/lit/ - Literature

their instagram feeds

Who cares? They're attractive

Chad's text messages

>>11001458

Half the time it's because they are normal people. The other half it's literally look at me I'm so unique. Sometimes I even see a woman reading on the street while walking. Yes literally reading while walking and for a few brief seconds I become indifferent towards the idea of violence against women.

I'm a horrible person and I hate myself

They beta read my novels

whatever their male/masculine choice of desire reads or tells them to read

>>11001458
They dont, obviously

>>11001458
50 shades of gray

>>11001518
Your comment made me laugh Anonnynonny thanks

Gracias

>>11001458
Usually young adult or romance sci fi genres, it usually has romance

/lit/ threads

>>11001494
OP here. I can't get them, so I need you to tell me that they're all stupid and superficial idiots, and that I'm better off without romantic love and female attention.

Thanks to the rest of you, who got the point. It does help

the same things like everyone? In my circle of friends Le Guin is popular nowadays for obvious reason.

Weird Catholic Twitter

>>11001509
BASED

>>11001667
>implying your friends are attractive

John Green

>>11001643
Can't confirm

>>11001518
i see men walking around the outside of my work building on lunch, reading and walking

>>11001458

Short books

i met a cute girl yesterday that was obsessed with ben shapire lmao

>>11001609
i read some stuff by his influence, and some stuff from my own interests/desires

it is inevitable to end up being influenced by someone you are in a romantic relationship with

I own that same edition and I cannot help but think that whoever the artist painting the cover was, he inspired himself on the looks of Werner Herzog, which makes no sense because Werner was a young bearded man back then.

Am I the only one who sees the resemblance?

>>11001753
It really isn't.

You do it because you're a woman. You are on the weaker side.

(Don't take me wrong. You should keep doing it, because it's in your nature and we like it. It has nothing to do with been inferior, just with the fact that he's your man and he's there to protect and take care of you and your offspring.)

>>11001509
This but ironically

>>11001509
ey bby want fuk? :)) lolo

>>11001765
that is not true
my sister's boyfriend also read books and expressed interest in her interests

and my own has bought books and taken interest in things he knows i find interesting, too

it fosters communication and material to bond over, and via exposure to some things repeatedly, you may gain interest in it.

>>11001778
*swoon*

>>11001765
that is not true.
my sister's boyfriend also read books and expressed interest in her interests and my own has bought books and taken interest in things he knows i find interesting, too. he will come to me with questions about particular subjects he knows i know more about than him, out of his own curiosity. he sometimes also specifically pays attention to things he thinks are interesting to me to talk about it with me later. we make an effort to mutually agree on books to read together, movies to watch together, etc. as well.

it fosters communication and material to bond over, and via exposure to some things repeatedly, you may gain interest in it.

>>11001791
>we make an effort to mutually agree on books to read together, movies to watch together, etc. as well

So I recommend cheating on him with bigger men. If you do it out of 'personal interest', I bet he'll make an effort to enjoy it.

>>11001667
>women author dies
>Buzzfeed writes 30 articles on how they're the most influential writer ever

>Chekhov
>Debord
>Cortazar
>Marx
>Wilde
Keep in mind by "read" I mean the quotes which come up on Google images for each of these writers

>>11001714
>implying they read

James Joyce's Ulysses: A Study By Stuart Gilbert

>>11001823
>>Debord
can someone redpill me one why women are obsessed with this guy

t. not that familiar with his stuff

>>11001756
Are you normally obsessed with German people? Just asking

>>11001833
>rory read the iliad when she was a tot thot
Such a bs show I hate my gf for ever putting it on when I'm in the same house as her

>>11001791
is your name melinda or natasha

Business weekly, people magazine

>>11001833
girl on the left (don't know the actresses name) has a face that triggers me. like no matter how good her body might be i could never find her attractive. one day she is gonna be the kind of mother that purposely takes her time vacuuming in front of the tv when people are watching

>>11001867
no, why?

>>11001458
One of the most naturally beautiful girls I’ve ever seen in person, that I worked with, talked to me about Bertrand Russel and the Divine Comedy. She also loved Tolkien and had a single tattoo of Tolkien’s symbol/drawing of Smaug. We talked about how much the Hobbit movie sucked and how the LotR films did a lot of things wrong. Then she got a job somewhere else and another female coworker told me she was interested in me but I never saw her again... thanks for reading my blog

>>11001852
Posturing most likely is the biggest reason. There is a quote of him where he says something to the lines of: the association between people is intermediated by image. This probably makes relatively shallow, uninteresting woman feel that there is something deeper to their meager relationships, and that someone, or something else is to be held responsible for their being uninteresting. The television and culture as a whole, for example are often what they blame.

>>11001871
ion know ... trying to gauge a science here

>>11001714
Why wouln't they be? They are my friends not my harem.

>>11001881
>Tolkien


She didn't understand Dante, and I bet she barely knows any Italian.

I am almost sure it is aesthetically impossible for the same individual to enjoy both Dante and Tolkien.

>>11001881
>another female coworker told me she was interested in me
Why does this always happen? Why can't they say it in the moment when it's relevant and not afterwards?

>>11001918
girls expect guys to take the plunge, just gotta get used to it, anon

>>11001765
I read books my girlfriend recommend me because I like common topics. They are mostly good European fiction ( like Ferrante, Tokarczuk, Despentes, Knausgaard) I also try to read textbooks from her area of experise (neuroscience).

>>11001817
... so what? Peak of interest is normal when famous author dies.

>>11001643
This. I'm actually a cute girl and spend all my time on here funposting instead of reading

>>11001951

h-hello

>>11001951
>I'm actually a cute girl
t.

>>11001925
Yeah but I'm talking about the coworker that told him about the signals of the other girl. Why not just tell him "hey, X likes you, do something", instead of waiting till it's over?

>>11001978
hot

>>11001458

Their text messages and social media feed.

/thread

>>11001985

Here's how women think:

1) If he's not willing to take a risk and approach me and ask me out he's either a beta faggot or doesn't like me, either way there's no point in me asking him out.

I'm not supporting women acting like that (I agree it's stupid as fuck in a modern context) but it is what it is.

>>11001978
Look at them lips. I bet "hers" aren't even that good.

>>11001985
girl who liked him probably didnt want the other girl coworker to tell him.

>>11001995
they are just shy and afraid of rejection.

>>11002002

But so are men.

>>11002015
this is why alcohol exists

>>11002017
not condoning its use btw, promiscuity is disgusting

>>11001985
Well in that particular situation the coworker that told me also was interested in me but she was a Mexican with a kid so I wasn’t into her. Pretty sure she did it just to spite me.

>>11002023
machiavelli's the prince was probably ghostwritten by a time travelling insta thot

A qt French milf on my morning tube commute always reads a well worn book. Most of the time I can't tell what she's reading because it's French but one time I could tell that she was reading a biography of George Washington.

>>11002028
shes a brainlet.

>>11002028
Rape her

>>11002068
brainlet.

>>11001458
Relatively smart hot chicks like magical realism and gothic romances. If they went to a good school and read the canon, they're more into Tolstoy and Jane Austen than Homer and James Joyce. My cousin is a professor and she's into Nabokov and Tolstoy.

>>11001995
>if he takes the chance and I don't like him, I report him to HR
what a world we live in

>>11002086
Is she hot though?

