/lit/ - Literature

>>23258402
A successful man is driven mad with desire for a plain Jane self insert.

domination of a whore by a billionaire who use her, get her pregnant and then falls in love with her

or

the usual summer love that women crave for : women love relationships with no string attached. A woman loves when a beta cuck orbits her and provide her with sex and entertainment for a few vacation weeks of causal harmless fun

I think that is written by men for men

>>23258411
Sometimes it's two successful men. One being a bit wilder, the other being a bit more stable.

I have two sides:
>look, another one of *these* threads
and
>I hate women so goddamned much.

>>23258524
Cats are a symbol of the feminine. I love cats because I love women

>>23258402
https://youtube.com/shorts/3smkiuHTUPo?si=vQdhv0jOS8v5trTq

>>23258402
I read story of o and the male POV version of Fifty Shades.
If you read Venus in Fur you probably will understand the appeal. They are in addition to the porn plot driven "psychogram" fantasies. What I mean is that they show the woman navigating this new world she is thrown in, the man permeating her entire (previous) life and her eventually finding her fullfillment in it.
I think it's a very primal thing like harem porn for men.

>Are they any good.
I think you need to apply the appropriate measure here. You can call Peppa Pig infantile and simplistic or you can call it endearing children's entertainment. Women's erotica are surreally popular with readers going for dozens and dozens of more so they are doing something right. However they won't find great appeal outside of their intended purpose.

>>23258690
What do you mean by psychogram?
Wikipedia page for it talks about graphology but that doesnt seem to be what you mean

>>23258701
I mean it shows the inner processes thoughts and behaviours of the woman i.e. fighting off female rivals to her lover, learning to make use of her new status and that she gets wholesale indulged in this abrupt and complete change in her world.
From my minimal experience it's not
>successful woman who is already great at everything also finds the perfect guy
but instead being found by the right guy transforms her into who she is supposed to be.

>>23258402
>almost always a powerful, hypercompetent man, if not materially at least spiritually (the dark handsome rogue who can't be pinned down by society)
>usually some kind of rejection of stuffy power structures that can be related to the patriarchy (like Rose's husband in Titanic), sexual liberation feels so much less guilty when you gain the moral rejuvenation of escaping a cage
>women's empowerment, social circumstances must dictate that she is somehow raised by the sexual encounter, be that in societal standing or her self-regard. note that this is rarely only provided by the sex partner, they're just a conduit for it
>depending on taste, some kind of taboo. could be risky sex, could be sex in a taboo place, could be cheating on a previous partner, could be going against daddy's wishes etc
>almost always centres women's pleasure. she will cum several times and it always ends with her orgasm, not the guy spaffing on her face
>preferably some kind of secret that would be scandalous if got out, the sexy taboo is emphasized when some kind of reputational risk is involved

On a whim, I bought picrel and read it over a weekend. I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would, and now I'm kinda hungry for some more romance aimed at a male audience. My only problem with picrel was that it ignored all of the physical and sexual elements of male attraction to a woman.

>>23258924
>it ignored all of the physical and sexual elements of male attraction to a woman
That's because it was written for women you tard

>>23259054
I understand that. Now I'm interested in finding a romance novel written entirely for men, not as just some gender-swap gimmick.

>>23258402
Any good series on Literotica?

>>23258829
>spaffing
Using this

>>23259058
I'd actually be interested in this, too. I've only ever found male-oriented romances as part of a larger story (think Tolstoy). That being said, do you think a standalone male romance novel would even work? Does anyone have examples of this?

>>23259067
TA here. The only ones I can find are more typical novels that have no sex nor lewd descriptions of women's bodies. Shit like The Rosie Project.
It's not fair. There are thousands of novels that describe husky tall men with big dicks chasing after self-insert women. Where is my romance novel about a curly haired blonde woman with heavy tits who nerds out about WW2 history asking out a self-insert guy?

