Why have so many notable men struggled so fundamentally with

>>9039523
>How can they be so genius in reading humans and so unable to interact with females?
Females aren't human.

Lol post excerpts

>>9039527
Why do you decide to take the easy way out? Declaring that the fault lies in the females is just so tempting, isn't it? It's exactly what nietzsche did too.

>>9039523
Struggle produces art, basically
No one wants to read chad's memoirs

because females are fucking retarded

>>9039538
You're right, women are pure angels. At last I truly see

>>9039535
It's in german, but i can try to find translations

>>9039539
But how can they be right about humanity if they don't even understand the basics?

>>9039541
>>9039543
How about a sane middleground?
They are no saints and pretty crazy but not more or less than males?

>>9039547
Why do you think they didn't understand people just because they couldn't get a gf?

>>9039558
>women are not more crazy than men
t. woman

>>9039564
Not sure how one could be a regular imageboard user and not think men are crazier desu.

female craziness comes across as pretty normie in comparison.

>>9039544
germanbro here, how's it called?

>>9039574
Female craziness is callous and sociopathic,

File: IMG_1786.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>9039560
Because you can't try ti explain life, humanity or society without including the relationship between men and women. It's one of the most fundamental constructs. If you aren't able to have a relationship with your opposite gender then i am tempted tk assume you are not capable of understanding the simplest and most basic things about humanity

>>9039585
Except a man who is being rejected by women knows more about gender relations than a 10/10 Chad.

>>9039578
Ich küsse euch tausendmal by fischer

>>9039527
>>9039543
>>9039541
>>>/r9k/

>>9039596
>criticize females
>wow go to r9k u angry virgin
>>>/r/eddit

>>9039589
maybe he has had to overthink his approach more, yes. that only means the sheer colume of thoughts used on females might be higher. it is no indicator of the quality and truth of those thoughts.
just because i have tried to solve a difficult mathematical equation one hundret times and failed doesn't mean it is inpossible to solve. maybe i just lack the capacity. might be someone else could solve it in the first try. but one should assume that trying and failing at something will inevitably lead to a solution if you keep trying. but it seems to me that those men often don't really alter their approaches and still gope it will someday just work. they blame it on girls not being approachable or whatever. but if i try to solve the same mathematical problem the same way 100 times, it still won't work, even if i try it the 101. time

>>9039601
>implying I'm wrong
You have to go back.

File: IMG_1786.jpg (2MB, 2381x3199px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2381x3199px

>>9039585
forgot to rotate

>>9039610
I think you're ignoring that these people were also great artists and philosophers. Lots of people simply don't want to spend their entire waking life trying to get female attention like it's their second job. You also underestimate how unpredictable women are: you can do everything "right" and they still won't like you.

>>9039558
Every single woman these days has depression or bipolar or whatever the fuck. All of them seem to be on antidepressants.

>>9039626
It's easily explained
>women have an innate desire to be mothers
>capitalism tells their childlike minds to have casual sex and engage in hedonism
>they eventually realize that Chad Thundercock doesn't want to settle down with them
>cue depression

>>9039585
Kafka never wrote about society, he just wrote about himself and his experience (magnified through horrifying and existentialist glasses).

Nietzsche enjoyed solitude, but it was mostly because of illness. If you have read his letters you already know that he was actually quite charming, that he didn't die as a virgin (and apparently he never had sex with prostitutes), and that his readers (mostly academics and prominent figures in the arts) basically venerated him.
I mean, he was a close buddy of Wagner in the years in wich he was as famous as pop stars are famous today, and his 2 best works were directly inspired by Nietzsche philosophy (both the Tristan und Isotte and the Parsifal).
He was a big shot and people never failed to recognize him on the streets.

He basically was 19th century Zizek, if he was a genius.

>>9039623
i do think that more people than you think are doing all they can to get female attention like it is their only job. they just do it in very weird ways.
ofc females are unpredictable. the same way men are unpredictable too. they might not be in relationships with other males because they rarely run deeper than making fart jokes and having profound conversations about whatever interest you two have in common.
you don't have to share your bed with your male friends and raise kids together (not usually atleast...). this isn't a problem about females being females. it is a problem of people being unable to have relationships that go a tad deeper and that can be abrassive since they will inevitably have to let down their masks.
i also think that exactly that idea "having to do everything right to get a girl" is one of the biggest mistakes guys often make. because they won't keep that up forever. after a few years at least, the facade starts to crumble and the real person behind it starts to appear. and that's when so many relationships fall appart. the same is obviously true for women. they aren't any better. they put up an act they will never be able to hold up longer than a few years. mostly till they get married. it's not marriage that is the problem. or women. it is people trying to appear better than they are. so you enter contracts on mere make believe. it is just a house of cards and ready to be destroyed by the smalles touch. and walking around with a mask is definitely not a problem that only affects females. by far not...

>>9039651
t. woman

Trust me honey, you don't know shit

>>9039626
and every guy these days has anxiety and is drinkiing too much alcohole to cope with it or is severely insecure and uses drugs to not kill himself. is that any better? there are as many sane girls out there as there are truly sane guys. zero

>>9039657
i am impressed by your skilled and insightfull argument.
wtf i hate women now

>>9039582
are you new here?

File: 1479676654878.jpg (70KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1280x720px

>>9039651
Not that anon, but I'm not agreeing with you, and I'm taking myself as a proof of that.
I have composed music and played violin for my entire life and, I swear to everything I hold dear, I've never done any of those things in order to impress a girl. Never.
I don't have any reason to assume that any of my fellow musicians in my string quartet are doing it for pussy either.

Just accept it. Some people simply don't care about sex. It feels good, but after a few istances you can see how empty it is if you don't put any actual meaning to it. I don't want to get pussy, I just want to be chill and compose soul-wrecking string quartets. I'm pretty sure that Nietzsche and Kafka were the same. Of course they fell in love for other women, but sex in itself was never a main theme in their works, if anything we should notice the abscence of it (well, Nietzsche as wrote a few lines on it, but it was mostly slander against judeochristian values).

tldr: some people really don't care, and when you're job is to make art and philosophy not caring about it become really easy

>>9039523
because women fall cripplingly short of the ideal we project onto them, and its painful all-around

>>9039633
that might be right, i haven't read all of his works yet.
but the way he wrote to felice bauer is sp bad i donmt really need to know anything else to conclude that he must have been really bitter about women

well, in nietzsches case i believe it was a case of sour grapes. he was unable to have relationships that weren't him being the grand philosopher and others hanging on to his every word.
not having died a virgin is not a proofe of somebody not having intimacy issues. what i talk about here is not how mich he was able to use his fame as a tool to get women to let them stick his dick in. i am talking about a sustained and working relationship over a long period of time. and that he hadn't had

>>9039682
and why is it then the womens fault if you want them to be perfect and they are merely human? are you perfect to be in a position to make such demands?

>>9039631

there is literally nothing wrong with hedonism

living a miserable life because you believe it's the intellectual or non-"degenerate" way to live is retarded.

>>9039678
haha
you're so wrong

>>9039683
>well, in nietzsches case i believe it was a case of sour grapes. he was unable to have relationships that weren't him being the grand philosopher and others hanging on to his every word.
No it wasn't, you normie. All deep thinkers require solitude to be able to fully form their ideas. No profound person is in constant need of being surrounded by others. And you can't know yourself in a crowd of people.

“In loneliness, the lonely one eats himself; in a crowd, the many eat him. Now choose.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

>>9039694
A life of hedonism is more miserable than being virtuous or strong. I have never met a hedonist who wasn't just distracting themselves from some sort of pain.

>>9039683

Nietzsche found his ideal wife in Lou Salomè, we all know the story about how she dumped him and he invented existentialism to cope with it.

Before that refusal the view of women was one of wasted potential: given enough freedom they can florish and become more perfect than any man could ever hope.
After the refusal he adopted the classic concept of seeing women as children, and their liberation is seen as a degeneration of their nature (wich is a pretty bad thing, if you've read Nietzsche enough), especially in Ecce Homo (but Thus Spoke Zarathustra has lots of anti-feminist slander too).
There is no reason to think that he wasn't 100% serious in those last statemens, and lots of people don't really know what to make out of it, especially considering how little he wrote about the subject.

>>9039694

As usual ''The unexamined life is not worth living'', and there's no tool of examination in a purely hedonistic lifestyle.
Neither Nietzsche or Kafka advocated for it.

>>9039716
>haha if you have ideas your just a bitter loser virgin lmao
Not everything revolves around women. Just because somebody in the 19th century wasn't a liberal egalitarian. Nietzsche saw women for what they were. If you think women are the same as men you're delusional.

