Did Lolita want it?

I'm writer

File: 1463108927693.gif (2MB, 380x319px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 380x319px

>what is rape

File: krfit.gif (948KB, 256x238px) Image search: [Google]

948KB, 256x238px

>>8037445
She didn't not want it.

Yeah but only inasmuch as all women do. If you can get away with an abduction, if you really pull it off, they're basically biologically programmed to develop Stockholm syndrome in an afternoon and love you.

Look at all those broads who get kidnapped. You can lock them in a fucking basement for 14 years and they just chill out down there and watch movies. They just adjust. You're a man, so you define their entire universe, and if you say it's a basement now, well, that's just fine. Even less of an acclimation period if you let them live on the main floor. Look at that Elizabeth Smart bitch or whatever. She could have just walked out at any time, but the guy would just shake his head disapprovingly when she went toward the door, and she didn't leave for years.

They hit puberty at like 10 now, and their genes start screaming in the only deep grammar a woman's mind actually understands, namely "HAVE A BABY, FIND A MAN TO OWN YOU, HAVE A BABY, FIND A MAN TO OWN YOU, HAVE A BABY, FIND A MAN TO OWN YOU, HAVE A BABY, FIND A MAN TO OWN YOU." Desert island with a loli? You got yourself a loli bride. Germanic conqueror who cuts off a dude's head and steals his wife and daughter? You got yourself two new loving wives right there. They don't give a fuck. They just adjust. It's in their nature.

Lolita wanted Humbert's dick because 600,000 years of evolution was bearing down on her pussy-addled brain telling her he could probably sustain her comfortably in better digs than her mom was currently affording, and he seemed to have an air of manly sophistication. Even as a child, her cunt can sniff that shit out and snap onto it like a clam biting a $100 bill.

>>8037471
>sees a female once irl

File: 1463077008637.gif (328KB, 1000x773px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 1000x773px

>>8037471
I... I don't even know where to begin with this...

File: 1447554476225.jpg (75KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 800x600px

Of course

They all do

File: 1463027524763.gif (3MB, 240x234px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 240x234px

>>8037471

This is why I cum to /lit/

>>8037471
lmao and they said /lit/ was shitty nowdays..

>>8037471
compelling

>>8037471
And in the end she gets four grand, too. Shame she died.

File: 1461728848005.gif (161KB, 217x199px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 217x199px

>>8037471

>>8037445
all trolling aside, if humbert is taken to be truthful he's an idiot, because she probably would have if he hadn't uprooted her life and started lying to her
he was already on her good side, he could have just taken her home, explained the situation, helped her grieve and adjust, and in a few months or a year he'd have been closer to her than ever

>>8037704
You do realize the point was to show how terrible sexually abusing a child was, right?
The whole reason Vlad wrote it was to show what acting on pedophilia does to someone.

>>8037714

>teenager
>child

Looks like someone bought the whole Feminist 'age of consent' thing; hook, line and sinker.

>>8037714
>The whole reason Vlad wrote it was to show what acting on pedophilia does to someone.

ends in heartbreak and crushing guilt and regret? to be honest that is not a realistic depiction of any inevitable consequence of pedophilia. most people don't romanticize the idea nearly as much as humbert did.

The book is in no way a general indicator of the general consequences of pedophilia. It's a very very very particular story of a man who romanticizes his pedophilia and lust and defines it as love and is a part of a story which happens to end up in tragedy.

>>8037714
I get that, it's just set up in a way where humbert does really dumb shit to ruin their lives instead of the rape ruining it
the abuse started way before he raped her, abducting her and lying to her would've ruined her life by itself, even if he hadn't touched her

>>8037528
who is this mattress actress

>>8037724
Lolita was twelve.
And don't throw that bullshit at me, the only reason faggots want the age of consent lowered is because they're so desperate to get their dick wet that they are willing to shove it into someone who isn't old enough to know about or be mature about that whole world of shit.
Instead of shoving your head further up your own ass, how about you try and see things from a different perspective, or are you so deep inside your own rectum that all you can do is say "muh redpill" or equate literally any moral statements that don't line up with your own "feminism" or "SJW bullshit"?

>>8037727
I'm confused on what you're trying to say.

File: Big Schop.jpg (69KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 850x400px

>>8037743

>He still isn't redpilled on women

Heh. How many women have you fucked whilst White Knighting? I'll bet I've fucked more, and I fucking hate them. My respect for women is minimal, and I don't make any secret of it.

By all means, keep kowtowing to the feminists; keep "holding out" until they're already "past it", and merely settle for you.

File: 1462739179325.jpg (307KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1280x960px

>>8037749
Who needs a woman when you have this

File: Lao Yang intensifies.jpg (108KB, 602x915px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 602x915px

>>8037761

Touché.

>>8037749
Bitch don't you fucking equate me to those neckbeard fedora wearing cucklords that think all women are prefect fucking angels.
I'm a virgin but I'm well aware on the bullshit women can pull, I'm aware that JUST LIKE MEN they are capable of cruelty.
But I'm also not one of you absolute degenerates that can't think for themselves, do you just follow the other extreme and generalize an entire gender based off one or two cheating cunts.
Honestly I think what all this assery stems from is that you are quite literally incapable of seeing past your own views.
I think that whenever you speak to someone with a different opinion or perspective, you don't try to listen to their words but instead think of the next great way to be a total douche and not even provide a proper rebuttal.

That the following statement is probably entirely false.
>The whole reason Vlad wrote it was to show what acting on pedophilia does to someone.

Pedophilia probably does not do to the average pedophile what it did to humbert. Most pedophiles aren't like humbert and therefore the consequences of their actions would not have an impact on them in the same manner they did on humbert. so saying that it was written "to what pedophilia does to someone" is almost certainly bullshit.

File: wew lad.png (120KB, 600x686px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 600x686px

>>8037471

>>8037445
She was so fucking sexy. Too bad she aged poorly

>>8037781
What it does to Lolita, not Humbert.
The rest of her life literally gets ruined.

Maybe she didn't care about it. It was only a tool to get what she wanted: magazines, movies, etc.

File: qt.jpg (88KB, 750x499px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 750x499px

I have a genuine question from people of this board. Does anyone here actually and unironically hold any radical beliefs about women like this guy >>8037471 does?

I've had little contact or conversation with women but they seem to me as normal people with their own motivations with personalities no better or no worse on average than that of men.
Maybe it's because I grew up with education that stressed on their equality to men despite being different from them. But I never really thought of them as being radically different to men when it came to personalities. Did I go wrong?
Have I missed something?

>>8037800
>>8037808
Why did you delete the first post?

They seem to me to be exact, and you erased your dubs

>>8037808
>>8037814
>Why did you delete the first post?

>They seem to me to be exact, and you erased your dubs
He's a Kanye fan. He wanted that 808.

>>8037779

>I'm a virgin

Your whole post attests to this.

Women are worse than men. Read your Schopenhauer.

>>8037727

TRIGGERED

>>8037808
I've always thought it of it as equal opportunity and expectations.
I expect the same from a woman as I would a man, and I believe they should be given enough opportunities and chances as men do.
I think also part of the issue is seeing them as some sort of entirely other species and not human beings.

>>8037800
>>8037808
nigga wut?

For real though, I find most people boring and most people find me boring. I found that the average women and the average man seem to be very similar but with certain things switched out.

They have the same predictability and are into the same shows and music etc. I think anyone who holds the average man over the average women has not come into contact with a lot of men or women.

>>8037814
there was a typo : "no better or now worse". it could have been interpreted incorrectly and screwed this thread up.

>>8037825
>I've never had sex therefore I've never communicated or been around women
>my statements are invalid simply because I haven't stuck my dick in a cooter
This meme needs to die.

>>8037777
Quads confirm Chinese will beat out the Muslims as the future masters of the world.

>>8037749
3edge5school
>>8037761
rofl
>>8037779
>"I'm a virgin".
>Knowing something about women.
Pick one, faggot.

File: Top kek m8.jpg (166KB, 465x472px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 465x472px

>>8037842

>"People who pass their lives in reading and acquire their wisdom in books are like those who learn about a country from travel descriptions: they can impart information about a great number of things, but at the bottom they possess no connected, clear, thorough knowledge of what the country is like. On the other hand, people who pass their lives in thinking are like those who have visited the country themselves: they alone are really familiar with it, possess connected knowledge of it and are truly at home in it." - Schopenhauer

tl;dr - You're the reader, I'm the visitor.

