French author Michel Houellebecq predicted the r9k/incel phenomenon

>>9371639
"The thesis is that the sexual revolution of the Sixties created not communism but capitalism in the sexual market, that the unattractive underclass is exiled while the privileged initiates are drained by corruption, sloth, and excess."

Interesting
Keep your chin up chap

>>9371639
>>9371650
Stop posting on /lit/.

I'd like to read it, how difficult is it?

>>9371662
Do you have a justification for your request?

>>9371718
The purpose of a containment board is to contain.

more like this isnt a new phenomenon

robots are victims of society, not social science pioneers

>>9371739
The only containment boards are mlp and soc

>>9371639
What you meant to say was that this social phenomenon was already going on before the internet exploded. The internet just enabled a more accessible, collectivized expression of it. Which the book obviously doesn't predict at all.

>>9371662
>waaah im a woman the fact that ugly males have feelings makes me uncomfortable

File: obk.jpg (1MB, 1525x2342px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1525x2342px

>>9371639
While I feel slightly inclined to agree with you, NEETs/virgins etc have been around for a long long time, I just think technology has allowed them to congregate and bemoan their anger in echo chambers

>>9371780
>wahhh im a pedophile who wants to rape children but society says that's bad wahhh

File: 12.jpg (12KB, 250x200px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 250x200px

>>9371795
>roastie got BTFO and has to use the pedo card

>>9371795
>everybody I don't like is a pedophile
We have reached a new low

>>9371639
hmm. I feel like something else is going on in that novel. I haven't read it but that's a pretty shallow cultural commentary if so.

>>9371639

He didn't predict it, it just also existed in 1994.

Fucking brainlets.

>>9371772

>t. /pol/ brainlet

I read the novel you're talking about. It's called "Extension du domaine de la lutte"

File: 1444639533049.jpg (345KB, 1328x2148px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1328x2148px

>>9371833

File: 1444639635389.jpg (330KB, 1328x2148px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 1328x2148px

>>9371836

>>9371677
Very easily readable I ended up getting through it in less than a week. It's quite short if I recall (I read it over two years year ago.) I really enjoy Houllebecq he's worth a try and whatever is the most easy of his books to get through though I think submission and the elementary particles are much better

>>9371739
What about OP needs to be contained? lol serious question.

While r9k is referenced, the post and its content are not really written in that style or mindset. Does the mere mention of male jealousy and loss of self worth against a racial backdrop preclude the possibility of rational discussion outside the specter of "containment"?

>>9371833
>>9371836
Does he write this shit ironically? I mean, he can't actually believe that we're living in such a thing as a "totally free" economy.

>>9371855
What's your point exactly? That a society that isn't laissez-faire or anarchistic isn't free enough therefore his arguments don't work?

I mean, anywhere in the West, you can start a business. You can try to take whatever job you want, if you're qualified.

That constitutes freedom of a kind.

Daily reminder that Houellebecq isn't respected by any litfag with a minimum taste, at least past his first two novels.

>>9371780
not an argument

>>9371862
I just think sex isn't a great metaphor for economics.

>>9371848
....it's just gross

This would be really interesting if it wasn't for the interracial couple driving him to suicide. I can't take it seriously with that

>>9371862
A "totally free" economy would effectively be no economy at all, that is, it wouldn't be reducible to this or that type of economy, e.g. a "laissez-faire" or "anarchistic" economy. All ideologies would have free play.

It's certainly "freedom of a kind," but the use of the phrase in tandem with his appeal to the criminalization of adultery kind of undermine his argument's tenability in my eyes. Making it a crime doesn't stop adultery, and simply being married or in a relationship doesn't guarantee you'll have sex.

>>9371883
How so?

As a separate question, how does your discomfort when faced with gross things constitute sufficient grounds to exclude from /lit/ the discussion of this particular author and his literature?

>>9371639
The predicament that lead to the incel movement already existed before he wrote the book it's been a phenomenon since the 60's. The main character committing suicide demonstrates he wasn't predicting incel he just showed the character opting out of life all together

>>9371882
Well he isn't saying sex is a metaphor for economics, he's saying that liberalism is such a pervasive ideology that it injects itself into all arenas of life, including sex.

>>9371887
>and simply being married or in a relationship doesn't guarantee you'll have sex.

I would argue that it did when when marital rape wasn't considered rape.

if houellebecq had been born in the 90s instead of the 50s he'd be on r9k wearing panties and stockings y/n

You shouldn't post Houellebecq on /lit/, it riles up the Marxists; they'll be shitposting for hours.

>>9371897
that makes even less sense then. what about liberalism would cause the outsider phenomena? limonov's novels attest to the outsider in a brutally authoritarian society.

>>9371887
Actually, what we have in the world is a totally free economy, in that it was freely allowed to develop into whatever form its constituents enabled it too. What you're describing is an ideologically pure "free" economy, which is only possible as a hypothetical, in a snapshot that undermines the significance of the idea, or with the introduction of extreme controls to keep it so.

His argument is a soft one, by all means. Hell, individual points within that argument are pointedly bogus.

>tfw I am houllebecque but without his genius

>>9371923
So your Jean Raspail?

>>9371923
you're also probably a teenager or in your early twenties. houellebecq's in his fucking sixties. give it time, you'll start figuring shit out
or better yet, you'll grow out of being a pathetic loser

>>9371927
no I fucking hate French people

>>9371923
ie I'm the core of Houellebecq reader, nihilist loser without aspiration trying to find a literary equivalent of my own nothingness

>>9371920
>what about liberalism would cause the outsider phenomena?

Isn't that painfully obvious?

Not everyone in society is Bill Gates, and that's a function of capitalistic inequality.

Liberalism obviously doesn't have a problem with that kind of inequality as long as it is based on merit and competence.

In other words it necessitates a hierarchy, which is based on either skill, competence, work ethic, beauty, sexual charisma and even nepotism and corruption.

>>9371847
i read like half of la carte et la territoire for a class but dropped it once i finished the related assignments. my professor was convinced it was his best.

>>9371935
beauty, sexual charisma, and nepotism aren't merits or skills. like I said, something is off about the comparison.

>>9371921
We do not have that sort of free economy because certain parts of it e.g. the organ market were not allowed to "freely develop." The constituents who asserted their freedom to traffic in organs have been nominally excluded, and are consistently removed from formal economic intercourse wherever they visibly appear.

I know that it's impossible in the sense that I mean it, unless each person in the economy has their own, unique ideology, and that's not likely to happen anytime soon, but its valid hypothetical existence still undercuts his claim of total contemporary economic freedom.

>>9371961
Unfortunately for you, beauty and sexual charisma are merits along with the faculty which allows nepotism

>>9371961
>beauty, sexual charisma, and nepotism aren't merits or skills.

No, but they still constitute part of the hierarchy even though they are unfair. People just don't want to say it out loud because they have been inculcated with humility from Christian slave morality ever since they were children.

>>9371981
>People just don't want to say it out loud
They're literally some of the most criticized concepts in the world.

>>9372025
If you don't have haters, you ain't poppin'.

>>9371937
desu that's the book of his I enjoyed the least his style of writing's pretty consistent but I found the subject matter of the elementary particles, whatever and submission more interesting.

>>9371971
You're kind of missing what I say here. This hinges on the previous understanding of "freedom of a kind", that introducing restrictions to the market or any other aspect of policy is an element of freedom of self-governance of a polity. But that's just a minor point, unimportant really.

