The Ironycel obsession with insulting “Virgin Losers”.

Scroll down to content

This may come off as a more informal article for my styling, however I feel these matters must take place within an air of frankness and forthrightness. Recently the #Frogtwitter gang, or rather some of the most notable figures (@KANTBOT10K and @Logo_Daedalus) decided to take on the apex of pseudo-intellectual, irony-driven media class bugmen: the trust fund clad and well-connected hipsters who run the blog Chapo Trap House. I will not go at length as to how exactly their project of being controlled “edgy” opposition to mainstream leftism, and their sickly attempts at recasting themselves as true counter-cultural ™ figures falls flat on its head, kantbot did it for me (and quite a good short and sweet article at that[1]). The simple fact that Kantbot and others have managed to muster a meaningful tweet campaign targeting the credibility of Ironycel-ink. Shows that the dissident right (or whatever label you attach to internet dwelling Gen-xers and older millennials who have become increasingly disenfranchised with modernity) has taped into a vein of cultural potentiality that the “smart set” the left coast offers up has lost touch of; One thing I have observed about the painfully ironic and bourgeois is that despite being so-called “intellectual” journalist types that are cursed with a dark cloud of painful mediocrity, thus using irony as an existential shield, they seem to be awfully obsessed with the (lack thereof) sexual life of their ideological opponents on the right. What I mean is of course the common insult leftists (feminists particularly it seems[2],[3]) often hurl towards their opponents without a moment’s reflection, that being everyone on the right are “frustrated virgin losers[4]”, or “resentful males who can’t get laid” etc.

A Few words of caution.

Now before moving on to Ironycel, there are two variable concertina wire bundles we must tangle ourselves out of; the first being the very real resentment a lot of younger males (lets specify this malaise to the west) feel about a world that would rather have them pacified or even worse, removed. Such is the case with the Hanna Rosin book “The End of Men”[5] which immediately lite a fire among the “Manosphere” for its seemingly triumphalist anecdote-laden polemic of women winning the gender war finally, surpassing men, replacing them and supposedly making their roles and identities irrelevant and superfluous in almost every capacity, etc. and of course the other side of third wave feminism, skewering her with scathing reviews on how their quest of toppling the supposed patriarchy and the “patriarch within” has yet to manifest. I shall choose my words wisely with this first challenge. There is a pragmatic approach to the issues of male sexuality in the modern world. I sympathize and even identify with the frustration, agony, the throes of rejection most young men feel. Men who do not fit the ideal of masculinity, or even the feminized ideal of what most millennial women feel men should fit into. Young Men simply are shunned at every turn in western society, in a variety of ways, this much is not controversial and has been endlessly expounded upon in other books, articles and videos. I can write a whole series of books on the alienation the modern male faces. However, the problem we shall take heed of is the very real misogynistic or hateful patterns of thinking a lot of young disenfranchised males are susceptible too, especially when they are faced with the cultural and institutional chips stacked against them. You have communities such as MGTOW (men going their own way) and “Incel” (involuntary celibates) who make a sport out of their resentment towards the opposite sex, and of course their own loathing. I do not wish to paint a broad brush, I am of course referring to the most extreme and hateful elements of the manosphere. The simple fact is to me, to truly live as a man going his own way in tis most basic sense, should not entail the bitter and unhealthy trait of resentment (even Nietzsche said as much!). it pains me to concede this much to the ironic left, but certain minority elements of the right can come off as being occupied by “virgins with rage”.

Now on to the second touchy bundle of razor wire, this resentment and virgin loathing is not unique to the right, it just manifests differently on the left; instead of outright resentment, obsessing over “sexual market value”, trying their hand at pick up artist game tactics, etc. the leftist of the young bugmen looking variety gravitate towards an internalized torment of sorts. Here I am of course referring to the plight of the male feminist, who is ideologically and psychologically cornered at every turn. Their hyper-egalitarian ideas and their general emasculated and rootless character means they must conform to the virtue-signaling endeavour of being feminists (despite feminists themselves having their doubts[6]) yet finding themselves supressing even the most basic of desires. We have all heard of the stereotype, the guy who wants to “get women” by taking a women’s studies class, or the male feminist who feels that they can “win over” women by spouting all the talking points and putting on a ritualistic dance of self-loathing. We even have at its worst manifestations, a string of male feminists who are virulent woman-haters, abusers and downright creeps[7],[8],[9]. Of course, that is not to say every male feminist is a creep, or is a woman abuser waiting to be unleashed, that would be an absurd Freudian statement, a discredited repression-hypothesis, akin to calling every MGTOW or men’s rights activist a “rape apologist” (which a lot of radical feminists do[10]). A lot, if not most male feminists are genuine in what they feel is a way of helping women, even if I believe their ideology is misguided. When it comes to the odd male feminist creep and abuser, I believe they simply wish to ward off the guilt of being a disgusting reprobate and social failure, so they latch on to male feminism to exorcise the inner demons (such was the case with Hugo Schwyzer[11]).

