/lit/ - Literature

>>16821060
>Good book. Females are too emotional and retarded to see that.


WHAT IS THE RELATION BETWEEN THE FIRST, AND THE SECOND, SENTENCES?

>>16821060

Good book, magnificent prose.
"Hot thunder"
>>16821173
No matter.

>>16821060
>Females are too emotional and retarded to see that.
Teenage girls unironically love the book. You might get raped and then convicted for it.

>>16821060
My ex loved the book so much so that she finally got me to read it when I was 19, even though I had barely read 10 books before that. She's the reason I read a lot nowadays, as she's the one who showed me that books can be more than just Harry Potter.

Yer prob just a virgin, ain'tcha OP?

I never met a girl who didn't like this book. The problem is that a lot of normies assume it's a forbidden pedo smut book without knowing anything about it.

>>16822196
>I never met a girl who didn't like this book.
You've never met a girl who doesn't read? What a sheltered life.

>>16821060
The only people who don't like the book are bugmen and Karens.

>>16821060
All woman like this book, since women never grow up and are always little girls inside that want to be dicked. The only persons I've seen that hate this book and find it "disgusting" are reddit feminist basedbois.

>>16821060
>Good book. Females are too emotional and retarded to see that.
>t. Loser who hasn’t left his house in the last decade
Women really like Lolita, all the people I’ve known in real life who have read it were art hoes.

>>16821060
Ex girlfriend literally recommended and lent me this book. Go outside have sex etc

>>16822269
>art hoes.
Daddy knows best

>>16821060
oh this is sad

>>16822196
>normies assume it's a forbidden pedo smut book
thats what I assume and the "what makes Lolita such a good book" thread from yesterday basically confirmed this
shant read nonce literature

Have you ever met a woman who reads or any for that matter? They love Lolita.

>>16822721
Super-leftist (male) friend of mine did a purge of "problematic" books on his shelf and this was one of the ones that got the axe. Made me raise an eyebrow and wonder why he had the book to begin with.

>>16822805
it was probably not about the pedophilia but the use of colored people instead of people of color or similar

>>16822863
There were colored people in Lolita?
In all seriousness, I have a feeling it was probably something to do with the depiction of females in general.

>>16822721
I pretty much had the same thought over the same thread a month ago.

The OP was genuinely arguing that there is nothing wrong with letting children "consent" to adults. and that AOC for porn should be lowered to 9.

Even when I asked him at blank point if that meant the same acts an 18 year old could consent to infront of a camera; two men at the same time.

In some cowardish way he said, yes.

There are very few thigs that turn good men evil. This is it.

>>16823948
That pic related WTF.....

I thought /pol/ was just meeming and crying wolf as usual...

>>16821060

What a retarded fucking thread. Lolita is more popular with women than with men.

>>16823961
Pedo here who doesn't necessarily identify with all that faggy tolerance shit but still is part of a population that has an attraction but doesn't act on it. We exit.

>>16821173
I agree. Females are retarded.

>>16821060
My mom really liked it

>>16821060
This book is primarily enjoyed by women and homosexuals. Nice try though.

>>16823948
Retard
>>16824102
>doesn't act on it
Spooked faggot.

test

Have women always been such cock-hungry super sluts?

>>16824133
I don't act on it because it isn't compatible with current society and because I luckily I am also non-exclusive. I don't need to act on them. But I don't need to be ashamed of them, either.

>>16824157
100 years ago the average person in America thought white people were of a "superior race" and now we think that everyone is equal.
Beliefs of the crowd do 180s all of the time, you only need the power to change it. They will believe anything.

>>16824204
Oh, I understand that, anon. I don't think there's anything beneficial in trying to bring back child brides, though. I would like to change attitudes towards attraction in general, and legalize certain media. That's about it. I believe it is already happening, though.

>>16822936
Not him, but all the maids are black

>>16824225
>I believe it is already happening, though.
Fat chance. You saw the outrage with cuties, and those were with 13 and 14 year old girls (which wouldn't even make it pedophilia) and cuties is not near the worse offender when it comes to media sexualization of young girls. It merely made more people aware of it and put the thought into peoples minds.
Soon, and it's already happening now people are giving shit to highschool seniors dating freshman and people are internalizing who they can and cannot be sexually attracted to unconsciously policing their own sexuality thus turning them into a neuorotic mess.
>YOU'RE NOT A PEDO, are you anon?
It's useful for the current establishment of elites that the average girl is able to fool around with her peers but not with someone older.
If a young girl is sexually attractive she'd either have to be on the pill (many teenage girls are) or risk getting pregnant. The pill itself already causes it's own hormonal issues and if the girl were to get pregnant she'd have no choice but to get an abortion as there is no way someone would want to be a parent today before they're out of highschool thus further normalizing the abortion phenomenon and further delaying motherhood until le meme career is achieved.

