Another day ticks off my lifespan, and I am no closer to getting a girlfriend than I was yesterday...

have some kind of skill women actually like. women don't give a shit about STEM

Be honest here, how many girls have you actually asked out?

If 1 or more, I'm assuming you kept trying different girls until 1 decided that she wanted to go out with you.

Not OP, but how many are you supposed to ask out in a year or in a month? Feel like that's a way to get a creep status if you live in a 100k city.

Not really. I'm a lot better at social skills now, so asking is not a cold approach (although that's arguably the best approach), it's more part of natural conversation.

At first you might seem retarded, but after a bit of trial and error you start to understand what's appropriate and what's not.

If you come off as creepy, then she's just gonna say no and walk off. Big fucking deal. You aren't going to ever meet her again and she gets approached by heaps of men daily so she's very used to it.

No amount of advice will help guys get better with girls, it's best just picking up your balls and learning "on the field" per se.

You understand faster when you have real life experience rather than being advised via the Internet.

Relax.

This sounds like a meme, but trying too hard can be counterproductive. Women smell desperation the way some animals smell fear, and it repels them.

Widen your focus so you're just trying to make friends of all genders. Collect a group whose general company you enjoy and be natural among them. "You being natural and relaxed" will attract more girls than "you looking for a girlfriend"

How many girls you got introduced to this year?

If you do get a decent paying job you practically have it made and almost guaranteed to find someone that will date you. Problem is on your end though, will you accept those willing to accept you? If you don't have all the other qualities women look for at the very least whatever you do don't be a social outcast. I think this above anything else kills any chances you have of finding a date unless the person you're interested in also happens to be like you in some way or at least understands where you come from. Listen, having a social circle helps a lot.

This happened to me.

I suck as a guy, but I do have girls who have asked me out at work.

I just don't want those girls because they aren't great people - they have a kind heart, but they don't have any sort of ambition or goal, they just want a relationship and will accept anyone.

Before I get into relationships, I want to be satisfied with myself first.

I try talking to women regularly, like a few times a week when I have the opportunity.
Never got any interest.
I have never actually tried a "cold approach", it seems to bleak for a start of a relationship.
several at least but almost nil for dating prospects.
obviously trying to get introduced to more women is a goal, but almost the same as the end goal. What steps can I actually take?

I'd avoid doing cold approaches. It's inappropriate and stressful for both sides. Build a social circle, get Tinder, go to bars and clubs. Social meetups based on interests are also good but social circle is King.

>No closer to getting gf
What, you can see your progress bar? A gf is not an installation; maybe some kind of lottery. Every day's a ticket son.

>I have good hygiene
Do you have female friends or relatives to confirm it? Men's idea of clean is often women's idea of barely. If you are not certified by a woman, forget it, you are not clean enough.

>I want goals
Okay.

1)Learn to pay attention, develope your peripheral awareness. Wear a cap and visors, act oblivious, and see how many women eye you. If you are all you say, you will find a few.

2) talk to the women you know casually. All of them. Even if you dont want any of them. This is to blunt your self consciousness for when you see someone you do want. Notice how men with many sisters have an easier time with girls? Same deal. If you got no one else, ask your mom to coach and give pointers. Yeah cringe and weird, but you want progress or not?

3) dont expect women to just fall at your feet in a week. Every interaction is an investment; get them to like you slowly. When they do, they'll drop hankies. You'll know when that is if youve followed 1 and 2.

>get them to like you slowly
Careful, you don't wanna end up being lord friendzone. I wanna add to your post.

When you are interested in a girl, don't pretend that you are just trying to be friends, when you really don't.

When interacting with girls, make it a "man to woman thing", being platonic gets you platonic relationships.

You will most likely be the one to make a move.
Learn the subtle and roundabout ways women communicate.
Pro tip, they almost never say what they mean, they communicate via some weird emotional frequency of body language, eye contact, reading between the lines of what is actually being said and so on and so forth.
It's all very arcane and covert.
Learn to interpret their weird language.
Big obstacle for hyper logical autismo types.
Like cats and dogs, almost.

And by "man to woman thing" I don't mean be a overly sexualised creep with every woman you meet.
But it doesn't hurt to subtly flirt with pretty much anyone.
Harmless little flirts. Not being very aggressive with it.
Being sexually aggressive has it's place and is required even sometimes, but not in your day to day life.
Don't harass people.