File: 1462327504648.jpg (619KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

619KB, 1280x960px

>>8037833
no one is talking about opportunities here. most people would believe that every human should get the as good opportunities in life as anyone else.

>I expect the same from a woman as I would a man
Really? In every way? Do you expect them to have dicks too?

Women are different than men but I can't quite pin exactly in what way. When it comes to personalities they seem on average as harboring the same likes, dislikes, motivations etc as men do. But I'm not completely sure if their personalities are different to those of men in any fundamental way.

>>8037835
>I found that the average women and the average man seem to be very similar but with certain things switched out.

what certain things? examples?

I am holding the average man on the same level as the average woman. I mentioned in my post that they don't seem to have any radical differences. read it again.

>>8037859
Both.
I have a mother, a grandmother, a sister, friends that are a girls, some which have admitted to having a crush on me, etc.
I actually communicate with women, people in general on a daily basis. So yeah, I guess I can say I know a thing or two.

File: Top fucking kek you pathetic faggot.jpg (18KB, 258x245px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 258x245px

>>8037878

>I guess I can see that I know a thing or two

>>8037873

>>8037877
I meant I expect them equally in terms of behavior and attitude, by being respectful and demanding respect.
It seems tho theses days people have completely gone off the rails with what the term "respect" means.

>>8037873
>I have to have had sex in order to not be a tourist
Okay pal

>>8037877
>what certain things? examples?

Like how a women would be into celebrity gossip while a man would be it sports gossip (who got caught doing steroids, who's record is going to be broken, who beat their wife and so on). They appear slightly different but are really the same. That's the what I mean.

>I am holding the average man on the same level as the average woman. I mentioned in my post that they don't seem to have any radical differences. read it again.

I never said you didn't. The last sentence in my post was just a general statement and was not directed towards you.

File: tips swamp.jpg (18KB, 353x334px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 353x334px

>>8037884

>I have to have had sex in order to not be a tourist

This is correct.

>>8037895
>post a fedora tipping pick, that will show him!
Didn't I already say I'm not one of those fuck heads that glorify women because they're so desperate to get some they'll literally be willing to shit on themselves just for a peck on the cheek?

>>8037873
Do you fuck everyone to know them?

>>8037890
Women are earth. Man is sky. Women create value through sex and love. Mean create value through will and intellect. Why are there so few women prodigies compared to men? Because women have an entirely different philosophical outlook on life. As soon as a woman goes through puberty, she is impelled to find a man to care for her weakness. A man goes through puberty and must make himself great to attract women.

>>8037914

No, but I don't talk about things I haven't experienced.

I have experienced sex, and women.

>>8037920
Exactly, two different entities entirely.
I don't need to have sex with a woman to know who she is.

>>8037471

Slam dunk sir.

This thread can now be closed.

>>8037924

>I don't need to have sex with a woman to know who she is.

Sadly you do, lad.

>>8037924
>sex / sex life has nothing to do with who someone is as a person
denial is more than a river in africa

File: 1463117276890.jpg (138KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 500x500px

>>8037933
Are you for real?
So because I've never fucked my mother, my OWN mother, who I have known for literally my entire life, who has raised me from birth, I don't know who she is as a person?

>>8037938
Never what I said. Ever.

>>8037942

Yep.

Get yourself an Oedipus Complex, my son.

Read Freud.

>>8037942
your dad knows her better than you do

depends how much HH said was lies/truth

File: 1462930867199.gif (307KB, 267x200px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 267x200px

>>8037957
>>8037960
It's real.
This shit actually exists.
Unironically.
Holy fuck, it's like seeing a unicorn.
A shitty, evil unicorn.

>>8037933
So you know no men then, how can you even compare men to women knowing only yourself?

>>8037971

>So you know no men then
>Implying I'm not bi

Better watch that asshole, boy; or I'll get to know you very intimately ;)

>tfw gf isn't 13 anymore

>>8037977
This is beyond meme, this is some fucking blackhole for logic.
How do you function?

>>8037969
You unironically believe that biology has no effect on the phenomenology of experience? There is scientific proof of different brain wiring in males and females. The only one seeing unicorns is you.

>>8037988
Quite well, apparently, seeing as I'm not a virgin like you.

>>8038003

The only noumenon of which you can be certain is yourself.

>>8038003
I'm not denying solid science, guy. What I am calling bullshit on is people extrapolating sexual dimorphism as "women be bitches".
The sexes are different, not lesser or greater than either.

File: Crashing this plane.gif (2MB, 400x332px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x332px

>>8038014

>The sexes are different, not lesser or greater than either

You have a lot to learn, kid.

File: 1461449393609.png (265KB, 334x393px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 334x393px

>>8038027

>>8038003
>science
>proof
>proof
>real

>>8038052
Don't worry, lurk more and you'll get it.

>>8038085

There are no facts, only interpretations.

:^)

It was written about me. I wanted it.

>>8037808
Not all women. Just one. Gotta vent somewhere.

File: 1406282407569.jpg (58KB, 580x679px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 580x679px

>>8037654
> shame she died

do you suck at reading or just trollin?

>>8038206
Lolita dies, you cannot tell me otherwise.

>>8037808
It seems to me that women and men are very much different. Physically they are obviously different, and chemically there are extreme differences between the sexes, and unless you believe in a floating consciousness that has no connection to bodily chemicals, then mentally they will be different as well.

There are some concessions within society that reflect this, but since at this point it's basically impossible to nail down exactly where the sexes are similar and different, in the broad sense they must be treated equally. In Western society, that means equal opportunity.

>>8038239
>women and men are very much different
is very much different*

>>8038206
She does die, you moron.

Lolita was under the legal age of consent and therefore didn't know what she wanted

Have a nice day :)

>>8040013
>Lolita was under the legal age of consent
was she?

File: k.png (13KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 160x160px

>>8037471
fucking on point

>>8037960
or her husband, for that matter

>>8037808
yes, that poster is correct
however they may have other drives also
"every woman adores a fascist"
and many men
this isn't particularly misogynistic

>>8037471
well

>>8038239
>unless you believe in a floating consciousness that has no connection to bodily chemicals


Language and cultural norms that are drilled into people's minds since infancy are a thousand times more important than chemicals in your brain, no matter how reductionary you want to be.

>>8040001
no it was all a fabrication in his mind m8

well she died in the preface of the book but not due to humphrey

>>8040037
She died because of the shitty life that Humbert shoved her into by abducting and abandoning her.
If you want a book that caters to your pedophile fantasies read The End of Alice. The lolidom was dope.

>>8037808
Women are different but not as such for it to be something needing comment unless its new to you. They are not inferior, less able, or anything like that merely more or less likely to be be skilled or otherwise in a differing but overlapping set of areas. I have lived with the same one for 22 years and I can honestly claim some expertise in the area, you become a team if you both picked correctly in the first place, a single set of skills superior to both separate parts. It takes a long time of living together to know this though and you can only learn it this way. You can't be told it and it just becomes a thing you know.

>>8037808
Women are different when it comes to men in terms of personality but some are not as different as others. For some theres like a marginal feminine difference but for others its like a drastic feminine difference. The same can be applied to men but its more likely to find a feminine woman than a feminine man.....as common sense would dictate. Feminine vs Masculine personality traits, etc.

>>8040041

implying it was abduction by the laws of their society back then

>>8040041
yea but she didn't die due to him shooting her

>>8037471
I have a boner now

File: 1463271159178.jpg (63KB, 586x674px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 586x674px

>>8037471
>>Look at all those broads who get kidnapped. You can lock them in a fucking basement for 14 years and they just chill out down there and watch movies. They just adjust. You're a man, so you define their entire universe, and if you say it's a basement now, well, that's just fine. Even less of an acclimation period if you let them live on the main floor. Look at that Elizabeth Smart bitch or whatever. She could have just walked out at any time, but the guy would just shake his head disapprovingly when she went toward the door, and she didn't leave for years.
>
>They hit puberty at like 10 now, and their genes start screaming in the only deep grammar a woman's mind actually understands, namely "HAVE A BABY, FIND A MAN TO OWN YOU, HAVE A BABY, FIND A MAN TO OWN YOU, HAVE A BABY, FIND A MAN TO OWN YOU, HAVE A BABY, FIND A MAN TO OWN YOU." Desert island with a loli? You got yourself a loli bride. Germanic conqueror who cuts off a dude's head and steals his wife and daughter? You got yourself two new loving wives right there. They don't give a fuck. They just adjust. It's in their nature.
you are a 20 yo beta. that's just laughable. the opposite of what you say holds. men universe is defined by women, from the pure sex in the twenties, to the pure sex+home life two decades later.