>Tinder messages by Chad.
>Instagram feeds.
>Titles of their series on Netflix.

>>11002086
Would you bone her anon?

>>11002097

Yeah exactly, it's no longer a viable strategy for women to show no affectation and expect complete escalation from the male. That's what women want but they ruined it for themselves.

>>11002097
you have to be one creepy ass motherfucker for the girl to go to hr for asking her out

>>11001951
me too. lets be friends?

>>11002103
>>11002107
She's alright. She was pretty when she was young. She published some stupid cultural studies book through Yale University Press, and then moved across the country, so I haven't seen or spoken to her in a couple years.

>>11002141
Or just physically unattractive. The problem is that it's a gamble, and it's entirely the propagative of the woman whether or not she wants to report you. There's no real standard for behavior in those situations, and i'm not risking my job for mediocre pussy.

>>11002154
>propagative

>>11002154
>>11002170
*prerogative
I let spellcheck do the work without double-checking

>>11001458
my wife reads Nietzsche

>>11002178
does't count because she was a boy.

>>11001992
>repeating what two other anons already said then /threading yourself
absolutely reddit

>>11002178
this is an amazing photo, our ages this:

>>11002178

Does she have a penis? :3

>>11002263
at least she used to obviously.

>>11002267
>>11002228
t. jealous roasties

>>11001951
where is the proofs

>>11002178
I fucking hate this cunt so fucking much

>>11002315
btw Ontologicool is the best lit waifu. rip

>>11002306
Honest question for left leaning folk:
Do you guys find her attractive? Or just in general, do you find girls who go for this aesthetic attractive?
I've never quite understood if they do it for their own desire of achieving a certain aesthetic, or if they do it to attract the opposite (same?) sex.
Personally I find this entire aesthetic disgusting and I can't stand both boys and girls at uni who look like this.

>>11002306
terrible eyes and brows

>>11001458
eat pray love, john green, literally show me a normal person or some other blatant normal fag drivel

>>11002306
its an ugly/sexy sort of thing

>>11002350
she is hit or miss, we cant all be supermodels like you

>>11002365
>liberals appropriating white trash culture
i'm offended

>>11002334

>>11002365
no you dont get what Im saying
theres like a "Gradient" of hot
hotness is not 1-10 hot, its like 1-30 split by 10,
theres like extremely attractive ugly chicks that are 9 and 10, like Uma thurman and Sarah Jessica Parker, and theres ugly hot chicks 19/21 like Angelina Jolie then theres luke warm oatmeal like Jenifer Aniston

>>11002334
Don't find it attractive. It is a painful attempt to fuse le epig 90's kid cartoon style (like Hey Arnold etc) with some kind of cliche idea of what a bohemian existentialist intellectual is meant to look like. They try to affect this persona of not so much being an adult as a kind of refugee from their own childhood. A little jaded and confused about the world they are thrown in to but 'hey I keep it chill'. Most of them drop it around 25 or when they have a real full time job that isn't working for an NGO.

I would have found the girl on the left attractive a few years ago. Not any more. I have met her over and over, different people but the same person. I know her, I know the scene, and that is enough to turn me off.

The one on the right is just a fattie lol no one likes fats

>>11002374
shes from west virginia

>>11002388
Yeah, ok, while I can recognize the gradient, there being 30/30 and 45/30 and 11/10 and models super models instagram models thicc chicks extradinaire sporty spicy etc. I can still think a 1/49 is hot, wouldnt know how to rate this girl in question you are talking about, she can have a 99/10 personality, there is the fact many guys likely cannot get super model girl, dont need to have one, a person can be satisfied with their A to B clunker, if it gets good mileage, companionship, cuteness, bearable face. If she is not grossly disfigured, horrendous looking, then she may as well be a 10/10, how would I rate that girl August, dunno, doesnt matter, she looks better than bad, a bit better, sometimes a bunch, and thats alright by me, and she can maybe play the banjo, and she paints, and shes read neechee

>>11002405
>there is the fact many guys likely cannot get super model girl
William H macy is fucking Felicity Huffman

>>11002388
you have been conditioned to view womens attractiveness as a commodity, you actually spend time thinking and feeling and caring about this, you give women, beautiful women, this much thought and attention and obsession and care, they are such a large part of your world, like the difference between a 40$ backpack at walmart and gucci bags and other designer gear. You need to get the magazines, and the newest expensive bag.

>>11002412
>likely
>likely
>likely
>many guys
>many guys
>many guys
>rare exception to the rule

>>11002388
Maya has caught you in her snare

>>11001487
fpbp

>>11002334
I think she looks like a thrift store threw up on her. It only works because she’s attractive as demonstrated by the future cat lady sitting next to her.

>>11002412
>Felicity Huffman
didnt know who that is, just looked up, their faces look kinda similar, more like wuffman amirite

>>11002422
>arguing with hitler dubs
>this is your argument, baseless accusation
except I dont you worthless faggot

>>11002428
>ugly guy fucking smoking hot chick
thats the fucking rule mate, heres some more relevant /lit/ related examples, Sartre, henry kissinger

>>11002438
>I think she looks like a thrift store threw up on her.
this is literally unironically something a gay would say
>>11002412
I think you jocks are just upset you probably couldnt get a date with her if you wanted

>>11002444
>this is your argument, baseless accusation
You care about extremely hot chicks? Do you have a girlfriend? When would you like to be marreid by? How hot do you want your wife to be? How many girlfriends do you want before you meet her? How hot do you want them to be? How many girls do you want to have sex with in your life? How hot do you want them to be?

>>11002444
>>ugly guy fucking smoking hot chick
google image pics of them together, they look like twins... but looks like you won, you got trips

Tell me some more actresses and models you know and their stats

>>11002450
>calling me a jock on an anonymous mongolian basket weaving forum

>>11002454
beautiful women are an endless self replicating entity, not a finite resource inefficiently processed by a system of surplus labor

>>11001458
Jean le Carre
John Steinbeck
Ernest Hemingway

>>11002450
The guy asked what we thought of her clothes, you can’t critique a woman’s fashion sense without sounding gay or at least metrosexual

>>11002466
How many girls do you want to have sex with in your life? How hot do you want them to be?

>>11002474
how is this relevant? all mammals strive to fuck the most attractive mate they can get their hands on, Humans are plentiful, you can find hotter women that work at a grocery store than whatever the fuck (((hollywood))) tells everyone is the hottest

>>11001670
i met a hot girl once and she couldnt stop talking to me about jacobite and kantbot tweets

>>11002482
why cant you just answer the question? You brought up your encyclopedic knowledge of celebrities and their attractive scale, and we were talking about how important knowing and thinking and caring about that stuff is, I claimed you appeared a bit interesting in the existence of beautiful women and caring about their quantities and qualities, it follows I would be curious to know how many quantities and qualities of them you plan on possessing, or if its only a pasttime hobby of oogling.

