/lit/ - Literature

File: 2.98 MB, 464x825, succubi2.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 20:40:08 2020 No.16422050 [Reply] [Original]

Are there any literature that locigally argues against sexual depravity in modern times? Ones that does not rely on religious lenses to focus it's points? I've thought a lot about this and deep down I know (or I WANT) to believe being chaste is good. But I have no rational argument against people being whores (male or female versions) and enjoy their sexuality to the fullest. I don't think I am alone in this and I think it's a great dilemma of modern times I think

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 20:41:08 2020 No.16422056 >>16422050 Isnt there studies that show the more sexual partners one has the less success they have in a marital situation?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 20:42:28 2020 No.16422063 Houellebecq Start with Atomized

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 20:46:56 2020 No.16422094 >>16422056 But so what? A woman or man can just find another.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 20:49:13 2020 No.16422105 >>16422094 But then the kids will get all fucked up

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 20:50:39 2020 No.16422113 Humans have always been horny animals.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 20:51:10 2020 No.16422116 >>16422105 THere a plenty of people from separated parents who grow up well adjusted Also a big part of the negative impact is from socially constructed stressors and this can be normalized.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 20:52:13 2020 No.16422121 >>16422050 Stop concerning yourself with being logical or fostering "accurate" worldviews. If you believe chastity is the proper way to live, then live that way.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 21:09:05 2020 No.16422200 >>16422116 Bro nothing fucks up a guy like being raised by a single mother. Some come out okay but they're the exception to the norm. Fun fact: 26 of the 27 worst mass shooters were fatherless.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 21:11:39 2020 No.16422209 >>16422050 Yes, Kant secularized Christian ethics with his categorical imperative, abstinence included.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 21:13:05 2020 No.16422216 >>16422094 Sounds soulless honestly.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 21:15:05 2020 No.16422225 File: 200 KB, 1000x1500, Libido-Front+Cover.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 21:18:44 2020 No.16422248 >>16422050 The purpose of sexual intercourse is to create/continue life. It is not for pleasure, pleasure is a byproduct but not the main component.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 21:19:17 2020 No.16422256 >>16422116 >plenty

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 21:38:33 2020 No.16422350 >>16422116 As a child of divorced parents, fuck you

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 21:47:37 2020 No.16422397 >>16422050 The morre sex you have the more likely you are to impregnate someone. This should, at the very least, give you a reason to be cautious about having sex.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 21:53:04 2020 No.16422429 >>16422116 >THere a plenty of people from separated parents who grow up well adjusted Wrong >Also a big part of the negative impact is from socially constructed Wrong

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:04:47 2020 No.16422498 >>16422056 Not really. The only studies that exist use pretty crap data and the writing about those studies misinterprets the data that is there. >>16422429 >>16422350 Pretending to be retarded is also a form of retardation.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:07:45 2020 No.16422511 >>16422498 I'm not retarded but I'm not as intelligent as I could have been if my parents weren't divorced and my dad an alcoholic

>>	mothman Tue Sep 22 22:19:44 2020 No.16422584 >>16422498 you have no idea what you're talking about, kill yourself and gtfo of my board. faggot

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:20:15 2020 No.16422589

Hedonism will break society down. This is a fact. You’re on 4chan, you probably saw multiple studies showing how whoring out will reduce the chance of a long-lasting marriage, how kids without a mother and a father have a higher chance to be a fuck up, how a fatherless society is more violent, etc etc.
In the grand scheme of things, degeneracy rots society from the inside.
You know this intuitively but media and social media will make you believe otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:21:14 2020 No.16422594 >>16422056 Maybe the problem is marriages naturally shouldn't be seen as a lifelong thing

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:22:35 2020 No.16422602 >>16422216 Calling something soulless just proves OPs point that you just want to believe it >>16422248 Says who? religious people? Again OP already mentioned this

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:23:51 2020 No.16422613 >>16422589 Statistics can be misleading and usually people cherry pick studies. Most of those problems are more financial than actually stemming from "muh degeneracy"

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:25:38 2020 No.16422622 >>16422584 >/pol/ tourist >claiming its his board Name a more iconic duo. >>16422511 Are you sure it wasn't your mom who was the alcoholic?

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:27:27 2020 No.16422632

>>16422050
>But I have no rational argument against people being whores (male or female versions) and enjoy their sexuality to the fullest.
Then you must be braindead because the absolute opposite is true. There isn't any good reason for it other than a temporarily and altogether net negative pleasure. It impels you to do it again and again and waste your life away. It makes you fatigued, apathetic and dull. It doesn't carry a single benefit. You can waste weeks away masturbating and fucking and nothing is accomplished.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:27:50 2020 No.16422636

>>16422613
>Statistics can be misleading and usually people cherry pick studies.
>if I don’t agree with them they are wrong
Look, man, go wild, swing dick, so drugs, have a kid outside of marriage, and let her create an onlyfans account the minute she turns 18 - I don’t give a fuck. But don’t try to justify your rotten path. Be a fucking man and own it.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:27:51 2020 No.16422637

>>16422050
Weininger (basing his arguments on Kant, I believe, as >>16422209 points out) addresses this issue in his book SEX AND CHARACTER:

>Coitus is *thus* immoral because there is no man who would not use the woman as a means to an end in such moments, would not in this moment neglect the worthiness of humanity to desire in his as well in her person. In coitus the man forgets himself on account of desire, and he forgets the woman; this one has for him no longer a psychical, but rather only a corporal existence. He wants from her either a child or the gratification of his own sensuality: in both cases he uses her not as an end in itself, but for the sake of a alien intention. Only for this, and for no other reason, is coitus immoral.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:28:22 2020 No.16422640 >>16422094 Female is synonymous with coom receptacle and nothing more

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:29:04 2020 No.16422644 >>16422622 Everyone is telling you that you’re wrong, you redditfag fuck. Go back.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:30:55 2020 No.16422655 Its something you learn naturally with age. Trust the people who know more than you

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:32:07 2020 No.16422665 >>16422655 No, sexual depravity escalates with age, not oblates. Sexual drive doesn't even decline. It gets worse with age. I'm 31 now and my sex drive is worse than when I was 16.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:33:12 2020 No.16422669 >>16422665 Worse as in more of a problem. Its stronger now than ever. I masturbate 5+ times a day. I didn't more than once a week in puberty.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:33:21 2020 No.16422671 >>16422248 seems like we are incentivized by pleasure to procreate and perpetuate our species

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:34:59 2020 No.16422682 It's getting real ugly. I don't yet know what to make of it, but I sensed a pull that wasn't mine. I may be a sexual creature, but I'm also fairly anti-authoritarian, and I won't fulfill a personal impulse that is not my own.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:37:10 2020 No.16422691 >>16422644 >Everyone >Me and an admitted idiot said you're wrong, citing nothing. Speaking of going back, /pol/ needs you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:39:19 2020 No.16422709 >>16422665 Sounds pretty anecdotal. People who use antidepressants kill their sex drives for good

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:40:08 2020 No.16422715 >>16422709 Sign me up.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:40:50 2020 No.16422725 File: 71 KB, 1300x867, 111575878-photo-of-bad-moody-man-close-eyes-wide-open-mouth-close-ears-sta.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16422691 >lalala can't hear you. empirical evidence doesn't mean anything

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:41:36 2020 No.16422730 >>16422225 Based

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:42:11 2020 No.16422733 >>16422613 It goes hand in hand. Every society has known the dangers of hedonism, yet you believe yourself to be so wise that you know better? You know nothing. You’re a complete insect.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:43:09 2020 No.16422738 >>16422116 >socially constructed stressors What is it like being this disconnected from reality, this delusional?

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:45:26 2020 No.16422753

>>16422725
>Empirical evidence
>"If you were married once in your 20s, and then another time from 31 to 95 that's two failed relationship." tier data he didn't even post.
Anon, please. Stop. You've probably alienated all your friends alreaedy, but you can still recover.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:45:53 2020 No.16422756 >>16422733 Western society is doing better than any other past society and its also the most open to sexuality

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:48:19 2020 No.16422774

>>16422602
>Says who?
My observation. From the attempt to understand the POV of our creator.
>Again OP already mentioned this
Expand? OP said "But I have no rational argument against people being whores"

>>16422671
Yes, if you look at it with only the mind of a mortal....

-------Try to empathize. Look at my statement with no human influence/subconscious.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:48:19 2020 No.16422775

>>16422050
>(I WANT) to believe being chaste is good.
Then believe it. I believe it to. Not for any reason but just because it feels intuitively correct that if we allow our base animal impulses to run wild we won't be using our full potential, i.e. we would be letting our intelligence take precedence over our animality. This is ultimately what kills society [and the individual]: that we become indifferent to what has caused us to get where we are.

