Only friendless losers who can't get laid experience this issues...

If you both can't come up with a better reply, I rest my case. Hit a nerve?

This is exactly what happened.

And who exactly said it was invalid?

I just stated the kind of people who are more likely to take any of this seriously.

OK, I'll bite:

You state "But then there are people with sever social anxiety issues.", then you state "It's a lack on "normal" person's part. You cannot get it, because you are a shallow human who needs approval from society for what you consider achievement (like having a girlfriend or friends)."

You're contradicting yourself, or trying to have it both ways.

Either the person who can "get it" suffers from anxiety issues (and is thus suffering a condition, not a blessing), or is an enlightened "non shallow" individual. Which is it? It ain't both.

"Happiness and sense of achievement is purely subjective. For example, if you are settled down in life with a 9 to 5 job, you are a loser for a free spirited adventurer. "

While that sounds reasonable in theory, in fact that rarely ever happens.
- Most "free spirited adventurers" eventually end up begging for change living under a bridge, enjoying whatever happiness their latest fix can get them. I see them every day on my way to work.
- Achievements stand on their own (they are not subjective). Regardless of what you see in the movies, in reality successful individuals ENJOY their successes regardless of whatever personal sacrifice they made. The ones who really make a drastic change in their life to pursue a different path do so out of choice/boredom/40 midlife crisis.
- Most people who look down on successful people and dismiss their success do so out of envy and resentment. Not because they disapprove their behaviour/actions, but because they WISHED they could be those individuals yet couldn't cut it, hence they settle and take the high road to mask their settling as a choice rather than the only choice available to them. Very few truly do so out of personal choice and morals.


"If you are committed to one girl/woman, you are a loser for a playboy who spends every night with a new girl.
If you need a job to put food on the table, you are a loser for someone born to a billionaire daddy."

And if you're a Christian/Jew, you're a loser to an ISIS fanboy. Your examples are shallow at best.
- Most married dudes actually do envy the playboy, especially if the playboy actually scores pretty girls (and not just anything that moves including trannies and fuglies). That is not at all subjective (the playboy IS the winner, especially if he ends up married in the end).
- Most billionaires do look down on everybody else, yet their reasoning is circular (losers always are poor, and poor people are por because they are losers). So again it's not subjective (they are rationalizing their leg up as deserved/earned).

"So before you label anyone else as a loser, know that you are a loser for several others."

Hit a nerve there? You're showing.

You can rationalize/analyze/theorize it all you want. But the ultimate truth is that NOTHING will change the fact of whether you got laid (the consented way) or not.

And if you can't get a gf somehow (assuming you're not the Elephant Man, seriously disabled or consecrated to some deity), then you ARE a loser, plain and simple (plenty of plain looking yet interesting girls more than willing to give anyone who approaches them with a modicum of respect/interest the time of day, so there's no excuse).

Like that dip$h!t who shot that California campus because girls wouldn't give him the time of day nor the sex he felt he was entitled to.

"where he talks about the joys he used to have, one of them being that he married his childhood sweetheart (whom subsequently divorced him later in life)? "

I omitted it because it struck me as the "even a broken clock is right twice a day" kind of thing. But OK, I should have addressed it somewhat. But since we never get to know much about her, it's hard not to dismiss her entirely.

"Right off the bat that destroys your theory of having a mate making everything better."

Well it's a start on the path to get the right mate. Just having anyone around is definitely NOT an objective improvement, especially if you're dumb enough to marry them (can't stop remembering those Sex and The City episode where Big introduces an old friend of his to Carrie where he reveals he's divorcing his second spouse with the line "I'm doing like $h!t. B!tch is getting everything the first b!tch didn't".

But, there's a big difference between having a gf and a wife.

"And why are you limiting your OP and replies to just males?"

Because the lead is, well, male? The movie is about him.

"Some people just let those thoughts drive them mad though. It has nothing to do with whether or not they couldn't get some. That's an extremely shallow and contrived point of view to project."

Maybe, but I disagree.
- I believe, like Freud (yes, Sigmund "cocaine" Freud) that most if not all these complex issues arise from sexual repression/frustration.
- I also believe these people may have some very valid points:
http://www.amazon.com/Did-Moses-Exist-Israelite-Lawgiver-ebook/dp/B00KI39S8Y/ref=pd_sim_kstore_8?ie=UTF8&refRID=06DJZVAYRA0KJKK10MDF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus#Parallels_with_Christianity

Long story short, societies that revolved around drunken orgies apparently were far more peaceful, just and relaxed (they sure didn't seem to have this many moral existential hang-ups). Then monotheism came along with their moralizing BS ("we're all guilty, hellbound, etc") and ruined the party for everybody.