/lit/ - Literature

Find an author that was a good husband and father. There is none. They care only for themselves

>>16156189
Carl Jung.

>>16156193
>Enduring his infidelities and mood swings
Next

>>16156189
me

Can we say based?

>>16156220
Whatever? Everyone that knew him said he was as virtuous a person as possible in temperament and the action which flowed from that, children loved him and he was a good husband.

>>16156245
He was probably better than Tolstoy but it's not a high bar, he was still committing adultery with all his female students.

>>16155885
>>16156243
damn this is depressing.

>>16156243
Based.

>>16156243
Wasn't the best looking guy but definitely wasn't ugly.

>>16156252
That was not a regular occasion, and it didn't cause any major rift in the family. Rather when he began a relationship with Toni it greatly helped the family and even the wife said it allowed Jung to give so much more to her.

>>16156261
That's what we call a cope anon. If a man claimed that his wife's adultery with another man "allowed her to give so much more to him" you would laugh at him, and you'd be right.

>>16156268
Actually, the wife claimed that, not Carl himself. I believe it was in one of her private diaries.

>>16156284
>reading comprehension

>>16155885
friendly reminder that these 19th century coomers caused feminism.

>>16156243
Why do people feel such a strong need for confession? It makes absolutely no sense to me. It's fucking retarded.
>AAAAHHH I MUST COONFESS
>I'M COONFESSING.

>>16156316
have you ever heard of this thing called catharsis

>>16156312
Explain?

>>16155885
you can judge a Christian's character by how good of a husband/father they were

The only legendary artist who was a good father and husband was Bach. He had like 20 kids

>>16156316
It' a virtue signal

The bible speaks against this creepy behavior

>>16156337
bach was a heretic though, so...

>>16156329
instead of actually doing something about rapid industrialization, 19th century men chose to become alcoholics and coomers.

>>16156189
pynchon

>>16156258
>>16156243
>>16155885
Imagine being Sofia Tolstoy
>be young virgin girl from good family
>have lots of artistic and intellectual hobbies because you had that luxury by virtue of your upbringing
>barely even know what sex is
>turn 18
>getting married off to cool handsome older writer guy
>nervous but excited, imagine the things he'll be able to teach you with his intellect and experience
>he makes you read in detail about every whore he's fucked and all his STDs and bastard children
>tfw
>have to marry him anyway
>has absolutely no interest in you beyond household chores and sex, and not even really sex because his whores were better at it
>despite this gets angry when you try to enjoy anything on your own
>embarrasses you publicly by publishing a story about murdering you for talking to a musician
>husband says sex is bad and evil and abstinence is the only way
>gets you pregnant 16 times
>spend your whole life acting like a perfect wife anyway
>internally seething the whole time

>>16156367
fucking insane bros. i would LITERALLY kill for a girl like that. i would literally kill.

>>16156305
Actually I just thought you lacked it, because I don't see how you can't see the difference between the wife claiming it, and the husband.

Are you by any chance a brainlet?

>>16156421
m8 I'm not him and I have no dog in this fight but his post was very clear. you're the one who should re-read things.

>>16156243
He literally went my diary desu on her lmao

>>16156316
Thus>>16156320

But have you ever heard of sin, redemption from that? Oh of course, you live no moral life. So even the practical catharsis of the psyche from guilt, and the expungance of truth to oneself and loved ones, in this new coming relationship--; even this you cannot see, let alone the "grand Christian act" of repentance. Which is not necessary only for a Theism, for a God, though that is a beautiful truth, but rather as long as there is an Eternality, as long as man exists, as long as what he does matters, as long as YOUR life matters to YOURSELF will you make this decision to see revelation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP545U-R3Ts

>>16156359
There’s not much information about his life, is it?

>>16156421
A (hypothetical) husband who thinks his wife became able to "give so much more to him" by fucking another man is a dumb cuck trying to cope.
A wife (Jung's wife in this case) who thinks her husband became able to "give so much more to her" by fucking another woman is also a dumb cuck. It's a pathetic rationalization.
Do you get it yet?

>>16155885
Women are always trying to upgrade, here we have an ugly boar that can't be content with being married to one of the most well known men in all of history.

>>16156436
>>If a man claimed that his wife's adultery with another man "allowed her to give so much more to him" you would laugh at him, and you'd be right.
>the difference between if the wife claimed it, and the husband.
Where did I not comprehend it? There is difference of sincerity between the two hypotheticals.

>>16156243
Women confirmed for no self agency.

>>16156367
You do realize that 100% of women experience this regardless of whom they marry and this is why the show Desperate Housewives exists

>>16156475
>100% of women's husbands don't like them and treat them poorly
Sad desu, no wonder marriage rates are down.

>>16156450
Obviously Jung loved Toni for personal reasons but he wouldn't love her if it jeopardised his family situation. The wife's statement was just showing that he wasn't a "bad husband" by doing it, or really was a good husband in this case but that's irrelevant. It's such a simple and easily comprehensible explanation of why "he had so much more to give", when there is a different woman, similar things found so often, and I wonder why you have such a problem with it.

>A (hypothetical) husband who thinks his wife became able to "give so much more to him" by fucking another man is a dumb cuck trying to cope.
>A wife (Jung's wife in this case) who thinks her husband became able to "give so much more to her" by fucking another woman is also a dumb cuck. It's a pathetic rationalization.
This is absolutely a misconception of what men and women fundamentally are in life, maybe you've only read the Republic, but men and women are not merely interchangeable like playdough. I don't see how such a basic fact of the genders can go over your head.

>>16156487
Dude you're acting like a retarded fanboy. Just shut the fuck up and accept that Jung was a terrible husband.

>>16156487
Romanticizing male adultery as somehow above female adultery doesn't make it less morally degenerate.

That just sounds like whining all women do if they get bored

>>16156481
>believing this stupid bitches complaints

you've never had a bipolar gf, and by bipolar gf i mean just any gf at all because theyre all bipolar

>>16156501
It was courteous of you to provide a picture of yourself, so I could inspect with the knowledge of physiognomy. But no, he literally wasn't a bad husband. Besides I don't even see how you could have such a small-minded conception of what marriage is, or a successful one. Or how the mind works, is it to you impossible that a younger woman revitalises an older man? His love and understanding for woman? I have been in similar situations, and I understand it perfectly.

I believe you just don't know what you're talking about. Men and women are different creatures, for most of history it has been considered that man owns woman, but that a man has the potential to be polygamous and the woman not? For one example.

>>16156506
It literally is, how old are you? Would you rather your daughter take a hundred dicks travelling or your son give a hundred travelling? You don't seem to understand gender.

>>16156528
Do you know anything about Tolstoy? She was definitely bitchy and up her own ass but he wasn't exactly the average husband.

>>16156536
Whorish behavior is always immoral, nice to see you've justified it for yourself though.

This is why virgin women should not marry used up men who have stuck their dick in hundreds of diseased holes.

>>16156548
Not at all, I agree it is wrong, but let's not deceive ourselves on the matter. A man can live his life more morally than before if he has been a womaniser, perhaps even an Augustine if so be his mission, but a woman is ruined for life.

>>16156542
it really doesnt matter what he did every moment she bitched and did nothing was a bad faith action on her part because her inner delusional narrative mattered more than solving her problems

>>16156531
>>16156536
>small-minded conception of what marriage is
>for most of history it has been considered that man owns woman, but that a man has the potential to be polygamous and the woman not
Do Christianity and Judaism permit polygamy? Do you think that adultery and fornication are the same as polygamy? Does Islam permit adultery and fornication? Do you think that there is any way to separate female degradation from male degeneracy? You're seriously disgusting and should go back to whatever cesspool you came here from.