>>23258829
>almost always centres women's pleasure. she will cum several times and it always ends with her orgasm, not the guy spaffing on her face
I opened a book called like “Fangirl” at a store and the first thing I read was the dude jizzing on her chest. Girls like that too. In real life they don’t put as much stock in their own orgasm during sex, it’s about how you make them “feel”

>>23258402
had an online buddy start a little reading club in her discord. The first book she posted for us to read was some erotic fantasy novel. Erotica isn't my cup of tea, but from this one book, and learning about other famous horny books women love through cultural osmosis, the key feature in all of these things is that all of the horny bits always border on rape. Rape fantasies are the most common forms of fantasy among women, they think the loss of control is hot. Two key things to keep in mind that stops it from being gross or traumatic, the men are always attractive, the borderline rape is always slowly played out, which makes it able to be passed off as seduction or courting.

>>23259058
>a romance novel written entirely for men
what are some things that would be different between this and a regular romance novel?

>>23258402
I read them. They're much better porn than videos are. Just drop by literotica and read any of the top stories in your favorite categories. Women write much better smut than men do, so chances are that anything high-rated was written by a woman.

Fuck if I know, but my only ex-gf based her entire expectations of how a relationship is supposed to work on a bunch of shitty romance novels she has read.
Needles to say we were not together for long and I got fucked up good in the process

>>23260976
That sucks man, i'm sorry

>>23260532
Im starting to understand this. The plot in pron, when its unique or interesting, is what Im in for. The rest is just the usual ol in out in out. Women know this, they've the habit of reading and writing it for longer but it wasn't always the case. I know there's a thread on /t/ right now of a bunch of old male erotica writers. Good place to start I guess.

>>23259097
Write one

>be in thrift store
>see pile of used copies of erotica
>start leafing thru one of em
>appears at first to be water damaged
>bit greasy tho
>take a lil sniff
>immediately vomit
I hate women so fucking much.

>>23260995
Honestly a good smut book is the exact same as a good fantasy or sci-fi novel. Except whenever you'd stab orcs or shoot lasers in fantasy and sci-fi, you fuck instead in smut. When women write them, there's the same amount tension, action, drama, revelation and character growth in the fucking as in the stabbing and the shooting.

>>23258402
>there is a man
>he is wealthy
>probably old money because he is classy as well
>like really goddamn classy
>like this wanker lives in a Brittish estate and goes fox hunting and plays polo
>or he might be a jockey or a golfer or whatever
>and he's wealthy, very obviously wealthy
>he wears nice clothes and is well groomed, uses perfumes
>whole pages comparing his smell to that of leather and exotic wood types etc.
>he's also in good shape, muscular
>cocky as hell too
>frankly he's a total asshole and so are all of his friends
>even more of an asshole to women, often blatantly sexist
>will physically and mentally abuse a poor, innocent girl (the self insert)
>dominates her on a physical, mental and financial level, might even drug her
>in the end he'll still take good care of her though, rather than just banging and beheading her like some common paki
>he will fall for her and they'll talk a bunch about their feelings and they get married
Congratulations you now know a little bit more about women's mental patterns.
Basically it's about a high value man who settles for an ordinary girl (the self insert) and takes care of her, which is what women want, to be taken care of by a man who can, and could also have gotten better.

In your opinion, what’s more likely to earn me some actual money: a pg13 type romance novel or a full blown pornographic erotica novel?

>>23262041
An onlyfans

>>23262041
Neither is a very easy sell. But definitely the novel because even if you got the short story published, no one is going to pay any money for a 13 page short story contributed to an anthology.

Also no one is going to pay you for either. Seriously professional smut writers post all the time on literotica for free because there just isn't that much work for professional smut writers.

>>23262217
I haven't had my coffee yet and just realized you meant the rating PG 13 vs a "full blown" novel. In my brain it was you mistyping "13 page short story" vs novel.

But honestly if you think that there's a huge difference between the two based on how explicit they are, you aren't very close to writing either one well enough that anyone will want to read it. The sexy part of smut is the involvement, thoughts, feelings and interactions of the characters. Not how many adjectives you put in front of penis and vagina.

>>23258524
Not hating women a little bit is suspect, if you're man.
Means you either think like one, or have developed some bizarre idolisation of them, and don't think they can do any wrong.

It's a sign of mental health to admit that you find women weird and annoying, because they are.

>>23262429
You gotta grow up my guy.

