Dating is at a Record Low: Another Dating Thread

[Vivolkha]

I think in Western countries it's easier for girls to pair up with males then it is for males to find girls (but I could be wrong.)

Depends.

The US and Canada? Yep, because dating culture in North America is still reliant on the males initiating any action within the relationship. Western and Northern/Central Europe? No, they're much more egalitarian and open with their relationships.

As somebody from Western Europe, I can tell that for the most part, males are still expected to have the initiative. Maybe (or probably, depending on the specific country too I guess) not as much as North America, but still.

You don't go to shops? Subway? Park?

Start with honestly complimenting people, regardless of sex, age, race. If I see a cool shirt ( Darth Vader trimming a death star shaped Bush or April 18th!) I will comment positively on that. Smile and the world will smile back.
Start wearing fun shirts, so others who know your band/ film/ comedian/ shares your humor/ world view can make contact .
My brother in law had shirts like 10 reasons why a cucumber is better than men.

Damn have I really become this introverted? What brought me to this point?

*remembers highschool* oh yeah, that shit

Am I supposed to end like this then?

[The New California Republic]

Webforums, as a whole, seem to disproportionately attract an especially desperate breed of loner. Not everyone on them is one, of course; I have time to spend on webforums because I'm too terrified of how child support law works to have sex IRL. Others have time to spend on webforums because they're too terrified of betting their real-life reputations on the risk of others finding out some girl turned them down. Nevertheless, posting here instead of having sex IRL is the one thing we have in common.

Of course, on this specific webforum, people do in fact sometimes meet up irl. Some even get married

With my bf it happened the opposite way. I showed him the site and he joined up. But he let his nation CTE, as I don't think he is really that interested in it, past the initial novelty of it.

[The Holy Therns]

Dating is like, so outdated man.

[Novus America]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

I'm not saying you can't, I'm saying you shouldn't.

Yes a friendship with a woman, may, on average be different than a friendship with a man, that does not mean different is also valueless.

If there is clear benefits to one and not the other, why should the one with no benefits be considered?

By your logic if the majority of people vote for party A, party B cannot exist.

That's not the logic at all. It's rather if Party A is clearly demonstrated to have delivered things that benefit you directly, and Party B does not, why consider voting for Party B?

It is not just this issue. For example you could not process that just because on average countries with a higher birth rate are poorer, that in many cases richer countries still have higher birthrates.

Could not process?

And you have provided nothing to prove you should not.
You have probably bided nothing to show friendships with women have no value. Again one source saying, ON AVERAGE, (you still seem to be unable to process that there can be many exceptions to an average correlation) a certain male/male relationship provides different benefits does NOT prove friendship with women does not have value.

On the party thing same problem. Just because party A may sometimes provide a benefit party B does not preclude party B from providing different benefits.
Or that all member of a are better candidates than all members of B.
Again just because one thing may, on average (you might not fall in the average) provides one extra benefit does not mean all other things have no value.

Again a house can provide some things a car usually cannot but that does not mean you can only have a house OR a car. You can have both.

Yes unable to process. As you showed here. They very concept that averages can have very large exceptions seems alien to your ideology.
But that is black pill.

Black pill uses data, just uses it incorrectly.
Black pill “logic”. Money matters to most women. Ergo all women are gold digging succubi and unless you are rich you can never get any.

[Takso]

Won't start a different thread for this, but apparently open relationships are a thing in this Canadian city (Toronto): https://www.cbc.ca/arts/this-new-webser ... -1.5252355

Are you in an open relationship? Probably like maybe, right? What was once a scandalous lifestyle choice relegated to the back pages of "Savage Love" has entered the mainstream. No longer for swingers dipping their hand into a glass bowl at a 1970s key party, polyamory is beginning to seem like the most sensible choice for overextended millennials looking for more than one person to fulfil their emotional and sexual needs.

A sensible choice, wtf?

