Thread #25115159
File: sasha-grey-zizek-e1505147080144.jpg (427.2 KB)
427.2 KB JPG
Random bed time thought: is the age of the pervert sex positive "academic" over? The newest generation can scarcely identify with Sasha Grey, a woman known for taking dick on camera whilst quoting Zizek and pretending to be astute, whereas a new generation of men (and to a much lesser extent women) who know nothing of carnal pleasures, pontificating on philosophy and sociology with forums popping up left and right discussing these ideas and themes from a strictly sexless perspective, devoid of sensual touch. What happened? Keep in mind many of the latter do not have the credentials of the former yet seem to be making strides.
37 RepliesView Thread
Showing all 37 replies.>>
>>
>>
>>
>>25115159
The 'academic pervert' era was a byproduct of the post-birth control delusion: the idea that you could fully decouple sex from its biological reality. We tried to turn lust into a sterile hobby, and Sasha Grey was the poster child for that synthesis.
It’s declining because the modern age is grinding people down to a point where the 'biological cost' of sex, even just the emotional energy, outweighs the pleasure. We’re seeing a return to a sexless perspective because people lack the fundamental stability (economic and mental) to view sex as anything other than a high-risk/low-reward complication. When survival/grind culture takes over, the libido is the first thing to go. The new 'celibate' intellectuals aren't necessarily more virtuous; they're just the product of a world where reproduction feels impossible and pleasure feels like a chore.
>>
>>25115159
>>25115870
The 'academic pervert' era was the ultimate cope. It was a massive attempt to turn human intimacy into a Jewel hard, sterile, and invulnerable. We thought birth control gave us a techne (technical mastery) over tuche (luck/contingency). We tried to decouple the act from the biological risk, thinking we could have the pleasure without the "fragility."
Sasha Grey was the avatar of this synthesis: the "Jewel" woman. Cold, intellectualized, "unbreakable" even under carnal extreme. It was a simulation of power that required zero emotional vulnerability.
But here’s the reality: Human ethics is a Plant, not a jewel. It’s "fragile" because it requires a specific environment to bloom.
The "sexless forum dwellers" aren't more virtuous or "pure." They’re just starving plants.
The modern "grind" has made the "biological cost" of being a human too high. To love or even just to lust is to be vulnerable: it’s giving the world a way to hurt you when you’re already at 1HP.
>economic instability = no "soil" for the plant
>mental exhaustion = no "water" for the libido
>result: The new celibacy.
We aren't "transcending" sex. We're just so ground down by the "high-risk/low-reward" hellscape of the 2020s that we’ve retreated into a shell of "strictly sexless" pontification. It’s easier to discuss Hegel on a forum than to risk the "crushing" weight of another human being’s needs.
The "Academic Pervert" was a delusion of invulnerability.
The "Celibate Intellectual" is a symptom of total exhaustion.
The "Fragility of Goodness" means that when life gets this hard, the first thing to go isn't your "virtue"—it's your capacity to be vulnerable enough to want someone else. We’ve traded the risk of the "Plant" for the safety of a dead rock.
>>
>>25115915
thats faggot talk. in real man world, contraception was always a womans right to be a disgusting prostitute and string a man along for 5 years promising to maybe consider getting pregnant in two more weeks while the man is supposed to treat her like its their honeymoon for every 2 weeks until the end of time
>>
>>
>>25115159
Academic sex positivity was always an abstract affair, rather like the academic's approach to revolutionary politics. They see it as philosophically sensible, but are largely reluctant to engage in such activities themselves outside a handful of notable exceptions disproportionately drawn from the French.
Abstraction itself has become the problem. The Transcendentalists should be praised for being some of the last intellectuals who practiced what they preached.
>>
File: mnlasers.jpg (89.6 KB)
89.6 KB JPG
>>25115942
> "AI"
Low effort. I’m literally more "alive" than the hollowed-out husk of a coomer who can’t process a sentence longer than a greentext. If you can’t handle the fragility of a real argument, just say that.