>>16156559
Either can "live morally" after engaging in whorish behavior but the taint will not go away until death. Just because men are socially forgiven does not rid them of the stench of adultery.

>>16156566
Shitty wife for a shitty husband, they deserved each other

>>16156580
many such cases

>>16156569
Since when is polygamy necessarily adulterous? As far as the Old Testament it was allowed, though I'm not saying I am for it, I am not, but the point is that it is reflective of the greater difference between the genders. But it is not quite literally a life-destroying thing in the case of a man, but a woman it is. In all of Christian society the word "whore" has never been used for a man, and it is only a moral degradation of modernity and masculinity that it is considered possible to be used for a man by some. A man can be sexually degenerate, but a "whore", no. A man can be degenerate with sleeping with many women, but his perversion exists more in how he treats the sexuality or in what type of "sex" he is doing. That will mark a man, but sleeping with many woman is not quite the crime it is for a woman.

Do you not believe in gender, or their traditional roles? Women and men, on not all things but many, have different degeneracy's, different sins, and different ideals most obviously. I can feel compassion for adulterers also.

>>16156573
>it's just SOCIETY which places forgiveness on men and NOT women
Sounding a lot like a "patriarchy!" hog here pal, you gotta know there are differences between men and women. Otherwise women would be quite understandable to you.

>>16156349
catholics think anyone who didn't get their assholes fingered by a man in a dress in a catholic "church" is a heretic

>>16156604
good one anon, real original

>>16156618
>original
not really, most catholics have pegging fetishes now

>>16156367
should of kys’d herself

>>16156189
Tolkien.

>>16156602
>>16156597
A man who patronizes prostitutes is no different than a sexually loose female. A man who partakes in sex with many women is a different case if he seduced these women, but a man who patronizes whores has done no such thing. The reason women are ruined by slutty behavior is because all a woman needs to do to have sex is to spread her legs. She must only show to a man what he desires, and this morally degrades her essence. A man patronizing prostitutes is much the same. He has achieved nothing. He has not convinced a woman, he has not conquered, he has not triumphed. He has merely given into desperation, and shown the whore what she wants (money) in exchange for the sex act. This too, morally degrades his being. Men who have given into their passions can be forgiven. Even whores can be forgiven, circumstantially, as women have been forced into the position of the whore by situations beyond their control. But loose women and men who patronize whores cannot be.

>>16156243
Typical Christian.

>>16156623
yeah you're whole sect totally isn't founded on resentment for the true church or anything...
enjoy hell i guess

>>16156647
protestants don't even know what the catholic church is and most of them don't even know/care who martin luther was

it's been 500 years, take father johnson's finger out of your ass already

>>16156641
>This too, morally degrades his being.
Never denied this, and this conversation started with Jung starting a relationship with another woman, which in turn helped his relationship with his wife.

>But loose women and men who patronize whores cannot be.
Ridiculous statement, both can be forgiven if they realise the wrongs, but the damage it will have caused to the woman, in contrast to the damage it has done to the man, for the man it is incomparable.

>>16156683
Men are incredibly damaged by sexual depravity.

>>16156683
I personally have decided to live an ascetic life due to having had nothing but whores for girlfriends. For the remainder of my life I will never deal with another female again. I refuse.

>>16156629
He made his wife convert to Catholicism and very unhappy.

When you dig up the details of someone's life you're pretty much always going to find something bad. But people don't interact with a man through dug up details but instead in person, in a particular context, with social etiquette and real, measured experiences.

>>16155885
Why are the personal lives of authors relevant at all to /lit/? Are you starting a fan club? What is your point?

>>16156729
Their lives influence their writings and viewpoints

>>16156703
Of course, but didn't you read what I said about the difference?

>>16156712
That is a grave mistake, which has only come from your own inadequacy. Such decisions will only lead to degeneration.

>>16156736
What is the difference? Exactly? Not that it is not different in it's exact nature, but what makes one so much more than the other. Women are no less capable than men of the moral work of repentance and changing one's practices. What you likely mean is that the woman is no longer acceptable to any good man as a wife, while such a man can still reasonably start a family. While I would not say this is absolutely not the case, the narrative of the womanizing degenerate man settling with a woman and performing as a good husband to his wife is more often fantasy than reality, as can be seen by Tolstoy's marriage in this very thread.

>>16156720
Wow. So erudite and wise. The more you know about someone the more you understand their human faults. Huh. Wow. I never realized that. Thank you for showing me the light

>>16156597
>Since when is polygamy necessarily adulterous?
I was drawing a distinction between the two. Your reading comprehension really is abysmal.
>As far as the Old Testament it was allowed
I don't think so. Stories of polygamy are not the same as polygamy being permitted by Law.
>But it is not quite literally a life-destroying thing in the case of a man, but a woman it is
In neither case is it life-destroying in and of itself. Its effects are what bring ruin upon the soul of the doer.
>In all of Christian society the word "whore" has never been used for a man, and it is only a moral degradation of modernity and masculinity that it is considered possible to be used for a man by some.
That's because whore is the word for women who engage in such behavior. There are plenty of words for men who do so, such as rake and libertine. You would be aware of this if you had read anything other than silly PUA garbage on the internet.
>A man can be degenerate with sleeping with many women, but his perversion exists more in how he treats the sexuality or in what type of "sex" he is doing.
No.
>That will mark a man, but sleeping with many woman is not quite the crime it is for a woman.
Yes it is. The only reason you think otherwise is the immense distance between us and genuine Christian society. Male sexual depravity is not treated more favorably than that of women in the Bible or the Qur'an.
>Do you not believe in gender, or their traditional roles?
Their traditional roles are not what you think they are. In a genuinely "traditional" society, the moment male infidelity or sexual depravity comes to light, that man is ostracized. Even if he is not, his behavior irreparably damages his reputation in the eyes of others.
>Women and men, on not all things but many, have different degeneracy's, different sins
No. In most things, virtue for a woman is virtue for a man. There are very few areas in which women and men have different expectations.
>I can feel compassion for adulterers also.
This is irrelevant.

The story is clear now, /lit/posters are just depressed old women.

>>16156734
Yeah, the shittier they are as people the better the author seems to be the consensus you're driving at.

>>16156763
Good people don't usually have much to say.

>>16156753
You missed the point. It's a very important one today because people don't know other people, they only know 'the details' and social media doctrine. They reduce a person to this. It's actually not knowing more about someone, it's making a shallow character of them.

>>16156736
You are wrong and projecting. My life could not be sustained with women involved. I have an approach towards life that I am not willing to give up, and I never would have been aware of it had I continued to chase pussy.

>>16156777
Checked, and unfortunately I know it's true. Lies are more numerous than truths, and many writers find that they live in a world where all the good ideas have been said before, so they invent bad ones and build their popularity on that.

>>16156712
>>16156810
Not the guy you're talking to. Are you pursuing a higher principle outside yourself at the same time, perhaps that of God?

>>16156751
No, what I mean, is that men and women are phenomenologically different. Just like a human and a bat are different in the same regard, and this calls for not a different morality but for different moral revelation of their character, different expectencies, different duties, and to a degree different sins.

>>16156823
I am solely interested in the pursuit of truth and knowledge. Learning things makes me very happy, and I dropped out of school a decade ago because I hated learning. Man's greatest weakness is women, by a very large margin. It is scary for all men to consider a life without women, and for the first two years I definitely struggled and it was my anger pulling me through it, but there is light at the end of the tunnel. I'd probably be dead or in prison if I had continued the pursuit of women. I never knew I could be who I am today. Also, you don't have to pick solitude, a brotherhood is something that most people aren't lucky enough to have.

