Why do male authors feel the need to describe young women in such grusome, sexually explicit detail? Do they really believe we're all to stupid to realize they're just getting their rocks off? Can I read one fucking book without hearing about how a teenager's shirt "hugs her breasts" or what the male protagonist (the author) is imagining within a fucking page of meeting a woman?

Help me because I am so fucking sick of this what are some books with well written female characters.

>>24579802 (OP)
Calm down you crazy old broad

>>24579802 (OP)
>read asoiaf georgie is such a feminist!
>13 year olds getting reaped and shooting hershey's out of their anus

I find it fairly consistent at 30 women complain about men liking women below 30.

>>24579802 (OP)
I'm not a feminist but I agree desu, it's a little cringe to read the protagonist imagining fucking another man's wife (sometimes his friend's!) within minutes of meeting her.
Maybe I'm just low T, though.

>>24579925
>Maybe I'm just low T,
You are probably a faggot

>>24580009
Nuh uh

>>24579802 (OP)
Literally the only way you'd ever care about this is if you were a hag or a nu-male

>>24579925
You sound extremely raped

amerimutt thread

>>24580064
You should experiment anyway. Sounds like you need a man to hold your hand and show you the pleasures of butt sex.

Name 3 examples

>>24579802 (OP)
And women, who can only write one fucking guy - rich and tall with hypertrophied muscles and a chiseled jaw and piercing eyes and whose violent as a nigger Jeet - somehow are better? Hate men as much as you want, but at least male writers try to give some depth to women in their fiction instead of writing borderline BDSM abuse erotica about getting railed by a muscular handsome and violent rich guy who is identical to the handsome and violent rich guy written 10 years ago who is in turn identical to the handsome and violent rich guy written 50 years ago.
Women are more shallow than men. If you actually read female written fiction you'd understand this.
And
>troon
>post baby feet
How fucking predictable.

The only reason descriptions of physical beauty would cause you such grief is if you were ugly. And not just old and haggard, but like ugly from the day you were born, and possessed of a deep self loathing over it. More than likely you are a tranny, and seeing men lovingly describe traits you will never possess, it sends you into a self-harming rage. I can only hope that one day you will find the courage to slit your wrists for real instead of just for attention.

>>24579802 (OP)
>how a teenager's shirt "hugs her breasts"
Bad example. Hugging implies embrace, and most people enjoy hugs, the pressure on your chest, the warmth of their body, the way the other may slap your back or rub your shoulder, maybe give your nipple a cheeky pinch, you know, intimacy. To describe something as hugging is a lovely action, as a beautiful girl should be treated, lovingly.
Can you please provide an adequate example of explicit descriptions of women?
For a well written female character, read Anna Karenina. Tolstoy writes Anna as a flawed woman, a real woman, not some flawless object but a human with opposing desires who makes bad decisions, for love, selfishness, and spitefulness. You can decide for yourself the nature of women and perhaps understand why they should be loved and protected.

>>24579802 (OP)
Do you have empathy for heterosexual males authors? Do you allow the apparent power that the female form has over their imagination to enlarge your conception of the human condition?

>>24579802 (OP)
>Can I read one fucking book without hearing about how a teenager's shirt "hugs her breasts" or what
How is this
>She was a stupid dumb bitch with a dumb look on her stupid dumb bitch face
Is that better OP?

>>24579906
However women lose the ability to have kids over 40. Its about reproduction, not sex.

>>24580100
Rent free

Believe it or not it's disheartening when every female character is introduced with immediate evaluation on how fuckable they are, but if that's how men think I guess I can't blame the honesty. Just know it's why so many girls are trooning out and cutting off their tits these days.

>>24579802 (OP)
>a teenager's shirt "hugs her breasts"
you mean that the shirt, a few sizes too small, squished her youthfully rotund breasts with a textile violence that could make her think of nothing else but Chad ripping them off, so she can steal his t-shirt after three days of non-stop violent lovemaking during which she'll focus on conceiving twins?

I am sick of it too, frankly I'm sick of all woman characters. They add nothing. Women can't be compelling protagonist because they are just running on vague feelings all the time. They don't have deeper yearnings or crises, they just "feel bad" or "feel good." And the worst thing of all is when an otherwise serious, respectable protagonist keeps taking detours from his serious, interesting quest or struggle to simp over some broad.

