/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7010264]

ITT: We educate each other about science so we better understand how to get sex from women.

1. Are face theory + height theory the only legitimate theories (i.e. are these the only things that attract women)? I read that attractiveness isn't always inherited by males from parents but it almost always is by females. These days I can't bash a qtgirls bf with a rock, so am I out of luck because I don't have a male model face?

2. Is all or nothing theory a legitimate theory? Either you get close to no sex, or you get shitloads of sex. No in between? The Black Swan by Nassim Taleb talks about extremistan and mediocristan, which was a good way of looking at attributes. Physical stuff is in mediocristan. I'm 6'0" so the huge majority of Chads will be within 5" of me. Social stuff is in extremistan because there are no real physical constraints (e.g. the top 5 social media sites probably have way more market share than the next 500). Chad gets the huge majority of sex. I guess another related fact is that women consider most men to have below average looks.

3. Related to Q2, but when it comes to casual sex, do 20 % of males get 80 % of the sex? Why is this instantly dismissed? Are they just mad?

[Anonymous No.7010292]

>>7010264
>Are face theory + height theory the only legitimate theories (i.e. are these the only things that attract women)?
No, that's completely retarded and only a total idiot would believe it.

>Is all or nothing theory a legitimate theory?
No, that's completely retarded and only a total idiot would believe it.

>Related to Q2, but when it comes to casual sex, do 20 % of males get 80 % of the sex?
Almost surely not. When I say 'almost surely', I mean in the mathematical sense where it's not technically possible but the probability of it being true is infinitesimally small, not 95% confidence or 99% confidence or 99.99966% confidence or any statistical bullshit.
>Why is this instantly dismissed?
Because you pulled round numbers out of your ass without any research or supporting evidence, when you say something completely fucking retarded with nothing to back it up other than thinking it sounds kinda right maybe in a supposedly scientific discussion you can expect people to instantly dismiss what you are saying.

Now, that's not to say there's no validity to the model, if you accounted for error and said something like, 0 to 40% of males get 60 to 100% of the sex, it seems like it would be more likely than not to be true, but that's also a pretty worthless statement. And without any data collection I wouldn't even say it's probably true.
>Are they just mad?
Assuming you're talking about the betas not getting laid, yeah.

The truth is, most people don't care that much about sex, they'll go out of their way for it but won't schedule their lives around it or spend too much time thinking about it. Some people are obsessed with sex, most are socially competent, these are the sluts and Chads. A few are sad autistic nerds, since they can't get laid they spend ridiculous amounts of time coming up with theories why they can't get laid and posting about it on the internet. These are the PUAs. There's no science to it, just sexual repression and too much free time.

[Anonymous No.7010295]

>>7010292

>Because you pulled round numbers

I didn't mean literally 20 % and 80 %. But are you srs? Why would the casual sex be equally distributed among males? What is the reason that it would tend towards this trend? Look at the relative amounts of messages in the pic. The top male has more messages than the rest put together. Second place has more than all the lower ones, and so on.

This isn't some physical process where nature and gravity and shit (sorry for being overly technical) are pulling the numbers towards some even trend.

[Anonymous No.7010312]

>>7010295
>But are you srs? Why would the casual sex be equally distributed among males?
please learn to read:
>Now, that's not to say there's no validity to the model, if you accounted for error and said something like, 0 to 40% of males get 60 to 100% of the sex, it seems like it would be more likely than not to be true, but that's also a pretty worthless statement.

>What is the reason that it would tend towards this trend?
See my last paragraph. Some people care a lot more about sex than others. As such they get a lot more sex than others.

The trend isn't nearly as pronounced in women as in men because of social reasons. Namely, the guys who really like sex don't really care if they're hooking up with a chick who enjoys sex as much as they do, or not, they don't generally give a shit if the chick they are fucking enjoys sex, period, or not. So they will hit on every woman they encounter indiscriminately, and if they're attractive even many women who aren't that interested in casual sex will reciprocate because even if you aren't obsessed with sex, zero effort no strings attached casual sex with someone you find attractive is almost always a good deal.

To put this in 4chan terms, your Chads end up getting laid just as much as your sluts. But, your normalfag girls still end up getting pounded by Chad and Tyrone every now and then unless they are prude bitches. Most normalfag guys don't seek out casual sex that aggressively and will get laid quite a bit less. A few guys are betas who are just too ugly/creepy/autistic to ever get laid. Most of us don't care and focus on more important things but some spend their entire lives obsessing over this fact, the textbook case being of course Mr Elliot Rodgers.

