I just finished this. What was it about?

Either the Melian assertion of the right of primal, sexual nature and the ultimate rejection of Rousseau's utopian fantasies, or a really sexy jerkoff story about shitting in pussies

>>8596024
It probably served a purpose once when new political and social structures were established. Out of that context it is pure rubbish. Degenerate even.

You read the entire damn book?
I only read random pieces of it, just turned to any page I read what looked funny.

Anyway it was about filthy deprived sex.

>>8596371
>>8596363
>>8596043
>>8596024
you fail to see that bourgeois love to think that being degenerate is bad, because bourgeois spend their life falling back to being degenerate once they fail to find merit to have their inherited riches

>>8596024
You have read it so why don't you tell us what it's about instead of asking for memes?

>>8597006
You have a skewed definition/understanding of how the so called bourgeois class functions, unless I misunderstand the intensity of the 'degeneracy' we are talking about.

Either way, certain forms of degeneracy is most certainly undesirable for the survival of any society. What is more is that it is not characteristic for any class to fall "back to being degenerate once they fail to find merit to have their inherited riches." De Sade does not represent society. You may make this argument from a psychological point of view with regards to the primal and subconscious mind of humans. But then De Sade fails as a psychological approach.

As I have stated, 120 Days of Sodom may have played an historical role. But to read it today outside of an academic or historical context is silly. You are looking for attention, you petty bourgeois you.

If you wholly read it for pleasure... Gulag to you.

>>8597180
>>If you wholly read it for pleasure... Gulag to you.


>sex is bad but I love it so much that I claim that I cannot stop

Something about ideology.

Don't let your leaders get too much power or one thing?