[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 304 KB, 1000x1426, UK1_037_1000.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11530997 No.11530997 [Reply] [Original]

Do you guys think Houellebecq's on to something, notably his belief that the democratization of sex (and social interactions in general) has devastating effects on those with "poor" sexual/social value?

>> No.11531000

also can someone remind of that website with a huge database of book torrents? or alternatively, someone got a pdf/epub of Plateforme (in french)?

>> No.11531002

if you want a legitimate answer to your questions, delete this thread right now and make another one with a more suitable picture.

you're welcome.

>> No.11531078

I might, but I really think you angsty virgins need to stop getting so butthurt at seeing attractive women.

>> No.11531102

those with "poor" sexual/social value should be bred out of the gene pool
sexual liberation has and will lead to a exponentially more beautiful population

>> No.11531108


Those orange bimbos killed my boner

>> No.11531113

>democratization of sex
What does this mean? There are no bureaucrats that vote on who has sex and force that decision on to society

>> No.11531121

every human population has always had standards (physical and behavioural) that they apply when selecting mates.

I guess in this case the problem was actually not harsh enough genetic selection, which occurred with the huge population boom caused by agriculture.

>> No.11531123

Whenever there's a collective goal there, as an emergent property, is a hierarchy of competence.

>> No.11531132

Don't try to make sense of the complaints of fat socially stunted nerds who expect to be handed docile fuckdolls.

>> No.11531138

this is true but obvious to the point of being a platitude. things have always been this way, there's nothing new about social hierarchies.

desu I think Houellebecq is just an edgy incel who is bitter about being born ugly, and made his obsession with looks an integral part of his identity and world-view rather than working past it.

>> No.11531139

he wrote a book called "Whatever", in which the thesis is that the sexual revolution of the Sixties created not communism but capitalism in the sexual market, that the unattractive underclass is exiled while the privileged initiates are drained by corruption, sloth, and excess

>> No.11531141

It's not obvious, actually, far from it. Very few people intuitively grasp it as a fact.

>> No.11531147


>> No.11531149

how would you define the collective goal of western society?

>> No.11531151

These bitches lookin like drumph

>> No.11531156

golden tan skin is considered an attractive trait by most. your standards differ from the norm and are not more accurate than that of others.

>> No.11531157

The instantiation of the sovereignty of the individual over any possible collectivist group identity into culture and law as far as is possible. And at the moment, the only country doing this successfully is America.

>> No.11531165
File: 45 KB, 600x622, OrigCash.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.11531166

Then why call it democratization?

Why use words that make his meaning more unclear?
Like does he mean everybody has property in his own body and therefore can choose/sell with whom to have sex and not?

>> No.11531168

I agree. These hoes however are The Color Orange.

>> No.11531173

as an evolutionary trait, when humans are cast out of "natural" tribal groups, they automatically attempt to join other (tribal) groups.

group identify is arguably more important to an individual's self identity than other facets of his identity.

looking at any western society (especially America), it's not hard to find that most people define themselves primary through whichever social group (=~tribe) they are a part of (ie political, racial or cultural groups)

>> No.11531175

Exactly. People are idiots. Welcome to philosophy.

>> No.11531176

he's claiming that this social phenomenon derives from applying political theory to social interactions.

>> No.11531177

No, not really. What really changed? How were those with poor value worth more before?

>> No.11531180
File: 23 KB, 480x360, hqdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.11531181

>those with "poor" sexual/social value should be bred out of the gene pool
not an argument, ugly women still have high sexual values and have children

>> No.11531191

>if it isn't enforced by a government then a restriction doesn't exist!
Houellebecq fucks a lot actually

>> No.11531201

Tribe mentality is a facet of evolutionary biology. So people following it are not stupid, just mentally weak.

>> No.11531204

>being born a certain height and with certain minor facial features

>> No.11531206

The American political philosophy is far more successful than the collectivist philosophy. So, by your own logic, collectivism is evolutionarily inferior.

>> No.11531208

Thats not what what im saying. I think democracy implies a system of government but government doesnt deceide and enforce sex

>> No.11531212

>democracy implies a system of government
This is not what democratic means

>> No.11531213

What is his political theory of capitalism and communism?

