/lit/ - Literature

Probably,
They're low key though because assholes like Stan start spamming for tits.

>women
>literature

>>3691214

two or three were in the "why are women all whores?" thread

This is what happened last time a girl made herself public
http://fuuka.warosu.org/lit/thread/S3627860#p3627887

I can be a girl if you want.

Yes. Hi.

If you look on the Goodreads /lit/ group you can see them

Several are fairly prominent posters.

right here bb u wan sum fuk?

A lot of the sharethreads from last year were made by a girl.

>>3691225
>>3691218

haha,
to be sure, 5 out of 6 of those first anons were me. but it really wasnt about the tits. i could not have cared less about some fattened whore's sagging breasts, what with worldly abundance, i could have lived without seeing them.
i mainly did to spite the hypocritical two faced faggots, who expect different treatment from the biggest cesspool of the internet just because this part of said cesspool happens to have a "literature" tag. and what? that makes us more civilized? lel.
lo to their patronizing air, that they would have driven the vapid cunt away eventually, i just merely expedited the process...

also, i find it hilarious that some these posters find it necessary that they have a recognizable girl post among them...as if that would somehow serve as a surrogate for their pathetically lacing real life interaction.

lacking*

>>3691256

everything you post is unnecessary. you are unnecessary in general.

>>3691266

that cut deep

captcha erial touchme

>>3691256

He's right, for the worst reasons.
Truth is that 4chan is filled with degenerates. We can't overlook this fact, or try to act as if they don't frequent this board.
Just counting pedophiles would make up half of /lit/.

>>3691255
and about a third of the recommendation charts

>>BTW IM A GRILL XD

>>3691288

Just because it's 4chan doesnt mean we HAVE to be dicks.

last month, there was one that was reading poetry on vocaroo.

she took my request.

>>3691256
so you're reasoning for being retarded is because one expects retards to exist on 4chan...
that logic isn't very sound.
All you're doing is trying to fulfill a stereotype with fake behavior that is frankly atypical of this board (compared to the rest of 4chan) and then complaining about how such behavior exists here.
Also, that last part applies to you as well: "I find it hilarious that some these [sic] posters find it necessary that they have a recognizable girl post among them...as [sic] if that would somehow serve as a surrogate for their pathetically lacing real life interaction."
Being a tripfag, you fall under the category of one who finds it necessary to be recognizable among the mass of the board.

Never go full retard.

No but if I turn around you can pretend it's a vagina.

girls on 4chan..? what the heck?

There was one reading Poe on vocaroo a long time ago. That one had such a voice that I went sleeping while listening to her voice.

....?

Sure, I'm one

I remember having a girl pen pal from the pen pal lit thread.

She stopped replying within 5 emails. Oh well

yes

this is a bad thread tho

btman im a gril

>>3691482
>>3691491
why are u here?
get back to hsp

>>3691214
Certainly. Hey y'all.

>>3691218

Is Stan that angry guy who always types in all lowercase?

are there any girls with good taste on /lit/?

>>3691668
whats that

>>3691676
no thats me

Stan is Satan

>>3691538
did you go by any name, I had someone stop replying in about five emails too

>>3691689
What would be good taste to you? Schulz, Kharms and Akutagawa maybe?

I (think) Said my name was Mahmoud.

Sadie?

>>3691710
To >>3691706
stupid phone.
*i said

>>3691710
>>3691716
ah nope, different one. I guess a lot of those fell through.

>>3691720
That's too bad. I was excited for a moment.

I still write to a pen pal from that same thread. It's neat.

I don't think I understand the question. Obviously there are girls on here, but you don't seem to want to follow-up in any way, even with sexual requests. What's the point of asking?

Women can't read.

>>3691768
Why do men believe this? Is there any way to convince them otherwise?

>>3691771
Just grow a dick and balls, that should do it.

>>3691771
It's kind of hard when you look at the sales of Fifty Shades of Grey.

Of course women read, but there's a reason the stereotype that they read nothing but garbage exists.

But where the vast majority of women read trash, the vast majority of men play video games and watch sports.
It's hard to decide which is worse.

>>3691777
I would have to have been born with them. Trannies are considered inhuman here.

>>3691779
The sales of Fifty Shades of Grey does the exact opposite of proving women "can't read." It's trash, but they aren't illiterate.

I don't really see how it's much worse than all the men who don't read more than Ender's Game and Rothfuss.

I'd like to see a /lit/ female's tits just once. I've never met a girl that's really loved or liked books as much as me.

>>3691779
Vidya is worse imo, at least the vagina-bearers improve their vocabulary and grammatical skills I guess?
But the sales of 50 shades of grey are definately a shame. Even the girls that should be intelligent, i.e. in my biology class, read that steaming pile of shit.
It would be interesting to have ratios of Proper Literature/shit books read for males and females.
I'm sure testicules draw you toward Proper Literature.

There are no women on 4chan.

No real women, at least.

>>3691797
>biology
Some of the dumbest shits I know took AP Biology in high school.

>>3691786
Well, anyone who truly believes women -can't- read are either woefully ignorant or outright retarded.