>>23262231
I’m talking about the difference between the notebook and fifty shades. surely they have different audiences, and I’m wondering which one is bigger or easier to break in to.

>>23262776
I suppose I can imagine my grandma thinking "that's too explicit for me." But if you've got the stomach for the more-explicit ones, you like the good writing. So I can't imagine you'd ever turn one down because it wasn't explicit enough.

>>23259067
>>23259097
The only men writing romance novels are gay furries, and it's for reasons that >>23261180 touched on. For women, sex and relationship drama is the same as fighting and competition for men. Women have sex with men because they can't really compete with us (or, to be more accurate, it's the only sphere in which they can). Also, the cosmos being a reflection of man, women are more man-oriented while men are more universe-oriented (both being reflections of the divine mind). They're not worse, they just have a different focus.

Violence and competition are the male romance. Men who can't compete for whatever reason (weakness, autism, laziness, dishonesty etc.) typically become gay as a cope. Even consuming porn made by another man is gay. You're masturbating to the outpouring of another man's spirit--a holographic projection from his own phallus

>>23263565
This is the most bizarre and retarded screed I've read in quite a while. Well done, anon.

>>23258402
old women get horny too

>>23263873
Lol naw

>>23258402
Tall, handsome, rich guy falls for an average woman and fucks the shit out of her.
Alternatively, tall, handsome, poor guy seduces a rich woman to slum it up with him and fucks the shit out of her.

>>23263791
I do what I can. Do you have any specific points of disagreement?

>>23263565
-The cosmos aren't a reflection of men because sex evolved long before humans did
-Women aren't oriented towards anything because they're free individuals who make their own choices
-Men aren't universe-oriented because that's a fucking meaningless sentence
-The cosmos aren't a reflection of anything at all and if they were it wouldn't be the reflection of a specific sex of a specific species that has only existed for a truly insignificant amount of time compared to the time that the cosmos have existed for
-No one is a reflection of "the divine mind" because gods don't exist
-Violence and competition aren't the "male romance" because romance is
-Being gay has nothing to do with dishonesty or laziness or the rest of that stuff
-Being gay isn't a "cope" it's a sexual orientation that current studies are indicating is probably epigenetic
-Consuming heterosexual porn isn't gay because it's either heterosexual or those words have absolutely no meaning
-Your spirit doesn't come out of your penis when you orgasm because you don't have a spirit and also it's just jizz
-I'm pretty sure that holographic porn doesn't exist
-And "gay furry" is redundant

>>23264061
>gods don’t exist
>you don’t have a spirit
go back.

>>23258402
I recently finished reading Something Fabulous by Alexis Hall. I found it quote enjoyable.

>>23264061
>The cosmos aren't a reflection of men because sex evolved long before humans did
Even if we were to grant macroevolution, abiogenesis, and an old universe, it would be irrelevant to the concept of microcosm/macrocosm as discussed in this thread. Emerson granted all of those modern evolutionary presuppositions, and he had the same understanding as I'm referencing (although he erroneously identifies the image of God in man with God himself). For the purposes of this thread, which is essentially about sexual psychology, we can even secularize the concept with no trouble: in a secular sense, you can say that man interprets natural objects as having aesthetic meaning that corresponds to capacities within the human soul/mind. The human mind perceives the universe as analogous to himself. In that sense, interest in man and interest in the universe are two sides of the same coin--both are rooted in fascination with the soul.

> Women aren't oriented towards anything because they're free individuals who make their own choices
Women are much more interested in talking about interpersonal drama and relationships than men are. If you haven't noticed this you're either very dumb or lying.

> Men aren't universe-oriented because that's a fucking meaningless sentence
Men are much more interested in science, mathematics, history, philosophy, technology, and nature in general than women are on average. Even stuff like sports counts. Men are much more interested in subjects that have nothing to do with interpersonal relationships and individual personalities. Just like with women, this isn't to say that the two can't intersect.

> The cosmos aren't a reflection of anything at all and if they were it wouldn't be the reflection of a specific sex of a specific species that has only existed for a truly insignificant amount of time compared to the time that the cosmos have existed for
See my first point.

