/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5332113]

What's the deal with Romance novels? Why are they only popular amongst women? What are men missing out on?

Does any great literature qualify as "romance" ?

[Anonymous No.5332119]

Have you fucking thought about this for even a fucking second or done any research or talked to anyone who likes romance novels or tried reading any of them or anything at all

[Anonymous No.5332123]

>>5332119
Isn't that what he was trying to do now?

[Anonymous No.5332127]

>>5332119

The research I have done is extensive and in depth. /lit/ is a last resort.

I've discovered many things, like men are more visual than women and so romance novels don't affect them in the same way.

[Anonymous No.5332135]

Women like feelings and they are also very herdthinkish. They read romance novels because they read romance novels because they read romance novels etc. The few women who break away from this overwhelming mainstream trend still tend to actually LIKE the things. Women self-admittedly like terrible romcom movies in the same way I self-admittedly like awful action movies that aren't even good action movies, just because hey the guy is shooting a guy.

Women like emotional crap. They don't generally like abstract stuff. Very few female philosophers or readers of the classics. Every single female lit/classics scholars I know is interested in low level social history, usually social history of "fellow" women, read through the texts.

[Anonymous No.5332138]

>>5332135
Also this:
http://www.onfiction.ca/2011/02/actor-and-observed-man-and-woman.html

[Anonymous No.5332174]

>>5332135
>Women like emotional crap. They don't generally like abstract stuff. Very few female philosophers or readers of the classics.

prove it.

[Anonymous No.5332176]

>>5332135
>omen self-admittedly like terrible romcom movies in the same way I self-admittedly like awful action movies that aren't even good action movies, just because hey the guy is shooting a guy.

I've watched like 10 hours of Naruto over the past 2 days even though I find myself "cringing" at how corny it is. It's like porn for my "cravings" for "action", "adventure", "heroic gestures"... Two people face off, fight to the death, the loser dies "with honor", for the sake of some "transcendental goal", the winner wins with honor, achieves his "ethical striving", etc. etc. There's probably a deep-seated evolutionary reason for why I like this stuff, and I imagine that as human life becomes increasingly sedentary , "socialized" / "tame" , and abstracted away from nature that action-porn will begin to have more appeal. Probably women like romance novels for the same reason I like Naruto: it appeals to some strong biological urge. I imagine that most intelligent women realize that the romance novels are stupid and corny and feel embarrassed about reading them but read them anyways for a "guilty pleasure", and find themselves sometimes laughing and sometimes being wooed.

[Anonymous No.5332198]

>>5332176
I get what you mean, I have some really deep rooted cravings for complete moralfaggotry at times, as childish as possible. Zelda is usually the perfect fix.

[Anonymous No.5332218]

>>5332174
Hi Feminister please put on your trip so we can filter you.

[Anonymous No.5332230]

>>5332218
Is she still here?

[Anonymous No.5332232]

>>5332176
When I was little (6 to 9 or so), I always used to go on ''adventures'' to save girls I liked from my class. My mate's parents had a cabin in the woods, where we had epic journeys full of monster slaying and fights for honor, to save our girls.

I don't know why, but I felt like sharing this. I remembered it the other day, and realized my life wasn't always the way it is now, where I'm nearly void of romance, and am too scared to convey my true sentiments and emotions.

[Anonymous No.5332236]

>>5332176
Yeah, men have their equivalents. I watch Dragon Ball Z and literally fucking cry when Tien is shooting at Cell because it's like Stock Heroic Moment #8742 omg he can't really win but he's saving the day ;__; I secretly wish I could be him and everybody thought I was cool and women wanted to fuck me

I was watching old Half in the Bag reviews lately and they had that redhead on and she was defending the absolute worst of the worst, intentionally awful, incredibly cynical romcom of all time, because she just liked "knowing they're going to get together in the end". Mike was laying into her for it but he likes some of the shittiest scifi, horror, and action schlock ever, often defending it because it's just barely technically competent. That is, because it satisfies his basic urge to watch that kind of movie without being so horrible that it burns his eyes. Two sides of the same coin.