Attractiveness is important as far as it correlates with health, in mates, for offspring, and bearability of waking up next to, I agree

>>11002402
Excellent response. Thank you
>>11002438
Kek. I thinks what's worse is that if you told her this, she would take it in her stride as a compliment

>>11002444
>>ugly guy fucking smoking hot chick
>thats the fucking rule mate
>heres some more relevant /lit/ related examples, Sartre, henry kissinger
>thats the fucking rule mate
>thats the fucking rule mate
>thats the fucking rule mate
>thats the fucking rule mate
>thats the fucking rule mate

>>11001791
>implying youre an "attractive woman"
>implying youre not ugly as shit
youre on 4chan LOL

>>11001867
lol

>>11002497
>brought up your encyclopedic knowledge of celebrities and their attractive scale
I brought 4 you presumptuous nigger
attractiveness and beauty are 2 different things that are not mutually exclusive

>>11002511
wew, you caught bad grammar from someone drunk posting

>>11002058
something about that picture is disgusting

>>11001518
I understand anon. You're probably not that bad.

>>11002512
i was homeschooled and had no social outlet besides the internet for the entirety of my youth. it was inevitable i'd end up here.

the best shit on this sight is when dudes think the key to convincing others theyre women, the 'tell'' to their (preformed) female legitimacy, is typing in all lowercase. like "ill still type like a weird male autist but ill do it in lowercase so ppl will think im a girl" idk ive just noticed this a lot

>>11002556
Stop roleplaying,
autist.

>>11002525
still just cant answer the question? astounding. How many girls would you like to have sex with in your life, and what ranges of hotness would you like them to be?

>>11002388
please let me hear the sound of her fat ass going thwak thwak thwak on my thighs as a torrent of her oriental sweat flows in sensual tributaries across her breasts whereupon reaching her nipples they shall cascade down int my open mouth, catching the light like diamonds.

>>11002311
the photo she posted.

>>11002581
>How many girls would you like to have sex with in your life
tell me who the fuck has an actual number? tell me who picks people they dont find attractive?

>>11002587
she probably smells like weird asian food

>catching the light like diamonds.

>>11002334
u know that uni student 80s / early 90s kitschy "detached" socialist grunge lesbian pulp fiction westernized kpop look? that shits revolting. they got the sailor beanie, they got jean overalls or jean jackets, theyve got all the bracelets and bands and shit like theyre the typea chicks to suck ppl off at concerts in 07, they got cats eye eyeliner and really embarrassing attempts at gradients that r like trying to make paint blotches of purple to green haphazardly spilled below their eyes look aesthetically pleasing and they got the glitter and lipstick that looks petrified and gross, bitches hav elipstick w the texture of a fuckin topographical map, &i could deride that shit thats been beaten to death like their thick rimmed glasses and dyed hair but i Wont, they have stripes, horizontal black and white stripes and black dresses (like in weird contexts like goign to whole foods where preformed and weird) and half ironic pastel bright colors and "london fashion" clothes and their hair starts like bangs or a bobcut but they stop trying and as it goes down or around the back it gets splintery and unattractive and it looks like they dont know how to take care of it and u check their insta and its private but they have a vsco and the album is stucf like "alabama // 2016" i cant wait too see ur trip to alabama. cunt

>>11002575
i'm not roleplaying.
my mom was a stay-at-home mom, she decided to homeschool me and because we were not ultra religious, i did not have many outside activities to meet other homeschool kids in. i took to AOL chatrooms and places like avatar palace, neopets, and eventually 4chan for lack of social outlets.

>>11002598
4th,5th time asking now? Just give a rough guesstimate: 5 more girls? 10? 20? 30? 40? 50? 60? 70? 80? 90+?
How many do you hope to sleep with in your life?

And average what attractive scale?
How many 5/10s would you sleep with?
4/10s?
3/10s?
6/10s?
7/10s?
8/10s?
9/10s?
10/10s?
11+/10s?

What do you hope your splits are bro? Quit shying around the question, get that tail out from your legs

>>11002713
are you a creative writer? What would it take for you to dump your boyfriend for me?

>>11002713
retardkike.

>>11001509
tpbp

>>11002732
i did text role playing on forums and some specific chat softwares, but never got into writing outside of that and i don't even do that anymore.
also i don't want you.

>>11002733
we weren't jewish either. my mom is an aryan goddess that always encouraged us to read.

>>11002805
>also i don't want you
>but never got into writing
its ok

>>11002805
what do you think of the girl posted in this thread? Were you one of the ones making fun of her clothes?

>>11001509
This

My last crush, which also happens to be the only woman I have ever loved (and lost), was reading Cat's Cradle by Vonnegut last I spoke with her. She was also into Sartre, Dostoevsky, Goethe, de Beauvoir, Audre Lorde and Kierkegaard.

>>11001951
Do you want to have sex with me?

>>11001458
tabloids

>>11003087
I like the way you look. You look the way a Russian soldier should look.

>>11001458
their diaries.

btw i'm not joking

>>11001963
hi : ~ )
>>11002143
Post your stack and then we'll talk
>>11002311
>>11003087
Depends. What are you reading?

>>11003087
I would buy you a drank at the bar

>>11001951
>Funposting

>>11001978
All women are beautiful

>>11001487
FPBP

>>11001487
fpbp

>>11001458
The cutest girl I never asked out was another English major whose favorite book was Paradise Lost.

I fucked up.

>>11001458
>what does x group of people that have one common trait and nothing else read?

Get a lobotomy muh man

>>11002334
I've been in this kind of social circles and I think it's definitely related to status improvement within those circles, not formal beauty. When they get to this "edgy but carefully worked on" look, they become the ones people want attention from. They're the cool kids within the cool kids group and therefore get more dick/pussy. They absolutely don't care about what people outside of those circles (so, people like you) would think - it's about fucking cool guys with dyed hair and homemade tatoos

It's pretty easy to get laid in these groups tbqh

>>11001487
Holy kek fpbp

>>11001458
Is that the wife from Gone Girl?

>>11003199
timestamp or you're a man

>>11001458
30yo /fitlit/ here, not virgin but alone since 8 years (afraid of rejection after the first months of love, I wish girls stop flirt with me with their sincere attitude) .
I'll never know what an attractive woman read cause i'm afraid to break the ice and ask directly.
The only women i get close are fictional characters in books.
Sorry for the myblog-tier reply.

Every single american girl over the age of 15 and at least a 5/10 has read rupi kaur

My dick

>>11002178
Did you forget the whip?

>>11002334
I would bang her if the opportunity arose, but she's not the kind of woman I would make a real effort to get close to. I definitely wouldn't want to enter into a committed relationship with someone like that.

>>11001487
/thread

>>11001458
I saw some cuties the other day in the subway, one reading 2001: A space odyssey and the other reading Love in the time of cholera.
I was browsing 4chan, naturally

Vonnegut and Bradbury
Real answer

>>11001458
I had seen one reading Mishima once. The rest just read whatever is acclaimed or popular like Chimichanga Adichie, Jesmyn Ward, some other black lady so they take a picture of the book to a cup of coffee with a caption like, "YAAASS QWEEEN SLAAAY". For their social media, of course.

Dun Scotus

noam chomsky

>>11002412
I only know her from that movie where she played a tranny. I actually thought she was one, because the voice she used.

>>11002512
>>11001810
/Lit/ is fucking pathetic

why are you all so mad that a woman exist

do you actually have a response? what are you going to do about the fact that you'll never be truly intimate with a woman so long as you insist on imagining her interior to be by it's very nature less interesting than yours?

real answers are Vonnegut, murakami, bradbury

>>11001791
>>11004089
I want to tell you that a lot of us men get insecure about this because we all experience being broken up with early in life for not being socially dominant enough. If a woman doesn't perceive you as being better than her in some way, she'll likely leave you. It's not always the case, but it's the case often enough for some men to develop complexes, and to get insecure about their status position in a relationship.

