What are some fiction books men can read to understand female

The seducer's diary

To the lighthouse

Stoner

East of Eden

the biblical story of Samson and Delilah

>>9223316
literally had this thread yesterday

>>9223316
Your daughter's diary

taipei

Just think of a man and take away reason and accountability.

>>9223791
Desu~

>tfw I gave my gf a copy of one hundred years of solitude
>I even read it out loud to her
>I see her reading people magazine an article about brad pitt or somethin
I wish i were gay. I might live with a guy just go out to get puss. fuck women are daft

>>9224060
>fuck women are daft
who cares desu

>>9223765
This and Dalloway

Diary of a fucker desu, by Anon

all i know about women i learned watching japanese porn

Jane Austen is actually helpful for this. Probably Brontes as well but I haven't read them

my sweet audrina

>>9224364
you know their cunnies aren't really pixelated, right?

>>9223316
Fifty Shades of Grey

File: dont-try-to-understand-women.jpg (52KB, 540x422px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 540x422px

>>9223316
>What are some fiction books men can read to understand female thought and behavior?

>>9225130
sage advice for the ages

>>9223316
>tfw no honeybee gf

Anais Nin.
And the Iliad.

>>9223878
xddd

>>9223316
the bell jar

File: 341515.png (163KB, 345x323px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 345x323px

>>9225106

Sylvia Plath
Virginia Woolf
Anais Nin (for their sexuality)
Le Deuxieme Sexe and the Vindication of the Rights of Women (to understand why they bang on about equal rights)
Jane Austen, for what they like men to do, romantically
Some generic magazines and YA, to understand less intelligent specimens.

This list will give you a good overview.

>>9224060
Nobody actually gives a fuck about women. Most men just pretend to get laid. Love doesn't exist. It's just men and women not wanting to be alone deciding that they're staying together. Nobody is happy for longer than a few single moments in life. People just live.

50 Shades of Grey
Titanic
A billion wicked thoughts

>>9227243
t. selfhating underage girl

>>9224060
My girlfriend likes that book. I tried to read it, but they've all got the same names, it's so annoying.

>>9227243
>Nobody actually gives a fuck about women.

Too many people actually give a fuck about women, that's the real problem.

We've had feminism for 50 years, and women and children still leave the sinking boat first.

>>9227288
Why do you care who leaves the boat first when you don't get out of your house?

>>9227288
Why should we not give a fuck about women? Either we don't give a fuck about anyone, or we give a fuck about everyone. Why split it by gender?

>>9227299
Because we /r9k/ now.

>>9227243
>It's just men and women not wanting to be alone deciding that they're staying together
From a biological perspective that sounds like a very apt description of love. Why does it bother you?

>>9227305
Because its cold. Everybody does everything out of self interest. Nobody cares about anybody else. Life is lonely.

>>9227275
Im not underage

>>9227288
This is the case because people are getting mad about non-issues. Most of the lives of people in the west are perfect and nobody is in real danger so a lot of people create these non-issues to get mad about so they can make themselves think their life has any purpose. It disgusts me.

>>9227299
This anon is right

>>9227299
>Why split it by gender?

Ask feminists, not me.

>>9227373
>am not under-aged
>does not deny that that it is female
London?

The rational male desu

>>9227373
>Most of the lives of people in the west are perfect and nobody is in real danger so a lot of people create these non-issues to get mad about so they can make themselves think their life has any purpose. It disgusts me.
How ironic.
If you are not underage what is your excuse for being so ignorant?

>>9227597
What is ironic or ignorant about that post? Please tell, I feel like having a laugh.

>>9227830
Ironic because you bitch about people in the west bitching about minor issues because they have nothing else to bitch about.
Ignorant because of too many things to list in a single post.

>>9227844
>Ignorant because of too many things to list in a single post.
Name five examples. You said there were too much to name so I guess five is quite a low number.

>Ironic because you bitch about people in the west bitching about minor issues because they have nothing else to bitch about.
I can make a statement about an unimportant problem of people making problems about unimportant things and I will. I never said I stood above the people I criticize.

>>9228534
Your self-loathing doesn't make it any less ironic. Here are some of the reasons I believe you might not be very well informed:
1. your very own edgy attitude - not understanding that rejection of common values is a defensive mechanism that helps you cope your own anxiety and low self-worth caused by the unconscious belief you don't have the skills to fulfill your biological purpose;
2. "most men just pretend to get laid" - not understanding that men need love just as much as anybody; not understanding that society places more psychological pressure on men to meet the standards of gender forced on them than it does on women; not understanding that people besides you also need coping mechanisms to handle their live disappointments;
3. "love doesn't exist" - denying reality on the basis that it doesn't meet your simplistic misconceptions about it; having such misconceptions in the first place;
4. "nobody is happy for longer than a few single moments in life" - equating self-worth and lifetime satisfaction with temporary affective states;
5. "everybody does everything out of self interest" - not understanding evolution
6. "because its cold" - making no distinction between reasoning and emotion
etc.

People like women too much. When you try to understand them you become like those biologists who after studying animal behavior for too long, they think spiders or the protozoa they see in the microscopes are their best friends.

>>9227243
>tfw no high-strung depressed self-loathing underage /lit/ gf

what am i living for

>>9228813
>Here are some of the reasons I believe you might not be very well informed:
>1. your very own edgy attitude
Stopped reading. Great non-argument. I also never said I loathed myself.

>>9228813
>"everybody does everything out of self interest" - not understanding evolution
What did he mean by this?

>>9228837
Don't make me blush. I'm not really a catch.

>>9229001
Read The selfish gene.

>>9228996
I don' t see how it is a non-argument.
Also whether you said that you hate yourself or not is irrelevant. If you claim you don't that is just another thing that you are ignorant of.
Still you seemed to imply you do in an earlier posr when you said you don't necessarily think you are better than other people when you say they disgust you. Or is it not so?

>>9229001

Imagine someone jumps on a grenade in town square, how is this self interest?

the only self interested motives are going to pertain to this dude's legacy, is that self interest? i guess but its just as easy to conclude that the wellbeing of others is part of this guys self interest.

So where does self interest end and the interest of others begin? you could easily say the interest of others is just a form of self interest, but you'll be admitting the interest of others exists which kind of undermines the efficacy of saying 'everybody does everything out of self-interest'

>>9229055
You might have a reading comprehension.

>Still you seemed to imply you do in an earlier posr when you said you don't necessarily think you are better than other people when you say they disgust you.
I said the behaviour disgusts me. Not the people. The behaviour.

>Also whether you said that you hate yourself or not is irrelevant. If you claim you don't that is just another thing that you are ignorant of.
Again, I think you might have a reading comprehension. I did not say I do not loathe myself. I stated that I have never said that. Which I did not before this post.

>>9227373
tits or gtfo

>>9227373
wanna go on a date, honey ;)

i'll treat u nice

>>9229183
>You might have a reading comprehension.
I most certainly have a comprehension.

>Not the people. The behaviour.
Of course, action and intent are two different things. I'm glad you understand this. But your deduction was that people act like this because they are selfish and incapable of love which qualities imply intent and are usually negatively regarded from moral perspective. I take it that you also agree with the latter clause since your profession of disgust seems to suggest so.

>I did not say I do not loathe myself. I stated that I have never said that [I loathe myself?].
As I said whether you said it or not does not make any difference. I have not stated that you have stated that you do not loathe yourself. Neither have I stated that you have stated that you do loathe yourself. I deduced this entiely on my own with my awesome powers of deduction.
I hope we're in the clear now.