>>76024
>use human beings like fat blunts
Biochemically speaking, the serotonin rush that comes from falling in love is more like using human beings like crackpipes.

Yes, this is a thing people do. Look up serial monogamy.

>>76025
Why would someone who's just trying to get love-high choose monogamy? Wouldn't it be more efficient to be in an open relationship? Date one person for serious long-term purposes, use others like crack pipes.

What is the safest, most drama free way of getting high on love? Is it possible to trick yourself into becoming infatuated with an inanimate object?

>>76028
If you can make the polyamory thing work for you, more power to you. However, for many people, forming those emotional bonds required to use someone as a crackpipe is a lot harder than just using those people as sex toys. In that kind of open relationship you could easily fall into having one crackpipe, many sex toys, and maybe if you're lucky a sugar daddy/sugar momma.

>What is the safest, most drama free way of getting high on love? Is it possible to trick yourself into becoming infatuated with an inanimate object?
That is not a safe, drama free way of getting high on love, but it is a great display of autism.

People do this all the time. Teenagers especially, but I've seen people in their 40s who do it as well.

I definitely force myself to have little crushes on people sometimes. It's hellza nice to have someone to think about while I try to sleep.

Would becoming infatuated with a fictional character work? After all, those can't cause drama. They seem like reasonably safe crack pipes, right? Nerds get high on them all the time.

>>76031
They are generally not aware that they are doing it just to feel ballza, though. They typically nurture some illusion about true love or the relationship lasting forever.

I pretend i have a girlfriend since mine left me because i got hellza mad when she told me about how she took basketball american cocks and basketball american loads in her pussy one night when i couldn't be there.
Life is not fair. Treat bitches like gold only if you're sure they're worth it. If you're not sure, play it safe and treat them like trash.

>>76038
this is the weirdest post in the history of 99chan

my ban meoldry fetish is tickling. dud she take those bbcs bro?

(USER WAS DIAGNOSED WITH SWINE FLU)

>>76263
Yea bro, they got her mad high and drunk and gorilla raped her. I wanted to save her and give her my superior white mans penis, but I didn't think she'd ever even be dumb enough to be in the same room as one of those mpnkeys. She didn't know what she was getting into, and was raped so hard she turned into a lesbian.

>>76270
And then you ate some meat that you hunted and killed yourself, put on your bespoke suit, and went off to your job at NASA?

>>76275
And when i say superior white penis, i only mean that it's superior because my gf was white too. If she was black, my penis wouod have been inferior, due to black women having gaping and deep vaginas to accommodate the black mans penis. Their largr penises broke her insides and that's why she had to become a lesbian, from the mental amd physical trauma.

>>76270
Here I thought you were describing the first episode of jessica jones.

no one ever does this.

I'm gonna cast my doubt on here.
I don't think you can purposely un-infatuate yourself with someone.
It would seem that infatuation is something you cant hellza control.

>>76033
If you succeed though, doesn't that mean you would also instantly become depressed that they're not real?

>>76381
What if it is possible to convince yourself that they are real? Like how Christians believe in god despite evidence to the contrary. It would be like Christianity except instead of chastely worshiping Jesus, you'd fap over a sexy senpai.

>>76382
>What if it is possible to convince yourself that they are real
You could try meditating and making a tulpa.

>Christians believe in god despite evidence to the contrary
I was not aware of any evidence that directly contradicts the existence of a god. And in any case, it's not just Christians that believe in God.

>>76381
>doesn't that mean you would also instantly become depressed that they're not real?
Maybe the bittersweetness is part of the point. I have nostalgic feelings about my early yearning crushes on women I had never met. Musicians mostly.

>>76383
There's nothing disproving the existence of a god because the definition of god is very elastic. There is, however, evidence against the Christian god and other specific gods.

>>76382
>despite
*ahem* credo quia absurdum.
>>76383
Except tulpas aren't real either.
>>76386
There is indirect evidence against God's existence in that every evidence that has been presented in favour of his existence has been disproven (that includes biblical passages, atributes and pseudohistorical records), but yeah, you can't prove that something *doesn't* exist, you can just point out that there is nothing that supports such belief. Of couse that doesn't stop belief, because, again, credo quia absurdum. Even if a religious person doesn't subscribe to that way of thinking, evidence and faith have about as much in common as yellow school buses and being gay.
cue erotic literature about getting some manlove on the back of a school bus

>>76405
>every evidence that has been presented in favour of his existence has been disproven
Naw man there have been no acceptable refutations of Anselm's ontological argument. Anselm logically proved that God must exist.

>>76406
le bitey fish meme dot jpg

>>76406
No, Anselm redefined what he meant by "God", away from an orthodox Christian definition of God, and then tried to use his definition of not-quite-God to prove that "God" as the church saw it existed.

So while he's not "wrong", Anselm's argument cannot be used to prove that the Christian (or any other monotheistic religious being) exists.