Ecstasy of sex: porn. More sexual than sex

Isn't Baudrillard considered a pseudophilosopher by people who know their philosophy stuff?

I wouldn't say many. The ones who have friends and go outside( for work, play, school etc)their house regularly tend to have a firm grasp of reality. It's only those NEET types who manage to confine themselves inside their house and with Internet most of the time who have this problem. I wouldnt say it's to a large amonut of men.

He's right though. Proliferation of pornography into our greater consciousness affects both men and women. Men become more responsive to overt lewdness, and women respond to it by giving them it, both degrading themselves and each other in the process.

>Men become more responsive to overt lewdness, and women respond to it by giving them it
Have you actually known any women to do something like this? I think it's a common assumption that women are purposefully manipulating men's sexual desires when they're often oblivious to it or at most recognize it as a side-effect of meeting their own personal standard of appearance.

Both men and women are raised to hold themselves to aesthetic ideals and a lot of insecurity is bred from worrying whether or not they achieve them. The pursuit of that ideal is driven just as much, if not moreso, by the desire to feel confident in one's own appearance than a concerted effort to attract a mate. Why else would a happily married man or woman still care to dress up and groom themselves?

Perhaps you're right, if considering the entirety of the male population. But in my experience, among men in my age group, it's the case more often than not.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If you're arguing that women have it easier than men, that assertion is as ignorant as its opposite. Both sexes face a great deal of societal pressure and struggle, but the challenges they face are different and many exclusive to their respective sex. Pornography, and its potential to literally pervert one's perspective of reality, is one of those struggles that almost exclusively effects men when you take into account the male:female ratio of consumers of smut. This shouldn't be a controversial statement.

>Have you actually known any women to do something like this?

Sure. I generally make a point to avoid pursuing women who dress or act too provocatively. You're right about dressing to be confident, but people also dress and tailor their entire persona specifically to attract others. When you alter the perceived reality of one sex, the other one naturally alters its behaviour to accommodate that change.

>Many people these days seem to
Fixed that for you.

Morals of the modern people are loose among both genders (and the other genders). Finding a person that values relationship and sex is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. People dont want stability/trust/love, they want the "fun" and "adventurous" lifestyle. They will seek that anyway they can, whether its through drugs or sex. Illegal or legal.

And these generations of people will fuck up so bad that the next generation will hate them for it. Think baby boomers for our generation.

>when they're often oblivious to it or at most recognize it as a side-effect of meeting their own personal standard of appearance.

Oh fuck off, this is a flat-out lie.

This is a terribly divisive and cynical perspective. My only response are the words of a fellow user
>congrats (You) you've joined the ranks of the memers who have been predicting the imminent collapse of contemporary civilization for the last 6000 years

>triggered

I guess Baudrillard is foremostly a cultural theorist, but a damn relevant one in this day and age despite the "postmodern performance" in some of his later texts.

Not really cynical, but rather cyclical.

Non-answer.

Oh, dear! My mistake for not taking your carefully explained refutation seriously

Hella.

F*ckin'.

Epic.

*posts to LE reddit xD*

>i think
>i believe
>i feel
Do you actually have any proof to support your claims.

>Many young men seem to almost exclusively view women as useful only for sex

many women women view men the same way

>Going up to a woman I am sort of attracted to IS a sexual act
Of course it is. How many times haw you gone up to a random dude and "engaged them socially in any valuable capacity"?

Of course not.

It's primarily women who think this way. What we see in this post is a classic case of psychological projection.

>when you take into account the male:female ratio of consumers of smut
Bitch, you do realize healthy guys have a physical need to bust a nut on regular basis?

Porn is purely functional for most guys, sex is an exercise in empathy if you let it be

Does nobody ITT have female friends? Is that just not a thing in the US? Because you sound so detached from the entire female sex

t. toastie roastie

Go cry somewhere else

In my observation people in the US have a group of friends that they hang out with, which is usually exclusively of one gender. When there's mixed company, it's usually someone's girlfriend, and it's considered impolite to bring them along to social events because it's taxing on others for some reason.

If there's a group of friends is co-ed, then usually it's just one member of the opposite gender, and that person is usually stripped of their gender in the group's regards and in their behavioral expectations (e.g., the girl who is just "one of the guys").

A lot of men do have close platonic female friends, but they usually hang out with them on a one-to-one basis, rather than bring them to group events.

Is it different elsewhere?

You should bring this to Veeky Forums

way too many idiots here

>not realizing much of Veeky Forums is made up of Veeky Forums diaspora

Slightly unrelated, but does anyone else perv like crazy on chicks just like...walking down the street and stuff? I feel like I'm not hyper-sexual but I love checking out random booty.

Girls aren't interested in the things I like, so I have never had any female friends.

