/lit/ - Literature

>>21984534
>On another note, how do people even develop the more out there fetishes?
Male sexuality is centered around the act of sex and the aesthetic of sex. Female sexuality is centered around what the act of sex implies (validation, flattery, emotional fulfillment). A common way of putting it is that men use love to get sex and women use sex to get love. They both want both, but how they pursue completion is different. Women are less secure/stable than men and they require maleness to ground them. For that reason, how they determine a sexual opportunity's value is weighed in terms that a man would probably consider irrelevant to the actual act of sex. A woman can decide to have sex with you because you're the only one in the group who can make everybody laugh. She might suddenly find herself turned on by a man she was totally unattracted to previously, just because he got a promotion. She can be attracted to you because your fingernails remind her of her father's hands and he's the only other person who ever made her feel safe. Most men wouldn't even believe how female attraction actually works because it sounds convoluted, and most women aren't conscious enough of it to explain. They are drawn to indicators of male power and stability, or at least what each woman interprets as such. I'm saying all this to make the point that there's a psychologized element to human sexuality that has nothing to do with the actual act of mating, and if you get tangled in chasing indicators of what (should) fulfill you it can get pretty far removed. For women, satisfying fetishes takes primacy over sensation to the point that most of them can have a satisfying sexual experience without even cumming. Men are less like that, but there's still a psychological element present. If someone has a fetish that seems totally removed from sex itself, all they're doing is contriving up a context that allows them to feel like the itch, the psychological motivation behind the sex, is being scratched without them having to pursue it literally. Clowns infantalize sex, make it unintimidating. Being swallowed by a giant is aesthetically sexual (warm, wet insides) and absolves the fetishist of the pressure of agency in the act. Etc. A fetish is just an unlikely scenario that makes it easy to get what you want. Why some people fantasize about being raped whiles others fantasize about being swallowed by giant anime girls varies.

>>20543729

> but when we do it for a human we have to go through thousands of years of mumbo jumbo and lifestyles to take care of yourself, any philosophical books that just say humans are animals and should be cared for as if you were caring for a dog with there being a step by step guide to achieve happiness systematically?

Get gud pussy, faggot. It's not hard to understand. You're just willfully stupid.

Before I started coming to /lit/ I used to try and get help or answers about literature related questions on r/books and other, more specific subs. I can not convey how much I grew to resent Reddit and the people posting there just from that experience.
I am not American and while I am aware of the political divide between Reddit and 4chan, I mean to talk about how even when stepping away from politics Reddit is a shithole.
Yesterday I made a thread here asking about which edition of Herodotus' Histories I should get, and I also made one on r/history, wording it differently to fit Reddit's style.
I thank all the anons on here who helped me figure out that I should probably get Loeb's Histories, because if it wasn't for them I would have had to wait a whole day for a moderator to delete my post on Reddit and tell me to
>ask your question in our weekly Simple/Short/Silly Questions Saturday topic
I had specifically read their rules and guidelines first and made sure my post and questions were allowed, and on top of that I had also found similar posts about other books on the sub.
The attitude of the moderators and the way everything is formulated is snide and condescending and makes you feel like a complete retard.
Once, I tried to make an effortpost about comparing translations of Chekhov's plays and stories on r/books and asked questions that would've provided useful answers to both me and the other participants in the discussion only to be told once again to
>post in the Simple questions thread on Wednesday
When I did and no one answered as I expected, I noticed that the 'simple questions thread' was half simple questions and half people who asked really interesting and thought provoking questions which no one even bothered to look at because those threads are usually dead.
It feels odd that my Chekhov prose style translation comparison and analysis thread was shot down but today I went on r/books and the first post I saw had 2.1k karma and read
>Did anyone actually enjoy “Lord of the Flies”? I read it for the first time last month and I didn’t really like it. [...]
I have to know: What the actual fuck? What the fuck is the point of all those rules if they let posts like the above one through? What's the point of the subs at all if people can't go there to have their questions answered? Why would you micromanage a forum like reddit to the point of making it useless?
When I started coming here more often I felt like I had found a place where I was finally seen, where I could ask and be answered. Thank you for that, anons.
We have to keep /lit/ alive and well.

>>11491128
Have you ever read the abridged version of Hemingway's baby shoes? It goes:

"Wah"

An incestous family fuck up a whole town for almost a century.

>>10050794
>favorite prophet
I don't have one
>favorite composer
Strauss
>favorite poet
Bukowski
>favorite novelist
Dostoyevsky
>favorite philosopher
Spinoza
>favorite playwright
Lope de Vega
>favorite director
Kubrick
>favorite painter
Goya
>favorite architect
Dunno I only know Raul Villanueva