Also this entire discussion only pertains to casual sex, most normalfags of both sexes prefer relationships to casual sex, only Chads/betas and sluts are more interested in hookups. If you count sex within relationships the 80/20 rule goes out the window.

[Anonymous No.7010314]

>>7010264

> Are face theory + height theory the only legitimate theories

I'll assume this is /fit/ dogma that you are asking about.

The general idea is that men and women who are attracted to traits that increase reproductive fitness will produce a relatively greater number of offspring. For example, the ability to produce several "eggs" for a woman, rather than just one "egg" means that she can have more than one child.

There are several factors which increase an individuals "fitness", the ability to survive and to reproduce. Men and women are attracted to the respective indicators of these features, because if they produce offspring with individuals displaying these indicators, they are likely to have a greater relative fitness. You understand?

Survival would include the ability to provide for a family, a good immune system, intelligence, the ability to be social (since humans almost exclusively hunted in groups). Reproduction would include appropriate hormone levels for semen production or egg maturation.

For men, the ability to provide for a family involves height and musculature, being both too short or too tall makes it difficult to hunt, as well as not being muscular enough or being too muscular to run long distances.

A good immune system is reflected in the consistency of an individuals skin complexion and they're facial symmetry.

Intelligence and social ability are closely interlinked.

[Anonymous No.7010322]

>>7010314
>>7010264

Now, women have to evaluate men and look at the interaction of these traits because extremes in one attribute may be accompanied by deficiencies in another. If you look at various primate species, species with a large variance in size between males and females usually have low amounts of social interaction, and the children receive most interaction and care from their mother, and less pair bonding/increase promiscuity.

In primate species where there is relatively less variation in size between males and females, there is increased social interaction between males and females, and the males have a greater impact in the upbringing of their offspring. The also exhibit less promiscuity, and more pair bonding.


Humans are capable of being anywhere along this spectrum.

Which brings me to the 20% of the 80%.
This most likely does not represent the reality of the situation. But assuming it did, I would hypothesize that the women that are the most promiscuous will go for the "20%" of men, the men who are tall and/or handsome. There are those who are jealous and get mad because they aren't in the "20%".

Then there are those who dismiss it, because they know that the 20% get 80% only matters for promiscuous men and promiscuous women.

Women who are looking for increased pair bonding, to raise offspring will go for increased intelligence, and less extreme height, as well as handsomeness.

This is reflected in studies of women in short term and long term relationships, height preferences for these relationships. Attractiveness to more masculine faces at certain parts of their menstruation cycle and less masculine faces at other parts of the menstruation cycle, etc.

If you only want to get sex from women then try to be significantly above average height, with a handsome face, and your intellect and social skills won't matter too much.

If you want a long term relationship, try to be average or just above average height, handsome face and intelligent

[Anonymous No.7010323]

>>7010264
Oh boy. Where do I even begin.

For starters, women are human beings, and are not a general "thing" you can classify to get results. You'll get data that correlates such as taller men being seen as more attractive, but for the most part that's a crap shoot. I say this not to be a debbie downer SJW tumblr liberal blue pilled buzzword whatever, I say it because you're treating getting laid as something that is a process.

There is no "science" to getting laid, even being a 'Chad' isn't a surefire way.

[Anonymous No.7010594]

Just read Heartiste

[Anonymous No.7010603]

Your pseudoscientific bullshit is not going to help you get laid. Please have some probability and statistics.

You will not get laid if you sit around waiting to get laid and trawl the internet for the secret guide to attracting women. I'm a woman in an academic field. It is your job to go out and ask women until you get lucky.

That being said, do not
>think you can get a chick hotter than you deserve
>refuse to take no for an answer and get hung up on one woman
as that is no longer playing the odds. For fuck's sake, guys.

[Anonymous No.7010607]

Check out sluthate OP, this topic is the point of that forum

Hip theory is legit too. Hip width is inversely corrolated with attractiveness.

[Anonymous No.7010828]

>>7010323
Nope.png

The sexes are more or less homogeneous within their own group otherwise we couldn't live in groups as large as we do.