The part of my reply that is actually important is this: you talk about his claim of total contemporary economic freedom, but I do not read that in the images in question. I believe it is fairly obvious that when freedom is mentioned, any reasonable audience must understand that it refers to "freedom of a kind' and not some sort of ideologically pure conception of freedom.

>>9371639
SHE

IS

SO

FUCKING

CUTE

>>9372025
Nepotism is criticized surely, because it's seen as a corruption of character.

But very few beautiful people will admit to being beautiful, and will try to appear as meek and as humble as possible, even though they know that their beauty helps them in life.

>>9372052
>introducing restrictions to the market or any other aspect of policy is an element of freedom
This is nonsense. Something regulated is not something free, and to say that regulation is freedom simply because a majority vote for it and abide by that vote or because their elected representatives vote for it and enact it is nothing but a language game.

To what you think is the "important" point: if he means "relatively free economy," why doesn't he say that instead of "totally free economy"? That is, assuming we are talking about Houellebecq, which would be the case if this film is a faithful adaptation of the work in question. Otherwise I suppose I take umbrage with the phrasing of the scriptwriter.

>>9372063
so what does the criticism of being shallow refer to if not beauty for beauty's sake?

>>9372082
He's making an elementary point about the order of an economic system.

You can't say that an economic system where *anything goes* is free, because that would mean that you had no consumer rights, no property rights, and no workplace rights, all of which are things that are defended with force by the government or by yourself(e.g with a gun).

Not to mention that social trust is a huge part of economics. If you don't trust that you will get your good in the mail when you order something from Amazon, there's just no way you'll give them your money.

>>9371780
okay line up everybody, fuck this dude against your will because he feels entitled

>>9372095
>
Not to mention that social trust is a huge part of economics. If you don't trust that you will get your good in the mail when you order something from Amazon, there's just no way you'll give them your money.

Actually you could give them your money, because in such an "anything goes" system, money has no value.

>>9372095
>You can't say that an economic system where *anything goes* is free
Yes, I can, and I do. This is what the word "freedom" means: to be rid of something. It is only an absence, never an addition. I'm not saying it's desirable, though.
>b-b-but what about the positive vs. negative freedom distinction
It's not real, there's only one kind of freedom, and that is, to be free of something.

>>9372094
The criticism of shallowness is literally just resentment. Everyone is shallow, some people are just honest about it.

>>9371878
There's no need to argue against such an illegitimate order, the scorn was more than enough.

>>9372110
So, do you think that free will is incompatible with the physical laws and determinism of the universe?

>>9372101

>people aren't entitled to love and intimacy


You sure that's a world you want to live in?

>>9372116
that's not true.

>>9372127
You can't be TOTALLY free and yet subject to laws and causality.

>>9372137
>that's not true.

Yes it is. Nobody on the planet wants an ugly partner.

>>9372110
>It's not real, there's only one kind of freedom, and that is, to be free of something.

Couldn't agree more, being fre from the dictatorship of your desires by giving yourself your own law.
Whether it is individually, by moral laws
Or socially, by political laws.

>>9372141
So you're simply just butthurt about Houellebecq's hyperbole then.

Well, boofuckinghoo.

>>9372141
Are you really free if you are weak in a world of people stronger than you, even if there are no real rules?

>>9372135
People are entitled to act in their own self-interest, as they are able.

This is an important distinction, as the idea that "everyone should be able to have this" as usually stated does not mean "without any contribution of any kind and no matter what they do". Some people say the first, but treat it intellectually as the second.

>>9372148
I'm not that guy. I was agreeing with your implicit point. Sheesh.

>>9371772
Nice try

>>9372144
ah, so you're shallow. someone's beauty can change depending on the reception of the observer. to reduce attraction away from it's psychological elements is stupid.

>>9372127
There is no such thing as "free will" as the metaphysical libertarians or Christians define it, neither is there such a thing as "determinism" as the materialists define it.

Free will is a much easier proposition to attack than determinism, though. The former is flatly solipsistic: I know that I cannot make a six-sided die come up twenty seven through an exertion of my will.

Determinism is trickier, but equally false. It usually rests on the assumption of a singularity: that technology will surpass human intelligence and thus be able to predict our behavior totally while operating under its own power. This usually leads the determinist to make assertions to the effect of "humans can never truly know an objective fact because they are biased and determined by physical circumstances." But if humans are determined by physical circumstances, why would the machine that can predict us, that we made, not be determined by these same set of circumstances? So it follows that the behavior of the prediction machine can be likewise predicted by a more intelligent machine.
I think that question is nonsense. But, of course, all of these machines will have been made by humans (or machines made by humans) that have determined behavior, so the original problem of determination bias is never really solved.

To me this is a nonsense question.
>>9372145
Right, but I don't stop there, I break the dictatorship of my will over me ("moral law," when it becomes apparent) through thoughtless desiring abandon: the law of sensuality. I destroy the one with the other.

>>9372181
The "I think that question is nonsense" in the third section shouldn't be there, sorry, I thought I cut that out.

>>9371906
>I would argue that it did when when marital rape wasn't considered rape.
>WAAH WAAH I CAN'T EAT THIS CAKE I PAID FOR

>>9372169
I didn't reduce attraction away from it's psychological elements.

I'm simply saying that there is nothing wrong about being shallow, and the people who think there is something wrong about it, are the same people who refuse to go to the gym 3 times a week to try to look more physically appealing.

>>9371639
which is houellebecq's best novel? - i've already read The Elementary Particles and am interested in reading more of his work

File: whatever.jpg (273KB, 1600x600px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 1600x600px

>>9371639
pic related

>>9372181
>Right, but I don't stop there, I break the dictatorship of my will over me ("moral law," when it becomes apparent) through thoughtless desiring abandon: the law of sensuality. I destroy the one with the other.

So we agree that a social organization or a market can never be free, they can only free themselves from a law by submitting to another.

So the question is never "how can we be free?" but "to which system of laws should we submit?"

>>9372206
Whatever is his best.

>>9372200
okay, but its still a criticism and a huge assumption on your part. if everyone was shallow, like you say, no amount of gym can fix ugly.

>>9372220
thanks

>>9372200
Ok, ok, we know, as the Greeks, you can be shallow by deepness

>>9372223
And that is true. No amount of gym can actually fix ugly. Some people are just born beautiful, and didn't have to lift a finger.

It's unfair as hell, but it still gets incorporated into the broader hierarchy of the modern economy and social structure. You don't see ugly people advertising clothes.

Beautiful people simply get a better deal in life.

>>9372219
Well, "social organization" and a "market" need to have a set of rules for them to function (since they are systems by definition), and as you said earlier, trust is necessary for cooperation.

But I don't think either of those things you've listed are "real questions." I know how to be free (rid of), and I know that I will only ever use laws that benefit me, or at least, use all that is in my power ("laws" that I create or agree to abide by for a certain period of time included) to benefit me. I don't submit to any systems: I make them mine, and do away with them if they cease to have utility.

>>9372219
>So the question is never "how can we be free?" but "to which system of laws should we submit?"

And ultimately, the only true question is still "What is good?"

>>9371836
>>9371842
Is the movie better than the book(translated)?

>>9372232
nice circular logic there.

>>9372277
Circular in what way exactly?

These are simple ideas that people seem to enjoy dressing up with sound and fury. More people want to be with and around attractive people and always have. Ugliness has always been an object of ridicule, although western beauty standards have shifted about a bit. People have preferences and act on them when capable; occasionally these preferences may contradict each other and cause seemingly 'irrational' behaviour. It is not a profound or novel assessment.

>>9372283
people are ugly because they are ugly. if psychological factors or health factors or whatever have no relevance to ugly, then you are just left with a vague term that feeds back into itself.

