/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6781923]

>someone says something about women having life on easy mode / r9kish on /lit/
>the inevitable anti-(anti-women) backlash occurs

How do you guys reconcile your love of literature, especially romantic books, with real life women who have all no doubt fucked loads of Chads and all that other stuff that causes r9k / sluthate to exist? Do you seriously lie to yourself and pretend that the girls in picrelated will ever read anything worthwhile in their free time?

Why is it that whenever i try to put forward the ideas of men being dumb slaves / women being prostitutes worshipped by society, I get posts completely disregarding what I've said?

Also are people on here bluepilled enough to see soldiers, even WW1 and 2 soldiers, as anything other than brainwashed people who threw away their lives for shit causes? It's genuinely offensive to me when people try to hold up army men who sacrificed their lives as doing the right thing (obviously the army people did do good...but not for themselves).

[Anonymous No.6781935]

[Anonymous No.6781940]

go out and meet people that are interested in literature, philosophy, poetry etc.

This may sound strange, but there are women out there interested in such intellectual and academic pursuits.

Just get out side and dont constantly circle-jerk your opinion faggot.

[Anonymous No.6781944]

>>6781923
>read anything worthwhile

when did this meme start

[Anonymous No.6781950]

>all women are the same, they are all dumb slits and guzzle chads cum every weekend and their life is so easy
Maybe if you would get out of the pathetic shit hole that is/r9k/ and actually experience the "real life women" you are talking about and stopfeeling lime the superior gentleman you'd realize that you're full of shit and so are your arguments.
>men being dumb slaves / women being prostitutes worshipped by society
holy shit I can see your autistic virgin fedora
gtfo

[Anonymous No.6781984]

>>6781940
>>6781950

>complain about women on /lit/
>/lit/ tells me to go meet women irl
>meet women irl
>get disappointed

Thanks, /lit/, you guys sure know how the world works.

[Anonymous No.6782003]

>>6781984
>the women I met represent the entire female population
>measuring people worth based on that what they read
man you sure sound like a faggot. But tell me, where did you meet these women?

[Anonymous No.6782010]

>>6781984
nearly every fucking person you meet in real life is disappointing it's not about women most people are shit so fucking what
they can still be friendly if you're not too autistic and why would you care about other people in the first place?

[Anonymous No.6782014]

>>6782010
>>/r9k/

[Anonymous No.6782017]

>>6781984
>get disappointed
cry more faglord the world wasn't made for you. If you want just sex fake being dumb like the rest of them and bang and when you find a woman with a brain you open up. Not that hard nigger.

[Anonymous No.6782018]

>>6782003
>where did you meet these women
at university & campus

[Anonymous No.6782019]

>>6782014
why would I go to /r9k/ what I said is pretty anti-r9k tbh

[Anonymous No.6782020]

>>6781940
women show up to events and shit, they are usually still retarded in their taste, but you can find some that are passable.

[Anonymous No.6782024]

>>6781984
the trick is to stay off /lit/ forever

[Anonymous No.6782025]

>>6782018
this guy wew

[Anonymous No.6782035]

>>6782018
Don't tell me. You were expecting them to be any better than high-school, right ?

[Anonymous No.6782045]

>>6781923
Number 6!

Also, MODS MODS MODS
please permaban this fool from /lit/ for all eternity

[Anonymous No.6782048]

>>6782035
If you were an extraordinary person, extraordinary persons would flock to you.

[Anonymous No.6782050]

>>6781984
This guy met women IRL because /lit/ told him to
This guy actually needed approval from the Internet to speak to girls in real life

What is this world?

[Anonymous No.6782051]

>>6781923
roll

[Anonymous No.6782054]

Okay c/lit/'s I just looked at the /r9k/ catalogue and there's a normie v r9k thread with an op image of text that says "get out while you can" on a yellow background.

The normal guy seems to have been routed by the boards unshakeable misery. If /r9k/ is truly cancer then will some brave /lit/izen go challenge them?

