/lit/ - Literature

define "intelligent"

define "kinky"

define "average"

define "person"

define "average person"

define "always"

define "than"

define "almost"

define "why"

define "define"

define anal sex

is that dale from king of the hill

>>3199481
benis in bumbum

Not to derail the hilarious comment train we have going on here, but I assume it's because smart people are more open to abnormal things and less likely to cut themselves off from experiences they find appealing due to stigma or perceptions of weirdness.

Also just a personal remark that I have a D/s fetish and I think I might have strengthened this by doing research about it and thinking about the specific symbolism behind particular things that turned me on.

Are you implying that Stirner had a bird fetish?

the internet made me gay.

>>3199466
I like to think it's because smarter people don't rely on religion to tell them what they can't do in bed. But that's just my uneducated guess.

>>3199503
your gayness made me internet

>>3199503
what's so bad about it

>>3199511

I like to think it's because you are fucking retarded and your mom was a filthy nigger. But that's just my uneducated guess.

>>3199614
lel so edgy

>>3199511
>>3199491
This just seems inane. Apart from premarital & homo, does mainstream religion place specific restraints (lel) on bedroom activity? I think it's rather that most kinks require non-trivial amounts of planning and research.

this is the definition of "shitty thread'

This is not true at all. Intelligent or "smart" people tend to be hyper-conscious, and thus more inhibited sexually. "Kink" (variously defined as sado-masochism, roleplay, "experimentation") is on a spectrum entirely separate from any smart/stupid (false) dichotomy

I think you guys are getting it wrong. We are kinky, and all other sorts of unusual, before we are intelligent. As Sartre says, "Genius is what man invents when he is looking for a way out." We're overcompensating.

>>3199710
Mainstream religion has made sex "prohibited" and sex is the most intimate aspect of human life. Tell me, haven't you realized people use to "hide" their sexual desires? aren't fetishes exactly that? a response to the repression of sexual discovery? the restraint(lel?) of premarital idea of sex also restraints the idea of trying out new stuff since you're supposed to marry just one person in your entire life.
Or do you think telling everybody about your foot fetish will be found as perfectly normal and healthy?

>>3199733
>I think you guys are getting it wrong
INTJ detected

It takes open-mindedness to become intelligent.

It takes open-mindedness to take an interest in kink.

>>3199756
Does it bug anyone else that you always sound like an asshole even when you're trying to be nice?

>>3199758
uh
in what way is being open minded "intelligent" ?

And by open minded i assume you mean the liberal infinitely permissive way?

You literally think that you are a smart person because you pressure your GF to do anal?

>>3199760
never said that.

>>3199710
>Apart from premarital & homo, does mainstream religion place specific restraints (lel) on bedroom activity?
Have you read the Bible? There's a huge amount of restrictions, prohibitions, and prescriptions regarding sexual intercourse. It's so strange because it's sometime very precise and detailed.

>>3199486
Yes

>>3199756

Haha, I'm actually an INFP. Being a 4w5-5w4, if that means anything to you, sure makes things cerebral though. I used to think I was an INTJ too.

>>3199769
Wasn't implying. More of a third person you.

>>3199764
THIS IS A GOOD POST

From my own personal experience the truly smart people tend to be very conservative, whereas the pseudo-intellectuals who think they are somehow geniuses because they talk about literature and feminism tend to be the degenerates you speak of, OP. Sorry guys, but a Nuclear Engineer is much smarter than you. Literature is for enjoyment and talking about it doesn't make you a genius.

>>3199876

Excuse me, literature is culture. If there was no culture, there would be no reason or opportunity for people to be nuclear engineers. Don't you think you're being slightly disrespectful now?

>>3199880

Yes, you are right. I'm genuinely sorry. :(

But I still feel the same, I just wish i expressed it more politely. Many great writers are geniuses, but having good taste in writing doesn't make someone a genius in my opinion.

>>3199876
What exactly is "degenerate" about being sexually open-minded?

>>3199764
Intelligence isn't entirely innate. You need a certain amount of will to expand your mind. It has nothing to do with being unable to reject bad ideas--in fact, it requires it.

That desire to explore reality can also affect you in other areas of your life.