Women read to an insane degree, it's just seems to be that the majority of them read crap material.

See: >>3691797

>>3691827
No, women are not capable of reading.

>>3691236
Hi so...what is this supposed to change again?

Fact:
All women have subhuman intelligence and are not shit but hoes and tricks.

>>3691839
Your pic sure got your point across.

>>3691324
Agreed. This mentality that somehow we have to mirror the attitude of the cesspool /b/ (and others) "just because lel" is ridiculous. It undermines actual discussion. It is pathetic that hyper religious faggots who come on here trying to convert people are treated better than women.

>>3691845
When did /lit/ become /r9k/?

>>3691853
Also - is it really trolling anyone to be sexist or racist or whatever on 4chan anymore? Is that even funny anymore? In itself, I mean.

>>3691786
>50 shades is on par with Ender's Game.

Get out.

>>3691863
Adults reading books aimed at preteens is on the same level of maturity as adults reading badly written erotica.

>>3691857
Much of it isn't so much "trolling" as it is a type of ritualized call-and-response type thing. Its playing roles and trading off masks on this anonymous forum.

Some of it is just transgressive trolling.

But the thing is there does seem to be a decent amount of genuine earnestness in some of it.

Its hard to know where the percentages lie. I'd like to think that the vast majority is just role-playing, but you never know. I think the real problem with the internet is that small groups of people with unpopular opinions can drift together and suddenly make themselves think they're speaking common sense, which is always dangerous.

>>3691867
Bullshit. That is like saying watching Finding Nemo and enjoying it is on par with watching Wild Babes 9. And is Ender's Game is well written for a young adult novel. It is something you enjoy and read as a teen or simply enjoy as an adult, but then move on to more capital L literature.

>>3691873
Even on /b/ there is somewhat of a backlash to the antiwomen sentiment. It is one thing to call yourself a woman try to draw attention to yourself, but when they told an explicitly sexual story that required she reveal her sexual identity there were two groups that had a huge flame war over it. One that recognized the necessity and the other that felt like they had the obligation and the right to demand she gtfo or tits. Hopefully, most people here are the previous

>>3691797
Apparently the percentages of men and women reading Proper Literature are about equal.

>>3691923
>The non-fiction disparity
>Specifically in History and Politics
Yikes.
Also, why do women hate Sci-Fi?

>>3691923
Romance
(M) 4%
(F) 38%

This spreadsheet ain't doin' no uteri any favors, yo.

>>3691993
I'd rather read Proper Literature than sci-fi. It's not a hatred thing. There's just limited amounts of time for reading.

>>3691993
>>3692001
I really don't understand the focus you people have on any one section of genre fiction being slightly more or less shitty than another section. Trash is still trash.

>>3691709
Yeah, that would pass. I'm just saying it's dumb to just be proud you're a girl on /lit/, rather than one with, I guess what I'd call "taste", a basic familiarity of and personal routes carved within the medium.

>>3692024
Sci-fi is the only "trash" genre on the chart with a notable disparity on the male side.

maybe it has something to do with the fact that some men think being literate warrants them pussy so they're a lot louder than the women who think being literate warrants them dick?

i imagine one would be surprised to find the actual number of girls on here

i also imagine one would be surprised to find the actual aesthetic quality of those girls on here

(i'm thinking the average is pretty low)

>>3692251
I expected better than that from you, rapture.

who

fucking

cares

>>3692345

since you don't know me, i doubt there is much you can expect either way and be accurate. having said that, it just makes sense.

there's an episode of house (i saw only the first season, which was pretty entertaining; looks like shit now, though) where he justifies the selection of that one hot chick on the grounds that, though she didn't have the "top" scores, she was pretty. why? because truly attractive girls are privy to a wide range of notable opportunities granted exclusively through their appearance. while this certainly might undermine a professional peak for women, it nevertheless does grant them an initial leeway in the world that is mainly a factor of interacting with others, especially men.

so my reasoning boils down to the fact that the attention afforded attractive girls pushes them into a unique category of activity, one that doesn't include dense or interesting reading as a requisite. certainly there will be exceptions, and certainly i've been proven wrong (happily--my own gf being an example), though this is why i use the term AVERAGE: both from my own life experience, and from my general knowledge of other life experiences, girl bookworms tend to become girl bookworms as a result of being deprived of social acceptance qua aesthetics.

so yeah, i'm sure there are some cute chicks rimming the pages of some great literature. and certainly this is pretty much what every guy, or at least every intelligent guy who also values intelligence, wants to find. then you look outside and see what the general options are, how rare this phenomenon actually is, etc. either way,
when you find one, that chick becomes your wife.

>>3692251
Going off those who've posted their pics in the past and those that say they come here, the average is actually pretty standard. At least, imo. I know 4chan tends to have overly high standards.

>>3692472
You don't have to be a "bookworm" to read books and discuss them on an internet forum.

>>3692483

ok...but you need to be a bookworm to discuss good books across a wide array of topics on an internet forum

like, i guess you don't have to be a "writer" to write things, but you have to be a "writer" to write good things.

>>3692472
I see this argument a lot on /r9k/.