I mean I get it, if people really want to be in an open relationship, if that's what truly makes them happy, then fine. To each their own. I support sexual freedom, so go at it with multiple partners if that's what floats your boat (if you do this behind your partner's back, you are committing psychological abuse).

But... I am getting a different idea here... If the solution to relationship problems is... Let's sleep around with others... Well, I think that's a little disturbing... And personally I find that a very unhealthy mentality. I don't think opening up a relationship to having several sexual partners is going to solve anything in a relationship. In fact, I think people who use casual sex as a kind of substitute for a committed relationship have a lot of underlying issues.

I'll be clear here... I admit I am biased towards marriage. To me, dating is courtship, not a "job interview". It's about two people connecting and committing to each other. I don't find the idea of commitment terrifying, in fact I very much love the fact that my partner and I are in a strictly monogamous relationship. My love for them is exclusive and their love for me the same. I see that as loyalty, as a way of fostering a greater stronger bond. I don't consider this arrangement insecurity. I know I'm not the only person out there, it's okay if my partner finds others good-looking or watches pornography when I am not available... That's biology. That being said sexual and or romantic access to my body is exclusive to them. I don't extend that to others, not any day of the week, and no matter what problems we have in the relationship. It's just not acceptable. It violates every fiber of trust and would ruin everything that we have built with each other. It goes both ways. They wouldn't do that either. They are good enough for me, more than enough, and I the same for them. If we aren't that way with each other... Then it's time to see a counselor, NOT... Well, let's "open" our relationship. Like wtf.

To me, monogamy is security. I am worried that applications like Tinder and other dating apps are promoting a kind of "gig" economy, but in dating... I don't think for the vast majority of people that kind of sexual/romantic practice will lead to long-term happiness. And if what is described in the article is really the norm that enough people relate to it... Now that is truly messed up.

I get it, the economy is rough. Owning a home is not affordable for many. It is hard to find steady work and a good paying job. But why on Earth does that mean society should up and abandon marriage? Why do you need a house and a white picked fence in the suburbs in order to marry? Seriously? Why is the idea of commitment terrifying? What could be more comforting than sharing your life with someone? Maybe I'm just conservative or falling behind when it comes to social norms, but I just don't understand it. How is one person not enough?

I really think if this is the norm in society that there needs to be greater encouragement for couples to seek couple therapy. And that young people should be taught what a healthy relationship looks like and that minor problems don't have to lead to divorce or breakups... You know... This whole dating thing doesn't have to be made complicated by dealing with love triangles and other arrangement that I consider... Well... Unhealthy... It's really as simple as wanting to be with someone and building a life with them.

As a whole I am a very progressive person, especially in social matters. I don't have any issues with the LGBT, but I think when it comes to marriage (which I definitely support gays marrying)... Traditions have some truth in them. I can't see polyamory relationships as being superior for someone unless that's really, really, what they want... But that's not the idea I am getting from that article.

[Greed and Death]

It must suck to be a young person today. we old people get mad at you for having sex, then we get mad at you for not having sex.

[Saiwania]

There is no such thing as love at first sight. But there is such a thing as lust at first sight.

[Costa Fierro]

It must suck to be a young person today. we old people get mad at you for having sex, then we get mad at you for not having sex.

Most people under 30 simply don't give a crap what the older generations think anymore.

[Costa Fierro]

[You have probably bided nothing to show friendships with women have no value. Again one source saying, ON AVERAGE, (you still seem to be unable to process that there can be many exceptions to an average correlation) a certain male/male relationship provides different benefits does NOT prove friendship with women does not have value.

You're clinging onto this idea that "BUT THERE'S AN EXCEPTION TO EVERYTHING THEREFORE STUDIES ARE WRONG". You really shouldn't do that.

[The Blaatschapen]

It must suck to be a young person today. we old people get mad at you for having sex, then we get mad at you for not having sex.

