/lit/ - Literature

>>12913754
How wrong you are...

t. reads modern bugman literature.
The great men of literature did not put explicit sexual fantasies in their books. This is what low quality authors do to distract.

>>12913754
>If you read a book by a man and a book by a woman in the same genre, the difference is night and day. The woman isn't titallating herself.
Give an actual comparative example of a similar work by different sexed authors that demonstrates your point

>>12913759
This is a lie but older authors often did use less explicit means, you're right. Non-explicit is still inexcusable though. I don't want to read a page describing a 15 year old's young body. Fucking gross, honestly.

Porn wasn't always free anon

>>12913797
>>12913806
Literally just a description of a precocious teen girl. Stop projecting your pedophilic tendencies onto literature.

>Why can't people write books without inserting themselves into them?

>>12913825
Bad b8

>>12913797
>>12913806
What about these passages is worth highlighting?

sex is a fundamental part of most peoples' lives
sorry anon

>>12913860
>She was a teen girl approaching womanhood. She had black hair and blue eyes, and she had a large mouth.
>>She was very sexy but she didn't realize it.
How the fuck do you read this and get "pedophile?" It's literally just a description of a typical teen girl. He's not saying he wants to fuck her. He's portraying high school girls like countless films and tv shows portray them. You're only offended because it's written in a book instead of implied on a screen.

>>12913780
>Fucking gross, honestly.
t. Homo

>>12913907
Lol dude just get out of this thread, no one's catching the b8

>>12913982
Not bait and not an argument, pedo.

how come women can't write books without inserting their gender politics into them?

read a book by a man, and the difference is night and day. the man isn't jerking off any gender-based sense of unwarranted self-importance.

>>12913993
You're the one who brought up pedophilia my troll

woah what the fuck?

>>12914033
You mentioned sexual fantasies in your original post, pedo. Stop projecting your sexual fantasies involving young girls onto the books you read, pedo.

And the women in books by men are complete objects, too. We'll get a description of her body, the MC will find her sexy or she'll find him sexy, and that's about it as far as her characterization goes. She might be a femme fatale or a manic pixie dream girl but her whole purpose in the novel is to titallate the author and provide romance/sex for the protagonist.

Nothing showcases men's inability to empathize with women and see them as fully-formed human beings more than media written by men. This includes books, tv, movies, etc. It's all the same beast.

>>12914052

that's ephebophilia, technically

>>12914048
wtf is this?

>>12914063
Why are you here? Go back to Tumblr.

>>12914052
I need more bait I'm getting hungry!!

>>12914069
Why don't you expand your mind a little and try reading a book by someone who isn't a white man with European roots?

>>12913907
He's the kind of person to object to any slightly detailed physical descriptions of young girls and in the same breath call you a pedophile if you criticize the fact that someone lets their little girl to start wearing suggestive clothing and imitating slut brainwashing from an early age.

>>12914083
Because I don't waste my time with shit books.

>>12914066
Gravity's Rainbow

>>12914048
Is this john green

>>12914089
These physical descriptions are rarely given to teenage boys. We don't get descriptions of their lithe abdomens and filling groins. Male authors spend paragraphs describing female bodies (regardless of age) when there is no reason to go into such detail. We will know the shape of a woman's breast, the curve of her lips, and the length of her legs but will only know a male character has black hair and is on the tall side.

Men should be embarrassed.

>>12914122
post your horrible fake tits tranny

>>12914112
more or less

>>12914122
>These physical descriptions are rarely given to teenage boys.
That would be gay haha

>>12914122
Shut the fuck up tranny. Men are not as pleasing to the eye as women. The feminine form is such a beautiful and important thing that countless works of art have been made focused on it.

>>12914147
Go touch your peepee and come back to us

>>12914122
The male body is irrelevant. It's expendable. With men you describe specs: income, power generation, achievements. Or more often, the lack of these things.
With women, their bodies are (meant to be) works of art. Shame the minds aren't.

>>12914122
Acknowledging a girl is turning into or will become into a beautiful woman doesn't mean you want to fuck little girls, are you retarded or just a woman?