> No one is a reflection of "the divine mind" because gods don't exist
You're mistaken. There's a great essay on the failure of autonomous epistemology by Russ Manion; it's called "The Contingency of Knowledge and Revelatory Theism". Even if atheism were epistemologically tenable, you have no basis to make the positive claim that "gods don't exist".

1/2

>>23259058
>>23259067
>>23259097
You might find this post interesting.
https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2017/02/13/on-romance-novels/

>>23259391
I think there's an element of like, because there's this notion that a good girl should not desire sex there's appeal to a fantasy scenaro in which you don't have to own that desire.

>>23263897
Do you have any idea how much sex goes on in nursing homes? They have rampant STI problems because a lot of people don't bother with a condom when their partner is postmenopausal anyway.

>>23264061
>>23264146

> Violence and competition aren't the "male romance" because romance is
The anon was wondering why men don't make romance novels in the same way or to the same quantity/degree that women do. Of course men write romance, but typically not as the main course. My point is that men primarily express interpersonal drama through broader competition and conflict with other men/external goals.

> Being gay has nothing to do with dishonesty or laziness or the rest of that stuff
Many gay men are notoriously conflict-averse and duplicitous. Especially if they have cat or deer fursonas for some reason. I think the latter is because sexual submissiveness glamorizes strength-through-weakness, and they're likely to mask their duplicity and unwillingness to be direct as kindness or "anxiety".

> Being gay isn't a "cope" it's a sexual orientation that current studies are indicating is probably epigenetic
Sexual orientation is an illegitimate concept designed to reify complex behaviors into one entity. It's also super easy to make guys gay--you just gas them up until they get off on themselves, and they learn to externalize that to others. There are guys speedrunning this process in gooning servers every day now. Go ask /trash/. I know that in the past it had a lot more to do with getting molested (the numbers are still very high), but being self-taught is becoming more common.

> Consuming heterosexual porn isn't gay because it's either heterosexual or those words have absolutely no meaning
It's straight in the sense that it (presumably) depicts men and women, but gay in the sense that it's made by men for other men to get aroused over (you seem to be confused about the multiple senses that words can have; the same issue came up with the word "romance" above). Straight porn made by men is also a product of a man's fantasy. Thirdly, the women in male-made porn usually behave like gay men in women's bodies. Women have the same issue when they write yaoi, but in reverse. The result is that many men have fundamentally gay expectations for what women should be like (see tomboy discourse), and often get mad when women don't meet those (gay) expectations. This is responsible for much of the rage you see on places like /r9k/.

> Your spirit doesn't come out of your penis when you orgasm because you don't have a spirit and also it's just jizz
I'm saying that porn made by men is the product of a male mind and male arousal, often with the intent to arouse other men.

> I'm pretty sure that holographic porn doesn't exist
You haven't checked.

> And "gay furry" is redundant
True

2/2

>>23264172
>Sexual orientation is an illegitimate concept designed to reify complex behaviors into one entity.
Biology clearly has at least some influence even if it's not entirely fixed by biology, because with twins separated at birth, if one is gay the other is significantly more likely to be gay than the population base rate even if not guaranteed.

>>23264179
> Biology clearly has at least some influence
Granted. Our genes can influence us to be weak, lazy, autistic, or otherwise prone to some mental or personality defect that makes us more susceptible to the gay meme. I'm not 100% against the idea that men can be born without female attraction, but the observable reality of learnable homosexuality is too apparent (especially today) to humor the "orientation" jargon any longer.

> Verification not required.

Anyone know of any mainstream romance novels that are decently explicit?

i need everyone in this thread to name a literotica novel besides 50 shades of grey before describing general trends in the genre

>>23264405
>>23264439
These

>>23264405
>>23264439
>>23264812
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/b/books/romantic-fiction-themes/erotic-romance/_/N-29Z8q8Z17zj?Nrpp=20&page=1

Browse away. It's honestly kinda disgusting that this gets to be a mainstream literary genre.

>>23264834
>https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/your-dad-will-do-katee-robert/1136923774?ean=9781951329068
>I've been harboring a dark secret for two long years. I've been fantasizing about my fiancé's father, thinking filthy thoughts that a good daughter-in-law should not be indulging in. So when I catch my fiancé cheating on me, there's only one revenge that will fulfill all my needs. I'm going to seduce his father. It's dirty and it's wrong, and I don't care. I want him, so I mean to have him. After this weekend, my ex won't be the only one who calls his father Daddy.
The Anons weren't lying when they said this shit is straight up porn.