>>9372287
I read that in ancient Greece it was considered attractive for women to have a unibrow. What the hell is up with that? Apparently women who couldn't grow one naturally would often paint it on.

>>9372287
this

>>9372289
Some people are born ugly and some people are born beautiful.

The rest are average, and can tilt their looks either way by going to the gym or stuffing their face with Cheetos 24/7.

But shallowness is what we were talking about. And there's literally nothing wrong with being shallow.

>>9372290
I mean, people pluck out their eyebrows so that they can draw them back again these days. It generally ends up looking about as retarded as a monobrow (usage rules for monobrow vs. unibrow?).

>>9372290
Read 1001 Nights and look at how many times a woman is described as having a beautiful eyebrow "like a bow"

>tfw a houellebecq thread gets derrailed by two fags arguing about nonsense

sad!

>>9372309
I'd prefer a chick with a bit of hair in-between than all plucked out and some weird clown shit painted on desu. Don't know if there's any real difference for mono vs. uni.
>In both Ancient Greek and Roman cultures, unibrows were prized as beautiful, desirable features worn by the most intelligent and lusted-after women. In Ancient Greece, women used powdered minerals or soot to paint their brows black. The Greeks valued purity, so women often left their unibrows untouched or darkened slightly with black powder. Eyebrows were also part of the Romans' elaborate beauty rituals, and like the Greeks, they favored a unibrow. Both cultures' poets and writers described women donning false unibrows to enhance their looks. These were made of dyed goat's hair and attached with tree resin.
I really don't get it. I guess it's because I've never seen an attractive woman with one. Maybe there's something there? You'd think it was something that was inherently unattractive to people, men at least, when they saw a woman. Like a gut reaction. But apparently it's not.

>>9372308
yes, circular logic. ugly people are ugly because they are ugly. beautiful people are beautiful because they are born beautiful.
beauty is a notoriously difficult philosophical problem and this is what happens when you try to reduce it. you get trapped within your own undefinable terms.

File: ignatius_chan.jpg (122KB, 631x612px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 631x612px

>>9371639

Wrong. John Kennedy Toole. Confederacy of Dunces. 1964~

/thread

>>9372331
>it's circular logic that biological factors in gestation create either beautiful or ugly people

Okay we're done here I think.

>>9372336
yes, it's circular logic because you can account for what beauty is or how attraction effects it.
you haven't said anything of substance. biology doesn't define beauty.

>>9372335

Also it's worth saying that sex is possible for anyone to engage in. Your problem isn't people unwilling to accept you, your problem is you are unwilling to accept the people available to you. You, like everyone else, have been corrupted by our consumer culture. You see other people through the eyes of a consumer, where only the best is worth having- anything less is inadequate. This attitude also corrupts your ability to find value in yourself.

tl;dr: date a fat girl... although, sadly, they have been corrupted by the same process, so good luck

File: 1474541047402.jpg (61KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 720x480px

>>9372329
>I'd prefer a chick with a bit of hair in-between than all plucked out and some weird clown shit painted on desu.

word. But you gotta admit that a full on [pic related] looks pretty goofy. I've definitely seen some cute girls some amount of hair bridgin the brows but there's only so much you can have there before you end up looking like Margaret McPoyle (incidentally, as if to prove the thesis, the actress that plays M. McPoyle is wicked cute w/out the unibrow).

>>9372363

oh god, I made a robofrog post on /lit/... just let me die

>>9372365
Maybe if you see a woman in full ancient world clothes and a unibrow she looks good? They must have found it attractive for some reason, more attractive than not having one/plucked.

>>9372356
>biology doesn't define beauty.

Biology does define physical attractiveness. Beauty is simply an abstraction of the same thing.

It's a fact that human beings find people with facial symmetry and high waist to hip ratio, shoulder and jaw width and a whole host of other traits more attractive than those who do not have these things.

Deal with it faggot.

>>9372392
>Beauty is simply an abstraction of the same thing.
lol. this is /lit/, read a book faggot. Alexander nehamas is a good start, unless you want to be a fraudulent brainlet.

>>9372408
Answer my claims fag or shut the fuck up.

>>9371920
On the very basis of liberalism and enlightenment is the need to exclude others to use as the groundwork for inclusion. What we have past the enlightenment is the removal of such exclusion from the sacred sphere to the socio-political sphere, everyone is equally sacred (therefore, separated), but you need to keep the foreign, alien, weird or different in the outcast position so you can clearly limit the sphere of the integrated.

Come on, this is not news.

>>9372387
The thing that confuses me is how it's supposed to be a signifier of purity. If your beauty/image is pure because you're leaving stuff like skin/brow hair ratio up to Mother Nature, then how is using paints and powders to alter said ratio still natural? I guess it's like how girls today who apply very minimal make up will be told they look great w/out make up. I guess people like associating the beauty standards they grew up with a comforting teleology like Mother Nature or whatever. I don't know.

>>9372151
If the other's action is not towards you, you're free. You might even think that other guy "stole" your chance at love but let's be serious here, that girl wasn't going out with you if he hadn't show up and so on.

>>9372365
What about Erika Eleniak?

>>9372413
I have. you're trapped in circular logic. how does biology account for judgements of taste. some people fetishise body parts, rendering "jaw to shoulder ratios" useless in defining beauty. others fetishise intelligence or age, again rendering "waist to hip ratio" useless in defining beauty. biology can't account for attraction and thus has little relevance on beauty, since what is beautiful hinges on the judgement of the observer. although you're a brainlet who can't think past "beautiful people are beautiful because they're born beautiful".

File: 1430582608914.png (747KB, 959x595px) Image search: [Google]

747KB, 959x595px

>>9372442
Right, so what you're saying is that if we lived in Ancient Greece, the woman in pic related would be thought heinous?

Well then I think you're just being either facetious or flat out lying.

>>9372452
yes, they would. I don't even find pic beautiful. pretty plain desu.

ah yes, because you're unable to refute or think clearly, I must be lying. okay desu. lol.

>>9372421
>then how is using paints and powders to alter said ratio still natural?
The Greeks loved all that was natural and because of that viewed all natural as beautiful. So unibrows, by the mere fact that a woman could have one, were seen as the most natural form of eyebrows and because of that the most beautiful way a woman's brow could be, I would have to guess. And then with covering up or rather filling in with "make-up", that's all the same as women do today: to deceive to reach the highest form of beauty they can achieve.

>>9372421
There is a very clear difference between applying shit to look better and remove things to look better. It's very easy to see how one can be interpreted as making yourself more beautiful by highlighting natural qualities while the other is profaning the purity of the sacred body (and actually found in other cultures, there are hinduist or buddhist sects, can't remember, in which the follower is prohibited from shaving or cutting his hair, the same sect has all sorts of sacred skin paintings)

>>9372452
This girl isn't even beautiful, she's normal, plain, I can barely remember her from the thumb.

>>9372470
>I don't even find pic beautiful

But do you find her ugly?

No you don't. So you can at least admit that there is, analogous to how we use the words "common sense", an idea about physical attractiveness which isn't solely culturally contingent.

Do you really think that a species of primate would evolve secondary sexual characteristics if they signaled nothing?

File: 1488741123201.png (492KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 800x600px

>124 posts, 40 posters

>>9372481
but she's beautiful because she was born beautiful. deal with it.

>>9372440
>Erika Eleniak
Very good looking. Undoubtedly had/still has a better look than the doofy drawn on look, I feel.

I like that a dumb argument about r9k weirdos has generated a "would you bang?" discussion that outputs Y/N responses based on eyebrow density.

