/lit/ - Literature

>>14981340
>>14981347
samefag

>>14854729
>what should I read to eliminate my sexual desire for women?
I'm afraid there isn't a book like that.

>I think if I had no desire for them I would not hate them -- rather I probably would not think of them much at all.
That's true but not the whole story. The reason most men hate women is because they see them as the gatekeepers to their self worth. The femoid is seen as this dumb, vapid animal with no control over her biological impulses, but at the same time she decides who gets the pussy. And if you get pussy you're a Chad and based; if not, you're a loser incel who should "have sex". You're self-worth depends on being liked by someone you hate. And that's a hard predicament to be in.

Since eliminating your sexual desire isn't really possible. The only thing you can do is stop valuing yourself by how much pussy you get. This is hard. See any hollywood movie, listen to any rap song, go on 4chan, and you'll be blasted with images of ass, tits, feet. Have sex loser. James Bond always gets the girl in the end. You get the point.
Here are a couple of things you can do.

1. Accept the following fact: The amount of return of investment on an individual's sexual pursuits depends almost entirely on things outside of his control, like genetics and upbringing.
An average guy can sleep with a 100 women. If he talks to 2000 of them. A Chad can sleep with 100 women by going about his daily life. Effort can make you sleep with a lot of women, but no amount of effort will make you into a Chad. This is liberating. Because a lot of ex-incels get into this slave morality mindset of "it's entirely my fault I don't get laid yada yada". That's just plain wrong. You can accept you've been fucked by being born short, bald, etc., without turning into a bitter person on one hand, or becoming totally blue pilled on the other.

2. Realize, you can be a badass even if you don't have much sex. Focus your attention on great men like Newton, Kant, Tesla etc. and realize how they were bad motherfuckers and fucking lots of women wasn't part of their identity.

3. Don't try to demonize the sexual act, that will only make you want it more. t's probably great being a Chad and getting a double-blowjob from Stacy and her cousin, who are using your cock in a deepthroat competition while they're both on the phone with their boyfriends. It sucks you'll probably never experience that. But you can have a good, fulfilling life in spite of it.

4. Get busy. Whether you're writing the next Ulysses, or becoming the biggest academic in your country, or working on your album. When you're in your room and you start obsessing over that cute Becky who rejected you, and how she's probably getting face fucked by her bf this very second, slap yourself in the face and get back to reading. Or whatever else you find fulfilling. Write that novel, or that paper, or that lyric. You might just make something great.

>>14685328
>>14685569

My hatred for Peterson stems from the fact that I used to be a big fanboy of his, mostly the philosophy/religion stuff, even had my sister buy me his book, then I started reading actual philosophy and realized what a dunce he was. It felt like leaving a cult, looking back, and thinking how I ever fell for that shit to begin with.

My theory on why /lit/ in particular hates him is the following. The three big groups in this board are lefties, left-leaning liberals and full-on nazis. The lefties hate JBP because of his excessive individualism and his (retarded) criticism of all forms of activism has being inherently nothing more than attention-seeking behavior. The liberals hate him because of the trans stuff and his (again retarded) takes on women in the workplace. The nazis hate him because... I guess they perceive him to be some sort of zionist chill? Who the fuck knows with those guys.
The christcucks are somewhat sympathetic to him; but even that group criticizes Peterson's "pragmatic", wishy-washy appeals to Christianity. This happens because /lit/ christcucks tend to be rather extreme in their views.

Peterson's appeals to christianity are vague because he doesn't want to alienate his two main target demographics. enlightened centrist consoomers, and alt-lite gamer bros. Both these groups tend to be vehemently atheistic. And generally, neither of them frequent /lit/. For that reason the board tends to be pretty antagonistic towards Peterson.

>>14685328
>>14685569

My hatred for Peterson stems from the fact that I used to be a big fanboy of his, mostly the philosophy/religion stuff, even had my sister buy me his book, then I started reading actual philosophy and realized what a dunce he was. It felt like leaving a cult, looking back, and thinking how I ever fell for that shit to begin with.

My theory on why /lit/ in particular hates him is the following. The three big groups in this sub are lefties, left-leaning liberals and full-on nazis. The lefties hate JBP because of his excessive individualism and his (retarded) criticism of all forms of activism has being inherently nothing more than attention-seeking behavior. The liberals hate him because of the trans stuff and his (again retarded) takes on women in the workplace. The nazis hate him because... I guess they perceive him to be some sort of zionist chill? Who the fuck knows with those guys.
The christcucks are somewhat sympathetic to him; but even that group criticizes Peterson's "pragmatic", wishy-washy appeals to Christianity. This happens because /lit/ christcucks tend to be rather extreme in their views.

Peterson's appeals to christianity are vague because he doesn't want to alienate his two main target demographics. enlightened centrist consoomers, and alt-lite gamer bros. Both these groups tend to be vehemently atheistic. And generally, neither of them frequent /lit/. For that reason the board tends to be pretty antagonistic towards Peterson.

>>14615440
Yeah, good point. I don't fear trannies or anyone just because they suffer from a mental illness. I'm disgusted by their actions, of course. But I also feel pity for them. They are pathetic, not fearful.

>>14605460
I'm game...

>>14533572
The criticism is pretty based. Rich white girls role playing as lefties decide to mythologize their lives and write self obsessed diaries. The project is set to fail from the start.

Let's look at other examples of people who essentially wrote diaries.

1. Lobo Antunes
War vet. So from the start he has better material to write about. His prose is also world class, and that's what carries his novels. Needless to say, that's not the case with Megan Boyle.

2. Bukowski
Ham on Rye was a compelling little story of someone who had to deal with economic hardship, school bullying, and an abusive father. The narrative is appealing because you're witnessing a frail young boy trying to become a writer but just getting bogged down by all the bullshit. There's universal appeal. The way he gradually resists his fathers abuse and comes to resent his mother, despite still liking her deep down, is the main conflict of the story.

"Women" fails because precisely because of this. The conflict is vapid. Buk is fucking all these girls, bragging about it, and larping as a sad boy. There's no real tension. But even the situation in Women is somewhat interesting, if anything in a comedic sense; a man becomes famous in his middle age after a life of poverty and sexual frustration, and starts banging a bunch of chicks.

What's interesting about LiveBlog? A middle class white girl is "depressed", does drugs, talks about her friends and boyfriends. Where's the tension?
What about the prose? Meh...
Is it great? Absolutely not

>But it's experimental
I could publish a book with piss stains on it and it would be experimental. That's nothing by itself.

I'm sure some people could find it a fun little read. But that's all it is. No better than your typical teenage YA except it tried to be more ambitious. Which is good. But not enough to make it good lit

I can totally understand why people may be resentful of it though. Considering Megan got published because of her blowjob skills, rather than her literary merit

How are you doing anons? Is the New Year off to a good start?

Also, what are you currently reading?