As an aside, yes I am a theist.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 22:56:18 2020 No.16422815

>>16422050
>or I WANT) to believe being chaste is good
Because its human nature. Modern society is falling into corruption and ignoring basic instincts that tell us what is good and bad

Also don't post those pictures on this board. This isn't a brothel

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 23:09:23 2020 No.16422896 >>16422756 >Most open to sexuality Not true, based on our knowledge of Native American cultures, the Etruscans and Edo-period Japan. Even if that were true, that doesn't mean the two are related.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 23:10:07 2020 No.16422901

The problem is that sex in itself is pointless, but a good activity to achieve visceral release from the world, which one way or another will be sought after (violence, drinking, danger). The current illness the west is currently experiencing is the agony of nihilism brought on by irreligion and the ignorance of the correct atheistic response. Base hedonism is their solution, which causes the downfall of a society, on the individual and collective level.

The argument against this excess pleasure seeking is to create a meaning for life to make the delaying of pleasure worth it, which must be irreligious by nature.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 23:16:43 2020 No.16422934 >>16422753 That other anon wasn’t me. I’m the one who told you to go back. This isn’t a /pol/ thing, this is a go back to r/books thing. Go justify degeneracy somewhere else, you coping faggot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 23:18:44 2020 No.16422945 File: 159 KB, 1033x406, 9C1BE104-8991-4B57-AAD8-445CCB6BA28F.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16422050 I-I-I like her laugh. V-very infectious.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 23:21:58 2020 No.16422963 >>16422594 The only way you can rationalize this is if your children are capable to live on their own. However, by that time, you're old and less likely to find another partner.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 23:24:15 2020 No.16422977 >>16422756 >Western society is doing better than any other past society LOL. What is the metric here? Suicide rates? You fucking dipshit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 23:43:08 2020 No.16423082 Is it just me, or has /lit/ become increasingly infested with left-wing scum over the past few months? There is not even a single thread without them and their retarded commieposting. Where are they coming from? And what should we do about them?

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 23:45:19 2020 No.16423095

>>16422896
I don't think you know anything about Edo-period Japan. Do you believe that Confucianism and Buddhism, the two predominant systems of thought in the period, permit sexual promiscuity? Do you think that people became more promiscuous after they were forced to register with the temples in their villages? That stuff is a meme that left-wingers use to play games with your mind. Don't let them get to you.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 23:46:27 2020 No.16423102

>>16423082
Oh, you noticed the discord trannies. It’s hard to believe, but there are organized efforts from left-leaning individuals who come from reddit and discord. They are trying to swing 4chan’s narrative into commieposting. I kid you not. They have failed over and over again because they are failures and that’s what they do best. Anyways, ignore the discord trannies and avoid political discussions on this board.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 23:59:20 2020 No.16423164

>>16423095
I'm definitely not an expert on Edo-period Japan. I'm basing that on the popular erotic literature and art that came out of that period, feel free to provide alternative evidence. I'm not a left-winger, but I don't think sexuality has always been contained by rigid Judeo-Christian mores, and to say that we live in the most sexually open time in history is inaccurate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 00:10:24 2020 No.16423215 >>16422050 Good God why can't I have this

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 00:11:18 2020 No.16423218 >>16422121 >>16422775 >>16422815 >do what feels right no. we need to do what is right

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 00:17:37 2020 No.16423236

>>16423164
>Popular erotic literature
Dude you've gotta understand that while Ihara Saikaku was producing his work, Confucianism was spreading to all levels of society. Go to Japan today, and you'll find that they sell what is tantamount to porn in convenience stores. Look on their porn websites, go to their porn stores, or go to their brothels, and you'll see that there's a good amount of it dedicated to cucking and extreme depravity. But talk to the average person, observe the way the average woman dresses and behaves, and observe how people react when infidelity on the part of a public figure is discovered, and you will see just how conservative the country is.
>but I don't think sexuality has always been contained by rigid Judeo-Christian mores
First, There is no such thing as "Judeo-Christian." This term has no attestation prior to the creation of the alliance between the USA and Israel. Stop using it. Second, other societies have been and are much stricter when it comes to sexual behavior. Take a look at this thread here >>16410208 and you'll see some examples.
>and to say that we live in the most sexually open time in history is inaccurate.
Have you ever heard of a society other than ours in which sex is divorced from its reproductive function? You seem to want to believe that we are not living aberrations, but you are wrong. There is nothing normal about the society that we inhabit.

>>	3/2 Wed Sep 23 00:36:55 2020 No.16423311 >>16422116 kys t.son of single mother

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 03:47:15 2020 No.16423969 >>16422050 who be she?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 03:53:30 2020 No.16423984 >>16422050 who's the slag?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 04:01:39 2020 No.16424004 >>16422050 Roger Scruton is obviously religious but he has many works that aim at a secular defence of (what I'll call, for lack of a better word) traditional sexuality. He has many talks online.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 04:04:50 2020 No.16424012 >>16422050 Try "Critique of Practical Reason" by Kant.

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 04:24:29 2020 No.16424101

For any type of scientific research, if you think a bunch of nerds can add numbers together and calculate how to live life, and how to act, then you’re retarded.
If you think some nerds who sit and just think about what is, can from this derive how to live life, perhaps you are correct, and that is the most ‘logical’ and rational way to understand if it’s good or not. But it does seem to me like that wouldn’t really be necessary, or very helpful understanding life.
>>16422050
Otherwise, most societies looked down on this sort of behaviour, read their books and you will see it’s already shown. It’s obvious to most peoples that just fulfilling all desires is bad, but less so in societies with already declining virtues, and it’s less argued in the latter too, so to find a rational argument against it, you shouldn’t simply look for modern views, but past ones applied today. Past views on ethics are not less good today in most ways, actually they are better than the ones today in many ways, because we can look at what their views would predict, to a degree, and evaluate them from here, which we can’t do with modern ethics. Ignoring religious views, as would be ignoring stories, would also be weak, because they are still a study of human nature, and some can be argued from a secular perspective.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 04:31:33 2020 No.16424137 >>16422397 based

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 04:46:44 2020 No.16424200

>>16422050
I find sexual dynamics really quite fascinating and I've given this a good deal of thought over the past two years or so.

In my estimation, sexual liberation will worsen the epidemic of single motherhood in the U.S., it will cause marriage rates to continue declining, and very likely cause increased divorce rates.

I think that most of this stems from the psychopathology of promiscuous women; whatever that might entail.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 04:47:51 2020 No.16424204 >>16424200 >It will likely cause increased divorce rates It already has. Divorce peaked in the 80s and has stayed level ever since.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 05:02:30 2020 No.16424249 >>16424204 Wait for the generation Z's to start getting married

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 05:07:43 2020 No.16424265 File: 387 KB, 1052x1312, 1540505550217.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16422397 Based

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 05:17:47 2020 No.16424284 >>16422116 Yeah just fuck the many who don't because whores gotta be whores.

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 05:17:52 2020 No.16424286

>>16422050
Finally some discussion and not mere thot posting.
You want to apply your moral values (being a thot = bad) to the world and want a non religious book that states so, your good and bad seem to be heritage of western religion aka christianity.
Erich Fromm in "the forgotten language" said that there was a shift from matriarcal society to patriarcal society with the greeks.
Baudrilliard in "consumer society" states that women and nigs are sexualised because they are exploited in this (forgive the libtard expression) "white men's world".
Today women being thots is because we as males (and """you know who""") want this to be their role in the society, their "sexual freedom" is just an excuse to sell more products (e.g. contraceptives, again see Baudrillard)
I think that lust is disgusting, seeing men and women as toys that satisfy your most animal instincts.
As a virgin maybe this is just a giga cope but I think that what you should pursue is love and family, I want to live as a good christian.
My final question is: is whoremongering/pursuing casual sex worth it? You'll just feel satisfied for a couple of hours and then what? The void inside you who grows bigger every time you act like a slave of passions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 05:28:03 2020 No.16424321 >>16424249 I think it is more likely that they will not marry at all, rather than get married and then divorce.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 07:08:18 2020 No.16424625 >>16422691 When did I ever admit I was an idiot you ESL fuck Your smugness is stratospheric

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 07:30:50 2020 No.16424698 >>16422050 Most of the Ancient Philosophers would argue against being promiscuous, since it makes your life worse. So, if you read Plato, Epictetus, Epicurus, Plotinus you will see arguments against a hedonistic life.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 07:31:31 2020 No.16424701 >>16422756 >western society is doing better than any other past society At what? High rates of mental illness? Environmental degradation? Western society is due to collapse.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 07:35:36 2020 No.16424718 >>16424701 He is probably a libertarian.

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 07:39:23 2020 No.16424729

>>16422063
Start with Whatever. It's super short and I like his point about the sexual revolution forming a sort of hyper-capitalism in the sexual sphere with a small number of (attractive) people hoarding all of the wealth (sex) while a large portion of people are doomed to be alone. Unlike with money, there cannot be any forced redistribution to help those in need.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 07:43:26 2020 No.16424741 >>16422116 >plenty Wow that's a really big number anon

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 08:11:36 2020 No.16424832 >>16422116 Anything that causes stress in a society comes from a social construct. How the fuck can you even have a society that doesnt socially create standards and social objects, morals and ethics to code?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 08:26:10 2020 No.16424884 >>16423082 Yes I've been thinking the same

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 08:40:40 2020 No.16424939 >>16424284 It’s absurd to blame divorce rates on women when men are usually the ones to cheat/leave/abandon their kids

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 08:42:54 2020 No.16424948 >>16424729 how can you believe a majority of people don’t have sex or relationships? they absolutely do. most people on this earth are ugly or normal looking and get along just fine

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 08:43:46 2020 No.16424953 >>16422050 Not modern, but Aristotle's Ethics is a good choice.

