I’d much rather have sex with cute trannies tbqh.

>>536171 Dude you're not getting Nano, she's got like 5,000 simps at this point. But ugly trannies are easy, you just validate them and be nice to them and they will jump straight in the sack with you because they're touched starved and lack social skills.

>>536173 Can I have Melissa Masters then? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but one thing I cannot do is a troon who can’t do a vaguely feminine sounding voice. Can’t get hard, or stay hard, unless the troon is committed.

>>536170 >That way you can have sex. You're assuming that what I desire is sex

>>536176 I think all men agree that your best friends are other men, so troons would be ideal then. Butt buddies.

>>536170 >>536171 >>536173 >>536175 >>536177 You will never be a woman.

Why knot children?

That's the most wholesome thing I've ever seen.

>>536170 Most people want relationships. And the majority of THOSE people can't be with someone who is transgendered. The small group of men willing to have sex with a Transgender, at least half of them, will want children of their own one day. So, most of them, might not want to use them for just sex or a fling.

>>536221 60% of men under 35 are not in a relationship. 30% are virgins. Those numbers are insane. Take it from me anyone at all is better than being alone and miserable at 40. You're posting on an altchan, a pretty white tradwife is not your destiny. And besides, there's surrogacy, adoption, polycules, etc etc. There's options.

>>536226 Are those numbers significantly different from a hundred years ago or more through? I cannot imagine the majority of the young men who died in the trenches and wartorn battle fields of the first World War were in a relationship or had sex before. Sex was for marriage, not something casual, and even the notion that just fucking someone is gonna improve your life seems very naïve.

>>536226 >Those numbers are insane. Why?

>>536230 >Are those numbers significantly different from a hundred years ago or more through? OMG yes. The average age of marriage back then was 19. >>536231 Because what have all those tens of millions of men got to live for?

>>536235 >The average age of marriage back then was 19. What absolute twaddle. This is pure fantasy, just a number you picked at random. My hobby is genealogy, and I have researched my ancestry for well over a decade now. The overwhelming number of married couples were in their twenties, from the 1800s all the way back to the 1600s. Unless you count ragheads in the middle east marrying their underage cousins, there is no evidence to support your claim that the average age of marriage was 19. Stop lying to yourself and others.

>>536241 how in their 20s? Early twenties or late 20s? Because to be clear we are now talking about men reaching the age of 35 have never had a serious girlfriend. And this is not a small number of men, this is this is the majority of them. Go back 10 years IIRC the number were 45% single, 15% virgin, which rang alarm bells. The was a whole spate of books on the subject. Now the numbers are MUCH worse and you want to pretend there's nothing wrong with the entire fighting age male population of the english speaking being full time gooners.

Funny thing is a young girl can be knotted by dogs of that size.