/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2685061]

Hey /lit/

Why do women get so fucking swept up in this garbage?
>HOT HOT HOT MAN who is a billionaire and CEO of a huge company who flies planes and sails boats finds a young virgin girl
>He has a troubled past and is a player of women BUT GET THIS she changes him!
>This sweet young "innocent" girl changes him or makes him see a side of himself he never thought was possible.
>Not even detailed or sensual sex scenes, just finger banging in public, lite BDSM and dirty talk.

>tfw women are so fucking diluted they reduce themselves to fantasizing about this kind of trashy garbage.
>tfw a movie is already in the works.
A FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT FANFICTION NOW HAS A MOVIE MADE FOR IT.
FUCK WHY DO PEOPLE EVEN WASTE FUCKING PAPER ON THIS BULLSHIT.

How can humanity go from creating amazing, thought provoking works of literature to plots as childish as twilight and this most recent fad?

[Anonymous No.2685067]

>>2685061

Misogynist baiting. Move along.

[Anonymous No.2685069]

Romance novels are porn for women. Its like a girl saying why do you get off on seeing people fucking? It's a turn on, not a masterpiece. Not for you, move on.

[Anonymous No.2685071]

There's loads of shit novels for men too

Like andy mcnab

[Anonymous No.2685072]

Yeah, romance novels are objectively worse than so much sci-fi, fantasy, Ender's Game and other male-oriented self-insertion fantasies.
</sarcasm>

[Anonymous No.2685074]

>diluted

[Anonymous No.2685084]

>>2685069

Yet you never hear men defend the cineastic merits of Ass Bangers 19, but women frequently go great lengths to extol the literary merits of this trash.

[Anonymous No.2685086]

>>2685072
Of course they are objectively worse.
Where is the imagination?
The creativity?
The dynamic story elements?
Instead it's just:
>OMG the most hottest guy billionaire who is a total hunk with a troubled past and is so amazingly awesome at everything and sexy starts to notice this seemingly unnoticeable girl who has never been with a guy but he's a dick but she changes him then they fuck like rabbits the end.

How can that even be remotely desirable in terms of a plot?
Where is the surprise, the catch, the hook?

The only way I can even conceive as to why women would flock to this is for schlicking material with plots simple enough but over the top, yet unimaginative, enough to satisfy a women.

[Anonymous No.2685091]

>>2685084
are you trying to criticise an entire sex or are you trying to criticise the book?

[Anonymous No.2685093]

>>2685091

I am trying to criticise the porn analogy.

[Anonymous No.2685096]

>>2685091

Though I will admit that the specific use of "men" and "women", as opposed to people in general was a mistake.

[Anonymous No.2685097]

Guess what, OP?

Different strokes for different folks. Let them hail that novel as a masterpiece. They're just bellowing like oxen at the joy they get from the novel. Go read what YOU want to read, start a thread about whatever it is YOU like reading.

[Anonymous No.2685105]

>>2685096
Uh, who's trying to praise the literary merit of this? I think most reviewers get it.

People have to stop criticizing things that aren't meant for them. You don't hear Bob Dylan ranting about The Wiggles.

[Anonymous No.2685110]

>>2685091
>Sex
>PFFT MISOGYNISTIC PIG

>The book
>FUCKING LOSER DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WOMEN GO BACK TO YOUR SC FI NERD SHIT

Both actually. This book is just garbage. I can respect a women who wants to read it.
I can't respect a women who takes it seriously and actually defend this smut.
At least as men we can admit we want porn to jerk off too.
With women and garbage like this it's a 2deep4u plot that any middle schooler can come up with with story elements told over and over again and yet still act surprised and involved with the story.

I'm only cashing in the cheque of how every women will criticize a man for playing video games or watching action movies, yet some of the same women will flock to this crap like it's the most amazing and deep thing to come out since twilight.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685112]

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/word-is-getting-out/

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/word-is-getting-out/

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/04/09/girltalk/what-50-shades-of-grey-tells-us-about-the-nature-o
f-female-fantasy/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HookingUpSmart+
%28Hooking+Up+Smart%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/04/09/girltalk/what-50-shades-of-grey-tells-us-about-the-nature-o
f-female-fantasy/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HookingUpSmart+
%28Hooking+Up+Smart%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

[Anonymous No.2685113]

Most of the pornography that is targeted at men makes me want to throw up, but I understand that men are using it to get off, nothing more. Books like this are porn for us, so shut up your miserable pissant.

[Anonymous No.2685115]

>>2685084
I have tried before. My first serious girlfriend was a complete feminist bitch and really hated porn. I was a normal teen who enjoyed monster fap sessions. One day, and this was before the days of youporn etc, when you would click one porn thumbnail and it opened five more pages. I came home, and she was sat on the sofa with a face like a spanked arse, and was clutching a printout of all the websites I had been looking at (I still dont know how she found that, I had a separate browser hidden away that I would use). She proceeded to tell me what a foul person I was, and blamed me for everything from child prostitution to Britteny Spears. The underlying issue was obviously some form of jealousy. So I tried pitching the artistic merit argument. "They love what they do", "they are very well produced", "no i don't want to fuck them i just like watching", "some of the camera angles are superb," but she wasn't having any of it.

Needless to say we didn't last too much longer. The day before I left I spent the entire day searching for variations on "I have uploaded pictures of my naked sleeping girlfriend and now they seem to be everywhere". This resulted in some rather amusing panicking texts and I let her believe I had.

[Anonymous No.2685123]

>>2685112
Aren't you that fertility draft guy?

[Anonymous No.2685125]

Why is everybody getting so worked up about this? If it wasn't in a different type of media, basically anything other than a book, no one would give a shit. There are hundreds of things like this in other formats (tv shows, movies, comics). I think it's rather backwards and outdated to continue to place such a high premium on literature as a form of media. Because that's what literature is, just like movies. It's not like every time a shitty movie comes out it's like "argh what happened to Godard and Murnau and Tarkovsky movies were better in teh olde days"

[Anonymous No.2685126]

>>2685061
Because these are fantasies woman have. It's basically Ugly Betty, but not funny, and the woman is secretly sexy, but hidden behind her nerd glasses, because god forbid ugly people experiance happiness on any level. What a fucking wasteland.

And ugly Betty isn't even ugly. Oh look, we'll hire this HOT CHICK to play someone who's UGLY! Yes. Thank you.

And don't think there aren't books like this for men. I know. I've seen "Slutty Catholic Education." Oh yes. On one of those cardboard book cases they put in front of the book store.

But what I want to read, is one of these books, but at the end, he dumps her for the next best thing. And then she's all, "but we had something special!" and then he's all "Oh wat? You were serious? Let me laugh harder."

Perfect ending.

[Anonymous No.2685128]

>Why do women

Should have said "some women". Otherwise you just sound like an angry beta faggot who is being rejected all the time and spreading your tiny-penis-hate on the Internet.

[Anonymous No.2685129]

>>2685112

>http://heartiste.wordpress.com/

What is this horseshit?

[Anonymous No.2685135]

>>2685115
>some of the camera angles are superb

My sides.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685145]

>>2685129
The truth about women.

[Anonymous No.2685150]

>>2685128

>angry beta faggot who is being rejected all the time and spreading your tiny-penis-hate on the Internet.

These are typical woman insults you fucking white knight.

[Anonymous No.2685154]

>>2685150

I'm not a whiteknight, because I don't have to. My penis is 7 inches in girth, unlike OP's.
It might sound corny, but that's all there is to it.

[Anonymous No.2685158]

seriously, is this trolling?

either way, the truth about women... I simply prefer not to recall it anymore. Just smile and move along.

Oh, and they are GOLD DIGGERS. It's in their brain. "Stability" and all that.

If there's one thing a well read fellow can do...

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685161]

I was enjoying a punchy bowel movement in a public restroom when I overhead a conversation a man was having on the phone with a woman who was either a friend or the pretense of a friend he wanted to fuck. Droning and masturbatory, my ears perked up when he turned the subject to that Story of O meager rip-off and sadomasochism book by a female author which is currently all the rage among well-heeled urban ladies who fancy themselves feminists. One-way snippets follow.

“Did you hear about this Fifty Shades of Grey book? …Yeah, it’s about a woman who falls for a controlling, dominant guy. He’s even kind of violent. Knocks her around and stuff.”

“It’s a little disconcerting. Are women like this? Do women really go in for this sort of thing?” [laughs]

“I don’t get it, but this is all women are talking about. It makes me think that they want to be submissive. Submissive to a man.”

[Anonymous No.2685162]

>>2685128
Believe what you want.
I can tell you that none of that is true and that it is, in fact, entirely reverse.
However, the stereotype is that I am an angry misogynist who never got dates in high school and is ranting and raving about how shallow women are these days.

If I may offer an alternative?

Perhaps I am actually average. My penis, is not in fact, small. I am as successful as most men are these days with women. I also display confidence and poise when dealing with either sex.
My only concern I am trying to show is of the serious decline in the traditional male role.
First we are told, unending, that we are not sensitive enough to understand women.
Then we hear of stuff like this, where women become objects of males with power and make women out to be toys to be used and played with and that this is somehow desirable to modern women.
Then we are confused as to what women want.
Sure women can 'display' individuality, but it's stuff like this that keeps us wondering if it is all just a ploy.
We want to give women what they want, however, we are unsure of if women even know what they want or are even willing to tell us what they truly want out of us.
This leads to questions of, sure I may ask, I may try to communicate, but is she really telling me what she wants?
Women say they want this, then they want that. Then they lie about wanting it. Then it's bad, then it's good.

If I may say though, the resulting questions and realizations I have is much more interesting then the very nature or topic of this thread I have created.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685164]

“I mean, I have to ask… I’m asking you because you’re a woman, and I haven’t slept with you. [chuckles self-consciously] Not that I meant to say I wanted to… or if I would I wouldn’t come right out and say it… but I figure you would tell me the truth since we’re not sleeping together.”

“Have you read this book?… Wow… You too?… You think you know people….”

“Are these degrading things he puts her through… are they exciting for women? I’ll never have a conversation again without thinking she really wants to be tied up and… yeah, women want submission… it’s nuts.”

