new /lit/ rule? no porn pics please?

[Anonymous No.14663978]

Definition of pornography
1: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2: material (such as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement


the frequent use of porno for thread pics taints my more pure intentions for intellectual stimulation with sexual vibes. i don't want that. i know other people don't want that. it seems antithetical to what i believe is the better purpose /lit/ is destined for. i think it muddies the waters. i think it helps maintain a minimum level of infant-like maturity on this board. the blood seeps away from the brain and into the penis, and discussion then suffers.

I know it is probably a radical idea. I think there should be a rule to ban these thread pics.

[MKULTRA CHAD: Default Whitman,(...) No.14663998]

posting in epic complaint porn thread

[Anonymous No.14664034]

>>14663978
I agree with this. Mods adopt this rule.

[Anonymous No.14664053]

3. No newfag memes (peepee le frog, epic reddit man)
4. No /pol/newfags in general (will also get rid of eceleb threads by consequence)

[Anonymous No.14664066]

>>14663978
reddit already does this, maybe go back there?

[Anonymous No.14664093]

I want explicit carte blanche to report these threads on sight immediately, and not fear my own banning as a result. And I want to know the mods are in agreement, so that the removal requests will be granted.

I want a sticky outlining this new rule, so that /lit/ posters know that shit won't fly here any more.

If you have something important or interesting to say, then you don't have to use PORNO to lure people into your thread

[Anonymous No.14664107]

>>14663978
/lit/ is a waste of time regardless of yes porn or no porn. Just leave.

[Anonymous No.14664110]

/lit/ is in a sorry state. I think it could have new life breathed into it.

[Anonymous No.14664118]

>>14664107
at a certain point, in my experience, the more purely devoted i am to intellectual pursuit, the less I want to come to /lit/. because I know there will be sexy pics of girls and I'll completely go off the rails. it becomes not worth the risk. I know I am not the only one who has experienced this.

[Anonymous No.14664129]

>>14663978
agree and should be applied to fit as well

[Anonymous No.14664142]

Stop watching porn.

[Anonymous No.14664160]

someone post the jezebel pasta

[Anonymous No.14664189]

what is the most realistic way of moving forward with this campaign?

[Anonymous No.14664191]

>>14663978
While I don't like it either, you do realise that this will just make them post more porn, right?

[Anonymous No.14664196]

>>14663978
>>14664053
5: No Twitter/Reddit screenshots

[Anonymous No.14664206]

>>14664034
Ditto. I browse here to escape the degenerate porn.

[Anonymous No.14664207]

>>14664191
we must not shy from conflict just because it may create temporarily increased difficulties

WE MUST DISSENT!

[Anonymous No.14664250]

specific demands in the clearest, most concise way possible:

-ban sexually suggestive imagery from lit
-ban those who post it temporarily
-encourage the reporting of sexually suggestive imagery

i think it is worth the experiment to see what could become of /lit/ after such a rule is enforced. i have a very optimistic hunch about the possibilities.

[Anonymous No.14664253]

My ex writes porn, the 50 shades of Grey kind for women. I asked her to stop because it's embarrassing. She told me to go kill myself and dumped me.

[Anonymous No.14664262]

ok prude

[Anonymous No.14664266]

>>14664250
This board would become even more dead and only nazi circlejerks would remain.

I want porn and sexually suggestive imagery. I want OP and all who agree with him permabanned from the whole site because they ruin the experience for me, and I hate it.

[Anonymous No.14664275]

completely agree, I recently locked incognito mode and a pornblocking app behind an admin account the password whose password I keymashed and am unable to access and my quality of life has raised immensely. I still want to browse here but I have to constantly hide threads that should definitely be banned. As others have said:
>If you have something important or interesting to say, then you don't have to use PORNO to lure people into your thread

[Anonymous No.14664283]

>>14664275
I want to talk about erotica exclusively. Why do you want me not to talk about books on /lit/?

[Anonymous No.14664287]

Uh, did we hurt your feelings, you bunch of weak-minded pansies?

