in love matters, a man should listen to his heart or his reason?

>>9621669
You are on the literature board. Can you please fuck off to /r9k/ or some shit?

>>9621669
>>/adv/

>>9621671
>>9621675
president of my country taught me not to abide by the rules. if you're against my thread, you're against america.

It is impossible for one to act completely rationally just as it is impossible for one to act completely irrationally.
There is little reason to err towards irrationality, but to come to that conclusion one must clearly be more rational that irrational.
Given that you are asking this question it seems to me you are more of a rational thinker than an irrational one. Take from that what you will.

Their heart.

File: IMG_9905.png (44KB, 744x687px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 744x687px

>>9621669
A man should listen to frogposters

>>9621669
The heart, you fucking sperg

>>9621699
another useless post

>>9621669
His dick.

>>9621678
>/lit/
>not against america

>>9621707
this is an american website

>>9621711
Japanese

>>9621721
i only converse with highly intelligent people

>>9621726
Ey sup

>>9621734
can't stop thinking about this one bitch, even though it seems that i should

>>9621745
R u me

If you try to be reasonable in a relationship, you are going to be seriously confused and miserable. Women act according to emotion and you will not be able to predict them, and they will do a lot of seemingly retarded things.

Both, otherwise you won't stand a chance against a proper woman

>>9621870
But if you don't act reasonable, you'll allow the woman to control you with those emotions. You really need to find a good balance between the two: don't be a complete logical, reasoning autist; but also don't be an emotional retard that drools over his girl and allows her to step all over him.

>>9621669
You don't often see the back of this sculpture in pictures

>>9621870
>If you try to be reasonable in a relationship, you are going to be seriously confused and miserable. Women act according to emotion and you will not be able to BIND them

For some reason that's how I read that at first glance. Still true anyway.

>>9621671
>>9621675
Fuck off forever from this board. OP tried to set up a philosophical discussion.

>>9622176
>philosophical discussion
Eh. Philosophical discussions on /lit/ are supposed to reference a specific work or author, at the very least. OP is just a veiled self-help post. /r9k/ with window dressing

>>9622240
You really don't. Unless philosophical topics belong on /his/.

Like all things

Both

>>9622752
you're tearing me apart, lisa

>>9621669
women and homosexual men are emotional creatures so dealing with them logically makes sense

try to get a blend of 60-40 emotion to logic in

>>9621669

Don't go back to that bitch, she'll only hurt you again.

>>9623114
maybe i should hurt her back