What do you think attractive women do after they've accomplished that goal and found their man? Stagnate? Sit and stare at walls?

>>3692492
But /lit/ isn't like that. People can read a couple dozen books a year and want to come here to have a nice thread on those books once they've finished them. They can still discuss good books with intelligence. But it isn't their whole life.

I'm saying the desire to read books isn't necessarily a lack of social acceptance, aesthetics-related not. You can have a perfectly active social life and plenty of friends and still read a decent amount. Which means - normal people. Normal girls.

>>3692493
i think they start painting flowers that look like vaginas.

>>3692502
eh, i guess i can buy that: but then i guess i would retort that 12 books a year isn't the level of intelligence i was considering.

that's not to launch some argument over what constitutes a "normal" or "intelligent" level of reading, just that we are operating by different criteria.

so, sure: normal girls can read normal books and post in a normal way. but then again, what guy do you know that is looking for a "normal" girl? we all seek the exception and settle for the normal; normal to me still qualifies as the "average being pretty low"

take OP's post. i read it not as just how many "girls" are on here, but, and i doubt that i'm alone in this, i continued it, from the male perspective, to really ask: "how many attractive girls are on here?" of course i could be wrong in my construal/OP's intention, though it's pretty fucking rare when i meet a guy who's interested in accounting for "girls" generally, and not really eyeing toward seeing if he can unearth some beautiful gal with joyce clasped firmly between her painted nails.

so, fine: i'm sure there are girls on here. i was making a statement as to the kind of girl that one might find, which i still stand by for the most part.

are you a girl, or a guy arguing on behalf of women everywhere?

>>3692520
Just a girl. I was also >>3692493, which I don't think I got my point across well in. Women have interests. Their life does not end the moment they find a man to marry, that isn't the culmination of every single thing they've lived for. Even if they didn't develop interests up to that point, if they got by on pure attractiveness, they are not spending the rest of their lives doing absolutely nothing. That's more in response to /r9k/ though.

I do know what you mean - that most are only consider attractive girls. That's likely what people like >>3691811 are meaning too, with "real" women. There are a few outliers on /r9k/ that specifically go for unattractive women, but I know for sure they aren't the norm.

>>3692493
r9k here.

It's common knowledge that women aren't required to have hobbies... ever.

>>3692551
I get that.

Imagine a life devoid of hobbies though. Do you really think anyone would voluntarily inflict that on themselves? Not every person tries to live their life at the absolute base of what's required (or not) of them. That's just NEETs.

Also, didn't know you came to /lit/ eeyore. Are you keeping trip here and just dropping it there or something?

>>3692551
Yeah, I know girls who truly DO nothing. I think about them during the day and I can't even speculate as to what they are doing with their time. I'd have to call them and ask. I know them well, but they just don't talk about "hobbies." So either their hobbies are really fucked up or they just don't approach life the same way we do.

>>3692568
Visit /r9k/ sometimes. There's an entire category of men who do the same amount of absolutely nothing with their time. Not even video games. Maybe masturbation, but that wouldn't be the kind of hobby you tell even someone you know well.

>>3692548

oh, i am DEFINITELY not standing behind a position that claims women don't have interests--i mean, obviously they do, and i imagine they are as every bit as legitimate/stupid as any man's. i was just saying that it seems like attractiveness, especially for girls, is a kind-of tool--a tool that can get you along relatively far without having to put in the effort of reading difficult texts. this isn't to say that there aren't those who just want to read those texts to begin with, and are attractive as just a fact of being--but i still think this is pretty rare. i understand the difference between sex and gender, the construction of subjective preferences as internalizations of a patriarchal order, etc--having said all this, i think it would still be acceptable to claim that, today, in the embodied historical moment we are experiencing, girls are considered more the "social creature," and are expected to assume a wide variety of activities, behaviors, preferences, etc that conform to this image. again, i'm not saying it's correct or natural, just that it is dominate--if we agree on this, and we also agree that reading difficult/interesting texts is somewhat of an anti-social activity, or at the very least an activity not appreciated in the modes of socialization most girl participate within, then i think it's pretty fair to place a rare premium on those girls that engage literature on their own accord. of course, i encourage this, and would fucking love a world of well-read, attractive girls. still, having not been to "r9k" myself, there seems to be some truth to that dictum: deviations from the norm run the risk of sanctions, and, as i take most people to be reasonably rational creature who seek acceptance as a pretty standard good, i also expect deviations to constitute outliers.

again, this was just to add grounds to my initial comment, which perhaps was callous in its presentation. either way, i didn't mean to offend, and apologize if i did.

>>3692568

No one is required to have hobbies though, no one. ever.

There are vapid women, and there are vapid guys.
>sports
>make up
>vidya
>scrapbooking

however plenty of women (and men) have worthwhile hobbies too, but the point of a hobby isn't to be noble and impress people, it's to do what you love in your free time.