[Anonymous No.6782060]

>>6782048
They do, but they are seldom females.
One, who is among the 2 females I've met that are more intelligent than me, told me that my being well-read puts off many women.
I enjoy conversing with her, but I don't like her.

[Anonymous No.6782062]

>>6782054
We aren't that kind of board. We don't crossboard to argue, I've only seen it happen a few times and it's always with /sci/

[Anonymous No.6782066]

>>6782054
We are not your personal army

[Anonymous No.6782080]

>>6782018
Going to university isn't a guarantee for being well read. Fuck it's not even a guarantee for being intelligent. What do you even want here? This not r9k nobody cares about your shit life.

[Anonymous No.6782086]

>>6782066
I'm not trying to sic you on my enemies, I know how to argue. I just see potential for turbolulz if /lit/ and /r9k/ posters were to try and have a discussion.

[Anonymous No.6782088]

>tfw when you have a qt poststructualist artist gf and read one of these threads
>argue about kristeva and then fuck like rabbits

[Anonymous No.6782092]

>>6782051
Hahaha damn dude im sorry woweeie

Better off rolling 0 tbh

[Anonymous No.6782094]

>>6782088
forgot to mention you're both ugly

[Anonymous No.6782095]

>>6781923
can dubs act as an age divisor?
if so rolling

[Anonymous No.6782097]

>>6782003
>>6782017
>>6782050
>/lit/ 681+1334

[Anonymous No.6782112]

>>6782060
>seldom

good fucking lord i think i found your problem

[Anonymous No.6782115]

>>6781923
It's interesting to me how /lit/ is a combo of smart opinions and the usual /b/ish shut in, schauvinist contrarian views.

[Anonymous No.6782119]

>>6781923
I actually started out thinking this woman hating stuff was bullshit, then went to a top university in my country and all but one woman I met are SJWs with a superiority complex, look at intellectual pursuits only as a way to attract men and get good grades, and I sincerely doubt they read anything more complicated than Danielle Steele on their free time.

So it's pretty much legit.

[Anonymous No.6782137]

>>6782088
>tfw missed Beata Stawarska's public lecture when she visited my uni. The lecture was on
Language as poiesis. Unexpected Alliances between Kristeva and Saussure.

[Anonymous No.6782142]

Being a pseudo-intellectual I always get burnt while dating smart women. I'll have to compensate by using empirical logic on views I frankly don't know much about, making them feel looked down upon. From then on no matter how much fun and interest we get out of teasing each other, the paranoia eventually grows until breaking point where she starts shouting at me for jokingly using the word gypsy instead of Roma.

[Anonymous No.6782159]

>>6782119
the twist is you'll find men basically do the same thing

[Anonymous No.6782160]

>>6781944
Probably as soon as people could choose between two books. And as soon as there were distinct social groups that could make that choice, they started judging one another. (Don't expect non-trivial answers to trivial questions.)

Of course, OP is a judgmental cunt who possibly even reads the same things as those ladies.
It's ironic, of course, that I automatically assume OP to be socially inept - while calling him judgmental. Huh.

[Anonymous No.6782201]

>>6782060
If you do not like women who are smarter than you, then what are you looking for exactly?

[Anonymous No.6782206]

You sound like you haven't read anything and you're 14.

[Anonymous No.6782208]

>>6782142

Lol

[Anonymous No.6782232]

>>6782142

Lol

[Anonymous No.6782251]

>>6782142

Lol

[Anonymous No.6782256]

>>6782142

Lol

[Anonymous No.6782261]

>>6781923

Nothing's reconciled.

Women are pathetic whores.

I was personally raised by a single mother, and I thank god that I was as I was shown the vaginal succubus's true nature from a young age.

[Anonymous No.6782269]

>>6782261
>daddy issues
>hatred for mother

Irrelevant opinion, stop posting.

[All clean now No.6782273]

>>6781923
Are you asking if I would kill someone for a woman?

