/lit/ - Literature

>>21983040
>AI
SRRT. Thread hidden.

>>21983040
Why do women want people looking at them?

>>21983800
confirms their market value and hers is VERY high

>be me
>get stared at by women all the time
>not enough self esteem to realise why
>get gf
>it's stressful and annoying
>women stop looking so much
>dump gf
>visibly glowing due to shedding burden
>chicks stopping me in the street to ask if I'm an "influencer" or what my "socials" are

I'm 35 years old WTF is going on.

>>21983040
very cute and elegant
why are there so few women like her?

>Dress in a pointedly anachronistic fashion
>there's a camera guy filming you and drawing additional attention
>normies react to this
>???????
>RW retards: WOAW SO MUCH BEAUTY WE MUST RETVRN

>>21983040
this lady makes people seethe so much on tiktok

>>21983040
Of course. We as humans already love "handcrafted" shit as compared to anything highly manufactured. Same applies to art.

>>21984742
Really, are TikToker that insecure??

If so, she's based in my book.

>>21984760
Yeah the women on tiktok hate this chick so much for being pretty. A lot of comments like this >>21984736 which she will reply to with another video in normal clothes still getting lots of looks. Funny because there is a man who does similar video walking around in a suit and nobody says anything mean to him.
I like watching her videos and seeing the reaction of all the ugly beat down fat women she mercilessly mogs.

hopefully by 2025 no one will write for the purpose of entertainment anymore all the slop on netflix etc. will be AI-generated
at that point only those with something to say will write, those who need writing as a medium to channel and refine their thoughts and emotions
regarding >>21984743
people who want ""handcrafted" shit" should be put down

>>21984736
>>RW retards: WOAW SO MUCH BEAUTY WE MUST RETVRN
Nobody said this

>>21984971
Well you know how it is. Women oppress women the most. We live in a matriarchy after all

>>21985038
Literally every BAPtard has said this

>>21985027
>at that point only those with something to say will write
I guess you won't be writing anything. Also stop pretending that AI is going to outpass humans. What are you, a scifi autist?

>>21985048
Nobody said this. You are just weirdly jealous like that anon says.

>>21983040
The "AI" we have now cannot write a book without human input
Once real artificial intelligence emerges however its probably over in more ways than one

>>21984971
It's bad. Women should praise elegance. Dojacat, Nicki Minaj, Britney Spears... women who's raunchy gets praise....

I don't get this.

>>21985076
>I don't get this
It's just American nigger worship, simple as

>>21985049
think of most great works of philosophy, many of the great works of literature, they were written and are great today because the people who wrote them felt compelled to develop and share their ideas
nietzsche wouldn't have written anything if his goal was to get people to watch a show on netflix, but most things today are written almost exclusively to create that type of engagement
once AI does what effectivly amounts to background noise those who want can focus on living true

>>21984486

Because she wore a hat?

>>21985090
even with the hat i would still have sex with her if you know what i mean

>>21984971

She's beautiful but there are women this beautiful everywhere. If they would all dress like this society would be a better place and men would work harder, great books would be written.

>>21985055
If "nobody said this", why is this video here? How would OP know about it to use it as bait?

>>21985093

I would buy the hat and sniff it when I think about how I can't have sex with her.

>>21985090
Not him, but the hat is doing most of the work. Notice most male eye lines are going to her head. The bit I find funny is some women are clearly not jelly because they've worked out her shoes don't fit.
While this isn't the most extreme manifestation of it, part of what makes females attractive is displaying the amount of effort, inconvenience, and pain they are willing to go through for appearance sake.
I can't tell from the back but it looks like in general she's also using obliviousness, which is another attractive female trait. Part of what makes women seem mysterious and therefore attractive is both lack of interest and lack of awareness. Being overdressed is a minor part of this, but even if she's smiling at everyone who looks at her as she does from the front, her head is not inclined in their direction like theirs incline in hers to maintain visual contact. For most people, if you reacted in kind to each look in your direction, the same walk seems paranoid, but by acting oblivious to others noticing your presence it emphasises her ability to ignore shit going on around her, just like ignoring fashion does.

>>21984500
>I'm 35 years old WTF is going on.
Bros we're all gonna MAKE IT

>>21985485

That's quite an astute observation, I couldn't argue with you.

>>21983040
>Everyone walking around in jackets
>woman walks around in slutty little dress
Woah! Look at all the attention she’s getting

>>21983040
No one will be relevant for anything.

>>21983800
Women are massive perverts who are extremely addicted to themselves.
They are the absolute epitome of the deadly sin of Pride.

