>he's not writing fetish smut pandering towards sexually

>>9196916
Meh, my 2nd book is SORT of fetish-driven, but at the same time I think the character development and story are fairly interesting so I wouldn't say it's just smut for the sake of smut.

>>9196916
>write smut pandering towards sexually liberated women to pay your rent
>develop your craft to a point where you can write a novel of merit
>write it
>it's a big success
>enjoy your success for 50 years, then die

>2150
>historians have now access to your old bank accounts and your old internet history
>they find out what you've wrote (alongside lots of fucked up porn)

Yeah, not worth it.

>>9196944
Why not? You don't want to be a source of amusement for people shitposting about you in the future?

>>9196944
>2150
>Would be over 150 years old
>Chances of still being alive basically remote to the point of being impossible
>Be 80; around 2070. Meet someone who is only 20, have some meaningful conversations before death.
>By the time 2150 comes around, that 20 year old would have to be 100 years old to still be alive
>Chances of anyone you'd ever meet in your life still being alive almost remote

Seriously, if that's your fear, you best start replacing red meat with fish and deep-fried crap with vegetables, because you're going to have to live a LONG ass time. If a stranger finds out I'm a rape fetishist decades (or possibly a century) after I've died, I don't give a fuck. Though I do think I've got a decent chance of at least reaching 70 years old considering how medicine continues to advance and I can't seem to join the Military for various reasons. Then again, I'm already pretty much an alcoholic, so maybe it's not all that unbelievable that I might die by 60 years old.

>>9196916
only betas want to please women

What does it even mean to be 'sexually liberated'

>>9196966
I'm pretty sure the only reason Tanizaki didn't off himself like all those other Japanese writers is that he was perpetually horny.

File: 1472814541085.png (134KB, 1000x998px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1000x998px

>>9197031

>>9197041
That poor bloke, how much can one's penis take.

>>9197034
very likely

>>9197041
This doesn't make any fucking sense

>>9197069
80/20 rule makes a lot of sense.

>>9197031
A whore.

>>9197075
The image still doesn't make any sense though

>>9197041
Women really are generally more prudish than men.

>>9197107
Not to Chad they aren't.

>>9197113
Calm down you salty faggot

>>9197116
Calm down.

File: 7b8f72e33ac997386e5100ff31a295be.jpg (65KB, 598x428px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 598x428px

>>9197121

>>9197082
>How men rate women on okcupid.
http://blogs.sas.com/content/sastraining/files/2014/10/okc_rating_curve.png

>How women rate men on okcupid.
http://blogs.sas.com/content/sastraining/files/2014/10/okc_rating_curve1.png

See, due to feminism, women often have this thing called Disney Princess Syndrome. They think they're all special snowflake Princesses, they deserve a Prince charming who is nothing short of absolute perfection, but the thing is no man is perfect so they go for the best they can but still often end up feeling that there's something better out there. Notice how less than 1% of men have been rated as 'Most Attractive' by women, but 6% of women have been rated 'Most Attractive' by men. Men aren't so picky.

>>9197130
I'd fuck her.

>>9197075
>I don't understand the Pareto principle
good to know

>>9197135
these graphs would be very interesting if genuine but there's nothing that would suggest that

We these kind of threads every fucking where: /adv/, /pol/, /r9k/, /mu/, /fit/ and so on. Can we have some peace and quiet here?

>>9197159
They're literally from the owners of OKCupid, they're genuine

>>9197159
Considering 50% of marriages end in divorce, and most of those divorces are initiated by the women, I'd say it's likely very accurate. Women are prudish cunts.

>>9197135
More likely that society is inundated with images of beautiful women so it's easier to compare women on OKCupid to beautiful women since there are more examples from which to draw a standard. I'd have to see how women rate other women to decide if your 'Disney Princess Syndrome' has any validity.

Also the graph doesn't really support the 80/20 theory since the top 20% of men seems to start at average attractiveness.

>>9197171
calm down lad I was just wondering

>>9197178
Who says they're getting divorced out of prudishness?

File: download (4).jpg (7KB, 184x266px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 184x266px

>>9197041

This meme is only believed by people who are too fucking autistic or ugly to ever get laid anyway and believe that only the super attractive get laid these days. Not to mention that it reeks of sour grapes.

>>9197135
> men are more interested in physical appearance than women
> common knowledge since shortly after the big bang

>>9197179
Oh damn, you seriously don't understand how terrible women are to other women? Through some sort of study, a program was developed to search Twitter for posts containing words such as 'slut', 'bitch', 'whore', etc. But they removed instances where the words were potentially used in a positive light like 'that slut walk was awesome' or 'bitch, you fine' or shit like that. They found that the majority of instances where those arguably 'sexist' terms were used in a negative way were done by females. If women went about rating other women, I imagine it would likely be similar; VERY negative.

>>9197190
They think they're hot shit and can do better, they get bored with their man and think they can do better, or they just want to get the child support and/or alimony so they can get out there to find better dick.

The instances of divorces brought on by ACTUAL abuse/violence is terribly, terribly slim.

>>9197216
>If women went about rating other women, I imagine it would likely be similar; VERY negative.

Well your imagination is not verifiable. And sexist terms aren't necessarily tied to perceived physical attractiveness.

>They think they're hot shit and can do better, they get bored with their man and think they can do better, or they just want to get the child support and/or alimony so they can get out there to find better dick.

Says who though?

>>9197216
Here's some information on factors in divorces that is pretty interesting:

http://www.divorce.usu.edu/files/uploads/lesson3.pdf

>>9197235
Interesting indeed. So poor, uneducated atheists who have had pre-marital children have a very high chance of divorcing if they were to get married. Educated and religious people who make a decent income have a lower chance of divorcing.