/lit/ - Literature

>>22653903
Funny name.

>>22653025

>>22169630
Yes it is and what are you going do about it? AA2 samefag wasup lol

>>21878124
READ MORE

>>21878478
Thug notes a G really helped me in the beginning

>>21876836
So if you made the mistake irl of marrying a cunt like edith the only solution is to seek a divorce? is there no way to fix her?

>>21876829
Second this, maybe a "How to write a book if you're retarded" would really help

Why was Edith so cruel? and also if you were William how would you go about fixing Edith?

>>21472783
>Thank you so much for this insight.
CHEERS LOVE.

>I love the aspect of purity and what you say here tells me that purity as a concept is not a matter of the state of our virginity but also existing beyond the aesthetic as there is something perverse about maintaining purity only for it to be ritually consumed, as if it was all to designed to serve the system instead of our principles.
Purity is a sexual act, a perverse masturbatory sexual act. The "system" it serves isn't marriage any more, but coitus. I'm not saying your choice is wrong—but, let's imagine you find a LTR with a "seems to be a one woman" guy. Chances are that he'll fuck some other people during the relationship. How are you going to deal with that when you want a special intimate pure place?

>[is it okay if he fucks about]
You need to negotiate that. And if you're a woman you're not in a position of strength. And if you're a woman who is boymoding you're two major positions weaker. The problem isn't that you can "win" a situation—the problem is that most of the time other humans are going to either be young and dumb, or old and dumb. I can't be bothered fucking more than one person at once, but my eye is drawn, and I wank about lots of stuff. I doubt this meets your inner fantasy about purity for example in a partnership.

You have to think solidly about how people fuck, what your fantasy about fucking and intimacy is, and how you'll be hurt when people don't live your fantasy. You'll also need to learn how to be direct and honest about your fantasy and needs.

>test drive, side pieces
I come from Australia. We root on the first date, usually drunk, because there's no point in establishing the emotional or economic intimacy if you're both fucking incompatible. You might be sexually insecure because you're a woman, and because of the particular body insecurity you suffer as a woman impacts on your sexuality. You'd still be insecure with a single woman man in bed: the insecurity is within you.

I normally recommend people get in touch with their sexuality by having a lot of casual sex when they're romantically inclined and put their own pussy on a pedestal. This is because it sets off the emotional work. Try reading serious adult women's novels about romance: Austen, Brontes, de Beauvoir, etc.

>>21471333
>If Ethics is not universal
>Then all ethics is a matter of preference
>One preference above another is refuted (non-universality, even empirically)
>Therefore one cannot oppose bourgeois society with ethics
>Which somehow magically weakens proletarian opposition to bourgeois society
>Because any proletarian idea of "ought" is no longer sustained by a universal, and is thus merely transitory.

Marcuse is wrong: proletarian science doesn't operate on an ethical grounding, but on the grounds of the realisation of power (as Foucault puts its adequately in Foucault/chomsky) or as Autonomia Operaia puts it in their campaign to conduct mass participatory theft from supermarkets.

Marcuse means that socialism must be ethical, and grounded in the absolute. That non-absolutism is a bourgeois position. He is confronting structuralists and post-structuralists from a *bourgeois* humanist position.

For more detail see EP Thompson Poverty of Theory and Perry Anderson Arguments in English Marxism.

>>21472662
>Thank you for the reply. I'm looking them up but are there any insights I should know before reading these books?
Kinsey was a sexological biologist. He looked at the variety of sexual practices amongst the American Male and American Female around 1950. This is interesting because it gives you an idea of how weird humans are about fucking without requiring you to read an argumentative enlightenment piece of pornography like de Sade. (Its *academic* pornography*.

Lacan is an advanced post-Freudian french structuralist psychoanalyst who wants to understand how human sexuality works, and why we keep doing the same things over and over again despite being unsatisfied. (Pro-tip: when we're satisfied we stop.) Lacan is heavy fucking duty, but if you're going to try to be a boymode celebate chaste woman and expect your partners to be intimate loving and not cheat, you're going to have to do A LOT of thinking about why you'd expect lovers to do that to you. Humans are structured before language on a model that men and women will root about. Human language (culture) is like 90% about sex on the side, or being married to the people you don't want to root, and so having a side bird you do actually want to fuck and do. The chief amusement of the common Italian or Englander in 1500 was making jokes about how men had horns on their head from their wives fucking other women's husbands. IT WAS THE BASIS OF THEIR ENTIRE CULTURE.

So you're pushing a big rock up hill here.

>>21472662
Steal this chapter from the usual places if you're academic:
https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34722/chapter-abstract/296479748?redirectedFrom=fulltext
If you're not academic try her novel 1943 She Came to Stay about her open marriage and abuse of impressionable young women.

Humans are a partial size disparity female reproductive selection hominid. We have elements of Chimpanzee partial male dominance partial cheating. We have aspects of Bonobo conflict / food distribution orgy. Humans are not oriented towards "fidelity" or "chastity." Or libidinalities (Jung, Lacan) work on the desire to become intimate with "the other" but not with *a specific* other. We stick our dick in crazy. We run a boat race around town. Some of us *repress* this and instead keep ourselves "pure" which is just as perverse and exactly as sexual. There is no escape from the sexual dimension of the human, only the choice to be authentic to what you need to explore.

You don't get good girl points for being a moral young woman; and, good girl points for marriage never existed for poor peasants or workers; and, only existed in the highly repressed protestant movements amongst ordinary people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_Vs06Z1Du8

Sorry to everyone in the thread, I don't mean to clutter the place with non /clg/ content arguing over Celtic history. Just imagine if in every discussion you tried to have about Latin and Greek some retard Turk kept butting in and loudly declaring that Italic and Hellenistic people don't exist; or, just started lying and trying to cover up basic history, claiming they don't exist anymore and they're just Turks now. It gets tiring.

Any gaelic talk from now on will be about language and literature only.

Slán

>>20884148
Spamming these fucking threads on here.

>>19043211
No you made a series of other childish and ridiculous claims.

>>19043178
I noticed your footnotes too, mate. Here, they are as well developed as your own:

>>18912673
logical consequence <> karma

>>18912655
karma is gay COPE

>>18912644
karma is cope for having being hurt and not having any way to avenge yourself

>>18912448
the bible is only proto-law, idk why people keeps hyping it up and following it, it's retarded as fuck

>>18912547
You stupid fuck. The only purpose is feeding the body and having sex so you can spread your particular genetics. Everything else is an aberration.

>>18912507
Dosto is overrated

>>18912492
Hence why I said the brain is an aberration because it's gone beyond its original purpose

>>18912437
>The entire point of our minds and actions is to try to give life meaning for ourselves before we pass.
Wrong. The point of having a brain is so you can move the body to procure food. Simple as.
The human brain is an aberration soon to be corrected.

> Even if that meaning fades along with our consciousness, I don’t see how that makes it not worth putting in the effort for.
Maybe the fact that it'll all be destroyed in the not so far future?

>Without putting in that effort we end up as an aimless, spiteful and depressed being like yourself.
So you make an effort in order to live a life where you were too busy to think about how pointless that effort was. If you can't see stupidity of this, I don't know what else to tell you.

> it’ll make me happy to know I left something positive in the world
I guess you can die thinking what "positive" thing you left for the world is gonna last. How's that not a coping mechanisn?

>>18912356
Nothing happens by accident, but that doesn't imply it has meaning. It just means you're in a universe with cohessive rules.