The point is, we must always be prudent enough to recognize that charges of resentment, woman-hating and the like are real in a tiny minority of cases, separated of course from general banter and/or trolling. Men, especially young men, on the right exist within a siege mentality, created by the left’s dominance of all things cultural, academic and media orientated. It is easy to dismiss all accusations of abuse and sexism when the right is so used to being unfairly slandered daily for even disagreeing with progs and SJWs. Therefore, we on the right must be pragmatic, and are generally fair in policing our own. Then again, there is always a fine line between policing quality, and being a downright shill for the left in some vain attempt at being “respectable” in the eyes of the Bugmen media class (as PT Carlo has eloquently pointed out in the case of Breitbart[12]). To quote Anti-Dem’s blog “no enemies to the right does not imply a lack of quality control”.

The “HaHa you must be a Virgin” argument and its origins.

Now that we have gotten all the insurance matters out of the way, lets turn our attention to the matter at hand; You see it everywhere online, that lighting fast reaction, that kneejerk mockery of virgins,” weirdos”, “creepers” etc. once spouted by the stereotypical jock or bro (Lad for UK readers) now seems to be an acceptable insult used by the tech-savvy millennial left, or even their demigods. Case in point: the vicious, snarky posturing of JK Rowling towards an anonymous member of #Frogtwitter who dared find fault in Harry Potter. JK has become beloved by millennials and media bugmen everywhere who guard the clickbait-sphere, growing up on her tepid mass-produced children’s-lit, and now they get the benefit of their literary hero spouting the most unoriginal and inane leftist talking points[13]. The truth is that most of the leftist “smart set” in the media and on twitter, the ones who supposedly lecture the masses on how shaming someone for their sexuality is ostensibly evil, not only didn’t bat an eye, but actively cheered on such a comeback[14],[15].

Pointing out the hypocrisy of clickbait artists, shallow c-list celebrities and millennial progs is low-hanging fruit, the harder task is determining why the Ironycel left, those hipster sophisticates, the “dirt bags” as they so conceitedly call themselves, also love this throwaway line of insult; cocooned in a layer of irony, and thus sheltered from any meaningful engagement with the ideas of rival ideologues, Ironycels are free to bask in the hedonism and excess of their coastal, college-orientated existences, and the post-sexual revolution modern culture their ideological forbearers have crafted for them. No longer shackled by the pretense of a grand revolutionary ethos, but immersed in a placid and endless postmodern set of cultural critiques (which seem to repeat in all venues of society seamlessly) the post-Marxist hipster Ironycel is free to appropriate and have the same jock bravado and chauvinism as the 80s teen-flick villains of eras past, for it does not really matter in the end anyways. Their opponents are largely made up of the internet-based, basement aficionados of the chanernative right[16], therefore it is acceptable to mock the NEETs and internet trolls that appear in their twitter mentions. unfortunately, they treat even engaging criticism of their ideas as if it has come from the most obnoxious anime twitter-avatar white nationalist troll, everyone on the right must fit into the neatly packaged box of frustrated deplorable hate-monger.