[Anonymous No.7010907]

>>7010603
> I'm a woman in an academic field

Is it depressing knowing that, even if you are the most intelligent woman in the world, if you aren't sufficiently attractive, you won't end up with a man who is "good enough" for you?

[Anonymous No.7010915]

>>7010907
I am an independent, liberated woman, I am fully self sufficient on my own, tons of men seem to find me annoyingly attractive.

I don't want to "end up" with any kind of man, that is heteronormative stone age nonsense perpetuated by the patriarchy. At some point, I will need to find a man to help raise my children, I might stay with him while they are very young and if he chooses to stay to help raise them that is fine but he can't expect me to repress my sexuality like a nun, I will still be meeting men and enjoying my life. I will mainly just need him to take financial responsibility, because it's the man's job to provide for his children, if he tries to be a deadbeat and run out on his duties I will use the court system if I have to. But I will always have sexual relationships freely with men whenever I want to and it feels right, anything else is oppression by the patriarchy, if I find someone man enough to deal with this maybe he will stick around long term but I won't "end up" with him in any sense.

[Anonymous No.7010920]

>>7010915
I hope you get "liberated" by the IDL lol

[Anonymous No.7010924]

>>7010907
>>7010915
lol, you agroed the feminist

[Anonymous No.7010943]

I cringe my balls off when undersocialized dweebs try to delve into theory and biotruths and sales tricks to try and get women to like them.

You could instead, idunno, try to become a likable person and learn how to talk to people.

The big secret to having a satisfying sex life is knowing there is no big secret - society has shoved all the tools in your face since you were born. Take care of yourself, have an appealing physique, be well-groomed (or carefully disheveled), be personable, most of all be self-driven. You'll have an up on 95% of the population.

[Anonymous No.7010944]

>>7010915

There is no fucking way this is a real person.

[Anonymous No.7010951]

>>7010915
>if he tries to be a deadbeat and run out on his duties I will use the court system if I have to. But I will always have sexual relationships freely with men whenever I want to

What kind of red pill fantasy identity is this.

[Anonymous No.7011200]

>>7010312

Funny how you critizise some theories but pull other theories out of your ass.

If you ever had any real contact with people you'd know how much they enjoy sex.
To claim that only "chads"/"betas"/sluts prefer relationships over sex shows that you don't spend a lot of time with people.

I'm not even the guy you're arguing with, he's just as retarded as you are.

[Anonymous No.7011209]

no, women will think what their biology tells them to think, and it's just the same with you and I.

>why height?

because way back when, height was important. the bigger and stronger the man is, the more capable he was, defending his woman from other men, protecting their offspring and such things.

So, height back then meant how capable at protecting and providing the man was for the woman.
In todays society women don't need that much protection so the only thing left is providing.
That's why most women would rather suck a dick of some short and ugly but rich guy than they would suck a dick of a tall and pretty homeless man.

In todays society providing requires you to have a brain.Now they won't be attracted to you if you are smart, because that mechanism isn't there yet, but they will be if you are capable of providing for them and their offspring.
In other words, if you make money nothing else matters.
It's simple biology.

>>7010915

Jesus Christ, even if this is a troll you just know there are women like this out there. I would rather be friends with Hitler than you, you gigantic cunt.

[Anonymous No.7011216]

>>7011200
Not either of those guys but learn to read dude. He said chads dont prefer relationships. Are you one of those people who jumps into an argument based on your feelings rather than knowledge?

[Anonymous No.7011223]

Chads always just sound like normal socialized people whenever I hear about them. I think there are just so many atypical men, that chads seem rare. Most guys I talk to are awkward as fuck around dating and girls

[Anonymous No.7011227]

>>7010915

I know you're being ironic, but feminism literature follows through on it's ideas and critiques the divorce court system and the concepts of 'male duties' in addition to 'female duties' as being a part of the same power structure. The followers are the same as any who use ideologies to justify their hatred and like christianity is born from a position of the slave hating the master, inventing the idea of Hell to find comfort in imagining the suffering of their tormentor. My biggest problem with the 4th wave movement is, even if they're correct, their solutions to the problems they identify are fucking insane and cannot possibly work.

[Anonymous No.7011228]

>>7011227
>My biggest problem with the 4th wave movement is, even if they're correct, their solutions to the problems they identify are fucking insane and cannot possibly work.
4th wave?