[Anonymous No.6782283]

>>6782269

When you get married you roll a dice. 75% the whore never loved you in the first place, and after she's bored of your relationship (10 years is the magic threshold) she'll dump you, take your shit, tear your family apart and just fuck you in the ass all around. It happened to my dad, it can happen to you. And I don't have "daddy issues" or hate my mom. I'm still in touch with my dad and I can hardly blame my mother for her average female behaviour.

[Anonymous No.6782284]

>OP is completely correct about women
>inexplicably, people on /lit/ try to counter his argument using anecdotal evidence
>no one on /lit/ even HAS a gf to write anecdotes about

So fucking weird. Go outside, dipshits. From scratch, try to find this woman you claim exists and let us know how the hunt progresses.

[Anonymous No.6782286]

>>6782283
maybe your dad shouldn't have strongarmed his gf into marrying him

[Anonymous No.6782287]

>>6782283
>yfw you are the reason they divorced

[Anonymous No.6782292]

>>6782283
Oh my

[Anonymous No.6782293]

>>6781923
option a: realize reading is just a hobby and dont look down on anyone for not also enjoying your hobby

option b: actually live and go to school in a well educated city. majored in english, met more women interested in literature than i can care to count. and yes, not just "hunger games, the fault in our stars, the list could go on," but also "shakespeare, milton, the list could go on" as well. this becomes more true the higher the class number is. i was taking grad seminars and my classmates were in some casing making their own translations as a project.

option c: realize that this is just as rare for women as men. here are like 90% of my interactions with men on literature

>i'm a big reader dude my favorite books are fight club and 1984. those books really changed my life and make me think. i can't be bothered with authors like joyce, the emperor is naked.
>i love to read! i started really reading with harry potter, and have been reading ever since. my favorites are hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, the game of thrones series, and lord of the rings.
>i read all the time. john grisham, steven king, tom clancy, have a look at my bookshelf anon, i think you'd be really impressed

most of the other times i get anyone who is actually into literary fiction, that 10%, its mostly existentialist "muh feels" shit like murakami and camus. i can count on one hand the number of men in my life who've read milton. you whinge about women being this way, when its just as common for men to be underread.

unlike you though i don't hold it against anybody for being that way. i allow people to have other interests.

also to your last question yes its a pretty common conclusion to view the us military as a servant to mercantile interests generally.

now kindly fuck off with your tired misanthropy. if you'd like some company for your self-pity, bukowski is about your speed

[Anonymous No.6782304]

>>6782293
>option a: realize reading is just a hobby and dont look down on anyone for not also enjoying your hobby
>
>option b: actually live and go to school in a well educated city. majored in english, met more women interested in literature than i can care to count. and yes, not just "hunger games, the fault in our stars, the list could go on," but also "shakespeare, milton, the list could go on" as well. this becomes more true the higher the class number is. i was taking grad seminars and my classmates were in some casing making their own translations as a project.
>
>option c: realize that this is just as rare for women as men. here are like 90% of my interactions with men on literature

A: you're a faggot, the sum total of human knowledge only exists in text form. If you don't read, you are an ignoramus

B: nice anecdote, but everyone in MY class was a huge pleb. Especially the ones pretending they enjoyed books too intelligent for them.

C: all great artists from all time are men

[Anonymous No.6782308]

>>6782283
Reverse Oedipus

You're fucked

[Anonymous No.6782314]

What is it like growing up deaf?
What is life with cochlear implants like?

[Anonymous No.6782320]

>>6782304
>C: all great artists from all time are men

[Anonymous No.6782335]

>>6782293

Why do you confuse my view of women having life on easy mode due to different treatment by society with a criticism of women?

If someone believed that men and women had equal mental potential, and also believed that men were treated worse by society (in various ways) and forced to distinguish themselves why would you say that

>its just as common for men to be underread

????? You seriously think men and women have the same incentives?

Srsly, every vaguely intelligent person agrees with everything I say. They just don't want to be associated with r9k / sluthate.

[Anonymous No.6782360]

>>6782060
>females
>seldom
>conversing

Fuck off you fedora'd pretentious faggot.