[Anonymous No.5332246]

>>5332113

Good gosh, I'd like to kiss her.

[Anonymous No.5332283]

>>5332113
Holy fuck, I'd like to rape her.

[Anonymous No.5332289]

>>5332113
Holy fuck, I'd like to rape her.

[Anonymous No.5332312]

>>5332113
Shit yo, I'd like to motorboat 'em titties.

[Anonymous No.5332451]

>>5332312
yeah, thats kinda more what i was thinking.

Oh look, shes baring her neck, how thrilling...

[Anonymous No.5332457]

>>5332113
The Count of Monte Cristo is more or less a "romance", and its themes (if not its characters) are directed towards a pretty masculine audience.

[Anonymous No.5332495]

If I could have a moment of introspection, I think it's probably the case that I inundate myself with the most far-flung and esoteric types of interests just so I can distance myself from emotion. I've been intimate before, but I've never loved, and whenever I read a good novel with romance in it (The Red and the Black, for example) I make little progress with the book because I have to keep stopping and reflecting on what it actually is to love.

The descriptions of eros are worrying to me; they're so profound I feel that if I ever encounter it I will be changed irrevocably. The thought of my self, which I've worked so meticulously to craft, being melted down and remade in a mold not of my own, is torture to my soul.

[Anonymous No.5332523]

>>5332113

idk what you're talkig about OP

red-blooded male here who loves soap opera and romance

[Anonymous No.5332524]

>>5332495

yeah, love is kind of scary, but it can also be cool, fun, and comforting

[Anonymous No.5332538]

>>5332523
why?

[Anonymous No.5332543]

>>5332246
>>5332289
>>5332312
why leave out the best one?

[RE-RE !!jD6iJOG5Jc/ No.5332546]

>>5332113
game of thrones

[Anonymous No.5332550]

>>5332113
There's this obscure romance called Romeo and Juliet that some people consider great literature.

[Anonymous No.5332559]

Romance is fine as a sub-plot, but I don't find it interesting enough to read a book that has it as a main focus.
Unless it's lolworthy or clever in some way.

[Anonymous No.5332571]

>>5332113
Ulysses

[Anonymous No.5332709]

>>5332523
>red-blooded male here who loves soap opera and romance

you watch those with your boyfriend right?

[Anonymous No.5332717]

>>5332538

they hit me right in the feels

>>5332709

i watch them by myself, when i have time

[Anonymous No.5332781]

>>5332559
Really? I feel the opposite. Romance typically makes a terrible subplot and should only be used the central focus, or not at all.
To me the early stages of infatuation with someone tends to become an all consuming passion. So it always feel half assed and tacked on when there is a romantic subplot, and most romantic subplots exist usually to create a "damsel in distress" scenario, or some other similar cheap reason to get us to hate the villain.

[Anonymous No.5332890]

Pretty much every James Bond novel is a male romance novel.

[Anonymous No.5332911]

>>5332524
How do you know?

[Anonymous No.5332917]

>>5332781

I feel that although it may be "tacked on" romance as a subplot is more realistic to romance in real-life. I guess it's fine in older novels but more recently it's not a fantastic central plot theme.

[Anonymous No.5332927]

>>5332113
If there is a romance that men won't read it isn't because we are missing on something, it is that the novel is shit.
And if a romance book is done as it sould be done you won't even call it a romance, you'll say that it is realism or contemporary literature or something because there will be more to it than just wuzzy-fuzzy feels.

[Anonymous No.5332928]

>>5332113
>>5332113
>Does any great literature qualify as "romance" ?


The Unbearable Lightness of Being.

[Anonymous No.5332935]

>>5332927

wrong, refer to >>5332928


Men will like that book and it is 90% romance.

[Anonymous No.5332941]

>>5332230
She's not real. Every single /lit tripfag of the past 5 year is either a short-lived random nobody or a creation of the same man who has been doing it for 5 years. Some of his other creations are Jude Thaddeus and the pseudo-crusading Catholic guy. Perhaps Miss Arrow too.