Literally normal

Cis Straight White Male acshully

Interesting. Are you American out of curiosity? I was wondering because I've spent some time in the states and the guys I was visiting's social group was very much gender-segregated. They would hang out only with lads and when there were girls around it was either someone's girlfriend as you said or occasionally they would find random girls that people knew somehow, like friends of friends and stuff and invite them over, usually for the chance to pull one or just for it not to be all lads. That to me was weird, like I'd understand if it was a party or something but the whole thing was done very differently to how it would here. I'm Irish btw. On the other hand, I've met a lot of American girls in Europe who I've had no trouble befriending and I've met a few groups of mixed Americans who seemed like a normal group of friends so idk.

Here it's normal for every friend group to have both men and women. The only exceptions would be autistic nerdy groups or autistic future-spinster groups of women, and even then there'd usually be one or two tokens. When people get together to hang out there'll be both genders there usually unless it's a match or something that girls wouldn't be interested in. If someone has a "best friend" or something like that, or they form a group within a group then usually they're of the same gender but in general it's quite mixed.

Thinking now, of my closest friends who I think I'll have for life, three are men and two women. There are two groups from my village that I hang out with that are even gender-wise, my group from school is skewed towards men but not overwhelmingly, and the "core" of that group has both. My group of friends from college is more or less even, my brother's friend group who I often hang out with is even.

Western Europe anyway, Eastern Europe I've been but don't know well enough to say and the Middle East I've also been to and it's obviously really segregated.

Are all of your friends interested in the same things as you?

Actually curious in case it sounds snarky

I really appreciate this perspective, thanks. Sex-exclusive social groups have been a thing in the US for all 25 years and 4 different cities spanning the state I've lived in so far, and I live in Commiefornia. Our culture seems to encourage sex segregation in this weird way, like we're all in catholic school.

I was wondering because I was in the South, with a very "fratty" kind of group. That in itself was pretty odd for me and I figured it was just a southern thing.

Two things that I think an American might overlook are car culture in the states and pub culture here. In America everyone drives everywhere so distance between people is less of an issue. Here we would generally hang out with whoever was close to us that we got along with. I never made any close friends through clubs, sports, activities or whatever, which seemed to be more of a thing in the states and which I think would funnel people into single-sex social groups. The biggest institution like this is the GAA (an organisation for Gaelic sports) and they are such a huge nation-wide institution that both genders are heavily involved in the community, even though the teams are segregated.

Pub culture is important because instead of hanging out at people's houses all the time, where you naturally hang out with the same people, everyone goes to the pub, so you'll be with a mixed bag and after a while you get to know everyone. We hang out at our houses too obviously but you'll usually go to the pub for a while just for the craic, and when the pub closes a lot of the time the whole pub will end up invited back to whoever's house anyway so you're often going to be with a group that's more than just your core friends. I wouldn't go so far as to say this makes it easier to make close friends but it makes it easier to make friends with people you might not otherwise be exposed to, this means girls in a lot of cases but it extends to anyone really.

Pic related is hurling, one of the GAA sports in case you're wondering

Also American.
My social circle was very mixed in High school but seems to have become increasingly male since graduation. I dunno why, it hasn't been any sort of conscious choice

>Our culture seems to encourage sex segregation in this weird way, like we're all in catholic school.
It's weird how it's even institutionalized. I started seeing a therapist (grief counselling) recently, when I told him that I didn't really have a lot of guy friends but I have a close female friend he said he thought that was abnormal and that I "needed guy friends," as if he seriously thought that me not wanting to go to a ball game with the lads was a sign of some kind of pathology.

(spoiler alert: I fired him because I don't want someone shaming me for not having a lot of friends of my gender)

buamp

American girls are such trash that only other American girls and people fucking them want to hang out with them, the latter group does so begrudgingly.

I rarely meet a girl that adds anything of worth to a group other than her vagina. In fact they usually detract from it

I dont have any friends, user.

I never really had any female friends growing up. As now that I'm even older (29), I have like 4 friends who I see maybe once every half year.

Making friends is hard. You gotta try to relate to people, have things to talk about, be charming. I tried to be like that when I was younger but my parents didn't let me out much and I never had high self esteem so here I am today.

>On the other hand I find that many men, even in the conpany of women, can often choose to avoid engaging with them socially in any valuable capacity. This potentially deepens their lack of empathy for women, which becomes a chasm that fills with a more pornographic perspective if one is exceptionally exposed to it.

nice try
As other has said before, it's woman's incapability to be anything useful that made man shied away.
Also You might say >>"Hey! Why do we need to show thoughtfulness just to get to men"
It goes both way, man who talks empty and shitz gets avoided too.
Had you ever thought of why Marie Curie get soo high in academia?
She showed herself worthily so she get accepted or even praised.
>>"Bu..t why men kept viewing woman as useless shit"
It's because of the deeply ingrained impression of women being useless other than sex.
If you're striving to break this impression, you should perhaps think of how to appeal intellectually instead of yelling "Listen to my opinion because im a woman!"

if you know any girls irl or go to any female forum or message boards, when they talk about partner count most of them have slept with at least 10+ guys by the time they're 20 (and usually they don't even "count" bj's n shit), so just imagine after college etc

literally all of them are sluts, same as men, the only difference is it's 100x easier for the average woman to get laid than it is for the average man (which explains the bitterness of most men over most women's excessive promiscuity/infidelity)

in general it just means it's incredibly easy to fuck them as long as you're decent looking, but on the flip side it does ruin relationships/monogamy completely

>taking Baudrillard seriously
DELET THIS

>Many young men seem to almost exclusively view women as useful only for sex
>as a woman

like fucking clockwork, roastie

this

prefer to keep it that way too tbqh

Reading this thread confirms my biases that Americans are all fucked up and mentally ill

Baudrillard wasn't a philosopher and had nothing but suspicion for philosophers. It's fair to call him a Nietszcheian, or a theorist -- "critical theorist" is going too far, because he denied the possibility of possessing any critical perspective from which to critique.