Child brides are objectively better than simple changes in attitude but it doesn't matter because that will also come with attitude changes anyway.
Whatever way it may come, this anglo feminist puritanical morality has to change.

>>16824342
>sexually attractive
I meant active.

>>16823961
The new thing among weirdo leftists is branding a 25-year-old who dates a 20-year-old a predator. This is the usual projection from a bunch of idiots who fap to loli doujins.

>>16824342
>Fat chance
It is, though. Because
>is not near the worse offender when it comes to media sexualization of young girls
The fact that I can go to any social media right now for parent-produced softcore child pornography right now tells me that eventually the slippery slope will slip again and that it will be deemed acceptable for young girls to expose themselves and get money for it. And at that point, we will have to have the discussion about why the AOC exists to begin with.

I’m confused. Judging by this thread it sound like women are hella fucking based?

>>16824434
>The fact that I can go to any social media right now for parent-produced softcore child pornography right
This is not something new.
Such was always the case with modeling. The modeling industry and the average person's lives are an entirely different thing. Comparing that to what peoples thoughts on age gap relationships is completely flawed.
It's like saying "since pedophilia goes on in Hollywood it will soon be acceptable for the average person"
If Hollywood wanted you to fuck kids, they would know how to push it to make you think it's normal. If Hollywood wanted you to be outraged by the idea of fucking kids, they would know how to make you think that way too.
It's not a slippery slope because the phenomenon was even worse to some extent back in the day. In '78 Brooke Shields was in a full frontal nude scene in a movie at the age of 12, 50 years ago in America you can find nudie mags of teen and even preteen girls. In europe, complete pornography.

The only direction the slippery slope is headed is AWAY from kiddie fugging. That much is obviously and clear to anyone who has been paying attention.

Mommy milkers are superior

>>16824543
Except this time the average person is the celebrity. Any kid can put their stuff out there on Instagram, Tiktok, etc. The means of change are now in the hands of the every-man, and soon teachers are going to find that half their classes are sharing erotic images of themselves online. It won't do anything for legalizing kiddie fugging, but it will do something for sexual expression. It is coming (and so am I).

>>16824342
what a liar you are. those girls were all 11 year olds not 13-14
>Soon, and it's already happening now people are giving shit to highschool seniors dating freshman
Muddying the waters too. There is a clear difference from 32 being with a 9 and a 19 being with a 16. Get a grip man.

Imagine 32 year old trying to "date" 9-12 in todays tinder hookup culture. What mental facuilty does someone at 9 even have to withstand that? it may have made sense in 1920, where a man was forced to marry and bear responsobility for the girl but today? what a disaster it would be.

>>16824225
Imagine a world where a 9 year old can consent to being a pornstar, having no understanding of the consequences for her self. Thats the world you wish to espouse for?

I gotta ask, do you care about other people beyond you and your indulgences? the consquences of those that inherit such a society, after we are gone? If you dont, I would perfectly understand, if you do, I urge to be wise. The feminist in their blind hatred and resentment have goose stepped us into a wolrd that even they did not want, all out of good intentions.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

>>16824583
>Any kid can put their stuff out there on Instagram, Tiktok, etc.
Look but don't touch, these pictures are meant to be enjoyed within their peer groups. If you're caught creeping on a 13 year old's bikini pics watch how quickly you will be crucified.
>The means of change are now in the hands of the every-man
Western men today are pussy faggots that have not amounted to any meaningful change in half a century.
>soon teachers are going to find that half their classes are sharing erotic images of themselves online.
They already know and kids already do. Most CP on the internet today is kids fucking around with themselves.
>but it will do something for sexual expression. It is coming (and so am I).
The age of consent will be raised and you will sooner be forced into a chastity belt until anything of the sort will happen.

>>16824619
>Imagine a world where a 9 year old can consent to being a pornstar, having no understanding of the consequences
It seems the consequences, besides the consequences of an enterprise taken without proper regulation, is the reaction of society. Then wouldn't it be society's problem that they cannot handle sexuality?
I'm sure you're familiar with all the erotic child modeling sites that existed in the early 2000's. Most of the girls involved in those sites were disappointed that people tried to get those studios shut down. Many of them went on to continue modeling in some capacity. Many of them are leading normal, healthy lives. The biggest negative consequence was how the rest of society looked at them. The issue is how people in certain societies view sexuality.

>>16824647
>Look but don't touch
Can't disagree with that. And of course I wouldn't imagine actually announcing that I am on some girl's Insta. Of course people would jump on somebody who admits it; it's just parental nature. Perhaps, though, one day, we can all quit pretending that this isn't going on quite normally.
>The age of consent will be raised
Pretty sure that may happen too, since people in their twenties act like fucking kids nowadays. People will still fuck, though.

