RE: Monogamous or not.
June 27, 2016 at 8:30 am
(This post was last modified: June 27, 2016 at 8:32 am by MJ the Skeptical.)
(June 27, 2016 at 8:25 am)paulpablo Wrote:(June 27, 2016 at 8:06 am)MJ the Skeptical Wrote: 1) Yes you did say it was easy if you have the internet, you said it wasn't hard to find non-monogamous people if you had that, which is beyond retarded and generalized.
2) Yes I did say non-monogamy is unattractive to most women, even not being into relationships, which is also non-monogamy, retard x2.
3) You generalized all people who couldn't find what they want as being bad at using the internet when there are more factors there, retard x3.
4) No, you don't have to be in the proximity of two vaginas to be non-monogamous, because like I said you autistic empty vessel, that you could not be into relationships which would also put you in the non-monogamy category.
Oh, if only I knew how to use the internet, I could find what I want in the middle of nowhere huh? Did you miss all of the reasons I gave? I guess so. Just an intellectually bankrupt tool.
If you have access to the Internet and live in the middle of nowhere then you can still find non monogamous women online.
If you can't have physical access to those women because you're someone who lives in the middle of nowhere with presumably little or no means of transport then that's a separate issue to finding the women.
1) You can, but it is easy like you state? Fuck no, that's anecdotal shit and the fact that you can't even concede that is pathetic. Plus location wasn't the only factor I brought up, try again sweetheart.
2) It's not only about location...fucking shit...You completely jumped the shark, go argue with someone your own intellectual caliber, perhaps a fire hydrant or a feminist.
If the hypothetical idea of an afterlife means more to you than the objectively true reality we all share, then you deserve no respect.