>>9372476
That's a good point wrt ancient practises specifically enhancing the brow. How would you apply it to the act of removal of eyebrows only to artificially re-apply?

>>9372452
Actually she probably wouldn't have been thought as attractive because she's blonde and has green eyes as opposed to Greeks with their near black hair and brown eyes.

>>9372476
>In terms of popularity of this look to ancient people, the biblical Old Testament appears to mention the importance of not removing it in the Book of Deuteronomy 14:1--"Ye are the children of the Lord your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead." (King James Version)

>>9372487
Hi, reddit!

>>9372482
so you're speaking for me now? how about you address my points or shut up.

>>9372487
I think this is what we call discussions.

>>9372508
I am addressing your points. My post wasn't 1 line.

>>9372481
>This girl isn't even beautiful, she's normal, plain, I can barely remember her from the thumb.

So give me an example of what you consider an attractive woman then.

Because chances are I will agree, assuming we are both men.

>>9372516
all you did was post a pic, claim the greeks would find her beautiful and call me a liar. not an argument. you got nothing lol, we're done here.

>>9372528
Why are you ignoring this post>>9372482?

File: frida-11[1].jpg (180KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 900x1200px

>>9372499
What about Frida? I totally would.

>>9372551
Too far.

>>9372551

Even Trotsky couldn't say no to dat moustache

>>9372551
>>9372555
It is a bit too far and yet I probably also would. The thing with your personal boundaries is sometimes you just want to give them a cheeky little nudge out there.

File: 1365493285167.jpg (83KB, 605x935px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 605x935px

>>9372564
She'd be unattractive even without the uni and stache.
Grimes is cute though.

>>9372555
See, the thing is, that's how Mediterranean women actually look without waxing.

So, before the you know who convinced women through mass media that they need to dehumanize themselves, that's what you'd be seeing in Greece, in varying degrees.

I think everyone's viewing it from a forced perspective of globalist modernity, which is clearly a bullshit perspective to view anything from.

>>9372539
I'm not ignoring it. it isn't relevant to anything I said. implying evolution is tied to beauty is nonsense. from an evolutionary perspective, all genes have the drive to replicate equally. ugly people will always exist and it does not account for fetishisation, that's psychological and still not a really fleshed out idea. that is all besides the point, it's a totally different discussion from beauty.

>>9371795
how would you even know he's a pedo, Roastie?

>>9372568
I'm fine with the brow but the stache I can't deal with. Also I meant too far in the sense that she's just outright unattractive, so whether or not she's hairy doesn't matter.

>>9372566
Still think she's sorta cute in a 'not good looking' sort of way, if you know what I mean?

With you on Grimes though, she's wicked cute.

>>9372573
>ugly people will always exist

Yeah, and if you paid attention to anything i've said the last 2 hours you would know that I never disagreed with that.

I was merely claiming that society actually privileges people who are beautiful/physically attractive whether you like it or not, and that shallowness isn't morally wrong.

Deal with it fagtron.

>>9372577
oh, so now we are nuancing beauty. attractive in a "not good looking" sort of way. how interesting.

>>9372581
yet you can't define beauty or attraction. so you're claims are totally circular, which you seems unable to deal with.

>>9372582
You must know what I mean, surely? Like when somebody doesn't at all conform to what you would consider attractive but you still find them, well, attractive. They look a bit 'off', perhaps, but it's part of the weird charm.

File: larger[1].jpg (168KB, 794x1024px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 794x1024px

>>9372566
>She'd be unattractive even without the uni and stache.
>>9372576
>she's just outright unattractive
Seriously? I think she has very attractive facial features. What specifically do you dislike?

>>9372593
I know what you mean. I was just making fun of anon who thinks beauty and attraction starts and ends with biology.

>At the end of the book, the ugly hero kills himself after having seen a white girl kissing a black dude in a nightclub.

Coward desu. Should've just fought/killed the nig.

File: 3356998.jpg (54KB, 500x754px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x754px

>>9372523

>>9372600
Ah. My bad. That weird idea of pinning all attractiveness on 'biology' or feasibility for 'successful mating' or whatever reminds me of

>As though to breathe were life!
>Life piled on life

>>9372577
>>9372593
I get it, but I wouldn't use it for her. It's like sometimes you see someone and in that split-second in your head you think they're unattractive but then you look at them again and debate for going the other way.

>>9372597
The nose. It looks like a man's nose. Not even like a "strong" male nose, but just a male nose.

>>9371639
Have you read "Survivre" (mode d'emploi)
Is it translated?

I've read several of his books, but this one, which is not fiction but advice to the young poet, an old text, is absolutely sutepfying.

A literal translation of the title would be "To survive : a guide"

It basically tells you to cherish pain as your Master, but in a tone very different from both the stoicians or the romantics.

I think he was in his thirties.

>>9371819
Yeah, what the fuck is it with that title? It's like the translator went: "Extension of the Domain of...wtf is he trying to say? What IS that?? Extension of Struggle's...ah, fuck it, whate...heyyy, that's it! 'Whatever' it is then."

>>9372609
When you search for Milana Vayntrub this image comes up but it looks absolutely nothing like her. I don't get it.

>>9372618
exactly but somehow I don't think those posters read. nice pull though.

>>9372151
We are all equally free to react to things within our equal slavery to reality. The thing is, trying to imagine an existence uncoupled from causality does not bring to mind what we usually mean when we say freedom; in a world with no causal connections, you would be subject to any number of random states for no reason whatsoever. That's not freedom to me; that's helplessness, slavery without even the benefit of utility.

>>9372629
It´s her, just with very glammy makeup+photoshop.

>>9372592
>yet you can't define beauty or attraction

I can, and I did earlier. Physical attractiveness has been thoroughly researched, but you don't like the conclusions, and I think it's probably because you're a landwhale who hopes that your obesity will some day be socially constructed into being considered physically attractive.

>>9372654
Her face is all different to me.

>tfw ywn fuck Milana
Those hips are insane.

>>9372656
no, you didn't. I provided numerous examples on why that fails as a definition for beauty but you're unable to think outside circular arguments.

>>9372690
I am saying physical attractiveness, I am not saying beauty.

Beauty is a catch all term for anything aesthetically pleasing.

Physical attractiveness is a specific kind of aesthetics, and it has rules, unfortunately for you.

>>9372703
you can't decouple attractiveness from beauty. attraction, physical or otherwise, means nothing without the judgement of the observer and beauty is the measurement in which that judgement is made. the examples I gave are also physical in nature (specific body parts and age in particular).

>>9372713
In other words, what you're really saying is that beauty and physically attractiveness actually doesn't exist.

>>9372724
no, what I'm saying, and will repeat, is that you can't reduce them to biology.

>>9372728
Okay, lets say that is true.

Does this change the original premise of our discussion, that society privileges physical attractiveness and that I personally don't think shallowness is morally wrong?

No. No it doesn't. Even if physical attractiveness is 100% culturally and socially constructed, society still treats and gives more opportunities to people who fit the categorization.

So, I guess I'm right anyway.

>>9371639

it's a real problem, which is worsening, and which has real consequences, which are worsening, and it needs a solution, but there doesn't seem to be any simple solution.

>>9372740
yes, it does. you're moving the goal posts by swapping beauty out for physical attractiveness. however, sex work proves that physical attractiveness is not privileged by society for its own sake. its an industry which is considered dirty and made illegal by most societies. you've also made no argument for the ethnics of such, so its absurd to claim you're right.

just give up while you're ahead. you've totally discredited yourself.