[Anonymous No.14664288]

>>14663978
So censorship because you believe porn “taints” you? Is this bait?

I find porn tedious, too. But I ignore it.

Also, I don’t believe I’m being “tainted” by images of sexuality. That’s just silly.

So is the idea of “purity.”

[Anonymous No.14664290]

If anything, there's been less porn posting last month than in 2019

[Anonymous No.14664298]

>>14663978
>>14664034
Yeah, we need this.

[Anonymous No.14664306]

>>14664283
Why don't you talk about it without posting images of it?

[Anonymous No.14664307]

>>14664266
if you want to look at porn, go to a porno board. this is a literature board. i think the nazi circlejerks are in fact empowered by the banality that constant sexual imagery helps foster.

>>14664283
talking about erotic books I guess should be fine, as long as it's not headed with a sexually explicit photo. however, it should be noted the actual number of threads devoted purely to erotic literature are small in comparison to the number of threads with sexual images that are Completely irrelevant to the topic of the thread

[Anonymous No.14664309]

>>14664250
So, just people talking about boring crap like The Bible, Peterson, Guenon, Varg, and Muh Greeks?

[Anonymous No.14664316]

Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.14664320]

>>14664253
Damn, she's based as fuck.

[Anonymous No.14664323]

>>14664309
Who said anything about restricting discussion?

[Anonymous No.14664325]

As a tangent: nofap creates serial killers and autistic incel weirdos. Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.14664328]

>>14664307
Erotic books are porn. Women write them to have sexual pleasure and happiness. You don't want me to talk about women's literature.

[Anonymous No.14664330]

what about the off-topic threads? porn isn't literature, but so isn't:
>"philosophy"
>self-help
>religion
>politics
>twitter screencaps
>latest triggering news
>internet "intellectuals"
and so on

[Anonymous No.14664332]

>>14664288
taints more pure intentions for intellectual stimulation

purity doesn't always solely refer to a christian conception. it can also refer to strength due to not being mixed with anything else, like the "purity" of a specific drug because of not being cut with something else

[Anonymous No.14664338]

>>14664330
All of that is literature except the last three

[Anonymous No.14664341]

>>14664338
why do we even have other boards xd

[Anonymous No.14664344]

>>14664328
talk about the books, whatever, just don't post sexy pictures.

>>14664330
true, however, certain topics are deigned to be more specifically antithetical to /lit/'s purposes and will and DO get removed. porno pics should be no different.

[Anonymous No.14664345]

>>14664332
There's intellectual stimulation to be had with you. The fact you want to take something I want away from me shows you are a stupid brute and you have nothing of worth to say.

[Anonymous No.14664346]

>>14664323
It wouldn’t take long before banning porno images would slide into banning certain forms of discussion. That’s the problem.

[Anonymous No.14664349]

>>14663978
I agree with banning the pictures, but please consider that erotic descriptions could have artistic worth.

[Anonymous No.14664353]

>>14664349
I too love reading about big black cocks

[Anonymous No.14664355]

>>14664344
You know women draw sexy pictures too? To illustrate their books? You know women draw a lot of porn comics for their own pleasure?

You just hate women. Admit it.

[Anonymous No.14664356]

>>14664346
Do you have a single fact to back that up?

[Anonymous No.14664358]

>>14664349
>erotic descriptions could have artistic worth
>erotic artworks don't
Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.14664361]

>>14663978
And next we will have to stop talking about erotic sections in novels. Not to mention the line between art and porn is far from objective.

[Anonymous No.14664363]

>>14664356
Tumblr, sjws, cancel culture.

[Anonymous No.14664366]

meta threads are not allowed

Enjoy your ban :^)

[Anonymous No.14664368]

>>14664353
You know that wasn't what I meant. We shouldn't discuss Ovid just because it makes your pee pee hard?

[Anonymous No.14664371]

>>14664358
This is a literature board. We only care about the artistic merit in words.

[Anonymous No.14664374]

>>14663978
They're already banned. Sage and move on.