>>16824543
This stuff was always contentious, even then. Feminist and christan people were up in arms about it, even as the lagalisation of pornography came in and it made no distinction between child/adult models porn.
It was something that deeply bothered people then and is now.

>The only direction the slippery slope is headed is AWAY from kiddie fugging. That much is obviously and clear to anyone who has been paying attention.
I dont really see how you can confidently make this case in 2020 at all. The film Cuties won the highest award in french cinema, it was picked up by the biggest streaming company and virtual every art critic and media gatekeeper came out in militant defense of it. The french minister of culture had to come out in its defence...

If netflix, the film critic circle and the parisian art intelegentia is not an endormoent of "hollywood" I dont know what it is.

This same year, the same pattern pretty much repeated itself again with another film, this time featuring a 10 year old actress in film about an incestous relationship with her father. The critics loved it, it was screened in multiple ceramonies, even in Australia.


In both cases the only people that were up in arms about were the average everyday people. You would be hard pressed to find any noteworthy critic descending.

>>16824619
>what a liar you are. those girls were all 11 year olds not 13-14
Look at the age of the actors. They're all 13-14 but they played "11-12" year olds.
>Muddying the waters too. There is a clear difference from 32 being with a 9 and a 19 being with a 16. Get a grip man.
What I am saying is that among groups of zoomers the prospect of a senior "17-18 y.o" dating a freshman "13-14 y.o" is something which is morally questionable.
You are the one muddying waters with your 32 y.o being with a 9 y.o shit and it's already morally questionable for a 32 y.o to be dating an 18 year old anyway.
>it may have made sense in 1920
It didn't even at that time and that pic you're referencing was a national outrage.
>Imagine 32 year old trying to "date" 9-12 in todays tinder hookup culture.
I am against hookup culture, and if that were actually the case then parents would start paying more attention to what kids were doing.
Let me tell you something, that is what was actually going on more than 100 years ago, and that is why age of consent was raised and girls were made to go to school. Because men were fucking around with 10-14 year old girls.
>marry and bear responsobility for the girls.
This is how it should be.

>>16821060
Is this a good book to read for inspiration for writing a story about an abusive relationship between family members? I've read a couple other Nabokov books and liked them.

>>16824722
>it's already morally questionable for a 32 y.o to be dating an 18 year old anyway.

It's morally questionable to old dried up roasties that no one wants.

I love how people are always between telling us that women have as much strength and independence as men and then in the same breath telling us that women are actually vulnerable victims of men.

>>16824703
>It was something that deeply bothered people then and is now.
It specifically bothered feminists back then, because they were fueld by ressentiment that younger girls were more appealing to men than they were. The media was on their side and they were publishing stories about the child prostituion "epidemic" (it was blown out of proportion) and thus the hivemind decided it was a grand injustice and that age of consenhad to be raised. Age of consent was on the agenda even before suffrage. Really makes you think.
>I dont really see how you can confidently make this case in 2020 at all.
The fact that I can buy nudie mags of 12 year olds 50 years ago but can't today is enough proof of that.
>The film Cuties won the highest award in french cinema, it was picked up by the biggest streaming company and virtual every art critic and media gatekeeper came out in militant defense of it.
The entire point of the film is that sexualization of young girls is wrong, and it got that point across with getting people outraged over the content of it. If the film industry wanted to make a case of adult child relationships being normal they'd make a film about a healthy relationship, not some girls shaking their asses on camera.
>This same year, the same pattern pretty much repeated itself again with another film, this time featuring a 10 year old actress in film about an incestous relationship with her father.
What film was this, and was it represented in a positive or a negative light? Also I don't get this association of pedophilia and incest.
>In both cases the only people that were up in arms about were the average everyday people.
Exactly, it's the peoples reaction to the content that which is made is what decides to social implications of what is shown in the film.
The '78 film where Brooke shields was fully nude in her role as a child prostitute also sparked many outrage. Has pedo hysteria worsened or lessened since the release of that film?

>>16824650
> Most of the girls involved in those sites were disappointed that people tried to get those studios shut down
Right children whom are no more concerned than their wallets and whom are almost always concerned last, with long term consequences. I fail to see what this is supposed to make me think

>the consequences of an enterprise taken without proper regulation, is the reaction of society. Then wouldn't it be society's problem that they cannot handle sexuality?
You brain is so far gone in this matter that I fail to what the point in this exchange of ours even is. you have taken the entire issue and reduced it to one of social perception and nothing more. A classic michel foucault bait and switch. it doesnt take a genuis to see that the social experiments of free love from the 60s turned out to be a complete failure and even after its proppnents admited it and pulled back the levers, the damage has been long lasting.
Do you know how many pornstars are heavy drug addicts? what about the ratio of anti-depressants among them? what perecentage of them are known to be suicidal? What about the high burnout rate amongst them whom have to cash out fast.

