/lit/ - Literature

>>19328571
You should have sex only with the beloved person you want and will marry. Don't get into sexual relationships with random girls you don't care about.

>>19328571
Sexual Utopia in Power
Sex at Dawn
Sperm Wars

This multiple-part series on D.H. Lawrence's poetics and phenomenology of sex is basically a book:
https://counter-currents.com/2010/11/d-h-lawrence-on-men-and-women-part-1/

For introductions:
https://counter-currents.com/2013/08/d-h-lawrence-on-the-meaning-of-sex/
https://counter-currents.com/2013/08/d-h-lawrences-phallic-traditionalism/

Lawrence has a sort of mix of Bergsonian and Nietzschean vitalism combined with an intense interest in psychoanalysis, which was just then sweeping across Europe and generating creative responses but still hadn't been reduced to the stale Freudian orthodoxy of Freud's "movement" and direct successors.

Julius Evola's book The Metaphysics of Sex is very good and not what you would expect, pic related. Weininger's Sex and Character is also really interesting.

Camille Paglia's Sexual Personae is a vaguely Jungian approach to sexual drives and gender differences, focused on their primordiality and primevality. She calls herself anti-"Rousseauist" in that she doesn't view gender or gender relations as blank slates upon which we write moral values. Sex is pre-rational, and for that reason it's pre-moral.

>>19328590
Forgot the pic related.

Kama Sutra

>>19328571
>i am really interested in human sexuality
So instead of reading about it have sex instead.
There's nothing like firsthand experience.

>>19328571
Havelock Ellis, Bataille, Plato, Camille Paglia, Jesse Bering, etc.

sex plus by laci green unironically. also the kama sutra

>>19328571
Theweleits "male fantasies" and "all you need is love" are quirky psychoanalytic studies.

>>19328571
kinsey is pseudoscience. freud is based.
>>19328584
>christopher ryan
go back.

The American Sex Revolution by Sorokin

A Billion Wicked Thoughts

>>19328571
Sexuality as we understand it today is on the verge of collapse. First the gay revolution said marriage and love are social constructs, I did nothing because I did not care. Then the queers said that orientation is a social construct, I did nothing because they made some good points. Then came the trans revolution, and they said that gender is a social construct. I think I speak for most adults when I say the following. 1: people should be allowed to become ladyboys if they want, like any cosmetic surgery and 2: they simply do not thereby become women.
I invoke other people because this represents a fundamental breach in the pattern of one pseud ideology attacking another. (gay vs marriage, queer vs LGB) Even if we as a society wanted to accept trannies as women, the situation would still be different in that they aren't women. What we're seeing instead is that society won't accept a broad codification of trannys-as-women because it doesn't compute.

Some trans accept they're third category, but a flaw changes everything. They're the vanguard of progressive sexpol. If they suddenly encounter pushback, it could be the crest of a wave that breaks on every tier of the sexuality debate. Why is sex identity so important to us, since it's a social construct and transies aren't women?

Any man or woman can be mindbroken and given kinks. They can be forced to cum by homo or hetero stimulation and thus imprinted. They have sexual thoughts about the experience thereafter. Does that mean they were always kinky, or always had hetero/homosexuality? Does it mean that rape killed them and left a degenerate? Or is the human brain just malleable? If you, a normal person, can be mindbroken in an experience, any normal person can certainly mindbreak themselves over time with sex habits. Thus the wide world of sexuality is born. A bunch of bored, purposeless animals raping and jerking each other into an altered state based on coom synapses, which must then be justified (its practicioners are higher-function than drug fiends) by a web of girly pseudo-spiritual social sciences that fuck each other's asses in a big circle.

I say shut it ALL down.

The queers were right, people will fuck whoever their choices and their hormones lead them to fuck. You don't have to be anything you don't want to be. That's tabula rasa, the only thing standing above the playing field is Sex itself and the physical act of sex-- fucking a woman with your dick. That's the only thing that sets itself apart as essentially sex-related, so the future can have fursexuals and stovesexuals and demicars, but true sex will stand alone. The importance of this day and age is that we've finally stopped making things equal to true sex. Gays fought so hard and acted so pathetic after aids, we felt bad and said their relationships were of equal value. Trannies are a bridge too far, and their example makes it clear that there will only ever be one genuine purpose of the human sex drive.

