Did you really stay up all night to see if he came back?

If you look at it objectively, like that his sole purpose was to most likely pump and dump a bunch of Stacies, you don't need to feel like shit about it anymore. Think of it like the universe doing you a favor of avoiding a guy that could end up breaking your heart much worse than by kissing five girls in front of you anonette.

he's a walking red flag and a big turn off if he lets himself go like that with other women, don't you see that?
don't feel bad, move on and chose someone with more self respect
you dodged a bullet here

He sounds like a giant manwhore who probably wouldn't be able to commit to a relationship.

He's used up

eww, have some self respect op. his penis will be worn down to a nub after being such a slut and riding the cunt carosel

>there are women who get to kiss guys
>except you
>you are ugly
If only life could be rerolled as easily as these digits…

he's probably out of your league anyway

Means you're a normie tard who likes conventionally attractive moids.

>>76902
>be introvert college
>have a crush on a cute guy in multiple units
>make conversation because we're the only people who speak fluent english, makes me get butterflies in my stomach
>can't stop thinking about him
>ask him out
>"Sorry, I'm just not interested in a relationship"
>stay friends and he remains single throughout uni
>gives me hope
>lose contact briefly
>run into each other at an industry event
>he's getting married to one of the most influential research scientists in out field who's 20 years older than him, and managed to get pregnant

That's life. That's what all the people say.

>>76923
He's pretty tall

>>76929
At least he's not a pedo and is actually dating someone intelligent and established. Good for him, honestly.

>>76929
They probably won't last due to the extreme age gap, if that helps lol.

>>76929
lol, he was fucking her for fun then she got pregnant and he felt forced to propose. i bet she was married or in a relationship already. he probably died inside seeing you

>>76929
good for her, and good for him. it's good that he's dating an older woman. you'll find another dude.

>>76989
>it's good that he's dating an older woman
Why?

>>76990
because it is based.

>>76956
>>76957
Well, she was unmarried/unattached, they've been together for the last 5 years and decided to have another kid.

>>76991
Are you above 30 by any chance

>>76994
She's in her 40s and having kids? Anyway, he fucked up his own life for the next 18+ years so you can do better anyway.

>>76994
if it makes you feel better, by getting pregnant in her 40s that kid is pretty much guaranteed to come out fucked up

>>77002
nope

>>77008
i think there's a 5-6% chance of that happening, which is just 1-2% above the baseline for genetic defects. so sorry anon, but the chance of that baby ending-up as a mutant are still pretty slim.

>>76902
yes, you should have kidnapped him first. you were too slow. its over.
SAD!

really makes you think…
shy people always let good opportunities pass out

>>77008
>>77003
you guys are conned by the fertility industry that purposely warps data without giving context to make it seem like it's impossible to give birth or unhealthy to give birth at 40 or so. they purposely withhold the context of the numbers to make it seem extremely dramatic and that women are shriveling off of a vine and are inherently defective at a very slightly older age
>>77042
this

>>77042
But… The baseline includes everyone. So the average rate of defects for those below 30 is another 1-2% lower.
>>77073
It is very difficult. At 41, half of women are sterile. Personally just a 5-6% risk is huge. It's a more than 1 in 20 chance you end up with a down syndrome/miscarriage etc.

>>76902
>>76903
kek…really, OP?

>>77075
Total bullshit. Birth records about women from the early twentieth century shows it was common for women to continue giving birth well into their 40s. The risk of a down syndrome child at 40 is 1% btw.

>>77465
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4532312/

https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/19/7/1548/2356634?login=false

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1136/jms.9.1.2 (in https://journals.sagepub.com/toc/msca/9/1)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3303492/

https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/18/1/29/854296?login=false

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00324728.2018.1442584


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4661791/

https://serval.unil.ch/resource/serval:BIB_19AEC7C94AAC.P001/REF.pdf


You are doing women a disservice by emotionally astroturfing and misleading them about objective biological facts.

>>76902
>falling for someone you haven't ever spoken to
What the fuck is wrong with you?

>>76903
>>77288
>>77729
Yes, it's pathetic. But he was really cute and tall, I can't change how I feel

The risk of DS after 40 is 1% like the other anon said. https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=pregnancy-over-age-30-90-P02481
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/downsyndrome/data.html
>>77466
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4532312/
This is a study about non-chromosomal anomalies (does not look into DS). Both under 20 and over 40 are associated with birth defects. There's also only one "over 40" category, which makes it hard to see how common birth defects really are in the 40s decade, although yes, the risk of some birth defects increases with age when they treat it as continuous (and for others decreases, and for yet others has a U-shape distribution). This does not disprove that women can give birth well into their 40s.
>https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/19/7/1548/2356634?login=false
This only shows that after 40 conception is more difficult, which is of course true, but still achievable by the majority within 4 years.
>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1136/jms.9.1.2
This says the risk of DS does not increase linearly with age and actually declines in increase rate after 45.
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3303492/
Seems like having children later in live has both advantages and disadvantages, as anyone would expect. It's entirely up to each person to make their choice. This was a nice paper to read actually, showing how biology is not the end-all, be-all in the final choice.
>https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/18/1/29/854296?login=false
Again, logically both maternal and paternal advanced age are associated with more complications. The main takeaway "women have partners who are several years older than themselves and it is important to focus more on the combined effect of higher female and male age on infertility and reproductive outcome.". Seems logical, does not disprove what anon said. Maybe it's time for cougar milf takeover of young fertile men.
>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00324728.2018.1442584
>We find that across successive birth cohorts, the negative association between advanced maternal age and LBW becomes progressively weaker;
This means that recently advanced maternal age does not have as much of an impact in child health as it had before.
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4661791/
This is about menopause, not sure what it has to do with child birth. Perhaps you linked it for the following
>It is estimated that natural fertility ceases on average 10 years before menopause
which is true, the ovarian reserve starts depleting and making it harder to conceive, explaining the results of the previous studies. But also, most women in that age bracket can and do get pregnant, as we've seen above, it's simply less common.
>https://serval.unil.ch/resource/serval:BIB_19AEC7C94AAC.P001/REF.pdf
Shows women are having children later, but the time between pregnancies has decreased (the urge to have more children has more influence than the decrease in fertility as stated in the introduction).

It's important that women are well aware of the implications of their choices, but your bibliography dump was also misleading.