>>9372757
>sex work proves that physical attractiveness is not privileged by society for its own sake

It sure does. It means that men are even willing to pay money to associate sexually with attractive women.

Nietzsche did too

>>9372768
lol. thats why society considers sex workers to be near the bottom of the social hierarchy. so now, do you want to move the goal posts further and claim that its men and not society who privilege physical attractiveness for its own sake?

>>9372551
Would if she didn't have polio

>>9372776
>thats why society considers sex workers to be near the bottom of the social hierarchy

Yeah I'm sure. That's probably why prostitution is illegal in my country for MEN to BUY, but not for women to SELL in order to protect women.

seriously just kys

>>9372776
Not them, but you're not understanding what's at play in the discussion. The way you express your beliefs and the dismissive way you characterize the people talking with you make it very unlikely anyone is going to bother to explain it to you.

Does that possibility bother you, at all?

>>9372782
yes, if you are a prostitute, its illegal for men to sell as well and women to buy btw, then you are not lauded by society.

>>9372788
not really because Im not bothered by weak arguments, especially when those arguments are made by people who distain reading re: my nehamas suggestion on the problem of beauty.

>>9372792
Why are you constantly shifting topic btw, you're whining that I am moving the goalposts, and you're changing the subject yourself all the fucking time.

The original discussion was about society privileging physical attractiveness.

And it does, not matter if it's socially constructed, or if it biologically constructed, because no fucking supermodel looks like Amy Schumer.

So, we're done here.

>>9372801
Your comprehension is weak, not the arguments. Do you really propose that people should read and fully digest Nehamas in between one forum post and another?

You know full well that following up on a source that is provided takes time. In the meantime, you are not providing good arguments and are misunderstanding your own examples. Even if you turn out to be right (by accident, since you latched on to someone else's argument without understanding why you think it's right even well enough to explain it), you should be embarrassed at your nonchalant ignorance.

>>9372806
no, the original discussion was how liberalism invades all forms of life, even sex. beauty was brought up as a counter-example to liberal meritocracy. you decided to switch it out once you failed at reducing beauty to biological means. again, if physical attractiveness was privileged by society then why are sex workers not lauded? again, you're trying to reduce fashion to physical attractiveness. this is why you can't decouple beauty from this discussion no matter how much you want to.

>>9372647
I agree with you. We're free to do things without rules but we are not free from others' actions against us.

>>9372820
I'm not misunderstanding. the statements that shallowness is morally acceptable and that physical attractiveness is a merit privileged by society are false. there are numerous elements to judgements of beauty, which society does privilege as a merit, and those can't be reduced to biology.

>>9372839
>the statements that shallowness is morally acceptable and that physical attractiveness is a merit privileged by society are false.

No they are not.

Literally google the Halo Effect. People literally think that attractive people are smarter and more capable by default.

>>9372838
Yeah, when people talk about freedoms they usually implicitly mean "my freedoms", and even then freedom from restrictions and freedom from outcomes are very different propositions. One entity's complete freedom, uncoupled from either unwanted restrictions or outcomes, is essentially the slavery and oppression of everyone else.

>>9372846
Historically, beauty was always correlated with goodness, it was unimaginable that an ugly person could be good, or that a beautiful person could be evil. It was only after the medical science has shown that everyone is rather similar below skin level that this somewhat changed in polite society (yet subconsciously everyone still knows that ugly people are evil, creepy, suspicious, stupid, perverted, and vice versa).

>>9372839
So-called shallowness is a fact, and recognizing a fact and seeking to understand it is always better than demonizing it.

Physical attractiveness is a merit, meaning only that it has constructive value. It can be misused or offset, like any virtue. It is not universal, meaning not everyone will find the same specimen to be attractive to the same degree and for the same purposes, but this lack of universality does not mean it does not exist.

>>9372846
and what people judge as physical attractiveness varies and is more complex than biological factors.

>>9372859
This is some serious backpeddling.

I don't care what the reasons are you moron. The point is that it happens.

Also, I reiterate, there is literally nothing wrong with shallowness, and you literally haven't supplied a single argument for why.

>>9372871
>This is some serious backpeddling.
?

>>9372626
*stupefying

(if this is even a word)

>>9372866
yes but when you put that into a societal context then those differences matter quite a lot because exactly what society is lauding can't be explained by physical attractiveness by merit of its lack of universality. I'll repeat, you can not reduce it to biology, there are different factors and some are not even physical but psychological and cultural.

>>9372871
not me dumbass.

>>9372690
not even him but you're a sophistic retard. don't pretend like there aren't people who are universally considered aesthetic and people who are universally considered ugly. that's an insane level of denial. you might as well be talking about flat earth

>>9371848
Sorry for the late reply but my reasoning was that the OP is not a /lit/ regular and very obviously is a /r9k/ regular, and that there is no intention or possibility here of discussing anything of literary significance other than the fact that the subject is tangentially related to an author.

>the post and its content are not really written in that style or mindset
lol

>racial backdrop
?

>>9372892
lol. are you sure about that? I'm sure most English speakers would consider mursi or Australian Aboriginal people universally ugly and yet societies within Africa find them aesthetically pleasing.

>>9372885
>psychology and culture are unrelated to the biological organ called the brain
Western thought really needs to let go of mind-body Dualism, it's holding us back.

>>9372902
when biology can account for these things then it probably will but until then we're stuck with philosophy, psychology and sociology.

>>9372885
People being unable to define exactly what bravery is does not mean people don't consider bravery a merit.

Put simply: universality is not a required component of being valued as a merit.

>>9372910
>either-or false dilemma
I can't help but cringe at this black-and-white thinking.

>>9372899
they would consider australian aboriginal people uglier compared to their own race, but they would still be able to say which abbo woman is universally more beautiful than the other. why did you raise the topic of race, when it doesn't change the point

>>9372914
bravery isn't a societal merit. cowards aren't provided less opportunities, in fact docility or an aversion to confrontation is desirable in most post-industrial industries.

>>9372916
if beauty is universal then ethnicity should not matter and yet beauty standards differ between ethnic groups.

>>9372921
>>9372927
Lets make it simple.

Do humans value physical attractiveness? Yes.

Does it vary among cultures? Yes.

Does that matter to the actual act of valuing physical attractiveness? No.

Do people who fit the arbitrary cultural criterion of what constitutes physical attractiveness enjoy privilege? Yes. Absolutely.

So, this argument is done.

>>9372921
Then perhaps you need to go back and explain to these dumb niggers what you mean by societal merit, to avoid continued misunderstanding.

>>9372940
But it was more fun to see them tie themselves into knots, baring their deficiencies and resolving nothing!

>>9372940
>Do humans value physical attractiveness?
some do, some don't. this is a different statement from society and the value it places upon it.

>Does it vary among cultures? Yes.
sure.

>Does that matter to the actual act of valuing physical attractiveness? No.
yes, it most certainly does.

>Do people who fit the arbitrary cultural criterion of what constitutes physical attractiveness enjoy privilege?
if they are enjoying privileges based on physical attractiveness, then how do you account for attractive people who are undervalued by society?
>So, this argument is done.
lol.

>>9372943
their the ones who posited it as a societal value and yet can't explain how society values it, beyond just repeating the original claim over and over.

>>9372958
Since you were choosing your own special definition of societal merit, I assumed you could explain it. If you took their phrase and then twisted it to suit your own interpretation, then it's even more important than before for you to explain just what you think societal merit is.

It's extremely relevant to the discussion because you are making justifications based on your personal understanding of what is and isn't a social merit.

Unless you're being adversarial for its own sake, in which case fuck off.