>>3692548
>Women have interests. Their life does not end the moment they find a man to marry

No one has said this and I doubt anyone disagrees.

rapture said attractive girls tend not to read the "dense or interesting".
Girls I've known to be attractive, and not in a liberal/artsy direction, that read have usually been interested in either things overtly emotional/flowery & marketed to female sincerity, or young adult pulp, or entry level wannabee acadamic. Ie Sylvia Plath, John Greene, Haruki Murakami. Of course, the average male reader also has bad taste, I'm just pointing out what I've seen in a specific field of the female gender. I've known a total of 3 well read transvestites and 2 of them had respectable taste in lit, the last was a fag.

>>3692576
I mostly agree with you, but I can't accept literature as completely anti-social. Women have ways of getting around that fact, I guess. Book clubs are almost exclusively made up of women, the English departments in most universities are very much full of women. Books are excellent tools to lead into worthwhile socialization - the sort of socialization that I do think a lot of women would like to be having. Not gossip. But discussing everything from modes of childhood to the values held in small communities - what women stereotypically and normally care about. To a degree where they're actually coming out of it for the better.

I am definitely not saying this applies for "most girls." But almost all of the women I know who love teaching, love learning, who'd be considered "normal" for the most part, engage themselves just as much with difficult/interesting texts without sacrificing sociability. It enhances it, even.

>>3692591
also I was rambly and anecdotal there, but a lot of this thread is. Anyway, I fully agree about attractiveness being a tool. There was no offense taken, I'm glad I got to have a little clarification.

The "expected better" was honestly related to the fact that I knew you had a girlfriend who loved reading, combined with knowing how widely you'd read. Your post just seemed to be an alternately worded version of the standard "yeah they're here but they're ugly (prove me wrong and post tits!)"

>>3691324
but I choose to be a dick

and you can't do anything about it, faggot

>>3691905
>herpa derp I choose which subject we can troll about
fuck off, stalin

>>3692165
>s/he/it (shit for short) doesn't know some s-f titles are the best crypto-philosophical treatises of the last few decades

>>3692568
Isn't conserving and working on an object a hobby in itself? If it's miniature models it counts but if it's female body and image, it doesn't?

Everyone in this thread has or is a penis.

I typed this one letter at a time on an extra-large keyboard.

>>3692600

yeah, no--i can see how my post comes across like that, and again sorry.

have you seen me in other threads or something? you seem to have an oddly intimate knowledge of my goings-ons, considering i post like once a year for about a week-long period each time. then again it could also be i just disclose a lot of information in that posting period. do i know you IRL or something?

in any case, i'm tired, it's late, and i'm headed to bed: take care, and hope to encounter your particular anonymity in the future.

>>3692635
I'm just here too often. I remember you from last year's thread, and from the drama and postings you've made in the last few weeks. It's also easy to recheck your posts on the archive.

>tfw most of the women on /lit/ won't even spare a glance at me irl.

Yeah. There are some. I am one. This is the first and last time I mention myself as a woman. I don't really like to display it, it's more of a "internet neutrality" thing. But then it's pretty hard to tell personal experience. People thus think that I'm male and gay. These facts distort my personal facts and opinions but oh well, nothing can be perfect.

>>3692708
this is so sad, damn you evils of this world

I don't think that women read more crap than males, by and large.Harlequin Romance novels aside.
But I do think that women spend more time trying to legitimize their crap than men.

Which I just think is psychological. The typical male response to someone telling them the books they like are shallow is to say "Screw you." While the typical female response is to say. "No, you don't get it these books made me feelz and were didactic. That makes them deep and thought-provoking.

Again, this isn't to insult women, just to point out a difference in how they go about justifying their bad reads. And to maybe explain away the hundreds upon thousands of appeals that some women have made to the internet to "Take Twilight seriously."

>>3692718
Thanks white knight.

>Women don't read literature, they read YA and Oprah book club books

>>3692858
>The typical male response to someone telling them the books they like are shallow is to say "Screw you." While the typical female response is to say. "No, you don't get it these books made me feelz and were didactic
you must be new here

>>3692877
No, but interested in your interpretation. What makes you say that?

>>3692883
I think he's saying that men are just as likely to take the "No, you just don't get it" angle - if you consider /lit/ as an example.

>>3692896
Well I definitely wasn't trying to say that men don't argue about literature, or that men don't get defensive about the books they love. I was more trying to indicate a difference in how men and women argue about literature. It's hard to describe but it's something I've noticed.
They'll both fight tooth and nail about what they read, but they do it differently, I don't quite know how to explain it.

On average, women can't into self-discipline like men. But that's because they don't need to.

I am woman.
I visit /lit/ on dialy basis but since English is my second language I do not write here much.
I never felt like I am devoid of hobbies or read "low tier" literature and I know many women who also read more complex novels or enjoy good poetry.
I think it depends more on unpbringing than a gender.
I was raised in family that belongs to intelligentsia and I never felt my gender was an issue in terms of my education, hobbies or knowledge.

>>3692478
>overly high
More like the opposite. All those women you posted are fucking ugly. That and the fact they probably only have a superficial knowledge in literature (i.e. be able to justify their shitty Kurt Vonnegut tattoo).

>>3692945
>fucking ugly
Really? I do not know them so I do not know if they have "probably only superficial knowledge" (I do not like bias and assumptions) but I do not think they are ugly.
Most men will agree that they are attractive.

