Any books on the sexual revolution and its consequences?

[Anonymous No.15055726]

Preferably from an anti perspective. Even works from sex-negative feminists, I'd be interested in reading.

[Anonymous No.15055741]

Belle Delphine is pretty based desu

[Anonymous No.15055749]

>>15055726
>>>/r9k/

[Anonymous No.15055766]

>>15055741
I unironically think Belle is a obviously genius of self-promotion and it has given me a certain respect for her, but it still terrifies me just how much power a woman on the internet can command simply by virtue of having slightly above average looks.

[Anonymous No.15055774]

>>15055749
Where am I going to read up on sex-negative feminism on a board for incels and troons?

[Anonymous No.15055778]

Living Currency

[Anonymous No.15055787]

>>15055741
based upon what?

[Anonymous No.15055818]

>>15055726
it's just moving toward Gorilla state instead of lovebird. The funny thing is that the males pretend they are gorillas while raising the children of other men

[Anonymous No.15055841]

>>15055766
She is not in charge of her social media campaign. Her boyfriend (a white british pimp) is.
The money goes to him, not her.

[Anonymous No.15055921]

When is someone going to write the story of her life? and how will hey handle the arrest for graffiting a van with a honkler pepe holding a gun because someone abducted her pet hamster?

[Anonymous No.15055924]

Libido dominandi by E Michael Jones, OP

[Anonymous No.15055977]

>>15055766
>power
she makes decent money, but let's not get carried away.

>simply by virtue of having slightly above average looks
and good make-up/costume/performance skills and the audacity to promote herself as a softcore model (a risky endeavor that burns some bridges).
plus she only has a window of a few years before her looks deteriorate.
it's not as easy as some bitter neets think.

[Anonymous No.15056025]

>>15055841
Source?

[Anonymous No.15056164]

>>15055977
>she makes decent money, but let's not get carried away
Power, as I understand it, is simply the ability to command the wills of others in order to fulfill a given desire. A woman using her sexuality to extract absurdly disproportionate amounts of wealth from men, while being practically worshiped by them, absolutely is a form of power.

Making sense of the whole E-that phenomena is only possibly if female sexuality can be conceptualized as power.

>good make-up/costume/performance skills
I've already admitted that she is a genius of self-promotion, but none of that would amount to anything if she wasn't sexually desired, and she wouldn't be able to exploit the fittness-signaling instncts of men.

[Anonymous No.15056187]

>>15055766
>>15055841
>>15056025
I don't think anyone else is "in charge" of the Belle Delphine persona but she obviously has someone else (a male) helping her. It's pretty obvious, attractive women are never single and do you think anyone would let their girlfriend be an ethot on the side without them knowing?

Women also never understand internet culture. Her boyfriend probably tells her what to wear and say. It's just like that girlfriends reviews channel that was supposed to be a girl reviewing a game based on the perspective of the girl watching her boyfriend play the game but it turns out the guy does the writing, makes up all the jokes, does the video editing and the girl reads the script.

[Anonymous No.15056191]

I sometimes wonder what kind of woman I would find worthy of settling down with in modern times. I am indeed no angel, having abased myself of moral sexual conviction through years of pornography use which I am just now removing from my life.

Many of us dislike the idea of women like her existing, but the truth is she is sexually competent, rich, and obviously affable. I have tried to make things work with a hardworking student nurse who had higher sexual fortifications and ultimately found the encounter lacking in zest and appeal. Do we really want women who are chaste? Or do we just want to be accepted by those who are more attracted, those more likely to turn to e-thottery?

[Anonymous No.15056227]

The American sex revolution by sorokin

[Anonymous No.15056243]

Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation Political Control by E. Michael Jones

[Anonymous No.15056347]

>>15056191
>I have tried to make things work with a hardworking student nurse who had higher sexual fortifications and ultimately found the encounter lacking in zest and appeal. Do we really want women who are chaste?
She wasn't chaste, she was boring. The modern man is so god damn confused that he thinks that an unmarried woman can be chaste. Neither of you knew how to love because you don't know what virtue is. How can a genuine mutual desire to please each other exist in a situation where both partners are treating each other as objects of lust?

[Anonymous No.15056351]

>>15055924
Jones' books are quite dense, scholarly works
They are excellent if you have the time and willpower to plough through them, especially if you take notes

[Anonymous No.15056359]

They exploit our biological wiring for shekels, let the coomers destroy themselves until they are ready to rise above being a simple animal
>>15056191
>nurse
you failed miserably at the start , everyone know nurses are insane

[Anonymous No.15056367]

Why Liberalism Failed by Patrick Deneen

[Anonymous No.15056373]

>>15055726
how has no one recommend pic related yet? it's exactly what you're looking for OP

[Anonymous No.15056392]

Foucault - The History of Sexuality
Adorno and Horkheimer - The Dialectic of the Englightenment
Herbert Marcuse - The One Dimensional Man
Herbert Marcuse - Eros and Civilization

Especially Marcuse's books on eroticism are a great read.

[Anonymous No.15056405]

>>15055726
The "Conservative intellectual elite" since the 1980s lacked the balls to do something like this. Roger Scruton, Amy Wax and John Finnis are some of the few exceptions with a backbone (Allan Bloom had balls, but he was not conservative)
The rest is weak to social pressure and even help liberals pile up against those three.

There is a book by a couple of doctors written for parents of girls about the negative effects of this based on research, I will see if I can find it.

[Anonymous No.15056410]

>>15056373
Because this is a /pol/thread full of /pol/posters who have read less than 30 books in their lifetimes, mostly propaganda by radio pundits and genre fiction, none of it high literature.

[Anonymous No.15056411]

>>15056392
Marcuse is pro-Sexual Revolution.

[Anonymous No.15056414]

'Compare lovemaking in a meadow and an automobile, on a lover's walk outside the town walls and on a Manhattan street. In the former, the environment partakes of and invites libidinal cathexis and tends to be eroticized. Libido transcends beyond the immediate erotogenic zones - a process of nonrepresive sublimation. - Marcuse, The One Dimensional man

'Thus diminishing erotic and intensifying sexual energy, the technological reality limits the scope of sublimation. It also reduces the need for sublimation and in this becomes institutionalized sublimation.' - Marcuse, The One Dimensional Man

[Anonymous No.15056416]

>>15056410
The thread had only 24 replies when you posted this and most of it was some back and forth. Would you like to compare Goodreads profiles?

[Anonymous No.15056417]

>>15056410
Or because OP is clearly asking for non-fiction.

[Anonymous No.15056419]

>>15056417
>implying I respect that dichotomy

[Anonymous No.15056421]

>>15055787
kek

[Anonymous No.15056428]

>>15056411
But against the infilitration of capitalistic relations in the sexual life of the individual.

[Anonymous No.15056441]

I'm >>15056405
>There is a book by a couple of doctors written for parents of girls about the negative effects of this based on research, I will see if I can find it.
Found it
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12904064-girls-uncovered

[Anonymous No.15056465]

>>15055726
instagram

[Anonymous No.15056516]

>>15056164
>sexually desired
She has a vaguely neotenous face, the rest is performance arts. Looks-wise anyone relatively young could do it, even a man, with either Photoshop or minor cosmetic surgery

[Anonymous No.15056588]

>>15055726
my diary desu

[Anonymous No.15056769]

>>15056516
She's still cute on the left despite the acne, and she has a lovely little nymph body.

[Anonymous No.15056777]

[Anonymous No.15056894]

>>15055726
Irigaray, Women on the Market

[Anonymous No.15056923]

>>15056191
Thots are intolerablly dull if you aren't currently fucking them.

[Anonymous No.15056961]

>>15055726
The sexual revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

[Anonymous No.15056979]

>>15055741
She's pretty smart

[Anonymous No.15056999]

>>15055726
There is no "sexual" revolution, it's just /pol/ propaganda to make you hate women because people are salty you can't sleep any women they want.