>>19328902
I think you are confusing the timeline a bit anon. 20th century feminists were the ones who put a giant emphasis on the social construction of gender, which is why a lot of feminists seethed over the existence of trannies who insisted they were "essentially" male or female in some pre-socialised sense (look at the experiments of John Money, who tried to prove that gender was entirely the result of socialisation by raising two castrated boys as girls, both of whom ended up identifying as heterosexual males). Similarly, gay rights activists and "queer theorists" tended to disagree on whether gays were "born this way" or "socially constructed" (personally I think the truth is in the middle: there are biological causes for homosexual orientation and social causes for homosexual behaviour -- ancient Greece is a good case in point, where pederasty was common in certain stages of life, but Greeks also recognised the existence of certain people with exclusive lifelong inclinations toward the same sex, cf. Aristophanes' speech in the Symposium). I don't at all know what you mean by "the gay revolution" saying that "marriage and love" are social constructs though, especially since the gays, who were marginal figures in the culture war for a long time, only really became relevant on a broad scale when they deradicalised and started advocating for integration + marriage rights (which entails an implicit recognition and endorsement of the value of bourgeois monogamous marriage, contra queer radicals and feminists).

Regarding the idea of a genuine purpose of the human sex drive, it's worth keeping in mind that evolution has tacked on lots of secondary functions to sexuality. The obvious example being the way bonobos use mounting and mutual masturbation to resolve conflict and maintain social harmony. Similarly, a lot of human culture is built on erotic interactions that facilitate non-erotic social gains (Oscar Wilde: "Everything in the world is about sex, except sex"). The main problem with modern trannyism imo is its association with what Foucault identified as the modern West's "confessional" obsession with sex (and constantly producing new categories of it). Tranny-ish roles have existed in many cultures.

>>19328970
You made a valiant effort to disagree (which I appreciate) but I think we're on the same page. The feminist upsurge preceded the gay in questioning social norms, their battle is the same battle between gay and queer, queer and trans that I described -- the battle for narrative control. No substantive change occurs.

A person's biology can define them -- if it's allowed to. There's the rub, as you point out there's no such thing as a person independent of social circumstances. Sex is a social act. Other "sexual" behaviors exist, but comparing the two is like comparing masturbation with fertilization, they're in completely different leagues. I would never consider equating masturbators with sex havers on any sort of continuum. This is my point about sexuality advocacy. If you take out the essentialism, all you have is a bunch of masturbators who fight and repress their biological urge to breed because it's inconvenient to their chosen lifestyle.

Regarding the lifelong homosexual I refer you to my "mindbreak" illustration. Some people's homo or heterosexuality is buried under years of habituation and/or completely feared and unwanted. Such people will live all their lives with the appearance of "natural" orientation one way or another. However the fact is, from a purely sexual standpoint it's possible to make that person feel pleasure, and imprint the experience of pleasure upon things outside their "natural" proclivity. Moreover, sexual essentialism if it existed would need a source, and as we know there isn't a definitive one thanks to society's influence on the finished human product.

>I don't at all know what you mean by "the gay revolution" saying that "marriage and love" are social constructs though, especially since the gays, who were marginal figures in the culture war for a long time, only really became relevant on a broad scale when they deradicalised and started advocating for integration + marriage rights (which entails an implicit recognition and endorsement of the value of bourgeois monogamous marriage, contra queer radicals and feminists).
I guess I deserve this for speaking in broad terms, but I don't consider the 1980s to be a time of gay deradicalization even if they hit on a less radical form of queer theory. "Revolution" refers to their meteoric rise in relevance and political volume. I don't consider the equation of gay and straight relationships to be a less radical form of thinking gays are totally deviant to straights, nor do I fully understand your point here.
>Regarding the idea of a genuine purpose of the human sex drive, it's worth keeping in mind that evolution has tacked on lots of secondary functions to sexuality.
even you call them secondary functions... that's all I'm asking for. Separate the social from the obviously biological. Your points about pederasty and the existence of trannies in other forms do not clearly conflict with anything I've said.

>>19328840

>>19328840
>>19329872
Not enjoyable for reasons explained in the post. It's a depiction of extreme sensation, of which you the viewer feel nothing. It's a paper-thin facsimile for retards. I feel only rage.

>>19329911

>>19329842
lmao fag

>>19329911
Our "mirror neurons" give us an intimation of what it feels like though.

>>19329917
Worse argument but you managed to disagree this time, I think.

I worked as a night time jannie in my college's student union building and the LGBT club had their own table where they gave out condoms to stop the spread of STDs and one time I got bored and took a needle from the tool cabinet and started poking holes through the condoms. I wasn't even consciously thinking, I just did it, for no reason at all. The camera saw me and everything but I was never charged. I honestly don't think I can be charged with anything. The night shift does strange things to men's minds.

>>19329923
no they don't, unless you have the sensitivity of an iron ingot. How does your mirror neuron impression of the bee sting compare to the real sting? A paper-thin imitation, like the pain you feel upon seeing gore. I fucking hate blockheads who desensitize themselves to eating shit and other extreme forms of stimulation because they never actually have sex or experience those feelings. They invariably think everyone else in the world is just a shit eater in denial.

>>19329842
Sorry, my post wasn't meant to come off as hostile. My point wasn't to disagree so much as to refine.