>>3692960
Yes, but >>3692945 is incredibly insecure and lonely, so he has to tell himself and us that he thinks they're ugly and stupid. It's how he holds back the tears.

Are we talking about that four square of girls? Bottom left "looks smart" which is an attractive trait, but her weight holds her back. She has nice hair and eyes, though. Bottom left will probably get more attractive when she's older, but she looks kinda goofy now. Upper right is kind of cute, but also kind of homely. Upper left is not my type at all.

>>3692965
I see this a lot though. I had a roommate last year who was always crticisizing the girls i hung out with and brought home. I pick them mostly for brains and sense of humor, so there wasa fair range of body types. Except for a short girl from guam, and two cheerleaders, he thought they were all ugly and couldn't see why I would waste my time with them when I could be pursuing the tall, leggy, supermodel one or the short petite blonde or the the oriental with the tattoos. Now these are all pretty nice looking, healthy girls. there's a couple of singler moms, a couple business professionals, a couple teachers even an ex stripper who works in a doctors office.

Basically, theres' some age, some chubbiness, some wear, I guess, but a hell of a lot of sexy. But to my roommate (who is a lot younger than me) If they wouldn't qualify as arm-candy to his imaginary internet friends, they were ugly. And he really felt this way. I fixed him up with the tall cheerleader and he wouldn't leave the house with her unless she was in full makeup and heels. And this is a guy who hadn't had a date in a year before I set him up. She ended up dumping him because he was always demeaning her and insanely jealous and paranoid. Now when she comes over to hang out and watch movies or play video games, he hides in his room and plays loud music.

Something weird is going on here, and seeing pretty girls as ugly seems like it's part of it.

captcha: Pallas caboote

This girl posted on /soc/ before and says the mai nboards she visits are /lit/ and /mu/

>>3692939
Are you cute?

>>3691330
Can't this be our new tits or gtfo? Recite Baudelaire or fuck off or something.

>>3693059
I'd rather it not be the same poet over and over. The thing /lit/ needs most is variety.

>>3693059
I like the sign I saw on here when someone was bringing up /pol/ shit. The post said "not literature"
and the image said /lit/s or GTFO

>>3693038

fuck that gave me a heart attack, looks like my ex

>>3693043
That is subjective.
I do not think I am. Still in terms in appearance there isn't much wrong with me- exept for Jewish traits maybe.

>>3693034

>>3693121
>Jewish traits

>>3692939

wow this looks like a great film, never heard of it. thanks for the pic.

>>3693059
only if it includes some spicy passages form 50 shades

>>3693134

can we not be like the rest of 4chan pls?

>>3693034
This has to be the most obvious excuse to post about yourself I have ever seen on this board.

>>3692478
>dat short hair girl
Shall marry with.

>>3693136
mentioning sex on /lit/ is strictly forbidden
--puritan council of holy mary in burka

>>3693136
>trying to convince people using elitism

>"You're not like the rest of them, you deserve a better cigarette."

>>3693133
Well, that depends.
Pic is an example of Polish school of poster which emerged after WWII.
Great stuff, really.
There are many times that posters are actually better than film itself so watch out (not in this case I think).
I can post some more if anyone wants but I do not want to spam the thread.

>>3693140
Yet if I don't get it into the first post, I waste my time answering questions on side issues.

I have a theory; it's a crappy, bullshit theory based entirely on personal experience and anecdotal evidence, but I always spring forward with it when I see a bunch of girls that I think are pretty getting the 2/10 treatment.

I think movies, TV, video games and the internet are skewing the male attraction template.

I think young men and boys are seeing way, way more of these idealized, enhanced, exaggerated girls than they are of real girls, who they see from a distance and seldom interact with, and they're becoming unable to spot secondary female characteristics and become attracted to them unless they're blatant and extreme. It's a weird version of desenstitization and hypersensitization.

And I think it's affecting them at the beta-competitive status seeking level too: They think that any girl they're seen with, if not a supermodel or a cheerleader type is hurting their status.

I noticed this skewed taste on /b/ and started to look closer at it with trap threads, where the guys seemed actually to prefer boys with enhanced female characteristics than more "ordinary" actual girls.

anybody else spot this?

>>3693151

yes please spam away

>>3693168
Not that I'm disputing there can be any truth in your theory, but if I'm taking a girl home to meet my parents, her intelligence is a great deal more important than her looks.
I've a very academic background.

>>3693175
I am not sure if it is more "yes please" or "spam away".
Nevertheless, I'll post one or two (slow internet). If it bothers anyone, just write and I'll stop. If anyone wants more also write

>>3693213
It was yes please. I'm not him. They look quite reminiscent of Beksinski's stuff, they're great.

>>3693213

Certainly


Girls read more than boys

It's easy to tell that there are lots of girls on /lit/. They're very catty and passive aggressive, and like to turn everything into a social competition. Is it a coincidence that 4chan's decline corresponds almost exactly to the increased activity of female users?

>>3693222
My old English Literature professor had that and some other Shakespeare posters framed in his office. Are these for sale anywhere?