Most hot girls are too jung for any well writen book

>>11004108
sad how early romantic failures can enforce beliefs that harm one so much, and ironically,make their romantic goals harder to achieve.

>cute girls could be reading your posts RIGHT NOW and you would never know it

>>11004123
The main problem is that women and society at large aren't honest about how sexual selection works for men. We live in a world where 84% of women on tinder get dates while only 15% of men do, and then when men do everything in their power to establish a dominant position in order to be sexually competitive, we label it "toxic masculinity." I honestly hate being a guy sometimes.

>>11004145
From my perspective,your problem is your worldview.

>>11002178
>>11002687
this sweater and vest combo is perfect and baller, what are you talking about

>>11004157
There's no worldview to what i'm saying. Having an objectively harder time forming interpersonal relationships isn't going to be solved by a change in perspective, especially in a world where we're constantly bombarded with sexual imagery. If there's something I wish all women understood it's this: you're born with your reproductive capabilities; men have to earn their reproductive capabilities by attracting a woman. This is the cause so much consternation and insecurity that I can't even begin to describe it. Fuck, in some European counties men aren't even allowed to take paternity tests to ensure that their children are actually theirs.

>>11004058
Where do I meet a cute girl to discuss Haecceitas with?

>>11004173
This is absolutely a worldview,and one that's going to make it harder for you to talk to women,and more broadly make you bitter and miserable.

>>11004186
What's the worldview being articulated? Men have an objectively harder time forming interpersonal relationships. Like statistically and demonstrably. What am I supposed to say? "Sure, women get to decide which genes get passed on, have more opportunities to leave their partners which automatically puts them in a dominant position in most relationships, can get laid with much less effort, live longer and don't have to suffer through paternity fraud, but these aren't things we should ever point out. Let's devote more publication space to manspreading and mansplaining instead." The biggest problem with 21st century gender relationships is how one-sided the conversation is.

>>11001458
You autists are fucking clueless. Attractive women are reading nothing you all prattle on about. They're reading the Maya Banks and Kit Rocha's of the world, the anti-romances dominated buy, well, ultra-alpha dominant men. Just give up.

>>11004173
>>11004228
Artificial wombs will free us brother

>>11002850
no, i didn't bother. i don't care about clothes unless people are behaving in a particular way because of them.

here's a cool book i wish more people especially girls would read (deals with how putting all your focus onto beauty instead of developing virtue is infantilizing yourself among other things):
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29631959-a-vindication-of-the-rights-of-woman

i think it would be good for men to read too, because it also touches on how men putting women/their appearance on a pedestal turns them into insufferable, emotional children.


>>11004108
i don't think it comes from being broken up with early in life (though that experience could also add to it, i don't think it's the foundation). my sister as well as my friend both had boyfriends who had never been with anyone else before, who felt shameful over small things. ie: one of them would not let us open the door for him, because "what if someone saw", so he always had to hold the door open for us. another would allow my sister to pay for meals, but he would not allow her to go up to the counter to do so -- he made her give him her card, because "what if someone knew i'm letting a girl pay for me".
it's very stupid and driven by pride instead of any rational thought. it is not "the woman will break up with me" it's some sort of ego thing about being manly/strong/etc.

>>11004133
Nice dubs. The only "girls" on /lit/ have benis, anon. Don't worry, we won't bite.

>>11001458
You're asking this question on the wrong website

Whatever book has a Netflix TV series out promoting it.

>>11004684
>putting women/their appearance on a pedestal
womans beauty is a warm existential anchor in a cold dark world

>>11005027
it is short lived and contributes nothing to her after it fades, except potential vices

>>11001658
Most of them are, some of them aren't. The same goes for quite literally every group of people.

>>11002605
>>11002587
lmao

>>11005098
>her after it fades
there are hot 70 year olds though

>>11001509
>>11001487
correct

>>11005287
not really. if you put her next to a 20 year old, the 20 year old is almost always going to be preferred. the "young maiden" is the idea of beauty. the "old crone" is not.
if you base her entire value on what she is while young, she won't grow.

>>11001658
real talk fem

>>11001487
fp is always bp.

>>11001870
yeah it's bitter petty cunt face. look her up now, she's a surgery mess

>>11001881
This, I once knew a girl that loved lotr and wore a one ring replica. He also studied ancient civilisations and was a victoria secret rep at uni. Thanks for reminding me of the feels.

Exclusively sonic the hedgehog fan fiction

>>11001911
this but unironically

>>11002086
this, thats how you know she isnt a poser if she loves Gothic romance

>>11001609
No man in my life likes to read, though. Pretty sure my husband only reads fanfiction.

>>11001487

>>11002334
Yeah she's cute and her clothing indicate possible similar interests and values I'd at least try talking to her
Don't like her eyebrows though.

>>11001518
I see this girl reading while walking around my campus and I am always torn between talking because as I see it there are two options of what her personality will be like
>she is legit just really into reading and dgaf about looking funny walking and reading or
>she wants to look "totally unique and intelligent not like all the other girls"
If it's the first then I would want to make friends, if the latter then fuck if I even want to have a single conversation with her. Should I do it anons or is the idea that she is anything other than the second option just wishful thinking?

>>11001864
I love that show

>>11006297
Literally what do you have to lose

>>11001458
From what I've seen from around the library and other shops they love self-help books. They never really like fiction unless it's twilight or something dumb like that.

>>11001817
Hell at least it gets people reading. I get the whole "exclusive club" attitude some people have about not wanting normies to get into reading, but if reading dies within the world almost entirely outside of circles than there can be no more authors.

>>11004684
>i think it would be good for men to read too, because it also touches on how men putting women/their appearance on a pedestal turns them into insufferable, emotional children
That's just human biology. Men are into beautiful females (them being creative and conected to the house is also a factor). Females are into males who display status, intelligence, dominance and humor. Females are much less "made" into what they are by society, than by their own biology.

>>11001633
I hope that guy is already deaf.

>>11001458
Judging from all the hotties in my graduate lit classes, whatever they like.

>>11004684
Men perform masculinity often whether or not they've been broken up with because of how aware they are of the role masculinity plays both in their reproductive and career success. If you're a woman and you're not raised in the environment of school yard bullying and male hierarchies, it's diffidult to understand. It's weird how little empathy women have for men when it comes to this, especially when men who perform masculinity the best tend to also be the most successful with them.

>>11006297
>>11006297

Honestly dude just go for it

>>11001487
FPBP

>>11006350
that's not the point it is making. you failed to grasp what "on a pedestal" means.
the equivalent (to work within the system you seem to have of "strong dominant man = attractive") would be a female who so idolizes the dominant behavior of a man that she indulges him, congratulations/rewards him, and enables him based on that alone with no regard to the context or outcome. the outcome would be encouraging a man to be hostile, aggressive, and even cruel to others because it is displaying dominance, without regard to how it is undermining other virtues. it doesn't inspire him to virtue; it takes what could be a virtue (confidence, assertiveness, etc. being "dominance") and corrupts it into something negative, via rewarding that behavior without regard to the context. it puts those traits above basic human virtue--puts them in a pedestal. when you place female beauty on a pedestal and raise it above human virtue, you will retard the growth of virtue.