>> No.11531214

This. And if you're going to make the soft-eugenics argument (that only good genes should be allowed to reproduce) it's actually MORE important that bad females don't get to reproduce than bad males, as females are the ones to pass on mitochondrial DNA.
Low value males have more of a right to breed than low value females. Or none of them should breed (the correct answer).

>> No.11531221

What does it mean? A group or ist represantatives vote on an issue and the majority vote is enforced on everybody?
How would that apply to sex?

>> No.11531225

Monogamy, sex after marriage, marrying young, and a greater emphasis on parents' deciding on partners for their children. Have you heard of the 1960s?

>> No.11531226

that claim is accurate, insofar as you accept that all people (including yourself) is an idiot, ie a slave to evolutionary behaviours. (as >>11531201 said)

social context changes through technological and political changes. collectivist behaviour is not useful in certain social contexts, and is therefore not selected for in these specific contexts. there exists other social contexts (historical and actual) in which collectivist behaviour is still selected for (for ex. small secluded villages where every member of the village depends on the work of others, and they to him, or contemporary hunter gatherer tribes)

>> No.11531229

Yes, but you still can make it if you put in effort.

>> No.11531230

>Houellebecq fucks a lot actually
doesn't change the fact that his world-view is dependent on his experience being a bitter, resentful incel. his experiences may have changed, but his core beliefs haven't

>> No.11531235

absolutely retarded ad hominem

>> No.11531236

these traits are seen as biologically "useful", ie indicators of fertility and physical adaptability to harsh environmental conditions

>> No.11531237

So what? The truth isn't real because an "incel" says it? You sound stupid anon.
>inb4 you call me a virgin or some other stupid cop out

>> No.11531240

>implying modern sexual market is about passing genes
ehhh anon, people in post-sexrev cultures have less and less children, that is also one of Goblin qt's concerns: sexuality became all about egoism and pleasure, and that pleasure is limited to few men.

>> No.11531242

No, it's actually genetically weak and are only selected for due to the Fisherian runaway. Not all traits that are attractive are good, look at peacock tails.

>> No.11531247

Ok, so those with good value tended to reproduce earlier. Other than that, how does this make a difference or cause so-called "devastating effects" on those w/ poor value? There were always those who just didn't reproduce/have sex and there will forever be.

>> No.11531249

see >>11531240

>> No.11531254

Sure but this a problem for society at large not a select group.

>> No.11531255

democratic in that people are free to make choices, with no (moral, social) or legal imperatives.

capitalism in that people can and are incentivised to accumulate capital. in this context sexual capital.

capitalism as opposed to communism, where capital is distributed equally among all members of society.

capitalism as a system implies inequality, such that some will always have more capital than others, through luck, skill and/or sheer willpower.

>> No.11531264

The problem with all of this is that, we can and should analyze reproduction through a technocratic lens. ALL humans are capable of producing good offspring so long as the person they breed with is a good match, and all humans can produce bad offspring if the person they breed with is a bad match.
What we should do is use super computers to find the best genetic matches, and maybe add a personality and sexuality survey so people will like each other on top of it. Everyone gets the best possible partner, the genepool improves, and everyone wins.
There is no moral argument against this.

>> No.11531267

agreed. although it is conceivable that both genetically low value males and low value females can artificially (through changing behavior and appearance artificially) improve their apparent value. This allowed form of trickery is arguably responsible for the dissemination of low value genes.

>> No.11531273

Of course it does. Lit is just too oversocialised to say anything

>> No.11531281

you guys failed to grasp the fact that I was replying to someone arguing that because Houellebecq now gets laid, he doesn't think like a "socially stunted nerd who expects to be handed docile fuckdolls"

it's not an ad-hominem, Houellebecq himself has admited to being a bitter and resentful person as a consequence of his early-life social status.

have you jokers even read 'Whatever'?

>> No.11531285

You also have to analyze what's actually "good" or "bad" vs what is sexually attractive. The Fisherian runaway is a real thing, and what females are attracted to is not necessarily what is the most fit.

>> No.11531288

some people are infertile, so your point is moot.

>> No.11531291

We can synthesize gametes from their skin cells.