>>3693218
>>3693218
Those I posted are by Wakulski (he has quite distinctive style) who is my all-time favorite when it comes to posters. Still, others are also good.
>>3693245
I think yes- just type Polish poster in google and many sites that sell them show up.

Sorry I cannot post anymore right now- my internet is fucked up. Maybe I'll post some later if it get better and the thread will be still on.

>>3693168
I don't see what traps have to do with your theory. It's extremely rare that a trap, even a convincing trap (which are quite rare in themselves), looks remotely as feminine as an ordinary girl.

>>3693238
luld

>>3693252
* Walkuski
Sorry typo

>>3691768
Why do those look underage?

>>3693289
I think you already know the answer to that question.

>>3693290
16 is legal here they look like 12 or some shit.

>>3693257
that's kind of my point: traps are displaying acquired and exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics. weirdly enough, I think they're becoming the young male equivalent of the traditional " non-threatening male" justin bieber/ backstreet boy type. It's also sort of why gay men prefer guys dressed as bikers to actual bikers, and most girls prefer poser bad boys to the actual thing. I think they're play-acting. And I think it's from fear.

But what are they afraid of?

and don't say "committment" because women are far more afraid of that than men are...

>>3693304

what is your point

>>3693324
In "mericuh" 18 is age of consent(BS), those girls can be 16 or 17 idk they look 12 to me but i learned a long time ago not to guess american females ages because i always get it wrong.

>>3693315
It is because women in movies and videos don't match what you see in real life.
I used to find normal women attractive, afters years on 4chan with my obligatory start in /b/ and reading a bunch of doujin, hentai, comics idk what a real woman is anymore. Makeup has become too good and when you see women without it you don't find them as attractive as when they had it on. Also scars make me cringe if i see a c section scar "would not fuck". When i see then i feel like i went through the same surgery... could be years of seeing "perfect" women with no blemishes.

>>3693386
In Kentucky, the age of consent is sixteen. Lots of other states too.

>>3693405
That's basically what I was thinking. It explains why there are so many frustrated girls out there while guys are claiming there aren't any girls worth dating: their templates have been skewed towards some bizarre holotype. Is it because of the absence of actual girls in their daily lives?

>>3693412
Isn't Kentucky part of the bible belt? racist southerners

>>3691459
>you're reasoning for being retarded is because one expects retards to exist on 4chan...
>that logic isn't very sound.

i don't know who's the complete retard here ace, starting beforehand with a desire to confirm stereotypes,and a desire to anger the hypocrites, my logic makes perfect sense.


>Being a tripfag, you fall under the category of one who finds it necessary to be recognizable among the mass of the board.

awesome strawman dickhead, re-read my post and see why that's irrelevant

>>3693038

tits for the boys,love?
xD

>>3693423
Well what i noticed personally no matter how unattractive you find someone(female) if you spend a long enough amount of time with them, you eventually see them as attractive. I was in this class and there was a quiet girl didn't used to speak to anyone... well she used to but she wasn't open about it. Anyways she was much older than(she was like 25+ and i was 17) and we had a work study project over the august holidays idk what happened but i got strong feelings for her like a crush i told her that i really liked her and i got this feeling in my stomach when she was close...... Ofc i didn't get anywhere... but i think if we spend enough time with the opposite sex instead of being a house recluse(which i am) even if they don't have on make up, we would eventually develop feelings for them.

>>3693428
Nah. Kentucky is the world of crackpot scientists and weird religious cults. The South, and the Bible Belt, disowned us long ago.

>>3693454
>tits for the boys,love?
Show cock first.

>>3693468
2lewd4me.png

>>3693468

first i need proof that it's you and not our resident cross dressing australian

>>3693458
What you're talking about is called the "Desert Island" effect, also known as the reason we tend to date people from work, and "how do we begin to covet, Clarice?".

The other thing is the "French Postcard" effect, which is how our brains begin to associate what's next to the item we want with the item itself. (also the Victoria's Secret effect and Paraphiliization) . That's what makes traps work and makes guys reject actual girls in favor of computer enhanced ones and drag queens.

>>3693483
FUCK. How did you know?

Still, get your cock out for the semi-girls.

>>3691459
>[sic]

also i find it hilarious that you felt the need to point out minor speed errors when you're the one who cant tell the difference between 'your' and 'you're', le kill yourself

>>3693492
Any new dresses for autumn/winter?

>>3693121
As long as that doesn't mean a pecan nose I love jewish traits. Hebes are babes in my book.

Are you chubby?

>>3693495
you are the worth tripfag... Like all the other trip bundle of stick

>>3693504
wat?

>you are the worth tripfag
>worth tripfag

did you just lisp there?

>>3693507
fuck my life.. Dunno
Worst***

>>3693504
>Like all the other trip bundle of stick

lel...thanks, i guess

>>3693512

haha, and here i thought some foreigner was failing miserably at complimenting me, but it's just the typical illiterate murrican, carry on

>>3693504

How drunk are you right now?