None of this has anything to with societal perception. There is nothing redeeming about being reduced to the sum of your bodies parts at 18 years of age. and allot of people whom have experienced that cope very hard with it and I quarantee you if they had a chance, they would not redo it

>>16824880
It has everything to do with societal interpretation. Why do you think there are drug-addict pornstars? Do you really think it is something inherent in pornography itself? What about all the adult stars, nude models, and sex workers who are just fine and dandy? Let's ignore them, though, right?

>Right children whom are no more concerned than their wallets and whom are almost always concerned last, with long term consequences. I fail to see what this is supposed to make me think
I don't know what you're trying to prove with that, either, but I've probably followed this closer than you have. These women are in their 30's and 40's now, with husbands, and living happy lives. What more do you want?

>>16824722
>>16824811
>>16824880
Why are you shitting up the forum with your womanposting?

>>16824722
>>16824647
>>16824543
Makes me laugh how even though young urban Americans are mostly irreligious they are still fervently religious about whatever idea they are concerned about and puritan morals still slip through that veil of atheism

>>16824947
How am I woman posting when I want to fuck lolis?

>>16824966
The "liberals" of today are the Christians of yesteryear.

Man I gotta take a dump but I'm sitting here posting and I'm not sure why I don't just get up and take a shit.

>>16821060
About died laughing when I saw this. Google has since changed it, though. So wrong.

Anyone know where the case against Netflix is at?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXSsVP7J9-s

>>16825032
posting in pedo threads is too much fun, because its probably the easiest to trigger normies

>>16825084
>posting in pedo threads is too much fun, because its probably the easiest to trigger normies

Don't worry, they're going to try to normalize it before you and I are dead.

>>16825099
in all seriousness, nah. we are entering a big shift in morality, today's morality is defined by victimhood and children are viewed as The Victims. Due to internet and weak affects in general, moral puritanism will only get worse with time, unless some kind of big change will happen (for example ecological catastrophe that will break down people into small autonomous communes where sexuality is regulated in different ways than before).

>>16825041
>watching that fag's channel
He regurgitates aborted 4chan memes with an annoying voice

>>16825123
If spengler is right there will be another Caesarism in a decade or two
Retards thought it'd come from Trump, (an elected official LMAO) but it will be someone who will be seizing power himself. (Not american for sure) I am positive that they would shatter the current morality and at least make humans of all the slaves. If they try to destroy the banking system too there will certainly be another war, and it will be the American military industrial complex defending the system. Hopefully people in fiat dominanted countries will rebel against their masters and there will be an actual just war. The people vs banks, and after the banks are dealt with it will be a battle where the strongest ideology will win.

Daily reminder pedos get the rope.

>>16825484
(You)

>>16821060
Overated

>>16824811
>The fact that I can buy nudie mags of 12 year olds 50 years ago but can't today is enough proof of that.
this is pure bullshit, fuck off with your lies pedoshit and kys

>>16826187
>this is pure bullshit
O rlly?
Why don't you do some research yourself?
Search up the album cover for the Scorpions' "Virgin Killer"

>>16825956
How?

>>16825123
>today's morality is defined by victimhood and children are viewed as The Victims.

Though they could also attempt to frame pedophiles as also being victims, like they did with gays and with trannies.

>>16826737
>Though they could also attempt to frame pedophiles as also being victims
Victims in need of psychiatric evaluation and institutionalization.
Those salon articles about "normalizing" pedophilia get the point across that touching children is so terrible that even the pedos themselves recognize as such and would never act on it thus reinforcing how evil it is.

>>16826358
>Search up the album cover for the Scorpions' "Virgin Killer"
Kek
Had a good fap, thanks anon.

>>16827112
Based.

>>16821173
>WHAT IS THE RELATION BETWEEN THE FIRST, AND THE SECOND, SENTENCES?
incelism

you are the stereotype you are obsessed with pinning on women. the sole reason you got this book is to satiate a need for some pathetic pedo aesthetic, to put in on your shelf and smile smugly to yourself knowing its there. you are superficial as fuck, just like cringeokov

>>16821060
women love this book dumbass

>>16821060
ok let's turn this thread around:

Why the hell do women LOVE this book?

>>16827727
Women want to have been fucked while they were lolis.
Pedos were right all along

>>16821173
Why are trips allowed to post?

>>16821060
Is this a good beginner's book? I haven't finished a book since 8th grade when I finished Percy jackson series I have some old books from my lit class but I don't get them.

>>16829010
it is a decent pick, but have a dictionary with you because nabokov is verbose

I want a cunny wife...

>>16822199
That's not what it means: it means that the poster hasn't met a woman who has read it and not liked it, you illiterate piece of shit. How is it possible you're this stupid? Did your mother drop you on your head as a child? Did you drink paint? Sniffed animal droppings?