I was wondering recently why I like Lovecraft stories so much, and I realized it's because the characters in them are intense, curious, serious men, getting to the bottom of problems and taking things seriously, and there are never any "love interests" to distract them with horseshit. All men become fag babies when a woman is involved, so it's best that they not be involved. Take any respectable man and show me how he acts around his girlfriend and I will show you a fag baby. He's probably giggling like a little bitch and countenancing all kinds of shallow valueless tomfoolery he wouldn't countenance in a man. Suddenly this chemist with a lifelong quest to overthrow his rivals and prove his outsider theory is a gay little prancing pussy making googoo-eyed banter with some pinhead woman about what spaghetti to buy. Absolutely grotesque.

>>24580347
there was some months ago a thread on /tv/ about movies without any women in them... at the end everybody was shocked because it was all the most watchable movies lol

>>24579802 (OP)
Why do Chinese wumao shills need to leak out of /pol/

>>24580432
Why?

I would genuinely prefer to live in a society where men gently grope and pester women than the sexless bullshit that zoomers seem intent on. Strangely, that seems leaps and bounds healthier.

>>24580290
Anyone who hasn't had sex with an attractive person in the last three months shouldn't be making any analysis of how attraction should be described. At least men's writing has life, spark, and vitality to it.

>>24579802 (OP)
Sure, start reading proper literature and not modern slop. Sexual descriptions of any kind are exceedingly rare in 19th century and earlier literature

>>24579802 (OP)
What other value does a woman have besides her body?

>>24580470
>Anyone who hasn't had sex with an attractive person in the last three months
I've had sex with myself.

As a sexless social pariah I approve this thread. Much keks

>>24579802 (OP)
>about how a teenager's breasts
It's always envy.

>>24579802 (OP)
The sexes should stick to reading their own gender.
Guys should read guys. Grils should read grils.
That way grils won’t find out eww yuck guys think about fucking us a lot
And guys won’t find out eww yuck grils think about werewolf billionaires raping them a lot.

We can’t let girlfaggots marginalize heterosexuality

>>24579802 (OP)
Women are inherently sexual objects. They are literally the vessel for the continuation of the species. In all other regards, they're inferior to men. This isn't controversial anywhere but in the contemporary West, which suffers from a kind of self-destructive mass psychosis. The more women reconcile this knowledge with their conscience and disposition towards life, the healthier their lives become as well as those of everyone around them, for obvious reasons.

And like the other anon said, if you lack empathy for the heterosexual male -- literally the (relevant) majority of the human species -- then you yourself are the real bigot.

>>24579802 (OP)
Never realized babies had such ugly feet

>>24580290
This is basically accurate to my internal mental state

>>24580290
Based Genevieve Cogman
>>24580347
Curiously, the only woman-centered fiction I have enjoyed were also low on Romance or the romance was portrayed as "wrong" somehow and stripped of sentiment

>>24580470
>I would genuinely prefer to live in a society where men gently grope and pester women than the sexless bullshit that zoomers seem intent on. Strangely, that seems leaps and bounds healthier.
You sound like you don't have a young daughter.
>>24581123
To men, maybe. Increasingly women are breaking away from the male gaze and they are becoming happier. Chastity is the default state of both sexes and the only path to enlightenment

>>24580290
>Just know it's why so many girls are trooning out and cutting off their tits these days.
Men have low empathy. They complain a lot about homos being shown in media and claim that its grooming but having to see your own sex as sexualized from a very early age fucks up girls just as much

>>24581506
the "male gaze" is objective reality or the will to power of the species, if you want to call it that
no one is ever breaking away from it, people are just becoming more sick and psychotic, as they do in effeminate/decadent periods
you are a textbook case of a low iq metaphysically self-castrating ideologue

>>24581555
I do not deny being an ideologue. But please do not call be decadent when you are literally ruled by the desires of the flesh. You don't care if you are making someone smaller than you uncomfortable when you are getting off you have a sadistic personality disorder.

>>24580290
Stop reading male authors then.
Broken glass goes on the ground doesn’t mean we will encase the earth in rubber for your safety. It means wear shoes, baka.

>>24581576
If your head wasn't full of progressivist spooks and you had even the barest genuine education you would know that the masculine principle (or the "male gaze" as it is reduced to in the freudian-lacanian pseudery) is the form of the species (species in the original sense, not just the darwinian). Women "breaking away" from men is just the female version of the troon phenomenon (this is called in the Bible as Jezebel, in case you think you're modern). Enablers like you are just a case of the scorpion and the frog.
>you are literally ruled by the desires of the flesh
>making someone smaller than you uncomfortable
All things in their place. Fear, anxiety, and self-abnegation are baser and more chaotic desires of the flesh than healthy, driving, ordering, doses of heterosexuality. A creature whose morality places the whims of women as its highest virtue is really at the pinnacle of decadence and sickliness.