>>23264172
Can you go more in to depth on womens behaviour? Has porn been tricking me all along?

>>23264439
Im currently reading through the Zax Trilogy by zeta515 on Literotica caus those are the tags Im personally into. Cant say much about the quality of writing but I enjoy the world building present and have good fun reading late at night instead of watching pron.

>>23264908

All the women I know read, like, Red Dead 2 fanfic on Archive Of Our Own and call it their "smut." And then they debate if, in the alternate reality where Arthur Morgan is a high schooler, he should have parents or be an orphan.

>>23264993
> Has porn been tricking me all along?
Absolutley! Allow me to elaborate on the differences between women and gay men (drawn partially from my own experience with both groups) and how porn producers/artists are covertly turning you gay:

The biggest thing to understand about women's sexuality in relation to men's is that for them, a man's status and physical attractiveness are on the same axis. A man with more money is literally more physically attractive (my own mother told me this). Ultimately this is about power--something that gay men are also often attracted to, and for the same reason: power = potency = virility (at least to the lizard brain). The difference, though, is how women and gay men position themselves in relation to that power. It's a well known fact that you can basically stack gays on top of each other like Legos. The more the merrier. This mirrors the ways in which men collaborate and compete with each other in other creative enterprises--homosexuality, like all deviant sexuality, is a degenerated corruption of the interpersonal psychology of the creative process. You and your buddies getting together and cooming is just one big death-reeking jazzy jam session from Hell.

Women, on the other hand, are fundamentally at each other's throats for access to "the best" Chad. It's a giant battle Royale amongst all of womankind. This appears to be so fundamental as to be baked into their primary attraction axis, which can now be thought of as unified status-physical-exclusivity. This next point is very important:

If a woman APPEARS to match the level of promiscuity of a man, it is because she is either BROKEN, or else SCHEMING for status and/or attention that she can use to net the man she perceives to have the highest net status-physical-exclusivity value in the space.

Am I saying that women can't be genuinely promiscuous? No--I'm saying that the difference between men and women is the difference between pouring sand and pouring sticks: sand has smooth stones that easily pour into any configuration; sticks bunch up and create rigid structures that gum things up and don't move easily. In other words, the hierarchical social complexity inherent to female sexuality makes it so that rigid social hierarchies rapidly form and prevent the kinds of loose and free organization of spontaneous action that made gays the AIDS kings of the world.

When male pornsmiths craft their women after the male mind, they're setting men up for expectations that women fundamentally cannot keep up with--only deranged ftm transsexuals have ever come close in my experience, and you really don't want to go there. Relatedly, consider what I said above about how women are man(not cosmos)-oriented. Interest in sexuality for its own sake in the abstract is a male-brained pursuit. If you go down that dark road (don't), there comes a point where you evolve beyond what most women are capable of. Women are other halves, not exact equals.

>>23260465
it wouldn't be gay.
there would be a harem of women interested in the male protagonist.
he would conquer some asshole antagonist trying to steal his woman, and win the woman/women who like him
the women are nice to him and do things like be kind to him, care for his children nicely, dress nicely and do trad-wife stuff.

>>23263565
fuck the nay-sayers. i like what you have to say anon. I should come to lit more often.

>>23265392
Thanks, that means a lot to me. I'm often concerned that my autism is totally impenetrable. I should warn you that I'm more of a /trash/ expat. Despite everything, over there you could have good faith discussions on your interests.
With /lit/ you have to pull teeth but it's worth it when it happens.

>>23265368
>a man's status and physical attractiveness are on the same axis. A man with more money is literally more physically attractive
Retarded, chicks hook up with poor chads and regularly cuck rich ugly dudes. At least for hookups women want tall hot guys, marriage is obviously more dependent on status
>>23258402
The chicks at my work love A Court of Thorns and Roses series. Not really "erotica" though considering that it's a legit (mediocre) fantasy novel with an actual plot, and you can pretty easily skip the fairy sex

>>23265422
>I should warn you that I'm more of a /trash/ expat
WHAT. hello me!?!?!
i left trash a long time ago because i felt it was too degraded and changed, there once was what you speak of there, but that was like 7 years ago.

