If I wanted to understand female sexuality, what would I read?

If I wanted to understand female sexuality, what would I read?

Other urls found in this thread:

abclocal.go.com/three/kabc/kabc/My-Twisted-World.pdf
twitter.com/AnonBabble

On Women

desu

my diary desu

L O N D O N
O
N
D
O
N

Erotic novels by women from the 1980s

a conversation with an actual human fucking being

read your whores diaries

get Veeky Forums first btw

The Seminar of Jacques Lacan: Bk. 20: On Feminine Sexuality, the Limits of Love and Knowledge

The Postman Always Rings Twice

Stoner

Neuroscience.

/r/TheRedPill

Lolita, honestly. I read it at 14 and it killed my naivety towards woman of my age back then. It will be useful all your life.

I don't think fantasies for housewives are going to help my understanding very much.

I'm not really looking for any PUA or redpill stuff. I just realized that I don't have a good grasp of the female perspective on sex and female sexuality.

>I don't think fantasies for housewives are going to help my understanding very much.
Yes it will. Female sexuality isn't deep.

/r9k/'s women hate threads

The Love Affairs of Nathaniel P.
Anna Karenina
anything by Anais Nin

There was one man who saw through the depraved modern sexual economy to the brutal reality underneath. A supreme gentleman. Read his masterpiece.

>abclocal.go.com/three/kabc/kabc/My-Twisted-World.pdf

People say that about male sexuality ("men just want to fuck pretty women"). I think it's all more complicated than you give it credit for

>total_fucking_misread.jpg

No more or less deep than a man's

Old hags are all disgusting. That's all you need to know.

Try reading it first, and then judging others readings.

You will never understand woman, no one understands them

Get a girlfriend that is below your league and you'll understand women

>No more or less deep than a man's
Just world etc

Ask yourself first, What is male sexuality? Or sexuality in general

This but unironically

Eliot Rodger is a god

You could try talking to women about it, maybe?

lol get the fuck outta here you jokester

Man stick dick in woman

Woman take dick from man

Man: dominant, strong, needs to prove himself
Woman: weak, passive, judges others, inherent sexual value

Women don't know anything about themselves.

Ah, I forget. The people on this board are all incapable of actual human interaction.

>what are some good books about animal behavior?
>lol just go outside and ask a dog

I can tell you one thing, son, and it's that men know even less about women. Do you know why? Because they don't actually want to know.

A man always pushing for more, and women always seeking good men is just like the man pushing into the woman and the woman receiving the man's dick.

Woman= pull
Man= push

damn...

That's the thing, though, isn't it? A book about animal behaviour will only skim over so much. You go outside and spend some time with a dog, and you learn a tremendous amount from them.

Men can gain accurate knowledge by actually observing the behavior of women. Women's lives revolve around their sexuality, so they lie to protect their position. A woman has a distorted view of reality.

The black Phillip podcast with Patrice O'Neal and the successive podcasts with his friend Dante Nero are major redpills
Basically an in depth look at females and dimorphic relationships from the points of view of an apex alpha and a beta with a lot of money
More insightful than anything you could read in a philosophy book

Are there any good anti-feminism books? Specifically ones that go into the innate differences between men and women and the stupidity of gender egalitarianism.

>Just world etc
your sexuality is meaningful to you, someone else's sexuality is meaningful to them. Different people experience sex in different ways and relate to different interpretations of sexuality in different ways and to differing extents.

Plus, if women's sexuality is as simple as most of the people on this website think is, I'm sure that no-one on this website would have any problem getting laid whatsoever.

you are the one who came to Veeky Forums with an opinion that makes you look like a total fucking retard bro. if between us one of us hasn't read lolita, i'd wager it's the person who came away with the same opinion as a gullible child who read the blurb for a book report

>if women's sexuality is as simple as most of the people on this website think is, I'm sure that no-one on this website would have any problem getting laid whatsoever.
yo nigga dat koncloozeeon aint be folowin' dat dere premiz

>Man: dominant, strong, needs to prove himself
you don't see the contradiction here?

>Woman: weak, passive, judges others, inherent sexual value
the last one isn't even a character trait are you a literal retard

could say the same about men though

>Patrice O'Neal
>More insightful than anything you could read in a philosophy book
just leave this board

Women don't know anything about anything
There's no formula to understand them because they are chaotic emotional beings, the best you can do is improve yourself and weather their emotional chaos. And if you're good enough for them they will always keep coming back
I'm not saying this out of bitterness I'm saying this as someone preparing to get married

>you don't see the contradiction here?
Who ever said that humans didn't contradict themselves? Get a grip lady

disregard that point and the argument still stands, but:

if women only care about physical appearance, which /r9k/ seems to believe, then you can level the same accusation at men.

if they only care about money and status, everyone wasting away on here has the time and the means to accumulate far more than necessary to attract someone.

the constant fucking whining about how women "only go for the bad boys" on this website is just wrong. it's just not the case and it never has been. it's a lazy reduction that papers over the fact that women don't tend to like creepy sleazebags. But even then, I know a woman who loves creepy sleazebags.