[Anonymous No.15057000]

>>15055726
Atomised (alt. The Elementary Particles) by Michel Houellebecq

[Anonymous No.15057011]

>>15056999
Are you a troll or are you just uneducated?

[Anonymous No.15057019]

>>15056769
I'd be frank, I'd be with her on the left and if she gave me money for sugar I'd do some good things. Man!

[Anonymous No.15057044]

Humanae vitae by the pope
This was prepared pre-launch

[Anonymous No.15057060]

>>15056999
>Sexual revolution never happen.

[Anonymous No.15057076]

>>15057011
I might be uneducated, but I can't really comprehend how 14 million people (I live in Australia) can just go down in quality. What does that even mean? Considering how often people are jealous of chads or whatever the fuck I'd just say they rather wallow in their own world view then just talk to a women. Also things being worse today then back in the good old days is a common stereotype that you hear in almost everything (music, games, movies, books) so it's hard to take it seriously when someone uses it as a justification.

[Anonymous No.15057077]

I believe Joan Didion wrote about the promise and failure of the sexual revolution from a roastie perspective. I recall her writing about how the sexual revolution just devolved into dudes trying to fuck 13 year olds in the name of sexual liberty. David Bowie was famous for doing this for example.

[Anonymous No.15057113]

>>15057076
>I might be uneducated, but I can't really comprehend how 14 million people (I live in Australia) can just go down in quality. What does that even mean? Considering how often people are jealous of chads or whatever the fuck I'd just say they rather wallow in their own world view then just talk to a women.
Uh, what?
We are talking about the Sexual Revolution, anon.

>Also things being worse today then back in the good old days is a common stereotype that you hear in almost everything (music, games, movies, books) so it's hard to take it seriously when someone uses it as a justification.
The mainstream belief right now is that "everything now is much better than it always has been and we are wiser and more moral than every other generation in the past". Sometimes, society improves and sometimes society decays.
And let's be serious, some things can improve (our communication technology, for example) while others can get worse (sexual morality, for example).

[Anonymous No.15057120]

>>15055726
Its consequences are as follows:

1) More people are having sex.

2) People who like sex are happier.

3) Bitter people have changed their excuse for why they are bitter over to people who like sex.

You don't need a book on this, since I summarized the whole subject for you here.

[Anonymous No.15057131]

>>15057120
That's a low IQ post.

[Anonymous No.15057137]

>>15057120
>More people are having sex.
Retard.

[Anonymous No.15057139]

>>15057131
Says the bitter person claiming to be offended by people having sex and enjoying it.

[Anonymous No.15057145]

>>15057137
Sanitation, contraception, medicine, and information from sex experts have increased the number of people having regular, healthy amounts of sex in the modern world.

[Anonymous No.15057150]

>>15057120
>More people are having sex
wrong

[Anonymous No.15057152]

>>15057145
Mongoloid.

[Anonymous No.15057153]

>>15057139
Calling me bitter won't make your posts more insightful.

[Anonymous No.15057155]

I wonder what average day to day life is like for guys who attend porn conventions and blow their paychecks on OnlyFans.

[Anonymous No.15057158]

>>15057150
>>15057152
It's not that hard to have sex these days, unless you look and act like a walking abomination. I doubt you both even try.

[Anonymous No.15057168]

>>15057158
Subwit.

[Anonymous No.15057192]

>>15057153
Except I know that you're bitter, since there isn't a single good reason for thinking that sanitation, contraception, medicine, and public information (all of which lead to the "sexual revolution" you speak of) were negative things for the human species, since all it lead to was more people having clean, enjoyable sex with their partners or with other people who are simply looking to have a good time. Any degeneracy developed from this is not a good reason either, because degeneracy is associated with everything in life, every single thing, and as such it's a literal non-argument.

[Anonymous No.15057193]

My brethren, never forget: once a whore, always a whore. Ignore at your own peril

[Anonymous No.15057208]

>>15057192
In your opinion, there is no problem in over indulging in physical pleasure? The more pleasure you have, the better?

[Anonymous No.15057218]

>>15057120
based sex haver

[Anonymous No.15057227]

>>15056516
>the rest is performance art
I agree. I even admitted that she is only moderately more attractive than the average woman. But that doesn't change the fact that product she's selling is her physical beauty and sex appeal, even if it's only made possible through makeup, editing, and photography.

I kind of regret using a picture of Belle in my op, because I was hoping this would be a mkre broad discussion about the sexual revolution instead of the particularities of e-thots.

[Anonymous No.15057276]

>>15057208
>The more pleasure you have, the better?
Yes. Of course, what you're probably referring to is degeneracy, like someone overeating until they become obese and unhealthy. But as I said, degeneracy is a non-argument, because everything leads to some kind of degeneracy. Some people overeating doesn't mean having a surplus of food is an inherently bad thing, it's almost the opposite case.

[Anonymous No.15057281]

>>15057158
>It's not that hard to have sex these days
isn't it? really?

[Anonymous No.15057283]

>>15057145
fact check: false
>Using 1989-2014 data from the General Social Survey, the study found that American adults have sex seven to nine fewer times per year than in the 1990s. Back then, Americans on average had sex 60 to 62 times a year, but in the early 2000s the frequency began to slip, and by 2014 it had declined to less than 53 times a year. (WaPo)
>>15057131
>>15057137
>>15057152
based anons

[Anonymous No.15057285]

>>15057276
>Yes
Always? Just to make it more explicit (I know your answer but just to make it more clear): do you believe we should have as much pleasure as possible? That there are no downsides of this?

[Anonymous No.15057291]

>>15057276
>degeneracy is a non-argument, because everything leads to some kind of degeneracy.
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.15057292]

>>15057192
>sanitation, contraception, medicine, and public information
except you are conveniently leaving out a couple of consequences.
>premarital sex
which ends up with women having difficulty pair bonding thus likely to not have a healthy relationship
>women focusing on careers
which leads to wages getting cut in half because the supply of workers essentially doubled, which leads to you needing two people to be able to support a family which in turns leads to women
>marrying late and having kids later in life
which means she has less kids, AND they will likely be born with some sort of abnormality if she waits until she is 30+

[Anonymous No.15057293]

>>15057281
Just try online dating. If you do it right and be patient you'll get more than sex. Not tinder, that's for obnoxious whores.

[Anonymous No.15057297]

>>15057281
It is still gauche to make it your goal my dear. You need to get yourself into a way of being where it just sort of happens. You can do that by doing things that involve meeting people more.

Obv now isn't a great time.

[Anonymous No.15057307]

>>15057297
>You need to get yourself into a way of being where it just sort of happens
Post tits.

[Anonymous No.15057329]

>>15057283
>population goes up
>number of people having regular, healthy sex increases due to these things
>number of people not having sex also increases because population goes up
It's a simple matter, don't convolute it with your moral agenda. The thing is, are most people not having sex actually unhappy about it? If you paid attention, there are so many different hobbies that are overwhelmed by millions of such people today and they aren't unhappy with themselves at all.

>>15057285
Yes, always. In what situation would having a surplus of food be an overall bad thing for the population that has the surplus? Can you provide even one example?

>>15057291
Explain why that's wrong.

>>15057292
I didn't "conveniently" leave any of those things out. That's all in the realm of degeneracy: stupid and impulsive women, stupid and impulsive men taking advantage of said women, etc. None of it is a valid refutation against sanitation, contraception, medicine, and public information on sex.

[Anonymous No.15057348]

>>15057077
Don't forget the french pomo guys trying really hard to legalize actual pedophilia.

[Anonymous No.15057354]

I think the sexual revolution is just a meme to be honest, human beings have always practiced serial monogamy, but there is a small group of degenerates that draw all the attention.

[Anonymous No.15057357]

>>15057329
>Yes, always.
But isn't it possible that pleasure could addict you? That you would need more of what gives you pleasure with time and that you would feel bad if you don't get it?

