How do you cope with your s/o going to a party without you where everyone is drinking?
Do you not have a problem with it? Does it bother you? If it bothers you, what do you do?
Oh, and obviously, I am assuming in this hypothetical question that for whatever reason you aren't able to go with them.
>>17249163
>How do you cope
there's no need for coping
if they're not going to want me enough that they'll go to parties to get drunk, then I don't really think of them as anything other than a fucktoy and will be on the lookout for someone better
>>17249163
It bothers me, but I dont like getting crazy and drinking. I always get invited to go but him and his friends get stupid drunk and thats not my thing.
I dont have trust issues and know he would never cheat on me. Its more of a jealousy thing.
I get jealous that hes out having fun with friends while im at home alone bored. I dont have a lot of friends so it really gets to e sometimes :/
I usually just sleep to deal with it.
>>17249172
>if they're not going to want me enough that they'll go to parties to get drunk
Sooo the person you're with isn't allowed to go chill with their friends without having you attached to them at the hip? What a terrible life for your s/o
>>17249180
I think we're having different definitions of parties.
I could not care less if it was a friend party
>>17249163
I wouldn't have a problem with it because if she wanted to cheat on me she'd probably be sneaky and not tell me about it. If she told me about the party I'd probably not think twice unless there were red flags (coming home later than she said, ex at the party, etc.)
>>17249183
True, Im not talking project X, that would really bother me.
>>17249163
Doesn't bother me, he's a good boy. Plus he hates parties and only has a few guy friends so he'd probably leave after a bit to the bar.
OPs photo looks weird, like someone wanted to become an anime.
>>17249193
>anime
What is an "anime"?
>>17249163
I trust them, if you don't trust them then you shouldn't be with them.
>>17249163
Well, they are going to cheat on you, yes, but you should be okay with that in today's society.
If you don't let your girlfriend choose to get fucked by other guys, you're insecure. If she chooses to only fuck you, then she has an insecure attachment.
That's how today's society actually thinks.
My advice: Cut communication with your girlfriend, and go get a mail order bride. Sign a prenup, giving her nothing if she leaves you, and don't let her have her own friends.
There, you have a perfect relationship, and there no reason to go to parties anymore. Crisis averted.
>>17249202
When you say "I trust you, Anonette", she's thinking "Holy fuck, he trusts me, now I can fuck random guys worry free".
>>17249202
>trusting women
l m a o
b
o
i
>>17249209
>That's how today's society actually thinks.
Thanks, guy who hasn't been outside in weeks.
>>17249220
>>17249231
You're on the wrong board /r9k/, most people are in happy and faithful relationships.
if you have a strong relationship you have nothing to worry about desu. that's a big caveat because not everyone has that.
then again i had a gf that I would never ever suspect of cheating but a prolonged absence changed a lot. we had a watertight relationship but not being able to communicate for 8 weeks changed things.
>>17249239
"woah bro, like, you don't let your girl fuck other guys, dude, like, bro, that's pretty abusive. Maybe you should go to a therapist for your insecurity, bro. Like bro, dude, brah, bro, like dude, you should like, go outside. I bet you haven't been out side like, bro, dude, ad hominem is my only arguement, like brah."
>>17249251
>most people
Really denpends on the country. With UK and America, it's not the case.
>>17249264
Obvious message of my post was that you are clearly out of touch even for the standards here if you are not trolling and think that monogamy is seen as an insecurity issue by the majority of the population.
>>17249193
>OPs photo looks weird, like someone wanted to become an anime.
Its a very lazy cosplay
>>17249163
>How do you cope with your s/o going to a party without you where everyone is drinking?
If your partner going and having fun at a party without is a serious issue for you either you're terribly insecure or you don't trust them.
If you're terribly insecure, get therapy. If you don't trust them, break up. That's it.
>>17249277
And all I'm saying is that you're clearly out of touch and the majority of the U.S. see monogamy is a turnoff and major insecurity issue ever since the sexual revolution with the introduction of the birth control pill, sorry to burst your bubble, nooffense.
>>17249295
kek'd
Women are impossible to obtain, so it's insane to just throw one away.
OP, all you have to do is spy on her.
>>17249268
>UK
Do you mean the country where the divorce rate has hit its lowest in 40 years?
>>17249320
Yeah, that country with a prostitute rate of 1 per 50 people.
>>17249355
Yeh, there's not 1.28 million prostitutes in the UK.
>>17249371
http://people.exeter.ac.uk/watupman/undergrad/aac/scale.htm
Yeah, there is. Troll harder.
>>17249374
>number of prostitutes = 80,000
>>17249317
>Women are impossible to obtain, so it's insane to just throw one away.
That's a very sad statement. If you allow yourself to be treated like shit by a woman because you're so desperate for female affection you have some serious issues.
>>17249377
Thanks for bringing up UK's prostitute issue. Sounds like a lot of people buy sex. Shame that monogamy never really took off there baka desu senpai
>>17249395
Nice implying. All I said is that women are impossible to obtain unless you're the top 10% of men.
If I had a woman, I'd at least not be to hasty cutting all ties with her over a suspision, but I would spy on her.
>>17249400
You claimed that there were 1.28 million prossies, I just showed you that there are only 80,000 from the source you linked
Nice try motard
>>17249411
I never said 1.28 million. You did, ans then when I showed you the data, you went full damage control, no offense.
shiggy diggy doc
>>17249415
>Yeah, that country with a prostitute rate of 1 per 50 people.