[Anonymous No.5332959]

>>5332113
Well, Gatsby is a love triangle, with Daisy and the English language as the love interests. Fitzgerald loved his prose more than anyone should ever know.

[Anonymous No.5332977]

>>5332236
Fun things is those urges can coexist in one person. I knew a guy who was into combat sport and hardcore music but also like shojos (romantic manga for teenage girls).

>>5332451
Dat gaping mouth tho'
It's like the Fellation Manifesto.
>>5332495
I see where you're coming from. Love goes with some deal of risk as you have to become subjected to someone else's view and desire (as Sartre pu it, "normal love is sadomasochist").

[Anonymous No.5333232]

>>5332236
breh I felt that way when Vegeta blew off Cell's arm and he regenerated it back. It was beyond the point of no return

Cell Saga was the best

[Anonymous No.5333254]

>>5333232
>>5332236
>tfw

[Anonymous No.5333257]

Men's romance = The struggle
Women's romance = The narrative of capture
They are two different things, although they seem incredibly similar

[Anonymous No.5333283]

>Getting /lit/ thread topics from radio stations

[Anonymous No.5333321]

>>5333283

>listening to the radio

wtf is wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.5333330]

>>5332113

What's the deal with wearing a tank top if you're gonna wear it like that?

[Anonymous No.5333355]

>>5332127
>like men are more visual than women and so romance novels don't affect them in the same way.
i cant believe people still believe this bullshit omg psychology should be banned

[Anonymous No.5333386]

>>5333355

when it comes to sex men are more visual though...

there was a study done on this and the guy even looked at romance novels. when men write romance novels they describe everything in excruciating detail, down to the veins on the penis. When women write romance it's much less visual

[Anonymous No.5333412]

>>5333330

The chick is sleeping during a long road trip and the guy sitting next to her pulled down the tank top to take a picture of her tits.

[Anonymous No.5333414]

>>5333386
>when it comes to sex men are more visual though...

and geometry and spatial awareness. You ever try to get directions from a woman? lol

[Anonymous No.5333450]

>>5333355

>i can't believe people have this psychological belief that I am judging to be incorrect
>psychology should be banned

wut

[Anonymous No.5333701]

>>5333450

it's a woman, probably a cultural marxist who thinks races and genders don't exist

[Anonymous No.5333705]

>>5332113
is she asleep or is she getting finger banged

[le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk No.5333733]

>>5333355
Are you in the camp that denies all differences between men and women when it comes to the mind?

Specific claims (such as "men are logical, women are emotional") may or may not be false depending on the entire meta logic of the statement. The only certainty in my experience is that men and women are definitively different in how they act, but I'm not sophisticated enough to describe it all in detail

[Anonymous No.5335020]

>>5333386
>there was a study done on this
anon pls

[Anonymous No.5335025]

>>5333733
they definitely are. but making retarded claims and generalisations like that when no legit science backs them up are the sign of a braindead retard. and no, psychology is not science, and theirretarded 'studies' are not legit

[Anonymous No.5335032]

>>5335025

>wahhh I'm prejudice and any science you use to refute my stupidity will be ignored

enjoy your life.

[Anonymous No.5335041]

>>5335032
>wahh im retarded
bye

[Anonymous No.5335056]

>>5335032
>prejudice
'prejudiceD', you fucking tard.

[Anonymous No.5335058]

>>5335025

men on average have one standard deviation higher spatial-visual intelligence quotient than women.

here is one of hundreds of studies: http://www.emis.de/journals/AMI/2006/nemeth.pdf

>inb4 "muh psychology"

it's by the computer science & descriptive geometry department.

I'm sure we could train women to be equal to men over time, but naturally they are much worse for some reason.

[Anonymous No.5335060]

>>5332113
Ivanhoe

[Anonymous No.5335061]

>>5335058
>I'm sure we could train women to be equal to men over time, but naturally they are much worse for some reason.

This is true of every quality, property or skill imaginable. Although some you can't train women to be equal with men, like strength, IQ, compassion, artistic creativity, etc

[Anonymous No.5335072]

>>5335058
>the whole sample size is first-year students from some dumbfuck hungarian university
>somehow this generalises to all ages and countries
why did you even post this shit?