>>9039678
i donmt say it is nonexistent. ofc not everything humans do is to boost their chances for reciprocation. i play piano myself and i know how rewarding it is standing alone. it doesn't need any external motivators to bring me back to it again and again.
that probably is because you have held it dear before puberty has set in. it is ingraned inside you and brings you joy simply for the sale of joy. but be aware, very few people have something like that. they try to artificially create hobbies, interest and passion and then it is always with the thought in the back of the head "will this make me more desireable?".
i never claimed this to be teue for everyone. i just said it's more people than you might assume. that said, i'm sure you do SOME things too that you have only picked up in hopes of becoming more desireable. not that that's a bad thing to do. one just can't except it to magically turn ones life around and then blame the other gender if they don't stick to you like honey

>>9039735
>the only reason men do things is to get sex
I am constantly surprised by the sheer narcissism of females. It's amazing.

>>9039523
Because if you are born a Chad Thundercock, then you don't really have a need to prove yourself, but if you're born a scrawny beta faggot then you may or may not have that chip on your shoulder that can motivate you to greatness

>>9039735
It may lack in modesty but I'm pretty sure that I have that. I see no reason for wich either N. or Kafka should be read with that idea as a premise.
None of their work express a longing for casual sex. At best you can find romantic, idealized love.

>>9039523
>Time traveller tits or GTFO

>>9039729
It makes sense to consider those particular ideas (the anti-feminist ones) as a direct response to Lou Salomé's refusal.
It makes sense, when you start looking at the actual cronology of those ideas. Nietzsche went from being a feminist idealist to being one of the raunchiest anti-feminists in the existential tradition. Honestly his attacks are so direct and so unjustified that I often have the doubt that it was just satire.

>>9039701
they need phases of solitude, i fully agree with that. but you canmt understand humans if you only reference introspection. your own mind is a clusterfuck of issues and pre made assumptions that formed in early childhood. without the abiltiy to clash with other humans you will think yourself completely sane. in a state of continuous solitude even your wildest theories will sound perfectly logical to you. you need the reality check relationships can give you.

as nietzsche said himself, solitude and loneliness are NOT the same thing. i agree than solitude is necessary. but you can be in a relationship and experience solitute nonetheless. it isn't painfull. it is a wonderfull thing and everybody should seek it from time to time. but loneliness... that hurts. it's not a good ground for sane theories emerging

>>9039758
When exactly was Nietzsche a "feminist idealist"? You're making shit up. Women have never been central to Nietzsche's philosophy, at best you can find a few scattered remarks about them.

You've just completely bought into the idea that being an anti-feminist makes you an angry virgin, it's pathetic.

>>9039744
i am constantly surprised by your sheer lack of reading comprehension

not once did i say this is true for "all men" or a trait that only has intoxicated males. you just understand what you want to hear to strengthen your bitterness

>>9039765

"What inspires respect for woman, and often enough even fear, is her nature, which is more “natural” than man’s, the genuine, cunning suppleness of a beast of prey, the tiger’s claw under the glove, the naiveté of her egoism, her uneducability and inner wildness, the incomprehensibility, scope, and movement of her desires and virtues."

“The perfect woman is a higher type of human than the perfect man, and also something much more rare.”

The anti-feminism slander came later in his life, with the first istances appearing in Thus Spoke Zarathustra (wich he wrote after that infamous rejection).

>>9039751
i have never implied they were searching for casual sex. althought i do think that seldomly anybody would just seek out casual sex. that is often if not always a symptom of greatly shattered expectations at romantic love. it is, basically again a case of "sour grapes". iow if my first relationship didn't turn out how i wanted it to turn out, then i am going to convince myself that i don't want a relationship anyways and am only looking for casual sex. that might go more or less ok for a few years till you feel hollow and empty

>>9039783
This doesn't contradict the idea that women are children. To Nietzsche, women are different but inferior in masculine things to men. Women can't be strong or intelligent like men can.

>>9039774
Women don't really understand how to understand things without referencing back to their sexuality.
>>9039790
>everybody wants what I want

>>9039791

As I've told you multiple times, this is not what he used to believe before Salomè's rejection.

Yes, it's a clear contradiction, and given the biographical and chronological evidences, it is fair to assume that, at least in this istance, it was just a bad case of sour grapes.

>>9039804
It really isn't.

>"What inspires respect for woman, and often enough even fear, is her nature, which is more “natural” than man’s, the genuine, cunning suppleness of a beast of prey, the tiger’s claw under the glove, the naiveté of her egoism, her uneducability and inner wildness, the incomprehensibility, scope, and movement of her desires and virtues."
How is this feminist?

>>9039523
>How can they be so genius in reading humans and so unable to interact with females?
you either understand a woman or love her, but not both

File: Nietzsche_paul-ree_lou-von-salome188.jpg (117KB, 442x661px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 442x661px

>Paul Ludwig Carl Heinrich Rée (21 November 1849 – 28 October 1901) was a German author and philosopher, and friend of Friedrich Nietzsche.
>Paul REE
really makes you think

File: IMG_1789.jpg (34KB, 734x154px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 734x154px

>>9039791
since when can you weight up different skills and mark some inferior to others?
women might lack in those departments, yes. but they have been as beneficial to humanity as men have. with THEIR set of skills in which they exceed men. who do you think raised all those superior men? not only their fathers... off there are exceptions like nietzsche who had a bad relationship with his mom. but take marcus aurelius for example. he held his mother on a pedestal. and i don't think he did that only so she will tag him in her fb posts.

>>9039716
Maybe, just maybe he was right about women's liberation. When you see what chaos it's causing in the universities and all the anti-male propaganda that gets perpetuated on reputable news sources like the BBC, you think maybe we got ahead of ourselves.

>>9039712

>A life of hedonism is more miserable than being virtuous or strong.

the whole point of hedonism is to seek pleasure, if you are constantly experiencing pleasure you are most likely happy. I don't know how the opposite could be true.

>I have never met a hedonist who wasn't just distracting themselves from some sort of pain.

okay that's cool but that's what we call anecdotal evidence and by no means proves that they don't exist.

>>9039799
so, is sexuality something inherently bad to you? why?

i knew you would again read into that whatever you want to read between the lines

>>9039826
>the whole point of hedonism is to seek pleasure, if you are constantly experiencing pleasure you are most likely happy. I don't know how the opposite could be true.
That's not how it works. There's a difference between happiness and satisfaction.

>>9039835
there's also a difference between contentment and pleasure

>>9039821
I'm saying that it's obvious that women aren't going to excel at masculine things. Pointing that out doesn't make you a virgin. Women are great at being motherly and such, but they are rarely geniuses.

>>9039811
It is not traditional feminism (how could it be, given the fact that all of Nietzsche's values are overcome?), yet it should be noted that those are not only compliments: they're actually the most valuable attributes a human being can have, according to Nietzsche (at least the N. of this period).
This praise is obviously still rooted in somewhat traditional values (Nietzsche never overcome the duality man-woman conception of humanity), but it still a praise that elevates the best woman abive the best men.

>>9039850
>This praise is obviously still rooted in somewhat traditional values (Nietzsche never overcome the duality man-woman conception of humanity)
So you're an SJW.
>but it still a praise that elevates the best woman abive the best men.
He also points out that the perfect woman is more rare than the perfect man.

>>9039622
I'm reading this as well. Really don't understand why Felice just doesn't fucking write to him. Fucking hell.

>>9039523

women probably didnt put the effort to understand them because the people you mentioned didnt make them tingle

>>9039842
only because motherly skills can't be measured as accurately as, let's say, mathematical genius? how do you know if a woman has reached genius motherly levels? you would never know. so their genuis is going unnoticed and will be forgotten atleast one generation down the line.
what implies that it doesn't take an exceptional mind to be a great mother? and we're not talking about average moms here. most men also never reach genius levels so let's stick to the facts. genuis will always be an exception, regardles of gender

>>9039874
What's your point? You're trying to shoehorn equality where there is none. Being a mother and being a math genius are two different skills. Women can't be strong and self-overcoming in the same way men can't give birth.

>>9039874
if women are such great mothers then why does /r9k/ exist?

>>9039866
because he is BEGGING her. if you have to beg someone to write you, you have fucked up already way sooner. i suspect she only had contact with him because he had some sweet traits and she felt sorry for him. there was no desire or love from her side. but in that age, you were practically obliged to get egaged to a man after you went on a "long walk" with him if you had no intentions to ruin your reputation. she was basically trapped because he probably only revealed his powerlevels after she was too deep in

>>9039857
>So you're an SJW.
You're a retard. I haven't disclosed my opinion on the matter. I had drawned that conclusion because although that is some sort of proto-feminism, it is still completely divorced from the narratives used by feminists in the academia. It was worth noting, you fucking reactionary troglodite.