Most people under 30 simply don't give a crap what the older generations think anymore.

Unless the older generation uses their electoral power to stamp down on the youth.

As is usual

Then again, I'm a bit over 30, so I am screwed both ways

[New haven america]

Most people under 30 simply don't give a crap what the older generations think anymore.

Unless the older generation uses their electoral power to stamp down on the youth.

As is usual

Then again, I'm a bit over 30, so I am screwed both ways

You also live in one of the most developed and well off nations in the world, so you have it a bit easier than most.

[Harkback Union]

Order of events:
1) Dating exists
2) Nationstates exists
3) Dating is at a Record Low
Coincidence?

[The New California Republic]

Unless the older generation uses their electoral power to stamp down on the youth.

As is usual

Then again, I'm a bit over 30, so I am screwed both ways

Us older folk are fine. We take what the youth say on board, but it's balanced with our experience of what it was like to be edgy in our youth and then eventually growing out of it.

[Novus America]

[You have probably bided nothing to show friendships with women have no value. Again one source saying, ON AVERAGE, (you still seem to be unable to process that there can be many exceptions to an average correlation) a certain male/male relationship provides different benefits does NOT prove friendship with women does not have value.

You're clinging onto this idea that "BUT THERE'S AN EXCEPTION TO EVERYTHING THEREFORE STUDIES ARE WRONG". You really shouldn't do that.

You still do not seem to understand how averages work. And see mutual exclusivity where it does not exist.

The problem is not the study, the problem is you misinterpreted the study by trying to force it into the black pill framework.

[Costa Fierro]

You're clinging onto this idea that "BUT THERE'S AN EXCEPTION TO EVERYTHING THEREFORE STUDIES ARE WRONG". You really shouldn't do that.

You still do not seem to understand how averages work. And see mutual exclusivity where it does not exist.

The problem is not the study, the problem is you misinterpreted the study by trying to force it into the black pill framework.

The problem is you're claiming an argument based on averages and then saying I don't understand it. I do understand it, I don't think it's applicable.

[Novus America]

You still do not seem to understand how averages work. And see mutual exclusivity where it does not exist.

The problem is not the study, the problem is you misinterpreted the study by trying to force it into the black pill framework.

The problem is you're claiming an argument based on averages and then saying I don't understand it. I do understand it, I don't think it's applicable.

But you have no reason to demonstrate it is not applicable.

[Threlizdun]

Won't start a different thread for this, but apparently open relationships are a thing in this Canadian city (Toronto): https://www.cbc.ca/arts/this-new-webser ... -1.5252355

Are you in an open relationship? Probably like maybe, right? What was once a scandalous lifestyle choice relegated to the back pages of "Savage Love" has entered the mainstream. No longer for swingers dipping their hand into a glass bowl at a 1970s key party, polyamory is beginning to seem like the most sensible choice for overextended millennials looking for more than one person to fulfil their emotional and sexual needs.

A sensible choice, wtf?

I mean I get it, if people really want to be in an open relationship, if that's what truly makes them happy, then fine. To each their own. I support sexual freedom, so go at it with multiple partners if that's what floats your boat (if you do this behind your partner's back, you are committing psychological abuse).

But... I am getting a different idea here... If the solution to relationship problems is... Let's sleep around with others... Well, I think that's a little disturbing... And personally I find that a very unhealthy mentality. I don't think opening up a relationship to having several sexual partners is going to solve anything in a relationship. In fact, I think people who use casual sex as a kind of substitute for a committed relationship have a lot of underlying issues.