[Anonymous No.5335076]

>>5335061
>artistic creativity
my fucking sides anon how retarded are you

[Anonymous No.5335100]

>>5333355
>>5335025
>>5335041
>>5335072
>>5335056
>>5335076
>le same gluteusfuming womyn
you'd be much happier back on your tumblr

[Anonymous No.5335103]

>>5335100
>i can follow a conversation to tell anons apart!
wow good job idiot

and im not the faggot who corrected grammar, that's insulting

[Anonymous No.5335111]

>>5335076
if only he'd gotten properly fitted for his fedora, he could've avoided brain damage

[Anonymous No.5335117]

i hope women are just as good as men. i like to tell myself that the end result of gender relations will be that differences in ability in certain areas will all balance out, and we'll find out that men are better at math or something whereas women will surprise everyone by being superstars at.. something. i don't know. some chick shit they haven't had the opportunity to elaborate into a zeitgeist the way men have with their stuff. and that all that's holding us back is, of course, infinity billion years of them being socialised to be feckless lumps of shit, followed by a couple hundred years of being told that everything they do is great because of male guilt over patriarchy.

i really fucking hope that's the case. because holy shit is the concept that women are just slightly inferior on average on everything they do existentially terrifying. imagine being told that any achievement in your existence is going to be relative to this other thing, that's very similar to you, but next to which you are essentially a mild retard.

[Anonymous No.5335156]

>>5335117
> because holy shit is the concept that women are just slightly inferior on average on everything they do existentially terrifying. imagine being told that any achievement in your existence is going to be relative to this other thing, that's very similar to you, but next to which you are essentially a mild retard.

I know, right? If I was a woman I would have to either kill myself or desperately latch on to feminism as the only thing which could succor me from the terrible truth always waiting around the corner.

Or I might stop playacting as a man and start finding true fulfillment in bearing children, but alas, modern society has all but deprived women of this singular happiness and comfort.

[Anonymous No.5335166]

>>5335117
This is moral
>>5335156
This is /pol/

[Anonymous No.5335180]

>>5335117
>>5335156
if i was a woman i'd just invest in looks and be a total slut tbh. as a man i prefer the stem master race path

[Anonymous No.5335200]

>>5335117
that's chilling, holy shit
i'd like to say i'd never thought of it that way but i guess i always implicitly have

[Anonymous No.5335204]

>>5335117
Except that's not true at all. Like a lot of people who complain about "the problem with womenz" you're making the mistake of viewing people as groups rather than individuals. You should know how it feels to have something out there that's better than you at almost everything, because for 99% of the people on the planet that's true. There is always someone who will be more accomplished than you. Hell, there's probably a lot of women that are more accomplished than you. What the group "men" or "women" does on average compared to the other group is irrelevant because we are individuals, not groups.

And anyway, women are better at a bunch of shit on average than men are. I don't know about the US but in the UK girls regularly outperform boys in school exams - and don't give me some bullshit about how the school system is biased towards girls because everyone knows that's not true. The differences are, you don't see women winning chess tournaments or whatever because a) men are more likely to be at extremes on the spectrum, either extreme competence or extreme incompetence and b) though you'll probably jump down my throat and call me a "feminazi" for even suggesting the idea, it IS hard for women to get respect in male-dominated fields.

[Anonymous No.5335217]

>>5335204
> and don't give me some bullshit about how the school system is biased towards girls because everyone knows that's not true.

OH PLEASE. If 80-90% of schoolteachers are girls how can there not be a bias against boys? The cognitive dissonance that it must take to both claim this and then in the next breath claim that "it IS hard for women to get respect in male-dominated fields" boggles the mind.

[Anonymous No.5335221]

>>5335204
>>5335217
Oh and btw girls do better than boys on teacher evaluated grades but WORSE on standardized exams. You are mixing your facts when you talk about "school exams." Please say again how there is no bias against boys by the female-dominated teaching staff?

[Anonymous No.5335227]

>>5335217
If there is a systematic bias against girls, then why are majority of PhDs males?