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 08:46:11 2020 No.16424966

Any right-wing critique of sexual depravity is going to rely on virtue, which is basically the same as religious thinking. It may make pseudoscientific claims, but in the end it'll just be about virtue ethics.

I don't have any specific recommendations, but I can imagine a decent leftist critique of sexual "depravity". It might be something about how capitalist culture encourages us to see each other as commodities, genuine social bonds are erased and replaced with relationships that are essentially just exchanges of value. Without a meaningful connection, sex is just masturbation where the participants are fulfilled as individual consumers in a marketplace.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 08:47:29 2020 No.16424971 >>16424948 >how can you believe a majority of people don’t have sex or relationships? they absolutely do cope

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 08:57:15 2020 No.16425009 >>16424971 what would i be coping with? if anything it would be you coping by deluding yourself into believing more people are virgins than not, thats empirically false

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 08:59:31 2020 No.16425016 >>16422050 >I think it's a great dilemma of modern times I think lol dude get a grip, only virgins on the internet care about this shit

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 09:04:00 2020 No.16425032 File: 185 KB, 468x431, 1600556587171.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16424948 I need a reason to cope for my inadequacies.

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 09:09:18 2020 No.16425047
File: 914 KB, 346x428, jump.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16422050
>depravity
Morally loaded term. Start with the presumption that there's no such thing as sexual depravity and you'll be able to establish the proper grounds for a solid argument against it. Surreptitiously assuming from the outset that sexual depravity is a thing that exists is a surefire way to net you a fallible and narrow argument. I'll give you a few leads:
>Relationships are complex and a lack of conscious moderation of sexuality might lead to unexamined and consequently detrimental relationships
>The cultural embrace of promiscuity leads to an "Emperor's new clothes" scenario, where people jump to lose their virginity for the sake of social status without regard for what it would otherwise entail
>In a culture new to promiscuity, where unexamined relationships run rampant, a personal dedication to chastity is a surefire way to net yourself lasting relationships
>Chastity is aesthetically appreciable if you can convince people it's a high status thing. There's no reason why promiscuity should be the be-all end-all norm of sexuality aside from cultural inertia. Make chastity great again, or something like that
None of these make good arguments for why chastity should be an enforcible social norm, however. If you're looking for a reason to angrily moralize people, you're out of luck. While you can make the argument to people, you've got little grounds on which to moralize them for doing what they do if they know the risk of what they're doing. Only in the case that you give people a fair warning and they still insist on going through with what they do have you the right to go "I told you so".

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 09:13:07 2020 No.16425062 >>16422050 >sexual depravity I would like you to expand on what you think should be the norm and why, so that I can properly ridicule your position

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 09:13:41 2020 No.16425066

>>16424966
Leftist critiques are still to a moral end; no less than right-wing moral arguments. It's only that leftists tend to cloak their worries behind subtly essentialist philosophical cliams rather than the 'mere' normative judgements of right-wingers (in the vein of "disgusting", "degenerate", "wrong", etc.)

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 09:14:17 2020 No.16425071 >>16424321 less will get married, but a significant portion definitely will. dreams of walking the aisle are still very much alive in well in college sloots

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 09:17:30 2020 No.16425079 >>16425071 >dreams of walking the aisle are still very much alive in well in college sloots They just do it now covered in tats after having ridden 50 cocks.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 09:29:40 2020 No.16425127 >>16424286 >>16425047 great posts anons

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 09:33:34 2020 No.16425149 >>16422050 I'm the sane but there is no logical reason for our thoughts. Just live how we want and don't dislike others for their way

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 09:34:26 2020 No.16425152 >>16422050 Well, argument is obvious. You do not want anyone but you to fuck anyone. To remove everyone but you from genepool. So you must propogate chastity for other people while being superpromiscous.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 09:34:30 2020 No.16425154 >>16423082 Literally organized discord raids. They do it on /pol/ and /gif/ openly. They're severely deranged, pathetic people.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 09:34:37 2020 No.16425155 File: 12 KB, 400x400, 1440056149166.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16422050 that quivering thigh flesh

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 09:36:40 2020 No.16425163 File: 960 KB, 500x214, kong1.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Literally, unironically the movie King Kong (1933)

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 09:37:14 2020 No.16425164 >>16423236 > Have you ever heard of a society other than ours in which sex is divorced from its reproductive function? ancient greece would like to have a word with you

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 09:37:58 2020 No.16425167 >>16422050 fuck. that's a 10

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 09:40:58 2020 No.16425179

>>16424286
>is whoremongering/pursuing casual sex worth it?
Prostitution has been around for ages. If sex work were a more acceptable thing I bet you intrasexual competition would weed out most promiscuity and we'd see a re-establishment of long-term monogamies.

>As a virgin maybe this is just a giga cope but I think that what you should pursue is love and family, I want to live as a good christian.
I'm not gonna do you wrong and say your goal's cope, but to rail against the whole fucking west for not being what you want is definitely cope and insanely moronic. The only way you'll bring about a change of trends is to actually look for the small corner of the world where that'll net you what you want. Cursing the miserable state of things is some Job-level shit and will definitely only net you detrimental things.

It's not a matter of "consumerism", the spooky boogeyman of modernism goes away the moment a sufficient amount of people resolve to stop believing in it and start to seek out and do things that they thought themselves unable to. It's always a matter of "believe to see" firstly, and only "see to believe" secondly.

>The void inside you who grows bigger every time you act like a slave of passions.
One could be no slave of the passions if one's the agent who chooses to act on them. Likewise I don't see the christian idea of seduction being inherently evil as being true once you've acquainted yourself well with what seduction is and does. Attraction remain attraction only while you struggle against it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 09:42:11 2020 No.16425184 >>16424948 Only 33% of men will ever have sex.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 09:43:04 2020 No.16425189 >>16422050 Modern women are so brain dead that they literally give themselves lordosis to just have their ass stick outs little further. Why are women so retarded?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 09:44:12 2020 No.16425194 >>16425163 >King Kong (pbuh) Fixed that for you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 09:45:12 2020 No.16425201 >>16425184 bullshit

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 09:52:23 2020 No.16425228 >>16425184 i would ask for a source or any proof to back up that claim but i know you just pulled that out of your ass, gigacope.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 09:57:13 2020 No.16425251 >>16425184 do you mean that statistic that 30% of men (USA) didn't have sex last year? because what you said seems hard to believe

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 10:00:50 2020 No.16425264 >>16422594 Why not? It was originally the entire point of marriage, it was never supposed to be legally-sanctioned dating

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 10:01:53 2020 No.16425270 >>16422753 >Stop. You're embarassing yourself. You probably don't have friends anymore what is the formal Aristotelian name of this argument

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 10:02:06 2020 No.16425272

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/24/women-men-dna-human-gene-pool

>More women than men have added their DNA to the human gene pool
>As modern humans moved into Europe more than 45,000 years ago, the number of mothers may have outnumbered fathers by around 100 to 30

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 10:05:23 2020 No.16425284 >>16422050 I am not going to lie that is actually disgusting.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 10:06:03 2020 No.16425288 >>16423236 >There is no such thing as "Judeo-Christian." >stop reminding me my religion is a Jewish heresy No.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 10:13:16 2020 No.16425304 The Paradox of Love - Pascal Bruckner /thread

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 10:14:54 2020 No.16425314 >>16422200 >>16422105 Because in the US, motherhood destroys career prospects and divorce essentially condems mother + child to lower socio-economic status.

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 10:18:31 2020 No.16425332

>>16423236
>Have you ever heard of a society other than ours in which sex is divorced from its reproductive function?
Literally almost all of them except the Abrahamite ones, and even there sex held a multitude of functions up until the invention of Judaism in the 8th or 7th century BC.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 10:22:55 2020 No.16425355 >>16422116 agree. I was the son of a single mother and am much better for it. The traditional providing role of the father would be better fulfilled by the state in the majority of circumstances

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 10:24:27 2020 No.16425364 >>16425314 No, it's because young men need a father figure in their life. It has nothing to do with career prospects or socio-economic status.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 10:26:26 2020 No.16425374 >>16422637 Weinigger never had good sex then lmao. Taking AND giving pleasure

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 10:26:49 2020 No.16425375 >>16425284 I can really only explain you being an envious femoid to write something like that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 10:28:58 2020 No.16425384 >>16425284 It's hot. My monkey cooker brain is activating

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 10:29:54 2020 No.16425391 >>16422050 Plato's symposium

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 10:31:41 2020 No.16425399 >>16425374 >Weinigger never had sex ftfy

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 10:36:38 2020 No.16425424 >>16425364 That very well may be, but the lack of a father figure is unable to be ameliorated due to the resulting decreased mobility and social world of the mother.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 10:38:36 2020 No.16425430 >>16423082 zoomers

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 10:39:45 2020 No.16425441 >>16422050 that's a man baby

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 10:43:03 2020 No.16425457

>>16425179
I wasn't applying my way to see things to the whole west, I just said that in my opinion (as Kant said) if the whole world would live according to the christian morality I think the world would be a better place therefore I try to act as a good christian.
Sure that's not how society works nowadays, in fact I feel estranged from society and this makes me suffer.
Sex became (as Baudrillard said) has conformed to capitalism and consumism, the fact that this being degenerate is perceived as "good" and "socially accepted" makes me suffer even more.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 10:43:17 2020 No.16425459 >>16425364 It’s most definitely both

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 10:51:28 2020 No.16425496

>>16425399
He may have.