I think there is something to a behaviourist account of sexuality (consider the analogues between phobic and fetishistic imprinting) but I think a tabula rasa view of human sexuality is unsupported by the evidence. On average, homosexual and heterosexual men are biologically distinct in certain ways from birth, in many of the same metrics that distinguish men and women.

>I don't consider the equation of gay and straight relationships to be a less radical form of thinking gays are totally deviant to straights, nor do I fully understand your point here.
What I mean is that originally there was a strong trend in gay culture to have an independent "gay" existence distinct from heterosexuality, one that inverted heterosexual values by saying things like promiscuity, fringe living etc. were good. The gay rights movement however became a movement for integration into bourgeois society and to live exactly as heterosexual people do. It is saying that that kind of life is good and desirable. It's not exactly a subversion or repudiation of it.
>even you call them secondary functions... that's all I'm asking for. Separate the social from the obviously biological.
I think it's a bit difficult to separate the biological from the social, is the thing. Nature has never existed separately from nurture. We aren't derivatives of some kind of pure genetic code formed in a lab, or Platonic form, we are the product of an evolutionary process which itself was influenced by its continuous participation in social systems. We aren't the descendants of wild children raised by wolves. Furthermore, you haven't exactly explained why what philosophical justification you have for, or what benefits you expect to flow from giving primacy to what you call the purely biological, when someone could equally make the argument that what makes us uniquely human is our sublimation of eroticism into not overtly sexual domains, our use of sexual impulses for complex purposes (even for communicating with the divine, or, in Plato's notion of Eros, attaining wisdom).

>>19329925
That guy wasn't me.

>>19328576
>>19328590
>>19328598
>>19328656
>>19328831
>>19328840 (nice video)
>>19328902
>>19328970
>>19329842
>>19329911
cringe. fuck off

>>19329963
>Sorry, my post wasn't meant to come off as hostile.
Neither was mine. I'm genuinely glad to have a discussion, which can only be productive through controlled disagreement.
>On average, homosexual and heterosexual men are biologically distinct in certain ways from birth
there are exceptions to every rule though otherwise traditions like "the youngest son is the gayest" would be consistent.
>originally there was a strong trend in gay culture to have an independent "gay" existence distinct from heterosexuality
that's like saying black people originally wanted to go back to africa. Possibly true, historically substantiated, but inconsistent with reality. That they compromised on civil rights is hardly an admission of black inferiority.
>I think it's a bit difficult to separate the biological from the social
would you say trannies are women then?
>Furthermore, you haven't exactly explained why what philosophical justification you have for, or what benefits you expect to flow from giving primacy to what you call the purely biological,
that our language would reflect reality instead of hiding from it
>when someone could equally make the argument that what makes us uniquely human is our sublimation of eroticism into not overtly sexual domains, our use of sexual impulses for complex purposes (even for communicating with the divine, or, in Plato's notion of Eros, attaining wisdom).
I already said trannies should be allowed to get bolt-ons. They just shouldn't call themselves women because it's a step back from rational into magical thinking. If you want to make a pro coomer argument then do so, I'm only recommending that the world call a spade a spade. That's why I employ the word "genuine," not to minimize the sexual pleasure of a man passionately in love with a stove or stuffed animal, but to make a clear distinction between his behavior and the sex act.

>>19329985
literally kill yourself

>>19328571
>i am really interesred in human sexuality
have sex
though in truth >>19328576
is correct and you should do as he says

>>19329999
>>19329963
bump for these two anons having civil discussion on /lit/

>>19329999
Chequed

>>19328576
>outside these totally not arbitrary rules contrived by jews thousands of years ago the sex is LE BAD
fuck off christcuck

>>19329999
I agree with the "exceptions to every rule" -- I'm not a hard essentialist or constructionist, I think the truth is genuinely somewhere in the middle. I should also clarify that I'm not trying to make any value judgements about whether "radical" gayness was better or worse or superior or inferior to gay marriage type monogamy. I don't really have an opinion. I also don't really have any strong beliefs about transgenderism. What I find odious in all these things is mainly the dogmatism that's attached. I don't think there's anything wrong with believing that a transgender person is, in some essential way, a woman. However, enforcing that belief leads to delusion, because it is also true that in some essential way they are not.

>>19330114
It may not be true for men but it is not true for women. No man would marry a whore.

>>19328590
Amazing post!! Thanks, anon!

>>19330114
It may not be true for men but it is true for women. No man would marry a whore

>>19328571
second half of the Logic of Sense by Deleuze
Bataille (Eroticism and second half of Accursed Share)
Melanie Klein, Lacan, Jung, Reich
Ludwig Klages (Cosmogonic Eros)
Probably some tantric shit

I just want to be rich and fuck prosties in bnbs

>>19328571
You should try Georges Bataille. Start with "Erotism: Death and Sensuality" and then try "The tears of Eros", I would go as far as saying Bataille is a mandatory reading.

