/lit/ - Literature

all slain

why is it mostly cute girls?

this isn't real, is it?

is /lit/ mostly populated with attractive women?

will one of you be my gf?

>>6118222
I would actually look for a bf here because the guys share my interest but a lot of you are downright creepy as fuck

>>6118229
LOL

YOU WANT TO DATE.. ME?!?

>>6118229
It's okay, you'll lose the 15lbs.

>>6118229
do you like hooks?

>>6118233
I'm not even chubby, I'm 115 lbs, but you guys are also pretty spiteful towards women and that is an issue as well

>>6118241
>but you guys are also pretty spiteful towards women and that is an issue as well
you do realize it's all trolling, right? so fucking stupid

>>6118229
>but a lot of you are downright creepy as fuck
inb4 the katiegate thread is posted

>>6118229
i'm not creepy, but i rarely come to /lit/ so we probably have nothing in common

these two things might be related somehow

>>6118252
I LIVE IN /LIT/ AND I HAVE A DEAD BODY IN MY MATTRESS LOOOL

I GUESS IT'S A PERFECT CORE-RELATION

>>6118241
>115 lbs

you're fucking fat

>>6118250
I think it's not all trolling, I think a lot of it is serious. Even what is trolling is often just hyperbole by people who are spiteful toward women.

>>6118264
ok so don't come here then, i suppose

nobody on here cares about anyone else's user experience, and i'm going to continue shitposting so whatever

if you want to be taken seriously, don't go online

>>6118229
>pls pay attention to me

>>6118276
I really don't care if it's online, I'm just saying it puts me off from seeking a relationship here, that's all. I still like this board for the discussion

>>6118286
wait why the fuck would you seek a relationship on 4chan? were you being serious?

i don't eat where i shit and you shouldn't either lmao

>>6118202
who knows.

>>6118286
please be my girlfirend m'lady

pic related it's me

>>6118289
A lot of posters here have very serious interest in philosophy and literature, depidty derp derp. It's not like that is easy to find, I haven't even dated one guy who knew who Hegel is so far.

>>6118229
>girls on the interwebz
>newfigs falling for some roleplaying faggot
>again

>>6118297
oh, i see, well that makes sense.

>>6118303
There are quite a few of us on this board, pal

>>6118306
On female chastity

There is something quite amazing and monstrous about the education of upper-class women. What could be more paradoxical? All the world is agreed that they are to be brought up as ignorant as possible of erotic matters, and that one has to imbue their souls with a profound sense of shame in such matters until the merest suggestion of such things triggers the most extreme impatience and flight. The "honor" of women really comes into play only here: what else would one not forgive them? But here they are supposed to remain ignorant even in their hearts; they are supposed to have neither eyes nor ears, nor words, nor thoughts for this - their "evil"; and mere knowledge is considered evil. And then to be hurled, as by a gruesome lightning bolt, into reality and knowledge, by marriage - precisely by the man they love and esteem most! To catch love and shame in a contradiction and to be forced to experience at the same time delight, surrender, duty, pity, terror, and who knows what else, in the face of the unexpected neighborliness of god and beast!

Thus a psychic knot has been tied that may have no equal. Even the compassionate curiosity of the wisest student of humanity is inadequate for guessing how this or that woman manages to accomodate herself to this solution of the riddle, and to the riddle of a solution, and what dreadful, far-reaching suspicions must stir in her poor, unhinged soul - and how the ultimate philosophy and skepsis of woman casts anchor at this point!

Afterward, the same deep silence as before. Often a silence directed at herself, too. She closes her eyes to herself.

Young women try hard to appear superficial and thoughtless. The most refined simulate a kind of impertinence.

Women easily experience their husbands as a question mark concerning their honor, and their children as an apology or atonement. They need children and wish for them in a way that is altogether different from that in which a man may wish for children.

In sum, one cannot be too kind about women.

>>6118313
How is Nietzsche's ranting about women any more logical than the SCUM manifesto?

>>6118202

>>6118317
he's a man

>tfw he could have saved us, but we drove him away

>>6118318
remember when feminishitter was forced out for good?

i'm so glad i never have to suffer his awful interpretations of nietzsche and ghostbuster ever again

this thread has inspired me to start tripcoding :-)

>>6118325
did you know where tripcodes originated from?
pic related

>>6118356

A lot of men here are spiteful towards women because they've never gotten laid and will most likely never get laid, due to being out of touch with reality.

>>6118363
HOW DO YOU KNOW ME?>!??!

>>6118297

Are you in high school or something?

>>6118367
Y-you too

>>6118363
blame god or evolution, not me.

>>6118382
I really like that the y-axis is just labeled "Number", as if the guy who made it had just given up at that point

What does that even mean???

>>6118322
How happened?