>His father, interestingly enough, believed that Otto first had sexual intercourse when he was in his twenties, but adds, “He had sexual intercourse with very few women” (Der Fall, p. 6).

-David Abrahamsen, THE MIND AND DEATH OF A GENIUS

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 10:52:55 2020 No.16425504

>>16425288
He's wrong, but there is actually a better term, "Abrahamic". "Judaeo-Christian" ignores Islam, along with a bunch of other smaller groups, and focuses solely on the relationship between Judaism and Christianity, while totally ignoring the actual doctrines and parts that make up the religions.

He's also wrong, "Judeo-Christian" has been in use since the 19th century, albeit largely to refer to Jewish converts to Christianity. The term "Abrahamic" predates the creation of the state of Israel, however. In any event, the opposition to it is largely Catholic, so the proper usage should actually be "Judeo-Christian-Catholic", as the term's usage in this manner is colored by the Christian (AKA Protestant) - Catholic split that Protestants adhere to.

So, again he is correct, although his point is wrong, Abrahamic is the proper, and more useful, term.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 11:02:08 2020 No.16425551 >>16422050 This is another webm of her, name?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 11:05:48 2020 No.16425567 >>16422050 why is she so sweaty? are females normally so damp?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 11:09:57 2020 No.16425589 >>16425567 it's oil

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 11:11:48 2020 No.16425599 >>16425567 She saw a BBC walk by

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 11:13:40 2020 No.16425608 >>16425551 jordyn johnson

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 11:21:31 2020 No.16425644 >>16425332 Why are you lying? >>16425164 No.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 11:22:13 2020 No.16425648 >>16422050 Sorry op but I would fuck the girl in your post viciously

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 11:51:31 2020 No.16425838 >>16425648 She told me that she prefers tender lovemaking, a slowdicking

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 11:59:07 2020 No.16425890 >>16425644 is homosexuality not sex divorced from reproduction? specifically pedarasty in the case of greece and pretty much all of europe

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 12:09:56 2020 No.16425956

>>16425890
Homosexuality is a modern concept. Every single Greek "homosexual" you've ever heard of was married and had children. Pederasty was not regarded as a purely sexual act, but was instead embedded in relations of power, stewardship, and knowledge.
Basically, when a Greek male had sex with a younger boy, it was not because he liked having sex with little boys and no one else. Their sexual activity was inseparable from and constrained by a wider social context, just like sexual activity between women and men.
In our time, sex has become "just sex." It is obviously not "just sex," but those who are integrated into the culture produced by the elite believe it to be so.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 13:28:30 2020 No.16426424 >>16422709 I took antidepressants and it number my dick, I was able to fuck for hours. I don't really remember if I felt less horny tho

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 13:38:07 2020 No.16426471
File: 77 KB, 490x473, hypergamy-in-a-pic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16422050

The arguments exist, but you are more likely to find them in blogs than books. Unfortunately, our publishing industry is pozzed, and will not publish the relevant literature, but the internet is still relatively free. Try Spandrell, Free Northerner, Jim, Dalrock, and Heartiste to start:

https://spandrell.com/2018/05/08/the-incel-question/
https://spandrell.com/2018/10/22/the-wars-of-the-sexes/
https://freenortherner.com/2013/08/16/the-archetypal-modern-woman/
https://freenortherner.com/2013/10/18/one-more-condom-in-the-landfill/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/the-anti-anti-reactionary-faq-sluts/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/reacton-101-the-reactionary-red-pill-on-women/
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/the-quest-for-a-kinder-gentler-carousel/
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/11/24/more-grim-news-for-carousellers-hoping-to-jump-at-the-last-minute/
https://heartiste.org/2014/03/12/aging-feminist-tells-women-to-ride-the-cock-carousel/
https://heartiste.org/2018/06/06/the-cock-carouselers-lament/

If you absolutely insist on something book-shaped, your best bet are The Redpill Handbook+Sidebar and the Rational Male Trilogy. You'll need a Kindle to read them, though.

https://www.redpillhandbook.com/
https://b-ok2.org/book/5651766/056591
https://b-ok2.org/book/5651715/c9c80e
https://b-ok2.org/book/5651720/b5c2d0

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 13:48:42 2020 No.16426537 >>16422050 Daily reminder that no one is more obsessed with sex than 4chan users

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 13:56:00 2020 No.16426569

>>16425424
>due to the resulting decreased mobility and social world
It's unable to be ameliorated because the most formative years are early chilhood, getting into a marriage can take years, and the kid has grown up by the time there's a new relationship. It's not because mommy isn't in the right income bracket you utter dipshit.

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 13:56:23 2020 No.16426571

>>16426471
>So anyway, a shortcut to understand Bioleninism is "a coalition of people who don't want high school jocks to rule the world". Which is the natural state of mankind, for better or worse. I wasn't a high school jock, but as a white man I'd rather they rule than the girls rule, so I am not Bioleninist
Stopped reading right here.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 13:59:32 2020 No.16426585 >>16422225 interesting

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 14:01:35 2020 No.16426601 >>16426571 Looks like you got filter'd.

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 14:10:51 2020 No.16426670

>>16422116
Neither I nor anyone I know can provide a single anecdotal evidence of this, fuck you and fuck you twice because you probably think what you're doing is moral evil though these types of bullshit evil ideas have fucked over so many good people I know.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 14:11:46 2020 No.16426676 >>16422116 >normalizing mental illness good job outing yourself as an american

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 14:15:38 2020 No.16426697 >>16425956 logically what makes sex between consenting adults more degenerate than a grown man tearing open a little boy’s asshole? cultural context? who gives a shit. are you by chance english?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 14:15:45 2020 No.16426698 >>16422056 There's only one study done on it, and its by a conservative institute, so it's not tha reliable. What i find really interesting is that no one has ever investigated this further, as if they are afraid of what they might find.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 14:30:41 2020 No.16426783 >>16426698 The Institute of Family Studies isn't conservative, and even if it were, that would tell us nothing about the reliability of the study. >>16426697 You aren't making sense anymore. Go back to Discord and try again some other time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 14:37:03 2020 No.16426811 >>16422225 Came here to post this. Anyone who still believes today's acceptance of unlimited sexual degeneracy is merely progress allowing for harmless self expression desperately needs to read this book.

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 14:37:43 2020 No.16426813
File: 47 KB, 318x457, 25755297._SX318_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16426471

Forgot to mention Sexual Utopia in Power! It's a collection of essays so based that (((Amazon))) had to take it down. You can still buy it here for 20 bucks:

http://www.ninebandedbooks.com/bandedbooks/sexual-utopia-in-power/

Or you can read the title essay online for free:

https://www.toqonline.com/archives/v6n2/DevlinTOQV6N2.pdf

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 14:39:16 2020 No.16426819 >>16422613 Note how degenerates always believe all of life's problems have financial/material solutions.

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 16:14:02 2020 No.16427403

>>16422050
There are arguments based on natural law but none of them are any good.
>I've thought a lot about this and deep down I know (or I WANT) to believe being chaste is good
It's a superstition typically caused by conservative upbringing, but I can tell you already figured this all out, just make the jump

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 16:17:14 2020 No.16427437 >>16426811 Why would anyone waste his time reading trash, all consequentialist arguments against sexual freedom are dishonest sophistry. At least the Thomists try earnestly to preserve their delusions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 16:24:48 2020 No.16427499 >>16426813 Holy shit this essay is garbage. Is this how incels really think?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 16:26:10 2020 No.16427506 >>16427403 >>16427437 If you take this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, then all arguments in favor of sexual freedom are also lacking. In fact, all arguments concerning the organization of human society are lacking.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 16:36:19 2020 No.16427590 >>16425047 op has no response to this lol

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 16:42:19 2020 No.16427629

>>16427506
No I'm saying that consequentialist arguments against sexual freedom are dishonest because they tend to skip over the crucial question of whether unconventional sexual practices are themselves immoral, and try to create an emotional disposition to the reader against them by showing how the people who promote them have a shady goals. Because if these practices are not themselves immoral, sexual freedom is still a good think, even if it is used by people to promote a harmful agenda.
For example I am myself an atheist, but although I do believe that religion was historically used for social control, it would be dishonest if I used that to skip over the question of whether religion itself is true. Religion makes certain claims about the world that should be evaluated on their own merits, whether it has been historiaclly used as a device to control people is irrelevent to the point.