[Anonymous No.15057365]

>>15057329
You are confusing "medicine" with the Sexual Revolution.
The Sexual Revolution was a change in how people view (and practice) sex.

[Anonymous No.15057375]

>>15057329
>Explain why that's wrong.
Because there are obviously things that don’t lead to anything that could be called degeneracy by a reasonable person.

[Anonymous No.15057376]

>>15057354
This is the literature board. You should read about it, anon...
That the Sexual Revolution happened is a consensus. This is not something that is up to debate.
HBO series are not accurate documentaries on people's lives.

[Anonymous No.15057379]

>>15057354
I agree.

>>15057357
I think you're making a causation vs. correlation error. There are plenty of people who have sex or dine at restaurants regularly but don't become addicts. The root of the problem is in the individual, not in the pleasurable activity itself.

[Anonymous No.15057385]

>>15057348
The German version of NAMBLA tried to attach itself to the gay rights movement as well iirc

[Anonymous No.15057387]

>>15057365
Things like sanitation, contraception, and medicine are what changed people's views on sex.

>>15057375
Can you provide some examples? Define "reasonable person" as well.

[Anonymous No.15057391]

We're at a point in time where I really wish traps become so popular that girls start to copy them.

[Anonymous No.15057393]

>>15057307
Stop making fun of my moobs you silly boy.

[Anonymous No.15057402]

>>15057379
In your opinion, you could over indulge in pleasure and not become more dependant of it?

[Anonymous No.15057412]

>>15057385
And don't forget the likes of Ginsberg, of course, the direct forerunners of the hippies and the '68 generation.

[Anonymous No.15057413]

>>15057387
>Things like sanitation, contraception, and medicine are what changed people's views on sex.
Not really. The change happened due to liberalism (not in the American sense of the word).

And even if Y is caused by X and X is good, it doesn't mean that Y is good.

[Anonymous No.15057416]

>>15057402
Dependence is subjective. Someone who becomes fat after eating a lot can just burn it off with exercise. If you feel that you have become dependent on eating, it is because you are cognitively impaired in some way.

[Anonymous No.15057418]

>>15057192
Then why do we see an explosion in divorce, out of wedlock births, single mothers/broken families, abortions, and unsustainably low levels of fertility after the sexual revolution?

Obviously, if your a vapid, shallow hedonist, then access to pleasure is going to be the final measure of societal health, but if any of the things I listed above are even remotely concerning to you, then I think a more serious consideration of the social pathologies invited by the sexual revolution is warranted.

[Anonymous No.15057425]

>>15057385
NAMBLA was a part of the gay rights movement from the very beginning.

[Anonymous No.15057439]

>>15057416
So, you would say that mentally healthy people can over indulge in pleasure without this side effect?

[Anonymous No.15057455]

>>15057425
I mean NAMBLA say that. And, if I may point out, you are saying that.

[Anonymous No.15057457]

>>15055726
>>15057000
>Check entire thread
>Only one anon mentions Houllebecq
He's popular explicitly due to his constant take on the sexual revolution and its consequences. Fucking dumbass /lit/, holy shit. OP, Houllebecq is your guy. Whatever, Atomized ('The Elementary Particles' if you're American), Platform, The Possibility of an Island. Fun reading in addition to attacking exactly what you're asking about.

[Anonymous No.15057460]

>>15057413
>The change happened due to liberalism
I really don't see how that had a greater effect than people reaching an understanding on how illness spreads, how to better wash yourself, how to better protect yourself, how to better prevent unwanted pregnancy, how to better prevent injury, how to better make yourself sexually appealing...

What's so bad about happy people having sex, exactly?

>>15057418
Some people are stupid and lack the cognitive ability to balance their lives right, and lower fertility rates aren't necessarily linked to the sexual revolution. Also, can you explain why any of these things are inherently bad?

[Anonymous No.15057464]

>>15057329
>number of people having regular, healthy sex increases due to these things
But the rate of sex is going down, which is exactly the opposite of what you said. But you can't admit you're wrong since you're an ideologically compromised retard
>The thing is, are most people not having sex actually unhappy about it?
Obviously most everyone wants a healthy loving relationship which includes sex. You think autistic hobbies are a replacement in a fulfilling life?

[Anonymous No.15057465]

>>15057439
Yes, absolutely.

[Anonymous No.15057467]

>>15057457
>>15056373
>talk shit
>miss one anon mentioning Whatever
Sorry based anon, I missed you.
>>15056417
Houllebecq's novels are just longwinded essays with narrative breaks between them. They're superior to any strictly non-fictional take on OP's requested subject.

[Anonymous No.15057479]

>>15057464
>But the rate of sex is going down
Because population is going up. The rate of sex among the sexually active is going up.

>Obviously most everyone wants a healthy loving relationship which includes sex.
That's not obvious. Not everyone wants or has to want the same life, and clearly I'm right, since there are millions of people who don't live the way you suggest and they are totally fine with it.

[Anonymous No.15057486]

>>15057412
Haha yeah what an absolute degenerate. The entire movement was doomed to failure before it had even begun.

[Anonymous No.15057489]

>>15057465
So, eating sweets every day will not addict me? I can do so without the need to concern myself for the psychological effects and should only concern myself with diabetes and fat?

[Anonymous No.15057499]

>>15057489
>So, eating sweets every day will not addict me?
If you aren't cognitively impaired? No, it won't. You'll stop when you want to stop. That's not an addiction.

[Anonymous No.15057506]

>>15057460
The traditional arguments on not being promiscuous were not that promiscuity leads to STDs or pregnancies. You may be a complete hedonist, but this is not true for all of mankind ever.

And promiscuity doesn't lead to more happiness.

[Anonymous No.15057507]

>>15057293
What app or website do you suggest then, if not Tinder?

[Anonymous No.15057515]

>>15057506
Promiscuity doesn't necessarily lead to either happiness or unhappiness, and by the way, some people actually like being unhappy.

[Anonymous No.15057516]

>>15057499
>If you aren't cognitively impaired? No, it won't
Anon, I have some news for you...
Sugar is an addicting substance. So, yes, if you do eat sweets every day, you will get addicted to it.

Would you say that this changes your mind a little?

[Anonymous No.15057518]

>>15057515
It actually does lead to unhappiness. In more than one way to those who are promiscuous.

[Anonymous No.15057527]

>>15057516
I don't think you understand what "cognitive impairment" entails. Someone who wants something will do whatever it takes to get that thing. If they are told they have diabetes now because they have been enjoying too much candy for too long, they will drop the candy because they want something else in life more than the candy, or they will keep eating it because they don't. At no point are they actually addicted, they are always operating towards their desires; addiction in this sense is a projection of a weaker interpretation of the matter. It doesn't actually exist unless you're cognitively impaired.

[Anonymous No.15057531]

>>15057515

Um promiscuity is directly linked with unhappiness sweetie.

>some people actually like being unhappy.

Oh you are a teenager, get off my board

[Anonymous No.15057536]

>>15057518
People with or in harems aren't necessarily unhappy, and again, unhappiness isn't necessarily a refutation. Lots of artists find their motivation in suffering, for example. Some people also use their suffering as a sexual stimulant. They are not necessarily against the way they live.

[Anonymous No.15057540]

>>15057527
You don't know what addiction means.

[Anonymous No.15057543]

>>15057486
I never cease to be amazed by how "free" in the worst way imaginable the USA is as an outsider. Like, even today, as degenerate as the general atmosphere in Eastern Europe is, if you tried to create and promote an organization like NAMBLA you'd get lynched sooner or later, and for good reason. I didn't even want to believe at first what I was reading when I found out about its existence.

[Anonymous No.15057545]

>>15057540
I know what it means. You don't know that the matter is relative.

[Anonymous No.15057551]

>>15055726
Elementary Particles

[Anonymous No.15057553]

>>15057536
In your opinion, being unhappy make those people happy?