>>9372951
>Do humans value physical attractiveness?
In some cultures the males looks don't really matter, but is there a single culture where the female is not ideally attractive?

>>9372951
>then how do you account for attractive people who are undervalued by society?

Like who? Give concrete examples.

>>9372951
Yeah, some humans value money and some don't; society in general values money, because it will at least get you something from some people - to the point that some of the people who don't care directly about money will still bother with money because someone else will value money enough to trade for it.

Some people not valuing physical attractiveness doesn't speak to society not valuing it.

>>9372966
I'm using their definition, a merit that grants an individual privileges over others. of course, this is faulty as with the bravery example but lest I be accused of semantics as well as a liar, ignorant etc.

>>9372971
They're not taking into account ceteris paribus, that's all.

>>9372971
I already gave one, people in the sex industries.

>>9372983
God your thinking is so damned backwards. Live on as a cautionary tale, please.

>>9372988
>I already gave one, people in the sex industries.

All of whom are considered extremely attractive by society?

>>9372988
They're not undervalued because of their attractiveness, their attractiveness is simply offset by other factors.

What is an example of a valid social merit in your thinking?

>>9372968
what?

>>9372999
how is that possible if cultural and psychological factors affect those in society? if physical attractiveness is a merit then they should enjoy privileges that others not.

responsibility is a pretty big merit in my society that informs laws to relationships to employment etc.

>>9373013
Do you know what offsetting means?

>>9373031
They don't seem to know what merit means, so they might not know what offsetting is. I wonder what country they come from.

>>9373013
Saying physical attractiveness grants privilege =/= Must necessarily mean you reach the top of the social hierarchy.

I mean, talk about reductio ad absurdum.

A prostitute who is physically attractive, might literally destroy the gain from that by being a heroin addict.

But of course, when I talked about physical attractiveness granting privilege, obviously for you it had to meant that beautiful people are literally at the top of the food chain axiomatically.

I spend all this time following the chain of conversation, paying attention to the lone dissenter, hoping that they are simply lazy or lack eloquence and that they actually have a shadow of a useful, novel idea that can be extracted with patience and understanding.

Imagine my chagrin when they turn out to be a moron, exactly as expected.

>>9372110
>prescriptivism
Go back to hell David.

>>9373034
Yeah, I can forgive a lot of the sloppiness in the preceding posts if there is a language barrier in play.

Its almost like Humanity didn't start in 1990

>>9371639
>In 1994 he predicted the current "incel" predicament in his novel Whatever. Whatever is about his own experiences in a I.T. company. The two heroes are salarymen; one is 28, very ugly, and still a virgin.
Don't forget that he looks like a frog.

>>9371782
Pessoa wasn't a NEET, but he was very much a virgin.

Also an alcoholic.

>>9373037
no, if a privilege is granted then the probability of falling outside social norms is less likely than not.

>>9373057
Is the dissenter the foreigner or the "literally" guy? I don't care enough to read the entire thread.

>>9373034
a merit is a quality that is consider worthy of laurels. a social merit is a value in which the institutions of said society is built upon. offsetting is when another factor can cancel out another factor. this breaks down when you look at institutions in which said merit is the foundation of its existence. fashion is based on beauty which is much more complex than physical attractiveness. porn seems to be an institution built upon physical attractiveness and hence why I used the example of sex workers and their consider value in society.

>>9373145
Why are you even in the thread if you're not interested in the discussion?

>>9373273
lol. white women are gross with their vocal fry and smell of sickly pumpkin spiced foods.

>>9373293
Nobody (apart from the extremely rare exception) would date a negress instead of an Aryan beauty, it is a fact. Niggers are obsessed with white women for a reason.

>>9371639
Submission presumably is a sequel to it then.

Just get smart enough and convert to Islam lads. Behead roasties and chads with your Ackbar friends and get multiple qt Arab wives.

>>9373273
>>9373370
>>9373293
>>9373393
>this level of delusion

>>9373479
What delusion? Niggers prefer white women, it is a fact.

>>9371650
This reads like a sophistication of an average /fit/ post.

>>9373479
>Not converting to Islam to get qt wives

Roastie or fag?

>>9372287
This. 26 year-old virgin NEET here. I can't believe I was beginning to let this self-depreciating bullshit drivel brainwash me. Thanks for making the only sensible post in this thread anon. Keep doing what you're doing.

>>9371871
translation: I dont like him and am very insecure about my taste please validate me please

>>9372626
Actually I think it's called "Rester vivant : mode d'emploi"

=> staying alive : how to.

>>9371650
Is it fair to say then, that Houellebecq is the new Messiah?

>>9374120
>>9372626
>From his sundrenched garden in Miami, Iggy Pop reads from Michel Houellebecq’s “To Stay Alive.” In 1991, Houellebecq wrote this thought-provoking essay on insanity, survival and art, describing it as “a weak but clear signal to those on the point of giving up.” Houellebecq urges poets who are weary of life to “return to the origin; that is, to suffering.” A poet should put his finger on society’s wounds and press down hard, he says. “Be abject, and you will be true.” Director Erik Lieshout an co-directors Arno Hagers and Reinier van Brummelen film Houellebecq in his grandparents’ kitchen and visit the people with psychiatric disorders whose life stories inspired the essay. Reading the work, Iggy Pop immediately recognized his own struggle as a young artist, when he too was close to insanity. Pop speaks to us directly through Houellebecq’s defiant, impassioned words, which call on us to break our chains and go on the attack, even if solitude is the price we pay for it.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Stay_Alive:_A_Method
https://www.idfa.nl/en/film/1b73f11f-b0d2-4a0e-b92e-d7c0edc8f506/to-stay-alive-a-method

File: 5a282331-1b4d-473e-9b27-84b0c02e0495.jpg?mtime=20170406170956.jpg (78KB, 930x389px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 930x389px

>>9374162

>>9372245
>What is good?
If it's pertaining to social structures: the scale of the individual's work matches the reward of the work.

File: 7c601bec-2aca-440e-9b66-0be099045eab.jpg (273KB, 1920x804px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 1920x804px

>>9374183

>>9372627
Yeah the editor for the english/US/UK version probably thought it a good idea to remove all reference to Karl Marx.

>>9371833
But sex isn't a wealth you accumulate. It is a result of a successfully maintained relationship. Any man, as long as they are not health defect ugly, can get a woman if they work hard enough. Exercise, develop good posture, stay hygienic, talk to random women to gain confidence in talking with women, obtain a life outside of women especially by learning a skill, and try not to be a downer, if you can do these you will have girlfriend.

And you may ask, what about the Chad's laying 10 girls a day? Those girls are not eternally tied to the Chads, they always leave, and both are lonelier because of it. The life of the Chad may seem fun, but never maintaining a relationship and actually loving someone is pretty soul crushing. It is a life of living for singular moments, which day by day will decrease.

>>9374442

lol you're deluded

>>9374445
Care to explain?

>>9374450
i don't know sorry

>>9374442
>Exercise, develop good posture, stay hygienic, talk to random women to gain confidence in talking with women, obtain a life outside of women especially by learning a skill, and try not to be a downer,
Why when women don't need to do any of this?

>>9374459
So you'd date a fat, head sagging, sweat smelling, downer shut-in with no talent?
Women just have more pressure to be like that.

>>9374459
>I told him, "When you see a woman next time you're on campus and you like her hair or sunglasses, just pay her a compliment."
>I said to Elliot, "In the next few weeks - if you see them they'll likely give you a smile - and you can smile back and eventually turn this into chit-chat."
>I got in touch with him a few weeks later and asked if he did it. He said "no". And when asked why not, he said "Why do I have to compliment them? Why don't they compliment me?"