>>16156840
>women are phenomenologically different
>Just like a human and a bat

>>16156852
>>16156852
is he wrong?

>>16155885
Tolstoy wasn't free of suffering in that marriage either. He stopped hunting the closer he got to Anna Karenina's completion because he knew that he'd shoot himself dead if he went out into a forest with a gun. His family were also prone to arguing over Tolstoy's fortune and eventually he got so sick of it he ended up dying as a train passenger. For all his wife hated him, I wonder how she felt when he refused to allow her into his cabin as he died.

>>16156857
No, but the statement is meaningless. What matters is the degree of difference, and he doesn't make any arguments or claims in favor of that difference. You and I are phenomenologically different. Men and women are. Humans and bats are. But men and women are obviously not even close to being as far apart as humans and bats. There is no explanation for why women and men are different phenomenologically to the exact degree he believes they are.

>>16156840
Dude, I don't know what "tradition" you think you're following, but it is completely foreign to me. Please read Alasdair MacIntyre and Charles Taylor and rethink your approach to life.
>>16156850
That's good to hear. I hope that things work out for you. I myself struggle with the sin of lust. I almost never act on it, but its mere presence in my life is enough to cause distress. How have you combatted it?

>>16156870
>man lives great life
>hounded by grifters and annoying cunts until his death

sad

>>16156870
She always seemed to be seething with indignance that he was not grateful for her longsuffering devotion to him, so probably that desu.

>>16156243
Huh, didn't know that scene with Kitty and Levin in Anna Karenina was taken out of his own life.

>>16156880
It takes time, my own father still has not beaten his lust. The man is in his 70s and still buying hookers and trying to hide it. He knows hes weak.

If lust is your weakness, destroy it before you do anything else in your life.

>>16156316
They like to hear back words of words of encouragement for what they should do so they can do the opposite

>>16156644
Tolstoy was not a Catholic, and therefore not a Christian.

>>16155885
The solution: Don't allow women to think.

>>16156757
>I was drawing a distinction between the two.
I never said you weren't anon, I stating a point.

>I don't think so. Stories of polygamy are not the same as polygamy being permitted by Law.
Anon it doesn't exactly seem like a forbidden thing when it practically happens in every story and it isn't said how it was a sin and is more just a normal part of the story.

>In neither case is it life-destroying in and of itself. Its effects are what bring ruin upon the soul of the doer.
I meant practically life-destroying, and it brings ruin upon the woman physiologically as it does spiritually, as one influences the other and also separately. A man can still partner with a woman, unless he has had sex with an insane amount of women, where a women practically has no hope of a real partnership if she has had the same amount of partners as some womaniser.

>That's because whore is the word for women who engage in such behavior.
Yes you retard so stop using it for a man, I wasn't saying there aren't words for the sexual deviancy for men, how fucking retarded are you? I've had to argue with retards like you all week that keep putting words in my mouth, what I said was that using "whorishness" as an insult against a man(which is what I was replying to you fucking disingenuous un-Christian liar), and has a different connotation than "libertine", and no one fucking uses "rake" but it also does have a different connotation. For example a man can be a womaniser, and not be a "libertine", and he can be a womaniser and also not be "rake" or that term would not be fitting. Furthermore "rake" is not so evil a term as "whore", and if you had a peanut sized brain between those ears you'd understand the much more complex meaning of words than just "le deviant". A libertine is a much harsher name than one that has sex often as well.

The fact of the use of these words is enough to represent something much larger than their mere use, that of a sane and traditional society which has not had nor used the word "whore" for a man.

>No.
Yes faggot, if you're eating shit to get off that's 100% worse than just fucking a woman, but a woman sleeping with ten men casually will have a very different effect from a man sleeping with ten women casually.

>The only reason you think otherwise is the immense distance between us and genuine Christian society.
No you retard, the reason you think men and women are so interchangeable in this IS because how far you are from genuine Christian society. I agree both are wrong, but it is far different and far more normal for a man for example to have a casual relationship while out on war, or at home in some village or such. Literally have you not read Chaucer?

CONT

>>16156757
>>16156931
>No. In most things, virtue for a woman is virtue for a man. There are very few areas in which women and men have different expectations.
This is fucking retarded, have you not heard of womanly virtue, you've obviously not read what is a great source for the understanding of the medieval mind which are the Arthurian legends. I gather you're not familiar with the honourable Christian knight Gahmuret who marries and has a child with an eastern Queen then leaves her because she's of a different race.

Rather I consider your rejection of all eroticism to be the most un-Christian thing, and a positive evil.

>>16156933
ever heard "play stupid games win stupid prizes"

>>16156810
That is good, but you are grasping onto a world too fragile if it can be wrecked by a woman. And you will not know or develop any femininity, you will have a one-sided view of life. Overly rational, for if it is not then you would love woman. Just be open to woman, go after a woman you like, but don't be desperate obviously as you already know. Just have a traditional perspective to it.

>>16156931
>but it is far different and far more normal for a man for example to have a casual relationship while out on war
Just like it's normal for women to find another lover while lonely that their husbands are gone so long.

>>16156850
It seems that is rather YOUR weakness here, no normal male orientation to women is to "nearly result in death or prison", that is you my friend, and not women, but YOU. Perhaps not at first, but now it is. You should have wisdom from this, experience, but you have worry instead.

>>16156878
>There is no explanation for why women and men are different phenomenologically to the exact degree he believes they are.
It is me the poster, not that kind replying anon. And yes, there is a reason, I am not an expert on "sex and character", but anyone who thinks women and men live by exactly the same principles are wrong. Different principles that necessitate the other, for example womanly virtues, and most of the time yes they do have the same principles in life.

>>16156817
It's silly to say authors have to be fake or evil people to be recognized for their craft. People love stories of personal growth or maturation and who better to write those stories than people that weren't raised by great parents or were those that overcame awful situations?

>>16156880
>Dude, I don't know what "tradition" you think you're following, but it is completely foreign to me. Please read Alasdair MacIntyre and Charles Taylor and rethink your approach to life.
Most certainly not the one that is modern and thinks to ignore facts of Nature and History by a small-minded moral doctrine which has never to take into account these realities.

>>16156958
Sexually degenerate men are damaged in their capability to act as husband to a woman. Both men and women are physiologically and spiritually damaged by promiscuity.

>>16156243
Alright guys pile on

>>16156951
I have no worry whatsoever. Also, that may be true, it may not be true. No man is without a weakness he doesn't need to completely expel from himself. You just want to justify your own vices. I will never justify mine.

>>16156316
We all desire to be known.

>>16156944
That was merely one example, and they are different situations. This is a disingenuous remark ignoring the rest of the post for a cheap anecdote(same with>>16156939 ), where the female and male relationships are far more complex and for differing reasons. But no one would deny it has always been more normal for a man to have casual relationships than a woman. Stop attempting to say that I am making a moral judgement out of this, for if I were to play such insult-games I could just as easily say your beliefs are the result of inceldom and personal inadequacy rolled out into a cope wherein they do happen to find some traditional truth.

"peerless Polis".

>>16156982
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOH IIIIMMMM GONNNNA BEEEEE KNOWWWWWWN

MMMMMMM KNOWWWW MEEEEEEE

AAAAAAAAAAAAAH IM KNOWWWWWWWN

>>16156970
Not at all, a "sexually damaged man" is not necessarily a man with many love affairs. Or rather a man with many love affairs is not necessarily a "sexually damaged man", while a woman with the same amount usually is.