>population of 63 million
63 million divided by 50 = 1.26 million
Holy fuck you are dumb
>>17249299
C U C K
U
C
K
>>17249427
Yeah, 1.26, not 1.28. Where are you even getting these numbers?
Dude, you sound frusterated. You should go buy some pussy. I heard they're everywhere in the UK.
>>17249433
Sorry friend, but you can't even claim that this is trolling; you are legit this dumb.
You claim that 1 in 50 people are prossies, which puts the number at 1.26 million and then link a source that clearly states it's 80,000
Dam, you're dumb
>>17249438
>You claim that 1 in 50 people are prossies, which puts the number at 1.26 million and then link a source that clearly states it's 80,000
>Dam, you're dumb
Does anyone have a translator for this? I don't speak uneducated Bonglander.
>>17249406
>All I said is that women are impossible to obtain unless you're the top 10% of men.
That's the silliest fucking thing I've ever heard.
>If I had a woman, I'd at least not be to hasty cutting all ties with her over a suspision, but I would spy on her.
I pray that no woman ever be exposed to the raw levels of autism that you are radiating right now.
>>17249466
>That's the silliest fucking thing I've ever heard
Did you not read any of the data in the image. It proves you're wrong.
>I pray that no woman ever be exposed to the raw levels of autism that you are radiating right now
>"i'll just call anon autistic, check mate"
Project your picturesque vision of autism somewhere else. You have been beat, no offense.
>>17249484
>Did you not read any of the data in the image. It proves you're wrong.
Your "data" proves absolutely nothing. The only thing is proves is that you are desperate to find statistical justification for how deeply ignorant and out of touch with the real world you are.
Half of it is unsubstantiated, biased, meme based statistics and the other half is just other weak red-pilled attempts to blame everyone else for your problems and take no responsibility for your inability to develop relationships with women.
There is no amount of "data" that will justify or validate your idiocy.
Only the top 10% of men "obtain" women?
That's honestly the most asinine thing I've read on this board in ages, even for a hardcore /r9k/ warrior. That statement is 100 fedoras deep. That statement is a metric fuck ton of the edgiest spaghetti known to man. I know people with down syndrome that have a better grasp on reality than you do.
>You have been beat, no offense.
Sure, if being a well adjusted adult male who has no problem interacting or developing relationships with women means I'm "beat" then fuck, dude, you win. I don't need goofed statistics to explain away my inadequacies, so, good luck with that.
>>17249539
>"I don't like cited data, so I'm just going to attack my limited knowledge of your character, and reject the validity of the facts presented to me."
I'll take your wall of incoherent ramblings as an official surrender. I cringed tbqph.
>>17249567
kek. sure, dude, you win. im perfectly fine with that.
>>17249567
There was absolutely nothing valid in any of the data you posted, anon. Not a single one of the studies you posted supported your statement that "only the top 10% of men can obtain women". Not a single one.
Not to mention the fact that I spotted at least 4 of your "cited" studies that were published by christian fundamentalist groups and not any kind of independent, substantiated study group.
Are you sure these studies are valid or do you just need to believe in them so desperately that you're not willing to believe anything suggesting the contrary?
I mean, I know its easy to post up a bunch of studies and use that to explain why you suck with women but have you considered the possibility that it might be more than statistics that prevent you from being able to interact successfully with a woman?
I'm honestly asking.
>>17249623
I'm not the guy you're replying to, but the bottom left two are prolly what he was talking about.
With that, all of the sources seem legit. You might have to admit you were rusing pham.
>>17249623
Nay brah, you're just refusing to accept the facts, sorry to burst your bubble. I don't blame you, but typing lengthy responses that you're frankly just parroting aren't going to help your case.
>>17249652
>Nay brah, you're just refusing to accept the facts, sorry to burst your bubble.
The fact is you have absolutely 0 evidence, anecdotal or otherwise to support your statement that, and I quote,
>All I said is that women are impossible to obtain unless you're the top 10% of men.
0 evidence. None. What you're saying is that its impossible for 90% of men to obtain women. That's what you're saying and its absolutely ridiculous.
So you can't make this vast, unsubstantiated and idiotic statement and then take the high road and act all uppity, referring back to a bunch of goofed statistics when I confront you about the individual points of your statement.
You still, after all these posts where you condescend and talk about "facts" without supporting a single one of them, have failed to explain to me how you have proven that 90% of men are alone, a "fact" that, by the way, I can disprove by simply sticking my head outside and seeing for myself that "90% of men can't obtain women" is complete and utter bullshit.
Why do you keep ignoring my question?
>>17249652
>Nay brah, you're just refusing to accept the facts
Two of your studies don't cite any source at all.
One study was conducted by an online dating site blog.
One study was conducted by an online car dealership for women.
Two studies were conducted at universities in Canada and another study was conducted by a renowned anti-feminist children's rights council.
The only study on your original post >>17249406 that comes close to being a widely substantiated is the one about the gender pay gap.
I'm not the anon you've been arguing with but the facts you keep leaning on have a very shaky foundation of truth, at best. This is the danger of accepting any one study as an absolute truth.
Also, unreliable studies aside, I don't see any study there that addresses your statement that its impossible to obtain women unless you're in the top 10% of men.
>>17249163
>he let's his gf leave the house without him
>>17249299
Omfg that chart, looks normal at 1960, after it, marriage went on the incline then it just declined something fierce... it makes me laugh cuz it's going OFF the chart.
