Why is John 'cuck' Green worshipped on /lit/ ?

It's funny and a bit sad how hard you're trying.

>>8736394
You know the general consensus is negative.

In that pic he's right, you know.

>>8736400
>In that pic he's right, you know.

Few people care about John Green own sex life, if he wants to be a cuck then that's his prerogative, it's just that he expects other people to follow his lead in cuckoldry.

I remember the beginnings of john green hate

Good times

>>8736425
He's liberating his fans from cuckoldry though. If you care about how many sexual partners your partner has been with, you are insecure and being mentally cucked by ghost dicks from the past.

>>8736431
John pls

Bullshit, you should care because it indicates how people will be like in relationships. Has she had 30 dicks by 23, is that justifiable, will i be any different, will she let me fall like the others.
If i would be a girl i wouldn't want a guy who has fucked a lot of girls either.
Retarded conclusion, retarded statement, retarded people.

>>8736431
You are being cucked whether it bothers you or not.

>>8736476
Who even keeps count of how many people they've fucked in the first place? What the hell is wrong with you? Oh, you're threatened by both sexes post sexual liberation.

Some bitch has had 40 dicks by 23 why would I care? If they were bad decisions and she hasn't grown from them there's no way she's packing the personality for me to consider a serious relationship with her in the first place. If it's a fling why do I care if I'm number 41? You're so fucking spooked by ghost dick right now, my dude.

>>8736489
You are making my point, i wouldn't start a relationship with someone like that because of said dickings. The number is an indicator, not the leading factor.

>>8736431
Ghost dicks you say...

>>8736489
>if it's just a fling
Well there's your mistake, pleasure premised on sexual gratification is just an escapism, even if enabling a girl to make said bad decisions was ever good in the first place.
"Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but what is worse, as many masters as he has vices."
Augustinian asceticism > Sternerite ethics

>>8736482
spoken like a true cuck

>>8736400
>In that pic he's right, you know.

Not at all

A whomen who has slept with a lot of men "loses value". Purity is attractive; any real man would confirm that

>>8736394
Because he wrote about getting a blowjob bro

>>8736537
Nice rhetoric.
>as many masters as he has vices
You're implying it's a vice to have casual sex by conflating it with escapism. Just because something is pleasurable doesn't necessitate that it is escapism. I do it because I like it, and when I fuck I am running from nothing. Wicked? How so? Meanwhile you concede that your "good" man is a """free""" slave.

>>8736521
Yes. The spookiest dicks of them all.

>>8736544
You're appealing to "real manliness" to stake your claim. Your concept of value is a societal epidemic, yes. The value itself is a construct of no inherent benefit though. If you value your invisible value and "real manliness" above what could have been a meaningful relationship, by all means freak out over dick counts.

>>8736394
>Why is John 'cuck' Green worshipped on /lit/ ?
You are only doing this because he is not.

But he is right in the picture, it does not matter at all how many cheerios you eat. You could eat cheerios every second of your life and you will still genuinely enjoy the whole-grain cruch.

It is basic science.

>>8736567
I bet John could masticate those cherrios infinitely more expertly, too, having eaten around. I would be excited if I were the cherrios, one-breakfast stand or longer commitment.

the amount of dicks a girl has taken is a testament to her character
don't believe otherwise or you'll get your feelings hurt

>>8736572
>I bet John could masticate those cherrios infinitely more expertly, too, having eaten around.
Well sure at least John will be confident knowing how he has to eat cheerios.
But who says he hasn't learned it the wrong way? For all I know he could be eating in a way that upsets his stomach. Not to say it is not the opposite.

Maybe John had been watching other people indulge in hardcore cheerios eating before actually eating cheerios and behaves very disgusting towards his cheerios. Maybe he enjoys spitting on his cheerios?

Maybe some cheerios are meant to be spitted on. Just saying that there's possible scenarios.

>>8736585
Sure. But in the balance of probability, practice makes you better at things. Fuck your strawmen.
If the cherrios are anthropomorphised so as to express dissatisfaction with his cereal eating habits, they would surely let him know. It takes concerted effort not to improve at something if you're given constant feedback.

>>8736564
Good isn't defined by what is necessary or superficially beneficial, ascetic values are buttressed on prevention not weighing immediate gratification and necessary harm.

>>8736400
>>8736400
He's not--or I should say, he's only partially right. It is true that the sex double standard is damaging to women, but he is not recognizing that the double standard goes both ways and it is damaging to men as well. Just as women are slut shamed for liking sex and having a lot of it, perhaps with different people, men are praised for the same thing. A woman is a slut, but a man is a virile alpha if he does the same thing.

This can create very monstrous pressure that can be very damaging to men--particularly adolescent boys/awkward teenagers. If a girl is a virgin--no problem! But if a guy is-- bad news!