I tried hitting on a girl at a bar yesterday. I failed miserably and had to abandon ship after like a minute but that is the first time I have ever actually gone up to a stranger girl and started a conversation for no reason.

I am closer to getting a gf than I was yesterday.

Am poster.
Nice arrest. Totally agree about lord friendzone.

If you approach a girl with the attitude of "I want you as a girlfriend" you are screwed from the start in most cases. As user above said, girls smell desperation and it repels them.

Much better to approach girls with an attitude of mild indifference, as if you are on your way to do something more important but will take a minute to joke around and chat because it is fun, not because you need anything. And then walk away and go do something interesting. That's what makes them want to follow you. Be more confident, more interesting, less needy than they are and you have a chance.

Find a hobby that you can immerse yourself in. Make it something that builds skills and socialization over time (by which I mean NOT video games).

And lighten up. Find happiness on your own. If you need a woman to make you happy, you are going to be stuck with the bottom of the barrel. Needy men are poison.

"I might be able to post some advice later." bump

>maybe some kind of lottery. Every day's a ticket son.
yes, I addressed that in one of the posts, I don't think it is something you you can just meet a checklist for, but I think my chances are at the very least not getting better.

>STEM
>I have already had a healthy weight, good hygiene, and self defined good style for years
Congrats, fag, you're already ahead of 99% of us.

t. fat and smelly STEM student

also
can we have the baseline of respect to not assume someone is a disgusting person? I tried to address this, but that sort of thing just really doesn't help. It is such a simple thing to do that I would have be be an idiot to miss it.

0*1.99 is still 0
t. STEM student

Wait, wait, wait, what is it about "desperate" part? Is it really desperate for a guy to seek for a steady relationship with a girl? I think it's normal and not something someone should be ashamed of.

It’s not that difficult. Go on dating sites, it’s a numbers game. Work on conversation, you have to be able to communicate . Don’t have to be rich or a good body, but you do have to talk

That's not the issue m8.
It's that you probably immediately want to win any girls affection that you meet.
What you should ofc do is talk to her first, get to know her a bit and see if you even like HER!
Girls want that as well.
Getting a guy too easily is a) boring and b) makes you seem low value therefore less interesting.
Be a challenge to HER. She wants that.
Also don't just immediately jump to girlfriend mode with a girl you don't even know that well.
It's creepy.
Don't immediately be so invested.
You don't just want any girl, do you?
That's what the guy means with desperate.
You just want SOMEONE.
Instead look for a person you actually like.
Just that makes you more attractive.

Now you may say
>I don't do that, I have very high standards blah blah
You might think that, but chances are, your behaviour around any semi attractive girl tells a different story.
Just resist your urge to get defensive immediately, and just reflect on that for a second.

I disagree.
Unless you really have no other avenue of meeting women, which I DOUBT,
online dating should be more of a side thing or really your last resort.
The girls you meet irl will be much higher quality compared to who you have a shot with online.
I don't mean to generalize, but women who have to resort to online dating are generally not that desirable for one reason or another.
The really attractive ones without major issues may dabble, but they don't really invest as much, generally speaking.
Also, they will be MUCH pickier, since most dating platforms have a surplus of men.
Meet girls irl. You'll be better off and I also think online dating is bad for your mental health, at least in my experience. It sucks.

Well, I worded that a bit poorly, saying I don't want to generalize and then immediately generalizing.
You get the idea.

>If you approach a girl with the attitude of "I want you as a girlfriend" you are screwed from the start in most cases. As user above said, girls smell desperation and it repels them.
well I haven't really done any cold approaches before if that is what you mean, but I can't become less desperate in the sense of having more options. should I simply become more accepting of possibly living the rest of my life without ever having a girlfriend? that is a different definition of desperation than most people mean, but I cannot simply become "a man with options".

please use the "not OP but" disclaimer, thank

>but I can't become less desperate
Wrong. It is due to your outlook that you are desperate. Having options would be ideal, but for now, just focus on being selective.

read the whole quote, I said
"but I can't become less desperate in the sense of having more options"
"should I simply become more accepting of possibly living the rest of my life without ever having a girlfriend?"

Here's a tip that has worked for me.

Practice HUGE open body language. Throw those arms around. Deepen your voice and speak out, good posture, chin up, and it will happen. I spent the weekend fucking an 18 year old over a dozen times just doing this, and I'm not uber Chad or anything.

