Why shouldn't we be libertines?

[Anonymous No.13204088]

>In whatever circumstances, a woman, my dear, whether unwedded, wife, or widow, must never have for objective, occupation, or desire anything save to have herself fucked from morning to night: 'tis for this unique end Nature created her; but if, in order to answer this intention, I require her to trample upon all the prejudices of her childhood, if I prescribe to her the most formal disobedience to her family's orders, the most arrant contempt for all her relatives' advice, you will agree with me, Eugénie, that among all the bonds to be burst, I ought very surely to recommend that the very first be those of wedlock. Indeed, Eugénie, consider the young girl scarcely out of her father's house or her pension, knowing nothing, without experience: of a sudden she is obliged to pass thence into the arms of a man she has never seen, she is called to the altar and compelled to swear to this man an oath of obedience, of fidelity, the more unjust for her often having nothing in the depths of her heart but the greatest desire to break her word. In all the world, is there a more terrible fate than this, Eugénie?
>You wish to have no poor in France? Distribute no alms, and above all shut down your poorhouses. The individual born in misfortune thereupon seeing himself deprived of these dangerous crutches, will fend for himself, summoning up all the resources put in him by Nature, to extricate himself from the condition wherein he started life; and he will importune you no longer. Destroy, with entire unpity, raze to the ground, those detestable houses where you billet the progeny of the libertinage of the poor, appalling cloacas, wherefrom there every day spews forth into society a swarm of new-made creatures whose unique hope resides in your purse. What purpose, I ask, is there in preserving such individuals with so much care? Does anyone fear France's depopulation?
>Such excesses, perfectly simple and very intelligible to me, doubtless, all the same ought never be committed amongst ourselves: "Wolves are safe in their own company," as the proverb has it, and trivial though it may be, 'tis true. My friends, dread nothing from me, ever: I'll perhaps have you do much that is evil, but never will I do any to you.

[Anonymous No.13204277]

>>13204088
>appalling cloacas

Nice one, Punchy!

[Anonymous No.13204280]

>>13204088
>Why shouldn't we be libertines?
Uh... we already are.

[Anonymous No.13204287]

Have children

[Anonymous No.13205086]

>>13204287
Have monsters by buggering philosophers, the simulacrum of reproduction

[Anonymous No.13205103]

>>13204088
Brainlet spotted.
Libertines and hedonists are NOT welcome on /lit/!

[Anonymous No.13205133]

It's not very satisfying. It's like you never read the symbolists

[Anonymous No.13205532]

>>13205103
>t buttblasted christLARPer

[Anonymous No.13205765]

>>13204287
>... there is not the least wrong in diverting a man's semen into a detour by one means or by another, because propagation is in no wise the objective of Nature; she merely tolerates it; from her viewpoint, the less we propagate, the better; and when we avoid it altogether, that's best of all. Eugénie, be the implacable enemy of this wearisome child-getting, and even in marriage incessantly deflect that perfidious liquor whose vegetation serves only to spoil our figures, which deadens our voluptuous sensations, withers us, ages and makes us fade and disturbs our health; get your husband to accustom himself to these losses; entice him into this or that passage, let him busy himself there and thus keep him from making his offerings at the temple; tell him you detest children, point out the advantages of having none. Keep a close watch over yourself in this article, my dear, for, I declare to you, I hold generation in such horror I should cease to be your friend the instant you were to become pregnant.
>The technical term is genitals, male genitals... testicles belongs to art, the balls are the reservoir containing the abundant semen I have just mentioned and which, expelled into the woman's matrix, or womb, produces the human species; but we will not stress these details, Eugénie, for they relate more to medicine than to libertinage. A pretty girl ought simply to concern herself with fucking, and never with engendering. No need to touch at greater length on what pertains to the dull business of population, from now on we shall address ourselves principally, nay, uniquely to those libertine lecheries whose spirit is in no wise reproductive.

[Anonymous No.13205785]

>>13205103
>Classing libertinism with hedonism
pseud

[Anonymous No.13205795]

>>13205785
Libertinism has a large intellectual debt to Epicurus, so it doesn't seem that pseud.

[Anonymous No.13206380]

>>13205795
Yeah and Eichmann jerked off to Kant, that doesn't make it a grounded philosophical genealogy, it just means they had excuses that have to be deconstructed a bit more for the dissonance to be apparent. Or, apparent to you.