If you're making generalisations about an entire sex, you'd better come with as even a hand and as sharp an eye as Tolstoy, otherwise you're going to be fucking wrong in a million ways.

In all seriousness, Tolstoy wrote about women incredibly accurately and well. And he was always fair. His women were always human. Their motivations were rational and their behaviour was always informed by who they were, where they were in their life, their families, and the society in which they lived.

but ok women only date the bad boys oh no they don't date nice guys like me~

>if women only care about physical appearance
I don't believe this at all.
I don't visit r9k at all.
One day my life will start.
One day i'll leave Veeky Forums behind.
One day soon.
You'll see.

someone who is dominant and strong doesn't need to prove themself. Somebody who aspires to be dominant because of a secret knowledge that they aren't needs to prove themself. If you're going to spout totally unsubstantiated pseudo-intellectual bullshit at least proofread it

Why do you always identify yourself as the same woman by you lack of caps?
Wiat scratch that, I know why.

Why do you feel the need to attention whore?

>And if you're good enough for them they will always keep coming back

The Red Queen by Matt Ridley.

Is that what you think? A woman's life revolves around her sexuality, so her view of reality is distorted? What the hell moron have you been listening to.

Additionally, that argument can be used for anybody at all, not just women.

>50 replies
>22 posters
Why does this roastie feel the need to obfuscate female sexuality?

I'll make it simple for everyone:
Women want a guy to fuck them and give them good genes and a guy to raise the other man's children.

Women literally want more alpha males when they are ovulating. I wish I was making this up.

I don't mean in a cuck way
There's always a constant eb and flow to relationships
You're both infatuated one day and distant the next day

>>total_fucking_misread.jpg
got to say user isn't far wrong. jailbait knows its jailbait power. dolly might not have chosen well but she chose to use it.
>you are the one who came to Veeky Forums with an opinion that makes you look like a total fucking retard bro. if between us one of us hasn't read lolita, i'd wager it's the person who came away with the same opinion as a gullible child who read the blurb for a book report
you're the one turning down recommendations of female sexuality because they don't fit your view of what female sexuality should be.
some user up above recommended the 1980s, and you thought it was for housewives. that's the period when political lesbian separatism is a thing and when feminists worked out they would have rape fantasies they enjoyed even if they removed men entirely from their environment. literally the period when even feminists and lesbians admitted that being raped is a major fantasy of women. i'd frankly expect the SJWs to be more revisionist than an user who needs a book to understand feminine sexuality, but here we are.

why don't you write a book about your oneitis waifu's hypothesised sexuality because i'm pretty sure it's the only view of female sexuality you'll accept as correct.

...

If you're not alpha AND capable of providing for her children you might as well give up on dating altogether you cuck.

>Women want a guy to fuck them and give them good genes and a guy to raise the other man's children.
>Women literally want more alpha males when they are ovulating.

No, no, no. Genetics don't come into it at all. Granted, human beings in general are more likely to be attracted to people with symmetrical features which may be an indicator of good gene health, but children don't come into it.

And when we're ovulating, nothing beats a decent orgasm. Doesn't matter whether a man gives it to us, a woman, or we give it to ourselves. Whether or not a dude is "alpha" is irrelevant because they aren't even necessary for sexual stimulation, and often don't perform satisfactorily anyway.

>Genetics don't come into it at all.
rong

Here you go bro.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

>this is what the alt-right actually believes

the author is an asian dude

lql

...

Not necessarily sexuality, but read Clarice Lispector. She has very good introspection on the feminine psyche.


Sexually, women want more comfort, than men who just want to get off.

>all these recs are books by men
Man op you aint gonna learn shit. Would you trust a book on male sexuality written by a bitter old woman? All you need is like 20 pages of Irigaray and you fucking got it.

>Sexually, women want more comfort,
This is me but i'm a man who was raised by a single mother.
How crossed are my wires?

You're probably fine dude, don't stress about it.