>>8037808
most men seek validation of their existence as a response of their action, from what they conceive as the reality, validation which is the most intense through taking women, after women have accepted them to be satisfied by them, and nowadays making women explicitly wet. these men are devoted to women.

of course, most women snub most men, since women live for pleasures, being hedonistic-histrionics-egotistic but not narcissistic, which excludes, most of the time, what they consider poor or ugly men since those will never give as much pleasure to them as other men.
Only the woman is able to have pleasure for pleasure itself, and she knows this. sex is what always pleases her, among other things, and the male devotees attempt to give her orgasms. impotent men attempt to give her comfort.

higher men are narcissistic --- they do not seek validation from somebody else, even less from a woman --- without being egotistic, but the woman takes this narcissism as her egotism, which thus draws her to these men; for each woman knows that her best lovers are not the puny devoted men [=robots and chads], but precisely are her fantasy of men like her, but not like her either !, which means just as egotistic as her, without being narcissistic.

the problem of the woman is that men cannot be ''egotistic without being narcissistic'' (only the woman is this). men cannot be histrionics-egotistic in fact.
the problem of women is that narcissistic men are not egotistic so that they take the woman for what she is, to wit, pure (external) entertainment.

the problem of the woman is that most men are devotees and are not egotistic. those men do not seek validation from women in general; they seek validation from higher people, which they know women are above them since after all, they feel alive when they eat pussy. but those men know equally that a few men are even higher than women so that the lesser men pay respect and follow those higher men, if they meet them.

>>8037808
Basically mainstream media doesn't acknowledge "evolutionary psychology" at all, so on the internet all this really lackluster, really shitty evolutionary psychology can pass as very deep revolutionary insight since people aren't familiar with the field.

I am a virgin NEET ascetic currently at stage IV of the Norwood Scale and an addict to hardcore pornography for the best part of ten years, and what I've noticed in my reading of hundreds of blog posts, reddit comments and message board discussions between women or at least frequented by women is that "slutty" women, aka women who are perceived to be very sexual and whose characters are associated with sex and eroticism tend to be relatively predictable and unadventurous in terms of open-mindedness when it comes to having sex and personal preferences associated with the act itself, largely, in my opinion, because their characters and perspectives are overwhelmingly the result of a culture which promotes the sexual experience while continuing to shame and ostrichsize those who may be perceived as "weird" or "obsessed" about something that is not conspicuously advertised as something one is allowed to be obsessed with, while those girls considered "shy" or "studious" etc tend to be extremely perverted, in terms of their appreciation of unconventional sexual acts, I mean I myself have viewed hundreds of amateur of videos wherein the female protagonists resembled the kind of girls that I mistakenly perhaps in retrospect identified as naive, innocent, childlike in their desire merely for romantic affection and so on during my four years in college (during which time I attracted but failed to ask out a single one of these girls, for reasons my psychologist and I have spent the past 1.5 years attempting to work out) but who were actually likely to be the exact kind of girls who enjoyed things like golden showers, analingus (given), "rape-play", daddy roleplay, choking, spitting, hitting, spanking and roleplay in which she was the "unwitting" victim and / or captor of a malevolent, aggressive, callous male using her body for to appease his sadistic ambitions.

>>8040231
>ascetic
>addicted to hardcore pornography

>>8037445
Only the first time, if Humbert's account of her jumping his bones in that hotel is to be believed.

>>8040415
it turned out to be painful ><

>>8040242
it's copypasta

>>8037779
You really shouldn't have admitted to being a virgin. That completely destroyed your credibility.

>>8037445
Probably, didn't she do child porn in the book and got pregnant or something?

>>8040231
>Ostrichsize

File: ostrich2[1].jpg (3MB, 1944x1944px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1944x1944px

>>8040437

>>8040437
>>8040443
lol

>>8039147
>>8039174
/lit/ is dying

>>8037859
>>8037873
>>8037920
>>8037933
>>8037960
Holy shit the retardation.

I bet any money that you are a virgin anyway. Only a virgin baits like this.

>>8040049
This guy knows.

>>8040424
She was taken by another pedophile, so probably just raped some more. He wanted her to do porn but she didn't do it. She got preggers with Dick afterwords.

>>8037714
You really nothing about about nabokov if you think that. Read his lectures on literature. The only thing he cares about is aesthetics.

File: 1962.jpg (2MB, 2864x1710px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2864x1710px

I don't want to be weird but..... was she supposed to be hot in this movie? not that I thought she was

>>8041489
>The only thing he cares about is aesthetics.
That's a very common illness among homosexuals and pedophiles.

>>8041530
Humbert is much more sympathetic in the movie than in the book. You understand him in the movie.

>>8041530
The movie portrays her more as a 16 year old mistress than a child suffering from sexual abuse.

>>8037445
Which adaptation was better? I've only seen the recent 90s one and I thought it was decent. Some of the prose was communicated through the narration.

File: 1463188364119.jpg (29KB, 500x487px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x487px

>>8041572
>16 year old mistress

Is my penis supposed to be hard?

>>8040166
You must be very confused by gays then.

Seriously tho, you may want to reconsider living with this spook. Since you regurgitate this stuck up idea every other thread, it's perfectly clear in what category of men you'd fall.

>>8041572
16 y.o. isn't a child
also for most of the human history and still in many countries it's not a child by the law as well

women nowadays lose their virginity by the age of ~14

>>8041930
I never said she was 16.
Lolita is 12.

File: are you jesting me.png (114KB, 347x344px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 347x344px

>>8041938
>nowadays

>>8037808

James Donald is right.

Women are their best and most useful to society when they are under the firm control of a man, whether that is their husband or father. Without control, they go feral and society suffers an abundance of bastards. (Case study: the African-American population post-Civil Rights. An African-American child was more likely to be raised by both biological parents under antebellum slavery than they are now.)

A woman's greatest value to society is as a mother. Whatever else an individual woman's qualities which might allow her to excel equally as a man in the economy, the opportunity cost is simply too great. Whereas the African-American population suffers an abundance of bastards, the best and brightest women (and IQ is very hereditary) are having the fewest children.

I don't blame feminism, tho, I blame capitalism for disintermediating the socioeconomic pressures which used to lead men and women to marry and remain married. The home economy used to be the most (materially) efficient means of production available to the average man and woman, but now mass industry has removed that material advantage and so separation and divorce rise since men and women never really liked each other in the first place.

File: 1463260451274.png (98KB, 575x548px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 575x548px

>>8041989
>this
>literally all of this

File: Armstrong-profile-shot-0.png (563KB, 867x766px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 867x766px

>>8041989
Who else here wants to #burnitdown?

>>8041886
She was 14 when the movie was filmed, so whatever.

>>8041938
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37853719/ns/health-sexual_health/t/surprising-sex-statistics/#.VzjseJmKSUk
gives it as 17.4 on average, in the usa i suppose since it's a califorian uni data

>>8042042
It should be noted that California is the whore of Babylon.

>>8041989
Opinion =/= fact.
Your baseless conjectures have no empirical evidence or substantial data to back up such claims.
Your case study didn't even have a link to it, and if it does exists it probably doesn't take into account personal circumstance or the historical background of Africa as continent second to Australia with shit trying to kill you in a daily basis.

Why do people make statements like>>8037714 when the entire story is from the perspective of Humbert and because of this we can not in any way know what Lolita really feels.
At times she's shown as innocent, others a manipulator, occasionally a victim too.
In reality the psychology of both characters is so complex that you can't simply scratch the story off with the typical normie "pedos r evul" view.

Vlad himself even said the story was what it was, no allegory or "metaphor for the effects of molestation" anywhere.

>>8042087
Then put yourself in the situation of Lolita.
You're a 12 year old girl who gets "seduced" by a 19 year old who knows more about the world than you do.
You're then forced into a life of traveling around the country with no home and are basically this guy's sex toy for a good chunk of your life.
Then your kidnapped by another pedophile, impregnated at a young age, still raped, and kicked out of the house because you won't film a CP orgy.
That would fuck with literally anyone's head.

>>8041989
This man is completely correct.

>>8042163
>>8042053

>>8042157
>Then your kidnapped by another pedophile
Wasn't she already with Quilty before Humbert came into the picture?