>>11006574
>Men perform masculinity often whether or not they've been broken up with because of how aware they are of the role masculinity plays both in their reproductive and career success.

being so afraid of a restaurant staff seeing a girl paying for your meal has no impact on your career success. additionally, making your girlfriend give you her card to pay with in order to not let anyone know she is paying is unlikely to increase your odds of reproductive success with her; it's offputting and shows how insecure you are, and how you regard her still as somehow inferior.
women in job fields are also coached and encouraged to behave in "masculine" ways in order to succeed, especially those who are older. an older woman i know who works in IT has had to go through meetings where they literally coach them on being more masculine for meetings.
the book i mentioned also goes over how women will need to display some "masculinity" in order to success and be taken seriously. a lot of what is considered "masculinity" is human virtue, where a lot of what is considered "feminity" is human vice.

>>11006729
I've read Mary Wollstonecraft, given that i'm a big fan of her daughter and son-in-law. The biggest problem with her book, and with nearly every other feminist and proto-feminist treatise is that it assumes that there's more mutability to human behavior than there actually is. I'm really pessimistic about this sort of stuff. Any time certain inherent behavior (as in hormonally-influenced passions that lead to certain behavior) is suppressed, it finds outlets in more extreme forms. 50 Shades of Grey could only become the phenomenon it became in a feminist culture. And extreme forms of contemporary fascism are similarly the result of repressed forms of masculinity attempting to find an outlet.

As for your example, being insecure in those particular moments isn't going to make him more successful, but you're thinking about this too narrowly. The ego moves in that direction over time for many men, and then it seeps into areas where it shouldn't matter and ends up encompassing more and more of a man's life. And the feminist tactic of shaming men for their fragility isn't going to work, given that it's the same process that caused them to develop that fragility in the first place. It's a destructive process for a lot of men (and men die sooner and get locked up more frequently because of it), but it's a sexual strategy that often works. Men don't become hyper-successful because they're smarter than women, men become hyper-successful because they're willing to sacrifice their lives to the fulfillment of the ego they've been developing since childhood.

Also, think about it this way: would you rather a man who thought like that (i.e. certain responsibilities fall to me because i'm a man), or a man who acted like your son and relied on you entirely? Masculinity only seems like absurd until it goes away.

>>11001658
Based post.

>>11006830
>would you rather a man who thought like that (i.e. certain responsibilities fall to me because i'm a man), or a man who acted like your son and relied on you entirely?

This is a black/white statement and a stupid way to try to force a "see it IS good" conclusion between the "don't let people know my gf is paying" and "sniveling depedent baby". Neither is good. If two things are bad, one being a lesser bad doesn't make it any less bad. You strive towards the ideal and the ideal is between those two; an independent human that is neither an insecure egomanic nor an infant. You're also saying "masculinity only seems absurd until it goes away" to try to force the notion that the first one--the one that is tyrannical, egocentric, or insecure is "masculinity" when that is not masculinity. Masculinity is a desire to overcome the self in search of virtue; to be strong and do your duties, and not do harm. The "codes" that Knights took is a pretty blatantly laid out "here is masculinity put into some guidelines" and this included being kind and charitable (charitable being the highest form of "love"; agape) towards those truly weaker than (or "inferior to") you.

The only reason the "you pay for women" thing was part of that was due to women being disadvantaged due to being physically weaker and burdened with both pregnancy/birth and potentially being harmed by men they had no hope of fighting off, meaning generating income was much more difficult or impossible. This placed them in dependence on men for some things (income from physical jobs, care during pregnancy, protection from other males). Post-industrial revolution where many jobs don't need immense strength, they don't have such an economic dependence on men. The stubborn belief of "but I need to pay for women!!" is lacking in the ability to actually think about what you're doing, only following a script in front of you. It lacks rational thought. If you thought through it and understood "I am called to protect women, as they are weaker than me, in areas where I am stronger" you would understand they are not really in an economic disadvantage anymore, and so you are no longer called to "care" for them in that field.

1/2

>>11006830
>>11007061
You should still examine areas where you are superior to them and called to do so; ie: anything physical, but work is no longer part of the physical-strength domain. In the same way of being called to human virtue, women are called to do the same--the only difference being they are physically weaker than (most) men, and so have no call to help men specifically as a generalized group as they have nothing (in general) that men don't already have. But if an old, feeble man falls, a woman with greater health and strenght shouldn't just stand by and expect him to help himself up; she should help him because, in this situation, he is weaker. He is no less masculine or devoid of virtue for that. To reject her help would deprive him of virtue as he is incorrectly--dishonestly, telling himself he is superior to someone who is, actually, superior to him. The same would be true of the woman for not helping him; she is incorrectly assessing him to be superior to her and fails to grasp what's going on. Maybe they do it because they can't think or don't want to think past a very basic understanding of what they're doing and instead follow vague guidelines they've been given (man does x, woman does y), but that doesn't make it "correct" or true.


>50 Shades of Grey could only become the phenomenon it became in a feminist culture.
That could only become the way it is in a "sexual liberation" culture. The word feminism is stupid and has too many things bundled into it. "Sexual liberation" goes against chastity and modesty. Only in a culture lacking in those virtues, could smut like 50 shades (and widespread, easily accessible and normalized "everyone does it, bro" porngraphy, etc.) become widespread and not taboo.

>Men don't become hyper-successful because they're smarter than women, men become hyper-successful because they're willing to sacrifice their lives to the fulfillment of the ego they've been developing since childhood.
They've been successful because it's previously only been men competing and it's only very recently that that's begun to change. They are hyper-successful in a few fields because they are physically more suited for those areas, and women will never be able to compete with them in that arena. But you see now more women are raising to match them in education and slowly more in any non-physical fields. It has nothing to do with men "sacrificing self to fulfillment of ego". The only limiting factor is leftover biases and the inescapable aspect of reproduction incapacitating women for a period while men reproduce with no impact to themselves.

2/2

>>11006535

>>11001881
I'd kill myself

>>11006297
Take a look at other signs. Does she look like an autist? If so, it's the first.
If she's attractive and posts on Instagram every couple of days, then it's the second.

No.

>>11007061
The manbaby/man dichotomy isn't a false one. The processes that lead to behavior that's considered toxic by feminists are the very same ones that lead to the sort of masculine behavior that's considered attractive. A dominant personality can't be regulated to particular domains; that's not how that works. And I hear women complain about the results of the dismantling of masculinity all the fucking time. How often do you hear women espouse the "where have all the good men gone?" cliché? That's a reaction to a crisis in masculinity, not just a reaction to "toxic" male behavior, which is actually decreasing (men are less violent now than they've ever been). The 'golden mean' articulated in medieval chivalrous literature (i.e. men should be both charitable and strong) was partially fiction, and a fiction where femininity was just as regulated and constrained. In a world where men have to directly compete with women for jobs and resources, and women aren't required to abide by their historical duties, men are justifiably alienated by the fact that they're judged by a standard of behavior that seems to be unchanged post-feminism.

>The only reason the "you pay for women" thing was part of that was due to women being disadvantaged due to being physically weaker and burdened with both pregnancy/birth and potentially being harmed by men they had no hope of fighting off

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of our material history. Prior to the invention of the washing machine, dish washers, vacuums, etc, domesticity was a full time profession. The reason you payed for your woman was because that was her money. The division of labor wasn't the result of a difference in strength or productivity, it was the result of the fact that women worked full time already taking care of their children, and required a man to pay for their survival. The exchange was "I'll carry your seed if you feed and shelter me and my family." The methods of production only mattered insofar as how costly they were in terms of time, not in terms of how physically laborious they were.