>>23265433
>i know a chick who hooked up with a poor guy!!!!

>>23265447
>women are attracted to attractive men
I know, completely revolutionary, right?

>>23262185
Kek

>>23262429
What no pussy does to a mf

>>23265433
> Retarded, chicks hook up with poor chads and regularly cuck rich ugly dudes
You seem to have overlooked the word "net" next to "status-physical-exclucivity", my friend. You've also missed the part where I explained that status is valued on an animal level as an expression of power-virility. If the poor guy has a higher NET value, meaning the multiplied value of all three qualities that comprise the axis and thus is percieved to have higher virility (which can obviously come from physical and other personality traits), the woman will be more attracted to him. Notice that you said "ugly rich dudes". My point was about how on a purely animal women go for whoever they percieve to be the top of the virility hierarchy.

>>23265443
I'm certainly not gonna argue. I've spent way too much of my life identifying with people based on sexual habits rather than the aesthetics that undergird them, anyhow.

>>23265477
>>23265443
I swear I talk like a normal person, I'm just tired. "Undergird"

>>23265385
Thats just Robert Ervin Howard pulp.

>>23265482
>I'm just tired
aw mate don't worry about it. me too.

>>23265543
Here's an alt if you're interested in talking more. lizard02527

Gotta nod off

>>23265559
i don't use discord unfortunately. too compromised.
I'll see you around /lit/, trash cowboy!

>>23265570
Understandable. In my defense I have it for local church stuff. Have a good one

>>23264172
Are you aware of the correlation between fraternal birth order and homosexuality? Interesting stuff.

>>23262429
Or you finally understand how they think. This makes you never love them, but also never hate them. You just understand and detach

>>23264172
>It's also super easy to make guys gay--you just gas them up until they get off on themselves, and they learn to externalize that to others.
Please explain what this means. Also, I had the impression modern groomers were more interested in transsexuality. Or are you suggesting those phenomena are in some sense the same?

I think your description of women's behavior in porn is over reductive. Maybe that's the case for vanilla porn, I never found that appealing and thus don't know. But it seems to me female behavior varies across genres and producing cultures. Certainly it's not the case that women are always depicted as having uniform sand-like characteristics. (I liked your metaphor, by the way.) In some genres, specifically rape and rape-adjacent, women exbibit a variety of behaviors and often never cross into exhibiting promiscuity.

I will saying depictions of female promiscuity, whether initial or uncontrollable, do occur to a bizarre and confusing extent even in genres I know about, and I have trouble understanding why a male would find that appealing from a sexual attraction perspective. I can see how it might be a power fantasy, but the trait seems so unattractive to me that its prevalence is baffling. Maybe that tendency is a result of gay males making porn, or some conscious, practical choice by porn makers.

>>23265616
I, at least, have no knowledge about that. Can you fill me in?

>>23265368
You're saying that female attraction is proportional to appearance/status and inversely proportional to promiscuity? Isn't promiscuity often viewed as a signifier of status with women? That's consistent with women trying to take a high value male and make him exclusive to her, but raises question of the aftereffects of success.

One thing I think questionable is women having a single, consistently applied metric for attraction. Female attraction apparently varies with menstrual cycle. I've heard the same is true for economic situation, but I doubt mainstream studies would admit that. I was surprised they admit the changes with menstrual cycle. The later variation is explainable as different male strategies (building a harem vs attempting monogamy vs rape) being more and less viable during different economic conditions (or in ancient times famine, abundance, war, etc).

Varying attraction would explain infidelity even when in a monogamous relationship with an ostensibly high value and economically secure male. Even if a woman is guaranteed reproductive success, secretly having children from multiple males with varying reproductive strategies makes sense as a hedge again future variance in economic conditions. For instance if resources become scarce and reproductive success is concentrated in one hyper-wealthy polygamist, you don't want passive monogamist sons. You want aggressive sons who will compete for that top spot, or rapist sons.