>>8042171
How is that even possible?
Like physically?
Or was it secret?

>>8042053
How is it so easy for people to do stuff like that? This happens all the time: Some just says "tests show this" and then everyone just believes it.

The truth is even if they do link test you can't believe what they say. You need to look at the way the test was conducted to make sure it was not biased; something very common among people wishing to push an agenda.

>>8042170
>Excuse me, sir! Produce a citation forthwith! Sir, I say sir, you must produce a citation! Provide me with empirical citations for your Internet discourse or I will be forced to downvote you, sir!

Run on back to /r/atheism, dickless.

File: 1463280279691.gif (403KB, 330x204px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 330x204px

>>8037779
>I'm a virgin and well aware of the bullshit women can pull

>>8042197
This.
Not only that but these racially charged studies never move away from the agenda and look at the results purely objectively, and thus conclude with an incredibly biased and thus flawed interpretation of the data.
Then again, why am I trying to use logic, facts, and reasoning on /lit/? There are guys here that quote Schopenhauer's as fact, despite it being purely subjective opinion.

>>8037749
U N D E R A G E
N
D
E
R
A
G
E

File: 3t23t2.gif (3MB, 229x230px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 229x230px

>>8042157
>You're a 12 year old girl

>>8042201
>just throw "lel reddit" at them! It makes you right!
Asking for proof =/= fedora tipping faggot
And I'm agnostic you ass

>>8042228
>q =/= p ![qq] - p! I have conclusively disproved your assertion that I should move around more lest I develop a pilodinal cyst! I am the king of this subreddit, and you shan't dethrone me! Now, on to the next debate: Who was the most powerful Jedi? If Yoda = Δ and Palpatine = Σ, logic dictates...

I only throw "lel reddit" when it's appropriate, Reddit.

File: And_still_my_soul_wanders.png (280KB, 452x710px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 452x710px

>>8042234
>mfw this is /lit/

>>8042234
>Implying there's an appropriate time to unironically use ad hominem.
As a third party: You're not helping your cause.

>>8042239
Do you have evidence for that? Do you have empirical evidence? Prove it. DEBATE ME

File: 1463230605098.jpg (163KB, 1680x1032px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1680x1032px

>>8042208

File: 1419294053679.jpg (79KB, 612x612px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 612x612px

Little girls, my favourite.

>>8042157
>You're a 12 year old girl
god, i wish.

>"seduced" by a 19 year old who knows more about the world than you do.
as opposed to being seduced by another 12 year old who doesn't know anything about the world or about relationships? or do you think children dont try to manipulate and abuse each other?

>You're then forced into a life of traveling around the country with no home
that would fuck with any kid even without any sexual components.

>>8042273
What, Lolita is 12, right? I don't get this.

>implying children are capable of being as maliciously manipulative as adults on their own

Wait so are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

>>8040025
>top cuck

File: 1376871488940.gif (999KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 500x281px

>>8041989

Making half of the population into maids and baby factories would be terrible for the economy. It would make way more sense to get men and women to do an equal share of childrearing. We need professionals and executives more than we need floor wipers, and there's no reason why a woman can't squeeze out a baby, take six months off, and then go back to work. Men do the same if not more damage to productivity by drinking too much, causing scandals, and offing themselves.

Seriously if we just fired every woman and made her get married and get pregnant the economy would collapse overnight. I know the idea of finally getting laid is exciting, but just spend five minutes thinking about the consequences.

Also, why do r9k/pol types have such a high regard for women's mothering abilities? You fags think that women are basically stuttering retards, why would they be good at raising children? You obviously had terrible mothers to grow up into such woman-hating betas.

>>8042340
>Seriously if we just fired every woman and made her get married and get pregnant the economy would collapse overnight.

OH NO, ALL THOSE CUSHY SERVICE JOBS WOULD NEED TO BE REFILLED BY THE CURRENT SURPLUS OF UNEMPLOYED MEN!

>>8042359
Literally what?

>>8042244
Where's your evidence that he's not helping his cause. All I hear is some random junctures and lazy opinions

facts, my friend, facts

>>8042369
He's saying that the cushy jobs women hold, like "admin" would be taken up by currently unemployed men.

File: 1452642817272.jpg (31KB, 400x474px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 400x474px

>>8042382
I am the evidence, fimfam. I find this whole discussion and especially your part on it, to be ugly for everyone involved. Fuck your facts.

>>8042359

They're unemployed for a reason. If they were qualified to fill those "cushy service jobs" they would. It's not fair to disenfranchise women just so some high school educated losers don't have to compete to find work.

There are also millions of woman doctors, accountants, lawyers, police officers, pharmacists, etc etc etc that could not be replaced easily. It would take years to coax a herd of B-student males through the necessary programs.

We would have to import even more immigrants from abroad and that would defeat the whole purpose anyway.

>>8037743
Girls mature faster.

>>8037471
Supreme bait

>>8042534
*Girls get taller and develop genitalia faster
Fixed that for ya buddy. Just be more careful next time. :^)

>>8037445
The movie was good but it kinda ruined it by casting a slutty-looking teenager as Lolita. Totally missed the point.

>2016
>Rampant sexism like in this thread is still legal

Just fucking WHY

America's laws are more based on historical bullshit than common sense

>>8042732
probably because women are allowed to vote. They are so dumb lol

File: 48594131.cached[1].jpg (60KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 800x533px

>>8042279
>implying children are capable of being as maliciously manipulative as adults on their own
yes i am implying that, because they absolutely can be just as capable

File: president john green.png (68KB, 1293x460px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1293x460px

>>8042732
Vote for John Green. He'll outlaw hate speech after he raises the taxes.

>>8042732
Okay uh no.
I'm not one of these faggots that have communicated with like two females, but the second you start eliminating freedom of speech for the sake of not seeing stuff you find morally reprehensible you are no better.
Who are you to say what people should or should not debate for?
Going further, if you're confident that these people are wrong, why do you feel the need to censor them? Instead of just saying "I'm right you're wrong shut up" actually explain to them why they are wrong and strengthen/better understand your own argument.

Also you're on 4chan.

>>8042720
brain development too

Oh wait I forgot the brain is a special snowflake organ that cannot be influenced by sex or race.

>>8042754
Weren't those two girls the ones that tried to sacrifice their friend to Slenderman?
That was the result of outside influence.

>>8042761
Wait, so, you're saying that girls mentally development faster than boys?
So then, girls are not only as smart as boys, but potentially smarter?

File: merry Christmas.gif (2MB, 500x230px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x230px

>>8042755
>I want teachers to make $60k a year
>I'll pay for this by taxing the shit out of those teachers

>>8042773
Yes, until boys catch up. This is a fact.

>>8042785
So, then, woman are equally capable of the same intellectual stuff as men, by what you stated.
You just proved yourself wrong.
Unless you're a different guy, and I'm missing the point.

>>8042796
What? Follow the thread.

>>8042801
I've been here since the start.
Are you one of the guys arguing to fuck ten year olds or one of the Schopenhauer faggots?

>>8037714
Yeah but it's kind of weird how frequently ol' Vlad went back to that well. Martin Amis wrote an uncharacteristically good article on this for I'm guessing The Observer.

>>8042818
the fucking one

>>8042796
Not the same guy, but i think many girls are a bit ahead of boys somewhere in 8-14 yo, but then boys go above m, and theres no catching up from there on.
So no, woman aint equally capable of the same intellectual past 14.

File: commodus-sticks-out-his-tongue.jpg (18KB, 195x299px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 195x299px

>>8042754
Oof. Don't fancy yours much m8.

>>8040035
[citation needed]

>>8042838
That does seem to be the case if you look at highschool vs university performance but I haven't seen enough hard proof that have a firm opinion yet about differences in adulthood

>>8042824
Literally what?

>>8042838
So then girls just stop developing there?
Is there actual science to back up this claim or are you just making up your own science?

>>8042873
>Is there actual science to back up this claim

Not him, but there's some evidence suggesting men as a cohort exhibit higher variance in g (or "IQ") - ie, more geniuses and more dunces. How legit that is is open to question of course and even if true it's not really going to support what he's talking about.

Actual evidence for a statistically significant variance in mean IQ between the genders: not so much, that I'm aware of.

>>8042157
You're basing yourself on the assumption these are normal people, but they're clearly not.

Stop imposing your ideology on a good book.

>>8042893
So there's evidence suggesting that men vary in intelligence more extremely than woman, is what you're saying?

