What are some good books about beautiful people and their lifes?

>the age of consent
that doesn't change the fact that a 23 year old who sleeps with 16 year olds has got to set off some red flags

Please stick to the topic at hand, instead of posting your inane shit. I am looking for book recommendations and not your opinions on women

Literature can't be about beautiful people, only us

Not that I agree with the other user's statement that people that use Tinder aren't morally sound. But it's just your statement makes no sense.

lipstickalley.com/threads/attractive-men-with-racist-sexist-anti-semitic-tinder-profiles-get-a-lot-of-attention.1221923/

It was a catfish to demonstrate that you can literally be a child rapist mysoginist neo nazi but, if you are a 10/10, girls don't give a fuck.

I'd argue that at that point it's a pretty close call. I think most women at 16 are fairly mature (if anything a 16 year old male is the maturity equivalent of a 12 year old female). 23 really isn't that much older or wiser. Don't think for a minute I'm some sort of pedophile but I just don't think it's that unusual. The main thing is the taking advantage of the other aspect of it and at those ages it's not much of an issue. IMO.

why does it make no sense?

t. moralfag
many women over 14 or 15 are as mature as they'll ever get and already ready for childbirth

Don't post such a provoking picture then dork, and I'm only bumping your thread.

>Says the OP posting /r9k/ bait

Get laid, ugly loser

If you think the same thing wont work with a 10/10 girl picking up guys you are kidding yourself.

it will
the point is to dispell the popular adage that women go for personality rather than looks

the majority of young adults use/have used tinder
>this is an irrelevant statement. It doesn't say anything to argue for or against the guy you responded to in terms of people being moral.

these are the life and blood of america
>this is essentially saying nothing

not exception to a rule
>exception to the rule that most young adults are moral? Aren't moral? How have you argued anything? Maybe I just don't understand your point but reading your post over and over the less sense it makes to me.

ok

It''s not about physical maturity, it's about emotional maturity. The man in that situation is clearly taking advantage of the young girl.

It certainly doesn't dispell it. If you don't think that good personalities are highly valuable to women then I can't say much else besides you probably don't get out much.

But it certainly proves that there are some shit women out there.

please, I would wife a slut if she was hot enough and I could handle her.

>this is an irrelevant statement. It doesn't say anything to argue for or against the guy you responded to in terms of people being moral.
his statement implied people on a dating app are somehow representative of morally unsound people. if the majority of people have used tinder at some point then it can't be an exception to a rule ("most people are morally sound; tinder users are the problem"); even if they do are morally unsound, it still is a meaningless point to call out tinder users, since they make up the majority, not some containment app for degenerates

I am
I'd agree in this particular case, he seems like a royal piece of shit. I guess I was just speaking generally.

>If you don't think that good personalities are highly valuable to women then I can't say much else besides you probably don't get out much.
This is a non-argument, but I will reply anyway. I have a healthy social circle, a job and went to college like everyone else. I also used to go out to clubs and bars almost every weekend. All this going out and meeting people did nothing but solidify the notion that women go for looks over personality in my mind. Sociopathic jerks are particularly successful with women.

>16
>"young girl"

Did you go to an all-boys school?

I've found that typically the type of women that go to clubs/bars aren't looking for prince charming type's.

>It certainly doesn't dispell it. If you don't think that good personalities are highly valuable to men then I can't say much else besides you probably don't get out much.

>But it certainly proves that there are some shit men out there.

The point is both sexes pick their partner based on looks. Personality is always the second step.
Despite that, men are the mysoginistic pigs and women the paragons of virtue.

Are you talking about Mormons or what?

That pic is amazing. It shows the true mind of sluts.

>My anthem: Young Love

>16
>not a young girl
explain this then faggot

I think that while both sexes are interested in looks, women are more focused on personality. I know there are scientific studies out there that very much support my case but if you haven't realized this through simply living life well I guess we'll disagree but I appreciate your point on double standards.

I'm a firm believer in the universal crazy hot matrix.

youtube.com/watch?v=vwbKYcBdVyk

Explain this 16 year old model then faggot

Well luckily, we don't have to debate the morality of you fucking her because there's no way that would ever happen lmao

Your looks are your personality. Ugly men who hit on women are "creepy"; good looking men who hit on women are "confident and assertive". This is something called the halo effect, which has been proven time and time again on controlled environments.

Women only seem more conscientious wrt their choices of romantic partners because they're pickier. They're looking for geneticaly optimal partners just like men

It took me way too long to process this, anyway thanks

She's an innocent girl or a woman? Looks like a woman to me

God damnit that picture is damning to my case!
But I think that that picture would be much different if the votes were cast after a real life interaction actually happened.

