/lit/ - Literature

If you have to seduce someone then it‘s rape, i agree. Seduction is manipulation. And i do not think this cretin knows anything about love. He mistakes animalistic lust for it, which clearly indicates he has never experienced it. He‘s talking about desire.

>>16242646
>If you have to seduce someone then it‘s rape, i agree.

I bet you thought this was really clever when you clicked submit.

philosophy is just intelligent people with personality disorders being defensive

>>16242665
You can try to make a counter argument but there is none.

>>16242629
He's a weird guy. I'm reading transparency of evil right now wherein he argues trans is the result of a perverted blending of the distinction between categories that no longer exist because of the orgiastic sexual revolution. The only reason he hasn't been cancelled is that people don't understand what he's saying

>>16242646

Seducing someone is rape? All romantic interaction is predicated upon seduction of some form. You might just have outdone Baudrillard, cretin.

>>16242666

Absolutely agree. The more I read Baudillard, the more he outs himself as a major autist. But a troubled, lovable autist.

>>16242674
Seduction is only categorically deemed as manipulation if you stretch the meaning of the word to an absurd extreme. You can deceive someone with lies so they sleep with you, and you could call that seduction in some sense, but that's not exclusively what seduction is, nor what the social convention of the word typically entails.

>>16242629
The French are such creeps

>>16242712
I'm being facetious, I read a lot of philosophy but it does make me laugh sometimes. I think life is really frustrating for people with absolutely no intuition or mental connection with their emotions/unconscious, must be like fucking hell trying to describe something like love or friendship or loyalty or anything rly in technical rhetorical terms. Wittgenstein was right about everything desu

Not as based as Lyotard. From Pacific Wall:

>The métèque does not even recognize in the metamorphosis he undergoes his own spirit of revenge and desire for rape. It is Rome that makes him like this. Césare, the white female Caesar, engenders the existence of masks around her, at her peripheries, she raises depths, surrounds herself with signs [signes], with monkeys [singes], madmen, niggers, Greeks, Jews, Arabs, Chicanos, Wops, all of them swarthy. By making them desire her, she defines depth as their nature; by having them castrated, she affirms the sleekness of her vast surfaces, smoothed out to a tenth of a millimeter. White women have no sex [pas de sexe]. They receive; they give nothing, they do not move. They live in a voluptuousness independent of touch. They are inviolable. In the arms of their slaves, their spasms do not resound. Do white women take pleasure in anything besides the very skin which they are? Rape would bring to this question, beyond the masculine imagination, the satisfaction of the last word thanks to the first penetration [forage].

>On the function of culture: Why do the Romans want the Greeks as educators? They appropriate them for themselves, but they métèquise them. What do they want - the tutors, rhetoricians, philosophers, and sophists - who come to Rome? To experience themselves as niggers, those who believed they were white. To travel and to make white space travel. To displace the Empire. To Rape. At the same time, to make themselves commodities. As such, make no mistake: they are métèques, they speak Latin with a Greek accent, they sell their verbal merchandise. And why do they sell like this? Peddle, export, import, transport? It is in their interest, they get rich; but it is also their passion.

>>16242762
in the modern era autistic faggots like this would just be fanfiction writers desu

>>16242762
This has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read. Please post more.

>>16242715
What would be a form of seduction that isn‘t manipulation and by that rape? Because i can‘t think of any such scenario.

>>16242712
>All romantic interaction is predicated upon seduction of some form.
I disagree. It is predicated upon reproduction which doesn‘t necessarily involve seduction. My argument still stands.

>>16242819
Making eye contact. Smiling. Spraying cologne on you. Standing up straight. Making the other person laugh. Dressing nicely.

Is this "manipulation" yes, in some sense, you're manipulating some variables to appear more attractive to someone else. This is not rape. If you're going to go on a tirade about some romantic definition of rape and how the male essence is violating reality itself to impose your will unto a woman you can go ahead and kill yourself your french pedo fuck.

>>16242646
I'd just like to add, I don't really see seduction as rape, if even if we take it to the extreme that you do and regard it as a form of manipulation, rape is against the victim's will, which isn't the case when you "convince" someone to have sex with you

>>16242786
>How shall we understand the desire to rape which rises in the cock métèque? As that of a paradoxical touch, an inside touch [un toucher de l'intérieur] similar to that of the vaginal touch, except that the latter helps maintain the health of an organism, helps restore it to quiescence - that's what legitimates the vaginal touch - whereas the raping touch tries to bring it to life, to stimulate it, only in order to destroy its security. Put two or three fingers into your partner's mouth. It is no longer a casual allusion to fellatio - rather, it suggests dentistry, or laryngology. You touch his/her inside. Imagine that this touch has no purpose, no pretext to knowing, that it only seeks to crack open the fearlessness of surfaces, to open up a depth in them, to destroy their self-sufficiency, to call forth echoes: such would be the desire of the métèque.
>The octopus, the white octopus, begets fear which in turn gives rise to domination. Those silky thighs, moving endlessly, incite both rape and the urge to power: they produce the two poles of virility, that is, politics.
It's from "Passages from Le Mur du Pacifique" which one can access via scihub. There's a different translation of the whole book (Pacific Wall), which translates negro for nigger for example, but it's not online and second hand copies are quite rare, as far as i'm aware.

