/lit/ - Literature

Either he finds sex vacuous or he finds it inconsequential if not vacuous in itself
Or both, but still enjoys it.

What's this from I want more context

its not exactly enlightening that an intelligent man would find the culture of sex to be vacuous

>>10155473
He meant that 'sex' is a meme in its cultural import. It's a word and a concept for the plebs who think of it as the ultimate form of entertainment and fulfillment. He is probably also taking a shot at America.

>>10155473
What a fucking mongoloid retard. Words cannot express my disdain for this pretentious Cockmunch.

it's probably anti-freudian

>>10155473
What a pretentious moron.

>>10155674
>>10155694
Imagine having reading comprehension this poor

>>10155473
using words is like trying to catch water with a net

the word water is part of the net

what are you trying to catch?

>>10155473
>hissing vulgarity
disagree desu "S" sounds very sensual

>>10155512
Looks like something from Strong Opinions, but I'm not the provider.

>>10155759
stop pls

>>10155782
He means the end of the word in its progression from sensuality to vulgarity.

>>10155933
Do you disagree? Why? Not op but genuinely curious.

>>10155473
What would he glean from the form and sound of this word?
>Geschlechtsverkehr

CTRL + F "Freud"
All I get is this >>10155691

He's quite clearly talking about Freud. He was a known disliker of Freudianism.

>>10156044
everyone who isn't an ape is a known disliker of freudianism, but how can you be sure without context

>>10155672
He's taking a shot at Freud.

>>10155759
>what are you trying to catch?
I'm trying to study the water and the net, and how they interact.

>>10155691

I immediately thought this too.

And I disagree with Nabokov here. I think sex does explain a lot of our behavior. I probably wouldn't talk to any girls if I didn't want to fuck them.

>>10155672
>he is probably taking a shot at america
Confirmed never having read nabokov

>>10155473
>I thought Nabokov was a perverse degenerate
can't imagine why a human being would think this, other than reading the goodreads reviews of Lolita by middle-aged women and counting that as having read the book.

>>10155473
I'm sure that Nabokov would forward the significance of eroticism over mere sexuality...

>>10156119
>but how can you be sure without context
The fact that Nabokov said it is context enough.

>>10156238
The themes of Lolita+Ada+Enchantress doesn't leave a lot to question... but it was hyperbole because I have read those and he discards perverse lust for a beautiful description of a sort of noble love

>>10156223
>I probably wouldn't talk to any girls if I didn't want to fuck them.
What about companionship+cuddling/kissing, as lame as that sounds I sometimes feel like I "get" more from it. Also there is undeniable beauty of their aesthetic

>>10156307

If I couldn't do anything physical with a girl, I wouldn't talk to them I guess is what I mean.

I find pretty much all women to be boring. I've never met an impressively intelligent woman myself. So since the intellectual pleasure isn't there, physical pleasure is the glue to any relationship I have with females.

>>10156307

Of course, I'm still forced to talk to woman on a daily basis and it's usually always banal, silly shit haha

>>10156119
Kys

>>10156223
I probably would talk to girls if I didn't want to fuck them.

>>10156307
>Also there is undeniable beauty of their aesthetic
Nah, girls are gross. They're like fruit: delicious, but you can already hear the coming flies. Definitely not something to be attached to.

>>10156482
>bzzZZZzzzzzzZZzzz....
wtf anon! Now I'm beginning to feel sorry for the ladies!

>>10156482

haha well, I think some women have nice aesthetic qualities, I wouldn't go so far to suggest they're gross. Intellectually, yes for most women. But physically, no (ironically, most women are physically gross too; most Americans are these days).

But like, why would I talk to a dumb hot chick if I didn't think I could fuck her? And I definitely wouldn't speak to any dumb ugly chicks on any occasion

>>10156529
I don't want to make the wrong impression here. I'm not saying women can't be beautiful. On the contrary, their inevitable grossness makes them beautiful. It's density, messiness, unclarity, heaviness, intoxication that is the root of all hunger, sensuality and desire. There's no sharp teeth where there's nothing to bite.

>I definitely wouldn't speak to any dumb ugly chicks on any occasion
I would. People are more interesting and intelligent than they let themselves be, if put in the right circumstances. It'd be like an act of intellectual charity. But I haven't memed myself enough to forget I'm a man.

