Synthetic Puritanism

Western culture's social intuition operates via a consistent separation between what's safe, regular or orthodox and what's considered unorthodox. This is hereditary of classical Christian customs, typically found within societies of Anglo influence. The thing about this method of morality is that it navigates what's safe and un-safe via not set values, but whatever happens to be perceived or understood contemporarily standard. People abstain not from what they feel is wrong but from what they are relayed to be wrong. Human sexuality in particular is stimulated by what is by the self considered deviant. Whatever deviant happens to be, it exists in opposition to the synthetic purity of anything removed from sex. This is by no means however to say that within modernity the unorthodox exists in restricted absence from mainstream activity. Traditionally within the foundations of Christian society, lower indulgences would exist, however to be shunned, punished and removed from mainstream standard; this older custom is continued into modern culture, only inverted, forming a system by which the perceived unorthodox is condoned and celebrated. The ghost of sexual repression is maintained to be liberated from and and its demons explored. Within its prohibition, western repression incorporates all sex's potential aspects including those of integrity. In this, man is allowed no outlet from which to exercise interest in such sacred energies: all is thrown under the classification of sin. From this, human interconnection is not perceived via intimacy: instead “sex” itself is objectified and considered within a false wholeness to be entirely impure and unorthodox—“a bit naughty” to the Bri'ish. Even the most simplistic of imagery is viable as a marketable gimmick for those within synthetic purity's consideration. 

 

The modern playground has a curriculum, officialized as a card game. The practice is a ritual between well-mannered friend-groups in order to shock each-other within the bounds of a certified gimmick, if it exists to the extent of mass production, it must be. Of course, similar japes cracked outside of this certification will be pathologized, especially if equipped with some sort of spite or meaning.

For men, stimulation is generated by deviation from right to what is acknowledged and fully considered by the self to be wrong. The problem is that the next step of the male sex drive is to extrovert and uphold whatever passion host, set it in stone, then worship as right. It’s hard to do so when the object providing stimulation provides only by merit of un-worth to the very extroversion meant to follow. The psyche hops from one foot to the other: first, a liberated flow, to from it withdrawing before reaching righteous confidence—how can you do so for a stimulation provided by its own un-eligibility to righteous confidence. What ensues is a culture wherein male lust is prefaced by irony, safely kept insincere and illegitimate—nowadays in quirky meme form in thirst for Japanese cartoons of fictional women. The pubescent Instagram memer may express such passion, but don't worry, not without the given dosage of irony to restrict the male drive into a signal goofy and jestful; after-all, you can't make something too close to actual interest. 

The modern male sex drive is a generation of men trying to masturbate with sand paper, scathing themselves by product of each attempt, but still compelled to engage the build up and generally represent the overall act of doing so as a new form of masculine extroversion. They are restricted only to sandpaper and repressed from a consideration of such a drive without the safety wheels of irony to make up for some depravity and shame therein. With this, the inherent gravity and implication of human interconnection's nature is condemned to be on par with anything else confined outside of the orthodox.

If ever the case, it doesn’t matter that degeneracy's realm reside outside of deemed normality, because it exists to be indulged in private by those who adhere to synthetic puritanism's custom. A young man in the 21st century might exude shock in being shown some edgy meme as if they've never seen a naked dick before, but at the same time sheepishly return to watch porn in private on a regular basis. Walt Disney and Ron Jeremy are two sides of the same coin, just at opposite ends: that's the problem—there will always be a counter to the side of good as long as sex exists without righteous consideration. In effect, instead of being indifferent to genitalia in an anatomy book or maybe on a classical greek statue, all from adults to children giggle and nudge like schoolgirls, even within a society already saturated by sexualised mainstreaming. Sexuality is mainstreamed under the preface of its Christian classification—dirty and cheekily hinted towards. With this comes a viewing demographic for television media testing standards with what would have been considered porn even during the 70s—shows like Sex Education or Naked Attraction come to mind [both of which happen to be British].