[Anonymous No.7011230]

>>7010915
Ha ha, very probable. If you indeed are a woman, you will in 3-5 years find how ridiculous your current position is (unless you already do and just find joy in screwing with peoples heads). Although much more probable is that you're a man who enjoys screwing with people's heads.

[Anonymous No.7011231]

>>7010943
>You could instead, idunno, try to become a likable person and learn how to talk to people.
Why bother, women aren't that great.

[Anonymous No.7011244]

>>7011231
May be true, but at least you will get more respect from other people if you do..!

[Anonymous No.7012494]

>>7011231
>women aren't that great.

In the sense that they're no better or worse than men.

But it feels nice to have a warm body to come home to, and to wake up to. And to get comfortable enough with someone as you are with yourself, to the point of bringing all the barriers and worries down.

After that, being alone, it's pretty awful.

[Anonymous No.7012495]

>>7010915

This sounds like a really frustrated redditor's attempt to describe how he thinks a woman thinks despite him never meeting one.

[Anonymous No.7012881]

>>7012494
>In the sense that they're no better or worse than men.
They used to be different from men in useful ways. Now they're just men with vaginas and no personality. I don't really care that much.

>After that, being alone, it's pretty awful.
You don't need a mate you need a mom.

[Anonymous No.7013877]

>>7010264
>do 20 % of males get 80 % of the sex?

>>7010292
>Almost surely not.

Hes pretty close.

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/all-the-lonely-feminist-spinsters/#comment-16924
>The results: The top 2.6% of men are responsible for 29% of the hookups. The top 5.4% are responsible for 40% of the hookups. The top 28% of the men are responsible for 78% of the hookups. These statistics are for Fall 2010.

http://www.acha-ncha.org/docs/ACHA-NCHA-II_ReferenceGroup_DataReport_Fall2010.pdf

Here is a good thread on female sexual selection:
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/39557427/

I also recommend pic related

[Anonymous No.7013894]

>>7012881

It seems like you're the one who needs a mom.

[Anonymous No.7013897]

>>7013877
>here, allow me to prove my point by citing this feelings blog about how i'm still mad my high school crush rejected me

[Anonymous No.7013910]

>>7013897
>can't read
>thinks facts are feelings.

The source was posted in my comment.

>http://www.acha-ncha.org/docs/ACHA-NCHA-II_ReferenceGroup_DataReport_Fall2010.pdf

[Anonymous No.7013913]

This is a "sex map" of a high school over a 6 month period, from an actual study.

So no, it's not true that all the girls are fucking the few "alpha males." That's just buttfrustrated made up fedora nonsense.

[Anonymous No.7013915]

>>7010264
I'd really love to see what kind of an insecure super autist wrote that post up.

[Anonymous No.7013919]

>>7013913
>highschool
>real study

check this study with thousands of students not just one year of a highschool:>>7013910

[Anonymous No.7013920]

>>7013913

Fascinated that there is at least blue-blue pair, but no pink-pink.

[Anonymous No.7013923]

>>7013910

And yet you posted the feelings blog first, completely destroying your credibility. Great, you can copy paste an angry faggot who cherry picks and misrepresents data.

[Anonymous No.7013926]

>>7013920

There is a pink pink, over on the right.

[Anonymous No.7013933]

>>7013915
> insecure
> super autist

What? U even know what autism means?

[Anonymous No.7013936]

>>7013926
You're right. I see it in the triangle. Glossed over it.

[Anonymous No.7013938]

>>7013913
Yes and everyone answer studies 100% truthfully and they are 100% interpreted correctly. And never in history has it occured that scientists disregard "unreasonable" data.

[Anonymous No.7013939]

>>7013923
The feelings blog comment has a good explanation of the study.

>you can copy paste an angry faggot who cherry picks and misrepresents data.

Are you going to explain why you its cherry picked or misrepresents the data? I didn't believe it when i first read that comment so I checked the source and his maths checks out.

why are you mad?

[Anonymous No.7013945]

>>7013938
>muh denial

Yup, everything that doesn't fit your story is lies lies lies! It's all a conspiracy to make you feel bad!

[Anonymous No.7013946]

I can't access the paper directly, but maybe some of you can. Here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289611000523

And an article about it:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/humor-sapiens/201105/laughing-all-the-way-the-bedroom

Desirable and trainable. There.