Varying attraction also explains female fixation, particularly in porn they make for themselves, on love triangles between them, a man who exhibits stable behavior, and a promiscuous, dangerous man with a tendency towards rape.

In summary a theory of varying female attraction from an evolutionary psychology standpoint seems to explain much female behavior, and it makes sense why it would exist as a more optimal evolutionary strategy. In particular, a desire for monogamous pairing when not fertile indicates wiring that subconsciously creates practical economic behavior. An alternative theory describing the same behavior is a conscious, cynical attempt to manipulate, and that probably happens as well. But why assume pure malice when ingrained variance is empirically supported?

>>23258402
I'm reading Justine by De Sade and it's nothing like I expected. Nothing really explicit or graphic so far, and the philosophy of the licentious and debauched characters are not very deep or logic, but rather comically evil. I found myself laughing after the "good and respectable man" turned out once again to be a cartoonishly evil villain. Most movies are more violent and "sadistic" than this. To be fair, I'm only a quarter in, but I'm pretty sure it's going to repeat the same formula ad nauseam. Is it worth to keep reading?

>>23265368
I think i understand what your trying to say rayman, that women are only attracted to/care about your bank account and anything like looks and personality is supplementary? So then my best shot overall at finding a mate of my choosing and tastes is to become rich somehow, but then your left with a mate that you yourself have no real common ground with, how do you interact with such a person on a day to day basis? Surely this would leas to a fucked up and souless reationship?

>>23265447
What is iq test 2+?

>>23265368
It sounds like there is truth in your statements but I cannot trust someone who fucked/got fucked by men among which there were trannies and furries

want to suck monnym mymilmkers want to suck mommy milkers hmmm mmmmm so good mommy milkers ummm mmmmmmmm ohh mommmy oh mommmyyyyyy gimme your milkers no dont go dont take em away dont leave me mommy no dont mommy mommy mommmy i cried and cried and cried and she was gone suddenly gone only for a brief period of time did mommy gimmme her milkers mmmm and then she was gone was go she was was gon e gone she wa sg one a dn i w a s lalone alone till i was alone and alone and mommy gone her limmerks milker s amommy please stay but she was gone and so i fell tumbling down like a piece of straw and i fell oi floated into the darkness bec ause because no women was like mommy no mommy no mommy milkers no women awoke inside of and i will never i will never allow another women to take mommys place i can not i can not find a women that can replace mommy who was taken from me taken away by him but i need i need mommy why are women why why why

>>23266964
the file numbering was pre-emptive but i found i didn't need more tests once I discovered a certain correlation. so IQ test 2+ is just race.

>>23266830
> Please explain what this means
By default, men percieve women as a doorway to immortality (through the continuation of the line); this is hard-wired into the lizard brain and doesn't need to be conscious. They percieve women as radiating a sort of visceral life-force, and are drawn to "consume" them sexually for this reason.

With some training and encouragement, however, men can be taught to understand that the "life force" they percieve isn't "from" the woman but "through" the woman: she needs a man's seed in order to have that power. If you stroke his sexual ego the right way, you can get a man to see his own virility the way women do--as a vital, visceral life-power. Once that's accomplished, the logical conclusions begin to work themselves out. They realize that this applies to other men, and that they can "consume" one another as well.

My brother has always had good luck with women. Until it came up in conversation, he had no idea that anyone likes balls. The blissful ignorance of the straight man who has never taken his eyes off the lady.

The women are the sticks, by the way. From your response I'm not sure if that was clear.


>>23266839
> You're saying that female attraction is proportional to appearance/status and inversely proportional to promiscuity?
If a man 'can' get more women, he's more attractive--but except in rare cases what the women wants is for him to be able to get more women but commit to her. Both of these simultaneously factor into her attraction-pursuit-process, and I use that hyphenation because I'm not sure if the attraction and the 'scheme' are actually distinct in her experience. Sometimes she'll make him less competitive in the sexual market (making him uglier etc) in order to secure commitment, without realizing that in the process she loses her attraction to him. That may be what you meant. You're right to notice the issue that can arise.

> evolutionary psychology
I'm aware of human female estrus, which is confirmed. I think the way I'd characterize it is that when she's off-estrus, certain components of her attraction-axis have less emphasis (they fall back more on stability). I'd be wary of using evolutionary psychology to make broad theories about behavior. Even if you're an evolutionist, it's still basically just making up stories in the majority of cases. It's best to stick to the phenomenology to see how things fit together in the here and now.

>>23266889
> I think i understand what your trying to say rayman, that women are only attracted to/care about your bank account and anything like looks and personality is supplementary?
Not quite. I'm just saying that they're all real, hard-wired factors within her sexual experience. They're not necessarily distinct to her in a real way. She has no more control over it than you do looking at a woman's cleavage when it bounces-on-by on the street. All it means is that, taking these factors in aggregate, a man needs to project potency and the ability to project the power appropriate to him within his appropriate domain (or at least be perceived that way by the woman). They'll go for the best one, but so will you when it comes to women.

As far as a wife goes, my understanding is that you do want to have other things in common. That's largely separate from the question of attraction, although there may be overlap. Men and women in a marital context have a sphere in which to compete and collaborate: they're building a family and a life together. The relationship that you have with your wife is going to be different (although not always totally unlike) the ones you have with your video game buddies; this doesn't mean that it'd be less deep.

That's not something I know firsthand, though.

>>23266969
> It sounds like there is truth in your statements but I cannot trust someone who fucked/got fucked by men among which there were trannies and furries
If you can't trust someone who does the legwork, who can you trust?
I haven't had sex irl in 10 years by the way if that helps (despite some close calls where women wanted to have sex with me for some god-forsaken reason)

>>23264172
>The result is that many men have fundamentally gay expectations for what women should be like (see tomboy discourse)

O wise rayman-autism-anon, what would be your advice for a man attracted to tomboys? (who thinks he may have found a tomboy of sorts, perhaps not in appearance but in spirit, the most important aspect)

Has this man gone astray? What about the woman?

>>23258402
>>23258411
I like that sometimes it's not a billionaire. It's a successful working class guy with a part ownership stake in a small business that's doing tolerably well. High status within the bounds of his own world.

I find it charming that women erotica/romance novel readers are still capable of appreciating stuff like that instead of just billionaires all the time.

>>23264158
I am familiar with that particular blog post and I can guarantee this claim is not true in my case "but show them Hermione/Luna fanfiction and suddenly they’re awake at four AM going “but I HAVE to see how this fake marriage fic is going to turn out!”"

Also I heard that blogger is a dumb cunt. And that she flosses with horse hair. Those are just things I heard somewhere.

>>23267562
Interesting thought.

>The women are the sticks, by the way. From your response I'm not sure if that was clear.
I got that. I was saying I think there's significant amounts of male-made porn where women aren't characterized as sand.

>it's still basically just making up stories in the majority of cases
That's all theorizing which doesn't lend itself to falsifiable prediction. Aligning with other theories you deem likely, and other non-experimental facts, is still evidence. Certainly not as good as actual experiment, but sometimes falsification isn't possible, such as this case.

But point taken.

>I think the way I'd characterize it is that when she's off-estrus, certain components of her attraction-axis have less emphasis (they fall back more on stability)
I don't think it's only the case that the same metric is being multiplied by (positive) scalars in each factor, though. I think that they will actually start seeing traits they view as positive at some times as negative during others. For example women becoming less attracted to men that demonstrate faithfulness or peacefulness. Women hand wringing over that kind of hypocrisy isn't rare.

If you'll forgive the return to evo-psych, willingness to settle down can also be viewed as a negative. Choosing not to reproduce with many women is still a reduction in number of children, even if a male would be capable of doing so. If you monopolize a man that means he had a psychological makeup such that it was possible to monopolize him, and cause him to have fewer children.

This would explain the phenomenon where female attraction to her faithful husband decreases despite him not becoming less capable in any way, or women being particularly attracted to promiscuous men when committing adultery. Even if you don't want to use those phenomena as evidence of evolution, they still seem to conflict with exclusivity being valued positively at all times.

>>23267649
I need more information. What do you mean, in exact detail, by "in spirit"? What are your expectations for this hypothetical relationship? It's not gay-brained to be attracted to a boyish or mannish woman; what's gay is to expect a male relationship with a woman but with sex.