“Is that what you like?”

I do no fairness to this eavesdropped rambling exegesis on the book that has the yoga and credentialist crowd in titters and tingles, which went on breathlessly for a heady fifteen minutes. (My grass-fed beef movement was extraordinary even for a deucing champion like myself, so fifteen minutes on the throne was not putting me out.) From the sound of his ardor, the man on the phone could hardly believe there existed this secret garden of women’s desires, and having stumbled into it clumsily tried to utilize the subject as a hook for a possible tryst with the woman on the other end of the line. Also from the sound of it, she didn’t bite.

[Anonymous No.2685166]

>>2685162

tl;dr

>This guy needs to assure us that his penis isn't small.

lol

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685167]

I think this book is something of a watershed cultural moment for the SWPL class, filled floor to rafters with masculinized careerist broads and cloying beta males. Word is getting out among even the mule-headed beta males that women are, most of them and especially those feminist shrikes who’d like you to think otherwise, engines of depraved sexuality who really want to belong to a dominant man — belong in the biblical and servitude sense — and that no indignity is off the table for them should the right badass come along and give them what they truly crave.

Pulp romance and sex novels like Fifty Shades of Grey are the female equivalent of male visual pornography; let there be no doubt, these books are female porn, as salacious and titillating for women as close-up jackhammering is for men. If you decry the one, you must decry the other if you have any interest in being perceived as fair-minded and consistent. But will you ever hear a media darling feminist call out these books for what they really are? Of course not. For what they really are is a technicolor ringside seat spectating into the soul of woman. Fantasy is a reflection of real world desire, and as much as it is true men would hardly hesitate to fulfill in real life a fantasy about intimately plowing a Victoria’s Secret model, it is equally true women wouldn’t hesitate to be the defiled bedroom slave of a charmingly sociopathic, powerful alpha male.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685169]

Think about this revelation for more than a Twitter’s length moment. These pulpy romance books targeted at female audiences are all implausibly similar; you will never encounter a plot line that deviates much from the universal script except in the most trivial details. There is a badboy. There is an indignation, or a series of indignations, to which the female “protagonist” consents or endures, and enjoys despite her conscious declaration to the contrary. There is a niceguy the woman feels bad about not loving. There are societal expectations that add drama to the proceedings. There is sexual surrender preceded by interminable verbal foreplay (the “close-up” for the female reader). And there are pages upon pages of delirious, exquisite hamstering.

Feminists rush to claim that these sordid female fantasies are just that: fantasy. But then why is it these books of female porn never showcase a woman having a torrid affair with an attentive, polite beta male who does the dishes and shows up for dates on time? If these desires were outcroppings of the realm of fantasy alone, severed from real desirous thoughts that can be acted upon, then reason dictates women in all their glorious individuality – nawalt, don’t you know! — would fantasize in the fantasy-dedicated lobes of their brains about a random assortment of scenarios and male archetypes. Yet the thematic universality persists.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685170]

The conclusion is obvious: women fantasize about the types of men they do (like the slavemaster from Fifty Shades) because, like men watching porn, it gets them off. And what one dreams about — or reads or watches — to get oneself off is thrillingly close to the same thing that gets one off in earthbound life where flesh meets actual flesh.

It’s a good thing beta males are being exposed to this raw look at female nature in ever greater numbers. From the mouths of (aging) babes. Chalk one up for the information superhighway and its unsupervised off-ramps kicking a peg from under the princess pedestal. Perhaps with this new, unsettling knowledge, more betas will train themselves to become alpha and in turn make more women happier and sexually fulfilled. Or perhaps this cadre of illuminated betas will drop out, resigned to their hopelessness and cynicism, and slowly, inexorably withdraw the funds and the mental fuel that prop up the de facto polygyny society in which they play little part except as mop-up crew after the main attraction has ended.

[Anonymous No.2685173]

>>2685072
Just curious, does /lit/ have a consensus on Ender's Game? I've been reading through it for the first time since middle school (im 19) and I'd like to hear some opinions

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685176]

Either way, the rouge has washed off this whore. The illusion is shattering. No one wants to be a dupe. My prediction is that women will regret having thrown the doors wide open on their whipped and gagged ids, invigorating hordes of disaffected or romantically noncommittal beta males in consequence. The losers in this game will rightly wonder what it has gotten them. And the heretics will say some roars were better left stifled.

In the meatime, as always…

[Anonymous No.2685177]

>>2685115
>The day before I left I spent the entire day searching for variations on "I have uploaded pictures of my naked sleeping girlfriend and now they seem to be everywhere"
HA

[Anonymous No.2685179]

>>2685166
>Make a serious debate on whether this literature is justifiable socially when dealing with human sexuality and relations.

>lol your penis is still small.

[Anonymous No.2685184]

>>2685167

>implying the alpha-beta dynamic applies to homo sapiens

[Anonymous No.2685190]

>>2685145

You're trolling, right?

[Anonymous No.2685196]

>>2685072
Who the fuck would want to in any given fantasy universe, though? You'd either be poor piece of shit or you'd learn to fight and go die for some king you don't give a fuck about. But then there's lolmagic

[Anonymous No.2685198]

>>2685179

But this debate was never serious. Are you utterly retarded?

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685199]

>>2685190
No, of course not.

[ferris !WNrWKtkPz. No.2685200]

i could care less about the rest of this thread, i don't think this is very good erotica or deserves the attention it's getting. i also don't begrudge women the desire to read it despite it's lack of quality, even when there's better-written smut out there (i'm not above looking at low-quality porn).

HOWEVER:
>>2685072

you cannot compare the two-dimensional twilight fanfic characters of shades of grey to enders game, or any of hundreds of excellent sci-fi/fantasy parables.

enders game in particular can hardly be dismissed as a "male-insertion fantasy" (nice word choice, sounds like you've got male insertion on your mind a lot lately).

the book goes in-depth into the concepts of the dual male/female nature inherent in human psychology, the differing levels of maturity in youth, the way adults decieve children for "the greater good", the innocence of a truly alien consciousness. in short, your ignorance is showing.

[Anonymous No.2685201]

Women are children. Except they are sexually aroused by being dominated.
>>2685112
>Roissy
I love you.

[Anonymous No.2685203]

>My penis is, in fact, not small.
>My penis is, in fact, not small.
>My penis is, in fact, not small.
>My penis is, in fact, not small.
>My penis is, in fact, not small.
>My penis is, in fact, not small.

Confirmed for beta faggot. Not whiteknight or woman, just a superior human being whose mind is to great to think people in to boxes based on their sex.
This is because of my big penis.

[Anonymous No.2685204]

>>2685200

>i could care less

Opinion invalidated.

[Anonymous No.2685205]

>>2685129
It's Roissy's blog. He absolutely shits on feminist bullshit regularly.

[Anonymous No.2685206]

>>2685201
>PUA shit

You're basically a reverse mangina.

[Anonymous No.2685210]

>>2685205

That sounds as if he is just making the pile of shit bigger.

[Anonymous No.2685228]

>>2685205

>It's Roissy's blog

I'm supposed to know who that is?

>He absolutely shits on feminist bullshit regularly.

Really? At a glance all I see is /fit/-tier drivel about "alphas" and "betas" and childish generalizations.

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of bullshit in third-wave feminism, but that blog just looks like something out of /fit/.

[Anonymous No.2685229]

Watch this video before buying into any Roissy pick-up artist nonsense

http://youtu.be/HT4dzJhvy-U

[Anonymous No.2685232]

>>2685125
>posts the correct answer
>is ignored entirely

[Anonymous No.2685233]

>>2685228
>Really? At a glance all I see is /fit/-tier drivel about "alphas" and "betas" and childish generalizations.

That's what PUA is about -- training yourself to give women whatever they want, while chaining your masculinity and self-worth to your ability to get pussy.

[Anonymous No.2685237]

Sadly even the hunger games had a sort of love-triangle thing which lets young teenaged girls think it's okay to have two choices in men.

[Anonymous No.2685238]

>2012
>not realizing most people, male and female, prefer to be dominated on some level.

Lead the way and hold my hand. Show me how to think. Protect me from what I want.

[Anonymous No.2685240]

>>2685206
Try reading his site before you make dumb generalizations.
>>2685210
That doesn't make sense. Stop trying to be clever.

[Anonymous No.2685243]

>>2685240
>Try reading his site before you make dumb generalizations.

I've read his site. The fact is that PUAs feel that their masculinity is validated by female approval. The only difference between you and manginas is that you are trying harder to get laid.

[Anonymous No.2685246]

>>2685229
I couldn't hear anything. What's it supposed to be?

The only people who insult game are the ones who don't understand it. They're like people who insult music theory because "you should just do what comes naturally".

[Anonymous No.2685248]

>>2685243
>The fact is that PUAs feel that their masculinity is validated by female approval.
Where at? Getting pussy is the goal of any non-faggot. Understanding women is obviously key to that goal. You don't even know what you're criticizing.

[Anonymous No.2685256]

>>2685248

>Getting pussy is the goal of any non-faggot.

[Anonymous No.2685259]

There's a lot of shitty male-oriented books. Like The Great Gatsby.
Hurr I'm rich and awesome SUDDENLY TRAGEDY
oh wow.

[Anonymous No.2685260]

>>2685248
>Where at? Getting pussy is the goal of any non-faggot.

What a simple creature you are.

[Anonymous No.2685263]

>>2685256
>>2685260
Oh I forgot you guys are too deep and profound to try to get laid. And you called ME a mangina LOL

[Anonymous No.2685271]

>>2685263
>Too deep to get laid

No. It's just that getting laid isn't all that hard, nor is it all that fulfilling. It's unfortunate that you've convinced yourself that it is.

The fact that you have to put yourself through all of these mental acrobatics just to talk to a girl is pathetic.

[Anonymous No.2685275]

Welcome to America! we only consume trash because we're so damn wasteful.

[Anonymous No.2685276]

In a world where millions of men are in debt and exonerated from their communities, forced into therapy and medication for their sexual addictions, 50 Shades of Grey has become a bestseller.