>>8042909
Never was talking shit about the book.
Just people trying to justify rape, sexism, and using dated philosophy as facts.

>>8042910
So far as I recall reading about, yeah. Not selling it as settled science, though.

>>8042873
are you serious? Sure they develop, but the difference is so big, and rising, that when they hit 25, they are basically different fucking species intellectually.

>>8042916
The ideology in this post is too strong

>>8042920
Okay pal, it's time to see the sun.
Oh it's that big yellow ball in the sky.
These green things? Oh those are trees.

>>8042924
But when it lines up with your own opinion it's okay right?
Your way of seeing the book is the only way?

>>8042910
>>8042941
again not the same guy, but you dont seem to understand the point, that: in age under 8 they are somewhat equal, then the girls develop faster, but when they turn 14, boys get even, -and ahead, and its final that time.

>>8042949
So you're professing that women are perpetually stuck at 14 mentally?

>>8042873
I never said anything about intelligence. I was talking about brain development which is visually observable. Women hit puberty first which results in changes to the brain earlier. The changes that occur should theoretically mean that they have more self control/willpower at a younger age than men.

It is hard to say what impact it has on intelligence. Is it better to learn with a less developed brain or a more developed brain? The more developed brain should make it easier to focus (observe the difference between boys and girls in the classroom). However, the slower developing brain may soak up information in a different and potentially beneficial way. We don't know so we can't say which is better.

And of course adult brains at the end of development are not the same between sexes so we know that there are some permanent differences.

>>8042949
There isn't really any evidence backing up what you're saying, though - in fact, on reflection, if what I was saying about higher variance in men is true, that actually mildly contradicts your thesis.

>>8042959
No, as i said, they do develop, but the speed varies by age, and when the time goes on, positions change.

>>8042964
I'm not denying any of this.
I'm arguing against interpreting these facts as a way to justify pedophilia.

>>8042982
But you just stated that girls stop mental development at around 14 years of age?

>>8042983
Well if you are talking about literal pedophilia (prepubescent girls) then I would have to agree but if you are talking about teenagers then I do not really understand your position.

>>8042996
Dude if you're going to talk about this then introduce your hebephilia/ephebophilia qualifications at the start, shit like this is dull and wastes time.

>>8042986
No, your reading comprehension is bad, theres just no catching up, they all develop, but the speed is different, and for a while girls are ahead even when they develop slower. haha, yougetwhatimean?

>>8042996
I'm talking prepubescent, but also like 15 and under.

File: 709d1768e28856a90c4ab5904cec037e.jpg (38KB, 736x506px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 736x506px

>>8043011

>>8043009
I joined the convo part way through though

I was making fun of this because it was dumb:

>*Girls get taller and develop genitalia faster
>Fixed that for ya buddy. Just be more careful next time. :^)

I don't have any personal interest in age of consent because I like big round butts and boobies etc.

>>8042768
>That was the result of outside influence.
excuse me?

reading a bunch of faggy stories doesnt make an otherwise mentally sound person willing to kill. they were already willing to kill, the 'outside influence' was just the form that it took. but lets ignore that because thats clearly the case of mental instability.

perfectly healthy kids can also be hellaciously cruel and abusive, do you not remember middle school at all?

>>8043028
I'm simply trying to get faggots to stop using sound science as an excuse to be a thirty year old fucking a freshman in high school.

>>8043034
What you're implying though is that it can just happen.
No one's just like that, maybe predisposed to malicious behavior because of nurture vs nature, but they have to have seen it somewhere else and been taught it or never taught against it.

>>8043014
15 should be fine. People should really be starting their own life at this point. Something weird has happened to our society.

>>8043057
I think that's a statement that can't be applied universally.
Different places have different circumstance, different cultures, etc.
I'm from America, where the age of consent is 16 (like people listen to that), but you can only have sex with someone under 18. Above 18 and it's free game as old as you want to go.
The reason this law is in place but in other places the age of consent is much lower stems from our vastly different ideology compared to other places in the world, which even then varies in itself based on what state or even part of a state you're in.
The process of growing into adulthood lasts longer, so typically 15 year olds aren't ready for adulthood.

File: OldBluelip.jpg (31KB, 512x368px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 512x368px

>>8037471
>snap onto it like a clam biting a $100 bill.

File: 1416547297004.jpg (6KB, 196x223px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 196x223px

>>8042757

why nabokov dont describe the sex scenes?
no pedo

>>8043132
That's true, the level of responsibility that a person is able to take on is largely dependent upon the challenges that they have already been forced to face on their own.

What I meant by "something weird has happened" is that I don't think that western society recognizes the actual capabilities of adolescents and appropriately challenges them.

I don't think that there is any benefit to sheltering people in that way and it likely stunts their potential.

>>8043168
I can see where you're coming from, and that has happened and produces disastrous results

>>8043155
He does describe the first one, just indirectly and poetically, which felt much better to me.

>>8042941
All your posts have been nothing but pure ideology
It's time to stop posting

File: 1455890416327-1.jpg (2MB, 4001x2387px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4001x2387px

>>8037885
Underrated post.

File: 1423206812455[1].jpg (56KB, 584x622px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 584x622px

>>8043056
im not implying 'it can just happen', im telling you that kids can be cruel, jack.

thats the whole point, regardless of how or why, kids clearly are capable of lethal maliciousness. because it happens.

>>8043234
But the people stating that women are naturally inferior to men, which is based on pure philosophy and radical interpretations, with no evidence or data to back their claims, aren't pure ideology?
Who are you to pick and choose?

>>8037749
>12
>hit puberty
You realize that most girls hit puberty at 10-yo because of all the growth hormones in meat and dairy they ingest, right? Girls normally hit puberty at 14-15 if they are well-fed, later if they are malnourished. Their breeding hormones don't kick in until puberty. I don't understand why you're making a fucking blanket statement about all women.

>>8037877
you're delusional you think of women as a completely different entity and men

>>8037885
exactly this, everyone is a shitter with a few exceptions

Oh, by cthulhu. What a mess.

Men and women are slightly different due to both biological and sociological factors. From a biological standpoint, we can see no major differences until kids hit puberty, when their secondary characteristics arise. In that sense, given that girls hit that period earlier, they go through changes. This has nothing to do with being able to "think rationally" and "give consent". It's just a developmental phase. Also, there's hormones. Testosterone not only increases muscular mass and makes you more aggressive, but it also inhibits crying. You can suppress external emotional outbursts easier. Estrogen, on the other hand, does the opposite. There is a balance of both in the human body, but naturally there's more of it depending on the biological sex.

Then there's adolescence. What adolescence does to your body is to lower the emotional resistance threshold while bombarding you with hormones. This happens to everyone. Given that you have a body that suddenly is not your own while perceiving everything in a heightened manner makes you take decisions you wouldn't normally take on a stable state. This period spans from whenever puberty hit you up to your early 20s. It also gives you a sense of "immortality", being the reason why kids do stupid shit. From that standpoint, Lo was in no way capable of taking a rational decision.

From a sociological/psychological standpoint, boys are socialized differently than girls. Girls are supposed to cater to the "nurturing side"; while expecting a savior in a male form. Boys are supposed to be fighters: get what you want, get shit done. If you do that, society teaches you that there will be a "heavenly retribution" in the form of sex, women, money and/or power. This makes women and men act according to different codes of conduct on a base level, regardless of personality, intelligence or social status. The only ways to escape the loop is either being raised differently or to actually realize it and try to change the bad aspects.

Psychologically, despite all the morphological differences every human searches for validation. This is a residual conduct from earlier days when you actually needed the group to survive. Given all of the things explained earlier, men and women seek validation in different ways.

TL, DR: men and women are different morphologically and sociologically, but they're pretty much the same at a core level.

File: 1462669283314.gif (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

>>8043384
Fucking this.
Just needs a citation to put the nail in the coffin of these redpillers.

>>8037471
This is correct

>>8043408
Well, there's a bunch of human development books for that. I'm from my phone, so I don't quite have them with me. I apologize for any typos, I speak taco and my phone autocorrects way too often.

>>8043424
Care to at least bring up the names?
>inb4 bias
I would say the same for the person I'm arguing against.

>>8043431
Ooh, I would have to find my uni books and then search if there's an equivalent in English (again, I speak taco). Let me see what I can find.

>>8043431
Ok, if I remember correctly, they are:

>Sociology, by Anthony Giddens
>Human Development, by Diane Papalia

I can't seem to find the development biology book (I don't quite remember the name), but that's basic information.