Try it

>If you approach a girl with the attitude of "I want you as a girlfriend" you are screwed from the start in most cases. As user above said, girls smell desperation and it repels them.
Women can often sense desperation and it does send a bad signal. Approaching girls in the hopes of them becoming a girlfriend isn't necessarily desperate, but it is the wrong mindset.
When you approach any girl, it should be with minimal investment. This isn't the potential girlfriend you've been hoping for, it's a random stranger. She could disappear forever in a minute and you need to be able to accept that, assume that, and simply enjoy the interaction between the two you as humans.
She isn't a girlfriend.
She isn't a potential girlfriend.
She isn't a girl.
She is a person.

>Should I simply become more accepting of possibly living the rest of my life without ever having a girlfriend?
The important thing is to engage in conversation with women, with people, as if your lack of a girlfriend is a non-issue.

I get your situation. I was in a similar boat of not really having a solid *reason* for the absence of a woman in my life. Every single failed instance boiled down to bad luck. And nobody in my circle of friends and family could ever help me out with fixing me up.

>I would like some definite goals
1. Chat up or make small talk with an unknown woman once a week. (with no expectations)
2. Ask a girl out twice a month. (Or once a week if that is too infrequent)
3. Each month find a new pool of women (workplace, circle of friends, dating site, social meeting place, brothel, etc)

How are these?

I was genuinely considering this and was going to type out a well thought out reply but then I saw you suggested I visit a brothel and decided to disregard everything you said.

?
Are you kidding around man?
I thought that was fairly clearly a joke.
Protip: if the last entry in a list seems absurdly extreme, it's likely a joke.
ie: "Take a girl out to simple date of a lunch at a diner, movie at the theater, or cannibalizing your neighbors."

To be perfectly clear: I consider legal brothels fine, but obviously an inappropriate, and therefore humorous, response to a request for goals towards getting a girlfriend.

I've visited a brothel before.

You don't have to tell anyone about it, and it's just sex, no big deal.

I don't regret it either.

>it's just sex, no big deal.
>lmao who gives a fuck about morality YOLO
Nuclear winter can't come soon enough; you parasites need to be wiped off the face of the planet.

Can you describe exactly what is morally wrong about an individual visiting a brothel?
I get the potential for morally evil things like infidelity. And there is the potential for the spread of disease. But if a young man who is not in a committed relationship chooses to pay money to have sex with a woman who chooses, is not coerced, to earn money by having sex, what is morally wrong there?

Depends what you mean by 'morality'. If you use it as a stand-in for whatever arbitrary things a person deems "good" or "bad", I obviously can't tell you. I use it in the sense of a concrete framework that goes along with a given "arbitrary" value. While the values are changeable across individuals, morality is absolute with respect to its respective value.
Let's go with infidelity, since I don't have to explain why I value preventing it to someone who shares the idea. Preventing infidelity could roughly be called a value (although values should not generally be so specific, since that makes them too dependent on individual choice to be of any use to society). Morality would then concern the set of standards in a society which best prevent infidelity from occurring. For example, oversexualization of public life provides rampant temptation, which isn't good for any couple. A standard derived from this would be one concerning obscenity or public lewdness.

> if a young man who is not in a committed relationship chooses to pay money to have sex with a woman who chooses
He's fornicating and devaluing both sex and commitment by behaving like the degenerate he is. This will, at minimum, indirectly pressure women to behave like whores because he can *acceptably* circumvent any notion of commitment to get sex, and many women will be convinced to 'compete'.
The behavior represents the destruction of a standard, and primarily for that reason it cannot be tolerated. The individuals involved in a particular act are of less importance than their demonstrated ability to get away with said act, because it is the latter which has a society-wide effect.

> is not coerced
One of the biggest memes out there. If something is prevalent and accepted in society, it will by definition be a "pull" factor influencing every individual in said society. Take why unions exist, for example. You're not "coerced" to work at a factory for peanuts, but when there are a hundred strike-breakers lined up to take your spot and no better jobs out there, you might as well be stuck in your situation.
If you have a society of whores and manwhores, you're not going to be forced at gunpoint to become one of them, but good fucking luck being raised to be anything else, or finding someone else who doesn't give in to bestial temptation on a whim. I think you can agree that a literal prostitute is not a good marriage partner, yes? If so, why would you encourage that kind of behavior across society?