>>21985082
Americans are actively disgusted by this. The (((media))) desperately wants them not to be.

>>21985537
This.

>>21983040
Shouldn't this be on /fa/? I just assumed the point was to show how your style contributes a large part to how you're perceived.

>>21985537
>slutty
What's slutty about it? Her skirt goes past the knees, the neckline doesn't show any cleavag. Pic rel is a slutty dress

>>21984703
>tfw 80 years ago all women looked and dressed like her
>tfw beauty is now a scarcity

>>21986609
I can't believe this was lost

>>21983040
Bunch of prudish incels itt.

>>21986609
Honestly modern women are way hotter thicker with nice assess and way better fashion and makeup

>relevant
what a sick dr thomas murray themed thread, OP

>>21986707
Here's your better fashion and makeup, bro.

>>21986707
elegance and subtlety is much more attractive than vulgarity

>>21986775
I have seen this in person hundreds of times and is why I’m happier reading at home.

>>21986577
Not him, but that dress is cut above the knee, and it's designed to emphasise waist to hip ratio, and its neckline is designed to hint at lingerie (she can't wear a standard strapped bra with it, and the trim at the bust is to suggest lingerie appearing from beneath). There is a reason the guy in the suit looks at her like he's familiar with her hourly rate because it's sexy with the plausible deniability of being a hooker if in a high class establishment.
The same idea of you can't wear a normal bra with that applies to your pic, but OP's video would not be asked to leave the hotel lobby or restaurant as a dress code violation.

>>21986794
You think you have it bad?! I live in Nebraska and there are no women around

>>21986794

She can actually be pretty funny and a good friend to help you meet other girls and will fuck you if you're desperate.

>>21986798
>dress is cut above the knee
Try again.

>>21986798
>that dress is cut above the knee
It is not.
>it's designed to emphasise waist to hip ratio
Because it's tight around the hips? So is a mummy's graveclothes. But I wouldn't call a mummy a slut.
>its neckline is designed to hint at lingerie (she can't wear a standard strapped bra with it
There are bras that aren't strapped, and aren't lingerie
>There is a reason the guy in the suit looks at her like he's familiar with her hourly rate
Because some men are disgusting pigs who will ogle and catcall anyone
>it's sexy with the plausible deniability of being a hooker
The question isn't if it is sexy, but if it is slutty. My wife can be sexy, but she is not a slut.

>Not one person showing all this alleged seethe from other fems

I’m hijacking this thread to ask some real nigga questions: let’s say someone is able write a decent 100 pages erotic book in about two weeks through the use of AI and careful editing. Would that make some money or just be a waste of time? I’m broke and the job market around here is shit, plz help

>>21986905
What did he mean by this?

>>21986909
Why does it have to be erotic? Why not another Dostoevsky?

>>21986926
Because erotica sells well and is very easy to write. Fifty Shades began as some generic Twilight’s erotic fanfic. Don’t get me wrong, I still wanna write decent shit, but having no money is driving me insane 24/7 and I can’t focus on anything besides it.

>>21985485
>>21986798
based /fa/ autist

>>21985485
>>21986798
>>21986941
samefag

>>21986938

I wrote vanilla erotica. Hetero, cis, dubcon (rape). Didn't sell more than a few copies. If you want it to sell it needs to be niche fetish stuff that I personally can't stomach writing.

>>21987024
Fuck. There must be a way for a regular guy to make some money with ai. It’s still in the stage where 90% of people think about it in terms of “Grug doesn’t understand/is scared/think it’s a trick” and that’s the part where opportunity flourishes.

>>21987062

Yeah, it's called using it to write smartphone apps. For which you still need to know a little, but not too much, programming. Anything you need to know can be looked up as a Youtube tutorial on a case by case basis.

>>21986917
I mean I want to seem the goddamn women seethe!

>>21987227

They are all right though...

>>21984742
who

>>21983040
The Old Boomer Man are BASED COOMERS

>>21985100
>>21984736
>T. Ugly Left Tard that hates white ppl

>>21987227
whos the cutie?