I'll be clear here... I admit I am biased towards marriage. To me, dating is courtship, not a "job interview". It's about two people connecting and committing to each other. I don't find the idea of commitment terrifying, in fact I very much love the fact that my partner and I are in a strictly monogamous relationship. My love for them is exclusive and their love for me the same. I see that as loyalty, as a way of fostering a greater stronger bond. I don't consider this arrangement insecurity. I know I'm not the only person out there, it's okay if my partner finds others good-looking or watches pornography when I am not available... That's biology. That being said sexual and or romantic access to my body is exclusive to them. I don't extend that to others, not any day of the week, and no matter what problems we have in the relationship. It's just not acceptable. It violates every fiber of trust and would ruin everything that we have built with each other. It goes both ways. They wouldn't do that either. They are good enough for me, more than enough, and I the same for them. If we aren't that way with each other... Then it's time to see a counselor, NOT... Well, let's "open" our relationship. Like wtf.

To me, monogamy is security. I am worried that applications like Tinder and other dating apps are promoting a kind of "gig" economy, but in dating... I don't think for the vast majority of people that kind of sexual/romantic practice will lead to long-term happiness. And if what is described in the article is really the norm that enough people relate to it... Now that is truly messed up.

I get it, the economy is rough. Owning a home is not affordable for many. It is hard to find steady work and a good paying job. But why on Earth does that mean society should up and abandon marriage? Why do you need a house and a white picked fence in the suburbs in order to marry? Seriously? Why is the idea of commitment terrifying? What could be more comforting than sharing your life with someone? Maybe I'm just conservative or falling behind when it comes to social norms, but I just don't understand it. How is one person not enough?

I really think if this is the norm in society that there needs to be greater encouragement for couples to seek couple therapy. And that young people should be taught what a healthy relationship looks like and that minor problems don't have to lead to divorce or breakups... You know... This whole dating thing doesn't have to be made complicated by dealing with love triangles and other arrangement that I consider... Well... Unhealthy... It's really as simple as wanting to be with someone and building a life with them.

As a whole I am a very progressive person, especially in social matters. I don't have any issues with the LGBT, but I think when it comes to marriage (which I definitely support gays marrying)... Traditions have some truth in them. I can't see polyamory relationships as being superior for someone unless that's really, really, what they want... But that's not the idea I am getting from that article.

As a person in a polyamorous relationship and who has been practicing polyamory for five years now, it isn't a superior form of relationship and it isn't something that in any way acts as a cure all for your relationship problems. Polyamory is simply one of many forms of ethically non-monogamaous relationship models. It's something that works wonderfully for some people, and not at all for others. I practice polyamory because it feels natural for me. I don't feel right telling my partners they can't see other people that they care about, and if other people are also able to make my partners happy I see that as a wonderful thing. I also appreciate the relationship I'm able to develop with my metamours (partners of partners). They are like family to me. There is a sensation the polyamorous community has come to call compersion. It's in a sense the opposite of jealousy. It's a feeling of joy at seeing how happy other people are able to make your partner. Further than that, since are with that person and are intimately connected to them, it's a strong moment of empathy, where you can practically feel the air around you saturated with the love you are sharing for each other. It's hard to describe, but is a truly amazing sensation.

I have no issues with monogamy, despite knowing it isn't a model that works for me. That said I do have issues with much of what I have come to see as cultural promotion of a very toxic form of monogamy. Notably, the idea that your partner is your other half that completes you, and that they are there to fix all your problems. We prioritize monogamous romantic love above all other feelings, above the strong connections you can form with your friends, families, and other important people in your lives. We act like your partner is there to satisfy all your emotional needs, and that frankly is unhealthy and unrealistic. You should be with people who make you happy and who you feel make your life better being with them, but you need other people to form strong connections to share your struggles with, provide you with support, and to help promote your emotional wellbeing. There are some needs your partners aren't going to be able to meet, since everyone is different with different capabilities. But their inability to meet those needs shouldn't mean you have to either neglect them completely or abandon the relationship. You should be able to seek them out without fear that this makes your love invalid.

