/lit/ - Literature

>>22567170
only the bad ones to be honest, the ones too focused on their hatred of men.

>>18599362
>Greer has described the book as "full of pictures of 'ravishing' pre-adult boys with hairless chests, wide-apart legs and slim waists". She goes on to say that, "I know that the only people who are supposed to like looking at pictures of boys are a subgroup of gay men", she wrote in London's Daily Telegraph. "Well, I'd like to reclaim for women the right to appreciate the short-lived beauty of boys, real boys, not simpering 30-year-olds with shaved chests."[
Greer just WANTS children to be sexual, anything she says to justify it it jewcope

I only know about this one but I don't want to buy it if its just Greer being a creep. Is it still worth it or is there anything better?

How did she get away with it?

>"He walked downstairs, noticing how his limp penis pressed against the front of his underwear, his nubile balls dangling hairily below"

I think she meant how bad men are at erotic writing but she managed to fuck it up because she's a woman. Her entire point is undercut by the sheer volume of torso-of-the-week romance novels and couch cushion moistening crap like "50 Shades of Gray" and "Twilight".
>He walked downstairs, noticing how his limp penis pressed against the front of his underwear
Why would he notice his own penis? That only makes sense if he was initially unaware he was arousing the woman looking at him (or had the potential to do so).
>his nubile balls dangling hairily below
Using "nubile" doesn't make sense unless it's that "beautiful boy" MILF ephebshit, which would make it A LOT hotter and explain why he didn't realize being in his underwear had turned the situation sexual, except she immediately undercuts that with "dangling hairily" so that's right out. Also "hairily" is not a word.

why is this allowed?