choose it.

>>35421956
I'm not a gay. I just know alot of gays.

>>35420817

You're almost there, Lad. Follow the path. Logic will set you FREE!!! Soon, you will realize that women are trash. We don't need them. We have science! When you show a woman that she has no power over you, she submits. She see's you different. Acts different. Remember that. Hell, go see a bitch right now that you've see treat you someway. Now cut her bullshit. Interupt her. Tell the bitch to stfu. Now see how she responds. That's her. If you failed, then haha you failed nigga, get bitches or have fun waiting 10 years for another one. Faggot

>>35421971
Yeah the only real issue is other people. When you're out and see straight people touching each other and being happy and giggly while you're pretending you're not a couple .

>>35420817
>Doesn't it seem wrong to you that we, men, obsess over women who are clearly inferior to us, or at least not exceptional in their own right?

Don't obsess over things that you don't think are worth it. Define worth for yourself. And try not to be prejudice.

>When I care about women I feel like I'm being swindled by biology.

Well then maybe you are. If you think that you might be being swindled by biology, think to yourself, "Do I love this person? Or am I just enchanted by her roastie figure?" Should be easy enough for you to figure out.

>I shouldn't care about women, but having a roastie of my own would probably completely turn my life around.

"I shouldn't care about people, but if a person cared about me it would make my life super awesome!" Do you see the gaping fucking hole in that statement? Maybe you should get your head out of your ass, retard. No one would even dream of caring about you if you are a self absorbed piece of shit. You also probably have some issues with yourself after reading that statement.

>Beyond that fact, it seems like women are unreliable to the point of it being unwise to care so much about how they are and what they do.

Here we are with you being prejudice again. Why don't you just say "people in general" instead of women because imo that would be more true. If you have issues with people being unreliable maybe you should stop hanging around with pieces of shit. Also if you haven't noticed, there are lots of female figures around you that might seem pretty nice, like maybe a mother, not sure if that's your situation but I'm just throwing things out there. Not all fucking women are bad. For some reason this board is just obsessed with the idea of a fucking woman and so many fucking times over and over they have been given incredibly solid answers and they choose to ignore it.

File: 1476015239703.gif (2MB, 236x224px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 236x224px

>>35422259
>"I shouldn't care about people, but if a person cared about me it would make my life super awesome!" Do you see the gaping fucking hole in that statement?
OP BTFO