>>19330259
Can you or one of the other Bataille recommenders briefly outline his views on sexuality? I don't really like late decadent / "isn't it so crazy I jerked off in a graveyard, mom's gonna freak" shit, I like some of Bataille's philosophy but I associate his fiction and subversive works with dumb bitch women who watch Tim Burton movies.

>>19328571
Almost all the discourse is cope on the inevitable conclusion that sexuality is sinful, from every possible angle. Even from a subjective angle, it satiates for a short while, but still causes unhappiness down the line. It remains from a much more primitive, animal time. Now it just taunts human morality and happiness, in one form or another.

>>19330323
Sex is sacred, it breaks the normative order of objects which is a temporal phenomenon in which man projects himself into some future *utility* and thus degrades himself into something useful. Death is a rupturing phenomenon which destroys this system of objects. Key concept in Bataille is excess, excess energies compound, the bourgeoise mentality of utilitarian ends or teleological amassing of energy is precisely a falling into servility because the sovereignty of the individual is shifted from the inner experience into the world of objectivities and ends. Sovereign man inverts the system of objects through a negation (breaking prohibitions/transgression). The system of objects or civilized man is itself a negation of bare animality and thus shuns and closes off the interiority of the present-at-hand alongside all of the animalistic features that were once defining of the originary animal-man (most notable in the prohibitions concerning menstrual blood, defecation etc... as relating to open portions of the body). Sex is seen as a totally sumptuous act that not only has no real utility but also relates itself to this original animalism, thus it serves as a particular negation of pure teleological projection and allows for a sacral moment of sovereignty in which the individual expends his energy reserves for no other end than his own sovereign will. Its supposed to have a similar effect as Death on the consciousness of man, so they are intimately related (I forget precisely how). I think that Bataille says that the most potent form of this is the orgy in which individuality/illusion of the self is totally destroyed in favor an enveloping excess of de-localized sovereignty that inverts the rational/civilized order in a desire for the Universe/Absolute or something along those lines. Essentially Death and Sex are triggers for consciousness to stop projecting itself into the future and live in the present in a sovereign and autonomous manner that somehow goes beyond the individual and his identity.

>>19328571
karma sutra

>>19328840
>posting video like this at the start of no nut november
I HOPE YOU BURN IN HELL

>>19330415
That's more than a little lame, fuck.

>>19330116
Totally agree. To conclude, I'll restate my case in a more pleasing format than my last ugly post.

1. The science of validating sexuality, from the Kinsey scale to drag queen story hour, is rightly considered a matter for opinion polls and philosophical debate rather than lab research. (unless you're researching how to physically turn a man into a woman)

2. Trannies in making this completely obvious have revealed the fundamental sophistry behind politicized sexuality: in a world where people can be changed by external factors, it's theoretically possible to popularize any form of sexual expression. All forms of sexual identity are equally self-justifying and subject to the same circular debates . . . all except one.

3. Organic hetero sex is the only original. It's the way 99% of people are conceived and it's deeply ingrained in our biology. It is, in short, everything. No person should be mislead as to the facts when they're growing and learning about the world, they should be taught that there are no substitutes.

>>19330332
>I can't have sex so I'll shame others into not having it
Retard baby, the only cope is the tantrums you're spreading.

>>19330116
>I don't think there's anything wrong with believing that a transgender person is, in some essential way, a woman. However, enforcing that belief leads to delusion, because it is also true that in some essential way they are not.
I'm not the guy you're speaking with but I don't understand this point and I've seen it expressed elsewhere. Why would there be no harm in believing something that isn't true just to satiate the emotional whims of another? I don't get why you have to cede that ground.

>>19330605
Not him but I understood it as a common liberal sentiment that people are flawed and there's nothing wrong with believing untruths such as life after death because society doesn't require a higher level of seriousness. Our beliefs might be wrong anyway (quite true) and since we're talking about sex it doesn't have to effect much. In the context of our time, this argument makes a lot of sense. We won't be forcing people to detransition, there's no need to actively hate trannies more. That said, this view is more of a description of the state of play than an actual position as anon freely admits.

>>19330605
i loved McAfee's take on that. many people aspire to be what they aren't, and some put in so much effort and sacrifice that you feel obliged to honor their attempt by recognizing it.
in the end the issue is completely overblown on all planes. some people are born or become limbless, we accept it that they get prosthetics that may or may not resemble the real thing, there's no hugely controversial and obnoxious amputee movement, no political controversy on wether one should be able to get prosthetics, or if the disabled are trying to be what they'll never be. no other mental issue has this amount of shit boiling around it. i just wish to be left alone with my weird cope.
t. ftm

