/lit/ - Literature

>>16874236

> lesbian philosophy

The fuck is that?

>>16874236
My Diary (Desu)

>>16874310
>GIRL POWER

>>16874310
I'm mainly interested in the ontology of lesbianism, rather than its political significance. The existential and aesthetic dimensions.

>>16874236
A few minutes ago there was a lesbian thread on /tv/ with webms and it has made me detest lesbians. I now feel like I was once the American public that accepted homosexuality, without knowing that it involved gay sex. Knowing what lesbians do... it's disgusting and wrong.

>>16874405
>ontology of lesbianism,
mmmm vagina me liek vagooo

>>16874405
>ontology of lesbianism

But the fuck is that supposed to be?
Why the fuck would preferences in genital interactions be part of any ontology?

>>16874445
Ontology of lesbianism: Do vaginas exist? Yes.
Here, I just solved it for you.

>>16874449
>Do vaginas exist? Yes

That is a bold position. Perhaps Vaginas is the *only* thing to exist? But then, if it is the only thing, how can it be specifically a vagina?

Epistemology of the Closet, Updated with a New Preface

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's critically acclaimed Epistemology of the Closet. Working from classic texts of European and American writers—including Melville, James, Nietzsche, Proust, and Wilde—Sedgwick analyzes a turn-of-the-century historical moment in which sexual orientation became as important a demarcation of personhood as gender had been for centuries. In her preface to this updated edition Sedgwick places the book both personally and historically, looking specifically at the horror of the first wave of the AIDS epidemic and its influence on the text.

>>16874463
You see, I subscribe to Quine's extensional ontology. Vagos are objects to which a variable of first-order logic could extend, so they exist. But there are other objects, namely diks (ewww) that variables could potentially range over. So the question is: should we give ontological priority to vagos? Diks are so eww that might want to exclude them from the domain of our variables.

>>16874486
>historical moment in which sexual orientation became as important a demarcation of personhood as gender had been for centuries

We must go baaaaaack.

>>16874516
Funny thing is gayness was more or less accepted in all of Ancient Rome and Greece

>>16874526
How did they turn out again?

>>16874513

You clearly did not practice your vaginal reduction far enough. Initially the only residue should be sense-data of vagoos, but if you take it further and obtain direct access to the vaginal transcendental field of experience, you will be confronted with nothing but direct access to vagoos.
Also, objectivity is constituted intersubjectively through scissoring.

>>16874547
They were the mightiest society on earth for 1000 years. Why?

i picked this up from the library but haven't started it yet

>>16874557
>>16874547
>>16874526

Going way over your heads, isn't it?
Genitals are made to be used, not thought about for hours on end as if it was a vocation. Actual dick-sucking pederast from Ancient Greece are infinitely less gay than the current bred of cunts who write essays about their poor genitals but never get to use them.

>>16874551
I am aware of that, but the problem is the translation of a vagoo sense-datum to a physical object (and the converse) is a non-trivial task. Others have tried and failed, so I simply succumb to vagoo physicalism. If then, we take vagoos as objects that our variables range over, then we could define a 2-ary predicate S to describe scissoring in the following way: (∃x)(∃y)(Sxy).

lesbian theory? a bitch prefers to eat out another bitch instead of take a dick. the end. what else is there to talk about?

>>16874579
I agree.

>>16874603

But how do you deal with the (non) finitude of vagoos, that is, that you can never exhaust the number of variables assigned (potentially or really) to the vagoo?

>>16874653
Very simply. We define our domain as the set of all vagoos in existence. Though the number of vagoos could be potentially infinite, this does not concern us since we would have a set of infinite vagoos. But saying this, I noticed a flaw in my scissoring predicate. In the case x and y refer to the same vagoo, we would have one vagoo scissoring itself, which is nonsensical. So I propose this revised definition instead: (∃x)(∃y)(Sxy & ~(x = y))

>>16874236
Butterfly in 3, 2, 1....

>>16874726
Butters has been gone for a day or so. It's been nice.

>>16874927
Out of all the tripfags though, she's probably the most bearable. At least leags above ALL CAPS GUY

>>16874927
I’ve been at work.
Listening to Jimmy Dore atm. Will be reading thread in more detail soon.

>philosophy
Luce Irigaray? Or is she just feminism?

>>16874486
This looks like what OP wanted. Interesting.

