/lit/ - Literature

>>20822088
That’s obviously an ironic comment on the customs of Victorian society. In the humorous scene after this sentence she describes the parents fussing about the new man in town so they could marry one of their girls to him, while the girls don’t seem to care all that much.

>>20822101
Who asked

Yes it is the cycle of life. Men are happy to spend their life competing for women. this is not an atheist thing. Men dont need atheism to be neurotic.

this competition is literally the heart of any society.
Men even love more to compete for women in atheism thanks to the jewish shows like how i met your whore mom where the crowd cheers for the gay actor competing for whores lol
In atheism, women are at the center of the society, because according to atheists, women are not ''objects'', so this coupled with the innate male devotion to whores, women are bound to dominate any atheist republic.

Women will always sit at the top of the sex market,& men will always like it.
Over thousands of years men have developed a neurotic narrative where somehow they are the stronger sex for putting their energy into pleasing women and the ruling class. Men are the one talking about hooooonor and how seducing women is awesome. Again even fucking Casanova took pride into a being free dildo to whores.

The day men stop putting women on a pedestal is the day society dies forever. And normies are fucking obsessed with living, with '''transmitting genes'''', like any atheist NPC keep saying, with building crap to fill up their lives with.
And women love to sit on the top of the sex market. Women get free easy life just by existing. That's how fucking insane their life full of privileges is. & women will never ever let this go.

Even in the apocalyptic days that beta cucks keep dreaming about and somehow they survive thanks to all their dubious survivalist skills they learn in atheism by watching youtube, they fancy themselves as providers to women lol. They literally would give lots of free shit to women, from all the hoarding they had done before the apocalypse. All of this because of vagina , fucking lel.

You even had 2 fucking top military guys from Rome fighting over the egyptian roastie known as Cleopatra. that's 2000 years before atheists took power. That's how pathetic military guys are. And how men in general are pussyslaves and wageslaves.

>>20822106
I did. Thank you Austenanon

>>20822121
>It's in man's nature to desire and compete for women
>But nature is le bad! Don't breed, become eunuchs!
Holy cope. Got any more stupid shit to add, tranny?

>>20822088
Who?

>>20822121
The main issue is with overcrowding and behavioral sinks, which is intimately tied to industrialization, moron.
Dumbasses like you should not have been taught how to read and write. What you have to say is absolutely not valuable. Mass literacy was a mistake.

>>20822686

>>20822121
>The day men stop putting women on a pedestal is the day society dies forever.
I'm still waiting.
What has any of this got to do with atheism however?

>>20822088

I've never read this line in context, and I've always chosen to interpret it as: an unmarried man is a fortunate man, and the fact of his BEING unmarried is one element of his good fortune, his happiness. Probably not what was actually meant but the idea itself as I've just phrased it is clearly true. I will refer to this as the "masculine" sense.

Another feminine sense is possible, and is probably closer to the actual intent: If a single man is financially comfortable (as opposed to simply having good luck, happiness), then he stands in need of a wife. He SHOULD get married and he NEEDS to get married, because his circumstances render him ABLE to marry. (And if he doesn't, then we hate him for it, because not only is acting against his own interests, but he is acting against the interest of his potential wife, and by extension society itself. He is refusing to play our bullshit normie game. All right, I editorialized here a bit, projecting 21st century anti-marriage sentiment onto 19th century fictions where they don't really apply, but I think you understand what i mean.)

Is the second sense really closer? (ignore my long parentheses). Or is there a third distinct reading which is more accurate?

>>20823665
it's as simple as the phrase "must be", a societal expectation without respect for the interests of the individual. a man must be in want of a wife, as he has the necessary means to attract one of quality. whether he particularly wants or needs one is another matter (the same being true for the prospective wife in question), and is the primary concern of the book as a whole.