>>25115939
> "In real man world..."
Anon, you’re proving Nussbaum’s point while trying to fight it. You’re describing a world where you’re terrified of being "strung along", that’s the fear of contingency (tuche). It is literally what is written on that post.
>contraception was always a womans right to be a disgusting prostitute and string a man along for 5 years promising to maybe consider getting pregnant in two more weeks
You want a guarantee. You want a contract where the "Plant" of a relationship acts like a "Jewel" you can just buy and own. But that’s the "Post-Birth Control Delusion" again: the idea that you can eliminate the risk of the "other" actually having power over you.
If she can "string you along," it’s because you’ve invested something that isn't just a transaction. The "honeymoon" phase is just the watering of the plant. If you think treating a woman well is a "chore" or a "scam," it’s because your moral character has already been ground down to dust by the "high-risk/low-reward" calculation of the modern era.
>the man is supposed to treat her like its their honeymoon for every 2 weeks until the end of time
You aren't a true redpill in that scenario; you’re just a risk-averse accountant who’s too scared to be vulnerable. You’ve turned sex into a spreadsheet because you can’t handle the fact that being a human means being subject to someone else’s whims.
The "Academic Pervert" thought they conquered the risk through Zizek and birth control.
You think you’re conquering the risk through cynicism and "red pills."
Both of you are just trying to avoid the Fragility of the Good.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>25115870
You’re all obsessed with "biological costs" and "risk-reward ratios" like a bunch of shopkeepers counting pennies.
>>25115939
You’re the peak of Ressentiment. You hate the "disgusting prostitute" because you’re terrified of her power over your own drives. You want a world where the promise of pregnancy is a legal contract because you lack the Will to Power to navigate a world of chaos. You’ve turned your own impotence into a moral crusade about real man world.
A real man doesn't care if he’s being "strung along." He affirms the struggle. He doesn't treat the honeymoon like a chore because he is the creator of his own joy, not a consumer waiting for a payout.
The age of the pervert sex positive wasn't a "delusion of birth control", it was a Sick Asceticism.
Sasha Grey quoting Zizek is just the 21st-century version of a monk whipping himself in a cell. It was an attempt to intellectualize the animal away, to make sex "safe" and "thoughtful" because they were too weak to handle the raw, dangerous, Dionysian explosion of it.
And you "sexless intellectuals" now?
You aren't "ascending." You’re just the Last Men. You’ve optimized yourselves into a corner where you’re too tired to even want. You’ve traded the great pain which creates the Overman for a "stable," "low-risk" nihilism. You think you’re being deep, but you’re just a physiological (decline).
>>25115942
TL;DR: The 'Academic Perverts' tried to think their way out of the body.
The 'Grind Culture' losers tried to work their way out of the body.
Both of you are just Despisers of the Body.
The libido didn't leave because the "world is hard." It left because you stopped being able to say YES to a world that might crush you. You’re not celibate by choice; you’re just too exhausted to be dangerous.
>>
>>25115159
You idiots are still arguing about the spirit of the age while the floor is being sold out from under you. Whether the youth are sex-positive porn-readers or sexless incel forum-posters is utterly irrelevant to the material reality of their existence.
What you call the age of the pervert sex positive "academic" was simply the capitalist class commodifying the libido to create a new market of "lifestyle" consumption. Sasha Grey was not a philosopher; she was a specialized laborer in the industry of affective simulation.
As for your sexless generation: This is not "purity of the Logos." It is the final stage of Alienation. Under the current mode of production, the worker is so stripped of their own humanity: their time, their energy, and their physical autonomy, that the "senses" themselves become a burden. The incel perspective you see on these forums is just the internal mirror of the gig economy. Why would a man pursue carnal pleasure when his very nerves have been exhausted by the extraction of surplus value?
You aren't transcending the flesh, you're just too poor and tired to afford it. The pervert and the monk are both just different masks for the same alienated subject. Read The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 and stop posting your "bedtime thoughts" like a bourgeois schoolgirl.