But what is Ironycel? Why are they “dirt bags”? a befitting word would be the new class of Lumpen-bourgeoisie, institutional and media-connected urbanite kids that grew up in the PR/advertising/media-matrix cocoons of large coastal cities. They went to the (off) ivy-league journalist schools and MFA programs, some would say they are the smart set, but suffer from the pangs of self-loathing and mediocrity, so irony and cynical detachment is the pill they must swallow. In fact, the existence of groups like Chappo trap house is shot-through with irony, it constitutes their subjectivity. So much so that despite the supposed statues as bitter, anger and vulgar outsiders to the neo-liberal democrat establishment, they get glowing reviews in official places like The Atlantic, and The New Yorker[17]. That’s what having the correct opinions in the media class gets you, the ability to role play as being edgy meme irony-lords, whilst serving a vital function to the crusty old liberal establishment. The problem is of course their brand of humor. Not in the sense that they are unfunny (they are) or that there is an objective metric of authenticity in terms of swanky internet sub-cultures, because clearly any movement or net-based phenomenon can be easily overtaken or subverted from within. The internet is littered with the rotting and festering corpses of failed ideologues, “big tend” movement hucksters, and all-around brand™ builders. Hence why the memes must become more chaotic, penetrate more layers of cultural information, and become more all-pervasive. The “movement” must become more big-tent, adapt to the rapid changes of modern telecommunications or die. The difference is the Dirt bags are very well funded and connected faux-contrarians, thus are slow to keep up with the ever-changing meme-matrix. what strikes me as the most absurd is the idea that by them embracing this cynical and vulgar character, they are curbing the online market the dissident right has a monopoly on: offending people, especially the supposed ones “on their side” of the spectrum (in the case of the right, your average American Republican, neocon or weak-willed trad dad) that constitute the partisan mainstream[18].

The illusion they live under is that the mainstream neoliberals, the champagne socialists and celebs that hold the purse strings of leftist activism and agi-prop, in short, the funders and shakers of the Democrat party, are victims of a mutually agreed upon, non-offensive PC “sensibility”. In other words, the mainstream left is too “nice”, or too weak to critique their own or effectively go after the right in a meaningful way. “No enemies” to the left seems to be a solid liberal operational principle, so here comes the wryly and whimsical rag-tag crew of Ironycels to clean house, call people names, even pretend-fight the mainstream liberal establishment (they just so happen to be entangled in) and gain ground from those vile twitter and 4chan right wingers. The only problem is, like everything they endeavour in, the success rate has been minimal at best; The neoliberals still set the agenda on the surface, and in the bowls of internet meme counter-culture, the online right still reigns supreme[19]. They can of course, keep pretending that they have somehow obtained edgy rebel statues, or however edgy 30 something year old bloggers can get. the problem is this predicate of their vital function to the left is flawed in many ways, but the most important flaw is that modern progressive leftists, cultural Marxists, post-Marxists, “regressive left”, whatever the label you wish to describe them, do not in any way suffer from some overtly nice sensibility when it comes to their enemies on the right. Sure, when it comes to the progressive stack, their pet victim groups, of course the official professional elites that make up the modern left, the academics, politicians and media Bugmen, they all prostrate themselves to appear as non-offensive and meek as possible. However, there really is no difference between Ironycel leftists trying to spread memes and hurl crass insults at right wingers, and the leftist higher-ups calling everyone on the right racists, sexists, or whatever “ism” or “phobia” they can think of. Ironycel wanting their elites to be cruder and more to the point is just a demand for false bravado.

But let us go back to the original purpose of this essay now that we have seen a bit of what the Ironycel left is all about[20]. The Ironycels seem to share the same lines of insult as their more mainstream counterparts for sure, but with the bonus of not being afraid to express class contempt and shame someone based on their sexuality. They of course build upon their superiority complex by assuming all their opponents on the right are blue collar, or lower-class denizens. Despite paying lip service to Marx, the class distinction is maintained between them and the flyover state people they would spit on if the carrier flights between New York and California allowed them to open the windows! People they base their knowledge of by having the experience of watching a few Harmony Korine films.  The very heartland of America that have been hollowed out, transformed into the rustbelt, and suffers from the same forces that are also adversely effecting the professional classes Ironycels ride in, seem to be their preferred target of extreme contempt. In fact, some of them display this contempt out in the open, such as a Silicon Valley executive going on a Twitter tirade about how the flyover rustbelt states deserve to wallow in poverty, and all the adverse social effects that come with it, because they are all “racists and sexists that don’t deserve” to have coastal city corporations give them jobs[21]. The same goes for the one acceptable sexuality that can be insulted without social ramifications: being a virgin, or at least appearing to possess traits that would make you an Incel[22].