>>3693491
>That's what makes traps work and makes guys reject actual girls in favor of computer enhanced ones and drag queens.
Would a person be gay for liking something feminine? I find some traps(not cross dressers) attractive, i know some have angle shots, lights, setting etc etc to make them look more feminine but i am talking about plain as-is attractive, if they got rid of the dick i would probably spend time with them idk, am i gay for that?

>>3693491
Dude. It's not guys that are rejecting girls. Your whole theory is backwards.

>>3693574
Yea. I kind of like the dick. Nothing hotter than a beautiful woman with massive boner.

>>3693586
So you are saying i have to be a 7/10 before i can get a gf? And then she will only be a 2/10?

>>3693589
>Nothing hotter than a beautiful woman with massive boner.
>Nothing hotter than a beautiful woman
> than a beautiful woman
>beautiful woman
>woman
Do you know what a woman is? Because i feel that you are confused.
And if you want the dick then you are a fag. Faggot.

>>3693628
Its pointig to 3/10 not 2. 2 had didn't reproduce.

>>3693628
The pic is pretty rough and shouldn't be taken literally. I only posted it because I realised I hadn't saved the charts from that okcupid study. The basic point is just that women are a lot pickier than men.

>>3693574
nope. And that's exactly what I'm talking about: you're responding to superficial femininity superimposed on a masculine model. It's like being attracted to bugs bunny when he's dressed as a girl, because his appearance is sort of gender-neutral anyway (thank you, Garth). Most guys my age don't see a trap as particularly feminine or attractive, because we're looking for things like bigger hips and bigger breastes and softer outlines: things actual women have, and ignoring the decoration.

>>3693639
Faggots are attracted to the gestalt of masculinity. Simply enjoying a cock which happens to be attached to a lovely feminine body is not gay.

>>3693651
There is an undeniable element of homosexuality involved in a shemale fetish. I don't think it says much about current gender relations.

>>3693586
No, it's guys that aren't persistant. Or aren't pursuing what the girls are offerring. Most blind approaches to women fail regardless of the guy or girls attractiveness two out of three times. But regardless of attractiveness, almost nobody fails more than five out of six times with the targets chosen at random, with no correllation to the externally perceived attractiveness of the target.

If you approach six girls at random, one of them will give you a positive response. But if you approach three at random, two of them will give you a negative response. This is becasue there are lots of reasons that they might reject you, and your percieved attractiveness, and the clumsiness of your approach, are only factors after such things as already involved, not actively pursuing, married, you look too much like her ex, things like that are corrected for.

Guys are screening wrong.

>>3693639
>beautiful woman with massive boner.
>beautiful massive boner
>massive woman boner
>massive boner
>woman boner
>beautiful woman

sorry what?

>>3693679
Sounds like PUA bullshit and completely conflicts with my personal experiences (first- and second-hand).

>>3693698
It's exactly the opposite of the pick up artist stuff. It's a study we did in the nineties on factors affecting pair bond initiations in college age adults. We couldn't publish because we only had two thousand test subjects and our results ranged so much that we'd have needed more than twice that for 95% confidence. It was fun while it lasted though.

>>3693713
So what is the moral? Just to approach girls less discriminately?

It seems to place an unfair amount of responsibility on the male, and not really conducive to healthy relationships anyway.

Have you seen the okcupid studies that I mentioned before? What do you make of them?

>>3693731
What do okcupid studies show?

>>3693737
It basically confirms polygyny and female hypergamy. Women have an extremely distorted perception of what constitutes an attractive man, and consider something like 80% of guys as below average, whereas men's ratings of women are much more realistic. I don't have the links handy, but I'm sure they're easy enough to find on Google.

>>3691255
>>3691289
This.

Por ejemplo.

>>3693785
I find it funny how some men(all americans i know for a fact) find that breast makes a girl beautiful. These guys get crazy over breast like they never saw them before... i think i have a thesis for that. I think because 90%(i know i am talking out my ass) of males(or babies in general) were never breast fed as an infant because of all the stupid sexualization americans put on breast OR because "how the baby will further ruin my body" and it has lead to this obsession with breast JESUS CHRIST. I don't get crazy when i see boobs in a bra or want obsessively to see what a girl's breast look like with the bra. Breast are breast shapes don't count some a firm yea but they ALL fall later in years.... this is just unhealthy.

I mean look at that tripfag he came from /b/ and is asking for tits like a 12 year old like he never saw them b4.... jebus.

>>3693785
Cool. Thanks. Will look into it.

>>3693731
We couldn't conclude anything because we had too small a sample. It was looking like guys were taking rejection of the first few attempts to hard, and stopping trying, without even attempting to verify where the problem lay. We found that the most common reason for a woman to reject a man is that she already has a boyfriend. After that, that she's not looking at the moment, and then it degenerates into things like he reminds her of her ex, or he's too much like her brothere, or she doesn't like jocks or something that has nothing to do with the person as an individual. We found that girls without boyfriends who are looking, such as girls at singles bars, tend to be a lot more open, but also more wary. It seems that guys are shooting themselves down by making the hunter's error: they shoot at one target, and when they miss it they assume they'll miss all the others.
It's not even a "playing above your league" thing. either. And, weirdly, guys who go to bars alone do better at initiating conversation than guys with wingmen or a peer group.