>>6118306
>none of the girls live or heard of Lithuania

>>6118391
"number of -gender-"

It's a puerile graph, to be sure.

>>6118391
>unable to comprehend graphs

well there you have it.

>>6118229
Give me a chance. I'm lonely.

>>6118397
If you mean "number of gender" then you write "number of gender", you don't just write "number"

Plus "number of gender" isn't a thing, it would be "gender ratio" or something like that.

>>6118399
>>unable to comprehend retarded graphs
FTFY

>>6118403
>if i dont understand something it must be dumb

your only digging deeper

>>6118403
Right right, just trying to help you understand the graph.

>>6118202
That short-haired redhead is gorgeous. Did she really post here?

>>6118202
I saw brownbear in his prime.
Another time, another time.

>>6118405
>your
try harder

>>6118407
No, it's a random picture with the names of tripfags who were massive during the tripfag apocalypse on /lit/ superimposed on random people.

And it really was a ridiculous time on /lit/, if you weren't there. Not good but certainly fucking ridiculous. I really don't know where they went - I mean, some of em it's relatively obvious, like D&E getting his trip broken, but for most of them I guess they just got bored.

>>6118409
why? your already overchallenged

>>6118394
He forgot to take his trip off before posting on /adv/ that revealed him to be a male (he was shitposting as a female) and just got an avalanche of shit

>>6118229
Coming here from /fa/ it's honestly not that bad, it has the veneer of civility

>>6118410
Was D&E Deep&Edgy? I knew a tripfag by that name but on a completely different board.

>>6118418
i hope you die of aids, asshole

>>6118419
Yes.

>>6118276
>nobody on here cares about anyone else's user experience

>>6118423
well that's cuz you're a stupid cunt, butterfly

>>6118423
You're too precious for this place, though.

>>6118420
A-anon ;-;

>>6118419
D&E was Deep&Edgy, yes. He did post on other boards when he was in his pomp but here most frequently. But then later other people have used the trip unrelated. So who knows.

>>6118423
I've really come to adore you, Butterfly. I wish we could get to know each other.

>>6118427
sorry faggot, you're not too bad for a sack of dogshit

>>6118423
please buttfly, protect us from christianfags.

>>6118431
>nazi rocket
>tripfag mentioning jews and a swearword

beyond edgy

>>6118434
bitch you don't even know how edgy i am, i'm the fucking YOUTUBERMENSCH

>genre fiction

>>6118415
Is the thread cached?

>>6118424
I choose to believe that's you pictured.
And with Ry's haircut too.

>>6118429
>>6118427
Aww

>>6118432
It's more like I'm trying to convert them. I may have planted some seed of doubt that will lead them away from it.

>>6118452
http://archive.4plebs.org/adv/thread/14494879/#14496602

yw anon

>>6118229
>creepy as fuck
>not good looking
Fixed.

>>6118415
>>6118452
And once again, nothing conclusive either way was determined.

>>6118461
>Is shallow. Assumes everyone else is as well.

>>6118466
I am not shallow, beggars can't be choosers.

>>6118466
>And once again, nothing conclusive either way was determined.

stop defending your crush, flubberfly

>>6118222
Attractive women are a minority on this board but a majority of tripfags. It makes sense that they would get attention withdrawls on an anonymous forum.

>>6118460
>>6118466
Poor guy. I hope he scored at least.

>>6118472
i don't, he had really bad understandings of nietzsche

>>6118471
I will never fathom the mind of a tripfag, such depravity is beyond me.

>>6118485
statistically i'm a hot woman

wanna cyber

>>6118468
And not all women are shallow.

>>6118472
Who? The boyfriend, or the guy she or he was pretending to be?
You see how loopy it gets? Anons don't even know how to explain it.

>>6118471
I think most trips are males. No telling how many women anons have come and gone.

>>6118488
>No telling how many women anons have come and gone.

Sometimes you can infer from punctuation and speech patterns, and oblique references that a woman is here, but they never stay. i'm a douchebag cunt dick asshole to everyone and i'm still here. so i guess the secret to leaving 4chan is to not be a fucking faggot douche

>>6118481
lol, that's enough to wish him(her?) bad things? you cunt

>>6118488
Feminister. He lost his trip, and maybe his potential wife.

>>6118488
>And not all women are shallow
All women are shallow, some are just more shallow than others.

>>6118485
people persons
they need other people to feel themselves

>>6118497
>needing attention on an anonymous board
These are deeply troubled individuals we are speaking about.

>>6118488
>not all women are shallow

Yes, and there are many words to describe these women: spinster, ugly, obese, desperate, self-conscious, the list goes on...

The fact is that attractive women are shallow 100 percent of the time. I wish it weren't the case, but -- alas! -- it is.

>>6118501
If they werent shallow you'd have less chance to get one anyway.