>>16156984
If you don't make your own choices I don't consider you human

This is the same guy who wrote War and Peace? Corresponded with Gandhi to develop the concept of civil disobedience that would gain India its independence? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

>>16156991
t. virgin using his imagination

>>16156984
And the reason for that is biological. Sex is higher risk for women, irresponsible philandering can result in an infant that's her own shame and responsibility, while a man can bail out. Anything else is a justification built around this. In modern society where effective birth control is widespread it starts to fall apart, which is why we have a large scale epidemic of women being sluts now.

>>16156998
I think it's time we cancelled Gandhi and Tolstoy

>>16156450
>>16156450
That we are pathologically torturing each other because each satisfaction simply lights momentarily the void of ignorant anger at its unsustainable nature?

>>16157001
Women consistently coming up with excuses for why they suck

>>16156589
kek
well, while we are at it, microchimerism can only happen to women. That’s why women can be whores and men can’t. Mind you, I’m saying men literally can’t be whores no matter how much dick they throw down around. Woman can, but shouldn’t, be whores.
Traditional cultural perception has a basis on biology. Remember that, /lit/

>>16156316
It’s kind of funny desu

>>16157001
Retarded, unsophisticated and somehow also belies a misunderstanding of basic human drives

>>16157010
/lit/ doesn't have the education to derive morality from biological determinism

the children here think nothing is real

>>16157009
>>16157018
>no arguments

>>16157010
>microchimerism
Ah, incel "science"

>>16157020
My post about women making excuses was accusing you of being a woman for making such a post, I quite literally wasn't making an argument.

>>16156243
>I don’t think I ever recovered from the shock

HOLY FUCKING BASED

>>16157025
That you thought my post was defending women means you lack reading comprehension.

>>16157010
What does microchimerism have to bear on the definition of prostitution?

And yes I just googled microchimerism

>>16157026
Do we blame her parents for allowing unrealistic expectations towards life? Or is it preprogrammed in all women?

>>16157032
lol you idiot, I was making a joke not arguing with you.

>>16157033
all women are prostitutes so the two are unrelated

to be fair, an unfortunate percentage of men are also prostitutes

>>16156993
What does that have to do with anything?

>>16157000
You know what fuck off, you don't understand anything about woman because you're a virgin and now you have the gall to call me a virgin? Man fuck off at least try to have a discussion.

I don’t understand women and whenever I try it hurts

>>16157001
In part, but also not at all, because all one has to do is look at a woman that has had many sexual relations in her twenties, and then a man, the man is practically the same guy he was in his early twenties while the woman is radically different and has lost all ability to have a stable relationship.

>>16157049
Okay both those (you)s are mine so I'll reply to both

1) The chief complaint by women in regards to men can be almost entirely eliminated by displaying the same degree of free will as males, this just isn't the case. I have a standard of free will when it comes to people I deal with. Many men don't make the cut either.

2) You're living in a delusion if you think breaching social contracts doesn't harm you, you're making problems for your self later on and you don't even realize it. So I called you a virgin because you still feel confident that you're immune to it.

>>16157041
I don’t think so. I’ve definitely been with women where the only possible reason they would have slept with me is some sort of logical short circuiting I would dub
“Love”

>>16157034
He was a force beyond reckoning. No one could have prepared her for that. But she stuck it out, and I’m guessing he loved her not because she “put up with him”, but that she had what it took, on her own. Tolstoy didn’t wait, he took her by the hand and started going at lightspeed. I don’t think he doubted her, but he definitely gave her the full dose. I imagine he was madly in love with her to expose himself in that way. 16 pregnancies.

>>16157060
I was being loose with my definition of prostitution. That's why I included men.

>>16157062
Effectively she was just mad that it wasn't chad

>>16157059
>1) The chief complaint by women in regards to men can be almost entirely eliminated by displaying the same degree of free will as males, this just isn't the case. I have a standard of free will when it comes to people I deal with. Many men don't make the cut either.
Do you mean to say most men are equally sexually degenerate as women?

>2) You're living in a delusion if you think breaching social contracts doesn't harm you, you're making problems for your self later on and you don't even realize it. So I called you a virgin because you still feel confident that you're immune to it.
I never said I was immune to acting immorally, I never said this wasn't immoral. But I did say that a man can lose his virginity some girl his fallen in love with for the first time in highschool then continue their lives and it has had no effect insofar as we may get technical and take into account the influence this had on his intellectual formation during youth. But the same thing stands for if he were a virgin at 19.

>>16157034
>having a husband who isn't a whoremonger is "unrealistic"
Whew

>>16157024
Microchimerism was studied before incel was a concept you threw at things you don’t like, anon

>>16157033
I quoted because of “many such cases” it’s somehow related to the microchimerism bit. Nothing but dumb twitter shenanigans.

>>16157080
I'm actually not even talking about sexual behavior in the first point. I'm talking about their expectations and their willingness to manifest those expectations.

Also you didn't grasp my second point either, it was about the EFFECT of immoral actions, not the inability to MAKE immoral actions.


fucking shit dude

>>16157085
Welcome to the world kid it's a hell of a ride

>>16156931
>Anon it doesn't exactly seem like a forbidden thing when it practically happens in every story and it isn't said how it was a sin and is more just a normal part of the story.
You don't know how the Bible works. The stories are intended to illustrate the fallibility of man. If you want to know what is and is not permitted in Judaism, you must read the books of law. Hint: unless you can point to a Pauline epistle in which polygamy is explicitly prohibited, then you must conclude that polygamy in Christianity is prohibited because the Old Testament also prohibited it.
>I meant practically life-destroying, and it brings ruin upon the woman physiologically as it does spiritually, as one influences the other and also separately. A man can still partner with a woman, unless he has had sex with an insane amount of women, where a women practically has no hope of a real partnership if she has had the same amount of partners as some womaniser.
That is not true, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread.
>Yes you retard so stop using it for a man
I never did so.
>I wasn't saying there aren't words for the sexual deviancy for men, how fucking retarded are you? I've had to argue with retards like you all week that keep putting words in my mouth, what I said was that using "whorishness" as an insult against a man(which is what I was replying to you fucking disingenuous un-Christian liar),
Yes you were. You argued that the fact that such words are not used for men means that there is no analogous concept for men. But that is wrong.
>and has a different connotation than "libertine", and no one fucking uses "rake" but it also does have a different connotation. For example a man can be a womaniser, and not be a "libertine", and he can be a womaniser and also not be "rake" or that term would not be fitting. Furthermore "rake" is not so evil a term as "whore", and if you had a peanut sized brain between those ears you'd understand the much more complex meaning of words than just "le deviant". A libertine is a much harsher name than one that has sex often as well.
Nonsense. No one uses the term rake now because our social mores have degenerated to the point where even pointing out female promiscuity as a problem is not allowed. And I assure you that when these words were common, they bore equal levels of opprobrium.
>The fact of the use of these words is enough to represent something much larger than their mere use, that of a sane and traditional society which has not had nor used the word "whore" for a man.
And here you are trying to backtrack to your original claim. You are wrong. "Rake" and other terms prove you wrong.
>Yes faggot, if you're eating shit to get off that's 100% worse than just fucking a woman, but a woman sleeping with ten men casually will have a very different effect from a man sleeping with ten women casually.
No it will not. They are equally depraved and sinful.

>>16157052
This has more to do with women's mate choosing abilities and gender dynamics than women being inherently damaged by dick though. Women are more passive and adaptive in relationships, so if they choose bad men (as they often do) they will be emotionally damaged by him. At least theoretically, this shouldn't happen to the same extent if she manages to choose better partners, or at least avoid abusive ones, even if she has had multiple partners in total before marriage

>>16157076
If he wasn't chad then who was

>>16156243
what's based about not understanding the first thing about women and ruining the psyche of your wife? even the act of confessing your sins can be a sin.