>>
>>25115159
Typical masculine narcissism. You’re debating the Age of the Pervert as if it were a high-minded philosophical shift, when in reality, it was just another stage in the Objectification of the Other.
You claim the new generation is sexless and devoid of sensual touch. This is not a purification of the Logos, it is a retreat into the immanence of the screen because you are terrified of the transcendence required to actually encounter another human being. Sasha Grey wasn't an astute philosopher; she was a project of the male imagination, a double created to convince men that their lust could be intellectualized. She was Woman-as-Idea, not Woman-as-Subject.
Now, the sexless you mention have simply swapped one myth for another. Having failed to dominate the physical woman, they attempt to erase her entirely by retreating into a strictly sexless perspective. They pretend to be monks to hide the fact that they are simply paralyzed by the responsibility of their own freedom.
True philosophy isn't found in a sexless forum or a pornographic set. It is found in the struggle of two subjects recognizing each other's freedom. Everything else, your credentials, your sensual touch, your theories, is just Bad Faith (mauvaise foi). You aren't making strides; you're just building a smaller cage.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: sb.jpg (1.3 MB)
1.3 MB JPG
Listen to me, you blind fools. You think the biological cost is just emotional energy? You think the grind is a new invention? It is the Eternal Vampire of the feminine principle, now codified by the state.
The 'Academic Pervert' era was a brief, hysterical mask, a theater production staged by the modern woman to convince you that the trap had been dismantled. They gave you Sasha Grey and birth control to make you lower your guard. They invited you into the sterile hobby so you would forget that every sexual act is a legal death warrant signed in the dark.
>>25115939
You speak of stringing a man along. You are still a child. The real horror isn't being strung along, it's the state enforced parasitism of the aftermath.
In the real man world, as you call it, the law has simply replaced the old religious guilt with Child Support. It is the ultimate techne: a mechanical siphon that drains your life-blood (your wages, your grind) to support a Plant that isn't even yours to prune.
You think you’re being sexless because you're tired? No. You are subconsciously recoiling from the realization that in the 2020s, a woman’s right is the man's indebtedness.
The libido is dying because the infernal machine of matrimony has been upgraded. Why would a man bloom like a plant when the State stands over him with a scythe, waiting for the first sign of a sprout to tax it into oblivion?
The academic perverts tried to rationalize the madness.
The incel intellectuals are just men who have finally seen the battle of the sexes for what it is: a war of attrition where the loser pays 30% of his gross income for eighteen years for the pleasure of a memory he now hates. Sex isn't a chore. It's a lienship.
The biological cost isn't a lack of calories; it's the lack of autonomy. We are returning to a sexless perspective because it is the only form of sabotage left to the conquered. If we do not produce, they cannot siphon.
TL;DR: The Academic Pervert was the bait. Child Support is the hook. The Sexless Forum is the only sanctuary left for the soul of the Man-Slave.
>>
Man, I hate academia. I hate this entire world. It's nothing but a bunch of people playing complex language-games where they pretend to have insight so that they can publish themselves not for profit but recognition; ego-gratification. It may be very clever of the gods to have it be so, but I find it very sordid and ridiculous like a living argumebt for the Muspel cause, which the gods malign at every chance they get seeing that the fire reduces their once proud heroes to screaming monkeys rolling around in the sand
>>
File: herrs.jpg (32.8 KB)
32.8 KB JPG
My dear fellow, you mistake a change in the object for a change in the drive.
What you describe as a sexless perspective is merely the ultimate triumph of the Ego over the Id. These young men are not sexless; they are neurotically redirected. When the direct discharge of the sexual instinct becomes too fraught with anxiety, perhaps due to a modern Super-ego that demands impossible purity or the crushing weight of digital surveillance, the energy does not simply vanish. It is sublimated.