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 17:45:52 2020 No.16428075

>>16427629
>No I'm saying that consequentialist arguments against sexual freedom are dishonest because they tend to skip over the crucial question of whether unconventional sexual practices are themselves immoral,
Consequentialists believe that no action can be immoral in and of itself, but only in light of its consequences. You are essentially attacking consequentialists for being consequentialists, and I don't see the point of that.
>and try to create an emotional disposition to the reader against them by showing how the people who promote them have a shady goals.
No, that's not what they're doing. If you believe that the rectitude of an action comes from its consequences, and you can demonstrate that a set of actions will lead to a number of deleterious outcomes - how "deleterious" is defined here is a separate question, and one that you did not bring up - then you can prove that that action or set of actions is wrong.
Consequentialism is, of course, only one part of larger moral systems. Think, for instance, of the Catholic who argues that any woman aborting her child is wrong because of the harm it does to her, the child itself, her family, and the wider social system of the United States. This argument makes sense only in light of the axioms, aims, and ends of Catholicism, e.g. their beliefs about human flourishing, the responsibility of each individual for regulating their own conduct, and the meaning and purpose of the marital bond. Without these bits, the argument ceases to make sense.
>For example I am myself an atheist, but although I do believe that religion was historically used for social control, it would be dishonest if I used that to skip over the question of whether religion itself is true. Religion makes certain claims about the world that should be evaluated on their own merits, whether it has been historiaclly used as a device to control people is irrelevent to the point.
No it wouldn't. An argument about the use of religion for the purpose of controlling people's behavior does not need to make any reference to the veracity of religious doctrine itself. The only thing you would need to do is demonstrate that there is anything wrong with regulating human behavior, and I think you will find yourself hard-pressed to defend such a position.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 17:59:25 2020 No.16428191 >>16422116 lol mental illness faggot now instea hating themselve like they did in the past decades externalize that self-hatred onto their politics and you call it "common-sense".

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 17:59:28 2020 No.16428192

>>16428075
>Consequentialists believe that no action can be immoral in and of itself, but only in light of its consequences. You are essentially attacking consequentialists for being consequentialists, and I don't see the point of that.
No I am talking about consequentialist arguments of the type "X is bad because the people who promote it have ulterious motives in mind". I am not discussing normative ethics here.
>No it wouldn't. An argument about the use of religion for the purpose of controlling people's behavior does not need to make any reference to the veracity of religious doctrine itself.
That's not what I said. I said that "although I do believe that religion was historically used for social control, it would be dishonest if I used that to skip over the question of whether religion itself is true".

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 18:09:25 2020 No.16428274

>>16428192
>No I am talking about consequentialist arguments of the type "X is bad because the people who promote it have ulterious motives in mind". I am not discussing normative ethics here.
But that is literally what you are talking about. You are talking about consequentialist ethical arguments.
>That's not what I said. I said that "although I do believe that religion was historically used for social control, it would be dishonest if I used that to skip over the question of whether religion itself is true".
But that's not what is happening here. Unless you believe in objective morality, in which case you would not be making the statements that you are at present, the claim that sexual promiscuity is not immoral is not a factual one. Perhaps there are facts that are relevant to the matter, but one would not be remiss in making a consequentialist argument against that position without worrying about whether or not the claim that women have been "oppressed" for all of history is true. Such claims are not relevant to the question at hand.

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 18:26:04 2020 No.16428432

>>16428274
>But that is literally what you are talking about. You are talking about consequentialist ethical arguments.
No I am talking about a specific type of consequentialist arguments that is used to poison the well.
>But that's not what is happening here. Unless you believe in objective morality, in which case you would not be making the statements that you are at present, the claim that sexual promiscuity is not immoral is not a factual one. Perhaps there are facts that are relevant to the matter, but one would not be remiss in making a consequentialist argument against that position without worrying about whether or not the claim that women have been "oppressed" for all of history is true. Such claims are not relevant to the question at hand.
That's not my point, I am talking about the tendency of some writers to smuggle the notion that eg. homosexuality is deviant behaviour without ever arguing for that position and instead trying to find negative consequences that it has to society as a whole. If they thought that it's perfectly normal they would try to find ways to preserve both individual decision making and the health of the society as a whole, but that's not what they are doing. They are against it because they think the behaviour itself is deviant, the bad social science is just a rationalization.

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 18:28:46 2020 No.16428473

>>16422050
byung chul-han and baudrillard have some good points about it. i'd recommend seduction by baudrillard and saving beauty by byung-chul han

i'd also recommend erotism: sensuality and death by bataille, and sacher-masoch, de sade, freud, and deleuze's book on masochism, if you're interested in human sexuality outside the late capitalism mode of sexuality as consumption and porn simulation

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 18:30:35 2020 No.16428490 File: 6 KB, 257x196, 1588608612542.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16428473 >late capitalism mode of sexuality as consumption and porn simulation

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 18:52:55 2020 No.16428685

>>16428432
>No I am talking about a specific type of consequentialist arguments that is used to poison the well.
There is no such thing.
>That's not my point, I am talking about the tendency of some writers to smuggle the notion that eg. homosexuality is deviant behaviour without ever arguing for that position and instead trying to find negative consequences that it has to society as a whole.
The only problem with that argument is the unstated premise that deviant behavior is any behavior that has negative consequences for society as a whole. This is a normal position to take, though, so it sounds like you're complaining about people not knowing how to put together full and complete arguments.
>If they thought that it's perfectly normal they would try to find ways to preserve both individual decision making and the health of the society as a whole
Why do you believe that? Do you think that that is, for instance, the Catholic position? You are literally begging the question here - you haven't proven that anyone who believes that sodomy is "perfectly normal" would not morally condemn it. But there is no connection between the normal, the natural, and the moral.
>They are against it because they think the behaviour itself is deviant, the bad social science is just a rationalization.
No. I suggest that you read some of what your opponents have to say. Here is what Pope Benedict XVI had to say about it when he was still just Cardinal Ratzinger https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/letter-to-the-bishops-of-the-catholic-church-on-the-pastoral-care-of-homosexual-persons-2081.. If you pay attention to point six in particular, you'll notice that homosexuality is one among many tendencies towards sin, and that sodomy is itself no more than one among many sins. Given that sin is itself natural, and that no one can do anything about it, one might reason that homosexual proclivities are themselves natural. Yet he does not then argue that sodomy itself is neutral, because the basis for his argument does not permit of an equivalency between natural conduct and righteous conduct.
Note further that the average Catholic's ignorance of this argument does not tell us anything about the Catholic position as an intellectual one, any more than the average liberal's ignorance of the work of Walter Lippmann tells us anything about their insistence on the importance of "informed opinion" as an intellectual position.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 19:02:36 2020 No.16428765 >>16422056 who cares; there is no such thing as a marriage these days

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 19:08:56 2020 No.16428807 >>16428075 good thinker

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 19:11:05 2020 No.16428818 >>16422116 I really doubt it. Why are there socially constructed stressors in the first place? People didn't just repress sex because they wanted to.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 19:18:44 2020 No.16428873 >>16422116 This suburban middle-class white kid is trying to talk down to people with single moms LMAO.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 19:20:20 2020 No.16428886 LMAO at all of the cope.You'd all blow even if your dads stayed around.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 19:33:18 2020 No.16428988 >>16422050 You can make a multitude of logical arguments, your problem is you simply don't want to offend people.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 19:37:20 2020 No.16429018 >>16422050 Anybody that doesn't have the ability to pick up sloots effortlessly has nothing to say on the matter.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 19:39:40 2020 No.16429031 >>16422050 The only arguments for slutting around are done purely of emotion, not reason.

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 19:52:00 2020 No.16429097

>>16428988
>You can make a multitude of logical arguments, your problem is you simply don't want to offend people.
In practice, that's the biggest problem with this. You can easily do an Epicurean argument on why short term pleasure leads to long term pain when it comes to out of wedlock sex.

But the problem is that people who have had tons of partners will be offended that you are criticizing their lifestyle. You have to calibrate the criticism well, since it is not nice to have someone criticizing the way you live.

Much more so in a case like this of something that gives a lot of short term pleasure.

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 20:06:08 2020 No.16429197

>>16427629
>No I'm saying that consequentialist arguments against sexual freedom are dishonest because they tend to skip over the crucial question of whether unconventional sexual practices are themselves immoral, and try to create an emotional disposition to the reader against them by showing how the people who promote them have a shady goals.

That's not how consequentialism works. Consequentialism arguments do not depend on motives, they depend on results.