Doesn't matter your background. If you have a job and ambition to do something other than sit around and shit post all day women will like.
Whatever you do. Do not mistake lust for love. It will ruin you more than anything

>Sexually, women want more comfort

but comfort is a killer of intimacy

unless you actually mean trust. like trust enough for you to go down on her or for her to turn her rump around toward you, since that can be difficult for her to do the first couple times.

but "comfort" is what brings women to cheat. it's okay in doses and stretches. it's nice to relax and know that you don't have to compete in the sexual marketplace to find someone else. but too much attainability and the mentality that "i don't have to try" makes your sex boring.

i think you'd probably agree with that tho

oh you.

Just to clarify, the poster you're responding to isn't me (the guy who thought 80s erotica was for housewives). You really shouldn't jump to conclusions about posters.

Anyway, if you tell me where to begin with 80s erotica, I will read something. I guess my point was that reading what a person's fantasy is doesn't exactly give you a full (or even useful) view of their reality.

east of eden

Yes, trust is key, as virtually most sexual at the very least intimate matters boil down to allowing oneself to be at their most vulnerable.

When I say comfort, at least in my experience, are girls who want someone independent and dependable. Cheating could always be a result of boredom, or just a bad person (ive been cheated on by the latter) but sexuality is such a grey area its difficult to distinguish what is true and false.

Presumably OP wants to pull some slags, or at least hopes for some sort of relationship. Comfort and trust are basically the baseline of whats "required"

Give it up my dude.
Just read the last chapter of ulysses, that's all you think women will ever be
(Not that i'm denigrating you, I just think it's a fruitless endeavor desu)

Middlesex

well, user, i suggest you learn how to read a quote chain before responding to it, since the user who called it a total misread to cast lolita that way responded in the same post to the housewife chain. or at least try making two posts if you want to keep your user personalities split.

>I guess my point was that reading what a person's fantasy is doesn't exactly give you a full (or even useful) view of their reality.
A lot of the anti-porn feminists of the era would disagree. ("Porn is the theory, rape is the practice" was a mantra for a lot of them) Touching on this point though, and setting the scene for the 80s and all its weirdness about fantasy and reality, Altered States, the novel, is really overlooked. There's a movie version too by Ken Russell which is very Ken Russell, but Chayefsky was strong armed by Russell into some script changes so he's not obviously credited.
(note: this is about a male looking for his primal core being, but male kind of disintegrates as an idea like many other markers of personality when you lock yourself in a sensory deprivation tank as research)

Desert Hearts (lesbian themed female made film in the 80s) is based on another earlier book which saw a resurgence during the period too, Desert of the Heart. It's not pornographic, but it deals well with female sexuality and its moral ambivalence. (Some publishers refused it for not being porn enough to print as pulp, but it's one of the few books that got mainstream recognition despite lesbianism being a major plot point before laws changed)

If you want straight up erotica which is in the 80s and hews to the lesbian feminism of the era without denouncing porn a la Dworkin et al, On Our Backs (the periodical, not the book about Irish female sexuality in the 80s- though that is interesting too) will give you a wide list of authors. It's considered the lead runner in sex positive lesbian erotica and kept in print til 2006 from the mid 80s.

>he doesn't just want to fuck pretty women

>I need a model to get hard

yep, like any beta

Ugly woman detected.

>I don't think fantasies for housewives are going to help my understanding very much.
holy shit you are a beta.

see

>Women want a guy to fuck them and give them good genes and a guy to raise the other man's children.
beta number 2

20 yo are really funny. at least you entertain me.

I would tell you to kill your self, but I know that are not able to. stay mad beta

you seem smart though, where is your tumblr ?

i don't know, but i'm pretty sure reading the biography of Patton will help

>no caps is all one grill
kek
not that user, but i post a lot of shit here without caps (or with random caps), and i hope you're not confusing that user with me. i'm sort of surprised you're pinning user with it but not my post here so maybe you can tell the difference. looks like it's time to change my idiolect again regardless.

>looks like it's time to change my idiolect again regardless.
See?
Why?
You just want to be noticed.
It's so easy to just type like every other user.

>tfw started no caps because my capped posts were developing a recognisable style
The other user, the one you originally pointed to as a recognisable user, which you're now confusing with me, likely started the non capped shit because I've got into a rhythm on it, and they want a credence they think imitating it lends to them, yes. I've noticed them around as well, but I do try to shake it up so such imitators aren't treated like someone who knows my ## code. Thanks for sperging out on them; I really hadn't realised it had come this far and shall miss my non caps and semicolons. ._. Time to move on and get a new syntax with less use of the word "so" also.

>Time to move on and get a new syntax
sort yourself out m8 jfc
just b urself

>Lacan

Elfriede Jelinek

I enjoy the illusion more than one of us reads, anontan. I'mma keep creating that, thanks ^_^

>^_^