>>9374471
>So you'd date a fat, head sagging, sweat smelling, downer shut-in with no talent?
Yes, as long as she was hairy enough.

>>9374497
The only thing that can get you nowadays is being reported for sexual harassment.

>>9374442
>But sex isn't a wealth you accumulate

He's not saying that either. He's saying sex is operating with the same rules that the market is operating in.

Which absolutely is true. Some people have sex all the time, and some people will never have sex until they die, just like some people will become Elon Musk and some people become a homeless drifter.

Your post is literally the equivalent of saying to people that if they only work hard at their job, they'll become millionaires.

>>9374510
You've been on 4chan too long, as long as you steer clear of the SJWs and do not act creepy about the whole thing, you'll be fine. Though having more to say than just a compliment is best, like asking a question you actually need answered.
>>9374525
I suppose my post was not specific enough, I'm trying to say sex all the time should not be your goal, it's ultimately lonely and unsustainable. And I tried to say almost anyone can achieve a satisfying sex life if they gain a healthy relationship through a healthy life, and all a healthy life requires is willpower.

>>9373061
Are you calling me a prescriptivist because I defined a word?

>>9374583
>and do not act creepy
i.e. don't be ugly

>>9374593
It is true that if you're anything in between the Elephant Man and a severe case of Down syndrome, this does not apply to you. But if you're above that, and as long as you do as I said >>9374442, you'll have a pretty big ocean to pick from. Yes, the first few girls you interact with will reject you or worse, but you can't give up. And remember, it is okay to develop just a friendship with a girl.

File: nukepepe.gif (2MB, 695x392px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 695x392px

>>9374631
>but you can't give up

>>9374592
For some reasonable interpretation of your question, yes.

>>9371639
No he doesn't. He ends up in a nuthouse. His friend dies in a traffic accident the night they see the couple in the club.

>>9374631
I've been trying to help these guys out for years, anon. They don't listen and would rather welter in their created hell.

>>9374442
>. Any man, as long as they are not health defect ugly, can get a woman if they work hard enough. Exercise, develop good posture, stay hygienic, talk to random women to gain confidence in talking with women, obtain a life outside of women especially by learning a skill, and try not to be a downer, if you can do these you will have girlfriend.
AKA: lie, deceive and completely pretend to be someone else and you might, MIGHT, get an ugly fat chick. Why bother.

>>9373504
nah /fit/ is better than that. What you're reading must be /r9k/ and /pol/ migrants who desperately want to improve their untermensch existence

>>9371981
There's nothing unfair about beauty. Ironically you're also spooked, this time by the christian concept of free will, where everything outside of the mystical Mind is some sort of externality, when the mind is just another part of biology, which is the same as hard-won heritage. The struggles of millions of years of life is present in these beautiful people. Might as well say that its unfair that dogs are stupid, or that anything is different from anything else.

>>9375840
>AKA: lie, deceive and completely pretend to be someone else
AKA: do what every normal person does in order to make life livable

>>9375938
So you admit suicide is the only moral option for everyone who realizes what life is?

>>9374183
>>9374198
They look like two goblins, jesus.

>>9375893
It's always sad to see a young man espousing reductionist views.

>>9376327
How am I being reductive? I'm not saying that the mind is reducible to the workings of ion channels in your brain cells, the mind is not just separate from your body. Some people are smart and some are handsome, neither gives them an unfair advantage. Not even having a rich family is unfair, it's just another form of heritage, heritage being the thing that lets you be human in the first place.

>>9375840
What about hard work and self improvement sounds like deception or pretense? If you work hard and improve yourself, you're not pretending - you're actually hardworking and better off than before.

>>9372442

>calls other brainlets
>doesn't have even the most rudimentary understanding of evolutionary biology

Good one, sport.

File: 1432165782624.png (545KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

545KB, 640x640px

>>9376327
>using transparent peer pressuring instead of actual arguments to advance a point

>>9372828

I've followed you two fags' discussion and holy shit you are retarded.

>again, if physical attractiveness was privileged by society then why are sex workers not lauded?

Because their behavior is what makes people look down upon them, you can't just fix any of your transgressions by being attractive. You might as well ask "why aren't really attractive serial killers privileged by society if physical attractiveness is privileged?"

>>9371855
>>9371882
>I just think sex isn't a great metaphor for economics.
So retards have acess to internet. No suprise liberalism is so famous

>>9376535
>>again, if physical attractiveness was privileged by society then why are sex workers not lauded?
How are they not though? Do you even know what Hollywood is?

>>9372287

You're wrong. People don't dress them up in sound and fury, people shout them down in sound and fury. If you mention on lit that 20 % of men get 80% of women you get abused

>>9376619
But that just isn't true

>>9371883
So gross or sad things shouldn't be discussed? On a literature board?

File: sweating-pepe.jpg (8KB, 218x218px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 218x218px

>The protagonist (Harel), known only as "Our Hero" during the entirety of the story, lives a solitary life, and has not had sex for over two years

Two years? Heh, what a loser...

>>9376655

His percentages are probably wrong.

But the fact is we have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors.

>>9376679
>twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors
Population genetics is complex; population structure more so. There are a number of ways to arrive at this result that have nothing to do with promiscuity or monogamy.

The original paper is here:
>https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/21/11/2047/1147770/Genetic-Evidence-for-Unequal-Effective-Population
>http://hammerlab.biosci.arizona.edu/publications/Wilder_2004_MBE.pdf

It makes a number of observations: basically, the coalescent time (the time to the last common ancestor) is much shorter for the Y chromosome than it is for mtDNA. Most of this effect is due simply to differences in mutation rates, but some of it cannot be explained that way, and must be due to something else; stronger selection acting on Y chromosomes, for example, compared to mtDNA. The authors find that this pattern persists in three human sub-populations, and can't seem to find the effects of selective sweeps.

The authors suggest that a slight tendency to polygyny (some males having more than one female partner, and some males having none) might explain this observation. They don't really have any evidence for that in this paper, though, it's just their "most favored" explanation.
Incidentally, it's wrong to suggest that this means women are "twice as effective at disseminating their genes" or some such. The time to most recent common ancestor is affected by many variables, and comparing Y chromosomes to mtDNA is comparing apples to oranges; you can't simply divide the two times to arrive at a conclusion.

There are also other interesting possibilities available besides polygyny (although a slight tendency to polgyny helps explain this effect). For example, if females tend to move to the male's village, tribe, etc., their genes will get dispersed slightly better than male genes (if your genes stay in the same place for generations, they're less likely to spread through the population). This neat paper examines that possiblity by comparing populations that practice patrilocality with matrilocality with good results. There's other papers showing evidence for a higher rate of female migration in humans, so it seems like this is a decent explanation.

I recommend this paper on genetic evidence for female migration, which makes a good case that polygyny isn't likely to be a convincing explanation for the size of this effect.

tl;dr There are a lot of reasons we have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors, and most of them have nothing to do with what casuals assume is the cause.

File: Capture.jpg (44KB, 899x270px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 899x270px

>>9376679
>>9376655
>>9376619
According to the thread pictured (>>9372249) ...
>8 anons have slept with more than 20 people
>2 of which have had more 100 (according to them)
>4 anons have slept with between 10 and 15
>18 anons have slept with 5-9 people*
>31 anons have slept with 1-4 people
>14 anons have 0


*including the dude who fucked 5 hookers although I don't think he counts.

>>9376729
Seems highly exaggerated, unless half of the board is female.