>>6118501
inb4 someone claims all attractive men are shallow.

>>6118229
>browse 4chan
>everyone is creepy but me!

Go away

>>6118503
Well, I suppose I am physically attractive, you're right, but how did you know?

>>6118504
Most handsome men are shallow
All wealthy men are shallow
Yes, it's true, it does go the same way.

>>6118507
Because im your mom. Shut down 4chan and find a job, idiot.

>>6118511
>Most attractive men are shallow
>All attractive women are shallow
Notice the difference?
It does not go the same way. Women are predisposed to be more picky about their mates.

>>6118513
gosh, youre boring

>>6118520
I know what I wrote. And no.
You want a return to arraigned marriages or something?

Why was this thread started now...
Bed.

You all know you can post in warosu.org, right?

>>6118229
>>6118241
>>6118286
>>6118297

>goes on 4chan
>calls other anons creepy and spiteful towards women

what do you expect? this isn't reddit. this isn't facebook. this place exists for a reason.

I don't go to chinatown and then complain when I see chinese people

tits or GTFO

>>6118436
>YOUTUBERMEHSCH

>>6118520
>Women are predisposed to be more picky about their mates.

>source: magical woman-reading machine

>>6118526
>You want a return to arraigned marriages or something?
It wouldn't hurt I suppose.

>>6118533
>what is red queen theory

gtfo

>>6118533
A machine which could explain women's thought is indeed magical.

>>6118541
>women are
>theory

>>6118544
>apple falls due to gravity
>theory

>>6118544
>ignorant and proud of it

>>6118541
You do know that the red queen theory has always been applied to host/parasite or hunted/hunted interactions, not your perceived "pickiness" of women? According to the Red Queen Hypothesis, sex (and with that, recombination) is just one of the mechanisms with which species try to outrun parasites

>being this dumb by just namedropping things you obviously don't understand
gtfo

>>6118545
>evolutionary hypothesis
>is the same as a replicable phenomenon

there is no meme arrow big enough

>>6118549
>sexual selection has nothing to do with red queen theory

try reading actual books instead of wiki summaries.

off youself, failure

>>6118559
Please explain to me what "female pickiness" has to do with the red queen hypothesis, I'm still waiting.

I wrote above how the RQH is connected to the *development* of sex, which is for example what Ridley's old The Red Queen is about

Again, I'm waiting.

>>6118579
>The goal for every female animal is to find a mate with sufficient genetic quality to make a good husband, a good father, or a good sire.
>The goal for every male animal is often to find as many wives as possible and sometimes to find good mothers and dams, only rarely to find good wives.

p.132, http://amzn.com/0060556579

inject air into vein plz

>>6118607
Except that the Red Queen Hypothesis is about inter-species relationships (like the original parasite/host relationship), not about intra-species relationships.

Again, your two sentences have nothing to do with the hypothesis, even though they're in a book named "The Red Queen Hypothesis" (which is btw now 22 years old). Your sentences are more connected to Bateman's principle, which is old - a few recent papers (this one, for example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096780/ ) have shown that human data doesn't fit this pattern as cleanly as people like you would like it to do, societies behave quite differently.

>>6118241
115 lbs is how much kg?

>>6118627
52

>>6118629
That's really not fat

>>6118634
american detected

>>6118648
>American asking for the weight in kilos

>>6118652
it's a diversion

>>6118622
>Except that the Red Queen Hypothesis is about inter-species relationships, not about intra-species relationships.
Wrong.

>The Red Queen hypothesis is an evolutionary hypothesis which proposes that organisms must constantly adapt, evolve, and proliferate not merely to gain reproductive advantage, but also simply to survive while pitted against ever-evolving opposing organisms in an ever-changing environment. The Red Queen hypothesis intends to explain two different phenomena: the constant extinction rates as observed in the paleontological record caused by co-evolution between competing species[1] and the advantage of sexual reproduction (as opposed to asexual reproduction) at the level of individuals.

>trying to put flawed words in my mouth
Yeah no, youre not gonna switch the topic.

>your two sentences have nothing to do with the hypothesis
Except they are used to explain concepts.

>which is btw now 22 years old
how is this an argument? are you trying to imply that books lose validity after a certain age? c'mon

>Please explain to me what "female pickiness" has to do with the red queen hypothesis, I'm still waiting.

Stop posting and go read some books.

>>6118660
>>The Red Queen hypothesis is an evolutionary hypothesis which proposes that organisms must constantly adapt, evolve, and proliferate not merely to gain reproductive advantage, but also simply to survive while pitted against ever-evolving opposing organisms in an ever-changing environment. The Red Queen hypothesis intends to explain two different phenomena: the constant extinction rates as observed in the paleontological record caused by co-evolution between competing species[1] and the advantage of sexual reproduction (as opposed to asexual reproduction) at the level of individuals.

that entire excerpt is about how *inter-species competition* led to the rise of sex,

>co-evolution between competing species[1] and the advantage of sexual reproduction

and you still haven't said anything about how that brought about supposed female pickiness, which would be intra-species competition, like I said earlier! (which btw the above paper shows that the data on female pickiness in humans isn't as simple as you said earlier).