>>21985099
Agreed but they cant just dress the part, they have to act the part
If he only difference was that modern women would dress like this but still act like they do today, nothing would change

>>21986707
N

>>21986827
Yes it’s vented in back to allow ease of movement, but you can see in the front facing shots it is above the knee. I'd concede to knee length at most, but it is not below the knee. It's falling above the knee certainly in the front shots, but I don't think it's actually cut at the knee (at least not her knee)
>>21986856
>>21986856
>It is not.
See above. It’s certainly not below the knee as >>21986577
>past the knees
claims. I think it's at the knee at best, but then the model it's made for has it hang lower because it doesn't look at the knee in front shots.
>>21986856
>Because it's tight around the hips? S
Because that's literally what a fit and flare princess seamed sheath dress is meant to emphasise. It's a type of bodycon FFS. The point of the dress is to show off curves, so the seams in back slim her shoulders and waist, while the seams in front emphasise the bust, both by darting back to the arm really low, to give the illusion of more space there (and balance the wide open neckline) and to further emphasise it, there's the trim to suggest lingerie.
>There are bras that aren't strapped,
Precisely to create the illusion of not wearing one. They are not sexy things at all, neither are nipple patches and tape, but they are underclothes which create the sexy suggestion of no bra, just like every anti vpl underwear is selling the suggestion of no panties. That's why they exist. That is their selling point, to create the illusion of being naked underneath. The trim specifically is to suggest lingerie.
>Because some men are disgusting pigs who will ogle and catcall anyone
He didn't do either of these things. He looks at her like she takes herself to sit at the hotel bar, because that's what she's dressed as.
>The question isn't if it is sexy, but if it is slutty. My
It's definitely open to being propositioned and displaying minimum entry prices for it if it sits alone at bar, yeah.

>>21987648
What an autistic post.
>The point of the dress is to show off curves
That doesn't make her a slut
>to create the illusion of being naked underneath
Everyone is naked underneath their clothes, moron
>He looks at her like she takes herself to sit at the hotel bar
That doesn't make her a slut
>It's definitely open to being propositioned and displaying minimum entry prices for it
Imagine being so addicted to porn that you think anyone's a prostitute.

>>21987648
I'll add it's not flaring much on her, but I think she is wearing it tighter and higher on the hips than it was designed

>>21987278
Found the wine aunt

>>21987676
It's a type of dress where most women won't wear them because they're designed to show off all the goods. Bodycons are visual shorthand for sluts and nightclubs.
>Everyone is naked underneath their clothes, moron
>This cope because I made you Google what that illusion looks like underneath
It's like a Cronenberg movie prop right? Lol
>>21987676
>That doesn't make her a slut
No, I'm saying she's dressed as a cash for sex whore of the upper class variety. If you don't think fucking for money is slutty, cool.
>you think anyone's a prostitute.
No, there are plenty of other dresses she could wear alone at a hotel bar and be thought a lonely tourist or overworked business lady, but that dress in particular is not for a date, at least not the unpaid in full and in advance for kind.
I don't think you understand some clothes are specifically designed to be sexy and this is one of them. It's also designed to be sexy in a way that says you're allowed into moneyed spaces. It is quietly flaunting the rules of modesty for religion, politics or business, and that doesn't leave you many contexts where it's applicable besides advertising your sexual body, especially not in that shade lol
Whose funeral are you going to with an above the knee dress? lol

It’s amazing how the fashion autist is clearly the only guy on the entire thread who knows shit about clothes and people still insist on debating him.
>>21987676
Are you a woman or a tradlarper?

In my mind, yes. An AI will never understand; it just parrots. It doesn't experience human life and it's pains and joys. Even if an AI can convincingly write as though it knew, I believe the authenticity granted to a text by a sincere human writer will always have more value.

>>21987711
Found the angry left-tard amerimutt democrat that vents his anger on /pol/

>>21987742
lmao. Imagine thinking fashion tards are relevant today.

>>21983040
She should wear Victorian Era Clothing. not this cringe clothing from the 1900s

>>21987687
Rice cooking is for pedophiles in denial

>>21987711
>It's a type of dress where most women won't wear
Because most women are too fat, not because they're too modest.
>I'm saying she's dressed as a cash for sex whore of the upper class variety
>that dress in particular is not for a date.
Because her skirt is above her knee? But that's clearly not true.
>I don't think you understand some clothes are specifically designed to be sexy
I do understand that, but this is not one of them.
>contexts where it's applicable
Who cares about contexts? I care about the thing itself.
>an above the knee dress
It's below the knee.