There is also a huge difference between accepting something publicly (as legalizing prostitution would do), condemning it publicly but accepting its inevitability (pic related), and condemning it while spending every waking moment futilely trying to destroy it. Wherever prostitution rears its head, it should be hammered back into the dark corner it belongs, since this is the only way you can limit its influence on society as a whole. The kinds of people who either become or frequent prostitutes can't be saved, but they can be quarantined.
tl;dr
He's fornicating, which not only degrades himself, but also encourages the rest of society to do the same.
Commercialized vice like prostitution is particularly dangerous because of the extra feedback loop that profit motives give.

Attached: quote-prostitution-in-the-towns-is-like-the-cesspool-in-the-palace-take-away-the-cesspool-thomas-aqu (850x400, 64K)

>He's fornicating
Accurate.

>devaluing both sex and commitment
Not necessarily.

>by behaving like the degenerate he is
Pejorative.

>This will, at minimum, indirectly pressure women to behave like whores because he can *acceptably* circumvent any notion of commitment to get sex, and many women will be convinced to 'compete'.
No. Whores provide sex.
Women provide sex, succor, companionship, and partnership for life.
You don't date or marry a whore.
Women compete by giving the men what whores cannot.

>The behavior represents the destruction of a standard, and primarily for that reason it cannot be tolerated.
Or it represents an adjustment of a standard from a standard with a known and accepted aberration to a new standard.

I am not expressing ideas that were not old a century ago.

Whores, in practice, are generally a degradation of the human spirit that I find abhorrent. But so is the fishing industry.
The idea of whores does not necessarily conflict with morality.

But you can make it rain with explosions silly.

>coerced nonsense
Okay, silly person.

>He's fornicating, which not only degrades himself, but also encourages the rest of society to do the same.
Sex is fine. Nobody is being hurt. Who is degraded?

>Commercialized vice like prostitution is particularly dangerous because of the extra feedback loop that profit motives give.
This is the reality and actual problem.
Allow prostitution and the profit engine will wear the people in it down to soulless meat.

Prostitution is not morally wrong.
Prostitution is functionally broken outside of ideal circumstances no person can reasonably expect.

>Accurate.
You could stop the post right there, as that's enough to make it an immoral act.
>Not necessarily.
Yes, necessarily. It provides him with easy, illegitimate access to sex while dodging any sort of positive commitment. Across society, the net change will be an increase in prostitution, irregardless of user's decision to avoid prostitution like before. Moral standards aren't meant for deviants or saints, they are meant for the majority of people who fall in between and prefer to do what is convenient. By making such behaviors easier, you shift the balance of society in favor of them. In a word, devaluation.

>Pejorative.
Yes, good job.

>Women compete by giving the men what whores cannot.
You know that's been tried and it doesn't work. The double standard is untenable because male degeneracy necessarily begets female degeneracy, and then you have the feedback loop where degenerates of both genders point to their counterparts for an excuse. I'm sure you've seen both: manwhores advocating a "pump and dump" because "they're sluts anyway" or whores justifying themselves because "men always got away with it".

>Or it represents an adjustment of a standard from a standard with a known and accepted aberration to a new standard.
That's oxymoronic. Standards aren't up for 'adjustment', they exist in themselves. The only way you can change standards is by changing values, anything else would be human error alone. Human error is exactly what I'd call the tolerance of prostitution by society at large--not its condemnation.

>Whores, in practice, are generally a degradation of the human spirit that I find abhorrent.
Then we're in agreement, and you can figure out for yourself why you would want to minimize their prevalence.

>The idea of whores does not necessarily conflict with morality.
I don't see how you can say any of the above and hold with this statement. Accepting whores is antithetical to sexual morality as we've discussed it.

I've had people like
suggest unironically to have sex with prostitutes in order to acquaint oneself with women.

other than that, I don't have a problem with approaching and immediately hitting on women.
I do talk to women regularly, but it never goes anywhere. I don't know how to just find a new pool of women though.
I've tried online dating and it never went anywhere.

>silly person.
I.e. you can't think of an argument. At least you didn't resort to calling a disagreement "stupid".
I encourage you to think for yourself, how "free" are you, really? The available spectrum of choices you can make for your life is almost entirely a product of the environment in which you grow up--the society, basically, and also more immediate circumstances. You don't dictate society's behavior to any meaningful degree, so the relationship is a lopsided one, and it isn't a stretch to say you're dependent on society in the realm of possibility.