>>16156367
Yet she was the wife of Tolstoy.

She would have been 100% irrelevant and forgotten today if not for the fact that she married him. Even her grandchildren (who would probably have been killed in the commie coup) would remember at most her name and one or two photographs.

Thanks to Tolstoy, her life and deeds still live on, and there will probably be a few books and even maybe some films based on her, eventually.

>>16156931
>>16156933
>No you retard, the reason you think men and women are so interchangeable in this IS because how far you are from genuine Christian society. I agree both are wrong, but it is far different and far more normal for a man for example to have a casual relationship while out on war, or at home in some village or such. Literally have you not read Chaucer?
That is completely irrelevant. "More common" does not mean morally permissible. Violence is not more permissible in a man because it is more common among men, just as it is not more permissible in a woman because it is less common among women.
>This is fucking retarded, have you not heard of womanly virtue, you've obviously not read what is a great source for the understanding of the medieval mind which are the Arthurian legends. I gather you're not familiar with the honourable Christian knight Gahmuret who marries and has a child with an eastern Queen then leaves her because she's of a different race.
1. Those are just legends. Not only did they not happen, but they are also not meant to illustrate moral behavior, as can be seen in Lancelot's behavior.
2. The sphere of "womanly virtue" is limited to the particular role women have as mothers and wives. In most things, women and men bear the same moral responsibilities.
3. If you would like to know what the medieval mind really believed as far as morality was concerned, I suggest reading Alasdair MacIntyre, Charles Taylor, and then the Church Fathers. That should clear up your confusion.
>Rather I consider your rejection of all eroticism to be the most un-Christian thing, and a positive evil.
1. I haven't rejected eroticism.
2. Calling something un-Christian does not make it so. Go read the Church Fathers, or the Pauline epistles, and you will see what is and is not Christian.

>>16157124
I'm not aware of any Russian writer that wasn't a beta

>>16157080
>Do you mean to say most men are equally sexually degenerate as women?
Men are actually more sexually degenerate than women, as they are more lustful. Women's sexual degeneracy is conditional upon male sexual degeneracy in a way that the male's is not conditional upon the female. While women do experience lust and passion and are guided by it, this mostly not the driving force for their sexual indecency.

>>16156965
Your concepts of "Nature" and "History" are modern. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are not "small-minded moral doctrines."

>>16157125
Many men have triggered divorce proceedings by merely crying in front of their wives

>>16157130
Do you think Sergey or Andrei or Igor or Ivan would have treated her better than Tolstoy?

>>16157010
>Traditional cultural perception has a basis on biology. Remember that, /lit/
No it does not. Read the Church Fathers, read the Bible, read literally anything actually written about morality.

>>16157138
You've never met a girl that rides horses

once they have 1200lbs of meat between their legs their minds are ruined forever

>>16157059
>muh social contracts
You have no idea of what tradition is.

>>16157150
lmao imagine thinking values just come out of thin fucking air

>>16157125
>even the act of confessing your sins can be a sin.
Explain.

>>16157076
>Effectively she was just mad that it wasn't chad
No, it was fuckin Tolstoy. Fuck what she wanted. Why do we even give a fuck about her? Oh thats right, she was who Tolstoy chose as his spermbank!

>>16157158
a byproduct of evolutionary game theory

you piss ant

>>16157124
Ayn Rand

>>16157169
have we considered that she might have just made up every word?

>>16157170
You are literally braindead. Read Charles Taylor and Alasdair MacIntyre and maybe you will be able to figure out how misguided you are.

>>16157155
The only girl I ever knew who rode horses was so innocent about sex it was kind of funny. I don't know how she did it.

>>16157180
honestly who cares

>>16157175
>ywn be married to Ayn Rand

>>16157180
They were her private diaries so there's no real motivation. She might have been blinded by retarded female emotions but she probably meant everything she wrote.

>>16157137
Do you read at all?

>>16157124
LERMONTOV

>>16157186
I am not a relativist, in fact I subscribe deeply to hermetic type beliefs. It is quite obvious that the structure of the physical world is what produced the structure of our minds, and thus we can derive legitimate justifications from things outside of an abstract human bias. Look into holonomic brain theory, as well as quantum biology.

>>16157197
Thank God

>>16157192
doubt.jpg
>>16157193
not me
>>16157201
you'd be surprised
>>16157202
texts from ur mum m8

>>16157206
>>16157186
SHUT THE FUCK UP FAGGOTS

>>16157206
You are a bugman with no knowledge of tradition.

>>16157213
Ur mum is blowing me, you read that correctly

>>16157215
tits or gtfo

>>16157222
Women don't use unsightly words such as "faggot"

>>16157168
well, the right thing to do would be to confess to God, a good friend, or a priest. second best would be to tell his fiancée that he wasn't a saint and then come to terms with the truth over a period of time; she didn't need to know every sex position and position of genital warts or whatever, you know, a vague idea or a ballpark number would have done the job. But writing a masterpiece on his sins and vices that will terrify the living soul outta her and basically blackmailing her into this marriage with a last-minute call, only to clear his conscience is not altruistic, it's the most selfish thing I've heard of in a long while.

>>16157220
Bro make a fucking argument instead of name dropping people smarter than you, fucking loser. Pathetic. YOU have no idea what tradition is, because you are in denial about how values are formed, and even how one desires to eat a fucking apple.
>>16157221
lol

SHUT THE FUCK UP BITCH AND SERVE YOUR GENIUS HUSBAND SO THAT HE DOES MORE GREAT WORK NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR ILLITERATE CUNT

>>16155885
> Why was Tolstoy such a shitty husband?
Because he was a shitty human being.

>>16157234
She was probably more literate than you.

>>16157228
5 years ago I would have agreed with you

>>16157234
LOOK AT THE UNGRATEFUL STUPID BITCH. INSTEAD OF PROTECTING HER HUSBANDS IMPECCABLE LEGACY SHE WRITES ONLY TO EMBARRASS HERSELF. TOLSTOY DESERVED BETTER. FUCKING DUMB STUPID CUNT WOMEN NEED TO BE HORSE WHIPPED

>>16156644
Tolstoy was excommunicated from the Christian Church for extreme and unrepentant heresy.

>>16156641
>A man who patronizes prostitutes is no different than a sexually loose female

The man has the right to be promiscuous. It's his biology. His sex-drive is too strong. Furthermore, there is no risk of pregnancy - the whore will take care of the kids herself. Besides, the man *possesses* in the sexual act, and therefore he remains free. A man can possess a prostitute while giving himself to his wife: there is a real difference here. For a man, a wife is not the same as a prostitute.

The woman has not the right to be promiscuous. First, her sex-drive is much weaker, despite what some of them might say - transsexuals who used testosterone have already commented on how it made them much more sexually excitable, this is just the truth. Second, you run into the risk of pregnancy before marriage, and of ruining your family's honor. Last of all, the woman is *possessed* in the sexual act, she gives herself over to the man, which means that, for at least some time, she has belonged to him: therefore a woman cannot possess a man and give herself over to her husband. For a woman, all lovers are loved like a husband, because she gives herself over in to them in similar ways.