>>11007068
Women really need to have an honest look at masculine self-reliance and their reaction to it, free from ideological baggage. You frame it as an insult to women, but then claim that a positive model of masculinity is someone who can take care of themselves. Here's the real issue, and I pointed this out earlier: 84% of women on tinder get dates, while only 15% of men do. The numbers in the real word aren't this extreme, but they still heavily favor women. And this is true across the animal kingdom: a minority of male mammals monopolize all of the mating opportunities. Men refuse help not because they perceive themselves to be superior to those proffering help, they refuse help because they understand that once they're perceived to be any sort of a burden to their partners, their partner is slightly more likely to leave him for the million other sexual opportunities that she has. Men were sexually selected for their self-reliance and ability to perform in this way for thousands of years. And women have to stop pretending that they hate it. Self-reliance at the expense of one's own well-being is a trait that should be celebrated.

>They've been successful because it's previously only been men competing and it's only very recently that that's begun to change.
There will always be a higher percentage of hyper-successful men than hyper-successful women, baring any sort of totalitarian legislation favoring women. There are tons of sociological studies that show that women are signifianctly more likely than men to live a so-called "balanced lives." As in they're more likely to spend time with friends or on hobbies than men are, and are less likely to work overtime. The people who work like 100 hours a week are almost exclusively men, and it relates entirely to the male ego. If one were to chart the mean between the male and female work ethics, they'd probably be very similar and overlap almost entirely, but I'd be willing to bet that the extremes of the distribution curve have many more men. I'm sure you understand this yourself. The pride that makes men not want women to pay for them is the same pride that causes then to want to be the best in any given field.

>>11007269
>The manbaby/man dichotomy isn't a false one.
You weren't comparing a "man" and a "manbaby". You were responding to the notion of someone so afraid to let society know he's not the image of man he doesn't even understand himself, that he'd rather be DISHONEST and LIE because his understanding of being a virtuous "man" is not of reality. You were comparing that and saying that was a man to "would you rather he be a dependant manbaby?" You were giving false black/white options to make the instance of "can't let people know my gf is capable of working and generating income and therefore can split expenses with me" seem like it is the virtuous "masculine" behavior, when it is not. That is not "fulfilling your duties" and that is not "man's responsibility" as it is not necessary now.

>A dominant personality can't be regulated to particular domains; that's not how that works.
It is not a "dominant" personality that is attractive. It is a virtuous personality and doing your duty (whether that is the duties of a male or a female) that is attractive, because it makes you a GOOD and HONORABLE person.


>How often do you hear women espouse the "where have all the good men gone?" cliché? That's a reaction to a crisis in masculinity
Among intelligent women with autonomy, I never hear that. Among buzzfeed articles and sub 80iq thots, sure. But that's not a specific sentiment and has been used to respond to "all men are sexually predatory, tyrannical, and mosgynistic" just as much as "manbaby who only plays video games and lives with his mom". It's not specific enough to mean anything.

>In a world where men have to directly compete with women for jobs and resources, and women aren't required to abide by their historical duties, men are justifiably alienated by the fact that they're judged by a standard of behavior that seems to be unchanged post-feminism.
Women are still called to abide by their duties and so are men. Neither are required to abide by their "historical" duties in the specific sense. You aren't required to farm wheat or be a serf anymore. But you are still called to abide by the duties of being virtuous, and that is how you approach any job, role, or duty you encounter regardless of time period. Women are just the same called to human virtue.

1/2

>>11007184
>>11007269
>The reason you payed for your woman was because that was her money.
The reason you fed your slave was because that was their money. Prior to the invention of tractors, picking cotton was a full time profession.

>The division of labor wasn't the result of a difference in strength or productivity, it was the result of the fact that women worked full time already taking care of their children, and required a man to pay for their survival
This standpoint completely ignores how it puts widows, the barren, and those not called to marriage in a place of not being able to survive by barring them from anything that generates income/resources necessary for living. It eliminates free will by saying "marry me or starve". It expects every single woman to marry and have children, while not expecting the same of men, which almost guarantees there will be a shortage of men. It's unrealistic and irrational and doesn't work; it as a system cannot succeed.
2/2

Post more antifu.

>>11007306

>>11007286
>It is not a "dominant" personality that is attractive. It is a virtuous personality and doing your duty (whether that is the duties of a male or a female) that is attractive, because it makes you a GOOD and HONORABLE person.
Not that anon but you are clearly trying to dictate what women should be finding attractive over what many of them actually do.

>>11007314

>>11007314
>Protester
AbsolutelyDisgusting.jpg

>>11007286
We're speaking across each other. I agree with you that performing masculinity for appearance's sake isn't good, what i'm saying that some degree of empathy is required for the men in these situations because of how regulated their masculinity is by society, and how much it ties into their sexual success. Men feeling like they have to fake it 'till they make it is sad and pitiful, not something worthy of ire. And women pointing it out in order to make fun of it are like the men who make fun of women for wearing makeup without understanding the social and anthropological conditions that necessitate that women wear make up. It demonstrates a lack of empathy.

>It is a virtuous personality and doing your duty
No, it isn't. "Duty" is intangible, subjective, and doesn't really mean anything in particular. The sort of Greek notion of arete that men are judged by is much more complex than the Christian (and now feminist) notion of "good" and "honorable."

>Women are just the same called to human virtue.
Men are 100% judged by their ability to perform specific historical duties, like their ability to be financially reliable, their courage, their strength of personality. While a project of contemporary feminism is to rid the historical requirements of femininity, like chastity, sympathy, and modesty.

>>11007269
>Women really need to have an honest look at masculine self-reliance
>You frame it as an insult to women
Nowhere have I done this, and you can even see I earlier said "the ideal is between those two; an independent human".


>Here's the real issue, and I pointed this out earlier: 84% of women on tinder get dates, while only 15% of men do.
So the "real issue" is that hook-up culture reflects the natural fact that women have a higher libido than women, and therefore women are less likely to engage? Are we back to the "no, that's the fault of sexual liberation" section again?
Is your happiness or value as a person determined by how often you can have sex? Is passing on genes the only thing that is of value to society? Among animals that live in massive communities (IE: meerkats, prairie dogs, a lot of insects) it isn't common for every single individual to reproduce. The strategy more often is a few top ranking individuals reproduce, and all others are "workers" that contribute to building the society, infrastructure, and care towards the young. We do not have a social structure similar to small "herds" or "packs" outside of individual family units. And among family units, or structure there most closely resembles those of monogamy, ie: species like wolves in which a "pack" is usually an adult male and female breeding pair, and their offspring of varying ages (some juvenile, some adult). Those two mongamous wolves, male and female, breed while the others in their family unit to not. That's the typical structure for them.

1/2

>>11007314
>what milquetoast priss in the glasses and green jacket has the EXACT same face as the guy in the back left with the glasses too
are they related or does you whyte peepo all be same??