>>8043491
http://www.aazea.com/book/introduction-to-sociology-9th-edition/#download

Couldn't find a PDF download for Human Development.

Unless this two sources can be properly linked and cited I don't think it'll count.
Thanks, though. You brought facts into an argument based entirely off opinion.

>>8043048
That's epheb, not pedo

>>8043523
There's also a book called "Psychology" by Papalia. Maybe the names are changed or something.

>>8043048
I reject science,

I was dating an 8th grader at 24.

Happy?

File: 1442632135048.gif (2MB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x225px

>>8043573
Peter Bogdanovich, is that you?

>>8043590
no

27 year old here

Currently telling my 18yo FWB about my 17yo FWB on Skype.

Their pussies smell terrific.

>>8037808

>I've had little contact or conversation with women

You just answered your own question there. Either get a girlfriend, or get friendzoned by a girl. Try to be logical about the whole affair. Within a few months, you'll realize that women are far more vindictive, misogynistic, obsessed with sex & relationships, manipulative, and ruthless than any man you see.

Most red-pilled guys got red-pilled by actually seeing women for what they really are, and not through rose-tinted sunglasses that society and their own horniness made them wear.

Women are fun and exciting. But they will do their best to burn you to a crisp if they 'feel' like it. The less emotionally flammable you are, the more a woman will adore you.

'The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.'
-Friedrich Nietzsche

>>8043640
>old hag
>whores
>smelling good
LOL

File: Just you try it you cheeky cunt i'll fuckin put a hole in ya.jpg (131KB, 960x686px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 960x686px

>>8043168

In my opinion girls can't consent before age 18 not because they're incapable of making their own decisions, but because having sex at that age would violate the authority of their fathers.

"dads against daughters dating" for example.

>>8037471
Is this some sort of pasta?

>>8043573
>tfw turning 24 this year
teach me your ways sempai

>>8043647
You're basing your view on an entire gender off of a few bad apples.
So because my dad cheated on my mom and fucked her friend, then was a manipulative jerk to me, means all men are evil?
Also you're trying to use philosophy as fact.

>>8042340

I completely agree with this post. We have dug ourselves into a technological pit that is so far away from our natural instinct that our options are either to destroy it and lose the luxuries we've obtained over the last 200 years, or to have a high chance of staying miserable.

I'd rather do the latter. The best option is to find a way to play the system to your advantage. But you will be miserable without a woman by your side. That's why its best to become adept with women & rich.

>>8042340
>Men do the same if not more damage to productivity by drinking too much, causing scandals, and offing themselves.

What the fuck?

>>8043523
BTW, the "heavenly retribution syndrome" is due to historical reasons, too. In the case of America, it's due to their purist background, but that's also a product of western civilization, inherited by the Romans. In the US, there's something deeply rooted in society called "American Values". They state that God favors the good (as in material wealth), so the more successful you are, the better you are. That's why murrican culture favors the wealthy. Since we stated that the core of human psychological self preservation is the need for acceptance, this makes murrican to focus on things considered of no importance in other cultures. This is my inference but, since women are conditioned to search for a "good man", they gravitate towards wealthy individuals because of this reason.

I read it a while ago, but I think this is the link.

http://www.wou.edu/~girodm/foundations/Arensberg_and_Niehoff.pdf

>>8043709

>a few bad apples

Now hold on there, who said women's nature makes them 'bad apples'? I enjoy watching them do the stuff they do. It's fun, dramatic, and you can play them once you understand the way they behave (don't ever expect to understand the 'why').

You will see every woman behave this way once you understand the behavioral pattern. Even your mom. And before you say 'confirmation bias', I can guarantee you that no matter how much you close your eyes to this behavior, you will see it.

Sorry about your dad, he sounds like an asshole. But his behavior implies that married men, at the very least, are attracted to other women. Same way not all women will manipulate sexless losers to buy them clothes, but most women would like to manipulate men and see ways of doing so.

Not using philosophy as fact. My post is based off experience and observation. As is Nietzsche's philosophy.

>>8037471
Accurate to a t. This is why I love 4chan. Beneath all of the cancer and piles of shit that would make India blush, you find solid posts like this one.

>>8043751
Except when I said bad apples that's not what I meant...

I have tried seeing things from this perspective. It just doesn't hold up with what I know.
I think what you are lacking in your argument is having done that yourself.

>>8043751
Also unfortunately I had to research confirmation bias, but it's literally what all this redpill stuff comes from.
You are trying to prove yourself right, not prove yourself wrong.

>>8043701
None of your business.

>>8043785
cmon dont be a dick

>>8043647
>'The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.'
this is true, Also, men who plays with women are bound to lose the game.
and once you loose your envy for playing with women, you are a semi-god.

>>8043777
That's your job buddy. I'm not trying to prove myself wrong.
I had the same views about women that you did. Like I said, go out and meet women. Become close to them, hear their issues and don't be biased towards the woman. It's hard, but possible. You will see that their psychology is not similar to most men's.

File: 1432262627549.png (10KB, 764x279px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 764x279px

>>8043384
>>8043408

>>8043800
I posted the quote. Can you elaborate on this statement:

>once you loose your envy for playing with women, you are a semi-god

>>8043797
I don't support child molestation.

>>8043802
>mfw I talk to women in my family everyday and in public
I bet you're gonna say that I have to have sex with a woman to know them right?
Along with some Schopenhauer quote?

Also this: >>8043384
Couldn't really cite it properly though.

>>8043806
As opposed to what these people are doing, essentially stating "I just know"?

>>8043815
your actions seem to imply otherwise

>>8043824
That was her decision and not much happened/

>>8043802
Also
>I'm not trying to prove myself wrong
Opinion discarded.
If you're confident in yourself you should make attempts to disprove your statements, and you're right you will not succeed.

>>8043832
*if you're right you will not succeed

>>8043829
>That was her decision
really? thats all you have to say for yourself from your high horse

>>8043840
What else can I say?

>>8043854
well first you could not shame me for wanting to do what you already have done
second you can tell me how you did it

>>8043865
Why would I do that?

>>8043874
to pass a bit of our pointless stay on this universe more interestingly

>>8043816
No, I'm saying have a real conversation with a woman. Your mom and sister won't tell you how much they want to fuck the cute lifeguard, or how boring your dad/step-dad is because he's too 'emotional', or how much they miss their ex who was a surfer/ in a successful band.

Think about it, would your mom compare her current boyfriend with her ex to you? Or tell you why sex is boring? Or tell you how she flirted with the hiring manager just enough to get a new job?

Interesting conversation nonetheless, really made me evaluate what I know about women, and it's good to know that it's still rock-solid.

>>8043881
>pointless
I'm not letting you infect a kid with nihilism.

>>8043897
dont worry the only thing i wanna put in them is my dick

>>8043904
Hence why i'm not telling you anything.

>>8043906
fine jeez ill convince them they want it and im not fucking up their life like you did are you happy?

>>8043918
I didn't do that, though.
Plus I'm still with her.

>>8043893
>pretending to know how another human being thinks this much
>professing that the few represent all
You don't have any firm proof of these claims as much I have firm proof that they're false.
Also my mother worked her ass off to support me and two brothers, through two divorces (first with my cheating ass of a father, second with my current father whom I respect but understand that him and my mother are two completely different people) and years of SPED kids to put my retarded ass through school and now support me while I sink literally all my money into college.
And before you call her a whore because she's had three marriages, let me ask you: if a man went through two wives before settling, does that mean he is less or more okay? If so then how?
And before you make a comment on how she was reliant on men her whole life, what the fuck is wrong with wanting a stable relationship?
Also, since when were men not guilty of lusting after other women while in a relationship, since when did they become bored with sex?
Also, since when the fuck was sex all there was to a relationship?

>>8043923
see now youre being a tease
how old is she now?

>>8043930
17 in July, and pregnant.

>>8043928
*since when did they not become bored with sex?