>>24581600
>this is called in the Bible as Jezebel, in case you think you're modern
Jezebel painted her face to try to manipulate men by being sexier, and she killed poor people to try to appeal to a man she was sexually attracted to. She is an ancient personification of what lust does to a person, and the ultimate appeal to the male gaze

>>24581506
>You sound like you don't have a young daughter.
Do you know what young women are doing these days? Endlessly destroying their outlook in feminist communities, places like fauxmoi, or seeking attention through social media. A little dose of the ugly real world is healthier for them than any of the shit that moulded you.
As for your reply to the other guy, it's good you're lonely.

>>24581600
>A creature whose morality places the whims of women as its highest virtue is really at the pinnacle of decadence and sickliness.
Is a woman's desire to bodily autonomy and a chaste life style a whim? I understand condemning something like a OnlyFans girl earning money by showing pictures of her ass but why attack women who want adherence to ancient standards of virtue as a subversive element
If we go down that line of thinking we might as well let the homosexuals diddle little boys as well

>>24581602
The problem is the "male gaze" is not a thing, as I was implying, and, yes, you definitely get that interpretation if you backproject that nonsense onto any form of eternal wisdom. I believe they call it "doing violence to the text". But I'm not really bothered to go into this shit, so whatever.

>>24581607
>Do you know what young women are doing these days? Endlessly destroying their outlook in feminist communities, places like fauxmoi, or seeking attention through social media.
You sound chronically online. Most girls are not posting nudes online, and most of the sexless Zoomer girls identify as tradCaths and not as feminists.
>As for your reply to the other guy, it's good you're lonely.
Projection

>>24581621
Now you are playing word games. The "male gaze" is just a post-modern description of a lustful gaze

>>24580290
This is just an accurate description

>>24581619
The point you're missing is that female bodily autonomy (and any kind of female *autonomy* in general) and chastity (and the other virtues in general) are opposites. Virtue is pure masculine will. Virtuous women are called manly, in a positive sense, in older literature for a reason. I'm not saying chastity is bad; I was saying she's delusional about what virtue is in the first place.

>>24581625
I don't even know why you keep bringing up lust. I was obviously the guy saying "feminism bad", not "groping good", though I get what he's trying to imply. I have nothing against being chaste and virtuous in general.
Also, this is definitely a big leap
>"male gaze" is just a post-modern description of a lustful gaze

>>24581642
A male gaze is inherently a lustful one. A daughter will look upon her mother with a different eye than her father does, and I think she sees something less conductive to sin

>>24580290
>disgusting hag speculating about what she doesn't have and will never have
>yet she knows better
many such cases

>>24581515
>having to see your own sex as sexualized from a very early age fucks up girls just as much
wouldn't be if
1. they wouldn't be so self-obsessed
2. they would have been taken from their mothers at the age of 7-8 so she can't brain-wash them
3. didn't learn to read
solving at least 2. and 3. will make all their troubles and "fucked-upness" (your word) disappear... solving 1. is impossible of course

yet I am not an extremist, I'd be happy if they would be stripped of all their rights, like it was before the French Revolution
is that too much to ask?

>>24581651
>A male gaze is inherently a lustful one
and women are inherently infanticides, manipulators, and liars. No, I don't actually even believe that. But you see how this goes both ways? Your hateful anti-life nature is showing.

>>24581642
>The point you're missing is that female bodily autonomy (and any kind of female *autonomy* in general) and chastity (and the other virtues in general) are opposites. Virtue is pure masculine will. Virtuous women are called manly, in a positive sense, in older literature for a reason. I'm not saying chastity is bad; I was saying she's delusional about what virtue is in the first place.
Lol, shieldmaidens are called masculine, but virtuous women who fulfilled a female gender rule were never stripped of their femininity. There is no sense that the Virgin Mary or Diana, or the assorted female saints were thought of as less womanly because they were chaste, or as being controlled by men. Their chastity was portrayed as a radical breaking free, not just of men but of their physicality. It's ironically a feminist belief that proscribed chastity was a masculine oppression.

>>24581666
Because "womanliness" is actually the exact same thing as manliness in terms of fundamental virtue. In a roundabout way, we're all hecking humans. You just have to go about these things the right way, Mr Satan.