>>11007269
>There are tons of sociological studies that show that women are signifianctly more likely than men to live a so-called "balanced lives." As in they're more likely to spend time with friends or on hobbies than men are, and are less likely to work overtime.
You cannot say that is the default state of males/females and that that will remain as it is forever. We have had jobs and working far longer than we have had women holding jobs. There is also still a lot of strange conceptions towards women leftover that will undoubtedly push them in a particular direction, and we cannot completely rule that out so early on in watching what women will do in their current role.


>I'm sure you understand this yourself. The pride that makes men not want women to pay for them is the same pride that causes then to want to be the best in any given field.
And I am sure as you see a similar psychological function develop in women of falling victim to pride due to "I don't want a man to take care of me and imply I am somehow weaker than him" (the same as a man doesn't want a woman to suggest he is weaker than her), you will see similar "drive" develop in women. We are already starting to see that develop. I do not think it is good for either sex. It is good to do your duties and if your work calls you to do something, do so, but do not do so out of pride and ego, or greed of wanting something to give you a reward. Those are not good things. Those will be just as bad for women to fall victim to as they will for men to continue being victim to. Both come from a misunderstanding of virtue.

2/2

>>11007295
>The reason you fed your slave was because that was their money. Prior to the invention of tractors, picking cotton was a full time profession.
Who's the slave in this analogy? The men who were conscripted to fight in wars by the millions and were often worked to death by their lords, or their wives?

>This standpoint completely ignores how it puts widows, the barren, and those not called to marriage in a place of not being able to survive by barring them from anything that generates income/resources necessary for living.
I wasn't endorsing this system, I was merely explaining it. And what you pointed out here were many of the same critiques early feminists had of Western society. By the way, is "marry me or starve" very different from the "work or starve" that men experienced?

>>11007360
>And women pointing it out in order to make fun of it
I am not making fun of it. I am pointing out that is misses the point and is irrational when applied in situations that it no longer makes sense in. I am pointing out that they are failing to understand something and instead are poorly emulating an idea, which they cannot copy because they don't understand it. If they look to understand it more, they might, but if they only go "society said men are to do x once, so I will do x forevermore, without stopping to think about the rationality of what I'm doing" then I will point out it is irrational. That is not making fun of them. Telling a kid they got a math problem wrong is not making fun of them.

>"Duty" is intangible, subjective, and doesn't really mean anything in particular.
Duty is not in itself subjective, but your duties are subjective, yes. If your duties are the duties of a husband, it is your duty to perform those to the best of your ability. Duty is the same regardless of what your duties are. You will have different duties as a serf or a mayor, but your duty is still to do those duties to the best of your ability.

>While a project of contemporary feminism is to rid the historical requirements of femininity, like chastity, sympathy, and modesty.
Again, feminism is a stupid word with too many different aspects tied into it. Some of the stuff early in taken into the feminist umbrella had nothing to do with "sexual liberation" and still held onto the notion of chastity and modesty.


>Men are 100% judged by their ability to perform specific historical duties, like their ability to be financially reliable, their courage, their strength of personality
Women who are adults with no job who leech off their parents are frowned upon. Women who are anxious messes that can't do anything are also considered flawed. Women who do not control their personality are are emotional histrionics are not favored either. Stay-at-home dads who are good dads are not completely frowned upon either, although there is still some "well that is odd" feeling to it.

>>11007373
>The strategy more often is a few top ranking individuals reproduce, and all others are "workers" that contribute to building the society, infrastructure, and care towards the young.
Can you imagine living in a world where it's impossible for you to form interpersonal relationships and to live in a constant state of sexual alienation until you die, all while working to propagate the genes of someone else? This is a big fucking deal that you're callously dismissing. Romantic love is the sine qua non of almost all art, and living in a world where one is constantly exposed to it (through art), but can't access it isn't a world that's prone to social stability and psychological well-being.

>>11007376
>You cannot say that is the default state of males/females and that that will remain as it is forever.
If something is this pan-cultural, it's likely inherent. Again, it related to mating opportunities. A woman's mating opportunities aren't as connected to her material success than a man's are.

>you will see similar "drive" develop in women.
I'm certain you won't, because 84% of you get laid on tinder. The burden sexual selection places on women is too loose for them to want to sacrifice life and well-being for material success.

>>11007373
So if 80% of men can't get laid society should just accept it?

>>11002438
>wearing cheap clothes and owning the look is a bad thing
I'm sorry, I didn't know it was now a good thing for women and their excessive clothes shopping to drain your bank account

>>11007423
There's a judgement implied when you recount that story of your ex boyfriend or whatever. You weren't detachedly explaining what happened and why it happened, you intended to critique certain aspects of masculinity without understanding the psychological and sociological origins of how and particularly why masculinity is performed.

>You will have different duties as a serf or a mayor, but your duty is still to do those duties to the best of your ability.
Being judged by the fulfillment of duty separate from any sort of deconstruction of what the duties themselves are is a mentality that opens the door to slavery. The specifics are so much more relevant than the simplistic chivalrous ideal you're laying out here.

>Women who are adults with no job who leech off their parents are frowned upon. Women who are anxious messes that can't do anything are also considered flawed. Women who do not control their personality are are emotional histrionics are not favored either. Stay-at-home dads who are good dads are not completely frowned upon either, although there is still some "well that is odd" feeling to it.
I hate to keep harming on this point, but the main operative difference here is sexual selection. A woman who doesn't conform to the societal standards set out for her is chastised or ostracized by her peers. A man who doesn't perform to the society standards set out for him is taken out of the evolutionary game entirely. The risk of non-conformity has been continually minimizing for women, while it hasn't really budged for men.

>>11007396
>>11007424
>Who's the slave in this analogy? The men who were conscripted to fight in wars by the millions and were often worked to death by their lords, or their wives?
That's irrelevant to the point. Your point was that women did housework and were kept up because they were paid for it, while men worked jobs to provide that money to them. In this scenario, husbands are yes, the master and lord. You can see that demonstrated by the language used and the dynamic between them. A man might be a slave to his own master too, but that doesn't erase his wife being his subject.

>where it's impossible for you to form interpersonal relationships
There have always been brotherhoods and you are in no way barred from making male friends.

>sexual alienation
Is not of any importance. It's an animalistic impulse. You have a rational mind that animals do not, that dictates all of your animal impulses. If you let an animal impulse overrule your rational mind, things will be chaotic for you. Sex is a "better" to an already "good" existence, but it itself does not make a "good" existence and it will not turn a bad existence good either.

>This is a big fucking deal that you're callously dismissing.
Because it isn't rational or necessary; it is empty casual sex.

>>11007447
>If something is this pan-cultural, it's likely inherent.
Yes, women are inherently physically weaker than men and are inherently the ones burdened by pregnancy and childbirth. That is universal across cultures. It is also universal across cultures that we are advancing in medicine, childcare, automation, and creation of more sedentary jobs.

>I'm certain you won't, because 84% of you get laid on tinder. The burden sexual selection places on women is too loose for them to want to sacrifice life and well-being for material success.
Again: this is not a good. In those animal societies I mentioned before, the majority of females also do not reproduce. The majority of humans do not need to reproduce and making it so women are "sexually liberated" and reducing sex just to "it feels good" is a completely different thing than actually reproducing. The majority of those women getting laid on tinder do not want kids and are on some form of contraceptives. A growing number of young women are opting out of having children, but not opting out of having sex. There is no "sexual selection" in regards to reproduction, if there is no reproduction happening. Sex has become something completely removed from the natural aspect of reproduction there.