>He also points out that the perfect woman is more rare than the perfect man.
Yet, in his opinion the best human beings were, at that point of his life, all women.

sick of being genius, i wanna get laid and cuddle :(

>>9039897
You don't understand. His earlier quotes don't contradict his later ones. He later says:
>"From the beginning, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, and hostile to woman than truth—her great art is the lie, her highest concern is mere appearance and beauty."
Which does not contradict
>"What inspires respect for woman, and often enough even fear, is her nature, which is more “natural” than man’s, the genuine, cunning suppleness of a beast of prey, the tiger’s claw under the glove, the naiveté of her egoism, her uneducability and inner wildness, the incomprehensibility, scope, and movement of her desires and virtues."
He was never angry. He was ambivalent and realistic towards women.

>>9039893
>im a woman, i can only judge people based on their relations towards women
Don't you have some Chad cock to be sucking, roastie?

>>9039879
not at all. i'm just stating that you can't say women are inferior because they haven't been the first ones to write down e=mc2.
that's like judging a fish based on his climbing skills. just because he can't climb doesn't mean he is inferior to the squirrel since you could easily turn this around and say the squirrel is inferior because it drowns under water.

>>9039888
again, you are reading generalisations into my posts where there are none. have you conveniently skipped over the part where i explicitly state that most women only reach mediocre levels of motherly skills? that leaves some genuis and a pile of horrible moms. just like there are a lot of men with mediocre math skills, some geniuses and a pile of guys that can't do basic algebra.

>>9039558
>woman not more crazy than men
Objectively false

>>9039923
>not at all. i'm just stating that you can't say women are inferior because they haven't been the first ones to write down e=mc2.
>that's like judging a fish based on his climbing skills. just because he can't climb doesn't mean he is inferior to the squirrel since you could easily turn this around and say the squirrel is inferior because it drowns under water.
That's what I was saying. It's fair to say that the squirrel is inferior at swimming.

>>9039922
nice ad hominem. you can do better, anon...

i try to abstain from judgement, but since i'm only human, i try to not judge people based on one thing. that doesn't make the claim that a persons ability to form secure relationships is an important one invalid.

>>9039933
exactly. but what i see again and again, is people failing to understand this. which brings a lot of unnecessary tension with it

>>9039937
There's more to life than the ability of men to bend over backwards to accommodate women. But women simply cannot understand this.

>>9039923
> that leaves some genuis and a pile of horrible moms.
my point exactly. majority of women are horrible
look at single mother stats
https://singlemotherguide.com/single-mother-statistics/
women shouldn't be needing to force men to see them as equals. bad parenting from childhood is to blame for how men treat women.
face it all the good women are taken and guys like Nietzsche couldn't get the scraps

>>9039930
so, men are less crazy than women? any prove of that? since my claim is so "obviously and objectively false"?

>>9039916
It literally does.

>her highest concern is mere appearance and beauty
>the incomprehensibility, scope, and movement of her desires and virtues

Women in early Nietzsche are described as a force of nature more than the spoiled, immature version of his later works.
In one case you have human beings that are almost feral from N. point of view, wich makes them, in his eyes, more appealing. He appreciates
>the genuine, cunning suppleness of a beast of prey, the tiger’s claw under the glove, the naiveté of her egoism, her uneducability and inner wildness, the incomprehensibility, scope, and movement of her desires and virtues
These are some of the highest values a man can reach according to Nietzsche, at least in this context.

In
>>"From the beginning, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, and hostile to woman than truth—her great art is the lie, her highest concern is mere appearance and beauty."
We have a completely different figure. Certain things are still present (women are still somehow seen as cunning), but now all of those values are turned into something else.
Women are not wild and beautifully egoist anymore: now they're just dumb human beings caring only about irrelevant things such as appearances.

This is a radically different view, that put women in 2 completely different places. There is no sympathy for women in late Nietzsche, although we know through Ecce Homo and some of his letters that he never showed this misoginy publicly, and that he actually thought that he was great at understanding and entertaining women.

>>9039821
>he thinks his mother taught him anything valuable
>it wasn't the people around him
>he doesn't know how people respected their mothers and fathers back then
I understand that people are retarded but people with daddy issues are usually insane and have to always prove themselves(not in a intellectual way) so have you though that, they are exceptions(you only said marcus for now top kek) or maybe their mother was not really that important figure (because if we have to be honest, for a mother to be single there is something really wrong with her and thus she not teaching her son anything valuable) but just to be praised.

>>9039950
having a healthy relationship is not the same as bending over backwards. you seem to have never encountered a sane relationship from a close distance if you think that's actually true.

>>9039959
>This is a radically different view, that put women in 2 completely different places. There is no sympathy for women in late Nietzsche, although we know through Ecce Homo and some of his letters that he never showed this misoginy publicly, and that he actually thought that he was great at understanding and entertaining women.
Yeah, he couldn't have gotten a more realistic view of women after falling out of infatuation. He was a le angry virgin

>>9039962
people like you are so annoying

>>9039960
i (and he) never claimed it was all his mom. but she contributed to it. maybe more than you might realize since she had set the groundwork before any great teachers came into the picture. a sense of worthynes of love and a peacefull security in this world are amongst the most important things a mother can instill in her kids. untill around age 2. then raising them right comes into play. setting boundaries, teaching acceptable social behaviour, teaching them selfdiscipline and so on. this is all amhappening before the age of 6 so it is mostly the mother's work.

why is marcus top kek?

>>9039973
>people like you are so annoying
i am, again, taken aback by your argumentation skills

EVERYONE SHUT THE FUCK UP

>>9040018
shhh, it's ok.
we know it's you anon, the one with the stellar argumentation skills.

no idea why women who hate men and the patriarchy just stop dating men and work on themselves.
buy sex toys and avoid the dating market and outperform the men in your way.

i hope feminist do take over one day!

>>9039962
Do you have no self-awareness to realise how much you're embarrassing yourself? Do you even know what a healthy relationship meant till 50 years ago? And do you even know how fast modern relationships end? Thanks to the liberation of women they are now the biggest cheaters and thus inferior lovers as only men can love enough to sacrifice everything while women might get tired easily out of it. And that is a thing you can easily prove just by a little research of hormones, its not a difficult matter.
>but she contributed to it
How? She was just his parent, what youre trying to say is that he should be thankful that she did her job?(which of course he should be but that is something completely normal and thus not affecting him any different)
>it is mostly the mother's work
Not really as the kid genetics(way more than env too) and environment are inf more important.
>why is marcus top kek?
I said top kek because that was the only person you could name

>>9040025
That isn't me, idiot.
>>9040003
nod an argument

>>9040032
just because the majority of relationships are huge failures doesn't mean you should use them as reference for a HEALTHY relationship. i have only ever seen a small number of those myself. but they do exist. and with a little maturity and selfawareness (on both parts...) it is absolutely atainable.

well, ofc it would be her job. but an athlets job would be to bust records and how many actually do that?
just because it would be the ideal if she is a genius mother doesn't mean her effort is nullified if she ia just a mediocre to good mom. do you actually believe that everything that is not the top 1% is worthless? how can you life live without tearing yourself appart and go insane?

i have to disagree on this one, anon... i work in a childrens psychiatric hospital and it is seldomly if ever the environement or genetics that brings kids there. it is probably always the parents and in young kids mostly the mother. i have also worked with severely neglected kids in school and they aren't DUMB or incapable (genes) nor did they have different opportunities than their peers (same income, same education, etc). they just lack parents that were not on the shit pile.

it was an example. i won't research about the relationships of great thinkers and their moms just to prove something to you.

>>9040043
it eerily reminded me of you

well, if you have no arguments left i guess this discussion has come to an end

Because being able (or willing) to seduce a female and maintain a relationship isn't mutually exclusive with understanding people.