>>19330796
If amputees actually believed that they were fully able-bodied people, and more, demanded that I regarded them as such, even with thousands of dollars of corrective surgeries and prosthetics, there would be the same controversy though.
I'm sure you're a good person with a nice personality, you may even look quite a lot like a man (ftm's certainly seem much more successful at this than their counterparts), but that's the thing, even if I accept that you want to be a man and perfectly respect that in all encounters, the guy at the side of the road who will never believe it (because deep down, the fact of your true sex is always going to be present, it only takes very specific and gracious societal circumstances for this to be accepted as fact), should not be outcast or treated as intellectually inferior or bigoted in any way. He could be seen as rude if vocal about it, sure. But not a mistaken fool deserving of less in life.
It seems to be as if the debate around trans identity will never die down, because identity isn't just what we believe of ourselves, it's also how people refer to us and regard us, at least to some small degree. So transgenders cannot ever be fully comfortable in their new avatar unless it's continually, constantly reaffirmed by people around them. It's why the chants of 'trans women are women' need to be confirmed and reflected back ad nauseam, because without it, the persistent question will always remain - okay, but are they?

>>19328571

No.

>>19330837
>It's why the chants of 'trans women are women' need to be confirmed and reflected back ad nauseam, because without it, the persistent question will always remain - okay, but are they?
very fair post. i understand the casual disapproval most people have, i also hate the majority of trans people (some for being unpleasant cunts, others, frankly, for having what i dont while seeming to "deserve" it less, aka the quintessential experience of being mogged by a lesser being). it is entirely true that there are more and more trenders, attention whores and plain perverts in the ranks, making it manyfold more dooming to be technically one of them. one day the age of label-based identity will be over...

>>19330889
that art is heartbreaking and speaks to statistics about trans people having much higher daily hours sitting at the computer on average

>>19330889
Just keep being you. The more trans people that can honestly discuss these topics and aren't afraid to approach their vulnerabilities, the more people will accept them. As you say, the future is probably transhumanist in every capacity anyway, so you may be a pioneer at the forefront in a radical change of how we regard and define ourselves anyway.

>>19330906
the artist is frankly a genius. it's like renaissance with its niche close-knit references all over again.

>>19330914
very sad. I like imagining the catharsis of the artist in getting this stuff out on the page, though.

>>19330914
Is that the Watch Dogs symbol on the laptop or am I retarded?

>>19330906
p. s. for reasons not stated precisely, this particular painting is a sort of ftm code for a specific type of personality summed up in the thought cloud of the parody posted above.
>When asked why he was compelled to revisit Velázquez's Portrait again and again, Bacon replied that he had nothing against popes, but merely sought "an excuse to use these colours, and you can't give ordinary clothes that purple colour without getting into a sort of false fauve manner".[25] At the time Bacon was coming to terms with the death of a cold, disciplinarian father, his early, illicit sexual encounters, and a very destructive sadomasochistic approach to sex.
perhaps it pinpoints the clinging to unrelated aesthetics for unconventional or absurd reasons & Mistreatment both from others and yourself apart from the obvious "trapped and screaming" motif.
my own five cents is that the papal trone and vestments mirror the pedestal on which society puts women and the regals it adores them with.

>>19330945
Thelema unicursal hexagram

>>19330962
You didn't like ser explanation of the pope image? Not everything is deeply symbolic. I thought it was a good point about purple, given the level of the piece.

>>19330994
i like the painting because it looks cool. the schizophrenic search for symbolism in a piece he drew just because purple color is cool & screaming pope looks badass on canvas really resonates with the transsexual brainworms that make people scrutinize the appearance and behaviour of themselves and others to the point of psychosis

>>19331015
I see.

>>19330796
>the issue is completely overblown on all planes
except the one where you aren't born unless it happens.

>>19328576
Based.

>>19328576
fpbp
Read Theology of the Body by St. John Paul II.

>>19328571
Ars Amatoria by the ancient Roman poet Ovid.

>>19331400
>wash your penis
great love advice

>>19331658
except when you're heading out the door for work just on time without a minute to spare and you feel a little sting in ur cock head and realize u left some soap under your foreskin

>>19328840
Wow. Source?

>>19331658
If a woman wants to suck your dick, she won't care

The only book about sex you'll ever need

>>19328571
Foucault.

>>19328571
>I know that there is [A BUNCH OF RETARDS WHO ARE CONSISTENTLY WRONG]
Have sex, first of all. You are not gonna learn how to lose your virginity from a fucking book. Once you've done that, read Masters. Take everything with a grain of salt, but generally speaking you can guarantee that anything not backed up by hard data or studies is bullshit. Anything that flies in the face of conventional wisdom (ESPECIALLY to push a progressive agenda) is also bullshit. If you don't know what 'conventional wisdom' is, read Red Pill and pick-up artist materials, then TONE IT WAY THE FUCK DOWN. Those retards are generally right, but take it way too far.

Fundamentally, be wary of ANY attempt to boil sex (an art) down to a science.

>>19328571
>I know that there is Freud, Kinsey, and Foucault, but who else id out there ?
>>19331834
>Foucault.
???