>>11007453
It shouldn't be important because it isn't anything more than a momentary pleasure when it is completely removed from the act of reproduction. It would be unfortunate if one man were going around with a literal harem or marrying multiple women and keeping them from other men, but that's not what we're seeing. What we're seeing is casual sex with little offspring being produced and very few long-term bonds being formed; family units are not being formed and sex in this context is a completely different animal that it was pre-contraceptives/sexual liberation. The women are still remaining independent of man outside of casual hookups for sex with various men, then leaving.

>>11006314
>>11006623
How would someone even go about talking to her? I don't know her, I just see her every day and it catches my attention. Would it be rude to just go up and ask "what are you reading?"

>>11007157
I don't know her, let alone follow her on Instagram. She doesn't look downie or tism, but then again I've basically only ever seen her in passing, never really got a good look for more than like half a minute at a time

>>11002587
that was beautiful

>>11007486
You keep misunderstanding the material conditions that lead to this division of labor. Women weren't bribed with money for sexual access. Most women have a biological need for procreation, and throughout most of our history childrearing required both money and non-paid labor. The system that was in place was the only one that could have been in place in that culture at that time.

>There have always been brotherhoods and you are in no way barred from making male friends.
Mens groups and fraternities are being closed around the US, and are often banned for gender discrimination.

>Is not of any importance. It's an animalistic impulse.
You're either severely autistic or asexual. If you can separate the mind from the body and live a totally rational life without subscribing to any of our inherent impulses, then this conversation doesn't need to occur. Any condition can be explained away on a rational, material basis. "Women were subjugated because they were physically weaker than men." What constitues a rational response to this statement? What constitutes a rational reaction by men to a world where they want sex but can't have it? Why is their subjective need for physical intimacy less important than a woman's subjective well-being, from a rational standpoint?

The thing is that most people don't and can't live that way. If I lived in a world without love or art I would've committed suicide a long time ago. And women like you want to live in a world where a significant percentage of men never get to experience love. It's actually pretty sick.

>>11007481
>There's a judgement implied when you recount that story of your ex boyfriend or whatever.
It was my sister's ex-boyfriend. My judgement was that he had such a misunderstanding of himself and "masculinity" that he let it feed into an ego and become pride; which is a negative. His behavior was irrational. What judgement beyond that are you saying?

>Being judged by the fulfillment of duty separate from any sort of deconstruction of what the duties
Duty is "doing your duties" to the best of your ability; not taking shortcuts, not slacking off, not doing less than you are capable of. That is not "slavery".If your *invidual duties* are more than you are capable of, yet you still try and fail, you are not "shirking your duties and being undutiful". You are just ill-equip for those duties, and are under no obligation to fulfill them as it is asking the impossible of you, and no one should expect the impossible to be done.

>A man who doesn't perform to the society standards set out for him is taken out of the evolutionary game entirely.
Passing on your genes and having a "legacy" is only an aspect of greed and inability to use reason over impulse. It is not crucial to having a fulfilling life and nor is it crucial to individual survival. You conribute to society and humans as a whole, not your own self-interests. Being a husband/father is one role you may or may not play (the same of being a wife/mother) depending on your lot in life and what best serves society. You propogate the human race, not your individual genes. Animals like meerkats and bees are a fascinating example of this large-scale society model.


I want to go do other stuff like read now though, so I don't really want to keep having this conversation. Have a good night.

>>11007489
Sex as a resource is its own topic, but the selection imbalance actually applies to procreation as well. Women are more likely to reproduce than men are, especially given changing attitudes surrounding single motherhood and sperm donation. Something like 50% of Dutch men never reproduce, and often not by choice. It's a process that's naturally and understandably alienating to a lot of men.

As for the sex thing, the problem mainly lies in two places. First, how dominated our media is by sexual imagery. If your hormones desperately want you to do something and you're constantly exposed to images of it (keep in mind that male sexuality is more visual), then not having access to it leads to a deep and constant state of alienation. And second, the way the casualization of sex made coupling way more difficult for men who aren't necessarily as interested in the sexual aspects of romantic love as they are in its interpersonal aspects. In that case it's not a lack of sex that causes the alienation, it's that hookup culture made sex the goal of interpersonal relationships, which then selects exclusively for the men who are more sexually attractive over, say, the men who are interesting or honorable.

>>11007560
>Passing on your genes and having a "legacy" is only an aspect of greed and inability to use reason over impulse. It is not crucial to having a fulfilling life and nor is it crucial to individual survival. You conribute to society and humans as a whole, not your own self-interests. Being a husband/father is one role you may or may not play (the same of being a wife/mother) depending on your lot in life and what best serves society. You propogate the human race, not your individual genes. Animals like meerkats and bees are a fascinating example of this large-scale society model.
He's right -- you sound legitimately autistic.

I'm not even mad at you for saying all of this loveless depersonalized nonsense about men and their want of a legacy. It's like a sort of curio just to watch your mind work and attempt to understand the rest of humanity.

An attractive friend of mine is currently reading this book. It seems pretty not great, but she can talk to me about stuff I read without reservation.

My feeling is, if I'm not being judged for being an autistic loser, who am I to judge her for her so-so taste in literature?

>>11007560
Again, an ability to fulfill an abstract "duty" is an irrelevant metric by which to judge the value of a man, unless that duty is both fair and to the benefit of society as a whole. My point is that the "duties" society deems should be shouldered by men aren't up-to-date with the role both women and men play in contemporary culture. Men have to be perceived as providers if they want a woman, despite the fact that millennial women make just as much money as millennial men do.

>Passing on your genes and having a "legacy" is only an aspect of greed and inability to use reason over impulse. It is not crucial to having a fulfilling life and nor is it crucial to individual survival.
Whether or not a man is adamant about wanting to reproduce (by the way, this is a privilege that you, as a woman, already have, so you can afford to dismiss its value), the main problems are sex and love, which are as spiritually necessary for non-autists as friendship and belonging are. Even if you want to dismiss these impulses on rational grounds for being "animalistic" or whatever, one can also point to the rational bases for men doing everything in their power to maximize their sexual power in a domain they're at an inherent disadvantage at. Rationality can both critique the impulses and justify the actions of people who want to fulfill those impulses.

Also, calling sex "animalistic" is contrast to higher pursuits is a false dichotomy. Everything human beings do is animalistic because human beings are animals.

>>11001458

IT DEPENDS ON THE WOMAN YOU FUCKING VIRGIN LOSERS LMFAO.


WHAT DO UGLY PEOPLE READ? SOME DON'T, SOME ARE FROM /LIT. IT DEPENDS.

LMFAO HAHAHAHAHAHAHA XD

>>11007640
>like 50% of Dutch men never reproduce
source?

>>11001458
MILF's like the count of monte cristo ime

>>11008262
some of us are autists anon. You might have an inborn theory of mind but some of ours are made out of tens of thousands of memorized rules and observations

>>11008301
I'm trying to find the article where I read that statistic. It was on medium, so take it with a grain of salt. I'm sure you're aware that historically we have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors, and that number was more extreme at the advent of agriculture, where there was something like 17 women reproducing for every man.

>>11006297
You have to mock her straight away. Kindly bully her. Then you'll know.

>>11008430
Yeah but 50% seems too high for a modern state

>>11004058
Dong Scrotus