Despite a lot of them having the physiognomy of being permanent virgins themselves, they love furthering the stereotype of the basement dwelling Alt-right internet troll, one that probably came up from 4chan and the manosphere, and thus has a completely resentful and negative view of women. You see, if one traces this line of thinking, leftists, especially hipster irony artists, must continue the post-sexual revolution bohemian tradition of embracing a chaotic, debauched and non-judgmental form of sexuality; Marcuse, the Frankfurt school forefather of the sexual revolution said as much in his seminal work “Eros and Civilization”[23]. Taking up a Marxian critique of Freud’s repression hypothesis, Marcuse viewed sexual repression as the key to any capitalist society. To Freud, repression and sublimation is needed in the eternal conflict between productivity or social functions and Eros, libido, the drives, etc. Marcuse does away with this, stating that the real conflict is between alienated labour and Eros. The owners of the means of production are ones who can have a free-flowing sexuality, whilst the workers must bath in their sexual repression, becoming good productive proles. The main outcome for Marcuse is much like what western society is now: the slow dismantling of repression, and the “liberation” of instincts. Of course, there are many things that throw Marcuse’s thesis into severe doubt, and in my view, the grandfather of the sexual revolution in many ways was asserting complete nonsense. One first must assume historical forces of repression always shape human instincts, of course Marcuse being a materialist Marxist sees this as so. Secondly would be the absolute moral inversion of the post-sexual revolution society and all the consequences that go with it, that are too numerous to list here. Reading Marx into Freud has always been an arduous task, but the assertion that sexual repression is wedded into industrial society is frankly been proven false. From writers like Huxley, to critics like Crews and psychoanalysts like Fromm (a fellow Frankfurt alumni. I do not wish to condemn the Frankfurt school entirely, that would be run of the mill anti-intellectualism) all see the flaws in Marcuse in this regard, seeing as how the promotion of widescale pornography, promiscuity and distortions of sexuality themselves have become effective tools of societal control in late capitalism. Even Foucault puts the repression hypothesis of Marcuse into doubt. Victorian repression of sexuality should never be taken at face value, and in the modern industrial age there has not been a period of widescale sexual repression the way Marcuse sees it, in fact, society is predicated on the production of sexuality in Foucault’s view, which of course serves as a better route of power invading and getting at the intimate spaces of the subject. He also discredits Marcuse in saying that sexual repression somehow benefits the higher classes when they are the most repressed of all, and there is also the counter- move of resistance to sexual repression in the outgrowth of alternative sexualities that was intensified during the industrial age, before and after the 19th century[24].

Give a critical eye to modern consumerist culture, and see how sex and meaningless sensuality are promoted at every turn precisely because it is sold as a false liberation. Promiscuous and distorted forms of sexuality simply fail to make the modern subject’s life more meaningful, if anything they have become a detriment on the life of the modern[25]. One need not be a Thomist or Freudian to see the disastrous consequences of unchecked lust, one merely should look around at the continual transformation of society’s attitudes towards sexuality, especially when it comes to promoting sexuality at earlier and earlier ages[26]. Despite this, the myth of the sexual revolution persists in the virgin-shaming mockery on the part of modern Ironycels. That is, to be without sex is to be without “freedom”, and to be stuck in a perpetual state of celibacy is not just “un-hip” and not “cool”, but exposes an inner defect of character to them. This is also why the modern left must seek to route out traditionalists or those who espouse a traditional worldview when it comes to matters of sexuality. To be a traditionalist is to deny the supposed “liberation” of free “love”, and how dare the uncouth, repressed nanderthals throw the perpetual revolution of the body into question, even in its most extreme and deviant forms[27]. The body then becomes a vast network of input mechanisms, teeming with erogenous ports and entries, either of the immediate sexual nature, or the input of stimuli from any lust or fancy one wishes to conjure up, which is most readily displayed in politicized modern art works. The more astute Ironycel probably took a few soc/lit/women’s studies courses, and perhaps have retained enough information from modern feminist scholars to know that the deconstruction of the body is everything, or rather, the “liberation” of the body from rigid patriarchal structures. Hence the Freudo-Marxist legacy of Marcuse persists, especially among the younger generations (millennials). The way of dismantling the power of bourgeois middle and upper-class standards is by embracing our sexual impulses fully.

But once again, it seems the materialism and consumerism of the upper and middle classes have led them to embrace sexual expression and debauchery more than any other class. Take any sitcom your average SWPL watches, or product they consume, or any variety of meaningless time-wasting entertainment they choose to seek escape sad comfort in, etc. they watch the same shows the “lower” classes do, and buy the same things but “better versions” of them that bigger incomes can afford; the liberation of sexuality equaling the disruption of power is a failure at every turn. Now every social class can be just as depraved as the SWPL classes. The reality of the situation is that Ironycels are simply not the Marxist revolutionaries of old, and prefer the terrible middle-class expressions of a neo-liberal, neutered version of leftist activism. I.E. things like slacktivism, “awareness raising” and generally any half-baked theory or scheme they come across which tells them being a total hedonist and drain equates disrupting the flows of late-capitalism, the patriarchy, or an assorted variety of “isms” they must appear to be working against. Ironycel is the infinite resignation of perpetual critique, of the production of various forms of alienation they find themselves in (both real and imagined) and as a result, feel the need to not embrace the Leninist prerogatives of a much older form of revolutionary thought, but instead choose to never leave the safety of hurling insults on the internet[28].