>>12914157
Go dilate and then come back to us with an actual argument.

>>12914122
The quality of a woman depends on her body, the quality of a man depends on his character.

>>12914063
Women to men are a set of objects. They vary between each other but they are all objects -- meant to be looked at, meant to perform, but not meant to be considered an actual person. We see this in the way men write women. A man's fantasy is a buffet of women where he picks his favorite one. His favorite is not the one that makes him laugh, it's the one with Double Ds or a 14 year old's body or legs for days.

>>12914063
Setting Sun by Dazai isn't like that. I think he always gives women a pretty complete representation as human beings. He seems to think they're much better people, in general, than men are.
I don't think OP's complaint is a men thing so much as a lousy writer thing. Sex isn't bad in and of itself, either, to write about. It all depends on how it's handled.

>>12914181
Xanth was pretty based but I preferred the later stories when bink was old/dead

>>12914158
>>12914177
You two are right in how society views the sexes. It is sad and shameful that great authors fall into this trap and trope, lazily writing half the population or omitting them completely. Great literary minds can explore the oppression of man but never the oppression of woman. Instead they enjoy it.

>>12913754

Why can't women write books without inserting their sexual fantasies into them?

If you read a book by a woman and a book by a man in the same genre, the difference is night and day. The man isn't titallating himself.

Why do men find low brow descriptions like this appealing? Just masturbate before you read, please.

>>12914181
Women are sexual objects and men are monetary objects, what else is new? But that's just reductionism

BAIT THREAD

>>12914200
Can you even class analysis

>>12914208
>But that's just reductionism
What is? Your retarded post? Stop speaking in meaningless catch phrases

>>12914222
Reducing either sex to objects of one kind of another is reductionism, what's not to get?

>>12914264
Reducing the points being presented in the manner you are is reductionism
>someone makes a general observation
>OH HOHOHO THAT IS REDUCTIONIST OF YOU
Nobody think you're smart. You are entirely superfluous. Shut the fuck up retard.

>>12913806
this one is pretty stupid

>>12914181
If I have a lot of respect for women, and really want one to be my Mommy, is that okay? I'll love her so much and do anything for her and never objectify her and always try to make her happy, but all I ask is that she acts maternally towards me instead of merely feminine and certainly not any manner of submissiveness towards me...everyone on this site calls me a beta and even a tranny for this though, but it's just my own personal way of expressing myself romantically and I can't really get rid of it...I just hope real women like yourself are accepting of it, but I sadly suspect you aren't...most girls want their man to dominate and lead them while still respecting them as a human being, and nearly none desire what I seek...

awful threads
mods do your job

>>12914181
>His favorite is not the one that makes him laugh,
Women should be gateful that's the case or all men would be fags.

>>12914285
lmao holy fuck you're both mad as fuck and dumb as fuck

>>12914721
that's extremely reductionist of you
>nou are le dumb one
hahahaha

>>12913754
>>12913780
>>12913797
>>12913806
>>12913982
>>12914048
>>12914063
>>12914075
>>12914083
>>12914122
>>12914157
>>12914181
>>12914197
>>12914203
>>12914221
>>12914629
>>12914676
>>12914721
Epic! Updoot!
https://www.reddit.com/r/menwritingwomen/
OH NO NO NO LE REDDIT FAGGOTS
https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/menwritingwomen?lang=en
OH NO NO NO LE TWITTER NIGGERS
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/katangus/advice-to-men-writing-female-characters
OH NO NO NO LE BUZZFEED XD
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/06/cleavage-male-authors-women-writer
OH NO NO LE GRAUNIAD XD
https://www.tumblr.com/tagged/men-writing-women
OH NO NO NO LE TUMBLR
Edit: Thanks for the gold, kind tranny!

>>12914868
mad

>>12914879
XD lmao he a mad nigga xD oh poor sweaty have sex incel lmao XD
Edit: WOW! This comment really blew up!

>>12914906
electionfag getting upset at tourists, irony!