It's only stating the obvious to say that, in a society where prostitution is condemned and weeded out where it appears, people will be influenced against prostitution; whereas in one where it's widely practiced and accepted, people will be drawn to it. Society doesn't exist in a vacuum.

>Sex is fine.
Within marriage, sure.
>Nobody is being hurt.
Except that's not true. Promiscuity is demonstrably damaging to the success of marriages.
>Who is degraded?
The people giving themselves to someone other than their spouse (and the partners of anyone involved, by having to put up with those who didn't commit).

>Allow prostitution and the profit engine will wear the people in it down to soulless meat.
No, the profit motive simply pushes people into wearing themselves down.

>sex before marriage is always an immoral act.
Not necessarily.
This the belief that you have that remains unsupported.

The idea of selling sex isn't immoral.
It is, however, ancient.
It is in the original core of buying the cow instead of the milk. Better value because you get a life partner and mother to your offspring instead of of rented vagoo.

The problem is that actual prostitution results in turning human beings into soulless commodities.

>how "free" are you, really?
This is what I mean. Silly.
What is your point? "We're all coerced, man... Society and constraints exist man.... We're all whores to the Man man..."

The word coerce has a definition. It means to persuade an unwilling person to do something by using force or threats.
To water that down by suggesting that any society "threatens" is silly.

Your ill-defined, marriage-centric morality is silly and based on unsupported beliefs.

>This the belief that you have that remains unsupported.
Please. It's always immoral because any other standard would be completely ineffectual. Let people decide when their fornication is acceptable, and they'll convince themselves it's acceptable in spades without regard for the truth of whether it is, in fact, warranted.

It's demonstrably not moral, not with my values.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00996.x/abstract
>Bivariate results suggested that delaying sexual involvement was associated with higher relationship quality across several dimensions. The multivariate results indicated that the speed of entry into sexual relationships was negatively associated with marital quality, but only among women."

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x/abstract
>"I find that premarital sex or premarital cohabitation that is limited to a woman's husband is not associated with an elevated risk of marital disruption. However, women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship have an increased risk of marital dissolution."

psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-25811-011
>"Both structural equation and group comparison analyses demonstrated that sexual restraint was associated with better relationship outcomes, even when controlling for education, the number of sexual partners, religiosity, and relationship length."

We can keep arguing in circles over what is "moral" or not, but I suspect you're still using it in the sense of "good" or "bad". Tell me what you actually *value*, what lets you derive right and wrong acrions. I value stability and happiness.
Applied to marriage, that would mean I want to avoid divorce and keep marriages satisfying--while also making sure the standard endures through time in society.

If you don't tell me what you value such that you conclude prostitution isn't immoral, we can't communicate effectively.

You sound like an idiot

>What is your point?
My point, you hippie, is that societal standards do matter, which you seem to grasp well enough on your own. In light of that, allowing prostitution will have effects beyond just the people engaged in it at any given moment in time. It's all very obvious to both of us, and I use that as grounds to regulate treatment of such vices.
I didn't suggest that society directly forces anything--I even said the opposite in the post, that it doesn't. My post was meant to illustrate that an absence of "coercion" is not in itself enough to ignore an issue. I'm not saying that someone IS being coerced. I'm saying that whether they are or aren't is irrelevant to the validity of concerns over behavior.

>marriage-centric morality is silly and based on unsupported beliefs.
Get off your high horse. Go ahead and provide objective reason to "value" anything without ending in a tautology.
Given my values, a focus on marriage and its defense is well-supported by data--one who values marriage and sexual restraint would be retarded not to oppose prostitution in principle.

But hey, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Post something you value and the support for it to contrast with my "unsupported" value, and make an ass out of me for speaking too soon.

>u r dum :)
Well fuck me, the rhetoricians have arrived. I don't think I can entertain any hope of standing my ground in the face of such raw intellectual power and captivating eloquence.

>Tell me what you actually *value*, what lets you derive right and wrong acrions. I value stability and happiness.
Death is stable.
Sex is happiness.
Enjoy necrophilia.

Harming people is wrong.
I value not harming people.
Helping people is right.
I value helping people.

People have been trying to prevent teens from having sex for countless millennia without success because it is free and feels great.
youtu.be/0ImRyPymRAM

You are silly.

Harming people is wrong.

Defining marriage as the centerpiece of morality arbitrarily without support is silliness.