>>9040094
>HEALTHY relationship
I'm just saying there aren't healthy relationships at all, its just pretending. There are exceptions but thats what they are.
>but an athlets job would be to bust records and how many actually do that?
Not the same as for a mother its only required for her to not be insane and abusive(which is the big big majority). After all too much love is not good for the kids.
>mediocre to good mom
Its the bare minimum thats required.
>nullified
Its not about being nullified, its that it doesn't matter.
>it is probably always the parents and in young kids mostly the mother.
Well it clearly is, nobody is denying that to get that far its anyone but their parents fault, but they are a SMALL MINORITY.
>and they aren't DUMB or incapable
That means nothing at all because they might be all around good persons but not really good at specific things and of course there are exceptions too again but if they didn't pick anything they either prefer leisure and pleasure (genetically) or just their environment (made them so, not their mother specifically unless they spend all their living time with her). For example there are more single moms than ever and can you guess what happens with their kids? They either turn into criminals who always want to prove themselves or turbohedonists because the had no father figure to follow.

>>9040203
That's true. But seducing implies manipulation. If you think you need to manipulate people into deriding you you should really take stock of your emotional health. I'm not talking about seduction. I'm talking about mutual desire. And not desire that is limited to lust

>>9040215
>But seducing implies manipulation
Wrong. Even when mutual desire exists, you need skill to realize it and maintain the flame alive. I call that seduction or romance or whatever.

>>9040215
But women don't know what they want, it looks like you don't understand people at all.
>not lust but a mutual desire
Yeah, unless you're living a few centuries earlier in a small town maybe you could find something
like that but with the boom of social media people look for the best thing they can get (physically), so yes love is not real(99,9% of the time)

>>9040211
I was talking about those exceptions too. If I am taking something as a guide to hold up, I surely will pick the exception to strive for. Why would I take a mediocre relationship as my goal? I will probably never truly lead an exceptional relationship but if I strive for it I might be able to attain a mediocre to good one.

Well, not being insane and\or abusive already is bordering on genius levels. Can you name 3 people that are perfectly sane? I can't. Not even one that I know good enough to accurately know
There is no such thing as too much love. There is such a thing as oversheltering and smothering and it is abusive. That's not love. Love is never unnecessarily restrictive. See Buddha as an example. That wasn't love his dad showcased. It was pure fear. That's not sane and not healthy.

See, I know my "evidence" is only anecdotal. But I have a son myself and I can tell exactly where I fucked up and how that has influenced him. I can also exactly tell what I would have had to do differently to avoid this. Ofc he has a personality that I don't have a saying in. But how that personality reacts to the world is my doing. He is not a blank paper. But from all I have seen (and I have known hundreds of kids very good and had insight into their families dynamics), parents have a far greater responsibility than they want to take on. It is easy to be a fuck up and then blame your kids genetic or the generation. It takes the blame off of you so you can sleep soundly at night. But it is too easy.
I know you think that moms, especially single moms, fuck up the greatest. That's because you mainly see how males suffer from the impact their moms had on them. But dads have the same impact on their daughters and they aren't any saner than the moms.you can't complain about women being crazy and not blame their dads in the same sentence. Ofc, it is the mark of an adult to overcome to damage the parents have done. But a lot of people never truly achieve this. They stay stuck in being a victims. Having daddy or mommy issues. That is crazy on it's own. It's a cycle that can only be broken by taking responsibility for ones own actions and stop blaming others. Off you got all your issues from your parents. So what? It's not an excuse to not work on them. It might just make you understand them a bit better and hopefully help you not pass them on to the next generation.

>>9040224
Just because you use a word in a weird way doesn't make me wrong.
Anyways, I guess what you are tiring to get at is sexual tension. However, I still don't agree that you can understand humans and be inherently incapable of male-female relationships. You might have mastered the techniques of sexual tension but that is merely scratching on the surface

>>9040239
The why are you partaking in social media? I agree that true love is a rare thing. Very rare indeed. But because it is rare doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And my understanding is that it would be a lot easier to achieve than people commonly assume.

And by the way, are you implying men know what they want?

>>9040301
>Just because you use a word in a weird way doesn't make me wrong.
Well, I've never heard a person call this particular skill "technique of sexual tension", so I guess you're the weird one here lmfao.
Seduction or romance are techniques of sexual tension. You can't realize desire or lust by engaging in non-sexual/aromantic behavior. Some people don't have said skills or don't like the game (i think nowadays people call this being aromantic)

>>9040094
Surely a strong father figure is just as important as a good mother. Even if its not actually the father that takes that role.

File: mayushii_by_kuvshinov_ilya-d9g2bjq.jpg (892KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

892KB, 1080x1080px

>>9039523
Women are mentally different from men. I have had the joy of already having gone through my autistic screeching phase and have accepted this. The biblical metaphor tells it nicely: Woman was made from the rib of Man, only a fraction of a Man in content but still Man will not feel complete without a Woman.

>>9039830
How old are you?
Hedonism doesn't advocate pleasure, pleasure can be found in infinite different ways.

Hedonism advocates carnal animal pleasure. Sex, Drugs, Laying around, Eating, Shitting, etc. Anything my dog can do.

A human takes pleasure in the struggle. Pleasure in the pursuit, pleasure in the finish. These will fulfill a man.

>>9040323
To be fair, that might be true. English is not my first language so my interpretation of some words or phrases might not be absolutely correct.

In my mind, sexual tension can be mutual and completely equal whilst seduction is like a hide and seek game with a seducer and somebody being seduced. That's why it seems to imply manipulation to me.

However, I do think that the ability to get casual sex or even short term relationship is no indicator of understanding humanity. Only if you can sustain a GOOD relationship over years am I ready to believe such claims from anybody. And those good relationships are rare. And the people who lead them don't usually feel the need to become philosophers. As some anon said earlier, suffering breeds art

>>9039523
They develop strong analytical and rational ability and that is what determines their behavior, woman tend to be moved by sentiment and 'in the moment' impulsiveness.
The more thinking and analyzing one does when interacting with them, the he more you sabotage your chances and the more you will frustrate yourself over their erratic, whimsical, inconsistent behaviors and moods.

>>9040330
If you study any field related to child care, you will learn that the first 3 years, a child is focused on his mother because then it needs the nurturing and warmth to develope a base security. After that, it starts to turn outwards to the world and now more urgently needs a father to take his hand and lead it out in the world and teach him bravery. It is like tides. A few years later, kids usually turn to their moms again and then in puberty, dad becomes more important again. Then they should start to distance themselves from their parents and after this is completed, seek their advice again as mature equals more than parents and offspring. But this is the ideal and is seldomly reached. It also depends if the kid is make or female. But that seems obvious.

>>9040027
You. realise there's never been a matriarchal civilisation in history. And by civilisation I don't mean some backwater shithole in rural China, I mean a society that produces great architecture, science , philosophy and art. Feminization has always happened at the end of empire. Look it up.

>>9040352
That seems more a problem of immature minds than females. There are a lot of immature females, I agree. But for every immature female there is an equally unfinished male.

Off women react differently than men. But what you described is not merely them being female. It is the mix of being immature and female that is a problem

>>9040372
This is exactly my intuition. Thanks for clarifying.

>>9040286
>I surely will pick the exception to strive for.
I don't understand what this has to do with anything I said? You're free to strive for whatever you want but accusing writers for not having good relationships when you yourself said are extremely difficult to achieve makes no sense and even more when they also need time for writing and thinking.
>Can you name 3 people that are perfectly sane?
Umm, what? You don't need to be "perfectly sane" its just semantics what youre spilling now. Its about giving your child the bare minimum (nutrition and not damaging him physically and mentally by doing things only people who are out of themselves do and they are a minority).
>That's not sane and not healthy.
But love is not sane by itself, and so are helicopter parents who love their childrens too much. Thats why you also need intellect.
>It takes the blame off of you so you can sleep soundly at night. But it is too easy.
Not really considering the fact that you can easily remodel yourself later unless you had extremely abusive parents. And we are talking about how women doesn't matter that much as does the genetic and environment(since he will spend most of his time with other people/kids) and if he got the proper genetics he will be able to reflect on himself later and change himeslf even if the damage was done.
>So what? It's not an excuse to not work on them.
Yes but missing a father figure will have a bigger impact as he is the one that will show HIM (not her as with women its a completely different matter) individuality, to think for himself and thus fix his problems later unlike with mom who will just make him to follow his dreams and group thinking which leads to the things I mentioned earlier (crime and hedonism).
>>9040311
>The why are you partaking in social media?
Because this is not a social media, in the mainstream sense of course and we have no identity her, just pure discussions and conversations without being bound with i.d.s
>And my understanding is that it would be a lot easier to achieve than people commonly assume.
And they knew about that did but the women didn't as they prefer shallow relationships as I'm trying to say numerous times already.
>are you implying men know what they want?
They are doing their best to.

>>9040381
examples?