[Anonymous No.6782363]

>>6782304

> the sum total of human knowledge only exists in text form.

bullcrab, you're ignoring all other media

> If you don't read, you are an ignoramus

and you're suddenly equating "reading" to "reading literature". pls, the way my brain works, i get more food for thought from reading articles than out of literature.

[Anonymous No.6782367]

>>6782283
>women's reasons for divorcing men are never legit
>only men can end a relationship
>women have to love men forever but not vice versa

Okay then.

[Anonymous No.6782373]

>>6782335
>Srsly, every vaguely intelligent person agrees with everything I say. They just don't want to be associated with r9k / sluthate.

This is the problem with echochambers like r9k

[Anonymous No.6782374]

>>6782363
>i get more food for thought from reading articles than out of literature.

Probably too dumb to understand what you're reading in literature so you need it pleb'd up in article format. Let me guess, New Yorker?

[Anonymous No.6782376]

>>6782304
a1: the sum total of human knowledge would actually include as it exists in people's heads at the present moment. this also applies to the past. if you consider the amount of knowledge that people have, their memories, experiences, etc., very little of that is put to paper. you also forgot about things like documentaries, news broadcasts on radio and TV, photographs, raw footage, etc.
a2: you're moving goal posts. in two ways. first, you've moved from literature to ALL knowledge, and you've also moved from talking about your personal interest in literature to statements about the world.
a3: writing being a repository for knowledge doesn't have a bearing on whether or not people need to have an interest in literature. technically fiction isn't "knowledge," so even by your definition it's not incumbent on anyone to read novels.

b: you also have a nice anecdote. if you are a misanthropic shut-in, i wouldn't be surprised if you didn't give people half a chance. i also wouldn't be surprised if you told me you went to school in plebtown USA.

c: moving goal posts once again. we've jumped from "people who have an interest in literature" to "people who produce art considered great." the jump from one to the other isn't justified.

>>6782335
i made no such confusion. i was countering your claim that "real life women" never "read anything worthwhile in their free time." such women exist, i have been in relationships with them, both romantic and friendship.

no matter how badly men are treated by society in compared to women, it doesn't follow that they are then "forced to distinguish themselves" with this or that hobby. hobbies arise in any condition, for people of either gender.

>you seriously think men and women have the same incentives?

i don't know what this has to do with anyone's interest in literature. when i read books or newspapers, my incentive is that is it is a pleasurable activity. i imagine its the same with most other people, not only for literature, but other hobbies.

sorry, if you continue to tell your opinion to others, you'll understand that vaguely intelligent, and very intelligent people don't agree with everything, let alone some of the things you are saying.

[Anonymous No.6782380]

>>6781923
7 get

[Anonymous No.6782386]

>>6782376
I wish there was a last.fm for books so we could see the kind of dogshit you think passes for "taste". I have no doubt that you do not belong here except in the post-ironic sense that /lit/ has become a beehive of peasantry.

It's obvious you get nothing out of literature and are not a participant in the oft-forsaken pursuit of wisdom. One wonders if Buddha thought his teachings were a "hobby".

[Anonymous No.6782392]

How does it make you feel to know there are so many roast- I mean womyn, on your precious /lit/?

[Anonymous No.6782395]

>>6782201
I do not like her particularly; not smarter women in general. She has droopy eyes.

[Anonymous No.6782407]

>>6782392
There are actually even more than this, having seen the amount of women from the /lit/ goodreads threads.

[Anonymous No.6782408]

>>6782392
Girl in glasses is my IRL gf

[Anonymous No.6782431]

>>6782386
want to try me?

last three books i read:

anna karenina
satantango
the castle

currently reading: the emperor's tomb

next three: tomas transtromer - the great enigma, john williams - augustus, krzhizhanovsky - memories of the future

favorites include paradise lost, zarathustra, king lear, melville's short stories, faulkner, mccarthy, and woolf. just off the top of my head.

i get a great deal out of literature, but i don't let that distort the relative importance of literature. i also can and have gotten a great deal out of tennis, car repair, and cooking. if i had to decide, i would say most of my wisdom i gained from experience, not from reading. i have read about new york city but it isn't the same as going there.