This feels Orwellian. They say something but mean the opposite. Then they validate themselves by saying it's fantasy. Then criticize because we don't know what they're thinking. But when we do we're sexist. But then they go out and get what they want anyway.
Fuck it I'm converting to gay.

[Anonymous No.2685281]

>>2685271

> HEY GUYS I CAN GET LAID TOO ITS FUCKING EASY I COULD FUCK LOADS OF BITCHES BUT I DONT WANT TO ALRIGHT

[Anonymous No.2685282]

>>2685271
>No. It's just that getting laid isn't all that hard
You can get hotter girls with game.
>nor is it all that fulfilling. It's unfortunate that you've convinced yourself that it is.
I've never once said that. Nor do I think it NEEDS to be fulfilling like you seem to assume. You're also ignoring the fact that game extends beyond pickup up girls and into relationship dynamics(which is primarily what Roissy writes about).
>The fact that you have to put yourself through all of these mental acrobatics just to talk to a girl is pathetic.
The fact that you don't want to put any effort into improving yourself is twice as pathetic.

If I want to make a lot of money, I do what I need to to get it. If I want to become a better cook, I do what I need to to improve my skills. If I want to have sex with hot girls, of course I'm going to try and do what I can to get it. I'll learn a thing or 2 in the process too.

[Anonymous No.2685288]

>>2685282
I have a GF who I love.
Why do you idolize Pauly D?

[Anonymous No.2685292]

>>2685276
Because that's what feminism is about. Expanding female privilege. Women have 0 accountability for anything they do. Molest a kid? It's okay, she was forced to by her boyfriend. Murder her husband? It's okay, he was abusive. False rape accusation? Slap on the wrist.

Women are overprivileged children and the only reason they're getting away with it is because men have a biological urge to spoil and protect them.

[Anonymous No.2685293]

>>2685198
>Still deflecting.

[Anonymous No.2685299]

>>2685282

>improving yourself

That's what you call learning how to manipulate people?

[Anonymous No.2685307]

>>2685288
My goal isn't to have sex with one woman. I'm sorry your sex drive is so low that that's all you can strive for. Maybe after she cheats on you for being a beta loser you'll see the light.

[Anonymous No.2685310]

>>2685292

>Because that's what feminism is about. Expanding female privilege

That's like saying Islam is about killing infidels.

Or that the animal rights movement is about torching laboratories.

[Anonymous No.2685312]

>>2685299
Everyone manipulates everyone. As long as you're not being dishonest, I see no issue with it.

By your logic, the nice guy who wears a Metallica t shirt to get the attention of the girl he likes that he knows likes Metallica is being "manipulative". Stop talking like you know anything about game.

[Anonymous No.2685315]

>>2685310
Feminism has reached its goals and is now going for total social control. That's why they're bitching about petty things like whether or not they can go topless because men can. Anyone who identifies themselves as a feminist at this point is essentially a fascist pushing for complete cultural domination.

[Anonymous No.2685317]

>>2685246
Check your sound. The video has audio. I'm not going to repeat everything he says in the video.

[Anonymous No.2685323]

>>2685307
Right, PUA goals are to sleep with tons of women and thus increase their chances of contracting an STD, getting slapped with a false rape accusation, being lied to by a minor and becoming a sex offender, etc.

[Anonymous No.2685324]

>>2685317
It's very quiet so I can't hear it over the TV my nephew is watching. Surely if the argument is sound, you don't need someone else to argue it for you? Sum it up for me.

[Anonymous No.2685334]

>>2685312

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right

[Anonymous No.2685340]

>>2685323
I'm sorry you're too much of a vagina to understand male sexuality.

[Anonymous No.2685343]

>>2685248
>Where at?

The emphasis on drawing a distinction between alpha and beta males, i.e., males that do and do not get pussy, and shaming and devaluing beta males. The result is that one's masculinity is validated when he is able to get enough skanks to spread their legs for him. PUA masculinity is tied to the responses of women to their actions.

>Getting pussy is the goal of any non-faggot.

Sure, almost all straight men want to get laid. The problem is that this should be put into its proper place, behind other goals, other pursuits, behind male freedom from female manipulation. By going through all of the shit you do to get pussy, you're training yourself to give women what they (consciously or unconsciously) want. YOU are putting pussy on a pedestal. YOU are enslaving yourself to your biological urges and inadvertently allowing women to control you.

>Understanding women is obviously key to that goal.

Right, you figure out women, and then you give in to whatever bullshit they want. They are in control.

[Anonymous No.2685348]

>>2685340
It sucks that you are too alpha to think through the consequences of your actions, given our volatile misandrist society.

[Anonymous No.2685346]

>>2685315

You do realize feminism isn't a single movement anymore? And that feminists of different camps argue against other feminists?

>Anyone who identifies themselves as a feminist at this point is essentially a fascist pushing for complete cultural domination.

Again you're taking the actions of radicals and implicating everyone in the group as if they're responsible.

[Anonymous No.2685351]

>>2685334
My point was that everyone "manipulates" others every day. It's normal and not immoral unless someone is using it deceptively.

Finding out what women truly desire and fulfilling it isn't manipulation any more than making jokes to a group of people because you want them to accept you.

And even then, women learn to manipulate men from puberty. A handful of guys turning the table isn't the end of the world.

[Anonymous No.2685357]

>>2685346
There's nothing left for feminists to fight for in most western countries. They have equal rights under the government. They're officially useless as a political group for anything but social control.

Perhaps feminists should focus on liberating oppressed muslim women rather than bitching about "male-centric language" and slut shaming.

[Anonymous No.2685359]

>>2685281
>BUT I DONT WANT TO ALRIGHT

I never said or implied that. I just find that having sex isn't as rewarding as others make it out to be. I don't think I'm alone in feeling like this.

>>2685282
>You can get hotter girls with game.
My game must be pretty good, then.
>The fact that you don't want to put any effort into improving yourself is twice as pathetic.
Who said that? I work out, eat healthy, go to school, and have a shitton of goals.

I respect your "if you want to get better at ___, then do ___" mentality and understand it. I just don't see the point in a lot of the PUA stuff. Wouldn't it kind of lead to a jadedness (similar to the one I already have) about sex, anyway?

[Anonymous No.2685370]

This just means every woman wants to be treated like a whore in bed and fantasize about rape.

[Anonymous No.2685373]

>>2685357

But slut shaming is a real problem. People get disowned by their families because of the slut shaming in our culture and it can even lead to suicides. And it's all for nothing.

[Anonymous No.2685374]

>>2685359
You're saying the kinds of things I used to say when I was a virgin. Hated having to hide that.

[Anonymous No.2685375]

>>2685357
>They have equal rights under the government.

No they do not. The balance has simply shifted to cater to females more than males.

[Anonymous No.2685376]

>>2685359
>Who said that?
You're criticizing players for trying to fulfill their natural male biological desires by learning female psychology and gender dynamics. Simply because their goals aren't the same as yours. I rightfully pointed out that your goals are closer to a woman's than a man's, and you ignore that and insist my desires are wrong, despite men being biologically inclined to feel like I do.

Essentially, you're demonizing male sexuality just like the feminists.

[Anonymous No.2685377]

>>2685373
No, they don't. And 90% of suicide is young men.

[Anonymous No.2685379]

>>2685374
You know you sound exactly like a feminist right? When a male argues with them, their first tactics are sexual insults, such as calling him a virgin, that he just needs to get laid, etc. It is just further proof that you are no different from them.

[Anonymous No.2685383]

>>2685379
That was my first comment here. Just dropping by. Don't even know what you're arguing about. You seem anti pua stuff.

[Anonymous No.2685386]

>>2685383
Correct. I believe MGTOW is much better philosophy.

[Anonymous No.2685392]

>>2685374
And you're saying the kinds of things I used to say within my first year of having sex.

>>2685376

You're also biologically capable of thinking beyond your base sex drive. You don't have to kneel at the alter of your testosterone level. You're capable of doing much more with your time. And I didn't demonize shit. I posted, like, twice in this thread.

[Anonymous No.2685393]

>>2685373
Slut shaming has a good purpose. Look at this single mom epidemic. You can easily blame "deadbeat dads" for this, but when you look at the fact that the woman ultimately decides who she will or won't have sex with and has more birth control options, the blame lies more with her.

Females choosing sexual partners haphazardly is going to be the death of our civilization.
>>2685375
Well yeah I misspoke. I just meant they have the rights they fought for(and more).

[Anonymous No.2685394]

>>2685383
>Contributing to a discussion while not understanding/reading the discussion.
Either leave the thread or read some posts before adding comments.

[Anonymous No.2685400]

>>2685377

>No, they don't.

Uhh, you think every pornstar's parents are going to be okay with their career choice?

Pornstars are seen as trash by a huge amount of people. There's damage that slut shaming causes right there. Of course male pornstars are looked down upon too so it's not a female-only problem.

[Anonymous No.2685402]

God damn, some of you sound as backwards as my Grandpa in this thread. And he spent most of his time screaming about "niggers" on the evening news.

[Anonymous No.2685403]

>>2685392
>You're also biologically capable of thinking beyond your base sex drive. You don't have to kneel at the alter of your testosterone level.
What are the benefits to holding off? Blue balls? Not enjoying my nights out and fucking the amazing girls I used to just stare at from afar? You seem to be trying to justifying your monogamy because you know deep down you desire more.

Monogamy is honorable, and is actually important to a healthy society. Unfortunately, our society cannot go back to monogamy. If you're doing it because it's the "right thing", you're fighting a losing battle. May as well ride the wave to the end.

[Anonymous No.2685413]

>>2685402
Your grandpa wasn't brainwashed by political correctness from birth. We're able to think outside of the mainstream feminist propaganda. Books like this prove our point for us.

Maybe instead of disregarding what he says you should have some respect for his traditional wisdom, even if it is harsh and sometimes hateful. Better than rejecting it all because you dislike his tone.

[Anonymous No.2685416]

>>2685403
>Unfortunately, our society cannot go back to monogamy.