>>9372135
If people are entitled to love and intimacy, where are they to get it from but other people? A world where people are entitled to love and intimacy is also a world in which there is reduced or no personal agency in matter of love and intimacy.

So, yes, I'm perfectly fine living in a world where no one is entitled to love and/or intimacy, but I certainly don't want to live in a world where, say, a person could compel me to provide those things to them.

>>9371795
I can see how a person might safely make that jump in logic, but you have to recognize there is a chasm between
>i wish i had attention
and
>age is a senseless distinction forced upon us by the morality of the other
and that you're being petty for making the leap.

>>9376733
>>9372135
People are entitled to desire and strive for love and intimacy in the largest sense, not to merely have it as a matter of course.

The reason why people find themselves in this sort of argument is just sloppy speech and thinking.

>>9376732
Maybe. We're not our ancestors though, contraceptives have made huge changes in our sex lives and numbers of partners in a time so short it hasn't had a chance to impact on our genetics yet.

>>9376732
it really isn't, I'm not trying to brag on 4chan of all places but I'm only 19 and have already slept with 15 women and I just started doing this like a year ago. It's fucking easy for me, though I must admit I'm kind of a manipulative asshole

>>9372101
>waaah waah employ all these niggers
>waaah waah employ all these women and also pay them extra
You don't understand the market analogy, every thing you could associate with totally unrestrained market capitalism happens with everyone involved's consent and willful participation.
>>9376733
It's not about forcing people personally to provide love and intimacy(since that would not actually be love and intimacy), more acting in such a way to engender the circumstances in which love and intimacy comes to as many people as possible naturally.

I don't know if 20% of men sleep with 80% of women, but in my experience it's definitely true that a rather small minority of men has a lot more sex with hot women than the majority of men does. However, sometimes people exaggerate how fixed and unchangeable this is. I'd say that probably something like two-thirds of all men have enough baseline physical attractiveness that, if they worked at getting better social and sexual skills, exercising, and so on - they could become part of the small minority. So really, it's similar to "free market" capitalism. A small number of people just sort of lucked into (by birth or whatever) being really rich. But a much larger number of people can, through focused effort, achieve the same level.

>>9376751
>>9376775
>people are entitled to the pursuit
Is such a forgone conclusion, it's not worth discussing.

And you are absolutely right that people ineffectively communicating their argument is a large cause of misunderstanding, what the other guy wrote was
>people aren't entitled to love and intimacy
in response to
>okay line up everybody, fuck this dude against your will because he feels entitled
which was a response to
>waaah im a woman the fact that ugly males have feels makes me uncomfortable
which was a response to someone telling OP to stop posting on lit.

Which, taking into account all the previous argument to that point, makes the comment
>people aren't entitled to love and intimacy
read pretty straight forward. There's not a lot of external context to lead someone to believe that what they instead meant was
>people aren't entitled to the pursuit of love and intimacy
while there is some to suggest that what they meant was
>people are entitled to being provided with love and intimacy
all of which ignores the fact that you should respond to arguments as they are presented, and the onus of responsibility for intelligibility is on the person making the argument, not the audience.

Basically, what I'm saying--rather at length admittedly--is read the fucking thread.

>>9376775
If you demand that people "[act] in such a way to engender the circumstances...", there's still a reduction in personal agency, especially if there is some kind of authoritative compulsion along with that demand.

There is very little argument or reason to support the idea that society, at large, owes you as an individual anything when it comes to affection, beyond ensuring a proper legal framework for a redress of grievances if someone decides to forcibly deny you access to affection or to forcibly compel you to provide affection.

And in case the last sentence wasn't over-the-head enough, I will explicitly state that compelling people to provide affection against their will is quite literally against the law in most developed nations.

>>9376807
This isn't about demanding or forcing anything. it's about what a society should value or leverage against on a cultural and not a judicial level.
The reason is simply that it causes untold suffering and mental illness. Society does not "owe" things, it's not a person with feelings or responsibilities, it's an entity whose only values comes from it's striving for continued existence(not from feelings), and this mental illness and suffering is not conducive to that goal.

>>9371775
>>9372220
>What is his best novel?
>Whatever is his best.

>Which roses are red?
>The red ones.

>>9376807
You're acting really weird, anon. Are you new to academic thinking? Not an insult, just wondering why your argumentation is stilted and directionless to the degree that it is. Makes me think you are trying out or practicing the academic voice.

>>9372487
let me give you a basic gestalt

>>9376883
"It" is not "about" anything. It is explicitly an assertion on the position of society's interaction with the individual.

I'm personally all for the idea of aspiring to, and attempting to inspire in others, the desire to create as much affection as possible. Anything beyond that, any amount of compulsion or direction is necessarily an authority struggle. Society needs fewer authority struggles, not more.

>>9376921
>that projection
I can assure you that speaking/writing at a 9th grade level isn't stilted for me at all just because that's the sensation you inflected upon it in your own head canon.

I do sometimes talk complex associative orders and also very non-linearly. You'll have to forgive me, I'm used to trying to have conversations with actual, diagnosed autistic people, and you have to inb4 in real-time to counter all of their ADD interjections if you want to get anywhere beyond endless, nearly insensible segues into arguments no one was making.

>>9371871

Both Platform and Map and the Territory are more engaging than Whatever, and Atomized is important, the true expression of what he planted in his first novel.

>>9371885
Why?

>>9377534
this

Whatever/Extension is far from his best work.

>>9371639
Smart guy, Hollabeck, for predicting that come 1995 some people wouldn't be able to score and some would score a lot. Truly a visionary.

>>9379409
That's not what the book is about

File: autistic shrieks.png (1MB, 1587x1600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1587x1600px

>>9374442
This isnt true, initially my therapist told me the same things, it seemed reasonable so I started going to the gym, doing pretty intense cardio, actively went to societies and meetups, got sized up for clothes to dress well, started doing basically everything I could to gain some advantage

Even after years of this kind of self improvement I still get passed over for guys in sweatpants who dont do much besides smoke weed and play videogames

Literally the only thing that matters is the ability to say as many """"Funny"""" things as possible per conversation, or maybe its just some aura around normal people i dont have

>>9380107
or maybe ur ugly

File: dry1.png (127KB, 534x640px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 534x640px

>>9374442
>and try not to be a downer
literally every single human relationship I've had has crumbled to pieces because I can't be consistently happy
I don't find things that others like funny and things that I like have completely degraded and sadden me everytime I think of them

File: WS.jpg (17KB, 385x387px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 385x387px

>>9374442
>Any man, as long as they are not health defect ugly, can get a woman if they work hard enough

"You're not a Wojak, just a temporarily embarrassed Chad."

File: CN.jpg (1MB, 2048x1367px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1367px

>>9380107
>or maybe its just some aura around normal people i dont have

Bingo. When two people talk, the actual words are only a small percentage of the information conveyed. Voice tone, facial expression and body language are far more important, and you're broadcasting these signals every time you're out in public. Both making and interpreting these signals is a subconscious process, not something that can be consciously mimicked. If you're chronically shy, you effectively have an aura that marks you out to the world as "socially awkward, keep clear". Nothing you can do about it.

Just in case that wasn't bad enough, it turns out Tumblr was right; privilege is invisible to those who have it. Normies such as your therapist cannot understand. Their advice is perfectly legitimate for fellow normies who want to incrementally improve their social lives, but useless for you. It's like explaining proper squat form to a guy in a wheelchair.

File: Whatever.jpg (29KB, 325x499px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 325x499px

>>9376913
Whatever dude.

>>9371677

>100 pages or less long
>entry level