>> No.11531293

"Fisherian runaway"
that's a very interesting theory, albeit one I'm not familiar with. I'll have to do some research and get back to you on that.

>> No.11531297

It really doesn't matter what Houellebecq says about his own resentment. Either you can comment on and refute his intellectual stance or you can discard it on the basis of the person making those arguments. You chose the latter which is textbook ad hominem.

>> No.11531305


>hurdur muh tribe
>hurdur muh alpha
>hurdur muh genetics

When will non continental philosophy die already?

>> No.11531307

I think lit has the best jezebels. /s/ is a fucking joke and has been for 8+ years. I can't get off to anything posted here. Meanwhile on frontpage /lit/ there is always a pick to make me go OwO

Thank you based jezebelposters

>> No.11531314

I'm glad my thread is generating interesting discussions, but if possible, could anyone address >>11531000 ?

>> No.11531316

good people breeding doesn't always ensure good offspring. there could be disabilities, cognitive difficulties and so on. As well the chances of the children becoming horrible shits is always a possibility

>> No.11531317


>> No.11531319

this isn't a shitposting thread, you're not impressing anybody with your shitty memes.

come up with an actual argument against the claims made, or gtfo

>> No.11531321

this is true conceptually, but statistically, people with good genes will produce higher quality offspring than those with bad genes.

>> No.11531329


>There is no moral argument against this.

Freedom. Why do you hate it?

>> No.11531330

That seems wrong. Whenever I see orange girls like that I'm repulsed. It's a cheap, tasteless look.

>> No.11531333
File: 150 KB, 359x414, 1509634381170.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

There is a spectre haunting /lit/, the spectre of dunning-kruger

>> No.11531335

those are your own personal standards, why would you assume that everybody shares them? you could actually observe the opposite, that most people find "orange" skinned people attractive, despite the fact that you do not..

>> No.11531344

I'm gonna have to ask you to stop shitposting in my thread.

if you wish to refute any of the points made do so, but bitter ad-hominems lead absolutely nowhere.

>> No.11531345

Because pale skin has historically been thought more attractive. Tan skin is associated with peasants out working in the fields.

>> No.11531353

>Freedom. Why do you hate it?
Okay, this is a moral argument against it, but I don't hate freedom, I just think this is a better world.

>> No.11531356

what's you're point? beauty standards change throughout history, depending mostly on social, political and cultural context. If these change, so will standards.

>> No.11531384

Here is an argument - there is no such thing as nature and some fantasmathic processes arent imvolved in standards of beuty which change over time and are different between different cultures and societal subgroups. How otherwise would you explain the fact that there are different fetishes ranging from bbw to girls with hooked noses. How would you explain existence of fags like me?

>> No.11531390

Thank you

>> No.11531391

Sorry for phoneposting

>> No.11531427

Sounds like he is just crying because he has nothing or little of value to offer. And people freely choose not to engage with him because of that

>> No.11531429


>> No.11531440

that's it, thanks a bunch!

>> No.11531444

Is it gen.lib.rus.ec?

>> No.11531511

And nowadays pale skin is associated with labor - you spend your whole day in an office building - and tan skin is the sign of opulence, because it implies you have the free time to concern yourself with things outside of the office environment. Step up and realize that the things people tend towards finding attactive are according to the milieu of what implies some sort of impoverishment.

Plump girls used to be considered attractive because most people were too poor to afford to be overweight. Now we live in a time where food is so plentiful that obesity, not malnourishment, is the epidemic, so instead of finding plump girls to be the paragon of beauty more people tend towards people that invest in their personal fitness.

>> No.11531597

this makes a lot of sense. It's important to look at values/standards through the lens of socioeconomic/political context. culture is predominantly downstream from these realities (though it can in turn influence them back)

>> No.11531630

there are exceptions to every rule
exceptions do not break the rules
most people universally agree on what is attractive
what truly differs is slight variations of the same standards

>> No.11531639

When Atomised was published it was derided as dystopian and hysterical science fiction, yet here we are 20 years later, now knowing that it was quasi-prophetical, when we are living in a time when sex-starved young and socially shunned men go on killing sprees and commit mass murder in the name of some pseudo-revolution.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.