>>3693785
We found way broader templates on women than men. Men tend to approach womenwho resemble women they have succedded with before. Women tend to respond quixotically to the same types, though the prejudice is generally favorable. Women respond best to confidence, aparent wealth, hygiene and taste. men go by appearance, specifically body type, followed by dress, hairstyle and receptive attitude.

>>3693931
How did you select your men and women?

>>3693931
>confidence, aparent wealth, hygiene and taste

"Taste" as in clothes, right? Which is basically another monetary factor. Hygiene should be a given.

>>3693936
We recruited volunteers from sociology classes, they got course credit for participating. we did five different campuses and five semesters, we counted each attempt as an individual and we had a list of criteria to eliminate before engaging. we used casual settings such as lounges at student centers, and theme setings such as mixers and singles bars. We blew sixteen thousand dollars of Colgate-Palmolive's money, basically. The engagement crtieria were no visible wedding ring, alone or with a group and not obviously paired, and the appearance of receptivity (in a good mood, basically). A sucessful result was counted as either separation from the group (going to a private table) or fifteen minutes or more of engagement and the acceptance of a drink. We didn't encourage the volunteers to "force the moment" and the observers indicated complicating factors. We never had enough "trap nights" though, for a valid study, and the money ran out.

>>3694005
Taste was defined as refinement in behavior and dress. Being polite and soft spoken and ordering neat whiskey or basic drinks were counted, as were non-athletic shoes and courtesy to the serving people.

>>3692562
Seems lots of women do. It's boggling but women only need to their looks to get by. Men have to build up hobbies and interests to attract a mate.

I come here rarely. I don't know why I threw up my trip here - I guess because it was an r9k discussion - and I didn't mean to come spit rhetoric. Not the place or time.

>195 posts and 24 image replies omitted

>>3694424
>read the thread b4 you post
No one is really giving a fuck about OP we have out own sub-thread going on.

I'm a girl but I'm also a 3 so...
"No Pic For You!"

also I'm a dude, so I lied and only wanted to bump this thread because I find the discussion interesting and intriguing

>>3694634
btw i'm a girl

>>3693454
fight me irl

>>3691244
>>3691255
>>3691266
>>3691288
>>3691544
>>3691699
>>3691777
>>3691811
>>3691855
>>3692366
>>3692577
>>3692600
>>3692622
>>3692633
>>3692877
>>3693133
>>3693222
>>3693500
>>3693644
>>3693900
Well shit, niggers.

It's kind of sad (hilarious) that the unofficial policy of don't ask, don't tell gender has to be followed to maintain whatever standard of "discussion" this board has.

To be fair, this is probably one of the better ones.

yes,hi.though i dont think is relevant because we're in the internet and it makes no difference if im a female or a male.

4chan got me into a lot of male-majority hobbies,so probably most of people think im a man.but then again,it makes no difference.

>>3694710
Considering how this ended last time, you have to be prepared to mount Stan.

tripppppin

I wonder about the girls that post here,
if they're lonesome?
Do they hate to go past store windows and see things they'd really like but can't afford?
Do they save up to buy presents for their grandparents?
Do they still miss a pet they lost as a kid?
Do they watch kids in the park wondering if they'll ever have any?
Do Christmas carols make them sad?
Do they watch the gutters as they walk home for dropped dollar bills?
How many friends have they lost touch with? What do they like on pizza?
If there were one new flavor of ice-cream they could create, what would it be?

That's what i wonder.

>>3693856
You must be yurop seeing how you despise americans and not men in general or you have to be some bum boy for not liking tits and giving everything you have to see them.

>>3694821
I- I like y-you

>>3695047
Awww! I'd probably like you too.

>>3695047
>>3695057
Well I hate you both

>>3695047
>>3695057
>being this gay
You know we only have men or men dressed as women that come on 4chan.

>>3695047
You should answer the questions.

>>3695086
Every non-anonymous board I've ever been on was roughly half women. They can't all be on /r9k/

>>3694821
I wonder if they can entertain me or enlighten me in some way.
>>3695086
Transsexuals are the at core of 4chan, they love nothing more to destroy boards and shit up threads

>>3695094
>Every non-anonymous board I've ever been on was roughly half men who acted like women
FTFY

>>3695103
Women are just a social construct.

>>3695103
I should have said "non-anonymous book-related board." At Pemberley they won't let you use an alias.

no

>>3695115
>Change name
>Dress girly
>Still have a penis
>Classifies themselves as female
It's like you have never met the insanity that is transsexuals

>>3695126
What's so phallic about an onion ring?

>>3695129
You actually think there are more transexuals than women on a Jane Austen board? or for that matter anywhere this side of Burning Man?

>>3695134
eh, i like onions. iterative loops in harmony.

>>3695139
>You actually think there are more transexuals than women on a Jane Austen board?
You really need to ask this question anon?

>>3695143
P Egyptian

>>3695148
i'm a daoist

>>3695065
I like turtles

>>3695139
Go to /lgbt/ and see how many of these things there actually are, its disturbing.