i have also noticed many parallels in whatever wisdom i can say i've gained from reading i also learned in sports. lessons about being patient, ready, open, focus, discipline, effort, etc.

people can get the same things from other hobbies as reading, and other hobbies offer different kinds of wisdom, knowledge, and experience. if your pretense is offended by the word "hobby," maybe you are more comfortable with "passion?" okay, then, still: not everyone is required to have the same passion. the fact that people have different passions is one of the fun parts of life and interacting with other people. some are passionate about literature, others film, others cooking. there is no need for everyone to have the same interests or passion.

even your example defeats itself. out of all eight parts of buddha's 'eightfold path,' notice how none of them are just "reading."

[Anonymous No.6782440]

>>6781923
rolling

[Anonymous No.6782450]

>>6781923
>How do you guys reconcile your love of literature, especially romantic books, with real life women who have all no doubt fucked loads of Chads and all that other stuff that causes r9k / sluthate to exist? Do you seriously lie to yourself and pretend that the girls in picrelated will ever read anything worthwhile in their free time?

>learn medieval philosophy and theoiogy
>go to church
>met virgin qts
>get a gf

problem solved. downside: they want to wait till marriage

[Anonymous No.6782461]

>>6781950
>Maybe if you would get out of the pathetic shit hole that is/r9k/ and actually experience the "real life women" you are talking about and stopfeeling lime the superior gentleman you'd realize that you're full of shit and so are your arguments.

Actually by going out lots, the exact opposite will happen. "r9k"'s view of women is actually sheltered.

[Anonymous No.6782463]

>>6782431
>liking McCarthy and using him as an example of elevated taste
All Aboard The Pleb Train! Next stop: your life

>I learn life lessons from tennis
Ok
> lessons about being patient, ready, open, focus, discipline, effort, etc.
>lessons about being focus
>lessons about being effort
>lessons about being discipline
Ok

I love working on cars though so I forgive you

[Anonymous No.6782468]

>>6781923
[SPOILER]roll[/spoiler]

I don't go much for "romantic" literature. I don't expect women to be "literary". The existence of loose women does not disprove the existence of virtuous women. The degeneration of sexual morality, while quite real, does not negate the fact that it exists, or that things used to be different, or that they could get better.

People disregard your posts because you sound like a blowhard dipshit. I don't know how old you are, but the fact that you recently discovered that most women/people are trash isn't some earth-shattering insight. We've all had our own personal enlightenments. Most everyone interested in discussing the role and behavior of women who's posting on this board has done so before. You're not bringing anything new to the table. If you want to prattle about women, seriously, >>/r9k/.

Re:soldiers. I'm a professional soldier. 1) there is a serious, serious difference between a young man who is prepared to die and someone more mature willing to do so. There is no way for most private soldiers to be anything but "brainwashed" from the viewpoint of an intellectual. It is one of the duties of the wise to ensure that the lives of such men are not wasted. 2) What causes are you even accusing of being "shit"? Let's hear some examples.

[Anonymous No.6782472]

>>6782450
implying I don't want to get married and have children at 21.

[Anonymous No.6782482]

>>6782472
Literally why you dumb fuck.

[Anonymous No.6782488]

>>6782283
How you guys manage to get involved into so awful and depressing relationships? Didn't you get a hint about the women you were going to marry? Or are you so stupid and "women" amazing liars, so you are always the poor little victims with superior intellect surpassed by the power of a plot hole of pure evilness?

[Anonymous No.6782490]

It seems that /reddlit/ can't handle it when a part of women are being discussed negatively even when the same form of criticism can be used to criticise the many men who are not leading the ' literary lifestyle'
Both men plebs and women plebs deserve no respect.

[Anonymous No.6782499]

>>6782392
>yfw all have the thousand cocks stare

they were right

[Anonymous No.6782500]

>>6782142
lol

[Anonymous No.6782504]

>>6782431
Im pretty sure even Camus said that he got more out of rugby than theatre/literature.