[Anonymous No.5335237]

>>5335227
That in fact PROVES that there is a systematic bias against males. They do "worse" than girls in K-12 where 90% of the teachers are female and then dramatically outpace female achievement at the post-secondary level. The clear explanation for this discrepancy is that the almost entirely female K-12 teaching corps discriminates against boys.

[Anonymous No.5335239]

>>5335204
viewing people in terms of groups isn't a mistake, it's natural. its how we function, even day-to-day. we can't personally get to know intricately every single person to get a full picture of what they're like because its impossible, and also because attributes/judgements associated with groups aren't just invented out of thin air, they're intuitive generalizations built up over a lot of time that have some clear concrete grounding in individuals. it's useful, we do it all the time, we need to. i've only ever heard lolbertardigans and ron paul say that shit about collectivism or whatever.

[Anonymous No.5335262]

>>5335204
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqOTj9NDv80

[Anonymous No.5335265]

>>5332113
It's a shame that you can tell how retarded a girl is and how ridiculously annoying and down right mentally dull her personality is simply by what her face looks like.

[Anonymous No.5335275]

I don't even know who is discriminating against who anymore. Observer guilt has created a complete mess in the western world. Is it not more terrifying that you could be inferior but are protected at every turn like blinders being put on a horse? Is it not weakness to be elevated only by the shame of your oppressor?

[Anonymous No.5335301]

>>5335265

she's actually really smart and friendly, I know her.

[Anonymous No.5335315]

>>5335265
Newsflash: you can't. World rocked?

[Anonymous No.5335324]

>>5335227
>then why are majority of PhDs males?
Lol, probably because women are too smart to waste their prime productive years on something as twisted as a PhD.

Seriously, are you aware of what a grad student's life is like, lol?

[Anonymous No.5335331]

>>5335324
Haha, lol

[Anonymous No.5335332]

>>5332113
Jane Austen. Thomas Hardy. The fact that neither of these authors have been mentioned in this entire thread prove that this whole discussion is worth about as much as the shit you take tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.5335343]

>>5335332
I've only read some of Thomas Hardy's poems.
He felt extreme guilt for his wife, which makes his later stuff very tragic.

[Anonymous No.5335400]

That is a sick picture OP. if that iw her being fingered then that is rape. If you.

I'll spell some of it out for you.

Consensual sexconsists of three things willingness, purpose, and equality. Rape happens when one or more is ignored for one's pleasure alone. Obviously if the person isn't willing then it is rape. This includes sleep sex and other sick perversions. You can look into it further - if a man has "sex" with someone who doesn't have the mental capacity to consent then they just raped. Next is the purpose. Obviously if your purpose is to rape then it is rape. But, as in the picture she is being coerced while asleep to feel unwanted pleasure - this is rape. Lastly, equality (free sex one o one) a male and female deserve to both orgasm. When a man uses a female to ejaculate and doesn't return the favor he has raped. The woman is left alone and with her body feeling sickened by the feeling of being used. Many times men have used all three to rape women without even knowing it. I'd say OPs picture shows at least 2 of the issues. Remember to have equal sex and rape free sex.

[Anonymous No.5335408]

>>5335400
die

[Anonymous No.5335409]

>>5335400
is this what passes as a bait here?

[Anonymous No.5335410]

>>5335409
i remember when trolling used to mean something

[Anonymous No.5335430]

>>5335409
Rape bait? You sick fuck.

[Anonymous No.5335457]

>>5335400
Least sexy lecture of the topic of sex evar.

[Anonymous No.5335483]

>>5335204
>UK girls regularly outperform boys in school exams
hahahahah

men do real degrees m8

[Anonymous No.5335488]

>>5335483
>comments on UK
>with a picture of US college majors..

Nobody cares about Americlap degrees. Enjoy your embarrassment debt.

[Anonymous No.5335490]

>>5335488
>think it's any different in uk for some alien reason
my sides are on fire

[Anonymous No.5335535]

Aren't women naturally better in social situations? Like they're more empathetic and can read people far better. Hence why so many young women are far better at lying through their teeth and picking up on other people's bullshit while males tend fail at such things.