>>10156572

Seems like you view women as jungles and I'm inclined to agree. Sounds a bit Nietzschean: "The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything." I guess for me a lot of that danger and play lies in sex, and so without that I no longer want women as I normally would.

As for your second point, you're probably right. From the mouth of babes (in this case, adult babies).

>>10156482
>>10156572
Cute young girls are the most beautiful thing in the world stop being so resentful, in fact I don't actually believe you are being honest with yourself.
They are a glimmer of beauty in a troublesome package, but every once in while they are actually interesting or intelligent enough for you to get them into lit.

>>10156598
I feel there's something deeper with women though. It's a very abstract thing. Like a great heat. And not like fire.

>>10156640
That's like a human pet to me, Anon. If you're looking for that kind of pussy you might as well get an actual cat. That type of care is a form aggresion.

>>10156701
>That type of care is a form aggresion.
whut/? Cat's aren't girls desu that is a big difference

>>10156710
And yet the things that attract in a cat and in the female form are very similar, from the size, the movement, the roundedness, to the proportions of the face. People, in their world of chaos, look to get close to those pretty and young things they find. But that won't change their world.

How much more precious is made Lolita for the oceans of bland and failed that surround her? "Absence diminishes small loves and increases great ones." Yes, and not all separation is in time or space. The genius of Nabokov is in seeing passion is born out of that pedestrian life which we have but do not want, that the delicate wounds hurt more deeply.

But to perpetuate the short lasting is petty. As is grabbing tightly in your heart to what must run, fashioning the most subtle nets -nets without even matter- to catch what you love.

Oh, I've run off at the mouth.

>>10156754
Are you ESL? There's a bit of stilted phrasing. Regardless I don't agree entirely

>>10156763
Yup. I guess it shows off more when I try to be creative.

>Regardless I don't agree entirely
What do you have to say?

>>10155473
>not using greentext to quote
Poor form.

But Nabokov was a pedophile so he was repressed by necessity. Every pedophile resents vulgarity, the ''mainstream'' sexuality. Even the body of the woman is too out there for them, all fat and obscene, it's too sexual. They prefer a subtler form, which is sexual only in secret. Butterflies, poetry, little girls; it's all about subtlety, finesse, even deception. Nabokov was definitely a hedonist, but he knew that lived out pleasures don't compare to only imagined ones.

>>10156598
Nobov is a weak intellectual with often prissy life advice.

>>10156906
Didn't mean to quote

>>10156776
>Yup
Don't worry about it, it was good

>>10156937
's just that it was the second time today someone said it to me.

>>10155934
It's all bullshit, of there were inane ways that sounds evoke certain feelings that lead to their use in languages, they how do we have such lingual diversity? Wouldn't we have a lot of cross-over just by the inateneas of the word sounds?

>>10155473
Nabokov's career was all about trying to flaunt and aestheticize his pedophilia.

>>10156967
Your life was all about being worthless

>>10156963
Well, language is a complicated thing. One important observation about onomatopoeiae raised by Ferdinand de Saussure is that they don't simply imitate the sounds of what they refer to, but the sounds they use are already constrained by the sound system of the particular language--they're already a part of the language and the language often has specific forms for onomatopoeiae as well as exclamations. Not only that, but there are cases in which they might express abstract things and not imitate sounds at all; Japanese has onomatopoeaie for things like shining light, ejaculation or the feeling of anxiety. Even further, one can regard the onomatopoeia as a sort of musical composition: as Nabokov puts it, it's one sound being followed by another that gives it its particular character (se...k!--s~). Add the cultural status with which we consider which words sound good or not, refined or not, endless comparisons and relations to other words, even the differences we see in words of different origins from different languages in our own (a Greek word is not a Latin word is not a Latinate is not an English word), how these contrasts change over time, how the very processes of word production and grammar change over time, the metaphors we perceive in present time and... well, I could go on, but it's already mess. Language is far from a static, solid thing. It's probably one of the most fluid things out there, and ironically because it is fluid it is diverse. But in the end I don't think one can't judge it from the past to now, but only from the present.

Verba volant!

>>10156598
Women are not dangerous, lol. Only a cuck beta academic like neech could think this.
Women are easy. They want to be fucked like whores and loved like children and then broken.
sex is animalistic desire and vacuous.

>>10155723
kek
e
k