>becoming evermore disappointed at the Real in favor of the virtual
This is a common misreading of Baudrillard. He does not theorize that a "virtual" has supplanted a "real." That would make him another Platonist.

For Baudrillard, the difference between the image and the real is what generates the "reality principle." For example, erotic Roman mosaics are obviously not actual people having sex. What grounds the image in reality is its fundamental illusion -- very convincing, in the case of trompe l'oeil, but illusion nonetheless. On the other hand, it is the very attempt to depict reality "as it is," anterior to its representation in the image, and shorn of all illusion, that creates the hyperreal implosion.

Baudrillard saw the effect of endless and high-definition smut not as creating a society of voyeurs, but one where desire is purely "cold" and programmatic. Like how the image draws meaning from its foundation in illusion, desire is based in lack (this is his concept of symbolic exchange). Sexual liberation, or the profusion of sex-signs, satiates consumer demand without restriction or limit, in a manner that is purely operational -- your wildest sexual fantasies actualized in 4K resolution. This is why Baudrillard understood sexuality in the pornographic world to be simulacral, because while the "body" of sex continues to exist, sexual desire has been robbed of its register and assimilated to the order of production.

Nothing made me deserialize real women harder than porn. Having access to all the wank material I can ever need I lost interest in pursuing women and now treat them on the merits of their character

Degration? Spooky shit

women cannot be degraded because they do not have innate worthiness, only men create some purity in women then they whine that women do not care about this purity.

women are not sluts. It is men who love to please women and then think that women can be pure, then they discover that women love to sleep around, being entertained by plenty of men.

when a girl1 calls another girl2 a slut, girl1 only means that girl2 has more devoted men, than her and that girl1 does not like this situation. it just means that girl1 sees that about a woman, there is nothing else than some mundane life about sex. girls cannot stand it, nor men.

A lot of hatfolk in this thread

Yes it is, and these are all problems inherent to capitalism.

>if you know any girls irl or go to any female forum or message boards, when they talk about partner count most of them have slept with at least 10+ guys by the time they're 20
Clearly that's a biased sampling group. Women with few sexual experiences would probably not talk about them as much because they don't have anything to talk about.
>literally all of them are sluts, same as men, the only difference is it's 100x easier for the average woman to get laid
>in general it just means it's incredibly easy to fuck them
So it's hard for men to get laid, but it's also easy to get laid wtf?

Why are the autists at /r9k/ so bad at critical thinking?

Maybe you hang out with a limited variety of men? All the guys I talk to have at least a few regular female friends. They are usually girls they aren't personally attracted to I admit, but still nice girls for the mos part. Also can you elaborate more on your idea that women cannot avoid socializing "meaningfully" with men but men usually do? Are you talking about men in their age group or men in general? Because I know plenty of instances where women don't necessarily engage men "in a valuable capacity" particularly in their age group. Do you mean in terms of having in depth conversations about ideas or events? Or just having shallow conversations at a party, school, or when requesting a service(at a store, shop, or business)?

oh wow that pic

the electric jew strikes again!

Not true. My circle of friends that I hangout with sometimes often includes guys and girls( who may or may not be "perfectly feminine"). Most of the people in the group are already seeing someone so it's not a big deal. In terms of going out I guess it tends to be a just stag night or girls night out but type of thing but not necessarily always, especially at bars. Ever see the show Friends? A lot of people here in America like that show because they can readily relate to it. You'll see this more in college.

People who are awkward and self conscious ( male or female honestly) tend to only hang out with one gender; they are usually very nervous around the opposite sex.

What did you major in? That might be it sometimes too.

Not necessarily. youtube.com/watch?v=QBtF3I7fDfU
I kind of want this idea to die. Men have been raised to be skeptical of very forward girls. Many would be turned off by the idea of a woman asking them for sex for example. They may think it's unreal or a joke.
Here is the one where a guy asks. Obviously it is harder, but the woman wasn't much more successful either.
youtube.com/watch?v=jjR9F9tPNhc

LOL no one ever said women care about purity. They are not so different from men. It was patriarchal societies that created this forced standard of women( while keeping it relatively compulsory for men). Feminism has been saying this for years now. now not being "pure" does not make women worthless as men were never pure either. Girls can generally do whatever they want like men.

What?But didn't it become like this in post religious society? Before that, even capitalism didn't create this. Also why does porn still exist in places like Sweden then?