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 21:09:11 2020 No.16429554

>>16428685
Okay this is all over the place, so I will just address the part of your post that I find more interesting.
>No. I suggest that you read some of what your opponents have to say. Here is what Pope Benedict XVI had to say about it when he was still just Cardinal Ratzinger https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/letter-to-the-bishops-of-the-catholic-church-on-the-pastoral-care-of-homosexual-persons-2081..
I have no idea why you bring up the Catholic Church, I was talking about the shitty book anon posted above. But okay let's address that.
>If you pay attention to point six in particular, you'll notice that homosexuality is one among many tendencies towards sin, and that sodomy is itself no more than one among many sins. Given that sin is itself natural, and that no one can do anything about it, one might reason that homosexual proclivities are themselves natural. Yet he does not then argue that sodomy itself is neutral, because the basis for his argument does not permit of an equivalency between natural conduct and righteous conduct.
Oh come on, if you are going to belittle me for not understanding the Catholic position you need to get the basics right. Sin is not "natural" under Catholic Doctrine. The article you posted simply makes the point that homosexual proclivities are not sinful, because sin requires agency. They are absolutely unnatural.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 21:11:33 2020 No.16429575 >>16429197 That's true I rolled up two distinct types of argument into once.

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 21:15:21 2020 No.16429602

>>16429554
>I have no idea why you bring up the Catholic Church, I was talking about the shitty book anon posted above. But okay let's address that.
Okay. That changes nothing.
>Sin is not "natural" under Catholic Doctrine
It absolutely is, in the sense that it is innate to man. We are all born with sin, and we all have the proclivity to sin. Sin is part of our nature, and there is nothing we can do about it.
>The article you posted simply makes the point that homosexual proclivities are not sinful, because sin requires agency.
He doesn't say that. Sin is embodied in actions, not thoughts. It is completely possible to voluntarily consider committing a sin, decide against it, and have not sinned.
>They are absolutely unnatural.
That's exactly what he doesn't say.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 21:56:40 2020 No.16429827 >>16424729 All Houllebecq does is make you feel blackpilled about it, there is no real condemnation of it, the attitude is just more like 'This sucks but this is the way it is and if you're not one of the winners you just have to deal with it'

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 22:00:43 2020 No.16429839 >>16422050 Life-long monogamy. One partner to every person. No exceptions and no sex before marriage. This is most optimal for civilization, yet you all continue to deny this very obvious fact.

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 22:14:21 2020 No.16429912

>>16422050
The book isnt about sexuality per say but Jacques Ellul's the technological society speaks of the fact that claiming liberation and freedom through the sexual revolution and modern consensus on sexuality is wrong and that these things simply submerges modern man deeper into the technological system. Sex as a technique, technique as a supposed mean to achieve desires (namely sexual desire) and desires being an excuse to indulge in the technical system and therefore feed its growth.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 22:23:26 2020 No.16429954 >>16429097 >why short term pleasure leads to long term pain when it comes to out of wedlock sex. like what? I really can't think of any

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 22:26:38 2020 No.16429969 >>16429954 Your peepee burning eternally from sleeping with a thot you met at a bar

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 22:36:30 2020 No.16430027

>>16429954
Having too much sex =>increases desire for sex.
Increase desire => you need more of it to satisfy your craving and what you get gives you less pleasure
You need more of it to satisfy your craving => your desire will be unmet at times
Your desire is unmet => you are not satisfied, so you are unhappy

Also,
Your desire increases => anxiety increases
Your desire increases => you do dumb shit to satisfy your desires

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 22:47:55 2020 No.16430072

>>16422050
Modern society isn’t open and free enough about sex. This is the real redpill. We’ve become only slightly above Victorian level prudish in the last decade or so.

A lot of problems would be solved if people stopped romanticising sex and people learned that it isn’t this panacea that fixes all of your problems in life. Sex without love is glorified masturbation. And even then, sex with love is just a fun thing for couples to do to kill time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 23:06:48 2020 No.16430156 >>16422225 Once you learn about the history of pornography and the ethnoreligious group that had a leading role in its production and distribution, you start to see the bigger picture. Great book.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 23:08:47 2020 No.16430165 The nigga that invented the 'tell me literature that talks about [whatever I feel like bitching about today]' posting cop out is a legal genius

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 00:07:30 2020 No.16430470 Yes. The end of gender - Debra Soh

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 01:26:37 2020 No.16430757 >>16422050 Why not just go nude? Not like that bikini really hides anything.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 02:13:03 2020 No.16430877 >>16422200 yay, I'm just like them!

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 05:50:33 2020 No.16431502 >all of the seething reddit trannies itt hilarious

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 05:54:29 2020 No.16431507 File: 343 KB, 1280x894, 1589768726263.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16430757 Clothing is infinitely more erotic than plain nudity. It leaves far more to your imagination. Even the tiniest strip of fabric is much more stimulating.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 06:30:18 2020 No.16431577 >>16428490 woops i meant late capitalism, sorry typo

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 06:31:18 2020 No.16431579 >>16428490 >>16431577 fuck i did it again. you know what i meant

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 06:33:25 2020 No.16431583 you are temporal beings, just enjoy the fashion of the times instead of this gay larping

Anonymous Thu Sep 24 06:50:54 2020 No.16431640

>>16422733
Dont want to be that guy but that's a fallacy. People in the past believed all sorts of crazy shit so what, they can be wrong.
Also being against degeneracy or whatever probably had some utility back in the day because they didnt have access to contraception and modern medicine but now thanks to technology we dont have to worry about unintended births or sexually transmitted diseases. Is there really a reason to give a shit about hedonism anymore?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 08:25:55 2020 No.16431937 >>16431640 Apparently this guy found the cure for aids.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 08:40:40 2020 No.16431999 >>16425272 What does it all mean?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 08:42:54 2020 No.16432008 >>16431999 Throughout history a small number of men have been impregnating multiple women each.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 08:52:20 2020 No.16432049 >>16422116 Simply untrue

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 08:58:13 2020 No.16432069 >>16431640 Hedonism is giving oneself over to lower pleasures, coming to resemble more an animal than the full potential of a human.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 08:58:45 2020 No.16432072 >>16432008 That's not true. Y-DNA mutates far more rapidly than Mt-DNA, hence our inability to trace our male ancestors beyond a certain point. That is all that that result means.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 09:05:50 2020 No.16432089 >>16432072 Wrong

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 09:15:22 2020 No.16432128 >>16432072 Wrong, more variability due tue less males procreating. Baseline variability mtDNA and YDNA is accounted for.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 09:15:40 2020 No.16432131 >>16432072 >Y-DNA mutates far more rapidly than Mt-DNA It's literally the opposite

Anonymous Thu Sep 24 09:59:39 2020 No.16432309

>>16431937
Obviously not all of the negative sides of sexual degeneracy is eliminated. Even with condoms and contraception there is that off chance that a female will give birth or contract a disease. But by and large it is not something we need to be all that concerned about.
>>16432069
This sounds like religion. I would appreciate it if you could explain why that is a bad thing from a secular framework.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 10:02:45 2020 No.16432323 >>16432309 > anything that triggers my fee-fees is "religion" You're a faggot in more than one sense.

Anonymous Thu Sep 24 10:08:35 2020 No.16432347

Super delayed response to something that was posted early in the thread, But...

people talking about "wasting weeks away masturbating"... bruh, how long are you masturbating for? I can bust one out in less than 5 minutes while showering and it doesn't impact my mood or energy.

I again *feel* like it's not a great thing to do. But other than not consuming porn, I don't see negatives other then smug nofappers saying I'm not gunna make it.

Anonymous Thu Sep 24 10:50:03 2020 No.16432582

>>16432131
Completely wrong.
>>16432128
No it's not.
>>16432089
Wrong.
Here are some peer-reviewed papers for you retards to read. The newspapers are not to be trusted on even a single matter.
https://files.catbox.moe/k0cdzw.pdf
https://files.catbox.moe/41c7wi.pdf
https://files.catbox.moe/h0qs8t.pdf

Anonymous Thu Sep 24 11:02:21 2020 No.16432643

>>16431640
>Also being against degeneracy or whatever probably had some utility back in the day because they didnt have access to contraception and modern medicine but now thanks to technology we dont have to worry about unintended births or sexually transmitted diseases. Is there really a reason to give a shit about hedonism anymore?

Arguments against degeneracy traditionally didn't mention STDs or unintended pregnancies. They were about the effect that living a hedonistic life gives to your soul, to your spirit. By living hedonistically, you lose your self control and become more of a slave to your body urges. This also creates unhappiness on the long run, due to how it affects your desire.

You probably heard those arguments about "STD and birth control exist so there are no negative effects from promiscuity" from people who have never read Classical Philosophy in their lives and don't understand arguments against promiscuity.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 11:05:42 2020 No.16432665 >>16422050 Because it creates state tyranny

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 11:11:49 2020 No.16432699 File: 326 KB, 958x576, 1585357528140.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16422896 What about the Native American cultures? I'm curious

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 11:22:19 2020 No.16432777 >>16432323 Anything higher than "if it feels good do it" sounds weird for some people. At the same time they feel proud of their ignorance of anything higher than this.