>>24581622
I didn't say posting nudees online. I said being influenced, even slightly, by the extremely conformist, puritanical, and afraid communities that culminate in fauxmoi as the most egregious example. But it's everywhere. If a woman is on social media, as almost every western woman is, they are being exposed to that kind of content relentlessly. This is why so many women now feel that an age gap between a 19 year old woman and a 22 year old man is predatory. It's likely what's fuelling your own hysteria.
>projection
You said the natural state of men and women is celibacy, which is the ultimate cope of the lonely.

>>24581661
>Claiming half the population is inherently infanticidal
>Naming someone else anti-life and hateful
Bro, if the world was as dismal as you believe then you wouldn't be alive. Women give birth to babies and then do 99% of the childcare; if they felt violent impulses towar kids our population would be considerably smaller
If you mean abortion, which I am typically against, don't treat men as blameless. Pick-up artists who teach youth to manipulate vulnerable women to have sex with them are literally a billion industry and somehow I doubt that all of them will step up to help raise the kid when the one night stand calls them holding a pregnancy test
Men literally drive the girls to the abortion clinic where the male doctor tears the baby out.

>>24581695
You can't even read, retard

>>24581681
>You said the natural state of men and women is celibacy, which is the ultimate cope of the lonely.
We are born celibate but that does not mean we are lonely. A five year old boy on the playground is the happiest he will be in some cases but he is hopefully celibate.
>>24581674
Then why label the male outlook alone as virtuous
>>24581698
I misread, but saying shit like this is pretty normal about women on this site. I still think you are being intellectually dishonest. A lot of the time when a woman is depicted sexually men will say things like "I miss this type of my gaze aimed content" which suggests they know what male gaze means in pop culture

>>24581695
These evil pickup artists that live in your head rent-free aren't even 1% the size of global progressivist thinktanks that craft your reality.

>>24581706
>Then why label the male outlook alone as virtuous
How fundamental universal concepts manifest on a particular level is very different in each case in terms of realpolitik. My point from the start has been that virtue manifests in female life through subordination (contextual not absolute) to the male, just as virtue manifests in the child through subordination (again contextual) to the parent. I don't think it's possible to easily explain this to someone who doesn't 'just get it' though.

>>24581706
Zoomer chastity is so obviously fake. Zoomers are not good or virtuous people in the slightest. They are some of the most hateful, shallow, and resentful generations of all time on every end of the political spectrum; they're extremely divided superficially, but virtually all of them have this in common. Zoomers hate sex because their only god is the destruction of everything human and differentiating and expressive for the sake of abstract and deeply anti-life ideological notions upholstered by their ever-shifting stemfag sophistries and dubious cults of expertise.

>>24581706
The male gaze is a good thing. You see it as rape, when it is actually the appreciation, celebration and support of the divine. You were made to be appreciated. If you take that to mean "you were made to be brutally raped," you're either too internet pilled or ugly and fat.

>>24580286
>as the birthrate declines
yeah nah

>>24579802 (OP)
Genuinely, Sincerely, I have no idea what you people are reading that this is even a thing.

>>24581661
Okay, so back to OP topic then. What are some books written by a male author that has men interacting with women from male pov that Doesn't have an inherently lustful gaze, because I agree that painting every man with the same brush is unfair, but at a certain point I can't help but wonder if I am giving the benefit of the doubt here. Again, OP is specifically asked for recs that provide the contrary. Is there a novel that resonates with your experience or relationship ideals, as a man, that provides a different perspective or does it just need to be (depressingly) accepted that the lens men filter women through is nigh universally: is woman fuckable?

>>24581792
>is woman fuckable?
This isn't lustful. It's an important objective part of a woman and describes almost everything about who she is in the world. You don't even understand what lust is, evidently. There is nothing inherently lustful about being a sexual object, the main object of attraction to men, which a woman is. God made it that way. Lust is to act in a lecherous - and destructively lecherous - manner.

Anyway, I can just tell you off the cuff that classical literature is not for everybody, it won't ever jive with your zoomer sensibilities. Even good women writers describe women "that way" to an extent.

>>24581717
I do think woman needs to be subordinate to me to be good.
It may in fact be that subordination is inherently an evil impulse no matter the context. It seems to have caused quite a lot of evil
>>24581725
Zoomers are in their early twenties and teens. It's an innocent enough age, and the adult generations projecting evil onto youth just show their own anxiety about getting older. It's the same way every generation, the kids ain't right no matter what they do. If they sleep around they are degenerate, if they don't they are prudish and hate life. Leftists bitch they are too right-wing and right-wingers bitch they are too left-wing. The zoomer is an annoying creature due to his youthful immaturity, but in the eye on him he can't win

>>24581738
>You see it as rape, when it is actually the appreciation, celebration and support of the divine. You were made to be appreciated. If you take that to mean "you were made to be brutally raped," you're either too internet pilled or ugly and fat.
I am thirty-seven year old Chinese man who teaches theology...