Imagine that your wife is not a virgin, and she has had sex with the local bakery-shop owner. In fact, he took her virginity when she was 18: he has possessed her. She has given her honor - in the form of the most secret part of her body - to him. Then imagine you enter his bakery 20 years later, and he - a man whose identity you don't know - looks at you in the face. Imagine that you order a croissant, and he watches you while you eat it. Imagine that your wife comes over and sits next to you. Then he realizes. And he keeps watching. His gaze is all on you, and it seem to suggest that a subtle smile is beginning to form down below on his lips, which you are afraid to look at. And what can you do? Nothing. For he knows that the woman to whom you dedicate your whole life has already given herself over to him in a time when she was younger and fresher than you ever saw her, and the he later *discarded* her.

Is that not a shame? I look at the boyfriends of the girls I have had sex with and I can't help but laugh, and I think to myself: ''Dude, what would you think to yourself if I approached you in the street and told you I've fucked your girlfriend and massaged her buttocks and asshole with my finger? How would you feel if I described her asshole to you in perfect detail?''

The man, however, does to humiliate himself like that during sex, for he is the possessor, not the possessed, and therefore he has the right to fuck however many times he pleases, with however many women he sees fit.

So this is how it has always been, and always will be. I am sexually promiscuous, but will marry a virgin woman, or else not marry at all. This is how it still works in many societies around the world, and how it used to work in my own country up until my father's generation.

>>16157248
how does pegging fit into this equation

asking for a friend

>>16157248
>The man has the right to be promiscuous. It's his biology. His sex-drive is too strong.
So what you are saying is compared to women, men are little more than animals controlled by their biological drives.

>>16156641
>>16157248
Both of you PISS OFF
No one gives a fuck what you think

>>16157231
I've already made my arguments, and they have fallen on deaf ears. The only thing that can help you is a book-length treatment of the distinction between traditional and modern visions of morality, and Charles Taylor and Alasdair MacIntyre are the men to look to for that.

>>16157242
Nice cuck fantasy, you must be into NTR

>>16156447
he was courteous enough to his family to keep the press away for good

>>16157264
No. You said "you don't know tradition" like 3 times. Outside of that, you may have been arguing with somebody else and I did not participate in that prior discussion. You seem nearly schizophrenic. But nonetheless, neither of those men debunk anything in the way of biological determinism, and in fact support many elements of it with a cursory scan of their wikipedia pages. I think you are probably just confused about what I'm talking about. I'm not an atheist, and I believe in moral objectivity.

>>16157229
Of the good methods, which do you recommend? I've never tried confessing to God or to a priest, and I'm not entirely sure how to.

>>16157248
>His gaze is all on you, and it seem to suggest that a subtle smile is beginning to form down below on his lips, which you are afraid to look at. And what can you do?
Order another croissant

>>16157287
I have to be honest, women eating disgusts me. The pigs barely ever burn energy above maintenance, how dare they find social excuses to consume. Hedonistic sickos.

>>16157297
Mentally ill

>>16157274
I've been arguing with you this entire time, dude. They do not support biological determinism, unless you think that Aristotle was a biological determinist. I suggest that you read their work, particularly After Virtue and A Secular Age, and then rethink some of the things you've stated in this thread. And as far as your religious belief goes, that is a matter between you and God, but everything you have said in this thread explicitly contradicts the most basic tenets of the Christian faith. You might claim to be a Jew or a Muslim, but even those religions are not hospitable to the kinds of arguments that you make in this thread. You really do seem like someone who is not only steeped in unbelief, but refuses to even acknowledge the existence of anything outside of his unbelief. Go read, think, and then come back.

>>16157256
Yes.

That the man is closer to the animal, who shall ever deny?
That the woman is closer to the vegetable, who shall ever refute?

>>16157257
There are living man who have had sex with your girlfriend.

How does that make you feel? She has probably done things with them that she will never do to you, because she was more youthful and therefore more easily influenceable. She has had passionate sex with them, and madly screamed while doing so. She exposed herself to them on the very first night, went to their homes, and sucked on their erect members. She has given her tits for them to suck on, and delighted in doing so. She has whispered on their ears: "Be mine! Be mine! Be mine, forever!" Yet on the following week they had stopped replying to her maddened messages of love...

What am I doing? Writing a fiction? No, I merely describing the acts I did on an Saturday night in April, 2018, with a girl who is now married.

>>16157308
Insatiable consumers that can rationalize it under any circumstance? Yes. They are indeed mentally ill.

>>16157248
You are human filth.

>>16157314
Women obviously need to eat to live, as their bodies cannot maintain themselves with no fuel. So what you actually hate is to see women living, which is mentally ill.

>>16157310
>That the man is closer to the animal, who shall ever deny?
>That the woman is closer to the vegetable, who shall ever refute?

>>16157309
Nothing is relative you fucking mook go jump off a cliff I haven't been arguing with you, you are LITERALLY confused about that and you look fucking stupid.

>>16157248
There are some practical problems on social scale with men being promiscuous and then wanting to marry a virgin, considering ratio beetwen sexes being 50:50.

>>16157320
>has no understanding of what maintenance is
>the thread is about women having no self agency

I am 0% surprised, now post tits

>>16157248
Would almost make sense if women weren't possessive jealous bitches.

>>16157324
I haven't used the word "relative" even once in this thread. And yes, you have been arguing with me. You need to find God.

>>16157329
>women don't need to eat to live
You probably think they don't shit either

>>16157333
list all my posts ITT or shut the fuck up you schizo retard you dont even know who youre arguing with

>>16157285
Depends on your confession. Catholics prefer priests, protestants usually pray directly to God. You might as well do both, because you need to know, in which ways you are dishonest. Friends are usually best in calling you out for your bullshit. Confessing to God is the hardest, because you imagine an absolute knowing deity judging you, while you do not try to justify your behaviour, but to think in a prayer about your flaws and misdeeds and false intentions. You are as naked as Adam in Paradise. You will try to hide. God will ask where you are. God already knows where you are and that you ate that apple, but he wants to hear it from your lips. He wants you to admit the truth.

>>16157317
You are a woman, or a man who has just realized his mistake, and is yet unable to process it.

>>16157323
The same I say to you.

A woman will always belong to the man who first possessed her. He is the one who owns the *right of humiliation* over all the others, for he took her in the prime of her fleshly youth.

I can humiliate the future or current husbands of the women I have owned on my nest of sex, but they cannot humiliate me. Whatever riches they might take from them, I have also taken, but at time when the women were fresher, and looked much better.

>>16157335
>still has no idea what maintenance is

holy fuck, the composition of your body mass is 1:1 related to the laws of thermodynamics, each human being has a homeostasis where they will MAINTAIN their ideal body mass

>>16157248
Holy Autism

>>16157326
No, there isn't.

A wise, high-status man will marry a virgin.
A low-status or imbecile man will usually not.

Remember that the number of imbecilic man who ''don't care about your past, babe, only care about you now'' is immensely high. These belong to the desperate class, and for them there can be no solution.

>>16157351
If they cease all consumption of food? What the fuck are you talking about. Unless the ideal body mass is the one of starved corpses.

>>16157359
Hey there wise, high-status man. I’m the fork lift operator who is gonna fuck your wife. Have a nice day

>>16157361
I am sorry that you're brain dead. Please try to make improvements in your cognition. Maintenance directly means that your ideal body mass will neither increase or decrease by your consumption, meaning you ate 1500 calories that day, and burned 1500 calories that day. These numbers change based on activity, as well as many other factors but the fact remains that every person should possess the intelligence to know their maintenance and be able to MAINTAIN THEMSELVES.

Finding excuses go wildly outside of this regularly is akin to being an alcoholic.

>>16156528
>any gf at all because theyre all bipolar
its called the menstrual cycle anon

>>16157367
I didn't say I am high-status.