Also you have to consider these profile pictures and how they were taken. It's interesting that women respond more agreeably to pictures of men that are outside/doing things/traveling etc. Whereas men typically only look for beauty with little other consideration.

>women are more focused on personality.

let me tell you one thing: based on the very anecdotal data of me and my friends, men aren't less focused on personality.
It's just that the vast majority of women is as profound or interesting as a puddle. I've had 3 interesting conversation (about literature, politics and philosophy) with girls in the last 3-4 years.
The rest of the time what I'm thinking is "wow is she retarded or just plain dumb".
Usually they don't have strong opinion about anything and when they have one is usually backed by retarded reasoning. Unless it's something someone in their social circle did or said. Literally zero hobbies or interests outside the most banal things.

Trust me: every time a man find an interesting woman without some strange facial deformity and BMI

Welp, to keep things on TOPIC
Picture of Dorian Gray would be ovious

my diary

Yes, but do you talk to ugly girls though?
They are the one's that have the motive to compensate.

I remember reading Hitchens on this point and it's hard to deny. Typically a good looking women has no reason to be funny or intellectually stimulating. It's not going to help her procreate considering men are so visually focused. I don't think the opposite i.e. women being visually focused to such a degree holds water considering the social dynamics of men and women.

MC is like the Serpantor of Supermodels.

meant to post this btw @ 5:55
youtube.com/watch?v=incSwssUyp4

this was funny and the guy replying to you is an idiot

>>women are more focused on personality.
This is only true if you listen to women.
In reality,
is accurate.
Also, (most) women don't really have a sense of humor, despite them claiming that is something they like.
Money > status > height > jawline > good hair > not having AIDs >>>>>>>>>>>> personality is the real priority.

And this is coming from someone who genuinely likes and does well with women.

>Yes, but do you talk to ugly girls though?
>They are the one's that have the motive to compensate.

Only of the ugliest and stupid and annoying girl I've ever known dumped her 2 years boyfriend because she deserved better. The guy was also decent looking and fun. Guess being a

Tonio Kroger is about a guy thinking about beautiful people and their lives.

Where did this retarded myth even come from? Women reach their peak in terms of healthiness and fertility around their early 20s.

This doesn't explain why the ugly girls are unsuccessful in procuring attractive men while outgoing, confident but ugly men however can achieve this.

And yes I think money plays a huge part and I'll agree that it could be the most important thing generally speaking for women.

But also I think that you are discounting attractive men that have confidence issues/personality disorders that remain to be unsuccessful with women. While at the same time an attractive female that could be considered mentally retarded will continue to have success with men.

Again I agree with a lot of the arguments here, most especially the halo effect. But to argue that men and women look for the same things in the opposite sex to the same degree is complete and utter nonsense.

>Also, (most) women don't really have a sense of humor, despite them claiming that is something they like.

Having a sense of humor and appreciating a guy that can make them laugh are two entirely different things.

And they don't get really good at sex until their in their 30's. This species is beyond retarded.

I've read women are typically the most horny around that age as it's becoming their last chance at reproduction.

Attraction is cruel and arbitrary. Nature in general Is so unethical it borders on being evil

Stifle your disgusting fingers you worthless mongoloid of a tripfag. No one wants to hear your /r9k/-tier sobbing

>confident but ugly men
Show me a confident but ugly man who is poor, low-status short, bald, weak-chinned, and HIV+ who still gets hot chicks, and will revise my theory.
For men, the priority is something more like:
Looks>Good at sex>wants what the man wants (in the way of children/monogomy/etc.>>>>>>>>>>personality

Whatever it is, it's fucking HOT.

I've always been tormented by this.
My best rationalization is that I am not attracted to ugly women that are "better" people compared to their attractive yet "worse" counterparts in the same way that I am attracted to certain pieces of art and not to others. It is an aesthetic principle that is largely out of my control.

Point to the part of the comment that's wrong. I'm chastising op for thinking that attraction shouldn't follow a particular moral guideline

"ethics" are cope
chad always wins

Don't straw man me. My argument was that an ugly man who is confident can still achieve women - more so than the reverse situation.

The aesthetic preferences that your ancestors evolved have nothing to do with out contemporary notions of right and wrong. Attraction is amoral in the literal sense. We shouldn't sublimate these preferences, but the people who did were wise as fuck

Prove the general immorality of nature, and I might stop thinking you're such a stupendous ground-chuck-for-brains. Or were you just whining?

you mean should follow

Didn't mean to strawman you, Senor Trips.
I agree with your statement, but have seen aggressive (less hot) women score dudes who are a few points higher than themselves. Keeping said hot dude is another issue entirely.

