I don’t know you but my advice is that you talk to a therapist before you condemn yourself to a life of unhappiness. What you’re thinking about yourself is not always objective, even if you think it is. Being self-critical is not the same as being realistic
Thing is, sex is not a privilege. If you - as someone in such a situation as OP - can’t accept that, you are in danger of growing… hateful views.
No one is entitled to sex, I agree. But in a relationship, you are allowed to make clear what your needs are and move on if those needs aren’t being met. It’s not entitlement to know what you want. Having a ‘dead bedroom’ is why a lot of relationships end.
I don’t want to become such a person, and it’s clear that it’s not their fault that they are not attracted to me. Realizing this helped me accept it.
If I may ask, was there any physical attraction between you two when you met?
I’m not denying that ace spectrum people have relationships and settle down as well. But OP is asking about the normative (read allosexual) experience and explicitly mentions physical attraction.
The vast majority of relationships will involve physical attraction and sex. It’s highly unusual for that to not be the case for allosexual people. That’s not a value judgement—if a minority of allo people find something else works for them, then that’s great. But if OP is asking if this is normal, then no it’s not. Even ‘less attractive’ people, as OP put it, find people they’re attracted to enough to enjoy a lifetime of intimacy and sex with.
Overcoming a lack of physical attraction is a pretty big barrier and I can’t see most people overcoming that barrier just to ‘settle down.’ Not being your physical ideal is one thing, most of us settle down with people who don’t look like models or actors, but finding someone physically unattractive is a tough sell in most cases.
If you don’t find someone physically attractive, how do you settle down with them? Do you just accept getting into bed with someone you’re physically repulsed by every night?
I think the show could use a lot more wholesome segments, so with the knowledge of the behind-the-scenes cast dynamics I would choose people who would be most likely to want to do things to make each other’s lives better.
I loved the episode of Game Changers where the cast just tried to make Jess happy. An episode where they all do improv for free so they can give each other $1000 in cash at the end of each segment would be in a similar vein.
Tao’s was absurd. The only excuse I can think of is that he thought it would be funny to win his own challenge and it didn’t quite land. Otherwise he’s not playing within the spirit of the game
Amazing tagline. You should pitch this to their marketing team
Possibly the most obtuse person I’ve encountered on Lemmy
I think we need regulation, that doesn’t make me a person who irrationally hates children skateboarding.
Also skateboarding hasn’t led to and been complicit in genocide on two continents, but social media has in Asia and Africa. If it had, maybe you’d see people writing op-eds about that instead of social media companies that value profits more than human life
Again… banning the worst practices of social media is to help people. I think this is a comprehension issue at this point.
We need to break them up, and legislate against their practices for the future but this is something that can happen right away and hit them in their pockets
That was in my original comment. I was clearly making the point that the aim is to legislate against harmful practices. I don’t think most people need it spelled out for them why that is, or why we can’t do it right away but I’ve done my best to be patient in explaining it to you.
If you want to take a weird stance that I’m being mean to corporations that’s up to you, but I didn’t say anything vengeful let alone posted a ‘screed’
It’s really not about revenge. It’s about taking back power from corporations and giving it to the people. Right now, political power is with the highest bidder and these companies know it.
They are using the money from advertising to lobby and buy politicians, which is what stops us from having sensible regulations for social media. Taking away that revenue stream inhibits their ability to do this, so it’s a win for the people
The relatively low level of plastic in our testicles
The rest of these comments are surprising because I don’t remember anyone past an interaction we had. Now I’m wondering whose shit list I’m on
Except many advertisers don’t want to be associated with damaging things. So this has an impact on advertising revenue for social media companies and they would absolutely view this as a blow to their public image.
We need to break them up, and legislate against their practices for the future but this is something that can happen right away and hit them in their pockets
This actually helped!
Doing the Lord’s work @brbposting@sh.itjust.works. Thank you!
Can’t see anything but a turned head, even with this guide
They have 2 robots so far. I believe they can make it to 5 by next year and the other 995 will just be people in spandex suits like the first time he announced these things
But does that auto accept cookies like many of these other anti cookie banner extensions?