Of course, why should they strive or struggle? Pop culture casters to these types, as well as the media, academia by and large, and every single cultural institution. Hence this persistent theme of the modern left, to which Ironycel is a part of, obsessing over endlessly expounding upon and obsessing over pop culture and media, especially when it comes to critiques that lo and behold, deal largely in part with human sexuality. Right wingers are equally guilty of being caught up in this mess as well. The reason the accusation of being a virgin in the basement so infuriates some of them to such a degree is because of the stereotypical masculine ideal they have. Now this is of course not to say everyone on the right bristles at such an accusation, but there are those types (which I have alluded to above) who do feel genuinely offended by such insults because it betrays the ultra-stereotypically manly image they have of themselves, and might run the risk of people thinking they have inferior “game”. They too secretly wish to live the “hip and cool” life of hedonism their enemies on the ironic left proport to live. This of course is a classical example of Akratic weakness of will, giving in to the popular culture and the same lack principals these right wingers supposedly rebel against. Of course, the other extreme is total incel resentment, so it is best to take the advice of Aristotle, and find the mean in all things.

Our animal nature: conclusion.

Let us reflect upon a pertinent quote from Carl Jung: “The erotic instinct is something questionable, and will always be so whatever a future set of laws may have to say on the matter. It belongs, on the one hand, to the original animal nature of man, which will exist as long as man has an animal body. On the other hand, it is connected with the highest forms of the spirit. But it blooms only when the spirit and instinct are in true harmony. If one or the other aspect is missing, then an injury occurs, or at least there is a one-sided lack of balance which easily slips into the pathological. Too much of the animal disfigures the civilized human being, too much culture makes a sick animal.”[29].

The dramatic left-ward shift of society in terms of culture and morality has in a lot of respects, especially when it comes to sexuality, not made us more “civilized” or “progressive” in as we would like to belief. Of course, the double-think is that the liberation of sexual urges is a progress of human freedom and tolerance, however, it has merely brought us back to the state of animal-being. But not animalistic in a natural sense (as I am going to garner criticism from critical animal studies people for turning the animal into a pejorative phrase) but a bastardized animal, a lust-ridden organism without an equilibrium mechanism guiding such libidinal energies, for even animals have very complex mating and sexual regulatory practises. Aide from such bastardized Freudian language, what I mean to say is the modern subject has the intellect an awareness to know they are pursuing erotic desires in a way that mimics a wild beast, but the problem is even a wild beast has a sense of control! It seems the “liberation” and acceptance of sexuality and open perversion in all societal discourses in the west has regressed us to not even an animalistic state, but a degenerative state of unfiltered passion and the endless hunt for greater sources of titillation. To be a virgin in this environment, or to hold virginity and moral purity as an existential standard (which traditionalists on the right ought to strive for) is of course seen as alien and somehow threatening to the modern Bourgeois-yet-proletarian[30]. The left owns sex in culture and in media, so sex must creep into every facet of life, and all who oppose the never-ending march of the libido must suffer social ostracism, loneliness, and the malaise of being and outcast with heterodox political and social opinions.