We as a society have come to treat jealously and possessiveness as a sign of love. Partners are occasionally jealous of close friendships their partners have, especially if they're with someone who is the same gender as themselves, out of an unhealthy fear that these may be a threat to their relationship or somehow lessen the seriousness of their love. We forbid many forms of emotional or physical intimacy with our partners (physical intimacy meaning closeness and affection in physical contexts such as hugging, cuddling, stroking hair, etc., not simply sex). Human beings are primates that evolved group grooming and physical comforting activities to cement bonds and provide care for one another. Much of this behavior is natural and can be strictly platonic, yet as a culture we've come to fear these and accept them as only appropriate with romantic partners. As a consequence, most of us are starved for touch, and as we increasingly equate physical touch with sexuality and romance, that adds even further confusion to what our true desires are.

I love my partners, but I also love my friends, family, and other beloved figures in my life. I'm happy that if my partners don't satisfy some of my needs, I simply can seek out someone else who does without having to lose all the special things that partner offers me and without hurting them in the process. I love how the relationships are able to be built on communication and trust. I love listening to my partners talk about the great times they had with others, seeing the smiles on their faces and the light in their eyes, and love the looks of happiness and appreciation they give when I excitedly talk about a date I went on or a play session I had with someone. I like that as our lives change, we retain the ability to dynamically adapt and change the relationship as we go, rather than trying to maintain the same dynamics we had when we first got together throughout the entirety of the relationship.

There are definitely some difficulties to polyamory. If you have trouble communicating in a monogamous relationship, polyamory won't fix that, and it frankly would be incredibly unhealthy to try to maintain a poly relationship if you can't communicate effectively (albeit it's also bad to maintain any romantic relationship without communication). If monogamy makes you happy, then that's great, keep it up. If you see sex and romance as separate things, and are fine with your partner having sex with people outside the relationship but want them to only be romantically connected to you, then trying open relationships may be worth it. There's many forms of ethical non-monogamy, and polyamory is merely one of them. What matters is that we're having honest and informed conversations about all of them and letting people figure out for themselves what works best for them.

[United Muscovite Nations]

There is no such thing as love at first sight. But there is such a thing as lust at first sight.

I have to disagree, based on experience.

[Neanderthaland]

There is no such thing as love at first sight. But there is such a thing as lust at first sight.

I have to disagree, based on experience.

Muscovite is correct. There are different kinds of love, of which sexual love is only one, and all of them can fall upon you very quickly.

Parents seeing their children for the first time often experience profound love immediately. Hopefully very little lust, though.

[Takso]

As a person in a polyamorous relationship and who has been practicing polyamory for five years now, it isn't a superior form of relationship and it isn't something that in any way acts as a cure all for your relationship problems. Polyamory is simply one of many forms of ethically non-monogamaous relationship models. It's something that works wonderfully for some people, and not at all for others. I practice polyamory because it feels natural for me. I don't feel right telling my partners they can't see other people that they care about, and if other people are also able to make my partners happy I see that as a wonderful thing. I also appreciate the relationship I'm able to develop with my metamours (partners of partners). They are like family to me. There is a sensation the polyamorous community has come to call compersion. It's in a sense the opposite of jealousy. It's a feeling of joy at seeing how happy other people are able to make your partner. Further than that, since are with that person and are intimately connected to them, it's a strong moment of empathy, where you can practically feel the air around you saturated with the love you are sharing for each other. It's hard to describe, but is a truly amazing sensation.

I have no issues with monogamy, despite knowing it isn't a model that works for me. That said I do have issues with much of what I have come to see as cultural promotion of a very toxic form of monogamy. Notably, the idea that your partner is your other half that completes you, and that they are there to fix all your problems. We prioritize monogamous romantic love above all other feelings, above the strong connections you can form with your friends, families, and other important people in your lives. We act like your partner is there to satisfy all your emotional needs, and that frankly is unhealthy and unrealistic. You should be with people who make you happy and who you feel make your life better being with them, but you need other people to form strong connections to share your struggles with, provide you with support, and to help promote your emotional wellbeing. There are some needs your partners aren't going to be able to meet, since everyone is different with different capabilities. But their inability to meet those needs shouldn't mean you have to either neglect them completely or abandon the relationship. You should be able to seek them out without fear that this makes your love invalid.

