Should we read de Sade not for shock value or edgy thrills, but because he makes us face the messy, disturbing parts of human nature that society usually tries to hide or clean up?

>>24484184 (OP)
No, that too is stupid reason, since a basic description and any study of abnormal psychology could produce the greater fruit of knowledge without the sullying effect of direct exposure to such evil. The mind likewise becomes what it attaches.

"Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."

you can claim that thats why you read it but everyone knows you just like edgy goon material

>>24484184 (OP)
Everybody talks about de sade like he was writing some kind of allegory or philosophy when it was really just about what actual nobles and priests got up to in the ancien regime

>he makes us face the messy, disturbing parts of human nature that society usually tries to hide or clean up
might as well watch cartel videos

>>24484184 (OP)
Nah. If you want that you can listen to Whitehouse's albums, or watch Ero guro films.

>>24484601
theres more to de sade than salo

>>24484329
>since a basic description and any study of abnormal psychology could produce the greater fruit of knowledge
It couldn't, it'd produce something of great value, but it'd sterilize, even neutering the phenomenon dealt with. The messiness of it all is a fundamental part of it, the raw literary exposition yields intensities that bring us an sight no psychological study could. Again, not to say a psychological study is of lesser value, it would just yield another result.

Why is every Sade thread about the same book?
Did anyone read Juliette? I feel like that's the one book no one mentions (even though it's the longest). Everybody says "oh I've read everything (except Juliette) and Justine is the best" when they've not even read the sequel.
Also did anyone read La Nouvelle Justine (the definitive edition that has never been translated)

>>24484686
>Did anyone read Juliette?
people in here usually don't read

>>24484686
I struggle to even finish 120 days, it's long winded, repetitive, and overall boring.

it's way too "hurr durr muh peepee" for my tastes

>too gross to be erotic
>too silly to be horror
>too edgy and vapid to be taken seriously in the style of Hobbes or Machiavelli about civilization or human nature being animalistic
Who the fuck is this guy even for besides edgelords?

I read La Philosophie Dans Le Boudoir just so I could joke about reading spicy lit.

>>24485538
That's called having love for the game.

De Sade was just writing eroges before eroges were a thing. I bet he would have loved the Rance games.

>>24484663
Your writing is gay but I believe the core idea you express is important. Evil can only be overcome by understanding its innate power to tempt. To understand how common desires can lead to such radically diverging ethical behaviors through a phenomenal lens of understanding the DRAW is integral to acquiring wisdom.

If he thinks pain is a necessary companion to pleasure, wouldn't pleasure also lose its meaning without denial? Great sex is great because you don't get to have it every single day. Even the kinkiest fantasies lose their potency if you can fulfill them whenever.

>>24484184 (OP)
If you're into erotic novels and sick pleasures, sure go ahead. I like to take this book and read some pages at random order. Anyway the scat part grossed me out.

>>24484686
>Did anyone read Juliette
I am reading it when I'm in bed, it stays in the bedroom

>>24484184 (OP)
It's also just really badly written, at least in translation. I can't imagine the original text is much better.

>>24484184 (OP)
>simps and OnlyFans everywhere
Better off reading Sacher-Masoch if you want to understand Current Year