>>16874547
Stabbed to death by a middle eastern cult of death worshipers

>>16874573
Damn. Thank you, anon. This looks like a better version of Gilman’s Herland


>>16874433
It’s beautiful and right to love. It’s disgusting and wrong to be spitefully jealous, unjustifiably self righteous and possessive of others for being the sex you desire. Go find a girlfriend of your own. Leave my tribe alone

>>16875454
>It’s beautiful and right to love. It’s disgusting and wrong to be spitefully jealous, unjustifiably self righteous and possessive of others for being the sex you desire. Go find a girlfriend of your own. Leave my tribe alone
Fuck off you ugly whore, just because someone finds homosexuality disgusting (for right reasons) does not mean they're some kind of self-righteous or secretly hypocritical "le incel".

It's amazing how morons such as yourself champion people like Nietzsche as geniuses but totally ignore everything that would classify him as an "incel reactionary moron" in your typical book.

Women are truly incapable of thinking outside of social cliches. What do you do when you disagree with me? You attempt to lower my sexual status under the passive-aggressive guise of advice. No wonder you never had a boyfriend.

>>16875454
>It’s beautiful and right to love. It’s disgusting and wrong to be spitefully jealous, unjustifiably self righteous and possessive of others for being the sex you desire. Go find a girlfriend of your own. Leave my tribe alone
>Leave my tribe alone
>my tribe
neck yourself you disgusting troon, you will never be a real woman

>>16875454
>Leave my tribe alone
idpol trash

>>16875504
First line is trash-speak and wrong. It’s none of fucking business who loves who
Second line is just wrong. I make no gurus of any philosopher. Your daddy issues are showing.

Third line is impressively worse the the rest. I make enemies here by thinking outside social cliches.
If calling you out lowers your “sexual status” that isn’t my fault. Get better, kid.
Gtfo of this thread already. You’re gonna pop a blood vessel

>>16875521
Oh pardon me. I do have as many issues with them as I might with you nitwits from pol9k.
I’ve no love lost on IDpol like your rightwing IDpol
You’re off topic from the thread btw

>>16875567
lmao look at this tranny rage

>>16875516
>>16875504
You people are so much more cringe than some lesbian saying she likes being women.
What even are you people? Christfags? Loners?

If christfags have you ever considered John the Baptist and Jesus Christs friendship as a little on the homoerotic side?

>>16875652
pretty sure that they were cousins, anon

>>16875660
These are some examples of historical thought on the matter. Cousins in the ancient era couldve been fairly removed, jesus also called him brother and even son. Maybe Jesus was just hip to ebonics.


Saint Aelred of Rievaulx, in his work De spiritali amicitia ("Spiritual Friendship"), referred to the relationship of Jesus and John the Apostle as a "marriage" and held it out as an example sanctioning friendships between clerics.[8]

James I of England may have been relying on a pre-existing tradition when he defended his relationship with the young Duke of Buckingham: "I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his son John, and I have my George."[9] Frederick the Great wrote to similar effect in his 1748/9 poem Palladium, which includes the lines: "This good Jesus, how do you think/He got John to sleep in his bed?/Can't you see he was his Ganymede?"[10]

>>16875557
>First line is trash-speak and wrong. It’s none of fucking business who loves who
If I believe in any moral truth it is, after all, homosexuality can never be "love" in the proper romantic sense. As Plato saw, it's above all a chase after pleasure, and a denial of all moral imperative and, to use the so fearful word for moderns, "duty".

>I make no gurus of any philosopher.
Yet you jump at any chance you can to claim him as proving your ideas or some such. Why even include him in a chart if he's only going to be with oppositional figures like Stirner and Epicurus?

>Your daddy issues are showing.
That's keen for someone with Christian mummy issues.

>I make enemies here by thinking outside social cliches.
And instead go over to the social cliches of the masses. At least the cliches here started out as a systematic reaction to that mass falsity.

>If calling you out lowers your “sexual status” that isn’t my fault. Get better, kid.
Lmao, you're so un-thinking. It's unironically in your instincts to devalue a man by how you value men above all, their sexual status. Whether or not you can't choose you sexual persuasion, you cannot remove your genes as a woman which respond and see men in a particular way.

>Gtfo of this thread already. You’re gonna pop a blood vessel
Hey baby, how bout I pop your hymen?

>>16875454
Lesbians aren't real, but you already knew that

>>16875652
>it's the anon who calls Jesus a homosexual because he hugged other men
>it's the "I'm not a homosexual but everyone has every right to love whoever they want" anon
Of course, you aren't a homosexual anon.