>>8043938
youre a fucking inspiration

>>8043810
danger and play is what women are and want and men want women, but only because women are the ultimate danger and play thing. This is nice, but you can reach a life beyond this.

once you understand that men are not meant to be as good hedonist as women, you first acknowledge the superiority of women at the hedonistic life (which is just called life by men and women) and you see the misery of hedonism, either the direct hedonism of the woman, or the nihilistic fantasy of the delayed hedonism of the man [the one that men advocate for, the one about engaging yourself into challenges after challenges, seeking merit, pursuing your passions, in one word still clinging to entertainment (typically to attract women sooner or later) to better turn away from their impotency at the hedonistic life..] created by men once they get beat by women.
Once you see the game as well as the noneffective masculine life, you lose faith in hedonism. At this point, you either see the solution or not {Nietzsche did not see it, or rather he did not claim explicitly that he saw it]: you strive to do the exact opposite of hedonism (either the masculine one or the feminine one): first you stop being nihilistic, in accepting what you are (it is crucial to be sincere about the starting point], meaning a worm, and in stopping to analyze the past to get a better future (= the strategy of men, which remains inside hedonism (even though they claim that it is not, and in practice is is clearly not), but even more nihilistic than the feminine hedonism, once they are beaten by women] and in stopping to take what you desire, feel and think seriously [=the hedonism of the woman, and the fueling of this hedonism by men].

Women are wrong for having faith in what they desire, in thinking that this is relevant to ones life
they are a bit wrong to let men spend their life trying to serve women

Men are wrong to try to play with women, which is just serving women
men are wrong, after being defeated, to be resentful towards women
men are wrong to think, after being defeated, that the solution is to be even more nihilistic than women

The lack of efficacy of the masculine life leads to a narcissism (contrary to men), but without egotism (contrary to women), a more equanimous and benevolent stance towards what is desired, felt and thought. At this point, you stop looking at hedonism of the body [=the feminine hedonism], turn towards hedonism of the soul [what religious call it], spirit, consciousness [what buddhists call it] [=the hedonism of the mild ascetic, the hedonism that most men fail to see and the one that women love to think that they embody (women love to think that they are not as egotistic as they are, that they embody a humanist stance)] and then you understand that even this is doomed to be disappointing, so you refuse it until you stop caring about this one too.

>>8043949
I have no idea what you're saying.

>>8043928
>Getting this emotional on 4chan

Whatever you have typed is not mutually exclusive with what I have typed. Let that sink in. Re-read everything I have typed with a cool head.

Women are not evil. They're different from men. Maybe I used overly negative terms (ex. manipulative) but that doesn't mean that the connotation was negative. From red-pill blogs (the bitter ones are written by losers) to mainstream books (Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus), many people acknowledge significant psychological differences between men and women. Whether that's societal conditioning or biological differences is beyond my scope of knowledge. But I know for a fact that there is a difference.

I'm an east-coaster with a boring office job tomorrow. Need to rest. Give it some thought, and hang out with an attractive girl tomorrow. Also, sorry about your childhood man. Much respect for your mom for raising her kids alone. Doesn't disprove what I've said though.

File: 1442150522380.png (242KB, 959x631px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 959x631px

>still thinking through sex

>>8043949
Thank you. This helps me understand the quote in more depth.

I actually got that quote from Mike Cernovich's blog (http://dangerandplay.com). I think you would enjoy his stuff from 2011-2014.

>>8037445
I keep hearing about this book on here and i know Stanley Kubrick made a movie so it has to be good. I haven't touched fiction in years. Should i do it?

>>8043969
You say you aren't claiming women are evil, but a lot of what you've said suggests much more malicious intent compared to men.
I'm also not denying sexual differences in psychology, that's sound science.
What I am saying is that you are extrapolating the data in order to serve your own opinion. Ie, a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I don't mean to turn into a purely pathos debater, but when you call someone's sister and mother sluts without ever having met them that's pretty pathos itself.
I also did maintain a cool head until you said that.
I've also consistently brought up counter-points to your argument, but you haven't brought up a single one.
You only keep re-wording your opinion. Perhaps you did make some, but I never noticed any. You never seemed to acknowledge my counter points.
And judging by the fact you used the words "attractive girl" tells me even more that you believe a few bad apples spoil the bunch.
Honestly I believe this viewpoint you have is entirely reactionary, not based on looking at the facts objectively. I'm not gonna be the guy to throw out "who hurt you" or "butthurt", but it seems you've had a negative experience and it's soured your train of thought.

But never let it be said I didn't wish a good night to someone who was decent enough to keep his cool and not resort to name calling and using "le fedora tip".
I work a part time job, and I'll be mowing lawns all summer. I know the feeling.
I will look through your own lense, though I ask you do the same for me.

>>8040035
>language and cultural norms are magic

File: 1454330847428.jpg (172KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 640x360px

Men think that they can beat this

>>8037877
>Women are different than men but I can't quite pin exactly in what way. When it comes to personalities they seem on average as harboring the same likes, dislikes, motivations etc as men do. But I'm not completely sure if their personalities are different to those of men in any fundamental way.

Men are more motivated to find contentment with the world they've built for themselves. It's a more internal satisfaction derived from etching out your own identity for yourself, an identity that may or may not be to impress others but ultimately to be the person you really want to be.

In my experience I've found that women are only motivated by social validation and whatever makes them part of the pack but ultimately the head of the pack anyway. Men value competition to prove themselves out of a sense of personal accomplishments and pride, but women will tear each other apart to spite one another and to make sure that no one else gets ahead of them, that they hold the highest status. I believe this is why women are attracted to men that have nothing to offer but their status, because those men are trophies to be won, and the prospect of dangling that trophy in front of other women is the sole motivation.

Of course, I'm not so narrow minded to think that all women are like this because that's a ridiculous assumption, but I'm starting to think that it's one of the primary reasons why healthy relationships fail on the part of the woman when they realize that what they have isn't enough, and it's the reason why men and women present themselves to others differently in the first place.

I believe I have the capacity to be wrong, and I probably am, but all these assumptions are just from my experiences and observations.

>>8037471
>beta men unironically think this

>>8044274
I'll second that.

>>8044274
>>8044414
Silly boys ;)

>>8044274
>if i call it beta it will be discredited
touch a little close to home there, sweetheart?

>>8042340

>Making half of the population into maids and baby factories would be terrible for the economy.

1. A not insignificant number of women already work exclusively as maids and mothers/homemakers. Fewer than half would be converted to mothers/having more children under a more traditional system.

2a. Even if we were to, for instance, simply fire all women that are presently working the economy would recover very quickly. There is such a thing as marginal product, and losing 25% of your workforce doesn't translate into a 25% loss of GDP; actually, probably quite less. (Galt's theorem, which is formally equivalent with Sturgeon's: 10% of the population is responsible for 90% of production. The only reason most people have their jobs is because it would cost more to employers to find out than to simply permit this inefficiency to operate as is.)

2b. Economy isn't the highest value of society. Would you rather live as a real life Roman Patrician, or a mere /lit/ patrician? Sure, in the former your wealth would be considered far less than modern billionaires, but that is because GDP tells only a small part of the story.

>there's no reason why a woman can't squeeze out a baby, take six months off, and then go back to work

3. This is short-sighted thinking. If the aim is to render the greatest socioeconomic product (rather than strictly economic) from women, the necessities of a modern career imply a massive opportunity to having children. Employees apt to take 6 months off will never be valued by employers as much as employees not apt to do so. Further, careers require college education (time spent not getting married and having children) and initial investment of time (again, more time spent not getting married and having children).

>Men do the same if not more damage

4. Men without women are men without anything to lose. I'll just let you think that one through.

>why do r9k/pol types have such a high regard for women's mothering abilities

5. It is less important that a mother is a good mother than that she is a mother; especially if she is high IQ. Beyond baseline nurturing needs, most individuals get along fine despite mild-to-moderate neglect or even abuse during their childhood and society benefits from their input. Not that good mothering doesn't matter, of course, but it is only part of the story.

Honestly, if you suggested we require certification before people could reproduce, I'd agree with you. We both know what kinds of women would end up reproducing more under that system. :^)

>>8044580

>uses an informal adage coined by a sci-fi writer to justify 10% doing 90% of the work as a formal proof

This is why I don't respect your opinions.

>>8042053

1. The contemporary rate of illegitimacy among blacks is 75%. Seventy-five-fucking-percent!

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/walter-e-williams/true-black-tragedy-illegitimacy-rate-nearly-75

The conclusion that black children were more likely to be raised by biological parents under antebellum slavery is not hard to defend. A little Googleing of facts would also demonstrate very quickly these premises:

2. "In 1938, 11 percent of black children ... were born by unwed mothers"

http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Ar-Bo/Bastardy.html

You will find similar levels of illegitimacy among blacks through the 1950's. After that... something happened. I wonder what it was? (It starts with a 'w' and coincidentally removes the need for a breadwinner since now *all of society* has been forced to become a breadwinner for bastards.)