>>16242927
Alright, since you seem to have read Lyotard: Is all of his work like this? Is there anything useful or valuable in what he wrote?

>>16242827

You talk about reproduction as if it's inert, or a whim existing within a vacuum, which simply isn't true.

The overbearing need to reproduce that is coded within our genes is the genesis of our social fabric and shapes how men interact with the fair sex, and vice versa. It shapes our mannerisms (guys unconsciously puffing out their guests, broadening their shoulders; girl's voices rising a pitch, their postures) and very conscious and deliberate actions as well, i-e playful flirting, courtesy or chivalry.

These phenomena exist in order to make oneself appealing to whom they want to appeal to, and to appeal is to attract. Seducing someone is commonly defined as enticing them into sexual activity with you, which is the sole aim of inducing romantic attraction. Note how enticing is not "coercing" or "forcing". So no, seduction is a vital part of biology and not rape.

But I understand that saying something quasi-profound like "seduction is rape, heh" in front of an arthoe would make you seem jaded and cynical, which, ironically, is still a form of seduction, as you mean to attract her to your image.

we need to mate and when our brain identifies a suitable mate we try to attract them, if we socialize and the attraction is mutual - it tends to lead to mating

it's not any more complicated than that. i can't imagine anything more stupid than exploring the ethical metaphysics of seduction. YOU ARE A MONKEY

>>16242629
His use of seduction is more the use value of emptied sign value rather than seduction as we think it, and feminine as that which offsets the identity of the masculine.
>>16242711
You definitely don’t understand what he’s saying if you think his use of the term transsexual is the same as how transsexual is used today, it’s completely different, as is his discussion of the sexual revolution.

Unplanned violent crime being a good thing is the logical conclusion of Baudrillard's system

>>16243018
>baudrillard
>system
Lol you’re retarded

>>16242629
>>16242646
i think you misunderstand rape: rape means abduction, like some guy abducting a femaloid from her parents in order to fuck her, but the ''''''enlightened'''''' bourgeois being sex addicts, they turned rape into penetration into sexual organs.
Then this means that it is easier for women to get raped, than for men.
This is why today all the whores say that only female rape exists in statistics and this proves that men are inherently toxic.

>>16243044
This post is just as incoherent as the OP.

>>16243032
What should I call it?
Baudrillard's ramblings?
The contents of SaS?
Yes, he didn't do a Schopenhauer but he said some things and it is generally custom, from what I've seen here, to call their holistic observation "system" or something along those lines

>>16242959
Much of his work from the seventies, like this one, is quite out-there, though perhaps less so than this, since it's a (theory)fiction. Best known from this phase is Libidinal Economy, which I would say is like this one in style. Apparently he wrote it on drugs and it wasn't read as much as his later work (certainly not in the anglosphere), but I do find it quite fascinating, Libidinal Economy - which is worth reading if you're into Anti-Oedipus and the like. The general idea I get but I still struggle with it, especially since it is quite pessimistic, even if he still wants to be affirmative, because in the end (even if this is a bit of a caricature), he's like accept everything because you can find joy (or jouissance rather) in even the worst of things. I do think he became a bit more politically oriented after that, in a way prefiguring the excesses of today's cultural politics and how 'postmodern' philosophers are usually caricatured, Lyotard tackling race in the text I quoted, being against truth, for sophism, difference, 'paganism' etc. Except that it's all in an odd way that just wouldn't cut it today and, I have a feeling, might have something interesting hidden in it. But this I cannot say for sure.
He is much better known for his Postmodern Condition, which of course is not 'the' definition, much less an approval, of postmodernism, but it isn't too bad on the main question, namely, what becomes of knowledge and science in postindustrial societies. He is also known for his aesthetics, where he does give a positive description of the postmodern, and where he revives the (Kantian) sublime. Herer 'The Inhuman' is quite good and the style, for better or worse, is more straightforward.

>>16243068
Calling it his work or philosophy is what we do in academia. Systems refer to guys like Hegel, baudrillard is more of a first person look through baudrillard at the world as he sees it. He’s definitely not the end all be all of post structuralism but he is fascinating.

>>16243146
Ah okay, thank you :)

>>16243108
Alright, thank you. This sounds kind of interesting.

>>16243158
No problem fren