The correlation probably isn't even psychological. It's cultural - high culture, having millennia ago, been embodied in the society of the Greeks viz. the Romans. The archaic - and elusive - correlated, at first incidentally, with the 'perverse', and the morally unsound is, similarly, difficult to access: it is found through a passion for learning. Since Rome, we have kept our perversions on the highest shelf, and it is to there that we continue to allot them.

>>3199727
>No, no, it's a NEGATIVE correlation.
>So, you see, they have nothing to do with each other.

Looks like Mr Chaste here cannot into logic.

Don't know. But the smartest girl I was with was the only one who wanted it in the ass. I asked her once does it feel better than in the vag? She thought about it a second and said, physically no, but it's just so dirty. Gotta wonder about a girl like that.

>>3200620
Holden Caulfield got all grown up.

>>3199774
You can't do it in the ass. That's about it.

Damn, /lit/ has gotten a lot better recently.

>>3200789
lul so randum
xD

that said, those are funny IN MODERATION.

>>3200620
>tfw finding out I am the only female who thinks it's better in the ass.
I even dated a guy who didn't want to do it because it was "degrading". It's degrading to do something that makes someone feel good when they ASK YOU TO?

>>3200835
>I even dated a guy who didn't want to do it because it was "degrading"

oh my god, that guy wins the most effeminized beta of the year-award

>>3200835
>not wanting to degrade women

They often need to be reminded of their place.

>>3200857
Perhaps we wanted to be one taking it in the ass. Gay isn't beta, you know.

>>3200869
And smoking 60 cigarettes a day for 50 years isn't lung cancer

>>3200869
>Gay isn't beta, you know.

It's objectively impossible to be manly and take it in the ass or any orifice. Being dominated isn't manly.

inb4
>MUH GENDER ROLES
>MUH SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS

>>3200869
taking it in the ass is beta. gays have betas too, the dominant ones and the submissive ones

>>3200878
>take it in the ass or any orifice

How about the guy giving it up the ass?

>>3200878
>>3200879

Ah, I see. We don't use the same definitions.
Gay/Beta and Manly/Alpha aren't the same thing. You can be gay and alpha if your butt-fuck partner complies to your every wish.

>>3199876
I am very conservative, when it comes to sex at least. Thank you for calling me smart.

>>3199876
>nuclear engineer
Except engineers are gay, which makes them heavily into anal. Your argument is invalid.

Are intelligent people more kinky though, in fact, OP?

Or are you just >implying that they are.

>>3200878
Muh gender roles. Muh social constructs. I somehow how don't expect that anyone who can will themselves to write 'it's objectively impossible to be manly and...' is going to have too valid or worthy an argument backing up his little, pre-emptive 'inb4's. Fuck, I hate you.

>>3200835
I don't know, I wouldn't like that or a blowjob even if they wanted, and I'm certainly not a feminist.

>>3200942
You're just beta.

>>3200930
not OP but there's a correlation between 'high' levels of intelligence and participation in BDSM activities. That said quantifying intelligence is a pretty tenuous art so idk

>>3200945
I don't deny that, but I'm not sure that betaness has something to do with this in particular.

>>3200835
Maybe he meant degrading for him. Don't be so self centred.

>>3200952
How is sticking his dick in some guy's ass degrading?

>>3200878

My wife fucks me in the ass when I tell her to. If anyone is being dominated, she is. It's not masculine to not do whatever you want because you're worried what others will think. It's the exact opposite.

>>3200955
How is having a guy shit on your dick degrading?

>>3200955
Make that some girl's ass, bro.

>>3200960
Anal virgin detected. Civilized people empty their colon before anal sex.

>>3200956
>My wife fucks me in the ass when I tell her to. If anyone is being dominated, she is

that's what you tell yourself.

>>3200965
There's always fecal stuff up there. The smell of it with the lube is pretty rank.

>>3200969

She's the one with hand bruises all over her ass.

>>3200983
>implying it is not you with ass bruises all over your hands

>>3199743
>>3199774
That's why I specifically stated, mainstream religion. As I understand it, most Christians today suppose that Jesus pretty much dispelled any Old Testament rules that they find inconvenient. I see young church-going couples, both college graduates, with amazing bodies, and I have difficulty imagining that they haven't grown a bit bored with all that maritally sanction vanilla sex, and have begun to explore toys & restraints—especially when you consider that those Protestant men probably watch the same porno that you & I watch, and they get ideas from it I'm sure.

