[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 174 KB, 1429x2560, original-1953.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22388011 No.22388011 [Reply] [Original]

>middle aged sub5 man has a beautiful government issued wife
>some paragraphs bitching about how she mentions the party when he nuts inside her or whatever
>separated because he can't have kids
>a beautiful younger woman falls in love with him and they have sex multiple times
>this is supposed to be a dystopia where le sex is illegal
The takeaway is that it's easier for a sub5 to have sex in this fictional dystopia that tries to ban it than now.
This is because incels basically did not exist in the 1940s and the author could not possibly predict what is happening now. Same thing with Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground, where the giga-loser protagonist is also somehow a sexhaver.
Right now we live under a sexhaver cultural hegemony where sex is a presumed default thing to do even though more and more people are sexless. But back then this was legitimately the reality for everyone. They had so much sex they couldn't possibly envision a non-sexhaving human.

>> No.22388031

>>22388011
Visiting the brothel was common and not frowned upon, which helped.

>> No.22388046

This just made me think about the literary representation of incels through history. How much incel literature is there even?
I know in Slavko Kolar's story Breza (1928) there's a village autist incel in bumfuck rural Croatia who at one point cries out to God out of desperation, yelling: "You said 'Be fruitful and multiply!' BUT HOW??", that's the only example I can think of.
We need scholarship on this. There's a gorillion books about historic literary representation of faggots, why isn't there at least one about historic literary representation of incels?

>> No.22388096

>>22388046
Incels did not really exist until the 1990s. The very term incel is an oxymoron because celibacy is voluntary.

>> No.22388149

>>22388096
Obviously involuntary celibacy (or at least the idea of it) existed in 1928

>> No.22388164

>>22388149
No.

>> No.22388243

>>22388149
I don't think it did, no. Things were very different. There was nothing to do with your time but spend it with humans, which inevitably brought sexual opportunities. That's no longer the case.

>> No.22388255

>>22388164
>>22388243
Then explain the aforementioned Breza (1928)

>> No.22389303

>>22388096
>>22388149
True involuntary celibacy is rare; only the dirt poor or horribly disabled are incels
Most incels are just volcels unhappy they can't find love or an attractive woman (Which is completely understandable)
They could pay for sex or have sex with landwhales if they wanted

>> No.22389348

>>22388011
Society was somewhat more conservative and people were not constantly bombarded with pornography
So even if you somehow failed to have sex in such a society it was easier to cope with it than now
In 1984s case you could even join the anti-sex league

>> No.22389356

she wasn’t beautiful she’s basically described as being busted

>> No.22389362

>>22388011
>1984 isn't a dystopia because I can have sex there
That makes it even more of a dystopia for women, incel.

>> No.22389378

>>22389362
It is still pretty dystopian
Whith all turveilance, endless wars and brutal torture
Just the whole ''le sex is illegal'' part that falls flat

>> No.22389385

>>22389378
*surveillance

>> No.22389401

>>22389356
She was an attractive blonde
The problem is she was ''bad at sex'' and would just lay there and say she is doing it for the party; this very concept only makes sense for privileged men who have easy access to sex (For a modern beta it would still be better than nothing)
Depending on how beta you are it might even be a positive since it gets rid of all the performance anxiety; she hates it anyway so you can coom without worrying about your dick being too small or what weird shit she might be into

>> No.22389426

>>22389401
i don’t remember her name but not his wife the other lady. she was busted

>> No.22389430

>>22389378
>autistic
It was a joke. Also, the irony of that situation was the girl was on the government approved/organized activist group against sex. Just because he has a government alloted wife so he can breed more drones and manages to find a crack in Big Brother by meeting a woman doesn't mean it fell flat. Sounds more like you're just a plotfag ruined by internet criticism.

>> No.22389433

>>22388011
>sexhaver cultural hegemony
Holy incel cope.
Just get a hooker, you whiny little bitch. Anyone can be a """sexhaver."""

>> No.22389441 [DELETED] 

>>22389426
>She was a bold-looking girl, of
about twenty-seven, with thick hair, a freckled face, and swift, athletic
movements.
>Round her sweet supple waist, which
seemed to ask you to encircle it with your arm, there was only the odious
scarlet sash
Julia was not ugly
The hooker Winston fucked once was really busted though

>> No.22389448

>>22389426
>She was a bold-looking girl, of about twenty-seven, with thick hair, a freckled face, and swift, athletic
movements.
>Round her sweet supple waist, which seemed to ask you to encircle it with your arm, there was only the odious scarlet sash
Julia was not ugly
The hooker Winston fucked once was really busted though

>> No.22389478

>>22389433
It's not the same. Condom "sex" is not real sex. I guess there are some hookers who give natural bjs but natural sex is a rare (and dangerous) service. Only with the intimacy of a gf you can have real sex.

>> No.22389544

>>22388011
pretty true, but we need to go deeper to summon some sharks most likely.

at what point does having your greentext as the reader's reader identity say something about all of society rather than the peculiarities of the reader's own life? The novel says a lot about many different types that exists in societies like this just as much as WS.

>> No.22389563

>>22388046
Fritz Zorn's Mars comes to mind.

>> No.22389602

>>22389478
If you're an incel you don't get to be choosy. And you don't get to decide what "real sex" is.
If you don't play the game, don't try to tell us the rules.

>> No.22389656

>>22389602
Having a gf and having sex with her is not being "choosy". And no, condom "sex" will never be real sex. It's not about playing or not playing some game you just made up.

>> No.22389740

>>22389656
Sex is any act that triggers the sexual response of your partner, dumbass. There's more to it than just fucking, with or without a condom. If you weren't an incel you'd realise.

>> No.22389799

>>22389740
No, that might be your neo-definition but that is not true. Sex is the genital contact of the sexes that could lead to reproduction. Yes, there are other things that happen around sex besides the penetration (kisses, caresses, etc) but the most essential part is the unprotected contact of the sexes.

>> No.22390499

>>22389362
Who cares about women?

>> No.22390503

>>22389433
>hooker
Lol you normie weirdos truly don't get it. It's not about sex, it's about love and validation. You might as well say "get a blowup doll"

>> No.22390653

>>22390503
If it's about love and validation then tons of married people in the alleged pre-incel days were incels because they were forced to marry other undesirables who didn't want to be with an undesirable. My maternal grandfather turned the basement of his house into its own apartment so he'd almost never have to see my grandma.

>> No.22390728

>>22390653
They had Stockholm syndrome

>> No.22390754

>>22390653
In Orwell's time arranged marriages generally weren't forced marriages. Many places in Europe had matchmaking customs where the parents would introduce a girl to a boy first, to see if they vibe together

>> No.22390806

>>22390754
You're looking at it from the perspective of an average person and not the bottom feeders of the time that would be incels today who had to marry other bottom feeders.

>> No.22390845

>>22390806
Not true, most people back then were bottom feeders especially in Eastern Europe where most of the population were poor farmers and the matchmaking customs were the same there as in rural England.
Actually you'd have a bigger risk of being force-married if you were rich because upper-class people often married on purely pragmatic terms