[Anonymous No.7013957]

>>7010607
corrolated? correlated? and no it isn't. it's what some Want us to think but it isn't.

[Anonymous No.7013973]

>>7013939

Because the same pattern exists for men and women, which you would know if you had actually looked at it instead of just reading what the hateblog had to say about it. He's misrepresenting it as "all the women fuck these few guys!" when in fact it's just that there are slutty guys and slutty girls too. So yes, blatant misrepresentation.

[Anonymous No.7013974]

>>7013945
1 high school year level isn't a very big sample size. and they're linking "romantic and sexual relations". Most of those links are not people fucking each other, so it doesn't disprove that women mainly fuck a small percentage of men.

[Anonymous No.7013989]

>>7013945
> muh will to misinterpret people to make them look bad

[Anonymous No.7013990]

>>7013974
>1 high school year level isn't a very big sample size.

It's hundreds of kids. So you think this is an extremely anomolous high school? Do you have any idea how astronomically unlikely that would be?

>and they're linking "romantic and sexual relations".

It's sex. It means sex inside and outside of a "relationship."

[Anonymous No.7013995]

>>7013989

You're making yourself look bad.

[Anonymous No.7014006]

>>7013973
>Because the same pattern exists for men and women

nah.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.6231.pdf
>twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors

[Anonymous No.7014008]

>>7013995
And that is so desperately important to you why?

[Anonymous No.7014039]

>>7013913
check out this chad

[Anonymous No.7014063]

>>7014039
yeah. nice flavour of blue.

[Anonymous No.7014090]

>>7014006
>twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors

Yeah, 100,000 years ago, when half of all men died violently. Does not reflect anything on contemporary society or even agricultural society.

[Anonymous No.7014096]

Nice thread once again.

[Anonymous No.7014109]

>>7014039

And the sub-chad just below had sex with three of the same girls. Awkward as shit.

[Anonymous No.7014140]

>>7014109
Why is that awkward? Maybe they were mates and banged the girls together at the same time.

[Anonymous No.7014148]

>>7010607
>hip theory

what is it, cant fnd anything

[Anonymous No.7014150]

>>7010943
>self-driven

wot?

[Anonymous No.7014152]

>>7012494
>But it feels nice to have a warm body to come home to, and to wake up to. And to get comfortable enough with someone as you are with yourself, to the point of bringing all the barriers and worries down.

oedipal as fuck.

also, youre forgeting about the insane amount of fights all couples have after a time being together

[Anonymous No.7014184]

>>7014090
nope. even today women have a much higher median number of children compared to men.

[Anonymous No.7014206]

>>7014090
Women still have a higher median number of children today.

>>7013973
>He's misrepresenting it as "all the women fuck these few guys!" when in fact it's just that there are slutty guys and slutty girls too
>imply 70% of women fucking the 30% of men are sluts
nope.

[Anonymous No.7014214]

>>7014152
>also, youre forgeting about the insane amount of fights all couples have after a time being together

I've been with my girlfriend for six years and we almost never fight. Sorry your parents weren't a good couple.

[Anonymous No.7014220]

>>7014214
>my personal experience invalidates statistics
This is a science and math forum.

[Anonymous No.7014228]

squatz+oatz/kegels=sex^2

[Anonymous No.7014229]

>>7014206

Dumbass, some men have a lot of sex and some women have a lot of sex. It might not be completely symmetrical, but the basic pattern is the same. This isn't rocket science.

[Anonymous No.7014230]

>>7014220

Oh sorry, I guess I missed where you showed all those statistics.

[Anonymous No.7014233]

>>7014090
Women still have a higher median number of children today.

>>7013973
>He's misrepresenting it as "all the women fuck these few guys!" when in fact it's just that there are slutty guys and slutty girls too
>imply the 70% of women fucking the 30% of men are all sluts

[Anonymous No.7014242]

>>7014233

faggot, see >>7014229

[Anonymous No.7014246]

>>7014242
>faggot
>>7014229
>dumbass

lol?

[Anonymous No.7014294]

>>7013933
Do you?

[Anonymous No.7014314]

>>7014228
underrated post.

[Anonymous No.7014321]

>>7013913
They totally forgot about OP!

[Anonymous No.7014335]

>>7013913
>>7014321

/sci/ edition

[Anonymous No.7014373]

ok lets think about this math.