Also, I'm not a hippy. I'm just not married to marriage as the core of morality.

>Death is stable.
But not happy.
>sex is happiness
It's momentary pleasure, not contentment (which would be closer to post-fap clarity). Not stable, or conducive to stability in one's relationships when you chase it.
Stability without happiness would be the textbook definition of a dystopian hellhole. Happiness without stability is self-destructive hedonism that often causes more suffering in the end anyway.

>Harming people is wrong.
A bit specific for a core value, but you humored me, so thank you.
>Helping people is right.
This is way too targeted. What do you mean by 'helping' people? Do you just mean helping them in the sense of avoiding harm? Or do you also mean to include effort expended to 'improve' someone's condition for its own sake, even if they were in no danger or significant discomfort?

>without success
With varying degrees of success, you mean. The shitshow that started in the 60s is quite an aberration.

>girls can smell desperation but can't tell that Chad is going to abuse them
Yeah, no

Chads aren't real and abusers are charming sociopaths, so you wouldn't know at first glance.

>Or do you also mean to include effort expended to 'improve' someone's condition for its own sake, even if they were in no danger or significant discomfort?
More this.

>We've had varying degrees of success in preventing young people from having sex!
Sure you have. Because before the sixties young people didn't like orgasms. Gotcha.
Tell me, do you even know what the word "silly" means?

>Defining marriage as the centerpiece of morality arbitrarily without support
I didn't do that. I told you what I value, and applying those values to the sphere of sex and relationships will obviously lead to marriage as one of the most important things involved. We both agree that picking something specific to rigidly adhere to as the basis of morality (for an absurd example, "all traffic signs must be regular polygons with no exceptions whatsoever") is nonsensical and counterproductive. I didn't do that, and if you're the same user as , neither did you.

We do, however, have different value sets. I have a generally 'conservative' one (in quotes because I don't mean modern corporate conservatism, I mean I literally have a desire to conserve things), whereas you seem to have a generally 'liberal' one (focused on harm reduction, fairness, and freedom). Pic related, sort of. As you can see, if my assessment was more or less correct, then you wouldn't register a lot of my views because you don't consider these things yourself.
A somewhat flawed analogy would be like a being that sees the visible and UV light using an ultraviolet flashlight to show you something. It would be perfectly clear to the being, but your narrower perception wouldn't notice a thing.

I want to make clear this isn't an accusation of 'ignorance' on your part, but I am saying that you likely lack the 'moral vocabulary' to see where I'm coming from. If you could recognize it, I don't think you'd be calling my beliefs 'silly'. Certainly not 'unsupported'.

tl;dr My focus on marriage is not without support, I'm just using different supports from your core values, so you don't easily recognize them.

Attached: 6morals.png (1000x400, 15K)

Women are people and therefore occasionally observant and occasionally idiots.

Yeah, exactly, and not all abusers are obvious, just like desperation won't be obvious if you hide it.

>Because before the sixties young people didn't like orgasms
Strawman. That promiscuity was common enough to warrant constant attention throughout the centuries shows it's deeply rooted in humanity. But that's not equivalent with its immutability in a social sense.

See ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1802108/

I've refrained from calling you stupid so far, because you haven't given me cause to, but this post goes beyond a disagreement of values and into a plainly idiotic denial of fact.

>My focus on marriage is not without support, I'm just using different supports from your core values, so you don't easily recognize them
They aren't universal, yet you are applying them universally, therefore they remain unsupported.

You weren't saying that it was immoral "for people with your 'conservative' view".
You were stating that it was immoral.
Like it was a plain, universal fact.
"That fence is red."
"Fornicating is immoral."

Pretending that you all along really meant to ascribe to some subjective view that I couldn't understand because I hold different values is...
say it with me...
...silly!

>People have been trying to prevent teens from having sex for countless millennia without success because it is free and feels great.
>promiscuity was common enough to warrant constant attention throughout the centuries
Thank you for finally ceding a very obvious point that anyone could have understood instantly: Young people love having sex and people just can't get them to stop.

>They aren't universal, yet you are applying them universally
That's where you're wrong. Given a value, the associated morality is most certainly universal. It's impossible for it to be any other way, since morality loses its purpose if it is malleable by individuals.