[Anonymous No.15057554]

>>15057391
>Traps know how to act more feminine than women
How did things come to this

[Anonymous No.15057570]

>>15057553
As strange as it sounds, yes. The human experience isn't so simple that this can't be the case. Certain cognitive configurations enable that possibility.

[Anonymous No.15057581]

People have been having less sex ever since the "sexual revolution"

[Anonymous No.15057587]

>>15057479
But the rate of sex is going down. Who cares how much sex the sexualest are having. The overall rate is decreasing and that's what matters.
>Not everyone wants or has to want the same life, and clearly I'm right, since there are millions of people who don't live the way you suggest and they are totally fine with it.
You're making a big and totally unsupported leap in assuming that they are "totally fine with it." The suicide rate has been increasing since 2000. But I get that you don't care about "facts" or things like that since they conflict with your ideological worldview

[Anonymous No.15057588]

>>15057581
Which people?

[Anonymous No.15057590]

>>15057545
You are creating a different definition of addiction.

[Anonymous No.15057597]

>>15057570
I lol'd.
You can't be happy by being unhappy.

[Anonymous No.15057645]

>>15057587
If the rate of sex among the sexually active in a lifetime is going up (which it clearly is), but the overall rate of sex is still going down, that means the population increase outweighs the sexual activity increase. The problem lies with population increase, not sexual liberation, if there is even a problem at all.

>>15057590
Any definition that didn't regard addiction as a relative matter was wrong to begin with. You aren't addicted if you can change yourself to suit your goals. It doesn't matter if your chemistry has changed to rely on certain substances; a choice is a choice.

>>15057597
You can be content with the products of unhappiness, however. There's lots of different ways to justify things.

[Anonymous No.15057658]

>>15057479
Holy fucking shit you're reaching Jordan Peterson levels of stupidity.

When someone says "less people are having sex" they obviously mean relative to the total population. And this is empirically demonstrable, the rates of virginity for both men and women pre-25 is going up. No one cares if Chad and Stacy are having more sex than ever.

>That's not obvious
Except it totally is? That was a weird strawman too; not everyone wants the "same life" but literally 99.9% of people want some sort of sexual/romantic relationship in their lives.

[Anonymous No.15057662]

>>15057158
Sure, but male celibacy is certainly on the rise, and I doubt there is any historical precedent for this. It seems like people on the right are the only ones even willing to engage with this kind of social phenomena in any kind of novel way, while all I hear from the left are these trite, uninterested dismissals whenever the subject is broached.

[Anonymous No.15057675]

>>15057076
Does it ever strike you as odd or strange that your views or beliefs on controversial topics are the same as every HR department, school teacher, government bureaucracy, company mission statement, etc. Do you ever wonder why you hold no values or ideas in contradiction to the ruling powers?

[Anonymous No.15057686]

>>15057645
based retard
"the rate of sex among the sexually active in a lifetime" has little meaning when the it's the rate of people who ARE sexually active that's dropping
furthermore, the rate of sex among the sexually active is also falling due to falling marriage rates, and I can provide references for that too
literally everything you've said is wrong
Look at >>15057662. Is population growth responsible for the male incel rate nearly doubling in 10 years? you're ridiculous

[Anonymous No.15057692]

>>15057658
>No one cares if Chad and Stacy are having more sex than ever.
Wrong. I think people itt do care, which is why people itt harp on this subject at all. There are millions of people not having sex and are still completely fine with their lives. Why aren't the people itt like them? Because they are bitter. There are many socialists with an agenda floating around on the internet these days, more than ever before. They bully people into supporting their goals all the time. That's where stuff like the "virgin vs. Chad" and "coomer" memes come from to begin with.

Overall, the sexually active are having more sex than ever before. There are more people today, way more, so the overall rate of sex is lower. But it doesn't matter that it's lower to the general public, because the general public doesn't really care about having sex. Most are content with having it once or twice in a lifetime or even not at all. At no point does it become clear from all this that the sexual revolution was an inherently bad thing for most people.

[Anonymous No.15057693]

>>15057645
>Any definition that didn't regard addiction as a relative matter was wrong to begin with
Why should we use your definition rather than that of doctors and neuroscientists?

[Anonymous No.15057704]

>>15057692
> ever before. There are more people today, way more, so the overall rate of sex is lower. But it doesn't matter that it's lower to the general public, because the general public doesn't really care about having sex. Most are content with having it once or twice in a lifetime or even not at all.
lol
lmao
rofl
kek
haha
brrrr
pffft

[Anonymous No.15057705]

>>15057155
This. I would love a documentary on these people. Maybe have based Woowee Thoreaux do it

[Anonymous No.15057708]

It's all very reminiscent of 1984, where Winston hates the women of the Junior anti-sex league because they oppose sexual gratification whilst looking sexually desirable.

That's how I feel about these e-thots. They use your sexual desire to fuel their careers, but if you mention it you are a pig who sexually objectifies women.

Why must these Jezebels torment me?

[Anonymous No.15057711]

>>15057704
I rest my case. You are bitter as hell over people having more sex than you.

[Anonymous No.15057750]

>>15057692
>because the general public doesn't really care about having sex. Most are content with having it once or twice in a lifetime or even not at all.

wtf am I reading?

[Anonymous No.15057757]

>>15057693
Because those are specialists in fields where it's not necessary to deeply understand the history of civilization. Without that understanding, they lack the insight for better judgments on subjective matters like what it means for the will to be addicted.

[Anonymous No.15057770]

>>15057692
>There are many socialists with an agenda floating around on the internet these days, more than ever before. They bully people into supporting their goals all the time. That's where stuff like the "virgin vs. Chad" and "coomer" memes come from to begin with.
This is some real Joe Biden shit.

>the general public doesn't really care about having sex. Most are content with having it once or twice in a lifetime or even not at all.
I'm now convinced you're a troll. Good job, you strung me along for a good while.

[Anonymous No.15057777]

>>15057750
An average Joe who isn't bitter because Chad and Stacy are having more sex than he is.

[Anonymous No.15057789]

>>15057750

I mean I think this is true if you are talking about intelligent people, but most people can't think of anything more interesting than rubbing their genitals together.

[Anonymous No.15057793]

>>15057777
That's not related to what I quoted. Your average Joe is definitely not content with either staying a permavirgin or having sex only once or twice in his entire life.

>>15057789
Cope.

[Anonymous No.15057795]

>>15057692
7/10 bait

[Anonymous No.15057806]

>>15057793

Brainlet who probably doesn't even have a masters.

[Anonymous No.15057811]

>>15057757
Let's pretend you are some kind of wise sage who is way above those pleb specialists. Sure, you may not know why over indulging in pleasure is bad, but you still are a great sage.

Would you agree that what those specialists call addiction is a bad thing?

[Anonymous No.15057825]

>>15057793
The average Joe has a very low amount of sex relative to the most sexually active and still works and enjoys his life despite that. Some don't have any sex for years on end at a time. It's not a problem because there's a lot of other things to occupy yourself with, like a career and hobbies, and plenty of other sufficient ways to relieve stress.

[Anonymous No.15057829]

>>15057711
This is even funnier since I'm married to a high-libido wife and have sex at least twice a day, more on the weekends.

[Anonymous No.15057856]

>>15057811
They call addiction bad because it's their job to resolve people's issues. They have to perceive it as bad and they have to narrow its definition to neurology in order to do their job. Their real goal is to resolve the issues people bring to them and in many cases prescribing medication can do that for such people.

However, they aren't getting to the bottom of this situation at all, because that's not their job. The medication is a band-aid in most cases. The real cause of the issue is psychological.

>>15057829
Why would you even care about this topic if that were true? More importantly, why would you defend people who are bitter over having less sex than others?

[Anonymous No.15057871]

>>15057354
>serial monogamy
If you got pregnant in the 1800s and you weren't married to somebody who could provided for you and your child, you were basically fucked. The barrier of entry for being a whore was astronomically higher, so there was an incentive for women to be more prudent with their selection of sexual encounters.