We as a society have come to treat jealously and possessiveness as a sign of love. Partners are occasionally jealous of close friendships their partners have, especially if they're with someone who is the same gender as themselves, out of an unhealthy fear that these may be a threat to their relationship or somehow lessen the seriousness of their love. We forbid many forms of emotional or physical intimacy with our partners (physical intimacy meaning closeness and affection in physical contexts such as hugging, cuddling, stroking hair, etc., not simply sex). Human beings are primates that evolved group grooming and physical comforting activities to cement bonds and provide care for one another. Much of this behavior is natural and can be strictly platonic, yet as a culture we've come to fear these and accept them as only appropriate with romantic partners. As a consequence, most of us are starved for touch, and as we increasingly equate physical touch with sexuality and romance, that adds even further confusion to what our true desires are.

I love my partners, but I also love my friends, family, and other beloved figures in my life. I'm happy that if my partners don't satisfy some of my needs, I simply can seek out someone else who does without having to lose all the special things that partner offers me and without hurting them in the process. I love how the relationships are able to be built on communication and trust. I love listening to my partners talk about the great times they had with others, seeing the smiles on their faces and the light in their eyes, and love the looks of happiness and appreciation they give when I excitedly talk about a date I went on or a play session I had with someone. I like that as our lives change, we retain the ability to dynamically adapt and change the relationship as we go, rather than trying to maintain the same dynamics we had when we first got together throughout the entirety of the relationship.

There are definitely some difficulties to polyamory. If you have trouble communicating in a monogamous relationship, polyamory won't fix that, and it frankly would be incredibly unhealthy to try to maintain a poly relationship if you can't communicate effectively (albeit it's also bad to maintain any romantic relationship without communication). If monogamy makes you happy, then that's great, keep it up. If you see sex and romance as separate things, and are fine with your partner having sex with people outside the relationship but want them to only be romantically connected to you, then trying open relationships may be worth it. There's many forms of ethical non-monogamy, and polyamory is merely one of them. What matters is that we're having honest and informed conversations about all of them and letting people figure out for themselves what works best for them.

I would argue from a strictly pragmatic utilitarian basis, that of maximizing human well-being, that predominantly monogamous societies are optimal for human health, and that the encouragement of polyamory among the general population puts people at risk. While I would never propose restricting sexual freedom among consenting and informed participants of legal age, I would argue that it is irresponsible to encourage experimentation in the form of open relationships and having multiple sexual partners, especially concurrently. And that the available evidence supports the practice of committed monogamous relationships over polyamory for the general population:

"A high number of sexual partners in a person’s life usually means they are at a higher risk of sexually transmitted diseases and life-threatening cancers. These costs largely pertain to the dramatic consequences to physical and mental health. The physical health risks mainly consist of the sexually transmitted disease risks, such as HIV and AIDS, that increase as individuals have develop sexual partners over their lifetime. The mental health risks typically associated with promiscuous individuals are anxiety, depression, and personality disorders, often resulting in substance abuse and/or permanent illness. These effects typically translate into several other long-term issues in people’s lives and in their relationships, especially in the case of adolescents or those with previous pathological illnesses, disorders, or factors such as family dysfunction and social stress."

"Emotional and mental disruptions are also observed to be an effect of the promiscuity in adolescence. Studies have shown a correlation and direct relationship between adolescent sexual risk taking and mental health risks. Sexual risks include multiple sexual partners, lack of protection use, and sexual intercourse at a young age. The mental risks that are associated with these include cognitive disorders such as anxiety, depression, and substance dependence. It is also found that sexual promiscuity in teens can be a result of substance misuse and pre-existing mental health conditions such as clinical depression."