>You were stating that it was immoral. Like it was a plain, universal fact.
That's because it is, in the context of a society. Without getting too philosophical, no society can function as such if it does not have a unified moral structure. Practically speaking, any basic value will be arbitrary, but the derived morals are not, and those morals make the society. Separation is the most sustainable long-term solution (i.e. people who don't like prostitution should live in a society where it is immoral, whereas those who don't care can live in their own), but in the absence of that the next step is compromise without directly infringing on either of the disparate morals in question. In either case, though, where a view like mine is concerned, prostitution's immorality is by definition universally true, independent of any of us.

>you all along really meant to ascribe to some subjective view that I couldn't understand because I hold different values
This is what we call moving the goalposts. Repeating that I'm "silly" and scrounging around for new reasons to call me that is pointless.

>Thank you for finally ceding a very obvious point that anyone could have understood instantly
Pull your head out of your ass and read the link. I didn't cede anything, I posted a source which shows the significant increase in premarital sex in just the past 50 years. That is, showing that the current state of degeneracy is absolutely not an unchangeable law of reality. If you're going to smugly strut around like that's a 'victory', you're too deluded to have any meaningful discussion with.
My source shows that we DID succeed more than now.

>This is what we call moving the goalposts.
It really isn't.
Your morality isn't universal.
Claiming that it should be or could be doesn't change that it isn't.
Citing the relative increase of premarital sex in recent years does not negate the entire history of human sexuality, even a little. It actually makes zero sense to point out.
Young people love to fuck.
Wanna fuck.
Gonna fuck.
People been trying to stop it forever.
Yet, young people wanna fuck.

My conclusion? Young people wanna fuck.

Your conclusion? Silliness.

>Your morality isn't universal.
Any moral set must be universal to function, but we're using the terms in slightly different senses.

>Citing the relative increase of premarital sex in recent years does not negate the entire history of human sexuality
Where did I claim that? You said "people have been trying to stop this without success". I corrected you, saying that it has had varying degrees of success--you then replied with a strawman, called me 'silly' on the basis of the strawman (itself part of the roaming goalpost so you have an excuse to use your favorite word), and I called you out on it by posting a source showing my initial statement was correct.
I.e. that the relative occurrence of "young people fucking" can and does change depending on conditions.
Now you're saying that the source doesn't matter anyway, because of...another strawman.
This is a line of "argument" you clearly lost, and there isn't any semantic ambiguity to hide behind. You're just full of shit.

>My conclusion? Young people wanna fuck.
That's not a 'conclusion', that's infantile hand-wringing which deliberately refuses to address the question of what to do in such a situation. You're treating the impulse as mutually exclusive with efforts to structure it, which is, in your parlance, "silly".

How do monkeys like you manage to conjure up enough mental energy to breathe?

Get any good advice OP?

Well I stopped getting advice after
but at least they were bumping my thread.

I am pretty much already following all of the "don't do this" advice and yes I do have good hygiene.
the part that seems like a goal that is mentioned is to generally get more women into my life even if not as a potential girlfriend. I agree with this, but I needed more detailed instructions rather than just telling me I should do it.
I probably would have already done it by now if I knew how to.

bitch ate the whole apple

I know, isn't she cute?

I did that once, but not in one bite. Wasn't bad.

>I need more detailed instructions on how to get more women into my life even if not as a potential girlfriend.
Fair enough.

First step is to seek out more people, not just women. Because people tend to know other people, who are often women.

The best approach is through getting to know your coworkers. You don't seem like you would leave that stone unturned, so I'll assume work is tapped out or not applicable for some reason. Same goes for school.
Unfortunately, that is the bulk of most people's time.
If you are able to go out to lunch routinely, you can develop a casual familiarity with the waitstaff, but the problem there is that waitresses flirt to get tips and are often in a rush during lunch. Sundays are good. The waitstaff are bored, it's slow enough to chat, and if you come in regularly and tip well, they'll get to know you and relax. This approach works well in stores too, but the only ones that I go in regularly enough to do this is the gas station near my house.
There's also hobbies and interests that aren't done at home. This is often how anons get into this position in the first place. They want to spend their hard won free time doing what they enjoy and it happens to be at home, alone.

Continued next post...