I'm still waiting. All you do is get angry. Learn to think before you read books.

>>6118648
Isn't that a female average? A 170 cm tall girl has like 60 kg and is fit, 52 is fit for a 160 cm tall girl. Femanon how tall are you? And why are you ruining your life on 4chin?

>>6118648
Also my experience with women has been limited to say at least.

>>6118678
well we're on 4chan so that's a given

>>6118685
Is my experience limited because I am on 4chan or is it that I am on 4chan because my experience is limited?

>>6118667
>All you do is get angry.
You can mindread too!as you cant, let me elaborate: this was sarcasm

>and you still haven't said anything about how that brought about supposed female pickiness

Nobodys gonna spoonfeed you here.

Harakiri would be appreciated

>>6118692
do people with social anxiety hang out more on the internet or does the internet create social anxiety?

>>6118673
I'm 5'6" (about 170 cm, I think).

I'm ruining my life here because I'm drunk and depressed right now for reasons. I don't do it regularly, but I do browse here often.

>>6118697

both

and those aren't the only factors involved

>>6118693
Oh great, you have no argument and no support for your point, as I expected

plus it's sudoku

>>6118700
Which board gives you more social anxiety, /jp/? /d/? /r9k/? I'd wager the last, it's a self-supporting pool of narcissistic self-pity

>>6118698
Don't drink alone, it only makes things worse.

>>6118710

/pol/ and /b/ make me worry about the state of humanity

/r9k/ makes me laugh, it's like visiting a zoo

>>6118712
I need to drink and I don't want to talk to anyone in person right now (and I can't because it's late as fuck). Such is life.

>>6118719
Don't you have Skype friends in Europe?

>>6118710
Yeah but weeabos are worse than Werther like autists.

>>6118720
I consider skype to be in person

>>6118715
perfect description

>The Zoo of animals that never had sex but are extremely obsessed with it
>"The blizzard's never seen the desert sand"

>>6118725
It isn't quite the same, but it can help.

>>6118701
Except that i provided a source.

>>6118739
if you call a sentence without data from 22 years ago a source (to which I then showed that more modern data shows otherwise) then I don't want to see your academic papers

>>6118746
YES BUT UR ALSO A FAGGOT

CHECKMATE

>>6118747
are you new here? i do not recognize your trip

>>6118746
>shifting goalposts again
>still refusing to actually read the book
>still hoping to get spoonfed
>MORE MODERN DATA

Please show me contradticting information about sexual female preferencesin humans.

>>6118749
>>6118325

>>6118229
>tfw I'm a convicted sex offender with a year and a half in correctional

Hey baby

Do you like trains?

>>6118759
I'll suck yo co...

>>6118229
>I would actually look for a bf here because the guys share my interest but a lot of you are downright creepy as fuck
And a lot of us do not want what you display jsut here

>>6118751
>can't read my earlier posts
>Please show me contradticting information about sexual female preferencesin humans.

(again, you still haven't said what the Red Queen Hypothesis has to do with Bateman's principle :) )

It seems you're getting angry, your typos increase. Here we go:

For starters, Bateman's principle is based on reproductive success (RS) - females would have to be "more picky" than males since eggs are costly, so they have to find a husband/partner/future father, ergo, males have more reproductive success (sleep around more) since sperm is cheap and they can have more children.

Let's look at some data from human populations, this has been measured for some in the "ratio of variance in male RS to female RS", i.e., Vm/Vf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534709001128

For humans in Table 1, Vm/Vf goes from 0.7 to 4.75, which doesn't fit to the above hypothesis - all populations would need to have a roughly similar value, since that would be nature over nurture, and humans are roughly similar.

But they're all over the place, with the average being above 1, but you still can't say that this principle applies to all humans, it seems to be more of a cultural thing (which is a problem with Ridley's book, he dismisses culture too much, a problem with mid-90s evolutionary biology - plus, the data in the above paper wasn't yet released)

Or, as the authors say,

>Nonetheless, the available evidence suggests that the relationship between RS and MS within each sex varies across societies.

Or from the summary:

>We argue that human mating strategies are unlikely to conform to a single universal pattern.

Deep&Edgy was really great. Still the most enlightening person i've come across online.

>>6118818
I like kitty

>there will never be another /lit/ tinychat
>you will never read a new brownbear prettier but less slutty story
>you'll never have a nice light conversatio with hakas again
>you will never see Fabulous be full of himself again
>you will never read D&E shitting on subjectivism again