>>12914906
Upvoted

>>12914906
Upvote

>>12914911
>im le oldf*g see my screenshot of a banepost proves it btw fuck le ebil /pol/tards xD im an le oldf*g
Hello, tourist! The ironing.

>>12914949
take your meds

>>12914954
>LE TAKE UR MEDS UR SO LE SCHIZO XD I CAME HERE LAST YEAR BUT I ALWAYS GET CALLED REDDIT SO I GUESS THATS WHAT IM JUST SUPPOSED TO DO LE REDDIT XDDD UR SO NEW TAKE MEDS GET HELP SWEATY
Not that guy but celestial cringe

>>12914954
XD havent seen that one le before! XD
Edit: Downvote me all you want, you know I’m right.

>>12914966
>>12914971

lmao cope :^)

>>12914982
>LMAO LE COPE XD AND ALSO LE FACE FACE
>actual reddit spacing
universal cringe

>>12914982
lmao good one sweaty xD
Edit: Spelling.

>>12914987
that's not even what redd*t spacing is, newfag

>>12915003
>he doesn't even know you can type the word reddit
>he doesn't know what reddit spacing is
>he's a dishonest piece of shit
>he literally never gets away with being a a lying newfaggot retard without being made fun of
>he still does it every day
you're really stupid bud

>>12915003
>reddit tourist doesnt know what redditspacing is
shocking
>no u r reddit
epic

>>12915010
oof

>>12915026
You will never be a real woman.

>>12915038
youll never be a real man

>>12915220
Clever.

>>12914063
>Nothing showcases men's inability to empathize with women and see them as fully-formed human beings more than media written by men. This includes books, tv, movies, etc. It's all the same beast.
Jane Eyre fails whatever the male version of the Bechdel test is and reads like a nerd girl's self-insert wank dream.

>>12915297
Okay? There is clearly an imbalance here between how men write women and how women write men. To pretend otherwise is being obtuse.

>>12915766
Reddit post.

>>12915766
where are the proofs of this imbalance

>>12914090
based

>>12914063
>And the women in books by men are complete objects, too. We'll get a description of her body, the MC will find her sexy or she'll find him sexy, and that's about it as far as her characterization goes.

I mean, have you ever read a Danielle Steele novel? People find the opposite gender attractive. Deal with it. You aren't going to stop people from seeing others as attractive and beautiful.

>Nothing showcases men's inability to empathize with women and see them as fully-formed human beings more than media written by men. This includes books, tv, movies, etc. It's all the same beast.
I disagree, guess that means you're wrong.

>>12914181
feminism has robbed women of their inherent dignity and turned them into inferior copies of men

>>12914221
PROBLEMATIZED

>>12914181
women objectify the shit out of men's bodies and also use them for their money, they have absolutely no leg to stand on in this conversation

>>12913754
i guess they must consider their sexuality intrinsic to their existence or something

>>12913797
>>12913806
>genreshit
>>>out

>>12913759
You've obviously never read French literature

>>12913754
because men have a much stronger libido than women, why do you think women always write about some estranged romance story?

>>12913754

Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey would say otherwise...
But there's really nothing wrong with drawing on sexuality in your writing

>>12913754
In the event that this isn’t a troll, aren’t romance novels, sex filled vampire novels common enough to be a cliche?

>>12914048

P A T E R N A L

L

O

W

>>12913780
>inexcusable
>Fucking gross
biat

>>12913754
Except for 99% of erotica being written by women u derp

>>12914048
by allah what did i just read, people that read fiction deserve to be shot

are you fucking serious retard
what about ayn rand for one

>>12913759
>The great men of literature
how to out yourself as a retard in five simple words

>>12914197
what's wrong with oppression anyway

>>12913754
Like 80% of books my female relatives read are soft porn written by women.

>>12919114
I think romance novels are written under pseudonyms.
So who knows what sex they are. Everyone loves it

>>12914048
Pretty sure this only happens inside a characters head

>>12913780
>your lie is true

R E S P E C T

W A H M I N

>>12913907
This

>>12914122
>>12914197
Shut up tranny, there is no opression to see here.