>>19331844
I just saw Freud lol and then responded. If he wants to read sexual books then Houellebecq, or Masoch, but more detailed things about sexuality I've only read Foucault.

>>19330577
I have not shamed anyone. On the other hand, you have. So do you decry shaming or do you not? Please review how saying that shaming is bad, while insultingly dismissing someone's position out of hand, looks to anyone reading. Either be totally intellectually honest or not at all.

>>19328571
Unironically have sex. The more sex you have, the more you will understand it; no need to read books on the subject.

>>19328571
>but who else id out there ?
fucking kek

>>19328571

>>19332827

>>19332835
Can you give a quick rundown?

>>19328576
but is sex with randos a good coping strategy if said beloved doesn't want you back? ;_;

>>19328571
fiction but kingsley amis wrote 'the alteration' because '"true" art centred on the celebration of human sexuality.'

>>19331804
https://www.reddit.com/user/SpiffyTickler/

>>19330114
Promiscuous sex is easily destructive. Dont let globohomo tell you its hecking liberating. Its closer to degredation.

>>19333841
I'm not even a moralfag, but it kills your capacity for intimacy and most importantly your respect for your partner(s). only have sex with people you are emotionally connected to and know for some time

>>19328571
picture a male figure. Now shrink him down to 5 feet tall. Now give him a bulbous nose, tangled black hair, and greasy off-white skin. Now place him in a shadowy crevice.
My friend we've found ourselves a theorist of sexuality. Make the mistake of straying too near him when nobody else is around and he'll grab you by the collar, pulling you closer so that he can let slither his choicest insights into your ear,
>eeyyy goyim you wanna suck penis. I have a study that says the average kid your age regularly sucks his friends' cocks, it's normal goyim
>eyyy goyim fuck your mom, here's a short story I wrote about my desire to fuck my mama, it's in first person so as to imprint on your psyche easier
>eeyyy goyim did you know that the penis was designed to scoop the cum of rival males out of the vagina? that's right goyim we're meant to reproduce by gangbang orgies
>eyyy goyim i've been busy in the studio, why not buy my new dvds: BBC gangbang 14, or perhaps a tv drama about white people despairing at how soulless they are compared to brave "dreamers"
>eyyy goyim have you ever thought about putting on a dress? 90% of men have sissy femboy fantasies you know...
>eyy goyim, haven't you heard about how the native Hawaiians lived? monogamy is forced western patriarchy, man in nature is just like a bonobo, he love eating pussy and supporting sex workers, just like bonobo monkeys

>>19335762
I agree in principle, but there's an argument to be made that the jew's orientation toward degeneracy is more valuable to society than mere indifference. They are trying to find the bottom, some essential backstop to humanity. They are unknowingly searching for our core self. They are acting as Satan did when he tested man on God's behalf.

Goy cattle with no moral conviction or motive, who are willing to slide into the depths of hell and put themselves in satan's care, are still responsible for their actions.

>>19328571

>>19336496

>>19336517
I have the hardcover in front of me, didn't read more than a few pages. Tell me what page that is on so I can verify it's not a fake quote.

>>19335762
>>19336196
>>>/pol/ is the other way around

>>19336517
Kek I thought that was a serious book
>Like a vampire, the homosexual "draws off" that power by sucking.
Based if true

>>19328571
Sexuality is a lot more than coitus and procreation. I'd recommend you read on the holonic model of sexuality and "Semiotics and Hermeneutics of the Everyday"

>>19335762
>>19336196
>>19336496
This reminds me how frighteningly real the incel-nazi pipeline is.

Nazism truly is just sexual impotence + tardrage

>>19328902

>>19336517
>Hitler was a homosexual prostitute in Vienna
Pretty obvious to anyone that reads about his early life

>>19337270
>>19337380
I was actually kidding. Well, not kidding, but saying something that went way over the heads of yourself and the person I was talking to. When I said "the Jew's orientation towards degeneracy" I was referring not to degeneracy as the other anon meant it, unqualified, but degeneracy as the conceptual opposite of virtue. If you know anything about fascism, you know their core belief is that they're safeguarding virtue, and others are degenerate. Fascists believe that if they reached the peak of aesthetics and virtue, they will find peak humanity waiting there. However, that's all very un-christian because only God has an objective view of right and wrong. "It is not given to man, even to direct his step." Attempting to match God's level of certainty is also called pride, the anti-God sin. Appropriately, the nazi tower of Babel fell in ruins, and is now seen as a huge mistake. So, trying to purge degeneracy is a form of ignorance and atheism, God put those degenerates there for a reason. Ever since the war, virtue and aesthetic for their own sake have been avoided as precursors to pride, and the opposite side of humanity has been the subject of our studies. Jews have featured prominently in this, not because they suffered under Hitler, but because they have always (right or wrong) represented the antithesis of goy virtue and aesthetic. So, with those concepts battered, western culture has shifted to an examination of the downtrodden.