Not him, but I must agree with PUAs here. "Traditional" relationships are just as bad as modern relationships, as both are based around the female using the man for labor, and financial and social mobility. The traditional relationship is about the women laying around at home living a life of comparative luxury while the man works to death to pay for his live-in prostitute, and children he never sees. It's about men dying in war so that their wives can watch TV and cheat on them while they're overseas. Doesn't mean that PUA is the answer, though. The whole system is corrupt and must be abandoned. You have to stop giving such importance to sex and liberate yourself from the game women are playing with you. I'm not saying become celibate, but put sex beneath your other goals, and don't give into the things that women want from you. Otherwise you are putting yourself back into the grinder just like before, except this time with a nice illusion that you're in control.

[Anonymous No.2685419]

>>2685413

I was referring to the people you were arguing with.

Easy, you're not backed in a corner. We're not all nails...

[Anonymous No.2685420]

>>2685393

>Look at this single mom epidemic. You can easily blame "deadbeat dads" for this, but when you look at the fact that the woman ultimately decides who she will or won't have sex with and has more birth control options, the blame lies more with her.

So what? We should continue illogical, barbaric persecution because it might lead to less single moms?

>Females choosing sexual partners haphazardly is going to be the death of our civilization.

How so?

[Anonymous No.2685421]

>>2685403
Not the guy you were responding to.

I think what was meant was not so much avoiding this monogamous lifestyle all-together, more so of not chaining yourself to your sex drive. Getting laid on a regular basis is fine (and healthy) but making it the focal point of your life and goals is unhealthy. Humans didn't get to where we are to just rub our genitals together all day.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685426]

Beta males are rarely in a position to witness the worst of women.

Put yourself in the typical beta male’s shoes. He spends a goodly chunk of his horniest years — teens to mid 20s — when holes in watermelons look like acceptable vagina substitutes, pining for ethereal hot chicks who don’t pay him a lick of attention as they swoop by him on a cloud of incandescent purity. He sees them only from afar, where his imagination is free to feverishly fill in the gaps with only the most pleasant assumptions about his dreamgirls. When the rare communication does occur, she is as nice and kind as a saint to him. He is too smitten to recognize the hint of pity and condescension laced in her polite chat.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685429]

Later, usually college, he fumbles his way through awkward social interactions with plainer janes, the great majority of which end up with him being used for emotional sponging and ball-twisting, torturous friendships. All these girls are exceedingly, superficially kind to him because, after all, why look a gift herb in the mouth? A girl loves beta male attention, as long as it’s platonic, on her terms, extractive, and focused on feeding her ego. Naturally, these girl-friends never talk about their sex lives with the beta, never reveal what really goes on behind closed doors, and never invite the beta to join them on any adventures that really matter to him. Contrary to media popularization, betas rarely hear “This one time, at band camp…” from girls in their social circles. What they often hear instead are requests for help with term papers.

[Anonymous No.2685431]

>>2685067
Here.

I tried to warn you niggas. You didn't listen. It didn't have to be like this.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685432]

Then, due more to a combination of luck and (ovulation cycle) timing rather than bold effort or charm, the inoffensive beta male might find himself in a fledgling relationship with some semi-cute shut-in nearly as awkward as he and already past her beauty prime. She really likes him and treats him well… more sincerely than the cuter girls who made a sport of cockteasing him at any rate… but like ‘Rat’ Ratner from ‘Fast Times’, he labors for months and months waiting patiently for her to put out. For reasons beyond the beta’s ken, she is an extremely modest girl. He interprets her chasteness as evidence of women’s all-round goodness and saintliness, but of course he is sorta pissed off that she won’t satisfy him without months of “getting to know each other” warming up. When he finally does bust that cherry, after painful years wandering the celibate desert, it’s all he can do to stop himself mentally affixing a halo atop his girlfriend’s head, and pronouncing all women the undistilled essence of goodness.

[Anonymous No.2685433]

>>2685420
>How so?
Not the greatest example do to sampling bias but look at all the shitty threads on /r9k/ with the men there getting fucked over by women. It makes a lot of men really cynical and jaded towards the idea of relationships and being with women in general. I don't want to "white-knight" but surely most must see that the "nice guys" are a better long term investment than the PUA's that want pump and dump.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685434]

A few pitiable betas, like those with bitch tits, horizontally stretched navels, and receding chins who wear ‘this is what a feminist looks like’ t-shirts, get trapped in sporadically sexual relationships with manjawed femcunts at grad school, mostly because long-winded bull sessions among their kind occasionally spin up enough libidinous energy to resolve in PBR-fueled late night groping, which is promptly regretted and/or rationalized by one or both parties the next morning, usually the girl.

Eventually, the beta male gets married, and his lack of experience — one to three lifetime “partners” (and I use the term loosely) is the norm — has cultivated in him a strong inability to read women’s signals, which sometimes leads him into blissful ignorance where infidelities can linger for years unnoticed, and “Surprise! I have a divorce paper!” gambits accost him like hammer blows to the head. Mostly, though, he floats through his marriage thinking the best of his wife, and worst of himself should feelings turn sour or the sex dry up. Because this is just what men are supposed to do when a woman is less than happy: take the blame. Women are the weaker sex, after all.

[Anonymous No.2685436]

>>2685420
>So what? We should continue illogical, barbaric persecution because it might lead to less single moms?
Calling girls who fuck around haphazardly and have bastard children is "illogical, barbaric persecution"? They should consider themselves lucky we only call them that behind their back.
>How so?
Kids raised without a father are more likely to become criminals or sluts. There are plenty of other risks as well.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685437]

Sixteen Commandments Of Poon

>>Women want to feel like they have to overcome obstacles to win a man’s heart… The man who gives his emotional world away too easily robs women of the satisfaction of earning his love. Though you may be in love with her, don’t say it before she has said it.


The Red and the Black
>>He was astonished by the sorrow in her eyes; it was so intense that he scarcely recognized them. He felt his strength abandoning him, so mortally painful was the act of courage he was imposing on himself. “Those eyes will soon express nothing but cold disdain,” he thought, “if I give into the joy of loving her.”

Sixteen Commandments Of Poon

>>Make her jealous. Flirt with other women in front of her. Do not dissuade other women from flirting with you. Women will never admit this but jealousy excites them. The thought of you turning on another woman will arouse her sexually. No girl wants a man that no other woman wants.

The Red and the Black

>>“Answer me at least,” she said at length in a supplicating tone of voice, but without daring to look at him. …”So Madame de Fervaques has stolen your heart from me…Has she made for you all the sacrifices to which my fatal love led me?”
>>A gloomy silence was Julien’s only answer.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685438]

Roissy
>>Give your woman 2/3 of everything she gives you… Give her two displays of affection and stop until she has answered with three more. When she speaks, you reply with fewer words. When she emotes, you emote less… Refraining from reciprocating everything she does for you in equal measure instills in her the proper attitude of belief in your higher status. In her deepest loins it is what she truly wants.

Stendhal
>>Julien abandoned himself to his great happiness only at times when Mathilde could not read it in his eyes. He scrupulously performed the duty of addressing a few harsh words to her from time to time. Whenever her sweetness, which he observed with astonishment, and her unquestioning devotion to him were about to rob him of all his self-control, he had the courage to leave her abruptly.

Roissy
>>Keep her guessing. True to their inscrutable natures, women ask questions they don’t really want direct answers to. Woe be the man who plays it straight – his fate is the suffering of the beta. Evade, tease, obfuscate. She thrives when she has to imagine what you’re thinking about her, and withers when she knows exactly how you feel.

Stendhal
>>He knew very well that the next morning, by eight o’clock, Mathilde would be in the library; he did not go there until nine o’clock, burning with love, but with his head dominating his heart. Not one minute went by, perhaps, without his repeating to himself, “I must keep her constantly occupied with this great doubt: ‘Does he love me?’ Her brilliant position, and the flattery of everyone who speaks to her, make her a little too sure of herself.”

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685440]

So you see, in the final analysis, it is very likely, by dint of the beta male’s ignorance, inexperience and habituated veneration of women and reflexive indulgence of women’s motives, that his view of women is severely constricted, child-like in its naivete. The beta male is not privy to what Tyler Durden famously called the secret society of women. He was never invited, and he was never apprised of the secret society’s goings-on by any woman in his life. He lives in a pinched world with only a peephole to the wonders beyond, given him not by insight but by stumbling into depravity or by the good grace of a sympathetic alpha male. As far as he knows, women don’t have much sex, and they are very nice and polite most of the time.

The beta male pedestalizes women because one, that’s all women have deigned to show him of their sexual inner world, and two, he cannot bear the contrary thought, affirming and cementing as it does his lackluster place on the sexual totem pole. (He is mired down in the sticky pubes, his vision obscured, while alphas dance joyously at the tip of the glans.)

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685442]

As for the women, those few who have not experienced the thrill of the alpha male often are nearly as chaste as the beta imagines, because they have never been tempted. All they know are a parade of beta males, whom they lash out at occasionally for unwittingly stifling their truest desires, but who, for the most part, they treat in a nontoxic manner that buttresses heavenly notions about their secretive natures. A woman is ever aware of the precariousness of her reputation, and this goes double in rural outposts of heavy religiosity.

And so the beta male has his crimped worldview confirmed by the asexual, undersexual women in his life. But should he ever step outside his empillowed existence… take that daring step into the gritty, grimy world where the female id roams free across fruited plains of phalluses… screw up the courage of heart to face head-on the previously unimaginable… he will find that a bigger universe has existed all along, enveloping the bubble of his life, surging with unleashed energies just out of his reach like uterine aurorae, and if his soul isn’t killed dead right then from shock, he’ll cross the boundary into this new world — he won’t really have a choice — and never look back.

[Anonymous No.2685444]

>>2685434
I fucking love Roissy.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685446]

Nor ever again blindly assume the purest of women’s motivations. The stronger among them do with this newfound knowledge the following: acknowledge, accept, incorporate, delimit. He rules his knowledge, but he does not let it rule him.

Such boundary crossing is rare. The beta and alpha male worlds are almost as separate and distinct now as they have been since the dawn of anonymous urban living. Though that is changing.