[Anonymous No.15057877]

>>15055726
>not castrating yourself so you can live a life free of sexual urge

ngmi

[Anonymous No.15057880]

>>15057856
Out of curiosity, what would you say about addiction to crack cocaine?
I think it is a bad thing. Would you agree with me?

[Anonymous No.15057886]

>>15057871

Or you could just throw the baby in the garbage and move on with your life, that and backalley abortions were rife.

[Anonymous No.15057890]

>>15057880
Withdrawal symptoms aren't proof that the will is dependent on a thing. That's all I'll say on that.

[Anonymous No.15057892]

>>15057692
>But it doesn't matter that it's lower to the general public, because the general public doesn't really care about having sex. Most are content with having it once or twice in a lifetime or even not at all.
I won't insult you anon, but have you ever met humans?

[Anonymous No.15057893]

>>15057890
No, no, thay was not what I was curious about.
Would you agree that crack addiction is a bad thing?

[Anonymous No.15057914]

>>15057892
I've met thousands of people through school, jobs, and hobbies in my life. I try not to overly concern myself with exceptions and fringe groups.

>>15057893
The body can become dependent on crack without the will being dependent on it. A bodily dependency on crack will obviously be a bad thing to most people except perhaps to the suicidal.

[Anonymous No.15057915]

>>15057692
probably one of the stupidest posts i've seen on this board and that's saying something. consider suicide.

[Anonymous No.15057948]

>>15057914
>I've met thousands of people through school, jobs, and hobbies in my life. I try not to overly concern myself with exceptions and fringe groups.
Apparently you do, since your perception of the general public seems to be based on Quakers.

[Anonymous No.15057952]

>>15057914
Ok. We have finally agreed that what doctors and scientists call a crack addiction is a bad thing. Now let's move on.
Would you also agree that what the doctors and scientists call sugar and alcohol adiction is a bad thing?

[Anonymous No.15057965]

>>15057948
I would say Stoic sages, Christian saints and Buddhas.
Not gonna lie, the fantasy society that this anon lives in is better than ours.

[Anonymous No.15057973]

>>15057948
The general public is content with masturbating or having relatively infrequent amounts of sex and the proof for this is the fact that they are busy with other things most of their lives.

[Anonymous No.15057976]

>>15057120
>2) People who like sex are happier.
Wrong

[Anonymous No.15057995]

>>15055741

Yeah not a fan but she’s perfected that look and niche. I respect it but damn if the world and men aren’t a sad shitty joke anymore.

[Anonymous No.15058001]

>>15057276
Physical pleasures distracts ones search for actual happiness and meaning

[Anonymous No.15058013]

>>15057952
>We have finally agreed that what doctors and scientists call a crack addiction is a bad thing.
Not quite true. It's a bad thing only to certain people — people with goals other than doing or dying to crack. Which means it remains a relative matter.

>Would you also agree that what the doctors and scientists call sugar and alcohol adiction is a bad thing?
It depends on the person, because it's relative.

[Anonymous No.15058030]

>>15058001
"actual happiness and meaning" are relative. For some people, physical pleasure fulfills those things.

[Anonymous No.15058054]

>>15057973
You're either trolling or so out of touch with human behavior and motivation that I'm not entirely sure how you navigate society on a day-to-day basis.

[Anonymous No.15058055]

>>15058013
A person who wants to die while getting addicted to crack is not one who makes good decisions about what is good for him, would you agree with me?

[Anonymous No.15058067]

>>15058030
It doesn't. You can't find happiness on physical pleasure. Physical pleasure is fleeting.

[Anonymous No.15058079]

>>15058054
Stop associating with fringe types and you might change your mind.

[Anonymous No.15058089]

>>15058054
I think it is someone who doesn't want to say "sorry, I was wrong" and for that it ends up going to extremes. Take a look at the crack addiction discussion.

[Anonymous No.15058104]

>>15056428
If that were true he would not support the sexual revolution.

[Anonymous No.15058115]

>>15058030
No, it’s not relative. I think you misunderstand, with meaning I don’t mean the sense of meaning, which I’d count with happiness, but rather the attempt at improving the world in objectively good ways. Also, for very few people are intellectual pleasures going to be worse than physical ones, just that physical ones require less actual work to attain, making them seem more attractive, like a small child not going to school because he would rather watch television. Surely it is for the strong to help the weak, and not let the poor child miss school.

[Anonymous No.15058121]

>>15058055
I wouldn't agree with that. How do I know what's best for him? Maybe no one cares about him or he was abused growing up and he simply doesn't give a shit about anything and finds it far more fulfilling to tempt his life with socially disapproved substances or inflict pain on himself or whatever, because that's how he's psychologically designed.

I lived with a family member with a severe "addiction" "problem" for the better part of my life. The lesson I learned was this: the whole "addiction" thing is a myth — people like that actually like their "addiction" and want to keep doing it. If they didn't, they'd find a way to stop doing that thing. Where there's a will, there's a way, and where the will doesn't find a way, it can't be said that there was any will there to begin with. So if they want to do it, it can't be said that the will is being compelled to do it by an outside source. There's no observable compulsion. They're operating on their own accord.

>>15058067
Life is fleeting. Does that mean happiness and meaning can't be found in it either?

[Anonymous No.15058133]

>>15058089
I noticed. That, or I've gotten so used to terrible, obvious bait that the more subtle, almost genuine-feeling kind doesn't even register as such anymore.

[Anonymous No.15058139]

>>15057060
Enlightened

[Anonymous No.15058159]

>>15058115
>the attempt at improving the world in objectively good ways.
That's your idea of living meaningfully, which means it's relative. Not everyone's idea of living meaningfully entails that.

[Anonymous No.15058164]

We need to kill anyone who doesn't have sex to prevent incels

[Anonymous No.15058172]

>>15058164
Incels aren't a problem. Resentful socialist types are.

[Anonymous No.15058175]

>>15058121
>I wouldn't agree with that. How do I know what's best for him?
Someone developing a crack addiction is a pretty solid evidence that the person is not good in making life choices. Unless someone made that person smoke crack with some kind of strong threat.

[Anonymous No.15058180]

>>15058159
I clarified what I meant with living meaningfully, which, obviously, just means that you should read my original post as:

>Physical pleasures distracts ones search for actual happiness and the attempt at improving the world in objectively good ways.

[Anonymous No.15058186]

>>15058175
It's like you're not even reading my posts anymore. I already went over why someone might want to keep taking crack and why I think the whole "addiction" thing is pretty much a load of bull.

[Anonymous No.15058187]

>>15058121
>Life is fleeting.
Not like pleasure is, I assure you.

[Anonymous No.15058197]

>>15058172
Nah, right wing incels need to be dealt before they kill anyone so we better kill them and send their family to rehabilitation camps

[Anonymous No.15058198]

>>15058186
Developing an addiction to crack cocaine is not a good choice. If:
>Maybe no one cares about him or he was abused growing up and he simply doesn't give a shit about anything and finds it far more fulfilling to tempt his life with socially disapproved substances or inflict pain on himself or whatever, because that's how he's psychologically designed

Smoking crack still is a terrible choice.

[Anonymous No.15058202]

>>15058187
The contentment will still end, so with your logic, why live at all?

[Anonymous No.15058214]

>>15058202
A content life is good enough

[Anonymous No.15058215]

>>15058198
I don't think someone who wants to do crack really cares if it's a terrible choice or not. They seem to specifically want to make terrible choices, in fact.

[Anonymous No.15058232]

>>15058215
That doesn't change that the choices being made are bad choices.

[Anonymous No.15058245]

>>15058232
What does it even matter? To make a choice at all, good or bad, implies that there is no compulsion of the will involved, which means it's not an addiction for that person.

[Anonymous No.15058257]

>>15058214

Chasing dopamine != contentment

Contentment means a life well lived

[Anonymous No.15058265]

>>15058245
Before that. Do we agree that smoking crack is a bad choice?