>>9039523
tale as old as time

>>9040385
That's a good point.
They seem keen on lingering in immaturity though and when that eventually comes crashing down they become a combination of unstable, manipulative, spiteful or recklessly negligent, that or they become mothers before that happens.

>>9040402
What he means by feminization is decreasing the "Rah Rah smash their skulls, fuck their women, rape them all then bathe in their blood" mentality. Usually ending up in a society dependent on urban centers which maintain law and order and no longer fears the powers of nature.

At that point the majority populace is weak and servile, leading to hordes of "Rah Rah smash their skulls, fuck their women, rape them all then bathe in their blood" barbarians to show up and fuck them to death.

Examples of this are: Tons of Mesopotamian Civilizations, Egypt a bunch of times, Israel, Rome, China a bunch of times. These are the most notable examples, desu Mesopotamia might be an example of this in the hundreds based on how often tribes came in and fucked shit up early on.

>>9040396
i am implying that most people have never truly experienced a sane and loving relationship so they assume it doesn't exist and in line with that their highest expectation is merely a sad plagriat of love. so they can easily delude themselfes intl thinking they are beyond male-female relationships and "enjoy solitude". solitude as in loneliness...

it needs a perfectly sane person to not damage a kid. we arenmt talking about damage like breaking their arms in a rage fit. we might be talking about damage in a sense of "not teaching them how to propperly communicate in a mature relationship", or to develope a sense of entitlement. those are subtleties than happen scarily easy.

love is very sane. unhealthy love is what is insane.
as i said, helicopter parents donmt act out of love, that is NOT love. it is overcompensating and fear. they mask it as love to validate it and feel good about it but it is not love.

easily might be a bit optimistic. most people lack the endurance and discipline to actually alter their learned faults. that's why there are so many insane people walking this earth.
i can't see how genetics have anything to do with being able to reflect on lne self. that is a question of having been taught to think independently. that doesn't emerge on it's own...

as freud already said, the biggest inpact on a man's life has his mom and vice versa.
you seem to have a wildly generalized idea ablut what women teach their kids. just because a lot of liberal feel good new age moms do teach those thing to their kids doesnmt mean there aren't moms who teach actually valiable atuff to their sons and daughters.

i wasn't refering to lit as social media. but as it seems, you have experience with kt so i asked why you are partaking if you don't like the crowd it drawns?

what makes you think women prefer shallow relationships?

and if they knew that, why didnmt they try to teach that to the women they loved?

what makes you think women aren't doing their best? do you think they are being crazy on purpose, just to piss males off?

>tfw I touched a girl's vagina with my penis (with a condom around it) but have never penetrated a woman

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH

>tfw posted a thread on /lit/ last December about a letter I was going to hand to a girl at my workplace
>tfw the whole thread said I was autistic and told me never to approach a woman
>tfw can't read any of these kinds of letters without hating myself

>>9040428
exactly. i do agree that romanticism has completely ruined love. and women are falling prey to it easily. so do men, but it isn't as obvious untill inconveniences arise.
most people never become truly mature (me probably included unless i really kick my own ass till i'm 90). but some are just children in a way to big body with way too mich responsibilities when they can't even take responsibility for themselfes. it's scary. and frustrating. but not witheout hope since everybody inherently strives for maturity. some just don't know it yet

>>9040453
congrats. how did THAT happen?
ed?

>>9040459
probably was better that way. out of curiosity, what was written in your letter?

Success with women doesn't have to do with artistic ability imo, plenty of artists in all genres of literature and mediums for that matter who were very successful with women. If you can even define the complex interactions one goes throughout life as "successful" or not.

>>9040468
https://warosu.org/lit/thread/S7470428

File: depressed-man-rotator.jpg (27KB, 594x340px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 594x340px

>tfw dumb as heck and have never even had a prolonged conversation with a woman

>>9040459
>tfw actually handed one of these letters to a coworker
>cringy as hell
>she replied with a "sorry, but I'm already infatuated with someone else"
>it turned out to be true, and my handing her a letter inspired her to write him a similar letter
>they've been dating for 7 years now and plan on marrying next spring

>>9040475
it has no connection to artistic skills, that i agree on. but what ablut peoole like nietzsche? his goal wasn't art. his goal must have been finding a sustainable theory about humans and life. and that is not unrelated to male-female relationships at all.

>>9039539
This is not necessarily true. There are plenty of neurotic depressed losers (all of /lit/) who can't write or produce art to save their lives, and there are also tons of Chads (Percy Shelley, Hemingway (closet non-chad), Camus, Jack London, Faulkner (chadlet), Lord Byron, Bukowski) that were successful

>>9040500
Bukowski was a virgin until 24 when he fucked a fat drunk woman out of frustration. He was only Chad when he was famous. Fucking 2/10s isn't being a Chad, it's being a beta with no standards.

>>9039585
Really? There are several examples evidenced by the OP that obviously did give meaningful representations of life who weren't successful with women, so your little armchair theory is pretty clearly wrong

>>9040500
Byron was mentally ill, though

>>9040484
I propose that Artists and Philosophers are both essentially seekers of truth and one has no more or less connection with human relationship than the other.

its simple. women are assholes

>>9040481
well... the provlem with this letter is the same problem kafka had. it is begging. and as i already stated, begging implies that she is worth more than you and would have to come down a few steps to meet you there. which might not even be close to the teuth. it just shows your complete lack of confidence. and confidence is almost essential to desire. see, if you have no confidence in your worth, people who meet you have to assume you have a good reason to not value yourself highly since you know yourself and dour skeletons in the closet way betrer than they ever could. so it is kind of a self defense mechanism to not desire people that show low levels of confidence. the problem with this is that a lot of low confidence doesn't stem from actual shortcomings but from an underlying sense of worthlesnes. which, in my theory stems from a false expectation of grandeure. you can only see the worth of perfection. anything below perfect is not worthy. Nd since you spend every waking hour wirh yourself and you know every single one of your shortcomings, you think you aren't worth shit. when infact you are probably perfectly normal. you just don't see your boss fap to concrete enemas. so you assume you must be a monster since you just fapped to furry vore.
peopel are less adanted than you think. don't assume you are worth any less than the next guy. everybody has perfected the art of hiding their crazy

>>9040513
as opposed to all the lovely and sane men?

>>9039694
there clearly is something wrong with hedonism if it's causing everyone to fall into a pit of nihilism and depression from unactualized, impossible ideals

File: s0921975_sc7.jpg (12KB, 380x380px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 380x380px

>>9039590
FUCK there's no EBOOK???????????

>>9039523
Holy fuck are you one dumb nigger. Kafka and Goethe were total ladie's men. Kafka I can see how you can think otherwise, but if you read his biography you'd see he was a ladies' man --- but holy fuck, how do you get Goethe wrong? That's part of his whole fucking image, that he was constantly getting laid. You left out Hemingway, pal. I guess if you read something awkward in a love letter of his, you'd say he was awkward with women.

I think the real problem is that you, never having had any deep contact with a woman in your life or written a love letter, can't see that what you think is "autistic" or "painful" in their letters is PRECISELY what worked.

>>9039523
>The absolute worst being nietzsche and kafka
Wrong. How could you forget to list Shop an hour?

>>9040536
i got the physical copy long ago. i have only recently rediscovered it.

there's a kindle version on amazon...

https://www.amazon.de/gp/aw/d/B00B1Z9ODW/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=

>>9040510
mental illness is a semantic invention. Thinking about things and occasionally being sad isn't mental illness in my book. If your criteria for being a Chad is that you need to be a hedonistic non-thinker in addition to being successful with women, then you're automatically precluding it from being attributed to literary authors, because literature requires complex thought

>>9040286
>There is no such thing as too much love
I totally disagree with this notion. You are grossly oversimplifying a complicated and deep emotion (and biological reaction). There are more than a single type of love. You describe over-sheltering and smothering as abusive without analysing the core of that behaviour, which is, in some form, an expression of love.
>See Buddha as an example. That wasn't love his dad showcased. It was pure fear
If you are referring to Buddha's fathers desperate wish for his return, then i again will have to disagree.
His father was the leader of a clan using heritage to determine their monarchs. What he did, in isolating his son and in sending letters and his friend to call him back after he became Buddha, was show concern for the safety of his son and for the future of his clan. Both expressions of love. What might not be apparent is that he valued the love for his clan and desire to ensure its future, over the love for his son.