But again, for the last time, if you have not gotten the point by now, it is I R O N Y that is driving this whole discussion, and that is capturing both the modern left and the dissident right in its remorseless clutches. The I R O N Y of our situation is that all of these erotic impulses, the never-ending obsession and chasing after newer and more sensationalistic forms of sexual expression and discourse, is all happening on an increasingly virtualized plane of being. We have internalized our sexuality in an unhealthy way via the ubiquitous access to pornography and other forms of self-gratifying sexual release. The widespread use of pornography is without a doubt having an impact on our brain development and our sexual preferences[31], changing our brain chemistry, dulling our senses to ordinary or plain sexual stimuli. What makes us tick soon no longer does the job, so more and more (especially young) people go down the road of finding more deviant and extreme forms of fetishes and sexual practises. Porn is convenient, porn never says no, porn exited us from a young age with its taboo nature. Porn is replacing genuine human expressions of fulfillment and intimacy, and giving us a cheap synthetic replacement. Whereas the youth of old had a social stigma, the “liberated” state of the modern world tells us to be happy in our half-animal, half-automaton state. Fulfill the programming, seek simulated sexual ecstasy, do not listen to voices of modesty or moderation, and consume identities and sexualities made in your own image. It does not matter that the ironic (post)modern left feels the need to yammer on about sex and sexuality and sexual issues all the time, yet seem to be just as sexless as the basement-dwelling virgins they stereotype and make fun of. What does matter if that they have the right opinions about sexuality and sex-related issues, and that they embrace it in all its manifold forms, because “fetish/kink-shaming” is a real issue, whilst those “evil right wing puritanical” monsters they pretend to be offending must be doomed to a life of involuntary celibacy and mockery. Sexual liberation is the queen of the modern world, and the ironic left pays tribute to its many feted fruits. The real joke is the absolute feelings of alienation, frustration, and loneliness this supposed liberation has caused to countless numbers of people on both the left and the right. Perhaps we should drop the I R O N I C posturing and vulgarity of endless gratification-culture, and return to a sincere modesty, or at the very least, a pragmatic recognition of the dangers of unchecked animalistic desires that have become socially and culturally lionized as an end goal in life.

(Image created by Me. entitled “Deconstructed Portrait of a NEET basement”: )

[1] Kantbot. “Chapo Trap House will never be Edgy”. Jacobite Magazine. May, 26, 2017.



[4] Chappo themselves.

[5] Rosin, Hanna. The end of men: and the rise of women. S.l.: S.n., 2012.











[16] Wallace, Adam. West Coast Reactionaries.



[19] of course, the problems I have with the online right could constitute a series of articles however, but this piece is not about that.

[20] This is a great thread by a progressive leftist type, describing the resentment-politics of Ironycel, of course it also inadvertently demonstrates how these 30 something Jon Stewart generation white upper-middle class leftists will ultimately be swallowed whole by more authentic, animated and vicious forms of identity politics and post-Marxism.


[22] The Thermidor podcast with Kantbot and Logo break down their preferred insults nicely:

[23] Marcuse, Herbert. Eros and Civilization, 2nd edition. London: Routledge, 1987.

[24] Porter, Roy (1996). Keddie, Nikki R., ed. Debating Gender, Debating Sexuality. New York: New York University Press. p. 251-253.

[25] A very good article that is surprisingly from Adbusters.


[27] Such as Salon promoting and trying to normalize a pedophile that claims pedophilia is “just another alternative sexuality” and that right wingers are the “real monsters” after their first article profile on this vile creature hilariously backfired, the original two articles have since been removed.


[29] Jung, Carl, Gustav. The Psychology Of The Unconscious. Trans. Hinkle, Beatrice. M. (Mineola, New York: Dover Publication Inc. 2002).

[30] As Kantbot defines Ironycels in his article. essentially upper class ironic leftists that are obsessed with mass-produced pop culture, to pretend to be of the higher types intellectually, but suffer from crippling mediocrity and self-capitulated feelings of alienation. Hence the character of the modern Ironycel I have been expounding upon. Regarding sexuality, the B-Y-P Ironycel is immersed in an ironic stance towards sexuality. Being a resentful mensch, but having their resentment turn towards lambasting others as virgins and losers, instead of the various manifestations of other types of resentment present in MGTOW and Incel types, which is usually turned inwards.



3 Replies to “The Ironycel obsession with insulting “Virgin Losers”.”

  1. Thanks for listening to Chapo House so I don’t have to. If this is really the best they can do, I think I know why established media likes them: if those ostensibly defining what it means to be “edgy” aren’t clever enough to come up with anything more witty than the most hackneyed of hurr-durr level wisecracks, then the older and more established figures don’t have to worry about ever being made to seem square or out-of-touch.

    With respect to so-called “sexual liberation”, every indicator from birth rates to self-reports suggest that people are getting it on much less than they used to, and the bourgeois today are even more frigid and congenitally anorgasmic than their Puritanical forebears were supposed to have been. Sexual liberation thus seems to be succeeding at *extirpating* desire where the “repressive” regime sought only to *subjugate* it. (The mere fact that people are willing to settle for porn instead of the real thing is a tell-tale sign here; desire that can be satisfied with a picture must about as feeble as hunger that can be satisfied by looking at a picture of a pizza). It’s too bad that Foucault didn’t explicitly address this aspect of the new regimes of control of sex, even though the thrust of it was implied in some observations Nietzsche made about modern morality more generally.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: