/lit/ - Literature

>>3181383
>http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/

wtf is that shit hole?

>>3181394
Seconded.

>>3181383
You should probably start with something a little more babby tier given the insufferable content of that blog.

>>3181399
>>3181394
how is it insufferable?

>>3181462
This is /lit/, everything you declare yourself to like has to be shat on to affirm our status as deep and better than you.

>>3181515
you aren't reading blogs in latin and ancient greek? how plebeian.

>>3181462

>go to blog
>click on post
>see phrase "wussification of America"
>close blog

>>3181525
>reading blogs written in the modern alphabet

You mean to say you don't read hieroglyphic images conveying the greatest stories known to man? Fucking plebeian homosapien.

>>3181515
>ASIF reader detected

>>3181462
"The Last Psychiatrist"? How melodramatic.

The guy's posts, at least the ones I've rifled through, are basically journalism reports. Most blog posts are just amateur journalist columns. They lack a lot of depth, and in my opinion, evidence.

>>3181527
from the sentence
>Easy, everybody, if you're enraged about the wussification of America you can assume you watch too much TV

good going anon.

>>3181532
The fuck is ASIF bud? I've not been on /lit/ that long.

>>3181530
not relying on a narrator telling you awesome stories with his voice raspy from years of storytelling without using any written language

get on my level, bro, i even keep a greek in my basement to tell me the iliad, passed over centuries within his family, whenever i feel like it.

>>3181546
I keep mine in the Attic.

>>3181544
A Song of Ice and Fire

As if it's good

>>3181599
Oh, I've heard of the series but never read it. Is it shite?

OP here. I just want some suggestions. Where to start with:
>Derrida, Lacan, and Foucault

and again- any blogs, sites, or articles you liked. I really didn't want to get responses like >>3181527 which were a total joke. Can you salvage this by recommending the books and essays you like? Or is it too important that you tell people about their shit taste.

>>3181383
>http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/
He's a terrible writer. He could be more clear and witty if he bothered to redraft a post a few times before posting it.

>>3181610
Your problem was when you asked for respected and intricate scholarship that bore some similarity to a blog. You may think responses like the ones you cited are total jokes but frankly this entire thread is a total joke.

If you really want to start studying something like theory it only makes sense to start with an introductory text. You may think this response begs the question but a quick google yields a ton of results.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=introduction+to+literary+theory&ie=
UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

You might also try anthologies. I wouldn't recommend dedicating your studies to three theorists if you haven't even started your studies in theory yet.

>>3181615
I don't think clarity is the point of this exercise. He seems to avoid stating his central point most of the time.

>>3181639
But it's like he's masturbating on screen, to an audience. I mean, I guess that can be fun, but it makes for frustrating reading. I don't know how you read it.

>>3181675
*fun for the writer

>>3181675
he's leaving out the parts that you have to understand on your own, or which would satisfy the mindset he's criticizing

>>3181631
I didn't ask for both in the same.

And when someone asks for recommendations, you give them... recommendations of recommendations?

>As well, what's some good recommended reading based on his blog? I feel like Derrida, Lacan, and Foucault are where I should start

I can't change what you said.


>And when someone asks for recommendations, you give them... recommendations of recommendations?

I'm the only poster in this thread who has even remotely assisted you and you decide to criticize me? You asked for the "best of" here:
>I feel like Derrida, Lacan, and Foucault are where I should start, but idk what books or essay collections are the best.
Anthologies will consistently bring together the main points of their subject matter, in this case numerous literary theorists, through their respective definitive texts. That is what you requested.

>of all time
>blogging has only really existed for just over a decade

>>3181820
>best guitarist of all time
>guitars have only existed for a relatively short part of humanity's history

>best race driver of all time
>cars are only around for a century and a bit

>best cowfucker
>wasn't even possible until certain bovines were domesticated

>best bird
>wasn't even possible until dinosaurs developed flight and until a certain dinosaur was birdlike enough to be called an actual board in hindsight by biologists

>best time
>wasn't even possible until time existed

shsigigigigigi

>>3181820
>best guitarist of all time
>guitars have only existed for a relatively short part of humanity's history

>best race driver of all time
>cars are only around for a century and a bit

>best cowfucker
>wasn't even possible until certain bovines were domesticated

>best bird
>wasn't even possible until dinosaurs developed flight and until a certain dinosaur was birdlike enough to be called an actual bird in hindsight by biologists

>best time
>wasn't even possible until time existed

shsigigigigigi

>>3181604
>Is it shite?
pic related

>>3181383
>Starting with Derrida
>Reading Derrida
>Respecting Derrida
>Putting any stock by Derrida at all
>Derrida

I'm pretty sure this guy is more influenced by Freud and Kierkegaard than Derrida.

And basic economic.

But we won't be him op.

I'm reading his analysis of pedophilia:
thelastpsychiatrist.com/2007/03/a_primer_on_pedophilia.html
I think there's a major point he doesn't bring up:
The biological fact that almost every man will find a 14-year-old attractive if he believed her to be 18. Like, what the fuck. This age of consent thing is relatively new, and a large amount of registered pedophiles were just caught with their younger girlfriends.
Think about it this way:
>1800,
>you find a 14-year-old attractive
>you propose marriage.
vs
>2012
>you find that 14-year-old who drinks milk laced with growth hormones and tells you she is 18 attractive
>you do something, you're a registered pedophile.
There's no such thing as this "regressed" pedophile idea he has, because he/she isn't a pedophile, just a human being.
(This obviously does not concern girls aged 1-12, that is quite obviously pedophilia)

this
http://noreasontodie.wordpress.com/

>>3181976
stop trying to defend pedophilia mate

>>3182047
It's ephebophilia when it's 14 and older pubescent girls or boys, and psychologists are pretty unanimous in agreeing it's not a mental illness, in fact it's pretty natural.

The only reason people ASSUME it is immoral to have sexual relations with a 14-18 year old is because of law and wanting to protect immature minds from being corrupted.

But unless you blatantly rape a 14 year old, if they want to have sex with you the only way they'll regret it is if society finds out and convinces them that they were "abused."

Think about it in terms of nature- our bodies are able to reproduce by the age of 13-14, then surely it is natural for everyone to be sexually active above the age of 14 indiscriminate of age.

>>3182057
it's insane how persistent you bastards are in spreading this crap around

>>3182057
>>3182047
what's definitely wrong AND a mental illness is outright pedophilia- an attraction to children to naive to know what sex means or is, and are fundamentally NOT sexual beings- they are not developed sexually and don't have the urges and sexual desires that pubescent and post-pubescent people have

>>3182062
well I actually put forth a logical argument, maybe instead of saying "hurr durr your STUPID" you could actually argue against me using some logic?

I'd actually like you to try to convince me that I'm wrong.

>>3181976
>>3182047
>>3182057
>>3182062

The model is this picture is 15 years old. If you would not fuck her given the chance then you are not a straight male.

>>3182076
http://photo.mmosite.com/content/m/2012-01-07/this_kasumi_is_a_little_young.shtml

>>3182076
My point exactly.

It's not really about age, it's about sexual development- we are wired to be attracted to certain features (boobs, ass, etc) which teenage girls happen to have developed nicely.

Since this is now a pedophilia thread:

Is there any literature that attempts to reconcile the West's vilification of pedophilia with the cultural practices of the East and Africa? It seems like it would be an interesting topic. I doubt it's been covered yet because it's a taboo topic.

>>3182073
people who are immature are unable to consent. we have arbitrarily chosen the age of 18 as the age of maturity (because we have to pick SOME arbitrary age). ergo, it is wrong to have sex with people under 18, and being attracted to people under 18 is not something you should defend.

>>3182076
i wouldn't because i'm not a rapist. even if she is attractive.

i just find it kind of pathetic how you bastards just spam this shit at any opportunity to justify your creepo weird-ass behavior.

>>3182099
Lots of people over 18 are immature. No one is defending pedophilia, they're critiquing our cultures current laws and customs about age of consent.

>>3182099
>i wouldn't because i'm not a rapist

Do you believe everything your government tells you?

>>3182114
>Lots of people over 18 are immature.

Right. As I said, the 18-year limit is an arbitrary choice, as any choice would be, because people mature at different rates. That's the limit we as a society has chosen, and it has a good reason behind it and it behooves us to obey that law and respect that reasoning, instead of defending having sex with 15 year olds.

And let's not pretend, please, that people who are defending ephebophilia would only have sex with 15 year olds who were totally mature and read for it, or that physical and emotional maturity develop at the same rate. This is not about "maybe, in isolated cases, a few 15 year olds are really mature so our system is not the best." This is about "HOO BOY LET ME AT THAT HOT 15 YEAR OLD PIECE OF ASS, THAT JUST TURNS ME ON". Which is fucking disgusting. Like, come the fuck on. This is straight-up about people being sexually attracted to females who are less mature.

>>3182099
i thought you liberals were teaching us that sex is a meaningless pleasurable act? Hell, these same liberals are encouraging the young to have sex with each other.

'Consent' is an arbitrary legal requirement, we're not talking hurting the child, or abusing them.

>>3182130
>instead of defending having sex with 15 year olds
>mfw age of consent is 15 where I live

>>3182099
I'm not defending one side or another in the larger context of the situation, but your argument and those who view your opinion in this thread is very weak. I think it's worth mentioning that some books were banned because their themes were deemed too crass for their audience. Are you advocating, (tying this back into literature) censorship?

Why not draw the line at the age of 13, therefore allowing ages 14 and over to partake in sexuality? After all, a line is drawn and the line is, according to you, arbitrary. Where we draw it, then, doesn't make much of a difference so long as it is drawn.

Further, why is it legal for underaged kids to have sex so long as they're both underaged?

You said you wouldn't have sex with that girl in particular because you aren't a rapist, but how do you know she's 18+? What if she has a fake ID?

Like I said, I'm not taking a side in the larger scope of this issue, but your argument, as you've presented it here, leaves much for a dispassionate reader to desire. You're basically just calling your opponents names and expecting that to prove your case.

The only reason there's an age of consent for sex in western society is because abrahamic relgions have made it taboo -- because they've used sex to control people for thousands of years.

Sex is no more dangerous than dozens of acts that we let children engage in, and they should be allowed to, it's part of growing up. I played rugby growing up, and American kids play football -- every time we went out on the field we literally risked our lives. A guy who went to my school broke his back playing and lost the use of his legs at 12 years old. The potential for pregnancy or getting some STDs is much less dangerous than that. And "emotional" factors only exist because, like I said, sex has been twisted into a shameful act.

Anyone who thinks there's something morally wrong with anyone who has gone through puberty having sex isn't thinking for themselves, they're allowing their morality to be influenced by politicians and church leaders manipulating the traditions of illiterate desert tribes from thousands of years ago.

>>3182201
>implying 14 year old girls play rugby with grown men

>>3182201
I like you and I agree.

>inb4 pedophile

You're all retards.

Sincerely, Europe.
(Where the age of consent ranges from 12-14 in most places, it's 16 in Britain).

>>3182237
it's not so much that the age of consent is an ironclad law of nature, it's that everyone who argues against it is a creepy pedophile fuck who's really committed to wanting to see underaged porn, and i hate them

in other words, my argument is against the people making the argument more than the argument. yes that's an ad hominem. no i don't care about your wikipedia list of logical fallacies. fuck you for wanting to look at porn of 14 year olds.

>>3182240

Doesn't matter in the least. The fact is that puberty and sexual maturity happen when we are young. You're prepared for sex WAY before this mystical "legal age" of 17 or whatever it is in america.

The fact is, you're allowed in Europe to have sex when you're young, but you still aren't allowed to do porn til 18 (in most countries). In Italy, there are movies examining adolescent sexuality with sex scenes of 13 year olds, banned in the other countries.

Is it child porn? Legally in those countries yes, but are the children being exploited? I would argue no. You don't really make sense. Why do you have such an issue with people who want to see porn of young girls? It's natural if you also want to fuck young girls.

You have this idea imprinted in you that it is absolutely disgusting and something to be shunned entirely. Perhaps you should re-examine your values

I hate the knock on effect it has. We have to censor children from knowing about sex ,so any word to do with sex or genitals (fuck, cock, twat.. and hundreds of others) become demonised. In the UK it's a public order offence to use any vulgar word in public and can get you arrested.

>>3182246
"If she has grass on her court, I'm playing tennis"

-David Foster Wallace, infinite jest.

>>3182255
8/10

I even googled it.

>>3182251
I actually like that there are some words that are taboo. I enjoy having the ability to shock and offend so easily.

It's only a problem for morons with limited vocabularies. The fact that I can end any argument I ever get in with a large amount of people by simply calling them a "fucking cunt" is great. They immediately forget what they were going on at you about and just become obsessed with how offended they are at your use of particular words.

There definitely shouldn't be laws against it though. Freedom of speech is hugely important.

>>3181383
I haven't read Lacan or Derrida. But I'm reading Foucault right now in French: Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique (my native language). He is hard to follow since his terminology is almost never explained. I read recently "Foucault, sa pensée, sa personne" by Paul Veyne (A historian and personal friend to Foucault). In this book Veyne presents Foucault's main ideas and concepts in a somewhat concise manner. You should get yourself this or some similar introductory book to Foucault.

>>3182255
Who plays tennis on a grass field?

>>3182335
>not sure if le serious

>>3182340
Grass court is le plebeian Amerifat court.
>Depending on speed/muscle and not technique to defeat your opponents

>>3182351
Pretty sure that's Wimbledon bud.

>>3182356
I bet you play pingpong on grass fields too.

>>3182358
>I bet you play pingpong on grass fields too.
We play tennis on a court, I think you're thinking of cricket.

>>3182358
we play wif-waf on thinny-ground-leaves

>>3182351
>Grass court is le plebeian Amerifat court.
>Wimbledon
wut

>>3182369
>thinking

>>3182351
Grass is English you fuck, clay and that weird green rubbery stuff are American.

>>3182385
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/4121364.stm

Sooooonnnnnnn.

>>3182385
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Open

>>3182371
>we play wif-waf
Oh look, you've got Boris all excited.

>>3182421
Sweden in charge of lawn care.

>>3182201
rapist

>>3182452

Seriously. Stop posting that image, nobody cares.

>>3181561

tlp is good, this thread is shite.

anyways, zizek

>>3182068
>>3182062
>>3182057
>>3182047
>>3182076

Saw this argument over pedophilia and wanted to give my 2 cents.

First off, teenagers. I've fucked teenagers before. It was legal because I was a teen at the time, but I still occasionally jerk off to the thought. Are my memories mentally ill? Am I disturbed for agreeing with my earlier self that they were hot?

Nowadays I spend a lot of time jerking off to Hentai on Gelbooru and the R34 site. Aside from the usual stuff, I've gotten into basically every fetish that any straight person can get into- guro, futa, piss, tentacle rape, diapers, slime girls, moms, etc. etc. and... lolis and straight shota. I'd respect your opinion if you said that my tastes are fucked up.

The thing you have to recognize about jerking off to drawings of underage kids is that it's not a sexual preference. If it were, then so would be liking milfs. Fetishes are very easy to avoid acting upon, and to me, the image of a loli is just the same as whatever weird fucked-up imaginary thing that follows. And whenever I get laid IRL, it's with people around my age. I have no desire to get entangled in a situation with some stupid little kid.

So am I a pedophile? I'm anon so I don't have to defend myself, so I'll leave that question to you guys. pls respond

>>3182099
>>3182124
>>3182114
forgot something I wanted to add

Here's the 100% impossible to refute reason that it's wrong to fuck teens who aren't legal:
They don't have rights. This is the simple truth of the matter. They're perfectly capable people, but they're the most universally despised and suppressed minority on Earth. When an older person fucks a younger person, it's equivalent to a slave owner fucking his slave. It's non-consensual because there's no proper avenue to withhold consent.

When people say "Teens aren't mature enough to consent," they're just reinforcing systems such as foster care, which are some of the hugest causes of child rape in the West. But when I say "Teens are withheld their right to consent," I'm understanding as an adult that it would be a massive moral transgression for me to engage in a sexual relationship with a young person.

I also happen to support youth rights, so go figure. But even my ideal bill of freedoms for teens would protect them from advances from older people. Simply put, if you're a teenager and you have the opportunity to fuck teenagers, but instead you're fucking adults, something has gone deeply wrong.