>>3201002

Touche, monsieur.

>>3201016
There are some fantastic websites trying to theologically justify MFF threesomes as not adultery.

>>3200789
I think you may have spoken too soon, friend.

>>3201025
Even better. Goddamnit I love this board. You guys are like a hilariously smug version of /tg/.

>>3201016

>As I understand it, most Christians today suppose that Jesus pretty much dispelled any Old Testament rules that they find inconvenient.

Would be silly if they didn't, considering those guidelines and edicts were given specifically to the Israelites, were often extremely specific and many were probably not even observed by Jesus himself.

They might serve the purpose of setting an example for modern Christians or something but they are certainly not edicts for Christians to follow.

It's simple: intelligent people have been shown to be more open to evolutionary novelties: this is why there's a high correlation between intelligence and things like drug use, 'abnormal' (hah) sexual behaviors, etc.

>>3199486
Nothing but that which is in my power: to what propane am I entitled? to any to which I entitle myself. I myself give myself the right to propane by selling propane (and propane accessories)

>>3201028

Jesus said that until his return not one word of the law would change.

Of course, if you interpret the law as being directed only towards juden, Christers could still technically ignore them.

>>3201038
Food doesn't go into your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then goes into the sewer.

>>3201042

To be fair, the entire new testament is an entire clusterfuck of contradictions.

>>3201028

Could be informative. Me not justifying anything though just posting what I found interdesting

>>3201045
Is it?

>>3201058

It's been about a decade since I last read it, but last I remember it was.

>>3201065
Maybe you just have falliable interpretation skills.

>>3201068

Possible. Unlikely, however. My autism forces me to evaluate things to a degree I'm often uncomfortable with.

Gay is a sin yall.

>>3201076
Sounds like you have a dose of arrogance on top of that autism.

>>3201076
Evaluation =/= divinely guided interpretation

>>3201079

How very astute of you to notice.

>>3201083

How could the divine guide my interpretation when there is no divinity in the first place?

>>3201091

Subjective detected

>>3201091
Is there no divinity because you're uncomfortable with the idea or what?

>>3201096

Show me a method to enable the divine to guide my interpretation and I'll cede your point.

>>3201101

"You've just gotta BELIEVE, man!"

>>3201101
Show me a method to enable you to not be a figment of the cogito.

>>3201108
>>3201101

SUCH THINGS ARE UNKNOWN OR UNKNOWABLE

STOP BEING TWATS

>>3201098

Simply because I have seen nothing in my life that would lead me to such a conclusion.

>>3200610
>Since Rome, we have kept our perversions on the highest shelf, and it is to there that we continue to allot them.

Yeah, this. It's a Western (and specifically American) thing.

In other parts of the world, 'smart' people are asexual or conservative.

Also, 'restraints' and 'bondage' as 'kinky' is also an American thing. In most of the rest of the world that isn't even a thing that is sexualized.

Where are you getting this from OP? As far as I'm aware kinky people aren't any more intelligent than the average.

>>3201133

Nobody said that.

>>3201038
>Jesus said that until his return not one word of the law would change.

Jesus meant to convey something more complex:

a) that the spirit of the law is the law itself, not the letter of it

b) following the law to the letter is impossible, as it is contradictory and all people are fallible (including those that wrote down the law)

c) ergo, only divine inspiration or intervention can save you from breaking the law

>>3201148

Boy, that's a lot of stuff that was never said being read into that statement.

>>3201113

Exactly my good brother, exactly.

>>3201172
>Boy, that's a lot of stuff that was never said being read into that statement.

Because that statement needs to be taken in context, dumbfuck.

The point is that Jesus didn't come to 'repeal' the Old Testament laws.

The Old Testament laws were good and just, in theory. But the physical world is self-contradictory, and following the laws is basically impossible.

(You can see why the Gnostics liked the New Testament so much!)

>>3201101
Well within the context of the Bible there is supposed to be a Church, which will spread the truth and act as a beacon. This Church will necessarily be able to correctly interpret scripture.

>>3199727
This. The sexual inhibition is actually what leads to the weird kinks.

>>3201229
>(You can see why the Gnostics liked the New Testament so much!)

>(You can see why the Gnostics liked the New Testament so much!)

No, I can't. Do tell

>>3201275
> No, I can't. Do tell

Because it goes really well with their whole 'the physical world is a torturous mind trick created by the devil' idea.