If you hate society's lack of aesthetic and virtue, blame Hitler for ruining them, not the jews who have never been interested in splendor.

>>19337889
Interesting take and I probably agree with most of it.
>not the jews who have never been interested in splendor.
Isn't one of their major kabbalistic texts literally called The Book of Splendor (Sefer HaZohar) tho?

>>19337945
Sure and they've made some magnificent films too. I just think in terms of the overall cultural trajectory they're more akin to gypsies who love and support one another, but feel alienated from the greater humanity.

>>19328571
I think Samael Aun Weor wrote a lot about it but didn't read any of it

>>19338010
For example

>>19337945
>>19337969
I should add that any ordinary minority feeling among jews was further crystallized against splendor by their own opposition to Hitler. A concise way to understand this is to watch the scene from "My Dinner With Andre" wherein Andre Gregory ascribes sentimentality and love of beauty to the nazi mindset, using the example of The Little Prince.

>>19328723
laci green stole my Vape at a bar in Tulsa 4 years ago.

dumb fucking bitch

>>19330255
lol same

>>19328723
Why?

>>19328590
>counter currents

Do I get put on a watchlist if I ever visit that site?

>>19338268
That reminds me of Clement Greenberg (of what I know about him, haven't read his works).

>>19337889
This is retarded from beginning to end.

>>19328571
This thread has far less replies than what should be expected wtf. Why is /lit/ so against discussing sexuality?

>>19328576
Dangerously based

>>19334899
christcuckery is the OG globohomo

>>19341021
Not even close lmao.
The fact that you even have a problem with globohomo proves that you still subscribe to Christian morality lmao.
If you didn't care for slave morality, you would be just as fine with, or even happier with, transpeople teaching your kids to love who they love as you would with some christfag teaching them abstinence.

>>19330415
>All that bullshit to say you disagree with man having a separate self

>>19328576
fpbp

>>19338010
>>19338034
>Samael Aun Weor
>Samael
Why would I read a book by a guy who literally named himself after Satan?

>>19340285
New here? This fucking board is dead as shit. The people that actually post are the same assholes from every board, the rest are hit and run "thoughtful" OPs and philosophy threads where everyone wants to discuss a different book that only 10% have read.

according to ctrl-F I have replied to your thread 20 times.

>>19341857
Don't know. I heard about him and his books through gnosticteachings.org which appears to be all about his teachings. Listened to a few hours maybe, don't know if I learned much really. I was very interested in esoterica a few years ago. Couldn't stand the accent of the most frequent lecturer, probably main reason I stopped listening.

>>19339848
God allowed Satan to enter the garden. If you had a bible time machine and appeared at that moment to stop satan, god would let him kill you.

>>19328576
fpbp yet again

>>19328571

Why do people (let's be honest mostly women) like to pretend that human sexuality is way more complex than it really is
When another animal does it oh it's obviously for the purpose of procreation and the continued survival of the species but humans are just totally different man I can feel it

>>19340285
/lit/ is participating in NNN this year.

>>19328576
fpbp

>>19341857
Victor Rodriguez picked the name because it means messenger of god or something. He doesn't believe in Satan because he's a gnostic larper

>>19342260
Idk, ancient wisdom has had the relations between men and women pegged for 8,000 years at this point.

>>19328571
>lets talk about sex
Let's not, the subject frightens me.

>>19343337
have sex incel

>>19343723
I don't like to, and frankly I can't.

>>19328576
This is a decent option if you’re too weak to maintain your inner balance and virtue while experiencing the chaos of unpredictable interpersonal encounters and the urges that drive you to them. However, it could just as well lead you to a place of imbalance and destitution if you begin to resent those who enjoy the pleasures you deny yourself or regret your lack of exploration. One should also keep in mind that the abstainer’s mindset is socially isolating in all but traditional, conservative societies. People who like to fuck know to avoid those who don’t fuck for their own social benefit. Having a positive sexuality is a useful tool for navigating high performing social circles with competence and confidence.

>>19328571
My diary desu

>>19343817

The problem with this ideology is that it tends towards self-abnegation. You seem sophisticated enough to take my meaning and so I won't belabor the point.

>>19328576
Extremely based post, I should’ve waited for someone I loved

>>19328840
>>19330535
Damn it, I gave in to temptation. How can I hope to hear the holy ghost when I cloak myself in sin?

>>19343817
its not about weakness

>>19343817
>high performing social circles
>regret your lack of exploration
>too weak to maintain your inner balance and virtue

Get the fuck out of here with that pseud shit man.

>>19328902
>The queers were right, people will fuck whoever their choices and their hormones lead them to fuck. You don't have to be anything you don't want to be.

Does this mean there will be people who fuck children in the future?