Anonymous Thu Sep 24 11:31:54 2020 No.16432849

>>16429602
>Okay. That changes nothing.
well it means that you weren't really addressing my point but sure, this discussion is more interesting anyway
>It absolutely is, in the sense that it is innate to man. We are all born with sin, and we all have the proclivity to sin. Sin is part of our nature, and there is nothing we can do about it.
That's not what "natural" means in Thomistic philosophy. In order for something to be natural it needs to be oriented towards the Good. Something can be innate to man and still be unnatural. This is Natural Law 101.
>That's exactly what he doesn't say.
Actually it does say it implicitly, you just don't recognize it because you don't understand what natural means in Thomistic thought:
>Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
Being "ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil" is precisely what being unnatural is under Thomism.

Anonymous Thu Sep 24 11:40:16 2020 No.16432910

>>16432849
You were not using the word natural in the Thomistic sense earlier. You were using it in the sense of the contemporary layman. If used in the Thomistic sense, yes, sodomy is unnatural, and no, there is no sound argument that can be made against this. I don't know why you want to dispute the point so much, but in the end there is nothing wrong with anyone considering sodomy wrong or unnatural, any more than there is with anyone considering homosexual proclivities themselves an aberration on account of their sterility.

Anonymous Thu Sep 24 13:15:06 2020 No.16433643

You cant derive values from logic. You can use logic to elaborate on values that already exist but in a purely material logic there is no way to evaluate anything beyond cause and effect. You arbitrarily pick values based on your emotions and unreasoned feelings and use logic to take them to their conclusions.

Anonymous Thu Sep 24 14:27:52 2020 No.16434184

>>16432910
>You were not using the word natural in the Thomistic sense earlier.
Of course I did.
>and no, there is no sound argument that can be made against this
There are absolutely sound arguments against this. First off, you would have to demonstrate that teleology exists in nature, but even putting that aside there are overwhelming objections to all Natural Law approaches in Ethics. For starters there are obvious examples of using bodily organs for purposes other than what they are made for which are obviously not immoral, like the acrobat who walks with his hands.
> don't know why you want to dispute the point so much, but in the end there is nothing wrong with anyone considering sodomy wrong or unnatural, any more than there is with anyone considering homosexual proclivities themselves an aberration on account of their sterility.
Nothing wrong except from the fact that they are completely irrational.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 14:59:15 2020 No.16434443 >>16427437 E Micheal jones is a catholic not a consequentialist, what are you talking about?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 15:02:19 2020 No.16434465 >>16432347 >he doesn't do 32 hour edging sessions

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 15:04:10 2020 No.16434479 >>16423082 Discord trannies Don't worry we will purge them

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 15:05:21 2020 No.16434495 >>16432582 I just glanced through your toilet paper and none of it said anything about the rate of mutations?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 15:08:54 2020 No.16434524 >>16423082 A ton of them come from Instagram now, not discord. Theres a /lit/ Instagram page that's run by some commie chick and as it grows it'll funnel more and more of these insufferable pinko fucks

Anonymous Thu Sep 24 15:26:49 2020 No.16434658
File: 71 KB, 750x1000, 1588956327081.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16434495
>>16434495
That wasn't even my point. What is important is that the idea that most men did not reproduce is demonstrably false. We have data proving that our hunter-gatherer ancestors were largely monogamous, and we also have data pointing to much older Y-DNA lineages than the ones used in that widely reported study. As time goes on, the gaps will be filled in and this nonsense will be forgotten.

Anonymous Thu Sep 24 15:31:14 2020 No.16434694

>>16434184
>Of course I did.
No you did not.
>First off, you would have to demonstrate that teleology exists in nature
There are plenty of ways to do that. Have you read MacIntyre's work?
>For starters there are obvious examples of using bodily organs for purposes other than what they are made for which are obviously not immoral, like the acrobat who walks with his hands.
I don't think that human beings using their bodies to perform feats of strength is at all similar to sodomy. You shift from using nature in the scholastic sense to using it in the scientific sense within the same argument, which is why we have found ourselves speaking at cross-purposes more than once.
>Nothing wrong except from the fact that they are completely irrational.
I'm not sure how you can argue that the scholastic framework is completely irrational without accepting that all frameworks are completely irrational. Why is your framework any more rational than theirs?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 17:26:44 2020 No.16435672 >>16433643 Is this a logical conclusion or a product of emotions and unreasoned feelings?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 17:28:33 2020 No.16435684 >>16423082 Engage with them in conversation. They can be saved.

Anonymous Thu Sep 24 20:29:29 2020 No.16436986

>>16434694
>No you did not.
Sure I did, I know what I meant better than you.
>There are plenty of ways to do that. Have you read MacIntyre's work?
MacIntyre doesn't even provide a defence of the necessary Aristotelian metaphysics behind teleology, he just argues that we should return to them because Aristotelian virtue ethics don't work without them. And no there are exactly zero good arguments for teleology. Go on, try to find them.
>I don't think that human beings using their bodies to perform feats of strength is at all similar to sodomy. You shift from using nature in the scholastic sense to using it in the scientific sense within the same argument, which is why we have found ourselves speaking at cross-purposes more than once.
I don't understand what is confusing you, this is one of the most standard arguments in the literature against Natural Law. When I say "natural" I always use it in the Thomistic sense.
The argument is that although the purpose of the human hands is to pick up stuff etc. and not to walk with them, the acrobat who walks with his hands is obviously not performing an immoral action. Now, since we saw that using bodily organs for other purposes than intended by their immanent teleology is not necessarily immoral, using the sexual organs for purposes other than reproduction is not necessarily immoral either.
>I'm not sure how you can argue that the scholastic framework is completely irrational without accepting that all frameworks are completely irrational. Why is your framework any more rational than theirs?
Because I think you can make a much better case for a (a certain kind) of Empiricism over traditional Scholastic metaphysics. I maintain that their ontology is flawed on multiple points, from their solution to the problem of Universals to their conceptions of God and of libertarian free will. I obviously can't give a comprehensive account on all these topics here, but I have arguments for the positions I endorse.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 20:32:32 2020 No.16437002 >>16422116 Having both parents makes you into a normie piece of shit

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 20:33:32 2020 No.16437009 >>16435684 That's too nuanced, YOU'RE ONE OF THEM!!!!

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 20:36:12 2020 No.16437022 >>16422665 I'm 21 but my sex drive is much stronger than when I was 15 or 16. Went through puberty at 11 for reference.

Anonymous Thu Sep 24 20:36:54 2020 No.16437027

Give me one objective and logical reason to be against homosexuality that doesn't involve your religious or personal bias.
>inb4 u don't reproduce lol
some people can not be good fathers or mothers and are better off not reproducing, including anyone who posts on 4chan

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 20:38:11 2020 No.16437037 >>16423082 Haven't been to /lit/ in months because of them. The dialogue on /pol/ or even /v/ is unironically at a much higher level than here now when it comes to discussing social or cultural trends.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 21:13:40 2020 No.16437312 >>16427590 It's not an argument retard

Anonymous Thu Sep 24 22:11:30 2020 No.16437658
File: 86 KB, 640x547, DCckUTbcyXmHro7Y32b_zzks3s1ZcsGHEs4uFfmqfyw.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16422094
>>16422116
>>16422613
Anon do you by any chance think there is anything morraly wrong with didling a child? that is to say, to you is it just another social construction that its wrong for a man to lay with an 8 year old?

Just curious

Anonymous Thu Sep 24 22:15:46 2020 No.16437677

>>16422756
Thats because it western societies were miles ahead of most other socities and the sexual revolution has been on for 60 years.

Your debt will catch up to you and your people. But I sense your one of those people who is really just in it for themselves, so you dont care and wont pay for the missery you sow for future innocent children.

Anonymous Thu Sep 24 22:29:27 2020 No.16437743
File: 103 KB, 640x626, bTeei7GBogO1eIhi4b-_e6EQjUFXRzYgOcruvQMbMM0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16424939
You must not know about the family courts in canada and US.

You must not know that custody defaults to the mother and in the events of children being present the father gets kicked out of his house to house the children and mother.

You must not know that dragged out litigation procces by jew lawyers who force the father to pay both his fees and the mothers.

you must not know about the 87% cases favouring the mother.

You must not know about the recent disturbing trend of fathers murdering the mother allong with innocent children and themselves.

God give us strengh to find our way back. we have lost our way

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 22:31:52 2020 No.16437758 >>16437743 Just pay a couple of Haitians 100K apiece to chop her up

Anonymous Thu Sep 24 22:45:31 2020 No.16437822
File: 58 KB, 518x544, Screenshot_2018-11-25 22.35.01_dPlB65.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16425355
No offence brother, but your the son of a single mother. its not even a dig. We are all fatherless bastards here but atleast I am not spouting folly like this.

But I would like to ask, I know you guys love your empty talk of revolution. When the state and women continue to raise, weak in mind and body, effiminate social conformists. How is a revolution, when it is deemed neccesary ever achieved?

