/lit/ - Literature

>>8133548
I'm faily good looking, 29, and completely relaxed with women, so I can get some either way. But I just observe that "leading" actually always improves the situation in terms of getting into bed. With some chicks, whether they are horny or really into you, if you don't act, there would never be a kiss. This is the sense in which I always come back to the very naive gender concepts - I just observe how shit is true to an extend that can't be just be social influence.
That said, I do faggy shit like jogging with a pink tank top and I got a t-shirt with a gender queer flag after I read some butler (and performativity in particular, not just in the context of sex) and I like it. I just feel that if I want success with this and that, I better play along with it and it bothers me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_performativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performativity

>>7353945
>>7353942
Thanks mates

>hey, anon. I thought this book you recommended to me was about zombies, but all it talks about are philosophical zombies. what are they?

>>6984970
>Women have a deceptive character, even if they are enjoyable to be with this is a fact which everyone until recent times were capable of acknowledging.
This acknowledging is simply not done easily anymore, when this large fraction of people called women are now also part of the work force, the students and profs in your department.
I'm not going into whether any of your claims is true or not, but one should raise the question if women weren't just an easy target for all of those philosophers - a stand pretty much out academic discourse, you could blame failures of men and history more broadly on them and non of the targeted readership (men) would feel the incentive to respond to such theories as a personal defense mechanism. It's just like if you're an English guy, writing a text in anthropology, and describe black people in some native village. You can shit-talk whatever you want, nobody in your lifetime reading it would be offended.

>Post your opening line.
I usually either comment on her style or ask a question regarding something in the surroundings.

I'm also 150 pages into Stirner and discussed it with some others. My problem with it relates to yours:

Firstly, I'd say a spook can be described as
"Any concept (in particular ideologies like being a good human, religious, aquiring money, being a feminist, vegan, etc.) that you follow and eventually put before yourself and your actual interests."
E.g. if you at one point decide for yourself that eating animals is bad, you can, and you may then find yourself as labeling yourself a vegetarian. The concept becomes a spook at the point where you "make decisions X" because "well...I'm a vegetarian, and vegetarian do X". That's spooky, you dropped acting in your interest and accepted a framework without thinking and thereby put it before and above you.

My point with it is this (and I think it's related to yours):
Being a Stirnerian egoist is fucking hard!
People invent labels (spooks, eventually) like 'Christian', 'feminist', and 'morally acting human' because they summarize a list of modes of action. People adopt it to assure others of their predictable behavior and to externalize decisions.
On the other hand, being a Stirnerian egoist, freeing yourself from any spook and acting in the egos interest, always, is giving up the ease of having ideologies.

What you say, that you might just not be capable to make the right decision also acknowledges that hardness. Humans are limited. I'm saying we might not mentally be capable of being Stirnerian egoists. You seem to say that also we might not have enough information to make the best of Stirners proposed mindset.