One man is a slut and sleeps with 80women since his personality drives him away from relationships.

10 other men each sleep with 2 women and get married and live happily ever after.

2 guys off /sci never get laid.

Here you have 7% of men sleeping with 80% of the women.

Sluts really really skew the data.

[Anonymous No.7014565]

>>7013913
Nice

[Anonymous No.7014579]

>>7014039
holy cow, that node has a degree of 9.

>>7014565
looks like somebody managed to solve the 3 body problem

[Anonymous No.7014593]

>>7013913
>planar

Step it up high schoolers.

[Anonymous No.7014599]

>>7010264
You know, I want to do some math now. What is the expected amount of time for me to lose my viriginity if I am simply persistent on online dating sites.

As in what is the probability a relationship will develop and that said relationship will lead to sex?

[Anonymous No.7014672]

>>7014599
0% and you know it.

[Anonymous No.7014729]

>chad

ayyy lmao over here everytime i read about chad

[Anonymous No.7014882]

Here is the truth from somebody who gets (or at least got) laid a lot:

The whole "social dynamics" things is pretty simple; it's a "treshold-system". It means, once you're above a treshold, you can choose from the majority woman below the treshold. So once you break into the 8/10s, i.e. you laid a few on different occasions, you can get the majority of 8/10s.

Same goes for the girls. From the 8/10s perspective you're at least a 9/10, simply by the fact that you get laid a lot, and have other qualities of course. Once they had a 9/10, they won't settle for anything inferior - and after all, that would be cruel to expect, regardless if it's about girls, guys, your major, your job or even your hobbies. This is why girls go only for the top guys, and the top guys have such an easy time.

Now what are the qualities that make the top guys top? Firstly, rest assured, that if you study STEM, you don't really enjoy what you are doing, and you envy other people their lifestyle - nobody will like you. If you study something you really like, the thought of not getting laid won't bother you, and you'll get laid eventually, if you so desire. The qualities are the following: Self-confidence and self-respect, getting laid, manliness (athleticism, protector role), social status, self-realization, being funny. How important each quality is, depends on her system of values - which she mostly inherited from her father, her older brothers, her first boyfriend, and from society. If you have enough of the qualities which she values, you can lay her, as simple as that (so much from Einstein's quotes about women).

The game is simple; Bring the qualities, and lay more and more chicks progressively. Bringing the qualities implies becoming a better person, or in other words: You don't get laid, a better person would get laid -> become a better person. And this implies usually kicking yourself in the ass, which is why dating coaches have such a lecturing tone in their voices. cont.

[Anonymous No.7014922]

>>7014882
So, in essence: stop hanging on 4chan, go work out, and work out hard, eat healthy, get rid off your petty ego, stop whining and self-pitying, and all the other bullshit. You'll get rejections along the way of trying to get laid, learn to deal with them, don't take failures personally, work harder each time, same goes for uni/job or whatever.

You'll have to do a lot of ass kicking, and as a result, you'll also look better. A man who respects himself and wants to present himself socially, is also well dressed as a consequence. If you never trained seriously, you'll have a very hard time starting now. Most people give up, and that is why all this "dating advice" usually falls on deaf ears. There is no "secret" to laying women, the only secret is, that's is a continuous path of self-improvement, a path that, in principle, has nothing to do with getting laid at all.

I don't expect the majority of people who read this to do anything about their situation, just as little as you expect somebody to read a list of math books you posted in a thread. I just want to tell the one anon out there who wants to change and is ready to fight hard for it, that it is possible, that there exists a systematic approach to getting laid. At this part I can also recommend the PickUp stuff, it's useful, but the theory alone has helped nobody.

As for the question why I "got laid" instead of "get laid": I just got bored with women. Of course I could have went on to break the 100 mark, the 200 mark, and whatever else comes next, but what is the point of all of this? I know my life has some other purpose, and it detraced from my studies, or my sport - I tried to manage all the 3 things at the same time, and ended up failing classes. I think I then discovered that I love maths the most after all.

Like I said, feel free to embark on the journey of sex adventures, but even after you slept with the hottest hottie, you're life will stay the same. Don't take it too serious.

[Anonymous No.7014924]

>>7014922
>You'll have to do a lot of ass kicking

By which I mean kicking your own ass, not other people's. English is not my native language.

[Anonymous No.7014931]