Who hurt you? Why do you lack a spine? Why are you simping not just for a woman, but butterfly of all women?

>>16874236
All lesbians are faking it for attention from a man.

>>16875696
If this were true
Heterosexuals aren’t either and the bisexual hypothesis is correct.

>>16875700
We’re not trying to have one of your threads here, anon.

>>16875708
NO.
You confuse pornos with real life, anon. Stop that.

>>16875726
>it's the *woman totally thinks she knows what pornos are and what men are into but is totally off base

>>16875721
You have a childish understanding of sex and human relationships.

I recommend you make up with your mother before its too late, getting rid of all of those complexes might even make it easier to find a boyfriend

>>16874236
The act of sex cannot occur without a man.

>>16875726
>It's a tranny thinks they're a real woman episode
Loving every Laugh

>>16875743
You meant to link to >>16875728


No, seriously baseless claims. Take a hike.

>>16875700
Because you're pointlessly derailing the thread. Also I'm bisexual and relate to what she posted. To top things off its fun for me to defend the things you hate. Probably never wouldve admitted my bisexuality to the world if I didnt despise you dogmatic hypocritical ideologues so damn badly.

>homosexuality is wrong.

Treating people like shit for existing even when they don't effect you whatsoever is wrong you insufferable moth.

>>16875752
Leave.

>/lesbian lit/
>preferably lesbian theory/philosophy, but fiction and poetry is also appreciated.

>>16875708
>I have come to the realization that no lesbian is 100% lesbian. The closest ones to that, in my experience, are the ones who went through some type of trauma during their childhood due to a man. Even then, most lesbians imitate men by dressing like them, having their hair cut like them and acting like them. As they say, there is no better form of flattery than imitation.
>On top of this, they seek women who either imitate the male archetype either physically (looks) or emotionally (high risk seekers). I need not mention the sex toys they use to simulate the sexual experience one would have with men.
>Even I succumbed to the male charm a few times in my life.

- Paglia

>>16875759
>for existing
Fuck off. Homosexuality is a behavior.

>>16875795
That behavior does what to you? Makes you seethe? Haha sounds like more of a problem with you desu.

>>16875803
Nice attempt at wit. What does my disapproval of your behavior do to you?

Butterfly there is a guy on fa about the same age as you named Cecil. I think you two would make a cute couple.

>>16875752
Look at that jaw holy shit

>>16875759
>Treating people like shit for existing even when they don't effect you whatsoever is wrong you insufferable moth.
I don't hate the sinner necessarily (in this case), but I do hate the sin.

How am I treating anyone like shit? If something is public and flaunted, and I think it is a moral sin, and a moral evil, then I should do everything I can to supress and punish it.

It's like you people haven't even read Plato.

>>16875812
Not shit. I could give a fuck less what you dissaprove of, it's your retarded screeching, thread derailment, and vile personal attacks that make me despise and pity you in the same thought.

>>16875785
Again, if this were true, heterosexuality isn’t real either.

>>16875821
I'm a different anon you boor. You are the one seething here.

>>16875817
You're no judge, you're no man of consequence. Your action is pointlessly screeching across frequencies and making shitty pixels appear briefly on anothers screen. I doubt Plato wouldve justified your incredibly silly and shallow actions. Also, Plato being the curious type may well have had a change of heart after the 2000 years of scientific and philosophical development of the world you pure imbecile.

>>16875830
You smell the same. Don't mistake my casual bemusement as seething, I'm far from enraged. I'm frustrated like a father who's child keeps turning her head while he tries to feed her.

>>16875785
Based so bisexuality is the only real orientation. Who'dve thunk.

>>16875846
You smell full of shit. It is unlikely that youre bemused based on your descriptions of the other anon.

>>16875864
I appologize maybe I should shitpost in a less offensive way to avoid hurting the feelings of you strangers. I forget sometimes that you guys are real people as well. I just don't understand why people immediately attack someone who has no bearing on their material reality simply for commenting on topic in thread. It smacks of a desperation to tear specifically her down. They or you weren't attacking anyone else in the damn thread.

>>16875827
Baseless claim

>>16874236
i mean if you're really interested you can just check /u/ there tends to be a /lit/ thread in there every once in a while. good reads if you can scroll through the porn

>>16874236
https://www.audible.com.au/pd/After-Midnight-Audiobook/B00FO1KTLA

https://www.audible.com.au/pd/Whole-Lesbian-Sex-Stories-Erotica-for-Women-Audiobook/B00JWZ0IU6