[Anonymous No.5335543]

>>5332113
men don't "buy" it

[Anonymous No.5335549]

>>5335535
yeah nah fuck off with your anecdotal confirmation bias subjective unreliable unscientific sociological bullshit suppositions

[Anonymous No.5335555]

>>5335549
There's a reason the opening sentence has a question mark. You know, one of these things: ?

lrn2read

[Anonymous No.5335567]

>>5335204
>you don't see women winning chess tournaments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polg%C3%A1r

[Anonymous No.5335584]

>>5335555
fuck off and kill yourself thanks

[Anonymous No.5335598]

>>5335567
not even that guy but how autistic are you to take it literally and give an example of one girl? there's a reason why chess is split into men divisions and women divisions

[Anonymous No.5335604]

>>5335567
>>5335598

>http://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml
>first women is on #65
there's nothing to argue about

[Anonymous No.5335678]

>>5335567
>implying the exception doesnt prove the rule.
why can't you just stop being a white knight and join the hive mind?

[Anonymous No.5335684]

>>5335678
> exception proves the rule.
that makes no sense

[Anonymous No.5335841]

>>5335684
Do you not understand what that means?

Judit is the best out of her sisters. Great little story there. Best she was ranked ever was top 10 from what I recall. But she doesn't even compete in woman exclusive tournaments I think that speaks volumes.

Judit is the quintessential 'exception proves the rule'.

[Anonymous No.5335874]

>>5335841
>women haven't won chess tournaments
>but this woman did
>EXCEPTION THAT PROVES THE RULE

no idiot, it proved the initial statement false and that's that

[Anonymous No.5335877]

>>5332113
I've bought some books by Anna Galvada, are they worth reading? They just look so comfy

[Anonymous No.5335979]

Amerifats don't win world chess championships.

[Anonymous No.5336009]

>>5332113
I'd put my penis in her and thrust deep insider her if you get my drift

[Anonymous No.5336016]

>>5335490
Why wouldn't it be? different culture, different educational system, not as retarded as Americans, etc.

[Anonymous No.5336214]

>>5335265
You can't. You're just a shallow person.

[Anonymous No.5336292]

>>5335324
>lol women are too smart to prove how smart they are

my fucking sides

[Anonymous No.5336298]

>>5335483
>tfw philosophy major
>tfw 130~ IQ

I guess I'm really not so special after all

[Anonymous No.5336376]

>>5336009

God damn it anon, you are on /lit/, try to sound more fancy!

I for one would insert my fat pink mast in her cunt, a cunt that became the world, and then I would proceed to make swing motions paraphrasing my bowl movements.

[Anonymous No.5336397]

>>5336298
At least you picked the only non-subhuman liberal arts major.

btw 142 IQ physics major here. Feels good to be so herrenras.

[Anonymous No.5336401]

>>5336397
you should use that mental capacity of yours to properly learn foreign words before you throw them into a conversation.

[Anonymous No.5336410]

>>5335483
⇒still reposting that picture

It is based on an american standardized test which is designed to weed out the most retarded kids. Getting a good SAT score requires barely more than the ability to spell "potato". The only inference we can make from here is that the kid is not severely intellectually disabled. A fine categorization of higher IQ scores is not justified on the basis of this test alone.

[Anonymous No.5336418]

>>5336401
What did you major in? Sociology?

[Anonymous No.5336430]

>>5336418
I have a PhD in triple integrals.

[Anonymous No.5336440]

>>5336430

[Anonymous No.5336542]

>>5336397
I'm A-okay with my IQ. It gives me the capacity to understand everything I encounter, though I've always had difficulty with science and math, partially because I can't convince my brain to care about it.

[Anonymous No.5336590]

>>5332113

Women are stupid and like stupid things. What do you expect?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5336710]

>>5336590
And you have so much in common.

[Anonymous No.5336813]

>>5336710
>butthurt bitch bitches bitchily

Have a kid you dumb slut, it's what you were born to do and it's the only thing that will make you happy.