[Anonymous No.6782508]

>>6782482
Because I have an apartment, a villa, and could, with no effort, get a job that can suffice to raise a family.
Also, the spooks that I am the last male heir who also carries the family name, so from a young age I've been indoctrinated to want kids.
I also have superior genes; no allergies, no baldness, AB+ blood type.

[Anonymous No.6782510]

>>6782463
you cherry pick one author. again, i also said off the top of my head. you nitpick some grammar stuff. deft sidestepping, OP.

you addressed none of the points i made throughout this thread and resorted to namecalling and nitpicking. its laughable you consider yourself an intellectual, let alone in a position to judge whether others are or not.

you assumed the worst about me and seem to do the same for others in the world, especially women, and believe other people should have the same interests that you do, or else they aren't smart. its funny even to your latest reply, the theme continues

>you share my hobby (fix cars) so you are cool and i forgive you

if you had any of this wisdom you yammer on about, you'd already understand people can be very un-like you and still be excellent, great, etc.

i'm probably not the first, nor will i probably be the last to say you're pompous douchebag. if you want to have a superiority complex, you could at least try to cure cancer.

[Anonymous No.6782513]

>with real life women who have all no doubt fucked loads of Chads and all that other stuff that causes r9k / sluthate to exist?

I used to go on there but felt kind of out of place sometimes. I mean, I've never blamed anyone else but myself for my loneliness (tfw no gf) and anxiety w/r/t relationships and social situations. Don't get me wrong though. I don't hold the human race in general in high regard, but I'm not really hateful or anything (except for myself). As for the reconciliation thing, I don't see the point in holding women up to some standard of what they must read; people have different interests. I sure as hell don't read literature as some way to try and impress others. My love of literature isn't really going to be swayed by someone else's hobbies.

Where I'm from, being a soldier is literally seen as a job just like any other you might get. It's not really lionised here.

[Anonymous No.6782514]

>>6782513
This.

[Anonymous No.6782522]

women are way smarter, in general, than men are. they have a better connection between the right and left hemispheres of their brains, which allows them to use language in much more interesting ways than men do.

just because they don't like to read postmodernism bullshit that panders to the sad male doesn't mean they don't read anything of literary worth.

i mean lots of women like po-mo shit, esp when they're young and are trying to get in with the boys. these women generally have better intuition and understanding of the complexities of whatever they've read than their dumb male counterparts.

yeah then there are lots of women who don't read or only read lite fiction or whathaveyou. various reasons for that, but men are really dumb when they think that women don't read (or write) anything of value, given that women generally do better at universities than men do.

[Anonymous No.6782523]

Imo

From my experience with women (even some of the most qt gf's you could possibly want), celibacy is preferable to their companionship.

Why?

Fucking sluts on one night stands leaves you feeling more hollow than before.

Having a gf = 75% less free time. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Even if the gf is into artistic pursuits you two will not be able to freely pursue your passions while attached to each other. Ultimately you still feel hollow, feeling that you're sacrificing your potential.

The attachment is the real monster. I'd rather stay celibate than crush my own human freedom by attaching myself to a woman.

[Anonymous No.6782529]

>>6782522
i can tell this was written by a woman

[Anonymous No.6782531]

>>6782142
Lol

[Anonymous No.6782533]

>>6782529

Umm... that's nice sweetie :)

[Anonymous No.6782537]

>philosophy threads on /r9k/
>>>/r9k/20193457
>woman hate threads on /lit/

what is happening to the world?

[Anonymous No.6782541]

>>6782522
Spoken for truth. It's painful to read that a lot of men think they can judge people's intelligence by how much canon they have read.

[Anonymous No.6782549]

>>6782510
Hey guy, Im not the OP or whatever you're crying about. I just thought I'd point out that you can't construct a sentence and you're probably in HS.

Thank you for the psychoanalysis though, I appreciate that.

Protip for new visitors: "off the top of my head" does nothing to detract from shitty taste. It's a safety blanket used by people that aren't secure in their opinions.