>>19328571
Undoubtedly a lowbrow suggestion, but Daniel Handler's "All the Dirty Parts" was interesting - an honest look at sex addiction in young males, with a suitably depressing ending, yet not "conservative" in the dull, stifling sense of the word.

>>19328571
Reich. Freud. Jung. Engels Family Private Property and the State.

>>19346423
are you retarded?

>>19328571
My friend wants to know if there are any good resources for dealing with being sexually repressed and fearing that nobody wants to be intimate with you.
Asking for a friend btw.

>>19348839
how are you repressed

>>19348845
I think I've been conditioned to be feel shame about sexual feelings and needs. For example when I was young, if there was anything sexual on TV (even kissing) my mom would always change the channel and never explain why. It's like I wasn't allowed to be interested in intimacy.
Never got hugged btw

>>19342196
any books with this premise?

>>19348909
Your sexual feelings are only shameful if you're engaging in shameful acts. You need to figure out what you think is and isn't okay, sounds like your problem stems from your shallow understanding of your own feelings. With that being said intimacy reaches far beyond the sexual, sounds like your parents never talked to you about the relations between men and women and you're a sperg that couldn't figure it out on your own.

>>19328840
And /pol/tards here say foreplay is cuck shit.

>>19328571
Sade was the realest dude.

>>19330125
This double standards is why you have whores, retard.

>>19328571
Bataille as others have recommended is pretty kinky. You should also watch this vid on the history of sexuality, pretty interesting stuff:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgUCx3T7n1A&t=980s

>>19348979
If putting a live pigeon into my arsehole is shameful then I have to reject our moral code.

>>19348909
I can heavily relate to this. While I think it's normal for families to not talk super openly about sex, my family takes it to a whole different level. Never have I once seen my parents show any degree of intimacy with eachother. My dad averts his eyes any time anything even slightly sexual appears on t.v. I was raised catholic, went to catholic school, and my mom was very serious about her faith's teaching on sexuality. I remember my mom on several occasions when I was young talking about how masturbation is sinful and when she heard a comedian joke about it she said she lost respect for him.
Honestly, this is why I find it funny when I see all the zoomer trad cath larpers here romanticize Catholicism. Anyone who grew up with the faith & was serious about it, knows just how insanely neurotic and unhealthy Catholic's views are on sexuality.

>>19336517
damn emj is so based

>>19349563
Have you grown out of it anon?

>>19349647
Out of Catholicism? Yes, I left the faith 2-3 years ago, but it's definitely left an imprint on me. Even though I no longer believe, the thought patterns remain long after the real belief disappears.

>>19342882
If I'm not mistaken Samael means "Poison/Venom of God", not messenger.

>>19341061
>slave morality
Everyone look at this pathetic pseud

>>19349704
You’ll never not be ex-Catholic.
Catholic is a set of cultural relations not abstract beliefs. Plenty of practicing Catholics are atheists. Most ex-Catholics are still culturally catholic.

Sucks to be you. Go on a shame driven gay sex bender.

for me its the function of the orgasm
featuring Willhelm Reich

>>19328576
you think you can find a virgin to wife? where?

>>19351511
my current gf is a virgin and i intend to make her my wife

>>19351511
>>19351528
just realized i didnt answer your question, at community college lol

>>19350614
>the function of the orgasm
What's it?

>>19351511
convert to islam

>>19328571
lolita

>>19349928
>Catholic is a set of cultural relations not abstract beliefs. Plenty of practicing Catholics are atheists. Most ex-Catholics are still culturally catholic.
Not sure what you mean. My personal relationship to Catholicism was about both abstract beliefs and practices. I was very devout growing up and took the abstract beliefs as seriously as the rituals. By lingering thoughts all I meant is that even if you do not believe in the actual claims of the religion, you still find yourself thinking in the same routines you learned--e,g penitence, self-denial, etc. Not entirely sure what you mean by cultural relations. Maybe it's different where I'm from. I don't go to church anymore and what holidays and rituals I do practice is only keeping up face for the family.

Everything’s just about production and sales.

Capitalist systems are in place so we are forced to think about sex.. but not actually have it. That’s why they use a mini infection (persuasion through feminism/gender no longer being seen as important but as a limit) which they implant into the best specimens, the tik tok models and the twitch girls. Then those women do the work for the people who don’t move a muscle.
They promote the idea of a promise to love every of the 2000000 individuals and so they no longer feel melted into a crowd. And when it’s time to deliver they bail. Perfect way to make everyone want the product but not engage in it.

>>19352735
Consider socialist Irish who still have catholic mentalities about the world. Atheist. Unpracticing. Etc. but order the world through guilt and explosive sin.

>>19328576
fpbp

>>19343817
lmao tldr keep coping mr inner balance

>>19328590
Based post
>Camille Paglia's Sexual Personae
If you read anything posted on this thread, read this.