3. Slaves were worth more if they were sold at a later age. The economic incentive to slaveowners is to not separate children from their parents at least until they have mostly matured to adulthood (around the age of 13-14 for blacks: I'm not citing this claim, just go Google "average age of menarche by race").

http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=shr

Together these lead to the altogether reasonable conclusion that black children were more likely to be raised by both parents under antebellum slavery. But that's only an especially evocative claim I made to rustle your jimmies: the claim that black children were more likely to be raised by both parents under Jim Crow is a definite fact.

http://www.cwfa.org/leaving-on-a-jet-planeillegitimacy-trends-and-the-nations-children/

>>8044592

That is fine, there's no point persuading people who set up arbitrary standards in order to not have their opinions challenged. It saves me time, i.e. I know spending more time debating you would be a waste of my time until you intellectually mature. :^)

>>8044611

Not accepting Sturgeon 's '90% of everything is crap' as a formal proof you can tailor to whatever is not an arbitrary standard, you massive fucking idiot.

File: 1462730380837.png (28KB, 500x223px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x223px

>>8037471
>Germanic conqueror who cuts off a dude's head and steals his wife and daughter? You got yourself two new loving wives right there

>>8044648
What's "oh my gosh" about that?

>>8044580

10% of the population is responsible for 90% of production

Source for that? I'd like to see 10% of doctors and surgeons treat the same number of patients as the other 90%.

>Roman Patrician, or a mere /lit/ patrician?

/lit/ patrician for sure. And I want my female friends and relatives to enjoy the same quality of life.

Your romanticized vision of the past isn't worth any more than your fevered erotic daydreams.

>the necessities of a modern career imply a massive opportunity [sic] to having children

That's why men need to share the burden of child-rearing. If having kids is as important as it seems to you, then lost productivity is a small price to pay in the grander scheme of things. Why do we have to institute some sort of margaret atwood dystopia to get the birthrate up? Why do you fags have to choose the edgiest possible solution to a simple problem? Why not just subsidize daycare for christ's sake?

>Men without women are men without anything to lose.

Men have aggressive tendencies from childhood on and tend to drink too much. This has nothing to do with no gf. It's too widespread for that, the odd Eliot Rodger not withstanding.

>A 2013 global study on homicide by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime found that males accounted for about 96 percent of all homicide perpetrators worldwide

It's just something in our makeup. We are driven to compete and defend our status in our social group. If every male is guaranteed a mate, then there's going to competition for the best looking mates, or some other status symbol. There's nothing stopping Chad from plowing your nice 16 year old waifu while you're out buying the coffee. You probably wouldn't take well to that and might do something ill considered.

>most individuals get along fine despite mild-to-moderate neglect or even abuse during their childhood

Oh how sweet, do you have a source for that? Or is that just your anecdotal impression? It's kind of fucked up that you wouldn't care if a kid's mom was Karla Homolka as long as she was in fact a mom.

tl;dr kill yourself my dude

>>8037471

>Lolita wanted Humbert's dick because 600,000 years of evolution was bearing down on her pussy-addled brain telling her he could probably sustain her comfortably in better digs than her mom was currently affording, and he seemed to have an air of manly sophistication. Even as a child, her cunt can sniff that shit out and snap onto it like a clam biting a $100 bill.

This will be considered the definitive interpretation of Lolita for the next decade, at least.

>>8044659

>10% of the population

Disentangling specific inputs from the observed output is essentially impossible. Granted the 10/90 figure is a rough heuristic, but do consider that 1% of the population controls a vastly disproportionate amount of the means of production. If you were to simply eliminate the bottom half of producers, GDP would fall by much less than half (look up 'marginal product'). Especially given late stage neoliberal capitalism, a lot of jobs are predicated on rent-seeking arrangements. (For example: there would be far fewer doctors; you might consider only the fact that there would be less healthcare [I grant this readily], but you must also consider what is given up to have more doctors, and what is gained. There's a *lot* of graft in the medical industry.)

>/lit/ patrician for sure. And I want my female friends and relatives to enjoy the same quality of life.

Do you suppose that a Roman Patrician would feel differently? Honestly, what's the point of even making such a claim about what you want? Let me guess, you think it means you're a good person.

>your fevered erotic daydreams

You are psychologizing. To be perfectly honest my fevered erotic daydreams involve traps and lots of drugs.

>That's why men need to share the burden of child-rearing

Comparative advantage, what is that?

>Why do we have to institute some sort of margaret atwood dystopia to get the birthrate up?

We don't. But you do have to live with the consequences (e.g. high rates of bastardry among the lower classes, childless upper class women, being demographically displaced by foreigners and immigrants, etc).

>Men have aggressive tendencies from childhood on and tend to drink too much. This has nothing to do with no gf.

1. I speak not merely of men's innate aggression.

2. Why don't you spend 5 minutes talking to a father and ask how becoming a father changed their life. Hint hint: their time preferences fell drastically.

>Oh how sweet, do you have a source for that?

There are far more people in your life you would never suspect were physically/emotionally/sexually abused/neglected during their childhood. Go to scholar.google.com, search keywords 'child abuse neglect life outcomes'. It requires quite drastic abuse/neglect to substantially influence an individual's life outcomes.

>It's kind of fucked up that you wouldn't care

I'm not certain how you could possibly know what I care or don't care about.

>>8044712

I'm not going to argue with you anymore because:

1a. You're not engaging with what I wrote, just repeating yourself and begging the question
1b. You write like the parody of a supreme gentleman from reddit

Good day to you sir!

>>8037471
which is why Lolita ran away

>>8044758
her master was too weak

congrats on the worst thread on /lit/ in literal years

>>8045380
What's the worst thread in figurative years?

On a related note, is pedophilia considered "sexuality" in the same sense that homosexuality is sexuality?

If so, it can be argued that you can't "cure" a pedophile in the same way that you can't cure a man of homosexuality.

It could be argued that pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, and homosexuality all fall under the same roof, The only difference being that societal laws and the nature of consent makes only one of these acceptable in most partsof the developed world.

>>8044657
I think the image of having two cuties love you after a hard day of conquering even after the violent first meeting

it's a juxtaposition

Man, people ITT really need to step away from the 4chan

It's over, I'm a #Cruzmissile now

File: betty gut.jpg (68KB, 1505x744px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1505x744px

>>8037471

>Even as a child, her cunt can sniff that shit out and snap onto it like a clam biting a $100 bill.

File: 1463428911737.jpg (103KB, 638x638px)

103KB, 638x638px

>>8043806
Let me tell you a story.

I'm an English history and ESL teacher. I've also been working as a freelance illustrator since I was very young. Last year, I decided to go back to uni to study graphic design.

There was an event at uni where we had to partner up with people from different programs and complete tasks. One of those tasks was to do a fanzine, for which we stayed all night at the faculty. My partner was a kid from illustration, who liked to draw xenobiology. Since I like to draw xenobiology too, we started talking about stuff and I started explaining to him the whole evolution process of eyes, from photosensitive cells to the complex structures of the cornea.

And then he stopped me, saying he was an atheist.

When I asked what the hell he meant by that, he said he didn't believe in evolution, and that myths that are unproven don't fall in his beliefs.

You sound like that.

>>8046432
>I'm an atheist
>I don't believe in evolution
Is this a typo or are you for real?

>>8046482
No, it actually happened. After that I suppressed the strong impulse to smack a bitch and stopped talking to him.

>>8046508
Like
I'm agnostic, right?
So I see the bullshit on either end.
But this... This is like someone took either end of the spectrum and tied a knot.

>>8046530
I think that was his point, that post with that snarky image is that kind of guy

>>8037471
Um... guys? Women are people.

File: jst.jpg (17KB, 400x397px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 400x397px

>>8046944
Are you being ironic?

>>8047074
Are you being ironic?

>>8043714
Man must find his own happiness, anon, whether in nature or in shitposting. To bring us back to grass huts would do little good.

>>8044580
>Sure, in the former your wealth would be considered far less than modern billionaires, but that is because GDP tells only a small part of the story.

My dad, when talking about reincarnation, said that if he was bad in life he might be reincarnated as Genghis Khan. My brother wondered why his "punishment" would be becoming one of the all-time great conquerors of history, to which my dad replied that the Mongolians didn't have toilet paper.

There's a lesson in that.

>>8042755
>wants more foreign aid
>doesn't know it displaces third-world agriculture because you can't compete with free food

Triggered.