You can already tell that a show called Naked Attraction is seeded in Anglo-Christian repression just from how formally eloquent and plummy its title is. Had the show been developed in America or any other country which doesn’t have its head up its ass, it probably would have been named more honestly in jest. Naked attraction's premise is so simplistic it's hard to conceive how you could make a show out of it; it’s a dating game show where contestants judge each other's naked twats using the process of elimination to match partners. Considering that the only unrevealed part of a man's body the women of the show have to judge is their penis, most of the show's attention inevitably comes down to the female contestants—partly since whether or not considered by the viewer, the female anatomy bears a universal gravity and aura. The rest of the male body can be seen naked anyway at a beach so there isn’t really anything else to talk about, at which point your show is more reminiscent of pornography than television. It reminds me of gimmicks in depraved Japanese media whereby the focus of arousal is the idea of trivialising sex to such a point of normality it could appear on television game shows; however instead of being designed for mentally diseased bugmen, it's 100% sincere and on British television, exhibiting this sheen of professionalism which modern day UK telly harbours. It delivers with a sentiment of respect, but at the same time comedically flashes the mutilated sex organs of pierced hipsters along with jocks simple enough to partake in the show while also having families and social lives. Imagine having the privilege of going out with a contestant knowing that half of the trend malleable middle class retards in Britain get to see their body in a state of vulnerability for the sake of some foppish pretentious game show. The reason shows like Naked Attraction sell is because to people having grown up in a society which restricts all classifications of sex to the unorthodox, anything involving such content becomes illustrious solely by merit of its exile from sincere regard. Interest in sex becomes not that of domination and intimacy, but "sex" itself as a signifier. People gawk at depictions of sexuality with a cheeky infatuation as if they’ve never seen a dick with a piercing before, but then call you repressed if you don't also gawk at it. Synthetic puritanism and its repression induced rutting is genius because anyone who tries to criticise it can just be called a puritan, even though these fixations for anything relating to sexuality stem from default repression. The only leg this rutting has to stand on as a tv show is the internalisation of embracing the unorthodox from repression; but then they will call others repressed for criticising it—repressed for not being repressed enough to be captivated solely by human anatomy. Remove this inherent repression from your perception and you will analyse in Naked Attraction an odd fixation upon simple things. People will say: “it's just a guy's dick; why do you have such a weak stomach?” To this it has to be asked: why do they as adults still giggle at such things while at the same time pretending to act as if it's normal; why do they snicker at it, it's normal isn't it? The question shouldn’t be why is this pretentious shite on television, it should be: why do people care so much if it really is just a bunch of naked people? But don’t fetishists get off on the idea of normalising their depravity? The actual problem with shows like Naked Attraction isn’t that this content features nudity, it's that people smart enough know that the only reason this oddly specific content is broadcasted is because people are subconsciously entranced by it from growing up without an outlet sexual interest devoid of shame. According to them, something like Naked Attraction is just a joke based on its absurdity, but that somehow at the same time it's normal to see—they themselves are just too thick to realise their actual interests.

There's a phenomena which occurs in the minds of those stimulated by this sort of content, whereby people express both elaborate praise and vicious defence in the name of such media. This defence doesn't come in a form openly in praise of such content, since doing so blatantly exposes their infatuation; instead, it must come in the form of arguments as to why it's wrong to critique it. As sexually repressed middle class yuppies obsess over Naked Attraction with a cheeky excitement, so too will they argue tooth and nail in its defence regardless of any self-known core principle as they negate and contradict their own various excuses. Pointing out anything reminiscent of a critique against it, even be it something they themselves admit to will be refuted if perceived to challenge their little outlet of sexual relief. One of the explanations I got dealt with recently was the old body positive notion; what this means is that there's a lot of fat women and skinny men who appear on the show and that for some reason it's good to celebrate their forms because it's what most people look like in opposition to body standards supposedly upheld in media, along with being healthier and better looking. What's weird about this complex is that it's prefaced by the internalisation that the neglected bodies of lazy undesirables are aesthetically inferior to those who have the strength to look after themselves, hence why people feel it's right to give attention to them in the first place. It doesn’t matter how you trick your morality; it’s not like people have a choice in what they're attracted to—which will be healthier physiques; therefore those who stand in defence of bodies already internalised as unattractive can only lie to themselves for the sake of being allowed to tolerate their own bodies. 

Self love is prefaced by vehement self hatred, just reversed in a schizophrenic denial. Even though this very hate is what spawns such a drastic feat of mental gymnastics, somehow those host to it are able to convince themselves that the love they feel or [understand by relayed ideological logic] for their own forms is real to a definable end. Isn’t it ironic that the forms they uphold also happen to be the ones which don't require effort and result from being lazy? People say: "well this is what a real body looks like”, when it's what a grunt unit's looks like. As is prefaced, these forms exist low on a hierarchy; in praising them, they do so knowing of their place. They consciously spit on the healthy for being too difficult to achieve—leaving those manifest to be considered on par with any fat cretinous slob with a low endurance span, if not than considered to be worth even less out of spite. A woman with a naturally healthy body is deemed fake and spat upon with vitriol while condemned inferior by a standard of beauty inverted to praise what is self understood as ugly; how that can arise in culture without people realising their own stupidity is beyond me. At the end of the day, people are just upholding something they understand to be inferior for the sake of being too weak to personally uphold physical wellness—that is why they despise human beauty, they know it's something they can never have in their reluctance to practice longterm effort.

Lower Aggressive's Advantage 

in Synthetic Puritanism

Within synthetic puritanism, sex and its further deviations hold power in shock value. This serves as a method for those looking to manifest power and masculine ferocity through dominating the peace of others accustomed to the same morality's passive aspect—the type of “don’t touch me, I’m dangerous” instinct which humans share with blackberry plants; only this danger is signified by an embrace of what society deems impure [violence and anything remotely sexual]. With this in place, if some kid on the internet wants to be a tough guy, all they need to do is post porn to a SFW Discord server. So rises a culture of shock value.

I caught Youtube hosting a commercial for Nutaku: how the ad handles itself says a deal about contemporary customs.