>>9040552
I MEANT A FREE BOOK KIDDO

>>9040540
i only listed who was in the book...
i haven't finished it yet so i focused on nietzsche and kafka since those were the worst i have read so far.
besides, "getting laid" is in no way an indicator of being capable of having a relationship

>>9040543
i don't think he was in that particular book. but it might be he was even more awkward with women

>>9040528
women made men assholes
notice how nice gay males are compared to straight

>>9040563
>mental illness is a semantic invention
stopped reading there

>>9040432
Thanks for sparing me the time to reply. I'm not saying lots of nice things don't come from feminization like peace and equality. It's just that as the other guy says it weakens the population if done for too long. Tribal societies only had egalitarianism during times of celebration and leisure but the hierarchies always restructure when war is afoot or hunting for food is necessary. Both states are only meant to be temporary.

>>9040568
>i haven't finished it yet
yep had a feeling this was a bait thread. nobody on this BOARD EVER READS
FFS

>>9040578
it's because gay men are pretending to be women and women are nice

>>9040564
smothering is selfish. that is somebody that isn't capable of getting love so they have to desperately force somebody into being dependant on them and then they take that dependancy as getting love. it is in no way a form of love. give me one example.

i didn't mean that part. i meant the part where his father tried to make him grow up completely sheltered from the world, catering to his every wish and whine, in a desperate attempt to keep him away from the uglyness of the world. buddha became an entitled little cunt. that isn't love. it might be a tad of love but it is a selfish love again. it isn't realistic. it is extreme. it doesn't take into consideration that you can't shortcut maturity. you can't shelter your kid. that is abusive. it will greatly slow down his mental growth. and stunting your kid is NOT love. it is again, making them depend on you for providing that bubble. you put them on a leash of fear and keep them near that way. you ensure they never leave you because you are afraid that if you let them go they might never return because you aren't good enough to be worthy of love. that is insanity not love. not even a bit

>>9040530
Hedonism also follows nihilism very often as well.

>>9040444
>as freud already said, the biggest inpact on a man's life has his mom and vice versa.
Taking the person who coined the term "Oedipus complex"s opinion on mothers seriously isnt exactly a good idea.

>>9039523
>who is henry miller
>who is ernest hemingway
>who is albert camus

>>9040590
thats not even true and bit homophobic.

>>9040565
it's only 4 euros... come on anon

>>9040578
i know a lot of gay men. they aren't nicer than straight men and women...
just gayer

>>9040585
well, it is not a coherent book but a collection of letters that are closed in itself so i don't think i need to have read schillers letter to understand kafka's.

>>9040568
>besides, "getting laid" is in no way an indicator of being capable of having a relationship
Goethe was married very happily you African-American you

>>9040614
that might be. but if he hadn't said it, somebody else would have because it is true. atleast as far as i can judge from what i observe

>>9040629
as i said, i only listed people who's letters are on the book. it might have beeen formulated a bit shitty, but i didn't meant to imply that ALL of them had no idea about women.

you reverse albino you

>>9040628
I spent my cash on the greeks

>>9039523
>How can they be so genius in reading humans and so unable to interact with females?
why don't you tell us Anons on how to interact with females

>>9039893
>>9039922
>>9039937
>>9039950
>>9039962
>>9040032
>>9040094
>>9040211
>>9040311
>>9040396
>>9040444
>>9040614

How did my singular post >>9039866 end up with other people arguing so badly? Fucking hell.

>>9040643
well oh well. i would have offered to upload it but i know i won't have time this week so i would have only made you wate unnecessarily. maybe i will upload it when i find time. i hope you lurk here often and stumble across it. it's truly entertaining

>>9040649
i did. but anons won't listen. they have slipped into bitterness too deep already

>>9040652
welcome to 4chan

>>9040654
I'll definitely read it if you upload it. My german is a bit rusty, but I'm working to get it up to speed again. I just read Kindergeschichten by Peter Bichsel and I really liked all the stories, I recommend them (there's an epub on libgen).

>>9040500
Percy Shelley was a beta pussy who looked like a woman and regularly cried in public

He was not a Chad

>>9040608
Instead of listing a lot of things that isnt love, why dont you describe what actually IS love? Its a bit hard coming with examples when i dont know your baseline.
>I meant the part where his father tried to make him grow up completely sheltered from the world, catering to his every wish and whine, in a desperate attempt to keep him away from the uglyness of the world.
Regardless of the result or methods, would you not say that his desire to raise his child without pain and without knowledge of the ugliness stems from some form of love? The actions his father took look like a classic case of love making someone blind to me. He did all he could to spare his son from suffering, but i'm sure we can agree that, it isnt a proper way to raise a child. I'm sure his father knew as well, but the love he had for his son made him unable to see that. Hell, thats the whole point of that story.
>that isn't love. it might be a tad of love but it is a selfish love again. it isn't realistic. it is extreme...
It seems to me like the form of love you are describing can only happen in a world where we are all perfect godbeings whose thoughts are completely unclouded. That is what isnt realistic, if anything

>>9040444
>nobody likes solitude lmao
stop posting, roastie

Question for those doing all the autistic r9k screehing, how do you reconcile women with talent? I know it's become standard to pretend that George Elliot and Virginia Woolf are shitty authors, but how do you deal with women who are incredibly capable classical musicians or ballet dancers or other vocations that take an enormous amount of dedication and work to succeed in?

>>9040663
where?

>>9040697
>Percy Shelley was a beta pussy who looked like a woman and regularly cried in public
Yes but it worked

He was just pretending to be a sensitive beta type for the ladies

>>9040712
> how do you reconcile women with talent?
unicorns

>>9040712
They are exceptions, also affirmative action

Women don't do very well in things that require creativity. There are exceptions, but it's very telling how feminists on this board only meme the same 10 female authors

File: Percy_Bysshe_Shelley_by_Alfred_Clint_crop.jpg (1MB, 1970x2725px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1970x2725px

>>9040719
Having sex one != being a Chad

>>9040730
compared to your zero. Percy was a boss

>>9039574
Female craziness is externalized, which is why histrionic/shrew personalities are so common among them. Male craziness is more internalized.

>>9039688
I'd hazard a guess that it's not necessarily a desire for them to be ideal or perfect, but a desire to be understood or for someone to 'get' you, male or female. I figure there's a desire to find an equal feminine counterpart who you can find yourself reflected in (regardless of whether or not that's healthy), and to be able to be open up to them completely without having to worry about being misjudged or misunderstood. Not being able to find that relationship, or being wrong about your level of connection with someone hurts a lot and can create a lot of resentment and disillusionment.

>t. projecting

>>9040750
Nice observation. Never thought of it that way but it clicks.

>>9040702
now you are aksing me to define love? well, i can try i guess...

the love i am referring to is selfless and unconditional. that would be the ideal but that would be asking for gods in human bodies. i am not sure it is completely achievable. but there are several forms that are getting close to it. i don't know how else to describe it than what it isn't. for example, making soor love depending on the grades your kid brings home is not unconditional. you can tell them you expect them to do better or whatever, but you can not make them question your love. the same in a "romantic" relationship. love doesn't mean it will always be rainbows and unicorns. but it means that you can separate between the person yoj love and the sometimes unpleasant stuff they do. it means not running away because something needs work but actually communicate the problem, find a solution together and never forget that this is the person you love and not your opponent that you need to "win" against.
i struggle to describe love. love is provably sacrifice but also being loving enough to have boundaries. it is the balance between letting somebody go and having their back.

sure, that's what his dad told himself. but if he knew it wasn't the best way to raise afunctioning gumsn then it was just selfish to raise a kid like that. it was HIS fear of buddha not being able to deal with the ugly of the world that made him do this. it was not in the best interest of the kid. it was in the best interest of the father. that's not love. it really isn't. it is commonly seen as love but it is just a wolfe in a sheepskin.
if love makes you blind to you suffocating others then you aren't mature enough for love. i don't see anything beautiful in what buddhas father did

>>9040755
>nd to be able to be open up to them completely without having to worry about being misjudged or misunderstood.
this reminds me of pouring my soul into my gf at the time.About my first existential crisis and getting dumped a week later.

>>9040723
not necessarily disagreeing with you, but to be fair a lot of pseuds on /lit/ only meme the same 10 male authors

>>9040703
i've already clarified my different understanding of solitude and lonelines. solitude is very enjoyable. lonelines isn't. maybe for a few weeks but then it gets abrasive

>>9040715
mainly on adv. it's pointless

What is love?

>>9040770
Asking to be hurt no more, baby. No more hurting, no more.

>>9040769
>mainly on adv. it's pointless
lay it on me

>>9040755
and why do you think this is not achievable?

>>9040764
then she was the wrong one and you should be glad you found out before you were married and had kids

>>9040781
>the wrong one
this is a meme btw, because a woman you stay with is always the right one, and the one who leaves is always the wrong one

>>9040778
you would need to be a bit more specific since starting from scratch would require me to type out a short book...

what is your personal struggle with females?