Do you need any more proof than the fact that that the slowest gazelle (often not fully grown) gets eaten by the fastest lion? The survival of either animal depends on the other dying, either through starvation or mutilation. Evolution is predicated on the notion that some genes are too unsuccessful to pass on. Suffering is built into the very nature of being.

Yeah I do. I'm drinking

What about suffering is evil? It's obviously unpleasant, but immorality is not discomfort.

I think the distinction between immoral and amoral is important.

How else would you define "evil" than arbitrary suffering at the expense of a goal you had no say in choosing?

Quiet, I'm trying to get him to back himself into a corner

>arbitrary suffering

So then suffering itself isn't evil, but it has to be "arbitrary" as well? And it's only arbitrary if you don't chose the goal? Then I might kill you, and that wouldn't be "evil" to me, but only to you, since I experienced no suffering and chose the goal.

Saying that something is evil per se isn't the same as saying that it's evil according to a particular subjectivity. You killing me being evil in my subjective reality isn't discounted by it not being evil in your subjective reality.

>You killing me being evil in my subjective reality isn't discounted by it not being evil in your subjective reality.

Not discounted to you, maybe, but I must discount it from the outset, otherwise I wouldn't have killed you. All you've succeeded in proving is that according to your definition of evil, I don't have to listen to how you define evil. Nice try though, maybe don't addle your brain with liquid Christianity before you post

>The survival of either animal depends on the other dying,
the survival form what. you animals die whether they eat or not?

You're still under the misapprehension that suffering can't be acknowledged in itself, but only through a particular subjectivity. If there's a consciousness out there able to feel it, then the suffering is as cosmically real to the person causing it as it is to the person receiving it.

Tell that to me, as I'm killing you. You're the one who brought this into subjectivity. It's simply backpedaling to say that suffering exists independently of the subject as a moral category after you've already asserted that suffering as evil is necessarily dependent on the violation of a subject's will ("a goal you had no say in choosing").
>cosmically real
I would say you must be an idiot or a charlatan, but I think "tripfag" already covers both categories pretty well.

It's not a contradiction to say that subjective suffering and suffering per se are indistinguishable. How else would you quantify suffering except through a particular subjectivity? My original point was that competing subjectivities highlight the potential suffering of both parties involved, which suggests that suffering is inherent to the survival of both animals. And the fact that neither animal can survive without inflicting or being the victim of violence suggests that suffering is inherent to their reality.

Ooga booga?

They're "indistinguishable" because "suffering per se" isn't real. There is no suffering without a subject, as you said yourself.

Empathy is impossible if the suffering of a particular subjectivity couldn't be perceived and acknowledged by another

By another subjectivity, which still requires that suffering be based in the subjective, and not the objective. We can only assume a person to be suffering, i.e. take them at their word. This is why we can be deceived in that regard. Children do this to their parents all the time.

If there's a state of being that can be considered undesirable from an objective standpoint it's death. The suffering of a gazelle being eaten alive can't be denied regardless of its subjective nature.

No, it couldn't be denied consistently by a thinking subject, but this doesn't make the affirmation or the suffering any less subjective.

As to death, I'd rather not open that can of worms in your presence. It's three in the goddamn morning and I don't want to be doing this until I have to work

It's sort of a distinction with very little difference: if a conscious being is experiencing a form of suffering as physiologically undeniable as a violent death, then you can reference its suffering from the perspective of any standpoint, whether objective or subjective.

But to say that there can be such a thing as an "objective" standpoint in this case implies that we can quantify suffering, rather than merely qualify it (i.e. relate to it as a conception or feeling), and retain its character as a subjective state. The only way the suffering can be empathized with is through a subject, and it only becomes undeniable from this perspective. As soon as it is quantified, it is no longer "suffering," it's merely a series of responses feeding one another in a certain way in response to certain stimuli.

Even on edgy Veeky Forums, people ignore picrelated and come up with just world nonsense to rationalise it away

Women live lives on easy mode, end of story

have you tried working on yourself before blaming women for your shortcomings??

The fact that suffering is indistinguishable from other sense phenomena from a dispassionate perspective speaks to my original point about the amorality of nature. "Evil" is the ethical language of our religious tradition applied to that high indifference.

He's not blaming women for his problems, he's saying that women have it easier.

What you call the "dispassionate" perspective is the objective (strictly empirical) one. Therefore, you cannot reference suffering in an objective sense, and these comments:
are null, along with most of this discussion, and we are back here , where I showed that your definition of evil was a flawed one. Have a nice night.

Most conceptions of "objective" involve some degree of human (not the animals in question) subjectivity. Otherwise all matter is just experiencing change as entropy takes hold, and there's no reason talk about ethics, or talk in general. The reality of physical suffering has to be axiomatic if you want to have a discussion about ethics and morality.