"Promiscuity in adults have detrimental effects to physical health. As the number of sexual partners a person has in his or her lifetime increases, the higher the risk he or she contracts sexually transmitted diseases. The length of a sexual relationship with a partner, the number of past and present partners, and pre-existing conditions are all variables that affect the development of risks in a person's life. Promiscuous individuals may also be at a higher risk of developing prostate cancer, cervical cancer, and oral cancer as a result of having multiple sexual partners, and combined with other risky acts such as smoking, alcohol abuse, and substance abuse, promiscuity can also lead to heart disease."

"Studies have also shown that individuals who engage in long-term relationships, as opposed to hyper-sexual and promiscuous behavior are less likely to fall victim to domestic violence."

"Heavy public promotion of polyamory can have the unintended effect of attracting people to it for whom it is not well-suited. Unequal power dynamics, such as financial dependence, can also inappropriately influence a person to agree to a polyamorous relationship against their true desires. Even in more equal power dynamic relationships, the reluctant partner may feel coerced into a proposed non-monogamous arrangement due to the implication that if they refuse, the proposer will pursue other partners anyway, will break off the relationship, or that the one refusing will be accused of intolerance."

From the Wikipedia articles on effects of human sexual promiscuity and polyamory. The quotes are referenced to the following accessible sources:
https://www.everydayhealth.com/longevit ... y-threaten (Chris Iliades, MD, Medically Reviewed by Pat F. Bass III, MD, MPH)
https://www.racgp.org.au/afp/2017/decem ... and-risky/ (The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118255/ (National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/cond ... -addiction (with references to the 5th Edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/12/ ... -bad-math/ (Alan J. Hawkins and Lynae Barlow of the Brigham Young University School of Family Life)

[Saiwania]

Muscovite is correct. There are different kinds of love, of which sexual love is only one, and all of them can fall upon you very quickly. Parents seeing their children for the first time often experience profound love immediately. Hopefully very little lust, though.

Well of course I mean the context as how it is amongst strangers. My interpretation was that if you've just met someone recently, you don't know enough about them to justify any feelings of love, that is mostly Disney romance myth crapola (lies by the media). What does seem more common is for people to be attracted to others on a whim if they look good enough or carry themselves in an appealing way.

I don't like how easily people decide to have sex with eachother, but unfortunately thats the case these days. The STI problem will basically never be solved if too many people sleep around by default. The old days arguably were markedly better, when most if not all sex was directly tied to reproduction and people were stuck together in marriage out of necessity.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Muscovite is correct. There are different kinds of love, of which sexual love is only one, and all of them can fall upon you very quickly. Parents seeing their children for the first time often experience profound love immediately. Hopefully very little lust, though.

Well of course I mean the context as how it is amongst strangers. My interpretation was that if you've just met someone recently, you don't know enough about them to justify any feelings of love, that is mostly Disney romance myth crapola (lies by the media). What does seem more common is for people to be attracted to others on a whim if they look good enough or carry themselves in an appealing way.

I don't like how easily people decide to have sex with eachother, but unfortunately thats the case these days. The STI problem will basically never be solved if too many people sleep around by default. The old days arguably were markedly better, when most if not all sex was directly tied to reproduction and people were stuck together in marriage out of necessity.

That's also not necessarily true, many people fall in love very quickly.

[Costa Fierro]

The problem is you're claiming an argument based on averages and then saying I don't understand it. I do understand it, I don't think it's applicable.

But you have no reason to demonstrate it is not applicable.

I do. And I did.

[Neko-koku]

That's also not necessarily true, many people fall in love very quickly.

Due to my Autism I'm known to fall in love within a day.

It really sucks.

I have learned not to fall in love at all.

[Kowani]

Due to my Autism I'm known to fall in love within a day.

It really sucks.

I have learned not to fall in love at all.

Would you like a whetstone to be sharpen that edge?