Shit advice is to "just do something else". Go to examples are weekend or evening dance classes, cooking classes, and the gym. Which have a lot of good points for them if you can enjoy them. But they're not for everyone.
I can't just tell you to "Take up horseback riding!" or whatever. It has to be something that you can at least get into.
So this advice is to try new hobbies or classes of things you'd be interested in. It helps if they're classes that women often like such as cooking, dancing, coupon-clipping, crafting... (Oh, if you got into scrapbooking, you'd be surrounded by women, maybe some with available daughters. But, again, faking an interest can only go so far and a straight scrapbooking man is going to be scrutinized.)

Let's say you can't think of any new hobbies or interests, or you do but they don't pan out. It's unlikely, but okay.
Another way to go is to take your solitary interests and move them into the public. There are conventions and stores tgatvseek tangentially related to your hobby that you can go to and chat with people there who might take an interest. You can do Sudoku in the park or read in a coffee shop. It depends on the interest.
So this advice is to take your hobby, or at least discussion of it, in the road.

insanely so

>First step is to seek out more people, not just women. Because people tend to know other people, who are often women.
I have a decent amount of people around me, but for some reason they never exactly turned up any women my age unless it was in the context of dating them. I've tried to make more friends as I've gone through life, and they are good guys, but they seem to all sort of be in my position as it would seem by the type of person I make friends with, or just somehow got lucky by talking to a coworker or something.

I suppose going to physical restaurants might be some of the first useful advice in the thread, so far I mostly go buy food from a grocery store or sometimes fast food, I can try that instead if it really has hopes of working.
I'm afraid I don't really have the free time to take up anything with a real schedule. I have tried the "just be in public" routine with no hint of success and I felt pretty pathetic afterwards. but I think going to sit in restaurants could be a good idea

Remember to only linger in restaurants if they're not busy and to tip 20%.

There are other ways to get out that aren't scheduled. But it really depends on the interest.

Interestingly enough, when I stopped looking for a gf and focused on myself and my other interests, I found it easier to socialize in general, and ended up meeting a girl. No offense, but when I got rid of my desperation, and to some degree, stopped giving a fuck, I found I was much more satisfied with my life and had higher confidence. Like me, I think you are afraid that you'll never conform to the social indoctrination that attributes value to your life based on whether or not you have a gf, discounting the happiness that actually comes from that kind of relationship. That said, even if you never obtain a girlfriend for the rest of your life, would it really be that bad?
In short, don't force it friend, and enjoy the other aspects of life, and I think you'll naturally find someone sooner than later.

alright, so how many times should I go before moving to a different restaurant if I don't get any results? If you have ever gotten any positive interaction from this, how did it go?

>would it really be that bad
kind of, at the very least living my life as I plan it would be. If I knew from the start that the whole "get a job that can support a family" thing was pointless I might have found some other plan in life

>so how many times should I go before moving to a different restaurant if I don't get any results?
Well, "results" is difficult to quantify. But if you like the food, the place, and can engage the staff in conversation, I would keep going there. If, for whatever reason, it seems like the waitstaff aren't going to chat after seeing the same ones two or three times of being a friendly and engaging customer, you might move on.

The idea is that if the people you know don't include available women, or can't introduce you to any, you need to get to know more people. It is hard to quantify "getting to know more people" as successful results.
A thought occurred to me to mention in conversation, perhaps in response to "What's new?" or something, a fib along the lines of "Nothing much, I was supposed to go out the other night, but the girl my friend fixed me up with cancelled and I ended up just [staying home and watching a movie]."
This would show that you're available, willing to get fixed up, and casually leads the conversation in the direction of your seeking status.
Just an idea.

>If you have ever gotten any positive interaction from this, how did it go?
I have definitely gotten positive interactions from this. Usually results in casual acquaintances. Once I hit it off with a waitress, but she was a single mom and we were looking for different things.
My local gas station has a guy who works there that calls me Dwight every time I come in because my ID photo looks like the guy from the Office, even though I don't. Just a little thing to start a conversation.

>he doesn't assert his dominance by not tipping
wins em over every time

Friendly reminder that this won't stop being true until you fix your shit and stop needing a girlfriend to get there.

but like I said
my "live life like you would if you could never get a girlfriend" plan would almost make it impossible.

I liked this wisdom better when John Candy said it.

Attached: j5n7nvf.jpg (608x336, 43K)

You need patience. If not patience then double or triple your efforts. Otherwise have patience.

I would like to triple my efforts, but so far I haven't really hit on something I can just work really hard at.

it's not about getting worth from having a girlfriend, it's about actually have a relationship. it is what will make me the most happy in life.
sure life would be worth living alone, but barely.