[Anonymous No.6782568]

>>6782549
i can construct sentences ok, but i'm not going to put in the effort on 4chan that i will for a term paper. these posts are going to people with thick skulls and will be deleted from the front page within a day's time. i don't bother to proofread my posts here. i'm well beyond college, actually. you shouldn't conflate grammar and spelling with education level in a place like this. you really imagine people in HS read williams, transtromer, krhizhanovsky, krasznahorkai? i took AP lit and we didn't even read woolf, nietzsche, or kafka.

protip for you: cherry picking one SINGLE author from a list doesn't mean that single example overrides everything else

[Anonymous No.6782585]

Getting women is really easy, be it just sex or proper companionship.

The catch that most of 4chan's userbase (especially r9k obviously, but not just 4chan but men who would fit that general category everywhere) doesn't get is that they really REALLY don't want a woman.

Now, I'm not saying you're all gay, but what I'm saying is that you only dream of an idealized shallow version of what it means to have female "acceptance". Mostly because the typical user here is narcissistic, and since having "the gf" is held in such high regard in the society at large, you view it as another thing to attach to your own status. In reality you are extremely dehumanizing to women, because your want for them is actually done in a very self-serving way where you're truly concerned how that would reflect on you. You're never really concerned about her in particular. This can easily be seen when you have men worshipping a "qt 3.14 nice gf", when it's done in a very general way, there's never a "specific" her, because there is no need to ever observe details of an individual her as long as you are only interested in "her" in a self-serving status-driven narcissistic manner. This is why it's so easy to observe, that men like this, really have no individual preferences, their taste is basically a copy-paste shallow image of a girl that would reflect positively on them from the status point. This is what I mean when I say none of you really want a GF in the "true" companionship matter of way. The reason why you can't get one is because they can smell your narcissism from a mile away. Now that would only be a minor issue, but your narcissism causes you to put inhumane expectations on her as an individual to fully submit to you basically as an ornament all the while you are being extremely autistic in your behavior towards her.

Basically you are many many many roadblocks away from realizing the true nature of your position. Once you will start thinking that you truly want a "GF" and not an idealized version of "her" as a status object driven by your narcissism, then and only then, will you realize that you in fact do not want a GF. A GF in any meaningful sense is such a huge commitment emotionally, and time-wise, that given the conditions that society-wide conditions that exist today, you're basically asking to get butt-raped by playing the game. The relationship today a lot of the times is a commodified purely utilitarian exchange. I get x from you, you give me y back. And we'll sprinkle in a couple of hugs and nice words for it. The worst thing is, it's exceedingly hard to find out who fits that and who doesn't and who has certain intentions and who doesn't. If your cognitive dissonance is high enough that you can actually make yourself belief that even that commodified exchange is "love" then you might actually be in advantage.

[Anonymous No.6782594]

>>6782568
>why defend my choice in McCarthy with an argument when I can accuse my accuser of lacking an argument
Eh, I figured as much, not worth it. Thank you for the tip, though.

[Anonymous No.6782607]

>>6782522
>which allows them to use language in much more interesting ways than men do.
name three ways/examples

[Anonymous No.6782638]

>>6782585
If you're not capable of that, then this is like step 3. Like three planets removed from the idealized "GF" scenario put forth by the r9k-like phenomena observed in men. The step 3 is you will have to weed through miles and miles of bullshit to MAYBE find that one person that might be a good fit for you, but it's not even a given that she will stay that way (that's like step 4, or another galaxy). All the while you walk that path, you will constantly be bombarded by the easy ways out in the form of meaningless sex, whores, commodified versions of shallow relationships, and other bullshit. I mean the stream of that is constant and well-enforced. You might even snap back all the way to step 1 into r9k. So step 3 is realizing that you are basically walking through a jungle with angry snakes and alligators and all other shit coming at you for the CHANCE that there might be a treasure buried somewhere in the center of it. And then step 4 is making sure you don't lose it. Like man, the jungle is too thick for a "real" "love-based" relationship these days. You don't WANT a gf per-se, the phenomena of r9k, they instinctively know it, they would like an image of a gf more than the actual gf.