[Anonymous No.14664376]

>>14664345
>>14664346
certain forms of discussion are ALREADY banned, and do get removed. i've had
innocuous threads removed because they didn't pertain to literature specifically, multiple times

>>14664358
this isn't an erotic artwork board. it's a literary artwork board. i can conceive of discussion of erotic literature being within bounds. but taking to posting erotic imagery of any kind i believe crosses a boundary. of course, some older paintings and such are much more tasteful. but can the newer ethot images so commonly posted to /lit/ be construed as "artwork"? i would not say so.

[Anonymous No.14664381]

>>14664368
>>14664361
>>14664358
>>14664346

>words
>images
how is the difference between these two ideas so complex that legions of coombrains just can't grasp it?

[Anonymous No.14664387]

>>14664381
Not sure why you're replying to me as I'm arguing for banning the pictures but not the words.

[Anonymous No.14664392]

0. Ban the fucking moth

[Anonymous No.14664393]

>>14664374
I'm going to start reporting the threads then. tell u wat, i'm gonna be real TO'd if i get banned for it

[Anonymous No.14664395]

>>14664361
>white
>anorexic
>jutting ribs
>not tits, no hips no butt
Eww

[Anonymous No.14664401]

>>14664160
Seconding
It's been a while since I've seen that pasta

[Anonymous No.14664403]

>>14664371
That doesn't mean that artworks don't have artistic worth themselves, and they can tie in to the discussion by being art of the book topic.

[Anonymous No.14664407]

>>14664393
Anecdotal but i've never been. It should be obvious what is SFW and what is not.

[Anonymous No.14664410]

>>14664381
this is an IMAGE BOARD. Should we only be allowed to post pictures of books and authors? Do you not understand how image board culture works?

Also, the reason I use 4channel is because it is not sheltered, I come across all sorts, I have no interest in a community of clones.

[Anonymous No.14664414]

>>14664407
not obvious to me. what do you think defines SFW? is it any erotic imagery? or is it only when the nip, vag, or anus is exposed?

[Anonymous No.14664418]

>>14663978
Imagine having your entire intellectual being compromised just from seeing a scantily-clad lady.

[Anonymous No.14664419]

>>14664410
>this is an IMAGE BOARD
It's actually a group of IMAGE BOARDS each of which maintain separate and distinct topics. Images on the literature board should be relevant to literature.

[Anonymous No.14664421]

>>14664403
true, but there is a line. my penis feels nothing from this image.

>>14664410
we're already not allowed to post "explicit" porno. the idea is to remove all porno

[Anonymous No.14664428]

>>14664414
>NSFW*

[Anonymous No.14664434]

>>14664410
>4channel
it hurts bros

[Anonymous No.14664435]

>>14664418
no one is claiming that.

we just feel like our intellectual PURSUITS may somewhat become foiled to degree

[Anonymous No.14664437]

>>14664421
>the line is drawn by your penis
I don't agree with that. Your penis means nothing to me. I only accept lines drawn by MY penis.

[Anonymous No.14664440]

>>14664435
What intellectual pursuits, circljerking on an anonymous board? The writer of this porno book from the 1950s has achieved more intellectual pursuits than you ever will in your life.

[Anonymous No.14664441]

>>14664418
Imagine being a coomer AND in denial about how useless your coombrain is intellectually

[Anonymous No.14664443]

>>14663978
I don't like porn posts. That being said, banning something you don't like is the epitome of reddit.

[Anonymous No.14664448]

>>14664419
So I can not post an image that reflects my feeling towards what I read because it is not technically directly relevant to literature?

>>14664421
>the idea is to remove all porno
Yes, i know. Believe it or not, the reason I disagree is not because I do not understand the idea presented.

[Anonymous No.14664450]

>>14664435
>see a scantily-clad lady
>ignore, don't jack off
Why is this so difficult?
>>14664441
>cannot even glance at an attractive woman without being overpowered by an urge to masturbate
>"you're a cumbrain"
Good one anon

[Anonymous No.14664458]

This thread was moved to >>>/qa/3115002