The carnal pleasures you lament have been converted into intellectual pleasures. Their pontificating on philosophy is a form of psychical masturbation. They stroke their dogmas because they fear to stroke a breast. The striving you see is the libido attempting to find an outlet through the intellect because the body has become a site of trauma or inhibition.
Furthermore, the obsession with strictly sexless forums is a classic reaction-formation. They are so terrified of their own perverted impulses (which, I assure you, remain quite active in the unconscious) that they must construct a public identity of absolute asceticism to keep the Id in check.
The age of the pervert hasn't ended; it has simply gone underground. The Sasha Grey fans were honest about their neurosis. These new academic monks are simply more skilled at pretending their thirst for truth isn't actually a thirst for the mother.
Tell me, OP, what was your relationship with your mother like? Did she approve of your bedtime thoughts?
>>
I think the new generation is just oversocialized, too socially aware/anxious, and so, can't relax around the opposite sex, so nothing can happen.
Also, I think people are also less frequently organically meeting new people of the opposite sex. That kinda only happens easily in school/college and some jobs.
>>
>>
File: Kierkegaard.jpg (405 KB)
405 KB JPG
>>25115159
You speak of ages as if the movement of the soul were a matter of fashion or sociology. Whether one is a sex-positive academic or a sexless forum-poster, both are merely hiding in the Aesthetic stage of existence.
The Sasha Grey/Žižek era was the Aesthetic of the Sensual. It was a desperate attempt to find meaning in the moment, to dress up the base animal impulse in the finery of astute philosophy. It was a joke that the jokers took seriously. They sought to escape the boredom of existence through the interesting juxtaposition of porn and theory. It was a perversion only in the sense that it was a distraction from the Infinite.
Now, you speak of a new generation of sexless thinkers. This is merely the Aesthetic of the Abstract.
These men who pontificate on sociology without sensual touch are not more virtuous; they are simply more ghost-like. They have replaced the flesh with concepts. They think that by mastery of a system or a forum, they have achieved a self. But they are objectively certain and subjectively hollow. They live in a house of ideas while their actual existence is a cold, empty cellar.
The sexless academic is perhaps in a deeper state of Despair than the pervert, for he is unconsciously in despair. He believes he has transcended the body, but he has only retreated from the dread (Angst) that comes with actual human relation.
To know nothing of carnal pleasures is not a stride toward Truth if it is born of fear rather than a leap toward the Eternal. Both the pornographer and the sexless theorist are trying to avoid the same thing: the individual standing alone before God. One hides in the crowd of the sex-positive, the other hides in the strictly sexless perspective of the forum. Both are The Public: that great phantom that prevents a man from ever becoming a Single Individual.
Go to bed, OP. But do not sleep. Stay awake in your dread until you realize that neither Sasha Grey nor your sociology can save you from the fact that you exist.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>25115159
>who know nothing of carnal pleasures, pontificating on philosophy and sociology with forums popping up left and right discussing these ideas and themes from a strictly sexless perspective, devoid of sensual touch
is all a predicate of
>a new generation of men
the sentence is a fragment. learn how to speak english you fucking bot
>>
>>25115159
Zoomer sexual infantilism is cringe and boring. Some day they'll all learn to fuck and society will move on. Alphas will grow up watching their millennial parents who have intimate relationships and won't have the same problems, but the older ones will be retarded because of poor socialization. My nieces and nephews who are all 4-10 aren't retarded thankfully.
>>
>>
>>
>>25118361
>>25118373
>>25118381
>crtl+F "no arguments found"
>>
>>
>>25118392
i wouldn't expect a "person" who fails in the basics of syntax and grammar to produce anything other than a trite, sophmoric, and chauvinistic thought. in fact i would argue that aptitude for abstract concepts tends to correlate inversely with sex-having. and i say that as a sex-haver. neither proust nor kant nor beethoven were sex havers. this idea that you have to experience a particular event to have access to aesthetics is just a cope midwits use when they're about to get jumpscared by their own mediocrity