I might never marry.
If I do ever become high-status, I will choose a virgin. In fact, I shall try to select one from the rural Orthodox communities that we have in my country. They are relatively poor, so that if I become high-status I will be seen as a desirable match for the any of their pretty young women. However, I will be very rigorous and make several tests first.

>>16157372
And if you consume 0 calories? You said you hate women eating, not women overeating. If women don't need to eat to maintain themselves they would not need to consume any calories.

>>16157359
Yeah but then the men would spend a lot of energy fighting each other for a few remaining virgins which could be used for something more productive.
Also I think the cultures that have high status men with harems and the rest are incels or have to settle for used goods are more unstable and violent, like muslims historically. Which is good if you have external enemy but bad in peacetime I guess

>>16157380
t. luzhin

>>16157317
The thing is, shaming only works to change women's behavior since men are much more shameless than women. As shown by this thread

>>16157381
>Insatiable consumers that can rationalize it under any circumstance
>I have to be honest, women eating disgusts me. The pigs barely ever burn energy above maintenance, how dare they find social excuses to consume. Hedonistic sickos.

Let me make this abundantly obvious for you, because I am astounded at your lack of reading comprehension. When I say "women eating disgusts me" and then proceed to refer to responsible caloric consumption and hedonism, I am directly referring to people of weak moral character that over eat, especially in the circumstance of free food in a social situation, specifically when they are getting this free food from males. How absolutely absurd it is to use a male to consume 3000 calories, and right in front of them to!

>>16157380
Ok. You marry a virgin. You have five children. She goes to the market one day while you’re high in your statusphere, and you wife see’s me, the hunk that I am, cursing out my forklift for stalling on me picking these boxes. We lock eyes, and I blow a load in her mouth. Orthodoxxed?

>>16157391
It works quite well if the society at large supports it. The problem is that our depraved friend is clearly either living on the fringes of society or in a society as depraved as ours. All I can do is let him know that his depravity is not welcome here.

>>16157344
>list all my posts ITT or shut the fuck up you schizo retard you dont even know who youre arguing with
Find God.

>>16157412
I believe in God and am a Catholic I go to church weekly, you have no fucking clue about anything. I am listening to Charles Taylor right now though at your request.

>>16157405
Your schizo mental context has nothing to do with reading comprehension.

>>16157406
>She goes to the market one day

That's a wild assumption, is it not?

>>16157417
Look, I just don't want to become a partner with someone that finds any excuse to clear a whole plate of cookies by themselves. It is a microcosm of how they live their lives.

>>16157426
I fuck her with my forklift and now she can’t stop gaining weight

>>16157414
You are not a Catholic. You do not believe in God. Not a single word that you have written in this thread was written with God in mind. You are a filthy degenerate.

>>16157437
You're completely wrong about which poster you think I am. Sorry dipshit.

>>16157442

>>16156421

You're the one with a lack of reading comprehension desu

So Tolstoy.....

>>16157452
So far Charles Taylor is totally consistent with my beliefs. Are you just too disorganized of a schizophrenic to figure out whose posts are whose?

>>16157435
If I offer her a forklift as a marriage gift, what good will yours do?

At any rate, the scene you described is almost surreal. Wouldn't happen to a truly well-behaved woman (who watches no television, browses no internet, reads no novels, and listens to no profane songs).

You are probably American or European, so you don't remember, but up until my father's generation the women were truly faithful to their husbands. Faithfulness exists, though not in America / Western Europe (except perhaps Portugal and Italy).

>>16157470
>but up until my father's generation the women were truly faithful to their husbands
Should we tell him?

>>16157468
Ahh, yes, tradition as described by Charles Taylor is completely compatible with your ideas of biological determinism. Saint Thomas Aquinas's vision of the virtues definitely permits male promiscuity while censuring that of women. The Church Fathers were all biological determinists who learned ethics from Chaucer and Celtic pagan myths. At last, I truly see.

>>16157470
You cited Chaucer and King Arthur earlier in this thread and now you want to claim that sexual immorality did not exist until recently? Things were definitely better before, but sin is not a new thing.

>>16157474
No need to.

You clearly have never lived in an old-fashioned society.

>>16157485
Confirmed for being a retard I NEVER said that men should be whores ITT, and biological determinism is not at all connected to pagan mythology or social trends. Absolute fucking idiot.

Hedonism =/= biological determinism

>>16157493
Naive.

>>16157494
>>16157485
Also I never mentioned chaucer either

Fuck you dude

>>16157494
>>16157499
There is no need to lie.
>>16157493
Sin exists in all times and in all places. Things have gotten worse in some respects in the past century and a half, but the fallibility of man is a constant.

>>16157492
I did not cite Chaucer and King Arthur. You are mistaking me for another.

>now you want to claim that sexual immorality did not exist until recently

What? I never said that. Boccaccio himself is a favorite author of mine, and I frequently delight in the Romans.

By ''old-fashioned'' I mean the honorable, old Catholic families in the (Latin-American) city I grew up in, and other such similar environments. Merely this.

>>16157514
You are a schizophrenic and now you're confusing like 6 different posters good job you fucking idiot

>>16155885

Pathetic men like Tolstoy are the reason women are mentally ill nowadays. They forgot a man is supposed to make their women like a happy little girl, making her feel loved, and then ravage her passionately.
They became alcoholic coomers given into hedonism, stopped trying, stopped caring. They made women go crazy by failing to be men enough for them.


I pray to god I never become such a disgusting human being

>>16157515
>>16157520
You've been writing exactly the same things in exactly the same style for this entire thread. More important, you yourself are far more degenerate than even the average degenerate. You sound more like a Satanist than a Christian. Seriously, get your head out of your ass and go read something other than your autistic Sam Harris-tier biological determinist screeds.

>>16157527
>Pathetic men like Tolstoy are the reason women are mentally ill nowadays. They forgot a man is supposed to make their women like a happy little girl, making her feel loved, and then ravage her passionately.
>They became alcoholic coomers given into hedonism, stopped trying, stopped caring. They made women go crazy by failing to be men enough for them.

>I pray to god I never become such a disgusting human being

>>16157527
They should feel loved by the economic support and easy lives they're given, ungrateful whores.

>>16157537
>>16157536

You follow on the same steps as Tolstoy. Weak, pathetic, scared.
Completely given into meaningless hedonism.
People are Tolstoy are the reason divorce rates are so high, what woman could possibly be want to be with such a turd of a man

>>16157530
I am an atheist. Religion, much like morality and the meaning of existence, is a mask that you put in order to live an organized life.

I never read Sam Harris, nor do I care to. You are mistaking me for another person.

>>16157537

>When women want to love you for your money they are gold diggers
>When women want to love you for who you are a man they are ungrateful whores

>>16157548
No.

>>16157555

>>16157558

No, you are just a pathetic excuse for a man that has no idea how the fuck to make women like a happy little girl, bringing joy into your life, and building a good, loving family to raise your children in.

>>16157578
>No, you are just a pathetic excuse for a man that has no idea how the fuck to make women like a happy little girl, bringing joy into your life, and building a good, loving family to raise your children in.

>>16157587

>>16157556
...

>>16157543
Apparently Ms Tolstoy, and the other unnameables

REAL MEN DECIDE
WHO IS GETTING THE LAST NAME
HOW SHES GETTING IT
WHEN SHES DUE
WHERE NOT Y

>>16157470
Brother, read the Bible kek
women have always been women

>>16156531
>>16156536
Dude, this is really stupid

>>16156531
>I've cheated on my wife with a younger woman and I don't want to feel bad about it

>>16156597
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” idiot, Jesus said himself that women should be forgiven.