I've seen this unfair double standard ruin the sexual psyche of too many of my male peers. Even dudes who are only 20 year old virgins are of the mindset that I'm a freak, it's too late for me, what girl would want virgin me, etc. So it just snowballs year after year and they never lose it.

The double standard is so absurd that it actually contradicts itself. Because we want our women to be chaste, but we want our men to sew the wild oats. In which case, who are the men supposed to fuck?


As an aside his cereal example is a bit facetious. There is the real threat of STDs among more promiscuous people, something that Cherrios certainly can't give you. It doesn't invalidate what I said before obviously--guys can be just as STD ridden as women.

It's just a bad cringey example that's not helping his point.

>>8736394
>PENIS
>DIPPED
>IN
>CEREAL

>>8736596
Sure. I made the assertion that casual sex wasn't escapist, though, which was the justification for your ascetic attitude towards it. How do you justify self-discipline towards casual sex that is neither escapist nor harmful?

John's been reading too many of his own books if he actually believes that
you won't be special to her, you won't change her, she's perfected the art of pleasure and you think this means she's in love with you (she isn't) and she's had better and bigger than you
the idea that the amount of sex partners doesn't matter is pure fantasy
but you don't want a virgin either

>>8736595
>Fuck your strawmen.
Don't you see that you are swapping one pure ideology for the other? That is my point.

This person is right >>8736599, in the perfect world it shouldn't matter whatever you do eat, do not eat, or how much cheerios you eat.

It is perfectly fine if individual people do have their own standards, say someone wants someone with much experience, but it shouldn't be imposed on others. Keep your pure ideology to yourself.

>>8736621
I was speaking in defense of casual cereal consumption, I wasn't dogmatically advocating it. Where is the ideology in the statement that someone who eats more cereal will be better at it than a cereal virgin?

Of course it's fine for individuals to have their own standards. I'd just feel bad if those standards are constructed on bullshit ideology that stops them eating a cereal that would make them happier.

>>8736642
>I'd just feel bad if those standards are constructed on bullshit ideology that stops them eating a cereal that would make them happier.
Sure, I agree. But you are implying it will make them happier. It can go both ways really.

>>8736564
>Muh lady

>>8736564
u're a cuck man

File: nice meme.png (96KB, 500x538px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 500x538px

>>8736670

>>8736652
Good point. One should ideally be free to decide without being fisted into a decision by their own ideology regardless of the outcome.

>>8736682
>Good point. One should ideally be free to decide without being fisted into a decision by their own ideology regardless of the outcome.
I am confused are you implying you can be free of your own ideology? I hold the belief that one cannot be free of ideology except for that which is imposed on us.

And one needs to think whatever your own ideology is from within somekind of internal motivation and not simply a reaction of pure ideology which imposes on us - whatever that is a reaction against or in favour of it.

That is my own idea, ha ideology really, as I am not a Zizekian or follower of Stirner.

>>8736394
I guess he's right, I got with one or two girls that took a whole hell of a lot of dick, and it didn't bother me at the time.
Though I ended up settling down with a girl who had only been with one guy from highschool onward until they eventually broke up, so I guess the moral of the story is who cares who you're fucking as long as you don't catch an STD but don't expect marriage if you're going to be a slut.

>>8736599
>He's not--or I should say, he's only partially right. It is true that the sex double standard is damaging to women

stopped reading there

its not. it helps things to be alright in society. WOman and man are VASTLY DIFFRENT things they are not equal, nothing in the universe is.

>>8736394
Comparing cheerios to sex is highly misleading, eating cheerios doesn't involve oxytocin

>>8738063
Thanks sperg good call

>>8738075
No problem.

>>8736599
It also creates a zero-sum game. A man raises his value by lowering another woman's value. You can't have lots of sexually sucessful men AND lots of virgin girls at the same time.

>>8736394
It's more garbage justifying promiscuity. Human beings are not bowls of cereal, the fucking autist. It's not even accurate: it's the same bowl of cereal and a number of people have eaten out of it or stuck their dicks in it or already.

They are also not keys and locks. Some keys are designed to open more than one lock, big deal. Some locks are designed to open to more than one key, also not a big deal. Nothing special, it's what they're designed to do.

If you want to be a slut or a cuckold or whatever, you are free to do so. Don't expect people to kiss your booty booboos about your obvious insecurity over it.

>>8738551
More since I'm set off:
>Keys don't want "shitty" locks
True they don't usually want to be with them, but since it's a metaphor for sex they probably have no problem 'unlocking' them. Keys will have their fun with 'loose' locks, to the annoyance of more monogamous locks. Women are the biggest slutshamers on earth and for a good reason.
>Boys are encouraged to have lots of sex.
While daddy certainly would like his son to be popular with girls, he's not necessarily encouraged to crush tons of puss. A life going from woman to woman is not his dream and could actually signify failure with women. At its worst is being a womanizer (ie a piece of shit).