Anonymous Thu Sep 24 22:56:11 2020 No.16437905
File: 2.21 MB, 310x360, 1543304860146.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16426471
I am kinda disapointed you would mention the good Dalrock in the same vain as TRP.

As a lost muslim youth that fell for just conume reddit trap. he save my spirit and sent me back to pick up my fathers faith.

12 years of boys only schooling did a number on me. TRP helped me with that by way of approaching strangers in public, of course 98 percent went nowhere but I learnt to not stutter when talking to girls in my social circle.

Beyond that TRP is poison and incourages many of the issues we are talking about in this same thread.

Its a shame Dalrock stopped posting and retired, I pray his family is doing well.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 23:00:04 2020 No.16437932 File: 73 KB, 1006x692, Saved_by_anon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16426813 Truelly based. I've been going through some book recently banned by them. Culture of Narccism is great so far. Save your suggestion for the future, thank you

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 23:08:20 2020 No.16437991 >>16435672 You are so very clever. I leave it to your most capable and lofty intellect to solve this dilemma.

Anonymous Thu Sep 24 23:17:59 2020 No.16438047
File: 63 KB, 850x400, f635fd8fc3f48747ff96116050447319.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16432309
>Obviously not all of the negative sides of sexual degeneracy is eliminated
Ohhh, I see. so in the face of short term pleasure, its a jusfiable amount of pain. So what happens when this pain accumalates over generations and grows in a non-linear manor? or did you think you wont be around long enough, therefore it escaped your mind?

Its consequences are unforseen. the closest I can think of is my community, black americans. We are spiritually dead becuase of it. our women are masculine. Our men effeminate lackeys whom have no emotional controll. More of our babies are aborted than born.

Nigerian and other african immagrants are well to do in america, so dont get funny ideas about IQ

Be wise you fool. You know know not your folly.

Anonymous Fri Sep 25 00:20:48 2020 No.16438405
File: 49 KB, 1160x653, islam_women-1160x653.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16437905
Unless you are willing to go full MGTOW and spend the rest of your life as an incel, you HAVE to learn game to manage your gf/fiancee/wife. TRP helps you with that, even if most men use it to pump and dump as many thots as possible.

PUAs are simply responding rationally to the insanity of the modern sexual place. In a civilized culture, women are sexually guarded by their fathers and brothers until they are forced to marry a boring beta provider shortly after reaching sexual maturity, who would in turn mate guard her for the rest of his life. But we do not live in a civilized culture. We live in a culture where woman are free to make their own sexual choices, with the entirely predictable result that they seek out and spread their legs for alpha bad boy Jeremy Meeks demon lover types, thus incentivizing men to become (or to appear to become) such types and spin plates instead of becoming nice, productive workers in the hope of earning a virgin wife.

TL;DR pic related.

Anonymous Fri Sep 25 00:59:52 2020 No.16438623

>>16437658
You know your faith permitts this right? your prophet was known for this.
But your answer, I would say its a matter of social construction or timely cultural shift. Did I say I would do it? NO.

>>16437905
>>16438047
loool imagine being this retarded nigger standing in the middle of some american mall appraching white girls

His 98th cold aproach for the day goes something like this:
>Ayooa biihhhtch
>*smack lips*
>finakin get
>*stutters*
>finaking y-
>*Stutters some more*
> *smacks lips*
> finakin...your phone number

And of course, your going around quoting supreme court judge Scalita, some psued retard you are. dont worry you will join him soon.

Anonymous Fri Sep 25 07:57:02 2020 No.16440098
File: 10 KB, 259x194, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16426813
I found an online PDF copy of Sexual Utopia in power! Now y'all have no excuse not to read the book:

http://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/F.. Roger Devlin - Sexual Utopia in Power - The Feminist Revolt Against Civilization.pdf

But if you want to support the author, just remember you can still order a physical copy right here:

https://counter-currents.com/sexual-utopia-in-power-order/

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 08:07:22 2020 No.16440131 >>16422225 I want to read. I have it. But I am always in post-coom coma-brainlet mood so the book is too hurd 4me. Send good wishes I NEED to stop cooming all the time. HELPPPP

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 08:58:27 2020 No.16440349 >>16440131 hang on anon. you can do it

Anonymous Fri Sep 25 11:55:34 2020 No.16441325
File: 227 KB, 1200x675, Portland.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16438405
>Unless you are willing to go full MGTOW and spend the rest of your life as an incel
for MGTOW, I think there is allot of benifit to be had for a man, especially a young man that needs to build, provided of course, that he has no intrest in having a family, children and truelly wants to go his own way, not LARP.

>you HAVE to learn game to manage your gf/fiancee/wife.
Can confirm your pic related. Islam, even its western manifestation already implements this.

Even in our degenerate black communites, muslim famillies are insulated from it. Devorce is deeply frowned upon and its certain social death for muslim women. All talk of not wanting to cook or rebellion is squashed.

Muslims are paranoid of innovation against the quran. God speaks about the bible having suffered this fate and the need for muslims to guard against it, its normal for muslim kids to spend formal schooling just memorising the quran, I am one of them.

>PUAs are simply responding rationally to the insanity of the modern sexual place
If everything was in a vacume, then maybe I would agree with TRP/PUAs or young mens reaction, but we dont live in a vacume. The envolope continues to be moved in a certain direction decade after decade by ((whoever)) they may be.

At this rate, the single motherhood rates that destroyed strong black families will make its way to your people.

I truelly wish for you christians, conservatives and even liberals to get your act together, Women follow the lead of strong men.
as damning as that maybe.

That recent, god awfull piece "art" by PEDOFLIX should have been a wake up call for all of us.

Anonymous Fri Sep 25 11:59:14 2020 No.16441350
File: 42 KB, 647x685, 1600271737166.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16438623
>Why should I be good if your not.
So thats it then? Those are parts of my faith that I am deeply uncomfortable with. us westernised muslims seem to have moved away from it. Am I denying that it happens in the east? No.

>imagine...standing in the middle of some american mall appraching white girls
I dont have attraction to earopean women nor did I approach them.
>of course, your going around quoting supreme court judge Scalita, some psued retard you are
Its funny, how your willing to shame me for being "psued" and throw slurrs my way even though your kind are against it. but I know, uppity blacks have to be reminded not to step of the plantation, so its cool.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 12:01:31 2020 No.16441362 >>16422200 >>16425314 For future fathers - shove this in your brain - don't be a deadbeat. Take responsability and raise your children.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 14:39:18 2020 No.16442472 >>16437822 You answered your own question. They are raising effeminate social conformists because they don't want a revolution. The only time it happens / will happen is when some outside force or entity forces the hand, it won't come internally.

Anonymous Fri Sep 25 14:43:13 2020 No.16442502

>>16441325
I 100% agree with you on all those points but do you think its possible that if women follow strong men that perhaps the antithesis to the jeremy meeks badboy archetype will arise?

i.e is there a timeline where chad is both an alpha male & a man with strong values, or is it simply one or the other.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 16:35:57 2020 No.16443329 >>16422225 this book is retarded. at least the first third, didnt get further, it reads like a protestant larping as a catholic wrote it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 17:17:10 2020 No.16443666 how did op post without an image?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 19:10:09 2020 No.16444512 >>16442472 I guess so. I was expecting to much of self awareness.

Anonymous Fri Sep 25 19:41:05 2020 No.16444726
File: 22 KB, 643x229, se0YQi58vv.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16442502
I really try to keep away from all talks of alpha, chad and beta males, beyond using them as joke at the expense of a good friend.

There is no denying those things exist as archetypes and have strong appeal/repulsion towards a woman throughout her life, something people often assume is that a woman is always selecting for the alpha archetype from 15 to 35, this does not seem so obvious to me.

There are allot of dimensions that have to be measured first before that can be accuratelly assessed, for example women who are nearing their 30s often change mating strategies and select for the predictable beta, with a proven track record (schooling and career)

A girl raised in chaos (broken family lacking fathers) is almost always gonna try to to find that in a partner (alpha,) while one raised in an intact family led by a strong male figure, has a sensible aproach to men and always seeks to recreate her families image with her husband.

As for your question, Women have, always had that desire to drag man to the bottom of the ocean (chaos). Its why western, eastern, african philosophy has always regarded them as agents of chaos, Its not coincidence that Eve, through good intentions causes Adams fall.

The antidote is man, after the fall, Adam once again, exposed to the choas of nature(first eve, then, the natural world) erects a wall and shelter for Eve, This would be society.

My sisters, have this proclivity in them but our father taught us what is right, wrong and most imprtantly shamefull and our community contantly reminds us these three things and the consquences due for us if we fall short of them.

In, sorty strong men inspire strong women.
Keep sharing what you have been sharing anon. Sooner or later something will give.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 19:43:45 2020 No.16444740 >>16443666 I think it was lewd image, that Jannies took down

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 19:44:46 2020 No.16444746 >>16443666 it was a pretty roastie shaking her titties and thicc ass

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]