>nothing wrong with sexualized characters, they can be good or not
>no evidence at all about the supposed mismatch between men and women
>faggot op immediately assumes any difference there (which he hasn't shown) is rooted in misconceptions and cannot possibly come from the realization of characters of either sex
Perhaps women are written as sexual objects because that's how they live in reality.
Of course the premisse is retarded, literary men have routinely elevated women, even proven roasties, to an ethereal status that would be considered tacky for describing seraphim.
Reminder that erotica is both mostly written and consumed by women.

>>12921258
based retard

>>12913887
Reproduction is, sex shouldn't be, unless you're a catamite.

>>12923364
okay incel

men value sex and claim to be good at sex (which they are not, especially with virgin girls) only because they know it is on sex and harmless fun that a woman bases her decision to let men continue to care for her.

If a woman was able to acknowledge a man in a non sexual way, then men would care more about this way than sex. But that is not the case, women center their life on sex and they love to let compete for them, take only the men who show how well they can entertain women.

The blow back for women is that repulsive, poor men continue to try to be noticed by women and men do not know when to stop.

Another problem for women, is that once a man is chosen by a woman for the fucking and caring, the man thinks he no longer competes against other men, and that woman no longer has any orbiters. The man thinks his victory is perpetual. Then the woman gets less and less harmless fun that she craves, so she choose a few other disposable orbiters. Then the current provider no longer feels acknowledged and begins to seek the validation of another woman.

Also, women do not have babies because ''muh genes'' muh evolution.
Women have babies because
-they love to spread their legs
-their parents push them for grand children
-they get bored and they see the family as a way to keep the relationship alive
-they see other women having babies and being okay with it

This stuff about ''tough healthy males'' comes from the male love to interpret anything through their fantasy of dominance and submission, but this is because they love to confuse dominance with being active and submission with being passive so that they delude themselves that they are not the weaker sex by being so active, whereas their activities turn out to be only making women comfy and make life harder for men.

Women know this male clinging to power fantasies by heart and they have no problem using it to avoid being as destitute as a men can become, while still thinking that those women realize the female fantasy of intimacy, of going beyond passing for and knowing to be slutty goldiggers, by being devoted to the realization of the fantasy of grandiosity of a few men or more commonly by having children and creating a family.

What women want the most is harmless fun and intimacy. THey get to realize their fantasy first when they are young with men, by trying to let their ''ego'' on the side and realize the sexual fantasies of the men who fuck them. WOmen quickly learn that the only healthy way to relate to men is to be capitalistic on the male market.

Women know this male clinging to power fantasies by heart and they have no problem using it to avoid being as destitute as a men can become, while still thinking that those women realize the female fantasy of intimacy, of going beyond passing for and knowing to be slutty goldiggers, by being devoted to the realization of the fantasy of grandiosity of a few men or more commonly by having children and creating a family.

What women want the most is harmless fun and intimacy. THey get to realize their fantasy first when they are young with men, by trying to let their ''ego'' on the side and realize the sexual fantasies of the men who fuck them. WOmen quickly learn that the only healthy way to relate to men is to be capitalistic on the male market.

But The fantasy of being intimate is realized with having children. THis is what men do not understand. Women love ''to be selfless'' by caring about children and they delude themselves that their compassion and unconditional love for the children is a good thing. Childless women direct their retarded compassion towards animals and children they do not know.
So women love children for the intimacy. Women rely on men for the sex and care they give.

only women know how to love:

love of men towards women = love of women towards children = unconditional love (utopian for men, effective for women)

love of men towards children (= an aid to retire and stop their suffering) = love of women towards men = utility towards more pleasures and less pains now and in the future

>>12923396
>>12923398

uh yikes

>>12923388
>bugman catamite calling me an incel
lmao, go back to sucking cock.

>>12923426
lol cope

>>12913806
Lol, who reads this trash?

>>12913754
We based, das why

>>12913754
Just don't read books written by catamites.