>>3201366

But is it accurate

>>3199727

>"smart" people tend to be hyper-conscious, and thus more inhibited sexually.

/thread

An unfortunate truth but the truth all the same.

>>3199727

All of the truly genius/smart people I know are eccentric and don't care about social norms or even other people at all. They are not inhibited by anything.

BTW, no one here is truly smart or genius.

>>3201581
Speak for yourself: better hyperconscious than unconscious, that's what I say.

>>3201596

Except you

>>3199466
Because they are willing to experiment, they are willing to try new things. They are 'almost always kinkier' on their own though, so that's one thing to consider.

>>3201604

Does that apply to lesbians? Are lesbians smarter?

>>3201581

You are confusing "smart" with "beta"

>>3201608

Are you think there is no conflation between the two from a social standpoint?

Lose the denial. Dumber people are more physically spontaneous.

>>3201637
The thing about physical spontaneity, it's true! I once saw a person so dumb that before my very eyes he transformed into a vegetable.

Are blondes smart?

>>3201640

Interesting. Elaborate on this matter could you kind sire?

>>3199466
because, monsieur, intelligent people are almost always romantics, in the sense of the term most redolent of crooked, blinkered, perverse spiritual and physical cul-de-sacs. the antidote to this is the wine of goethe, and the whole pantheon of stuffed shirts.

>>3201640

I don't know why this is annoying you so much. The average dumber guy is going to be more physically dominant and spontaneous in bed than the average smarter guy.

If this doesn't apply to you then it doesn't apply to you, but since it's riled you so much it looks like it does apply to you and it's a truth too painful for you to cope with.

>>3201649
ah, is he riled by stupidity? what? ah, this is the vice of all intelligent people, they nourish themselves with so much contempt, when - we idealists - pray for them to find prettier fare!!!! ah, but we are guilty too, are we not, monsieur?

>>3201649

You can't just make claims because you have anecdotal experience or it feels right.

>>3201653
ah, so false, monsieur. so false! but i agree with you, one can't - because - you have anecdotal experience!

>>3201649
>Projecting
>Splitting
>Sperging
>2012 implying

>>3201653

Go ahead and forgo common sense if that makes you feel better. Neither of us are alphas, my friend. Nor are the majority of smart people. I'm just not in denial over it like you are.

My question is, why would such a spurious and uninteresting question receive over 100 responses? What is this, fucking amateur hour?

>>3201659

>2012
>going into denial because some truths annoy you

>>3201661
See
>>3201651

Children like OP that are barely discovering sexuality often think they are very intelligent and incredibly kinky.

Actually, they are very common. Bear in mind, dear OP: what you fantasize about does not make you kinky, just like what you aspire to doens't make you intelligent. All people fantasize about the weirdest things, but keep that to themselves, thus seeming sexually "normal".

Until you have fucked a fourty year old woman while getting fucked by her husband, you are unlikely to be considered kinky. Sexually repressed at best, OP. And until you've actually finished a project that is successful and effective, you have no proof of being of above average intelligence, which means that, statisticaly, you are average at best.

>>3201671

>fourty year old woman while getting fucked by her husband

That's kinky?

>>3199466
Because they have to hit hard and aptly to be able to pierce trough and expand the blockheads minds. But sometimes intelligence is quite subjective and then expanding the mind means making it more like mine.

>>3201672
The kinkiest thing some people have ever seen is a cheap garden hose.

>>3201672
For a virgin like yourself, touching a boob is kinky.

>>3201661

how do you know this? from where have you pulled your sources to derive the conclusion you are exhibiting, good sir?

>>3201677
i find nothing kinky about touching boobs, monsieur, nor being fucked in the ass while the wife etc. truly, there is nothing kinkier than platonic love. spirituality is the ne plus ultra of perversity.

>>3201607
Why not? Mind you, nobody is saying homosexuals are smarter than people engaging in heterosexual relationships. What I'm merely implying is that being smart is a gateway into other fields of sexual (or other) pleasure. Most smart people might have wondered, or experimented with many things, even if it resulted with them believing that the only way to go is consensual hetero sex in the missionary position for the sole purpose of reproduction. Same thing might go with drugs, a man being too 'scared' to give any drug a try or refusing to discuss any of them indicates close-mindedness.
In reply to a previous post I feel like I should articulate my opinion on this: Yes, open-mindedness does indicate intelligence; No, open-mindedness is not the same thing as used in liberal lingo today - an open minded man can be radically conservative.