>>24581738
This is what I always say to young men as an old faggot but for some reason they always act like I am gross. It's not like I am planning to rape them if I admire their arse, I am just enjoying the view

>>24582043
Zoomers are nearing thirties.

>>24582058
That’s just faggotry

>>24581738
The Bible says looking at a woman with lust in mind is equal to having fornicated
>>24582087
Zoomers are the twenties gen, the 29 year olds are younger Millennial
Older zoom-zooms are sometimes in their mid-twenties

>>24579802 (OP)
Why is the MenWritingWomen subreddit invading /lit/?

>>24582087
Faggotry is subjective, to a woman MenWritingWomen sounds like faggotry
Also its not gay if the bottom's beardless

>>24579802 (OP)
still new to this board but some of the shit that i see not being banned is insane. Trolling and good humor is one thing but many one sentence OP's and low effort posts that you wouldnt think would fly on a slower board like this.

>>24580151
>And women, who can only write one fucking guy - rich and tall with hypertrophied muscles and a chiseled jaw and piercing eyes and whose violent as a nigger Jeet - somehow are better? Hate men as much as you want, but at least male writers try to give some depth to women in their fiction instead of writing borderline BDSM abuse erotica about getting railed by a muscular handsome and violent rich guy who is identical to the handsome and violent rich guy written 10 years ago who is in turn identical to the handsome and violent rich guy written 50 years ago.
The chiselled tall billionaire is the equivelent of the 25 year old beauty with boobs bigger than her head. The equivalent of OP's complaint is probably authors like Wen Spencer, who described a fifteen year old boy being raped by an adult

Adding a detailed physical description of the 20 year old girl in my novel because of this thread

>>24582117
Katherine Valente included a description of a thirteen year old boy getting raped by her self-insert. She's a good writer but she's the GRRM of girls

>>24582120
make an hmv

>>24582098
>Faggotry is subjective
sodomy is not thoughbeit

>>24582092
>with lust in mind
lust =/= desire

>>24581833
>how a girl's breasts developed is an important objective part of a woman and describes almost everything about who she is in the world
okay

>>24579802 (OP)
Okay, its true OP. Men sometimes write about women in a sexual fashion. Alert the media, bro. But women do worse to men. Look at the countless legions of shirtless, jacked, steroid long haired romance book covers. Its so bad, there's a trope called "dude, where's my shirt". Women writers sexualize men shamelessly in their romances. Why is it so *ooh* creepy for men to do it? But oh-so-wonderful when women do the exact same thing. Sounds like a double standard, to me.
TL;DR How about OP STFU and let everyone, men and women? Write whatever the fuck they want.
What a fag. Dear diary? Today OP was a gigantic faggot.

>>24580204
>>Can I read one fucking book without hearing about how a teenager's shirt "hugs her breasts" or what
>How is this
>>She was a stupid dumb bitch with a dumb look on her stupid dumb bitch face
>Is that better OP?
>
uh, keep going?
I might enjoy this...
kek

>>24582387
it is genuinely more descriptive of you whether you're a flattie or a titcow than whether you have a master's degree or an associates
all the old writers were keyed in on this
seethe foid.

>>24582522
woman do Not do worse than men on this front are you kidding me... yes if you look at porn you're going to get porn. we are talking about stories that are not intended to be porn, but not matter the context guys just can't even imagine looking at any female without immediately evaluating their fuckability lol.

>>24582117
I've met thousands of 25 year old beauties with big boobs in my life. I have yet to meet a single hundred millionaire.

>>24582536
i like how your brain just immediately went to whatever tiktok whores you're seething about. if all that matters to men is how sexy is woman and everything is filtered through that lens, then don't be mad when someone points out how shallow that is.

>>24582581
>guys just can't even imagine looking at any female without immediately evaluating their fuckability
I promise you you really, really don't want to live in a world where this is the norm.

>>24579802 (OP)
Her breasts were like tentacles comprised of wild rape happy hungry weasils, spilling over each other in a rancid mass of attempt to fuck and murder, shuddering at her blouse's white front with blood and spittle.

>>24579802 (OP)
So stop reading femgooner slop about young women having sex? Classic literature doesn't have this problem.

>>24580290
HOT

Because it's hot, duh? What kind of question is this.

Now that I think about it, which books have the best "she breasted towards him boobily" writing? It feels like something that should be more common than it actually is, outside erotica.