Anyway history matters. Anyone saying it doesn't is a liar with an agenda. We can look past things but let's not lie. And if people are preferences, that's good. Don't try forcing your way into people's hearts.

File: IMG_2922.png (192KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 640x1136px

>>8736394
People who use the term 'cuck'.

>>8736400

You're wrong but autistic people usually are so it's fine

File: IMG_0480.png (371KB, 525x709px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 525x709px

>>8736400

>>8737690
It would be better actually to read everything I typed before making a sweeping judgement about it!

File: 1470472903197.jpg (26KB, 540x472px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 540x472px

>move away from my home town
>leave behind a friend of mine (female) who seemed interested in me, and was quite attractive at that
>she was a virgin at that point, never even made out with a dude before
>realize afterwards that I had a huge crush on this girl (I've never had a gf before, so I'm really longing for her)
>get back in touch with her, hoping to visit soon
>turns out she's turned into a party animal, says she's fucked 6 dudes
>mfw I can't just suddenly lose my attraction for her

Is this how actual cucks are born? Is there anything I can do to alter my course? I'm so lonely and she's still an option for me but I don't want to debase myself.

>>8738995
That's genuinely hilarious.

Women who fuck a lot of men are mentally unstable. Cheerios who fuck a lot of men aren't.

File: 1454733768854.jpg (21KB, 249x251px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 249x251px

>>8739210
This is hilarious. She's had sex with 6 guys and you think that having sex with her will make you a cuck? If that sort of thing really bothers you, you're going to have a sad, lonely life.

I've probably had sex with about 50-60 women, and I'm 28. I figure it's gotta be higher for an average woman. You should probably lock someone down now if you're young, before you shrink back in disgust from every woman you meet.

>>8739195
I hope the guy that posted that he is right reads this

Cheerios can give you AIDS?

>>8739336
Like <1% or something of the population have STDs.

>>8739275
FUCK OFF NORMIE

>>8739341
You wouldn't think cereal could contract any. Is nothing safe?

>>8739348
It's that abstinence-only education.

>>8739347
I'm not a normie.

>>8736394

do you remember how many loafs of bread you've eaten...kiddo?

File: bread.jpg (736KB, 1280x1440px) Image search: [Google]

736KB, 1280x1440px

>>8739375

>>8739377
Nips don't eat bread?

>>8739359
fucking women should be a bannable offense you normie, shitting up our board

>>8736394
Wow, so these threads are where the real philosophy gets done here.

>>8736394
He isn't. Not even slightly. However, if he were, saying "cuck" makes your point like a worthless dipshit troll and convinces nobody of anything.

>>8736394
>>8736595
>implying a cheerio doesn't die upon being eaten.

>>8736564
Society runs on "invisible values"

Laws and traditions are exactly tangible

>>8739404
Sure, but who's to say which set of values is right?

>>8736394

he's not especially talented, but he "made" it and now has a rabid fanbase who'd die for him and is getting his books adapted into movies. why wouldn't he be worshiped here, he beat the odds.

>>8739432
Who's to say values don't change for everyone all the time?

>>8736394
What you fools must realise is that we have twice as many female ancestors, you know why? because generally speaking the more successful males mated with twice the amount of females, and for a good chunk... nothing but sticks and grass waifus.

What does that mean for us? That we the potentially ugly, fat or awkward members are doomed to insignificance over our breeding inability?

Nyet my Brudermenschen. We are destined for something greater! We have been cruelly and painfully freed from the laughable genetic prison of the breeding role, think about how many of our sweethearts fucked their brains out and will someday settle down with a white paste cuck.

This is good though! How? Because we can focus on better and higher things than simply fulfilling some menial husband wife shtick. Think of all those Rebecca's, all those Veronica's and Meagan's. They wish for what? a nice house? a nice kitchen? a car for themselves?

What they crave is domestication after excess, a cage after a cageless time. Damn them! Let them be trapped inside their perfect world the powers that be sold them in their stories and dreams!

We have but one life to live on this Earth 1 life, from the big bang to the heat death of the Universe. ALL of your ancestors have been breeders, have been reproducers. Now you have the privilege of having been shocked from that trap!

Rise above! Focus on science! Focus on Art! Kill god! Create something so great you don't need some weak chemical chain to become immortal!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klDGTFvv5XQ

>>8739210
What are you, a fucking muslim?

>>8739383
fag

>>8739513
Neat post. I agree except that there's nothing wrong with God, friend.

I'm a virgin. I blame SJWs. If there was no age of consent I could trick a kid into having sex with me.

>>8739720
You realize that most "alt-righters" aren't against the age of consent, right? It's marxists who push for degeneracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws

>>8739738
I'm a Marxist now.

>>8736394
If you care about the genetic purity of your children, there's a good reason to care about the number of men your woman has slept with before.

http://www.returnofkings.com/70425/research-suggests-that-a-womans-body-incorporates-dna-from-the-semen-of-her-casual-sex-partners