[Anonymous No.13206465]

God, give me the strength to live a pure and upright life.

[Anonymous No.13206478]

>>13206380
I don't think anyone's suggesting that Epicurus was a libertine, but instead that libertines are hedonists. It'd be like denying that the German Idealists were Kantians just because Kant himself didn't agree with Fichte.

[Anonymous No.13206482]

God, let Butterfly continue to wear her collar, and shake her big breasts around without a bra :3

[Anonymous No.13206565]

>>13204088
If Sade were alive today he would have been a radio talk show host. He would be a B-lister under Howard Stern, relegated to some backwater station where his antics could amuse the inbred illiterates that fancy such notions.

[Anonymous No.13206779]

>>13204088
This guy really sucks at writing desu. I tried reading 120 days of Sodom for a nice fap, but the writing is so impersonal and non-descriptive I can't get into it.

[Anonymous No.13206821]

>>13205765
So basically, these retards are so retarded they don’t understand why they want to fuck, yet they feel they’re enough of an authority to recommend fucking as life’s sole pursuit?

[Anonymous No.13206921]

>>13206821
They're seperating fucking from procreation. Procreation requires fucking, but fucking does not require procreation; seems simple enough.

Sade has a Spinoza-adjacent understanding of Nature, and so even if he knew about Darwinism, it wouldn't be what he means by "Nature".

[Anonymous No.13206997]

>The first major scandal occurred on Easter Sunday in 1768, in which Sade procured the services of a woman, Rose Keller,[16] a widow-beggar who approached him for alms. He told her she could make money by working for him—she understood her work to be that of a housekeeper. At his chateau at Arcueil, Sade ripped her clothes off, threw her on a divan and tied her by the four limbs, face-down, so that she could not see behind her. Then he whipped her.
> In 1774, Sade trapped six children, including one boy, in his chateau for six weeks during which time he subjected them to abuse, which his wife allowed.[2] He kept a group of young employees at the chateau, most of whom complained about sexual mistreatment and quickly left his service.

[Anonymous No.13207266]

>>13206997
>Destruction being one of the chief laws of Nature, nothing that destroys can be criminal; how might an action which so well serves Nature ever be outrageous to her? This destruction of which man is wont to boast is, moreover, nothing but an illusion; murder is no destruction; he who commits it does but alter forms, he gives back to Nature the elements whereof the hand of this skilled artisan instantly recreates other beings; now, as creations cannot but afford delight to him by whom they are wrought, the murderer thus prepares for Nature a pleasure most agreeable, he furnishes her materials, she employs them without delay, and the act fools have had the madness to blame is nothing but meritorious in the universal agent's eye. 'Tis our pride prompts us to elevate murder into crime. Esteeming ourselves the foremost of the universe's creatures, we have stupidly imagined that every hurt this sublime creature endures must perforce be an enormity ... Indeed! an ambitious sovereign can destroy, at his ease and without the least scruple, the enemies prejudicial to his grandiose designs… Cruel laws, arbitrary, imperious laws can likewise every century assassinate millions of individuals and we, feeble and wretched creatures, we are not allowed to sacrifice a single being to our vengeance or our caprice! Is there anything so barbarous, so outlandish, so grotesque? and, cloaking ourselves in the profoundest mystery, must we not amply compensate ourselves for this ineptitude, and have revenge?

[Anonymous No.13207529]

>>13206478
Saying that the libertines subscribe to hedonism and also that Epicurus is the progenitor of hedonism does suggest that Epicurus' thought is carried out in libertine hedonism. In the same stroke, justifying libertine hedonism as genealogically related to Epicurean hedonism is like justifying monastic Chrstianity by appeal to monastic Epicureanism, it defeats the point of making a difference at all if you're going to fall back on similarity. With libertines, nonconformity served a strong structural role, though you could very easily draw the parallel that the pleasure and punishment principles are deontological spaces.

[Anonymous No.13207950]

>>13204088
oh yes, i indeed like shoot milkie milk milk from my horny boander, it make me say: "Annhhhhhhhhnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.." touching me poengis :...... mmMMMMMMmm mm m m mm m m i touch and cum my cum from the cummi peangus MMMMMMm m mm

[Anonymous No.13208045]

>>13206565
imagine being this much of a redd itor

[Anonymous No.13208050]

>>13206779
>>13207950
imagine being this much of a red ditor