If betas knew what alphas experience, it would blow their minds. Completely, utterly. Out from under the judgmental Eye of Proper Society, equipped with the requisite beauty to pay the price of admission, the wild female libido is insatiable, crass, debased. It is willing to surrender to the most vile sexual plunderings, screaming in ecstatic pleasure at every enthusiastically welcome violation. Women of the sweetest daytime dispositions and most innocent countenances — smartly coifed women in demure business suits who expound drily on cost-revenue projections and wait tidily in lines for healthy lunch alternatives — will unleash vaginal hell in the arms of alpha lovers, squirting glorious love over dominant men who swap them like baseball cards, presenting like beasts in heat for throbbing units in dank dive bar restrooms, casually spreading as far as they can go in locked office rooms for illicit lovers, giggling in breathy whispers in their lovers’ ear about the clear and present danger of getting caught, deliberately effusing a fake sorrow for the cheated-on boyfriend back home unawares, bemusing wistfully about a history of letting alpha lovers snort coke off her ass while claiming another headache to evade hubby’s entreaties.

[Anonymous No.2685448]

Sure is spam ITT.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685449]

Beta males never see this world. To them, it doesn’t exist. And that’s exactly how women want it.

There was a time, way back when I was a stripling, that I imagined a world full of slutty girls would be a boon for beta males. Experience with sluts has shown me otherwise. While they may be less discriminating in how often and how quickly they spread their legs, their rebuke of natural female restraint doesn’t necessarily translate to a similar rebuke of choosiness. Bad news for the betas: Sluts are slutty, just not with you. Sluts share the same target acquisition system for the top 20% of males as all women do. Hypergamy uber alles.

[Anonymous No.2685450]

>>2685434
>>2685432
>>2685429
>>2685426
whoever wrote this is bitter
as
fuck

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685451]

Reader Tupac left this comment:

Even if the women only garner a few pump-n-dumps out of such men, they are now keyed in on tenor, timber, warp and weft of the day-to-day life habits of such men and in so doing acquire a more finely honed radar for lesser men who don’t “make the cut.”

True. It may seem counterintuitive, but a loose, cavernous chick will often be *less* forthcoming with her sexual favors if the man she is with exhibits the tentative meekness of a beta.

Reader Arpagus:

And thus it comes to pass that sluts tend to be *more* picky than women with few prior partners, in a kind of twisted paradoxical way. If you are beta, don’t get your hopes up because a woman has had 80 sex partners. Someone with 5 is more likely to sleep with you, perhaps even a virgin.

Sluts may be pickier than chaste women about weeding out the betas, due to their spoiling from illusory experiences with alpha males, but they are far less modest within the circle of alphas for whom they readily part their furrows. That is why, when you hear a girl has racked up 80 partners, you should make the necessary qualification: She has racked up 80 alpha male partners who used her like a convenient sperm receptacle until something better came along.

[Anonymous No.2685456]

>>2685433

>It makes a lot of men really cynical and jaded towards the idea of relationships and being with women in general.

That's a dumb leap of logic for them to make so I feel no sympathy for them.

>but surely most must see that the "nice guys" are a better long term investment than the PUA's that want pump and dump.

A lot of these so-called "nice guys" are not really that nice.

Some of them are the kind who are always whining about the friendzone and think that being friends with a female is a "waste of time" if they aren't going to fuck you.

[Anonymous No.2685453]

>>2685450
It's Roissy. He's fucking amazing. Nails it every time.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685454]

Sluts may be pickier than chaste women about weeding out the betas, due to their spoiling from illusory experiences with alpha males, but they are far less modest within the circle of alphas for whom they readily part their furrows. That is why, when you hear a girl has racked up 80 partners, you should make the necessary qualification: She has racked up 80 alpha male partners who used her like a convenient sperm receptacle until something better came along.

Naturally, as you slide down the female attractiveness scale (but before you hit the 2s and below), you’ll find more sluts, and sluts more willing to slum it with betas and omegas, because easy access to their wet holes is all they have left to barter. This explains the phenomenon of fat chicks getting more sex than hot slender babes. In response to someone’s contention that fat girls have all the fun, I wrote the following comment over at the FeministX blog:

more precisely, [fat chicks] are too busy getting pumped and dumped. fat chicks have higher cock counts because in their desperation to snag a loyal boyfriend they open their thunder thighs for all and sundry hoping the easy access will win a man’s heart. the higher value women can afford to be more discriminating.

[Anonymous No.2685457]

Hey /lit/

Why do posters get so swept up in this garbage?

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685458]

There’s more bad news for betas hoping to drain their blue balls in sluts. Not only are sluts more apt to restrict their no muss no fuss sexual favors to high(er) status men, they find it harder to emotionally bond with men, particularly men who are lower status than the highest status men they fucked. This isn’t entirely the sluts’ fault. If blame is to be placed, it should go equally to the alpha males who occasionally dumpster dive with less attractive women. There is no surer way to raise a woman’s hopes of winning a high quality boyfriend than to have an alpha seduce her for a night, give her the hottest sex she’s had in years, and then leave in the morning and not call back for weeks. Once a woman has had that faint hope instilled in her, she can go months or even years rejecting more suitable beta males in favor of pining forlornly for that one alpha male who will certainly, she tells herself, come around and decide she’s a catch worthy of commitment. And the sluttier she has been, the more fly-by-night alpha males she’ll have lodged in her memory to pine over.

Once a woman has had that faint hope instilled in her, she can go months or even years rejecting more suitable beta males in favor of pining forlornly for that one alpha male who will certainly, she tells herself, come around and decide she’s a catch worthy of commitment. And the sluttier she has been, the more fly-by-night alpha males she’ll have lodged in her memory to pine over.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685463]

A few years of getting her heart broken again and again, and even the most romantically idealistic slut will turn crassly cynical. And cynicism is the venom that slowly clots the lifeblood of love.

Interestingly, this is further proof that female obesity, just as much as the other factors I’ve written about, has heavily (heh) skewed the mating market against the interests of the average man. Not only does a growing mass (double heh) of fat women result in fewer acceptable partners for men and thus more intense competition for the remaining thin babes, but the fatties have likely poisoned their ability to bond with men because of their history of getting pumped and dumped by promiscuous alphas.

The fate of America may very well hinge on getting her women to push away from the table.

[Anonymous No.2685465]

>>2685457
Because feminism has become a cancer. Its end is nearing as more and more men(and some women) wake up to its bullshit.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685468]

here’s a reason why Silvio Berlusconi won the first ever Chateau Alpha Male Cage Match by a whopping length + girth. This paesan is a ladykiller. Further cementing Silvio’s alpha status, Ray Sawhill (formerly of 2BLowhards) sent along this article about a former Miss Montenegro beauty queen who admitted having a two year affair with Silvio. She met him two years ago when she was 18 and he was… 73. And how does Katarina feel about the age gap?

She said: ‘In love age is not important – an extraordinary person like him could be 100 years old, it would have no effect on me, he would have still struck me.’


Any regular of this blog will not be surprised by her admission. Chicks dig power above all other male attractiveness traits. Male power truly is distilled aphrodisia. A woman will present for a powerful, charming man as quickly as a man will spring a boner for a hot, young, slender, naked babe. Of course, her statement needs a qualifier to retain accuracy: In love age is not important… if you are an alpha male with compensating attractiveness traits. Plenty of boring betas grind out their wheezy decades inspiring no love in any younger women.

[Anonymous No.2685469]

>>2685456
>Some of them are the kind who are always whining about the friendzone and think that being friends with a female is a "waste of time" if they aren't going to fuck you.

Well, it is. A woman's role is the fulfilling of masculine sexual desire and the biological nurturing of the young. They are not meant to be your "friends."

[Anonymous No.2685470]

>>2685453
Not really. It's utterly retarded to understand the misandry of women and yet still continue dealing with them in relationships because it gets your dick wet. They are your enemies.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685476]

*A similar, albeit attenuated, feeling occurs in men, when our fondest memories veer all the way back to our first tender kiss or first intimate penetration. This memory exerts its power in men for a different reason than women’s memories do with their alpha flings; men’s first loves are often girls in their mid to late teens (or perhaps early to mid-20s for the late bloomers) when their feminine beauty and mannerism radiates at its absolute brightest. Searing beauty leaves a scorching imprint on the male brain. However, the recollection of such memories are usually less stable and permanent for men than they are for women recalling times spent with alpha males, because men who have even a modicum of experience with women have enjoyed many, many years of prime pussy, thus diluting the impact of their earliest memories.

Women, on the other hand, will often go decades in the beta wilderness trying to recapture the feeling they had with their alpha loves, hopping from one cad cock to another. Men are simply less interchangeable as lovers for women than women are interchangeable as lovers for men. It is for this reason that a fling with an alpha male will ruin a woman for all future men. A man, in contrast, is rarely ruined for all future women when he has a fling with a hot chick, unless he suffers a status and confidence drop so precipitous that the kinds of women he attracts are two or more points lower on the beauty ranking scale than his best past lover.

Women, on the other hand, will often go decades in the beta wilderness trying to recapture the feeling they had with their alpha loves

decades

wilderness

;_;

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685473]

And for the cynics, I have no doubt Katarina loves (note: I did not say “loved”) Silvio, to the depth of her soul. Hers is real love, not fake golddigger love one so often sees when a hot chick marries a rich beta. Women’s love circuits are wired differently than men’s; a woman’s love will erupt and ensconce an apex male like Silvio, and it will be a genuine love, in much the same way a man’s love will rush out from him unbidden for a beautiful young woman.

One of the comments from a female commenter is particularly enlightening.

The allure of a powerful man like Berlusconi is something people are quick to discount unless they’ve been in the presence of one. I had an affair with a very powerful, high-profile (unmarried) politician when he was 65 and I was 18. Age didn’t matter because he was electric. He knew everything and was energectic in a way I’d never seen in boys my age, and his appetite for life was insatiable. Decades later as a long-married wife and mother I still remember him often, and quite fondly.