[Anonymous No.15058272]

>>15058265
Do *I* think it's a bad choice? Yes. Do I think it's a bad choice for everyone? No.

[Anonymous No.15058273]

>>15058257
Yeah, I agree with you.

[Anonymous No.15058279]

>>15058272
>Do I think it's a bad choice for everyone?
Then you don't think it is a bad choice.

[Anonymous No.15058283]

>>15058279
Well, that logic is stupid. Why would I assume everyone has the same goals as me?

[Anonymous No.15058306]

>>15058283
Would you say self-destructive goals are good life choices?

[Anonymous No.15058313]

>>15057536
there was a video on vice about a poly group and they were interviewing the people individually. they all seemed to express concerns that "my parents are not proud of me, im not happy, its temporary relief"

[Anonymous No.15058317]

>ITT: stubborn retard is confronted with indisputable proof that hes wrong and resorts to speaking in vague and untrue generalities to continue arguing

[Anonymous No.15058326]

>>15058306
For the self-destructive, they are. Or maybe there is something else to gain from it: perhaps someone wants to build social relationships with certain deviants for whatever reason and doing and selling crack is found to be a highly efficient way of connecting to such people.

[Anonymous No.15058327]

>>15058317
The last thread I saw about this topic ended with the defender of the Sexual Revolution arguing that no one should ever eat salad.

[Anonymous No.15058337]

>>15058326
Self-destructive goals are not good goals. And getting a crack addiction because you want to get closer to crack addicts do not look like a particularly wise choice.

[Anonymous No.15058371]

>>15058337
>Self-destructive goals are not good goals.
For people who aren't self-destructive, I agree. You can't change everyone in this life.

>And getting a crack addiction because you want to get closer to crack addicts do not look like a particularly wise choice.
Well, what if we're talking about an undercover cop attempting to bust open a powerful crime syndicate involved in drug trade? Perhaps the cop found that the only way to get to the "big cheese" is by doing and selling crack until he's worked his way up the ranks. Perhaps said cop also can't leave this alone because someone he deeply cared about died to the workings of said crime syndicate. For that cop, yeah, maybe it's not "particularly wise," but that cop doesn't want to live with himself unless he busts this crime syndicate, so it's still his choice, and if he succeeds, it was a good one for him and for many other people on top of that.

[Anonymous No.15058400]

>>15058327
I liked when he started trying to justify the fact that less people are having sex by saying that most normal people dont even want sex and that everyone only disagrees with him because they're incels lmao

[Anonymous No.15058406]

>>15058371
A good goal for self-destructive people should be to... Stop being self-destructive.

No comments on the Hollywood movie.

[Anonymous No.15058424]

>>15055726
she's cute but holy shit i dont get it. Why do people spend money on women on a computer screen

[Anonymous No.15058434]

>>15058400
Yeah.
There are some religious/philosophical people who abstain from the pleasures of the flesh, some people with low libido, guys who divorced and due to this developed a fear of women, etc.

But in our culture, those people are a minority (I'm a philosophically minded person, but I'm well aware that I'm way out of the mainstream and that most people consider me crazy - some actually think I'm gay).

[Anonymous No.15058444]

>>15056410
Cringe, read Kant.

[Anonymous No.15058454]

>>15055726
>literally 0 suggestions for what OP asked
>200 comments on whether or not Belle Delphine is hot

Andrea Dworkin - Intercourse
Peter Sloterdijk - Critique of Cynical Reason
and basically everything by Michel Houellebecq

[Anonymous No.15058468]

>>15058406
>Stop being self-destructive.
So stop being who they are? Not everyone wants to do that. And if they don't want do to that, it's not a problem for them.

>No comments on the Hollywood movie.
You think that never happens? You really ought to read more about major busts done by undercover cops then. It happens. And because it happens, it means the value of a thing, whether it's a good or bad choice, depends on our goals, which makes it a relative matter in essence.

Obviously, for the overwhelming majority, the answer will be that doing crack is not a good decision. But if you actually cared about the truth, rather than pushing your political agenda, you'd acknowledge the special case and realize that statistics can't prove objectivity in a thing.

But what's the whole point of this debate? You or someone else tried to make the point that some things are "objectively" bad for us, and because of that, the sexual revolution was also "objectively" bad. But there is nothing that is objectively bad. Again, everything causes some kind of degeneracy; degeneracy can't be a valid refutation of a thing because of this. I asked for examples of historical cases where no degeneracy resulted and didn't get an answer. I wonder why.

[Anonymous No.15058475]

>>15058468
>So stop being who they are? Not everyone wants to do that. And if they don't want do to that, it's not a problem for them.
If you are self-destructive and you don't want to improve yourself, that IS a bad choice.

[Anonymous No.15058512]

>>15058468
>But there is nothing that is objectively bad
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.15058522]

>>15058468
>Again, everything causes some kind of degeneracy
Still wrong.

[Anonymous No.15058531]

>>15057120
>more people having sex
Objectively false. Learn to read, zoomer.

[Anonymous No.15058569]

>>15058475
For who?

>>15058512
>>15058522
>hurr durr you're wrong and I won't explain why
k

>>15058531
Why wouldn't more people be having sex with improved sanitation, contraception, medicine and available information?

[Anonymous No.15058736]

>>15055726
The Sexual Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

[Anonymous No.15058747]

>>15058569
>>hurr durr you're wrong and I won't explain why
Yes.

[Anonymous No.15058752]

>>15058569

as a zoomer i can prove his point literally nobody is having sex, its a wasteland, even with modern convenience. soon we will all take the tedpill inshallah

[Anonymous No.15058786]

>>15058752
>dumb Islamist larper thinks his opinion matters at all
Good one.

[Anonymous No.15059106]

>>15055726
Hey OP, Judith Reisner has written good stuff in Kinsey, the father of the sexual revolution.

She's done good research and exposed the flaws of his research, as well as intentional misrepresentations of data, like counting pre-selected male prison population to claim that 43% of men have had orgasm in a sexual situation with another man and having them represent "average lower class male".

Kinsey also paid parents to molest their children and each of the responses (including writhing, crying and fighting back), were regarded as the baby or kid enjoying the sexual action, because they orgasmed.

Worth checking out if you're still in the thread.

[Anonymous No.15059163]

>>15057455
The stonewall inn protests that kickstarted gay movement in US... look at the leaders of the gay orgs, like harry hays. Communist nambla members.

[Anonymous No.15059238]

>>15057886
But not nearly as rife as progressives would have everyone believe. In order to throw your baby in a dumpster you still have to carry it around for nine months. That's something people are going to notice, and unless your some nameless whore that nobody knows or cares about, infanticide is not something you could easily get away with.

[Anonymous No.15059265]

>>15059163
Everything about NAMBLA and Harry Hay is about them being banned from any legitimate gay rights events and movements. So again, you are merely advocating the views of NAMBLA you stupid fucking pedo.

[Anonymous No.15059291]

>>15057914
>I try not to overly concern myself with exceptions and fringe groups.
Then you must be as intolerably dull and ordinary as your standard-issue libshit opinions. The fringes are where anything novel, transgressive, or innovative ever happens, that's where culture is created.

[Anonymous No.15059312]

>>15056373
Was thinking the same thing...

[Anonymous No.15059316]

>>15059106
Judith Resiman, not Reisner, apparently. Never heard of this. Interesting.

[Anonymous No.15059375]

>>15056441
Has anyone found a pdf for the book. Seems pretty resourceful even when reading without a child in mind.

[Anonymous No.15059382]

>>15059106
Sure, but Kinsey isn't really taken seriously today, even among the contemporary left, is he?. Like all advocacy research, it was made to be disposable. It's highly relevant and embraced as gospel by its intended audience at the time of its publishing, only to be universally dismissed by the academic community decades later, after the dust has settled on the social/political side of the issue and it has served its purpose.