>>21987711
>>21987742
samefag

>>21986707
shalom

>>21987887
>Because most women are too fat, not because they're too modest
Lol, no. Fat women wear these to be slutty all the time the problem is that there's only so much structuring can do for your form. It can do a lot for your form though: the purpose of these dresses is to create an illusion of an even greater hip to wais ratio and balance out your chest. They're always immodest dresses because they are designed to be a flex, and they're not limited to non fat sizes. It'll give a skinny beanpole girl hips and tits because of the structure and anyone generally a more hourglass dress. You are right though in one respect, she's wearing it to flex.
>Because her skirt is above her knee? But that's clearly not true.
It's more than this and you know it is because I've repeatedly explained it's not just above the knee. The only reason I had to point out it's above the knee is because you blind retards kept claiming it was cut below the knee when it's clearly fucking not.
>I do understand that, but this is not one of them.
You're not going to get above the knee bodycons declared nuns habits, anon.
>Who cares about contexts? I care about the thing itself.
You clearly don't because you don't know what type of dress it is, where its hemline falls, and you don't care to know the sexy connotation or contexts of the dress. You care about some fantasy of the women who is wearing, whereby you think nobody else reads that dress as sexy and she's the only woman in the world to own it. You don't even care who the neckline is a cheeky nod to or what historical period it riffs on. You care nothing about the dress and want to deny it's much greater reach in design history than this woman because you'd prefer to treat the woman as ignorant of those well known signals too. She isn't as dumb as you about these things because almost no women are.
>>an above the knee dress
>It's below the knee.
You're blind and it's on tape for anyone who wants to check.

>>21985048
wtf is a baptard go outside incel

>>21987931
Lots of typos. Anon probably isn't going to notice though since he didn't notice the dress is above the knee lol

>>21983040
Sure but...

Only if we can create truly generative A.I

>>21987931
>It's a type of dress where most women won't wear them
>women wear these to be slutty all the time
Which one is it? Don't contradict yourself.
>the purpose of these dresses
>they are designed to be
>connotation or contexts
>is a cheeky nod to
>what historical period it riffs on
>it's much greater reach in design history
>signals
All these are but subtle deceits, not actually inherent in substances, but only laid on from without. A thing is only itself.
>You're not going to get above the knee bodycons declared nuns habits,
Did I claim they will?
>You care nothing about the dress
It is you who cares nothing about the dress. You study fashion history, and you forget the present. You ask for the intention, and you ignore the action. You look at signals, but you don't look at the thing itself. You're like Walt Whitman's Learn'd Astronomer, while I look up in perfect silence at the stars.
>it's above the knees
It's below the knees.

>>21983040
This thread is pure cringe. Lots of anons itt who can’t even get pussy from a girl showing skin. Or probably any girl for that matter, even easy ones. That’s why they hate them

>>21987931
>>21988120
samefag

>>21988096
>Which one is it? Don't contradict yourself.
If you think it's a contradiction that most women won't wear them and those that do are doing it to be slutty, that's a problem you have with your own stupidity.
>All these are but subtle deceits, not actually inherent in substances, but only laid on from without. A thing is only itself
This retarded cope isn't going to stop that girl or the majority of women you ever meet knowing what a bodycon is and why you wear it.
>Did I claim they will?
Well it carries with the trend of you avoiding basic realities, like the skirt being above the knee.
>It is you who cares nothing about the dress
Nope.
>You study fashion history, and you forget the present
Swing and total miss, you're proving my point you know nothing about contemporary fashion. You could have got that one reference and I'd give you props, but you're not even able to bluff your way through this conversation. Again, the girl in OP is not as dumb as you about this shit. You're more retarded than women who only read fashion rags and tiktok lol
>It's below the knees.
Everyone can see even without clicking on the thumbnail that it's not and you're coping so hard over this you had a stroke about Whitman lol

>>21988121
Nope. I don’t do green text every sentence and reply style

>>21984500
Are those girls in the room with you now anon?

>>21984500
Your mother and grandmother don't count.

>>21983040
i think she looks wonderful although camera angles and actors in the background make it a bit try hard

>>21988240
>you don't think fucking for money is slutty
Having sex for money would make her a prostitute and not a slut. A slut does it for free.
>If you think it's a contradiction that most women won't wear them and those that do are doing it to be slutty
The contradiction is in you saying that most women won't wear them, and that women wear them all the time. How can it be all the time when it's mostly not?
>This retarded cope
So you think Herman Melville is retarded? Go write a novel better than Moby-Dick.
>knowing what a bodycon is
I know what it is. But that doesn't make the dress in OP slutty.
>Well it carries with the trend of you
How is it fair for you to judge me on things I never said?
>you know nothing about contemporary fashion
I didn't say 'contemporary', I said 'present'. How can you know anything about the present, when the present is changing every second?
>You could have got that one reference
So you're telling me that whether or not the girl's a slut depends on some obscure factoid.
>I'd give you props
I don't need your props.
>you're not even able to bluff
I don't need to bluff when I'm right.
>you had a stroke about Whitman
Walt Whitman is a great poet.
>lol
I bet you didn't even actually laugh out loud, you liar. Why should I listen to a liar?
>it's not
It is below the knees.