Five minutes of alpha floods the female brain with pleasant memories quicker than decades of beta.* I wonder how her husband would feel knowing that, despite decades of shared marital moments and children’s first words, she still warmly recalls an affair she had with a 65 year old alpha male at the ripe peak of her attractiveness? Hallmark doesn’t make cards for remembrances like that.

[Anonymous No.2685478]

>>2685436

>Calling girls who fuck around haphazardly and have bastard children

Wow hold on there sport, "slut" only refers to the fucking around haphazardly part, not the having bastard children part. That's just something that happens to irresponsible people, and in fact, I don't see why it's more likely to happen to sluts than regular folk, as sluts are usually pretty keen on their birth control.

>Kids raised without a father are more likely to become criminals

Yep.

>or sluts.

There's nothing wrong with being a slut though.

[Anonymous No.2685479]

>>2685476
Will you stop spamming please? Just link to whatever it is you're posting.

[Anonymous No.2685483]

>>2685456
You brought up a lot of the counter-arguments that I was thinking of actually! I will admit a lot of the stuff I presented was faulty at best because:
>sampling bias
>/r9k/

Don't worry, I don't side with the /r9k/ beta whining, I just felt like trying to argue for them. I don't side with the PUA's either. I personally think that both sides have their merits that are unfortunately outweighed by all the bullshit that they present along with it.

[Anonymous No.2685487]

>>2685483
You should look into MGTOW. It is the only sensible answer IMO.

[Anonymous No.2685489]

>>2685469

>In my dream world the woman's role would be the fulfilling of masculine sexual desire and the biological nurturing of the young

Fix'd

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685490]

Original content:

The sum of all the text in the Roissy archive adds up to something like an 800 page novel, comments not included. The biggest problem with a discussion of the validity of his hypotheses is that these are probably the touchiest issues that can possibly be discussed since the interests of the participants are directly affected unlike the participants in the discussion of economic policy e.g. even if everyone agrees that communism is cool or that welfare programs should be abolished the rich guy or the poor guy isn’t going to suffer directly or immediately since the conversation in the room isn’t going to affect actual policy while the discussion of status hierarchies and seduction tactics and the marriageability of a slut can literally change a person’s status and moral worth if one side wins the argument, rendering everything ugly really fast and destroying the “good mood” and replacing it with a hostile atmosphere. Because of these barriers (a very, very high “barrier to entry”) this is incredibly hard to discuss. This discussion makes all women uncomfortable, and men who have girlfriends, mothers, sisters, etc, that might not “live up to the standard”, avoid the subject too. My mother was a virgin when she married and she’s only had sex with my father her entire life (she hasn’t dated anyone since the divorce) but I’m sure for the majority of men that’s not the case with their mother, and most men aren’t heartless/detached enough to make a disinterested judgment on their own family.

[Anonymous No.2685492]

>>2685487
>Men Going Their Own Way
Sounds interesting, will look into it! Does it basically amount to "do what you love, give no fucks and life will mean more for you."?

[Anonymous No.2685494]

>>2685456
>>2685489
In other words you want a live in prostitute who will leech off of you for the rest of your life, sit around in comfort while you spend your days working, and hate you for not being around enough.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685495]

“The only question of importance, of course, is whether Heidegger’s teaching is true or not. But the very question is deceptive because it is silent about the question of competence—of who is competent to judge. Perhaps only great thinkers are really competent to judge the thought of great thinkers. Heidegger made a distinction between philosophers and those for whom philosophy is identical with the history of philosophy. He made a distinction, in other words, between the thinker and the scholar.” – Leo Strauss, on Martin Heidegger

Given my lack of experiences it seems that I am disqualified entirety, but further thinking put that to rest. A single person’s experiences rarely exceed the number that it takes to be “statistically significant” i.e. scientific. If women have a median of 4 sex partners in the US and the male medium is even lower, how is the average man, or even most men, suppose to make any judgment at all? How can women make a judgment, since they lack self-knowledge (men do as well)? A single woman is not representative of her entire sex, nor does she know the underlying principles that may drive their actions. I now find it silly that guys try to glean knowledge from girls. You don’t ask the tiger in captivity how to capture tigers, you ask the successful hunter (repulsive analogy, does the trick).

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685498]

It seems like there are only one group of men really “fit to judge”, lotharios who have managed to attract and date pretty girls. Now this appears shallow (cue in comic of “nice guy” who’s actually an asshole who only cares about pretty girls) but the simple truth is the men are attracted to pretty girls, and the actions of pretty girls are the only representative choices for the attributes most attractive to women since only pretty girls have their selection of the guys. They are free to choose, while plain girls don’t have that option. You can’t tell if a guy is a profligate or materialistic if he’s poor, because he doesn’t have that privilege. You can’t tell if a plain girl isn’t “into assholes or jerks” because the same assholes and jerks probably never hit on said plain girl. “Why don’t you stop paying attention to all the hot sluts, etc, and date plain girls who like nice guys” just doesn’t refute anything. Of course, even though I knew my limits on balance the argument were overwhelmingly persuasive, and I was 95% convinced. Roissy, as a prose stylist, is simply the best blogger I’ve ever read. He arms his writing with the wittiest figures of speech, his lexical mastery of the vernacular is astounding, and the incisiveness of his analyses trumps all accusations of “generalization”. Roissy taxonomizes, he doesn’t generalize. He doesn’t say that there is a single “right way” to approach a women, he will list 15 different ways and grades them from A to F.

[Anonymous No.2685499]

>>2685470
It's called not being gay. Women aren't our enemies. Feminism is. Women and men form a symbiotic relationship. Feminism turned that on its head by making women try to be men.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685501]

Epistemology of the Novel and the Work of Art

I had a profound moment of revelation when I finished “Madame Bovary” and “Portrait of a Lady” consecutively within a span of three weeks. Everything “fits”. Every gesture, every word, was a demonstration of one of the principles of “Game”. Emma’s fantasies and self-flagellating and delusional love of Roldolphe, Lord Warburton and Caspard Goodwood’s mistakes while courting Isabel Archer, Julien Sorel’s seduction of Mathilde de la Mole. (I didn’t put my analysis of Madame Bovary or Portrait of a Lady on paper, I just read it through, but I’m just reading Middlemarch and it’s getting old so I decided to document it, if you finish Roissy and read the two novels you’ll see how everything fits together).

Every single of dialogue, every commentary on the heroine’s interiority, fitted perfectly with some Roissyesque maxim or hypothesis. The pieces of the puzzle finally fit together. If there’s any 19th century novel to read it’s Madame Bovary. Emmas contempt for Charles, her doting, loving husband, is one of the most sickening things I’ve read in all of literature. And yet, millions of women like, even love, this novel. This novel is considered one of the greatest novels of all time, and it’s a perennial favorite among writers, critics, and women who read. They empathize with the heroine and share her hopes and dreams. In no way am I accusing every single woman of being an “Emma Bovary”, but its perennial popularity must be examined. Nothing is without a cause.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685508]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2004/jan/17/classics.henryjames

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/jul/27/classics.asbyatt

http://orangeraisin.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/the-red-and-the-black/

How was it possible that novels written more than a hundred years ago perfected conformed to a modern day fringe theory? This sort of intersection, the meeting of the minds, if not an indication of the truth of the matter, is one of the strangest, most bizarre coincidences in world history (being hyperbolic, but stay with me here). This got me thinking about the epistemology of the novel.

Judging a work of art is a two way street. People judge the work of art, literature, film, etc, by how “true to life” it is, but when a work of art survives the passage of time it gains authority by virtue of its very immortality. 99.5% of all the books ever published in the Victorian era are out of print, so there should be a damn good reason why certain books are still widely read today. My hypothesis is that the “classics” are a “locus of truth” because the artist, at least the artist of the psychological novel, has been able to, by serendipitous accident while in the process of trying to depict life honestly, made an incredibly deep penetration of the human condition and its testified by the fact that new generations of readers are able to emphasize what is written and find their own fateful sentiments latent in these novels. Aristotle said in Nicomachean ethics that the Great-Souled Man seeks to obtain “lasting works of art” in his home because it is the “most noble”. I would add “the most truthful”.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685510]

Great works of art, the “classics” last for a reason. The reason is simple; people like reading it. However, most literature, especially the most popular literature, doesn’t last (see: penny dreadfuls). No one reads Grace Metalious anymore even though her book sold 22 million over the course of 2 years in the 1950s. Great works of art are the most “true to life” over the course of different generations, and are a locus of truth and an authority on human nature.

http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/5653/the-art-of-fiction-no-189-stephen-king

“And then I say to myself, I bet they do. Some of these guys, the college professors—the guy, say, whose idea of literature really stopped with Henry James, but he’ll get kind of a frozen smile on his face if you talk about Faulkner or Steinbeck—they’re stupid about American fiction and they’ve turned their stupidity into a virtue. They don’t know who Calder Willingham was. They don’t know who Sloan Wilson was. They don’t know who Grace Metalious was. They don’t know who any of these people are, and they’re fucking proud of it.”

No one except Stephen King, because he knows that although he sells well now he wills suffer the same fate as Grace Metalious, while the poor Henry James, whose New York Edition was an absolute failure economically, will be enjoyed by millions long after you and I are dead.

George Eliot (she’s a big deal, ask any of your female professors) once said “Mr. Brooke wondered, and felt that women were an inexhaustible subject of study, since even he at his age was not in a perfect state of scientific prediction about them. Here was a fellow like Chettam with no chance at all.”

The study has already been exhausted, the knowledge has hasn’t been compiled and made known to the general public.