>>3201671
>statisticaly

How should I react, Anon?

>>3201695
This discerning man has lucidly and definitively concluded that abstinence from drugs is the opiate of the masses. Let us all gather 'round, gentlemen, and admire.

>>3201695
i wonder if being a savant of pleasure is a gateway into being a savant of kinks, and i wonder if the former is even remotely essential to the concept of 'smart', which is so nebulous and, unlike intelligent, wise, sagacious, and philosophical, etc. rhymes with fart.

where is the picture from? i have a feeling that i've seen something familliar in courage the cowardly dog..

>>3201695
>Same thing might go with drugs, a man being too 'scared' to give any drug a try or refusing to discuss any of them indicates close-mindedness.

Or he doesn't want to try drugs because he's aware of the documented dangers; and if he hasn't tried them, what about them is there to discuss?* Stop trying to convert everyone to your worthless, hedonistic lifestyle, druggy.

*I have done drugs and I still don't think they're worth discussing.

>Aren't drugs cool?
>Yeah.
>Uh ... how high did we get that time!
>Yeah.
>What's the best experience you've ever had while high?
>... [x].
>Cool. I [x]!
>... cool!
>... them ... drugs, huh?
>Yeah.
>Drugs are awesome.
>Yeah ...
>The fucking government, man. Not letting us have our drugs.
>Uh huh.
>... yeah.
>... yeah ...
>Yeah!
>crickets chirp

Get a life, drugfaggots.

>>3201752
>Doin' - da-da-doin' dr-u-u-u-u-u-gS!
>Fuck I'm high...
>welp, better write another chapter of Gravity's Rainbow

See, that's something that can happen, too.

>>3201696
Here, man, I got you a reaction pic.

>>3201752
You managed to understand nothing out of what I wrote, congrats! Such stupidity deserves recognition - all hail the tripfag!!!

>>3201752

His level of progress in a specified area of study is only hindered by the quality of information with which he has access to, to use for the derivation of a conclusion

Example, 4Ch has a notorious reputation for being a cesspool of degenerates and a breeding grounds for the worst of kin, however when one dives into this puddle of puzzles consisting of many pieces, one comes to realize it is more complex than the manner and image in which it was projected by a secondary resource.

Secondary Resource is nice, Primary resource has its place, or should I say; Primary Resource is nice; Secondary Resource has its place.

You can read books on how to swim, a direct lesson by jumping into the water is fruitful as well, even better when under the guidance of the knowledge obtained by the book read. Most of us would have never discovered the many useful channels of 4CH if we wholeheartedly believed 4CH was the absolute embodiment of the casting of the shadow which is /b/

His level of progress in a specified area of study is only hindered by the quality of information with which he has access to, to use for the derivation of a conclusion

Example, 4Ch has a notorious reputation for being a cesspool of degenerates and a breeding grounds for the worst of kin, however when one dives into this puddle of puzzles consisting of many pieces, one comes to realize it is more complex than the manner and image in which it was projected under the casting shadow of /b/

Secondary Resource is nice, Primary resource has its place, or should I say; Primary Resource is nice; Secondary Resource has its place.

>>3199973
Your post just fueled my motivation to study for my law exam tomorrow.

>will spend rest of the day in the back of my head feeling guilty for my lame preference for missionary

>>3201826
Just fucking say one and then make an argument for it. 'Example' shouldn't be followed with a goddamn comma, either.

>>3201836
how fucking dare you speak to him like that!!!!

>>3201821
Experiencing something oneself may well be the best way to understand it. However, my curiosity about the human experience of, say, abject poverty is trumped by my aversion to being a starving child in Ethiopia, for example.

People may well reasonably conclude that the firsthand knowledge an experience will bring won't be worth the risk.

And so, to bring it back on topic, people who don't experience things for themselves aren't necessarily close-minded.

By the way
>>3201789
It's funny how an imagined rustling of jimmies is just as effective as an actual rustling of jimmies.

>>3201836

Example:

i.e.
e.x.
eg.

>>3201836

Example:

i.e.
ex.
eg.

?!?!?