>>9040786
>type out a short book
this is /lit/...
if you can't do that then GET OUT

>>9040785
well, you got me. it's like saying that the thing you search for is always in the last place you look for it. i mean... what kind of an idiot keeps searching after he found what he was looking for.
anyways, i know there isn't any "right one". what i meant with that, admitedly stupid, term was "she wasn't mature enough for a relationship". so the rest of my statement still stands

>>9040796
i should already be asleep anon... i've tought about writing it out in a book but you know how it is. nobody will take a female serious writing about how females work since "women don't know what they want"

>>9040805
It's true though. Women DO NOT know what they want. Your advice is only harmful.

>>9040786
>what is your personal struggle with females?
everything.
but a brief summary would be fine
20 yr 0ld khv btw

>>9040805
i mean, if there is somebody that would want to read it i could try and get it into a coherent form... but i won't write it down just because i think i have such important stuff to say that nobody else has thought about before. that's not true. but maybe i would word it a bit different and bring together ideas that haven't been paired yet and that might reach one or two anons, who knows

>>9040822
do it sincerely but post it ironically

>>9040815
how is it harmful?

>>9040816
what are your experiences with women so far? have you had crushes? asked somebody out? got rejected? had a relationship?

>>9040827
kek

isn't that what everybody on lit does?

i was merely pretending? that's just shortselling your work...

>>9040828
>have you had crushes?
1 but she moved for colelge and was sure she was only being nice to me like everyone else.
1 brief "relationship"
>girl A
met her at the gym and gave me her number. then she started texting me everyday. was honest with her i was a virgin and then she stopped texting :(

/adv/ said its too late for me since i never did much in hs anyway.

>>9040763
I see where you are getting at. I think we agree that sheltering and such is unhealthy, but we clearly disagree on the underlying psychology of what drives someone to shelter their child in the first place.
Good discussion though, so thanks for that.

>>9040781
Oh, I'm sure its achievable, my understanding of it would be that the search is inherently more difficult when you have a more 'unique' or uncommon outlook/personality, since there are naturally going to be less people who share that same outlook/personality, so particularly intelligent/creative (and prolific) people would have a harder time finding that connection simply as a matter of probabilities.

I should also clarify that when I say intelligent or unique I'm really just talking about perceived similarity, or a sharing of ideals and values.

Granted, this is assuming that you need to find someone who is sufficiently similar to you, rather than someone who is able to accept and legitimize you, which is probably easier to find. Also assumes that you'll fall in love with someone identical to you and not compete with or resent them.

>>9040816
the short summary would probably be that men are ALMOST right. it is nearly impossible to have a good relationship and find true love with women. not because they are women, but because they are immature. the next problem is that age is no indicator of maturity. one indicator of maturity is how easily someone is upset. is a girl is upset by having gotten the wrong order in a restaurant, she has nothing real to worry about and is thus creating drama because she is craving the challenge of having a problem. that's again not restricted to females. males do it too. just in differnet areas. anyways. find a girl that knows her priorities and is willing to give a damn about the things she cares about. make sure those things aren't as foggy as "end worldhunger" or "save the animals" or "stop global warming". it should rather be something directly related to her like putting in effort that her grandma gets treated right in her retirement home and standing up for her needs in an appropirate manner. being willing to suffer trough tough times o get her education even if mommy and daddy aren't shitting money infront of her. if she can priorize like that and endure things that aren't pleasant to reach those goals, she might be mature enough to lead a relationship worth having.
don't be fooled by girls not living up to those standarts YET. if there are seeds of those traits, you could help them grow and she has the basic requirements for maturity wven if she hasn't fully achieved it yet. few people actually do. basically, everybody would be capable of leading a good relationship but it is a lot easier to be with someone that already has a reached the bae level of maturity

>>9040883
*base, not bae

>>9039764
This

>>9040857
what do you think drives them to do so then? genuinely curious. my ideas are never set in stone. i am always open for new mindsets if the arguments are good enough

>>9040895
thanks i will try my best to apply this!

>>9040866
since this is lit, i am going to assume you mean finding a girl that is in awe over the same books and probably weites herselfe or atleast is supportive of you writing?
ofc it is better to not go into a relationship with the hope to being completely understood. to get to the levels you are hoping for you would probably need years of very good communication. this isn't something that just happens. not usually though. this is another sick idea that romanticism has inflicted upon us. that te person we love and loves us back will automatically and magically undestand us withou us habing to say a word. they just "get you". but that's sadly not how humans work. finding a girl that WANTS to understand you is good enough. then you put in the work to learn to understand each other and slowly get to the levels of intimacy you dream of. but this isn't going to be an instant "boom, it's like she is inside my head and we are one" thing

>>9040917
oops meant for this>>9040883

>all lower case wall of texts with random all caps WORDS and no formatting
Not even gonna bother reading.

>>9040934
teehee~~~ silly BOYS

>>9040505
a fat drunk whore*

>>9040922
Frankly, that's another one of the many criticisms of that sort of view; personally I support the whole 'love is made not found' bit but I still think it's harder to find someone who WANTS to understand you if you're more eccentric/socially inept.

Also, speaking from experience I don't think it's enough to have good communication (inb4 apparently your communication was shit). Besides the obvious requirement that both parties must want to understand the other as who they ARE and not who they THINK they are, if the person doesn't share the same desires or goals in life, you can still end up with heartbreak after a long productive relationship if/when those inconsistent desires come into conflict.

>t. blogposter

>>9040925
i'm obviously not done yet.
now that you know a few things to look out for in a girl (i should add that her having had a less than ideal childhood might help. but only if she is able to handle it maturely, iow, not victimize herself or talk unnecessarily badly about her parents. it might have prevented her from becoming an entitled princess that doesn't know what suffering is and thus makes a big deal out of the smalles shit. like a little kid being unreasonably upset about their fav ice cream flavor being empty. they do so because they have GENUINELY never experienced anything worse in their lifes. which is nice for them but horrible for bystanders. having suffered will help her put things in perspective), the next step would be to get her interest and navigating trough the tricky slumps of rejection and making first moves.
the most basic thing you would newd to work at is what i wrote in response to the letter. about how lack of confidence inhibits desire.
another point i have already touched on in this thread is about the way putting on an act is setting a relationship up for disaster. it is way better to try and be as honestly you as you can possibly deal with. it will do two things. it will ease her anxiety and make her more open to the idea of sharing her real self with you (this only works if you found a girl that has the traits i mentioned before. donmt try this with immature girls or you will get your feels hurt, get bitter and blame women). it will also give her an opportunity to make a conscious decision about a possible compatibility. same for you, if she is following your invitation to let down your guards. so that slowly. mainly because it should feel like you aren't letting everyone in THAT easily. it must be authentic. donmt try to tear down your inhibitions. but don't keep them up forcefully. just let her in at the pace that feels natural to you.
ideally, you wouldn wate with physical moves till some kind of intimacy is etablished. again, you will get conflicting advice on this. that you need to "make a move" or "atleast kiss her on the 3. date" or whatever. this might work with immature girls that need to be cooed into sleeping with you. but that's not the endgoal in my advice. i wat you to find a girl worth growing old together. rushing physical contact before it feels right might ruin what you have found and that will never be worth it. a girl with sane boundaries and a healthy sexuality wonmt rush into sleeping with you or kissing you sice she knows the value of intimacy and isn't interested in just getting validation from bringing you bodily pleasure

>>9040934
wehell, i'm on mobile and since i am better at expressing myself irl i try to somehow emphasize words i think need emphasizing.
nobody is going to force you to read anything itt.

>>9040966
but don't you think that every human inherently wants exactly that? a relationship where they feel understood and loved? then that would imply that every human also wants to understand at some level...
ofc that is wishfull thinking and i agree that it might not be easy to find a person worth trying, but not trying doesn't seem like an alternative i can life with either.


i do think that it is necessary to have some key values that are the same. especially basic stuff like "do we ever want to get married", "do we want kids/how many", "who will look agter them/ will we both work", "will we raise them religiously", "how often do we visit your mom/do i have to accompany you every time", "do we share our money or have separate accounts", "do we have sex in the morning or the evening or both", "do we use toys in the bedroom", "who does the laundry and who takes out the trash", "will we argue about politics",... and so on. but again, being able to diaagree on a few pf those things (maybe not the fundamental ones like having kids or not) takes maturity. because then you would need to find a compromise. and for a compromise to work you would need to be complwtely honest with each other about desires, requirements, boundaries, expectations and much more. it's not a piece of cake. that's the work relstionships require. constanly tuning in on each other again. discussing even minor problems calmy as they arise. and being mature enough to distinguis between topics worth making a deal about and topics worth a short talk.