[Anonymous No.2685513]

>>2685492
It's about abandoning the current system of female manipulation and control of males, and the culture of male disposability. PUAs think it's about celibacy, but it isn't. Rather, it's about putting one's desire for sex in its proper place, beneath one's other goals and one's freedom. Pursue what you want and liberate yourself from the current system which uses and despises you, basically. Here are two good YouTube channels which deal with it.

http://www.youtube.com/user/barbarossaaaa
http://www.youtube.com/user/Stardusk

[Anonymous No.2685514]

>>2685494

Not at all. I haven't even talked about what I want in any shape or form as it is not relevant to the topic of discussion.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685516]

A Theory of Hypegamy

“Hiroshima Mon Amour” – Five Minutes of Alpha. “My Fair Lady” – The Neg. Wuthering Heights – Hypergamy.

http://www.economist.com/node/15867956 (This article shows how a tiny shift in the social norms of a small group can devastate the playing field foreveryone)

A free economic marketplace has empirically proven to be a positive-sum game. All evidence points to a free sexual marketplace as a negative sum game. Imagine a group of 100 men and 100 women, with various attributes distributed according to a normal distribution. According to the old model, men with a SMV of 10 (of course the very notion of a sexual market value is problematic for a host of reasons, but for the sake of discussion and theorizing bear with me here. All models are wrong, some models are useful, etc etc) would, at an early age, early 20s at the latest, marry to a women with a SMV of 10, and this descends according, 9 to 9, etc. This is a close knit community, there’s no privacy because everyone knew what everyone else was doing. Gossip enforces morality. If a girl had premarital sex she would be shamed and exiled.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685520]

Now let’s multiply this close knit community by the factor of 1000. There are still “networks”, but not everyone knows anyone else. A girl with a SMV wants a 7, and thus “gives it up” more easily in the hopes that the 7 will commit, which in the end is the good deal for her. Perhaps she succeeds. The norm is broken, she gains an advantage. She tells her friends, etc, and this quickly becomes a race to the bottom. The 8 will try to snag a 10, a 4 a 6. But once this knowledge gets to the guys they’ll wise up and will only date, but not commit, to these girls. However, this ruins it for all the girls with a SMV of 9 and 10 because the guys with a SMV of 9 and 10 are sowing their wild oats, enjoying the pleasure of life without any obligation or any duty (in the past a couple in the 20s would have kids pretty early and “the fun life” would end). Since celibacy for all of your 20s is a pretty impossible optionfor most people (Aquinas knews this; that’s why he said that you should only have moral rules that most people should be able to follow, that’s why people were married young. It’s obvious that people need to satisfy the urges of their sex drive.) even they still start sleeping around, but they lose out since they will have to compete with lesser girls who are willing to demand less commitment from the man.

1/2

[Anonymous No.2685521]

>>2685513
Sounds like how I've been living my life since I first discovered sex/masturbation; it's cool but I got other shit I would rather do.

[Anonymous No.2685522]

>>2685514
Oops. Didn't mean to respond to your post, but rather the two about how they want women taking care of their children and shit.

[Anonymous No.2685523]

Who knew Derrida was an imbecile.

You learn something new everyday.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685525]

Most of the men also lose out, since in their 20s it becomes impossible for them to even date or marry someone of their equal SMV since the men at the top are able to monopolize many of the women far below their SMV. That’s why r9k is so bitter. The question “why don’t you just date an ugly girl Anon” is fucking ridiculous because it doesn’t take into account that most men in the 20s have to “date down” to get a date at all. They can’t get a date with someone of their equal SMV because women are pining away from the Alpha that they had a fling with (refer to: sluts are not less discriminating), and waste their entire youth and 20s trying to get one to commit. Most will wise up in their early to mid 30s and “settle” for someone of their equal SMV; settling of course brings a lot of psychological baggage, and the marriage will probably not be a happy one, but both partners are driven by desperation. For the man with a SMV of a 7, suddenly girls who have never paid attention to them before (i.e. girls with a SMV of 7) are paying attention to him! What a deal. He’ll marry and love his wife dearly even though they’re, in market terms, equals. Perry calls Romney’s work as “vulture economics”, what about “vulture dating”? Vulture economics is a net plus for society, vulture dating isn’t.
, etc. Of course a complete marriage strike against women of a certain age/sluts
But men aren’t idiots. Read the comments to this article (and the article too).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704409004576146321725889448.html

There’s a reason why Michel Houellebecq’s novels are so popular in Europe. He’s a 2nd rate writer, but his ideas struck a chord with the public.

[Anonymous No.2685526]

holy fucking shit are you even for real?

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685529]

http://www.powells.com/review/2006_09_14

http://bookaroundthecorner.wordpress.com/tag/michel-houellebecq/

They know what’s going on, and they’re going on strike. John Galt will never happen because the market will balance itself out. For example if there is a real surplus of women over 30 who can’t get a date then someone will get a “good deal” and perhaps even marry a girl with a higher SMV than himself! With no price ceiling there won’t be a shortage. 90% of women by the age of 40 marry.

http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/04/03/misery-and-vice/

The modern dating market is horribly, interminably chaotic, since the “norms” and “rules of the game” are hidden, in a flux. Norms still exist, and we’re not barbarians but the current system is living off the momentum of the past 20 centuries of repression. Because of the chaos of it all there’s a lot of room for renting seeking and exploitation, and the whole competitive nature of it all, the lies, deception, paranoia, resentment, broken hearts, trying to read each other and read yourself, etc, is incredibly taxing on the ordinary individual, taxing on the expert even.

[Anonymous No.2685528]

>>2685478
>Wow hold on there sport, "slut" only refers to the fucking around haphazardly part, not the having bastard children part. That's just something that happens to irresponsible people, and in fact, I don't see why it's more likely to happen to sluts than regular folk, as sluts are usually pretty keen on their birth control.
It's more likely to happen to sluts for reasons I already explained:
a. they're less choosy about their partners, meaning they're more likely to fuck some random scumbag
b. she'll have sex MORE. meaning a higher chance of pregnancy.

This is all common sense stuff. Being a slut is bad, why are you unable to grasp this concept?
>There's nothing wrong with being a slut though.
There is if it creates an endless cycle of promiscuous women who are more likely to create promiscuous girls and criminal "deadbeat dads" like themselves.

Go listen to the song "Jezebel" by Dizzee Rascal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST-833o1Wx8

I don't think this concept is unfamiliar to you, you're just in denial.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685537]

I’ve simply lost all interest in income inequality. It’s simply irrelevant. The standard of living between a man making 100k a year who manages his finances wisely and that of Steve Jobs is negligible. Would you rather have the love of a woman whose attractiveness/various other attributes is at the 99.5 percentile and earn an income at the 70th percentile, or have income at the 99.9 percentile and have a woman whose general attractiveness is at the 70th percentile? Conditions: You can’t stray. What kind of fool would pick option two? If I had Keira Knightley and she loved me what fuck do I give that there are men who make more in a single day than I will my entire life? A lot of money can buy a lot of things, but a moderate sum can buy most things. Torrenting makes all the music, film, and most of literature available to the poorest of folks with an internet connection. Tyler Cowen, a college professor, has the income to travel in his lifetime 10 times to Mexico City alone. A middle class income insures that you can afford a home in a neighborhood without serious crime. By absolute standards the poor are more well off than ever before thanks to the innovations of the capitalists. I don’t really care even if the accusations that the traders at Goldman Sachs are making away with tens of billions of the public’s saving. The effects of this “theft” are just fucking minor, an infinitesimal fraction of the damage feminism has done to society. 100 billion dollars is nothing compared to the devastation wrought by hypergamy, the harbinger of which is egalitarian humanism.

100 billion dollars is nothing compared to the devastation wrought by hypergamy, the harbinger of which is egalitarian humanism.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685543]

The acuity of the method of seduction and mapped out paths of the "infinite, labyrinthine alleyway" (le mot juste!) of the respective female protagonists were astounding, so much so that it distracted from the usual bliss a good novel delivered. From the neg to the self-aggrandizement-disguised-as-humility, peacocking, the harrowing contempt for or insouciant indifference to the prototypical beta to hypergamy. They are shown as driven by not animating principles but vague, yet nevertheless specific and concrete, sentiments and whims. If the time and place of novels were different and the style sufficiently updated, I would have swore that they were also guests at the chateau.

Emma Bovary symbolizes the worst, Isabel Archer the "best", in women, morally; thus demonstrating that male charisma is universal to all types and classes; both portraits are stunningly accurate, down to to the lapidary depiction of the most trivial dialogue. Emma marries a delta, deplores him utterly, cheats on him with an alpha and beta respectively, wrack up debt, and commits suicide. Isabel rejects two good marriage proposal from two rich betas, inherits a fortune from her dying cousin who would otherwise be her soul-mate, and marries a rather destitute alpha (who has a daughter) who's twice her age. Their marriage is likened to the worst plausible middle class metaphors possible; a cage, a prison, a tomb. She remains loyal to him, despite offers from her earlier suitors.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685547]

I'm uncertain whether Flaubert or Henry James were wholly conscious of what they were doing, but as Kundera said a good novel is always a little smarter than its author.

This is where the 500 page 19th century novel trumps the short story. In Chekhov you get a fleeting portrait; things happen, the moments flit through the wind. In Shakespeare women had too little freedom to make similar situations appear. Likewise, women have too small a role in epic poetry for these matters to emerge. The novel's retreat into pure language play destroyed the possibility of similar projects in the 20th century.

Yes, I did just compare Roissy to Heidegger. Problem?

Why did Isabel Archer marry Gilbert Osmond? ?????

>>Similarly, the once-gallant Caspar Goodwood seemed, this time, something closer to a stalker, an unwanted suitor whose desire presses stiflingly upon Isabel. The accepted understanding of Isabel and Caspar's embrace at the novel's close - that it is sexuality's threat which sends Isabel back to the frigid Osmond - seems to me highly questionable. I felt - having by now, in my life, encountered several Gilbert Osmonds, and seen their effects - that to the last Isabel's husband holds a sexual power over her with which Goodwood, in his inundating but straightforward manhood, cannot compete. It is not simply that Isabel is fleeing sexual awakening; but that she is opting, as she did in first settling upon Osmond, for a more complex, even frankly masochistic, attachment, and one that she justifies on arbitrary moral grounds.

[Anonymous No.2685549]

>>2685537
honest question derry boy, are you trolling, or are you trying to "educate" us?

or are the two one in the same?

[Anonymous No.2685553]

>>2685528

>a. they're less choosy about their partners, meaning they're more likely to fuck some random scumbag
>b. she'll have sex MORE. meaning a higher chance of pregnancy.

And as I said, as she is a slut she is more likely to be rigorous with her birth control?.