Is there anything meta-analytical content to it, or is it just debunking Kinsey?

[Anonymous No.15059403]

>>15055741
This. She's one of the great post-Kaufman provocative humorists alongside Sam Hyde and Nathan Fielder.

[Anonymous No.15059419]

>>15059382
My impression is that still has a pretty strong name among the left?

[Anonymous No.15059440]

>>15059403
So you think the bath water gag was a self-aware mockery of the kind of people who follow her?

[Anonymous No.15059455]

>>15055766
She has a degree in marketing

[Anonymous No.15059493]

>>15059440
Yes and also a way to make a lot of money from selling bathwater.

[Anonymous No.15059610]

>>15059493
See, I can't not like her for this stroke of brilliance alone, even if I hate everything she represents.

[Anonymous No.15059648]

>>15055766
>slightly above average looks
She’s easily above or in the 95th percentile

[Anonymous No.15059730]

>>15059648
Nah, she's really boring and average.

[Anonymous No.15059736]

>>15059648
That's a pretty tailored image, but I guess it's just my preference.

[Anonymous No.15059801]

>>15059648
She looks average imo. It's the american eyes.

[Anonymous No.15059812]

>>15059801
She isn't American.

[Anonymous No.15059826]

>>15059648
Girl next door looks sure but 95th percentile?

[Anonymous No.15059836]

>>15059826
Who are you living next to?

[Anonymous No.15059965]

>>15055726
Houellebecq

[Anonymous No.15059999]

>>15059836
Rather than 'model' beauty she has nothing outright ugly about her appearance (her mouth/eyes are probably a matter of taste) but has a quirky look to her that people excuse because of other reasons like personality, interests, or proximity of living, etc.

[Anonymous No.15060039]

>>15058569
You are a bad person.

[Anonymous No.15060044]

>>15055726
https://datadistributist.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/opofiledraft2.pdf From the distributist

[Anonymous No.15060056]

>>15059999
>Rather than 'model' beauty she has nothing outright ugly about her appearance
Tbf, most people don't find models the peak of attractiveness, at least not sexual attractiveness generally.

[Anonymous No.15060196]

>>15060039
>you're a bad person if you aren't blindly irrational and resentful like me

[Anonymous No.15060436]

Do you remember anons? Remember this image? Remember the good times we used to have posting it to call out bait. Its million variations were like the wojaks of their day. I remember.

[Anonymous No.15060967]

>>15056191
>higher sexual fortifications
What do you mean by this?

[Anonymous No.15061363]

>>15055726
If you want sexual revolution literature with some semblance of truth/value, I would recommend:
- A History of Sexuality (Foucault, first volume's setup for the next three but it's really useful and also a foundational text)
- Pornography: Men Possessing Women (Dworkin, I don't really like her but this is an interesting perspective)
- Sexual Politics (Kate Millett)
- Dialectic of Sex (Firestone, again I have major reservations but it is a good read)

[Anonymous No.15061378]

>>15056392
>>15056373
I have no clue why fucking Libido Dominandi was recommended before these, the state of lit

[Anonymous No.15061566]

>>15057120
breathtakingly idiotic post. only a female could think this

[Anonymous No.15061567]

>>15055766
>>obviously genius of self-promotion and it has given me a certain respect for her

>if women take pictures of themselves they are 'geniouses of self-promotion'

[Anonymous No.15061570]

>>15057329
the proportion is changing as well, you braindead hole.

[Anonymous No.15061596]

>>15057348
cunny is based and tradpilled

[Anonymous No.15061600]

>>15061567
>it's not marketing, it's a video of food

[Anonymous No.15061604]

Just want to thank all the Anons who provided recommendations. I've bookmarked all of them.

[Anonymous No.15061620]

>>15056191
Imagine speaking like this much of a fucking ponce

[Anonymous No.15061653]

>>15061567
I don't like her, anon - not what she does or what she represents, but there's obviously a strategy behind what she does and she's beaten out most/all of the other E-whores of her calibre because of it. Yes, I have to give her some credit for that.

[Anonymous No.15061722]

>>15060436
Sad isn't it. Zoomers are in trouble.

[Anonymous No.15061729]

>>15061600
Reading Barnays' Propaganda should be an obligation to every single person.

[Anonymous No.15061747]

>>15057581
no, less people have been having sex. people overall are having a lot of sex.

[Anonymous No.15061845]

>>15059382
A lot of the statistics feminists and other lefties believe in come from the kinsey insitute if you look at what they're sourcing. Still frequently cited in major publications. Then if you look at the kinsey institute they come from the original flawed studies about half the time. So no, it is very much still taken seriously.

I wonder even would have had a sexual revolution without the intellectual base for it. There is no stronger persuasion to woman and man than convincing them "everyone is (secretly) doing this".

It relates in particular to abortion, promiscuity and homosexuality.

Of course perhaps we did not need the persuasion at all and only the technology to enable us, but it's worth exploring.

[Anonymous No.15061855]

>>15061747
The retards itt don't care as evidenced by the ongoing shit-flinging. They only care about the amount of sex per individual. It doesn't occur to them that the amount of sex being had overall has increased dramatically and that the ones having all the sex are happier for it; that doesn't interest them because they're spiteful towards those people to begin with. And to cope with this, they have to imagine the writer of such thoughts must be a woman, a promiscuous one at that, since that is who they desire most, and as such blame all their ineptitudes on.

[Anonymous No.15061892]

>>15061855
>It doesn't occur to them that the amount of sex being had overall has increased dramatically
No it hasn’t retard

[Anonymous No.15061902]

>>15059648
She looks like the girl from that one malcolm in the middle episode

[Anonymous No.15061916]

>>15056187
tl;dr
bro, trust me

[Anonymous No.15061924]

>>15061567
Honestly the only people who would not recognize her genius trolling are horny dudes angry at the fact they couldn't fuck her

[Anonymous No.15061926]

>>15061892
Sex tourism is booming, and adult toys, contraceptives and STD medications are a massive industry. More and more entertainment features casual / consensual sex between partners or friends with benefits as a regular, accepted occurrence and there are sex education resources everywhere and in just about every school. Tons of sex-related jargon and expressions have entered the language in the last century or so. But keep denying that more sex is being had in the world overall.

[Anonymous No.15061936]

>>15061926
>dude there’s more sex in movies so there’s more in real life too
Retard

[Anonymous No.15061944]

>>15061936
Picking one thing out and turning it into a strawman to boot is a sign of a disingenuous arguer.

[Anonymous No.15061953]

>>15061936
Well he's right, hypersexuality is an inherent feature of society in modern society. The problem is that the sexual market is making everyone lonelier since all relationships are reduced to materialistic hedonist behaviors, so for the past 20 years less people are in relationships or having sex.

[Anonymous No.15061974]

>>15061953
It's not making everyone lonelier, but it is making more lonely people for sure.

[Anonymous No.15061983]

>>15059316
Judith Reisman, that's her.

[Anonymous No.15061995]

>>15061944
So is ignoring actual facts in favor of your retarded personal opinions

[Anonymous No.15062001]

>>15061995
What actual facts? Do you have a graph that counts the number of times people have had sex per year in the world for the last several decades? If so I might get paranoid next time I have sex.

[Anonymous No.15062005]

>>15059648
>highly symmetrical face
>positive canthal tilt
>small straight nose
>firm youthful skin
>prominent cheekbones
>straight white teeth
sounding like a complete autist here but yeah she's objectively beautiful

[Anonymous No.15062027]

>>15059265
>you're a pedo if you dislike pedos

This old strategy. If it takes you 18 years to oust NAMBLA from your movement and their members were the leaders of the movement in its initial stages, well good job for ousting them, but it says something about your movement that it takes you 18 fucking years to do it.

A cursory look at pedo stats and gay stats does the same, with about half of pedophiles being gay, but only about 1-2% of the population being gay.