>>9040971
let me know if you think i am writing up a bunch uf enourmous bogus or if you want more

>>9039716
womens "liberation" is the slave form of liberation, distrust all that desires to be equal and all that, makes perfect sense for him to dislike it

I don't think he minded women who wanted to advance as women in their own way (if he ever commented on any such women), instead of just wanting to take all the good stuff men had

>>9040971
this makes more sense anon.
thanks again!

>>9040895
That's gonna be tough. I am not all that good at explaining my ideas, but hell, I asked you to define love, so I can't complain.

I'll start by explaining how I see love itself.
Love, at its most pure, is unselfish desire for the well being of another. Unselfish desire, however, is a bit of an oxymoron when it comes to people. One of our faults, as people, is that we cannot truly desire something in an selfless manner. This leads me to believe that humans are incapable of experiencing pure love. It is also what separates us from the gods of myth and holiness in general, but I digress.
This fault does not stop us from trying. People might not be able to reach the purest form, but the we have adapted it to fit our own disposition. If we were holy, that is, if we could give out pure love, we would be able give out love continuously without it affecting any other part of our psyche. This is not the case, however, and so when a person gives love, it is tainted by desire, greed, and so loving becomes a strenuous task. The more love the try to give out, the more need for someone else to give us love back increases, because it is not selfless.
We were talking about the love between a parent and a child, so I will focus on how this emulated, human love comes into play in that type of relationship. A parent-child relationship is lopsided and unbalanced. When a person becomes a parent, they shower their child with love and build up a "love debt" for lack of a better term. Normally, this "debt" is repaid constantly in the form of the satisfaction a parent gets from seeing their child grow, as well as the love the child gives to the parent. However, not all people have an equal desire, and this is where an unhealthy relationship starts. In the sheltering scenario, I think the parent tries to give out more love, usually in the form of physical security and things, expecting that the child will "repay" the extra. In this case, the parent is greedy, they want and it doesn't matter what it is, they just want more of it.

I hope I got my point over in an understandable manner.

>>9041105
yeah think that school of life guy said something similar in his older videos.
good read tho.

>>9039539
>confessions of a chad
id read it

File: IMG_1617.jpg (442KB, 800x688px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 800x688px

>>9041105
i can't disagree with any of that. you worded the definition of love a lot better than i did but i was trying to say the same.
maybe the idea of the different "languages of love" plays into this a bit too. maybe some people truly do "understand" some ways of showing love better than other ways and thus assume that giving out more of teir own "love language" (in buddha's fathers case going overboard with acts of service) actually was just his not so selfless try to get his child all the love he was capable of. maybe he knew he lacks the ability to show love in other areas, such as physical touch or words of affirmation and tried to overcompensate with this insane sheltering.

you touched on the subject of love that isn't unconsitional not being infinite. i agree with that. and also with the idea that humans are not capable of pure selfless love. but i also want to add that many people then assume that humans are only capable of the very, horribly stunted version of "love" we see everyday. i, however, am sure that humans are capable of almost perfect love. it's just a thin layer of, i refer to it as "will to live", shields them from pure love. this will to live, you might also call it ego, is what makes any action selfish if you track it down long enough. and only if it makes you feel good about yourself to do something good. that would still be selfish since you then do it again to feel good about yourself again. but then i wonder if getting rid of that selfish ego is truly right thing to strive for. why would we have an ego if the goal would be to get rid of it? isn't that what makes us human? or would the goal be to actually get rid of our humanity and become god-like?

>>9041133
i think this has been said in various places in various times since it is just a truth that won't change...

>>9041153
Interesting idea with the languages of love thing. Could be that what some people mean when they say that they are "incompatible" is that they have different "main languages" and don't see, for example, the quality time their partner give them to be as "loving" as their physical touch.

>maybe he knew he lacks the ability to show love in other areas, such as physical touch or words of affirmation and tried to overcompensate with this insane sheltering.
I think that's what I was trying to get at, but I didn't quite know how to formulate it before. He might just have been trying his best to give his love, but was unskilled, or bad, at everything but giving gifts and services.

>i, however, am sure that humans are capable of almost perfect love. it's just a thin layer of, i refer to it as "will to live", shields them from pure love.
Selfishness is definitely an evolutionary trait, yeah. Kept us alive back in the "survival of the fittest" days, but now it is the cause of many, if not all, of our conflicts. I think getting rid of this "ego" would definitely harm or maybe outright destroy our human-ness, but that might be the ego talking. I think the ideal human is someone who walks the line between being god-like and human, really. Someone who is right up against that thin layer of "will to live" while not crossing over into godhood. This is not a new opinion though. Was very prevalent during the Romantic era where the poets were the people who walked this line. It probably goes further back if you really analyse history.

>>9039523
>>9039523 (OP)
End goal of 90% male activities are to fuck. Skills continue to develop until fuck is achieved.
No fuck? Genius level autists.
Fuck? Nobody hears about them because they never become developed past the point of fuck. They don't care, because they were able to fuck.

My brother is a smart guy. He probably has a high IQ. He also rarely reads and dropped out of college in order to work somewhere where he can meet lots of women because he's Chadprime.

If you're fucking 8s and 9s on a regular basis, then what's the point of spending so many lonely hours honing a craft that might lead you nowhere?

Just think about it. Who would think this:

>"After this long, arduous work day i'm going to spend 4 hours by myself reading and writing."

if they could just as easily do this:

>"After this long, arduous work day i'm gonna go to a bar with my friends and end up fucking a girl who's 10 years younger than I am and will probably pay for her own drinks 'cause she's an empowered modern woman."

>>9039764

>>9041321
Neither you nor your brother know what being passionate about something means

>>9039523
book sounds interesting. what is it called?

>>9041557
You can make a definitive judgment on both of our personalities from this one post? You can make a lot of money with a skill like that

>>9039973
how am i annoying?

lol just kidding

>>9040459
>relationship with high school crush
>she goes to study fine arts, I to study history
>she goes wild with partying and drugs and freedom
>become estranged, she dumps me
>can't stop thinking about her
>compose love poem and read it to her at her work
>she rips me in front of everyone
>says my poem is utter shit
>cry myself to sleep that night
>on a whim submit the poem anonymously to a poetry journal
>forget about it
>1 month later get acceptance letter
>3 months later get approached about publishing in an anthology
>ex hears about the poem
>wants me back and keeps asking me out for drinks, dinner, to stay over
>too busy plowing hipster puss at poetry readings

Why does insanity always twist the great answers?
Because only
tormented persons want truth.
Man is an animal like other animals, wants food and success and
women, not truth. Only if the mind
Tortured by some interior tension has despaired of happiness:
then it hates its life-cage and seeks further,
And finds, if it is powerful enough. But instantly the private
agony that made the search
Muddles the finding.

>>9041651
roastie btfo

>>9040500
bukowski was more omega than alpha. Dude legit didn't give a shit about being decent or partaking in society.

>>9039523
>intelligence
>women

pick one

>>9039523
>nietzsche
>rilke
salome got on just fine with rilke, wtf are you talking about? salome's why he's rainer not rene ffs

>>9039523
kek the fact that you can't get laid doesn't make you a genius OP

>>9039523
Because all of life, every single facet of it, involves struggle. The only difference is that some people are more conscious if it, other go even further and are open about it with those close to them, and some insane few even share it with the world.

>>9041651
Fucken awesome.

>>9039523
Obviously because we have a biological imperative to reproduce, and women are the gateway to that happening.

If you aren't attractive to women, or you never have children, it means in some sense that you're a failed man, and that can create some serious neurosis if you dwell on it too much.

File: wicked.jpg (98KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1280x720px

>>9039539
>tfw a sociopath and a degenerate masquerading as a chad
My friends always say if I published my romantic memoirs they would be super popular

a great genius is as sensitive as a seismograph. unsurprising if no one is on their level

>>9040805
are you retarded? it's 2017, nobody cares about that anymore or even pretends to.

>>9040971
wow this is insightful as fuck, saved.

>>9041262
I can honestly sort of believe this one

>>9041262
Sure, that's why every genius died a virgin

>>9040500
chad =/= no struggles, just different kinds of struggles

also, loving yourself and others =/= chad

I wish someone would write me a love letter in kafkas style

>>9040719
That's not what being Chad is but ok