Even if you could prove more sluts leads to more single moms it still wouldn't be grounds on which to persecute such behavior, as that is like saying the fact that recreational riding of motorcycles leads to injuries and hospital costs is a justification to start persecuting and looking down on people who choose to ride motorcycles. You could apply this to any sort of recreational activity with a risk involved.

>Being a slut is bad, why are you unable to grasp this concept?

You have utterly failed to argue for the proposition.

[Anonymous No.2685577]

>>2685167
>shrike
cool word of the day

[Anonymous No.2685578]

>>2685170
>>2685169
>>2685167
>>2685164
>>2685161
five-star posts
Screencaps, anyone?

[Anonymous No.2685582]

>>2685553
>And as I said, as she is a slut she is more likely to be rigorous with her birth control?.
She might be more likely, but it's not a necessity. A slut, by definition, is at higher risk of pregnancy with scumbag men, resulting in fatherless children.
>Even if you could prove more sluts leads to more single moms it still wouldn't be grounds on which to persecute such behavior, as that is like saying the fact that recreational riding of motorcycles leads to injuries and hospital costs is a justification to start persecuting and looking down on people who choose to ride motorcycles.
People who risk their lives aren't hurting society by bringing more scum into the world. Sluts are much more likely to. They deserve all the shaming they get and more.
>You have utterly failed to argue for the proposition.
You failing to understand a basic concept is not the same as me failing to argue for it. You aren't convinced because you're plugging your ears and shouting "lalalala" to the uncomfortable truths presented to you.

[Anonymous No.2685593]

>>2685578
It's none other than the Heartiste himself:
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/word-is-getting-out/

[Anonymous No.2685595]

The only women I date are ones who are visual like men and fap to porn.
they were the best women

>too bad i'm making this up as i am a forever alone but i wouldn't be surprised if visual women are best women

[Anonymous No.2685597]

A tripfag with a continental philosophy name, posting high-quality literary analysis based on Roissy content? Now I've seen everything

Good show Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa

[Anonymous No.2685599]

>>2685113
fuck you whore, you probably would pick a sociopathic high status ugly ceo over a with man 10/10 facial aesthetics
fuck you, if you aren't visual and don't fap to porn then you are a breeding slave and nothing more

[Anonymous No.2685605]

why is this thread not in /r9k/

also i'm better than everyone in this thread

[Anonymous No.2685607]

Just reading through the comments and saw these two posts together. Absolute fucking gold.

[Anonymous No.2685611]

>>2685246
>The only people who insult game are the ones who don't understand it. They're like people who insult music theory because "you should just do what comes naturally".

This. I have no interest in banging a bunch of random nightclub chicks, but learning and internalizing the principles of game as outlined by Roissy et al. has improved my love life immensely in the context of monogamous LTRs.

Women like men who act like men -- men who are strong, confident, willing to lead, and don't put up with their bullshit. And just about every woman (the exceptions are usually the ones who were damaged by genuine abuse) enjoys it when a man isn't afraid to rough them up a little in the bedroom.

If you really think that these things aren't good in themselves, and that only needy pussyhounds obsessed with their notch count would bother with "game" or "PUA"... then you don't understand it.

[Anonymous No.2685617]

>>2685611
More people for me not to respect (this goes for both genders).
fuck you and women

psychological torture here we come

[Anonymous No.2685627]

Welp, /lit/ is finally dead. May as well just browse /pol/ and /r9k/. It's the same shit now.

Not even going to sage. Why the fuck bother.

[Anonymous No.2685631]

>>2685627
>/lit/ is no longer full of feminist manginas and angry dykes. woe is me.

[Anonymous No.2685639]

>>2685631

Yep. It's a right-wing shit hole like the rest of 4chan now. I knew it couldn't last as the only good, sensible board, but still. Sucks.

[Anonymous No.2685667]

>>2685639
Subscribing to politcally correct naivety isn't "sensible". People aren't equal, men and women are different, and trannies are mentally disturbed. This is common knowledge to anyone who hasn't been brainwashed with "everyone is equal" feel good BS.

[Anonymous No.2685682]

>>2685667

You'd be right at home on /pol/.

[Anonymous No.2685685]

/lit/ doth protest too much about 4chan masculism and supposed racism

just hide the thread. saying "go back to /r9k/ or /pol/, where your prejudiced and stereotyped views are appreciated, you loser pathetic beta virgin who has never had sex" isn't going to do anything. nothing, at all, ever. just ignore what you don't like.

[Anonymous No.2685687]

>>2685682
I visit there a bit. They're too hateful for my taste. I prefer /sci/s blunt honesty.

[Anonymous No.2685691]

>>2685685

Ignoring it won't do any good either. I'd rather at least express my disdain and live as a vocal minority.

[Anonymous No.2685696]

>>2685691
That's exactly how we feel. Your views are very typical, safe, politically correct views that we see every day in Disney movies. Your knee jerk reaction against our challenging of those views should make you at least try to think about why you believe them.

You trying to force your typical views into one of the few places our unflinching views are tolerated just makes you a dick.

[Anonymous No.2685698]

>>2685691
take heart that you are the vocal majority everywhere else but here, where on one or two boards, a handful of people who disagree with you, and haven't introjected their culture's loud and vehement living beatification of women, get to post their controversial views and be inundated in circumstantial ad hominem attacks on their motivation behind the views, most of which involve their presumed inability to efficiently propitiate women for sex, the highest mark of respect a modern man can aspire to

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685699]

For the most part, I did everything in my power to deny the Good. I won’t list my failings here, because I don’t wish to burden you with my embarrassments, but believe me, it’s an impressive stew of drunkenness, concupiscence and sloth, slathered in a reduction of resentment. At age 28 or so, I moved to New York City, and for the first time I found I had difficulty meeting (read: bedding) girls. After a couple of years of adjusting to my new found small-fish status and building up a healthy store of bitterness and recrimination toward the hyper-feminist women of my class and place (white, middle- to upper-middle class, West Brooklyn and Manhattan), I stumbled across the blog of Roissy in DC.

On a trip home to see my parents, I stayed up several nights in a row reading his entire archives. It’s hard to overstate the impact it had on me. I was initially enraged by everything he said: not because of the filth or the nihilism, but because of the anti-feminism. His writing was in total violation of everything I had been taught about womyn. Ironically, it was the pornography and the fascinating cruelty that kept me reading long enough to begin to sift out the gold flakes. Or perhaps “gold” is overstating the case, but there was some real value for me amidst the dross of egotism and lust.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685702]

It’s astonishing for me to phrase it this way now, but the teachers of Game reintroduced me to the concept of truth. I was refreshed—amazed—to read the (sadly accurate) skewerings of contemporary big-city feminist women. It was exhilarating. At the time, I of course focused primarily on using those lessons for their stated purpose: bedding women. And let me tell you, they work. A line I still remember from that blog ran like this: “Success with women is more disillusioning than failure.” The success came, and with it came the propensity to see a robot and a robot: myself and the girl. It became thrilling, then disturbing, to see how predictably women would react to the techniques I taught myself. (And lest you have pictures in your head of drunken bimbos in tight dresses at night clubs, I used them on artsy girls, shy girls, bimbos, sporty girls, you name it … everything except church-going girls, of course). Eventually the thrill that became disturbing ended where it must: with disgust. Disgust with the girls, and disgust with myself. I see this process now as the endgame of my nihilism. I’m thankful now that it didn’t go any deeper—I’m quite certain it could have.

There was a transformation happening that I barely noticed at first. Seeing so starkly the exposure of a lie I had believed all my life (the feminist lie that says that women want men to be cowering, weak, and asexual), caused me to finally question the whole edifice of lies: my pained and excruciatingly refined white guilt, my worship at the temple of environmentalism, and my carefully cultivated belief that any non-liberal was either stupid or malevolent or both. It was like shedding one water-logged blanket after another, my intellectual burden getting lighter, my steps getting freer.

[Anonymous No.2685706]

>>2685698

Please stop talking like a try-hard freshman.

[Anonymous No.2685804]

>>2685605
>why is this thread not in /r9k/

It is:
>>>/r9k/2637459

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685862]

>>2685804
Except in r9k it took a completely different turn.

[Anonymous No.2685867]

>>2685862
Derrida do you bother talking to malefeminist or do you gloss over his posts

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2685891]

>>2685867
I demolish all his posts completely.

[Anonymous No.2685939]

>>2685696
>Your knee jerk reaction against our challenging of those views should make you at least try to think about why you believe them.
vs.
>You trying to force your typical views into one of the few places our unflinching views are tolerated just makes you a dick.

I shall not give an inch! Now stand aside or you're a dick!

[Anonymous No.2686011]

>mfw creating the most successful thread on /lit/
ever.
>mfw it get's ported to /r9k/ by a tripfag
feels good man.

[Anonymous No.2686017]

>>2686011
>most successful thread ever
Newness.

[Anonymous No.2686019]

>>2686017
>jelly

[Anonymous No.2686043]

>>2686011
You chose a great image for the op post. That man-faced porker is bizarrely enchanting, with her painted fingernails and her immaculate hair. You can just tell there was something vibrating in her vagina when the photo was taken.

[Anonymous No.2686045]

>>2685259
Gatsby was more like "let me tell you a story about how this rich alpha is actually a betamax faggot because he's still pining for a girl who doesn't even care about him while her husband cheats on her with a 2/10 would not bang"

[Anonymous No.2686053]

>>2685276
>exonerated
I think you mean "exile". "Exonerate" means "cleared of all charges", which is good, if you're innocent

[Anonymous No.2687011]

http://chanarchive.org/request_votes
>>2685061
do it
I need to return to this thread someday, great posts all around

[Anonymous No.2687014]

>>2687011

God no.

[Derrida !!jFxzBGer0Pa No.2687505]

>>2687014
What difference does it make? I have the thread saved and will upload it eventually.

[Anonymous No.2687524]

>>2687505

are you tybrax

you're tybrax, aren't you

[Anonymous No.2688415]

If women didn't have a ladyboner whilst reading this, they'd say it was awful. Shit's circumstantial, yo.