Looking at celebrated lgbt plays does the same once again, with even prize winning stuff like vagina monologues including the grooming of a child (from child's perspective).

So no you can't excuse yourself from it.

[Anonymous No.15062108]

>>15055726
People always had loads of sex. You can just see all if it now because it's aired out on social media. If you actually read books maybe you'd realize this yourself.

[Anonymous No.15062124]

>>15062001
>Do you have a graph that counts the number of times people have had sex per year
Yes.

[Anonymous No.15062139]

>>15062005
>falling for the photoshop

[Anonymous No.15062147]

>>15062124
Post that shit boi

[Anonymous No.15062153]

>>15061926
We are having more sex than ever but the hope of achieving even just replacement levels of fertility has become a distant fantasy.

[Anonymous No.15062158]

>>15062153
That's because replacement is not the goal, evolution is.

[Anonymous No.15062188]

>>15061855
>shit-flinging
You aren't even engaging with the ideas. You're objection is hardly more advanced than "You're just saying that because you can't get paid lol". It's like the left is rhetorically incapable of dealing with opposition in good faith, so they lazily pathologize everything they can't understand. All you can get is shitflinging if you aren't contributing anything of substance that anyone could meaningfully engage with.

[Anonymous No.15062210]

>>15057708
This is easy to solve.
>you’re objectifying women, you pig
>nordicgamer.jpg

[Anonymous No.15062211]

>>15062158
How do you sustain a civilization on a negative birthrate? How do you sustain a species? If you are evolving, what are you evolving into? A brainless, thoughtless, immortal blob of fleshy pleasure receptors, hooked up to a never-ending IV drip of pure, concentrated dopamine?

[Anonymous No.15062302]

>>15062211
Why sustain it? What if the future is better off without all the same people surviving to be there for it?

[Anonymous No.15062333]

>>15057076
Not always, in the 50s people thought they'd be able to fly to work, and in the 60s the greatest challenge engineers had in their way were stupid shit like noise. Pessimism wasn't always the default.

[Anonymous No.15062357]

>>15058468
Should a murderer stay a murderer then? If that's what he is, what right do you have to change him?

[Anonymous No.15062377]

>>15062302
Then we have nothing. I'm interested in discovering workable solutions for problems of life, you apparently are not. We have nothing in common. In spite of it all, I actually enjoy living most of the time and I've never stopped feeling grateful to whatever cosmic being or happenstance that gave me the opportunity to experience it.

[Anonymous No.15062398]

>>15061926
Imagine if studies had been done that could settle this: https://time.com/3852117/millennials-sex-parents-boomers/

[Anonymous No.15062452]

>>15058468
If nothing can be objective than you've essentially surrendered any possibility of a rational discourse, as it's really just your arbitrary preference vs mine at that point. There's no truth which either of us are converging towards, we have entered a post truth mode of discussion where the most we can do is call eachother out on petty inconsistencies to make the other person look dumb. It's for this reason I'm starting to think that power itself is the only authority which can justify itself, and that rational discourse is a pointless masquerade. Rational discourse can only occur between people who share the same fundemantal assumptions about value, everything else just devolves into incoherent relativism.

[Anonymous No.15062685]

>>15058468
>there is nothing that is objectively bad.

So at that point, if I for whatever reason want to, there’s nothing objectively bad with forcing my personal goals unto others. So then if I simply find the poetry of forcing people to live as I want them to live attractive, then why should I not do so?

[Anonymous No.15062748]

I also just finished chapter 20 of Revolt against the Modern World by Evola. It is exactly what you are looking for, OP.

[Anonymous No.15062911]

>>15062398
>millennials-sex-parents-boomers
That's disgusting you incest freak.

[Anonymous No.15063030]

>>15062911
Don't blame me, the facts speak for themselves - millennials have less sex than boomers, except incest.

[Anonymous No.15063045]

>>15062452
You're quite right anon. Real argument is only possible where both parties can at least agree on something being in principle "True". Someone willing to fall back to hard solipsism & just outright dismiss any possible objective truth is a waste of time talking to. Otherwise it's all just semantic quibbling and stroking of the Ego-benis.

[Anonymous No.15063394]

>>15062452
You don't even need many shared values. Just the shared value of persuing objective truth as a worthy goal is enough. And the truth is that people that the persuit of truth should ignore anyone taking a relatavist position. The moment someone says "some people become happy from being unhappy" or "everything is relative", they should be ignored, lest you waste your time.

[Anonymous No.15063486]

>>15062139
>what are angles and lighting?

[Anonymous No.15063586]

>>15061845
>I wonder even would have had a sexual revolution without the intellectual base for it. There is no stronger persuasion to woman and man than convincing them "everyone is (secretly) doing this".

Yes. That's one of their main strategy. If you look at the recent promotion of open marriage and polyamory by the media (I don't know why they want to promote something so awful, but they are doing it), you will see that they often bring some example of people doing this and say how "many more people than you think are living this lifestyle".

One example of how their normalization worked is that some people with lesser historical knowledge (for example >>15062108 here) think that the post-Sexual Revolution norms always existed.


Another strategy is of course to say that whoever disagrees is a loser.

[Anonymous No.15063749]

>>15062398
That study is irrelevant to the post chain you responded to.

[Anonymous No.15063828]

>>15062452
Welcome to post-19th century philosophy, baby.

However, rational discourse is still fully possible even when everything is relative. It is rationality that LEAD to the creation of the idea of relativity in the first place. And it is possible for one perspective to be more accurate than another on a matter. A scientific hypothesis is not fact, it is true until proven false by a truer hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.15063854]

>>15059648
she looks really pretty in this pic but she always presents herself in this cringey e-girl image unfortunately

[Anonymous No.15063923]

>>15062357
It's up to the murderer who he decides to be. Law enforcers and civilians who don't want to be murdered should also be who they decide to be.

>>15062685
>then why should I not do so?
There's no reason why you should not to besides that it may not benefit you.

Neither of your posts say anything meaningful; even if they were to morally offend me, that wouldn't prove anything on your part.

[Anonymous No.15064014]

>>15061567
She has a degree in marketing

[Anonymous No.15064038]

>>15063923
So then, I am not wrong in saying that the sexual revolution is a bad thing, because I simply find it ugly. Then indeed I’d support using any force I can to stop it.


But alas I am not a nihilist, simply because it’s stupid:
>There's no reason why you should not to besides that it may not benefit you.

Why should I do things that benefit me?

[Anonymous No.15064085]

>>15064038
>So then, I am not wrong in saying that the sexual revolution is a bad thing
No, you ARE wrong, as far as I'm concerned. Dreadfully wrong. And your argument that somehow you aren't simply because we can have different opinions is a bullshit one. Yeah, we can have different opinions, but your opinion can be based on weaker information, which it is, making your opinion "less true."

>Why should I do things that benefit me?
Like asking "why should I do things I want to do?" If you're a nihilist, you're doing what you want to do by asking that. No matter who we are, we avoid doing things that won't benefit us. But what are you getting at with this, anyway?

[Anonymous No.15064150]

>>15064085
>>15064085
>No, you ARE wrong, as far as I'm concerned. Dreadfully wrong. And your argument that somehow you aren't simply because we can have different opinions is a bullshit one. Yeah, we can have different opinions, but your opinion can be based on weaker information, which it is, making your opinion "less true."
Then an objective good exists. Or else I could just say that we shouldn’t base what is good on information, but rather on what poetry I find best. Why should I base what is right on information? A nihilist couldn’t say that.

[Anonymous No.15064437]

>>15064150
An objective good exists in the form of whoever is the most right as long as there is relativity. So if I am the most right, I am the objective good here.

[Anonymous No.15064572]

>>15064437
So then you’re not a nihilist at all. Then you’re objection that meaning is not objective, as you stated before, is not true, since what I mean by meaning (as in doing good) is more true than your.

[Anonymous No.15065567]

>>15063854
And she makes a shit load of money doing it.