>>16157662
You are a female, aren't you?

No man feels bad about cheating his wife with a younger woman!

>>16157704
Of course not, men don't feel guilt.

>>16157703
Jesus was a simp

>>16157710
True. I only feel shame, but not really guilt. Don't remember when was the last time I felt guilty about something...

>>16156316
He was a writer, it was not so much the need for a confession than the pleasure of disturbing someone else by narrating his own life

>>16156189
Gene Wolfe.

>>16155885

I am terrified of ever getting to such a point in my life where I stop loving my girlfriend and ignore her. What's the point of having a wife, if you are going to torture her existence by completely disregarding her?
If I ever go down that point, I'll just leave her so she can be loved like she deserves by someone that cares.

>>16157929
Why are you scared of this? Do you not have control of your actions? You choose to or not.If you start feeling like you want to do that it would be for a reason, and it would be up to you to evaluate what that reason is and decide to do something about it.

>>16157948
>>16157948

I am scared because I know maintaining long term attraction is possible, but it is also a constant sword fight against oneself. Not getting too attached, focusing on one's goals, not being negative, having the might to listen, knowing when to pull back to recreate attraction, re-newing oneself to spark the flames of love.

I know a lot of divorces come because the men stop courting, and dating their women like they did in the beginning, they give into hedonism brought by compliancy. Its a constant struggle, and I fear that as my cognitive capacity declines with age, so will my ability to be the best man I can be for her.
Self Control is difficult for me.

https://youtu.be/9gviCVQwXQw
Through the months and through the years
While you're bringing up the bairns
Your man's awa' tae here and there
Followin' the shoals of herring
And when he's back there's nets tae mend
You've maybe got a score or twa
And when they're done he'll rise and say
Wife it's time I was awa'

>>16157969
This is my problem with women. I'm good at the start but when I lose interest it's like there's no going back.
Can't imagine after they're thirty and doing it for 40-50 years.

>>16157969
Relationships are work but if you have someone you can be real with it's really not this complicated.

>>16157987
If the coombrain hedonist were capable of conceiving of any other way of life, he would probably not be a coombrain hedonist.

>>16156982
Why would you say this on an anonymous image board? How dumb are you?

The idea of placing my erect penis inside the body of another person is to me a notion both terrifying and intuitively unethical. I can imagine holding hands with a girl, kissing her, even sitting down beside her on a sofa and kissing some more and touching one another's bodies, my rather shapely hands (I have been told I have nice hands) running up her black tights but stopping at an appropriate place, the crook of my finger running softly but meaningfully along her jaw, my fingertips caressing the nape of her neck, and so on - but the idea that this rather innocent scene would, should our passions guide us, transform itself into a scene whereby she is fully nude and lying on her back, wincing (?) in pleasure (??), as I aggressively and forcefully shove my erect penis inside her body, again and again, maybe even while holding down her wrists or performing some other kind of act which promotes the idea in her mind that I am dominant and therefore desirable as a mate (and probably contributes to the likelihood that she will experience an orgasm, if certain studies are to be believed), is something I can't quite accommodate into my thoughts without a slight feeling of revulsion. I admire the female form, I like the idea of touching a girl's soft skin, and feeling her warm breath against my face, and having her look into my eyes as we are both nude and vulnerable, but the idea of actually penetrating her? The idea of allowing my erect penis to enter her as far as possible? To me there is something about this act which is not conducive to leading a good life. But then I am forced to ponder whether it is the act of penetration itself that concerns me, or whether it is the aggressiveness and implicit power imbalance (desired, probably, on her part) which I object to. Why then does the idea of "fingering" a girl not trouble me as much, considering penetration is involved, and even "vigorous" (a term I have seen used several times in relation to "fingerbanging") penetration. The only answer I can reasonably identify is that it is the aggression which troubles me, the encouragement of a beast-like quality to my nature which usually expresses itself in the form of anger, selfishness, a desire to hurt, the callous dismissal of someone's value, and so on. The idea that allowing emotion to spring from this area of my being can be a positive thing in the eyes of another person, and can contribute to an experience they will enjoy, troubles me greatly. Ideally a sexual relationship would consist of two people undressing quietly and lying down under a blanket with the boy's erect penis just sitting comfortably inside the warm vagina of a girl, while they both smile at each other and look into one another's eyes. They would treat the orgasm, should there be one, as a kind of long-awaited guest whose imminent presence they suddenly anticipate with barely subdued excitement. The boy reacts to his ejaculate with mild embarrassment mixed with relief, the girl also

>>16157527
Correct. Women are easy once you figure this out. You have to be a loving being yourself though, and most people are insecure faggots that can't be open like this.

>>16158069
If that was fiction it would make for a good erotic novel intro.

I came to /lit/ today, being my last time like some months ago.

And there's this thread about looking into the life of Tolstoy being a shitty husband.

I look at it, just to find that there is so much misoginy than the rest of the boards and threads. How difficult is for you to accept that this man was a living hell with which his wife had to suffer?

> inb4 "but men are superior to women so it's ok to be a retard with your wife"

>>16158117
> inb4 "but men are superior to women so it's ok to be a retard with your wife"
It's true though.

>>16158117
Do you live in the United States? If not, all I can say is that we are experiencing serious social problems. These problems take one form on Reddit and their opposite form here. Just know that there is a sizeable group of people who feel just like you.

>>16156367
Base

>>16158117
'For the sinner, hell begins on this earth'
- St. Gregory the Great

>>16158117
there are also anons arguing against Tolstoy's decision. there are always two opinions here on anything.

>>16155885
He was a shitty person period, a moralizing hypocrite of the highest order

>>16156189
Schiller

>>16157704
Mediocre psycopath-wannabe

>>16156644
He wasn't a Christian in the least, he didn't even believe in the incarnation and resurrection of Christ

>>16156243
Is "based" another word for "asshole?" because the way it's used on here...

>>16158177
it certainly didn't used to be.

>>16158166
Gatekeeper

>>16156884
Alot of that book his. He literally has a junkie brother that died called nikolia

>>16157130
>has a horrible life
W-Well at least she's married to someone famous

>>16156243
Clinical narcissism. A prelude to that later, more abominable act of pure ego called "A Confession".

>>16156982

And yet only God can know anyone.

>>16157234
She edited War & Peace. She has more lit cred than you'll ever have

>>16156982
Witness me!

>>16158724
Give it a rest dude

>>16155885
tolstoy the real muhammad

>>16156920

>>16158129
I don't, but thanks to the reply. I don't know for reddit, but that misoginy it's widely spread in 4chan, I'm fully aware of that. How much is in your opinion the situation in the US affecting 4chan?

Glad to hear that there is normal people in here.

>>16158153
But it's not just arguing one opinion versus another. There is a bunch of people who just feel in the need of disregarding women no matter what. If they feel superior for some reason, ok. But that hate? Not healthy for anyone.

>>16158768
Take your meds.

>>16157530
Idiot

Also Sam Harris has nothing to do with it either. Ever consider this is my fucking theory and not some youtube personality's? You have no brain, you cant think for yourself and YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I AM TALKIMG ABOUT BUT YOUR SCHIZOPHRENIA INSISTS YOU DO

WHAT YOU THINK IS THE CASE ABOUT BIOLOGICAL DETERMINISM IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE CASE BUT YOU HAVE A DISABILITY

also, pic related youre wrong you fucking jackass now kys

>>16157007
Excericse more and stop watching waiting for Godot on repeat

>>16156243

Pangs of jealousy? She was mad that she wouldn't be subjected to his depravity!

>>16159502
Nothing is depraved if it's with your wife.