It starts off with three average four-tier looking lasses sitting at a table—the reason for this is that less than glamorous women are the exact archetype which men subconsciously feel guilt in offending when they celebrate the kind of media we're about to get into now; the same doesn’t apply for some extraverted grit faced trollop who says words like "bruh," because to the male psyche, they are already aligned with such content; for the type of hentai consuming young men who brows websites like Nutaku, openly celebrate such content amidst a girl next door archetype conjures a displacing aura.

 

However, such people are also trained to morally analyse purely via the interests of human rights—so to them, if three four-tier becky's sitting at a table are personally down with some porn website in a Youtube ad, than by logic it must be socially and morally safe—because even if it offends the fabric of femininity itself, it does not the individual Becky's. What this mentality fails to acknowledge is the context that what women tolerate is relative only to whatever they understand men to be attracted to—men: the same retards who judge whether or not it's right to celebrate bastardised depictions of women via the morality of individual rights. What's interesting is that one of the women in the ad talks about how she used to watch romantic soap operas. She goes on – something, something, bullshit… “my shows had love scenes, but Nutaku has good hard fucking”. This perceived duality between either aspect is a symptom of Synthetic Puritanism: what they mean by love scenes are those sentimental, serving the interests of the dichotomy's wholesome aspect—that which aligns pacifism with higher standards; it frames this representation dry and devoid of fire. Fire, instead of existing appropriately by its own intrinsic power is replaced with a different form of power—the shock value of those who wield the carnal as an aspect of terror against puritans. Even the way the camera focuses in on her face as she says “hard fucking” indicates that the sheer ring of the words are supposed to hold gravity. The viewer is supposed to either gasp or embrace what stands before them for the sake of basking in Synthetic Purity's model of evil. Making pacifism your aesthetic's core value renders it as vulnerable as a pregnant cow to a pack of wolves because the edgy exist to harness power through tyranny in alliance with whatever happens to be considered shocking; and when society renders sex to be evil, decadence has the most powerful drive of human movement at its disposal; all that masculine energy meant to be channeled into war and lust is diverted into not what evokes power, but what happens to negate whatever construct of hollow good exists contemporarily. Love based synthetically pure good, even in its fortification is doomed to exist as pray for its opposition [sex as hijacked by decadent interest]. You can shun the deviant, but that's what it lives for; to them, being rejected means being feared, and when the rubber hits the road, that's what counts of cultural trends. A hollow puritanism can only leave human interconnection to be raped by weakness's advantage as a demon in the eyes of society; to defeat this demon, people are going to have to understand that its only sin exists of its indulgent weakness, and not of any supposed power or aggression it synthetically manifests. Once you understand sex to be morally powerful in its gravity, the constructed aggression of decadence's aesthetic evaporates as it no longer harnesses sex in negation to dry romance devoid of flavour. In nature, the romance which the girl in the ad identifies as a staple of mundane soap operas doesn't exist outside of what she establishes to be "hard fucking," both are one in the same form under an accurate perspective of sex’s nature. Love is fury, violent in its nature. The energy which the gullible use for shock value doesn't belong to them; heat and lust belong to a hierarchal understanding of sex and its intimacy. Modern culture is degenerate, but it springs from and maintains the social customs of a conservative Christian past, only in an embrace of what it understands to be unorthodox. This synthetic purity provides grounds for degeneracy to be fashionable; in it there is right and there is wrong, of which the latter is more illustrious. Contrary to this model of social intuition, in upholding objective values of health and domination, man's only option is either to be strong or weak of will in circumstance of an unorthodox appropriately aligned with submissive sexual indulgence. Instead of gasping, it's more convenient the strong be indifferent in confusion as to why they are expected to react in awe, indifferent to the very existence of sex itself however observant of whether or not integrity can be found of its circumstance: in this case we’re dealing with weebs using a porn site for sexual relief. What will be detected in attempted shock value will be signs potential weakness, signs which cannot be feared, but mocked in assumption of what can be guessed concerning people who intrench themselves in cartoon porn websites, or for that matter the likes of any other media produced or inspired by the art of some mentally diseased, bat toothed, irradiated bug-creature from rice country.

Of course, cultural shifts are not activated without cause; a human collective will itself not organically adhere to a pantheon of values alien to prior custom, especially a pantheon based on strenuous values like self control for the sake of greater flavour of life’s joys; however, sexual deviation forms its interest via what it understands to be wrong, and most of what would have been considered wrong within Christian culture's purity is already if not at least half condoned within millennial discourse. Once Gen Z grows old enough to dictate mainstream media, there may be no perceived sin within priorly considered deviant sexual indulgences. The only reason these deviations were of interest in the first place is because they represented something forbidden within the culture of the time. Remove this aspect, and stimulation will run dry. People can only stay stimulated by so many things before desensitisation to any potential constructed signifier of indulgence, revealing only sex’s objective nature in its intimacy and domination to a generation of warn out perceivers. All forms of sex will become universalised with all previously considered deviant floating into alignment with mainstream sexuality. When all shock value has been depleted from sexuality, sex will no longer need be perceived as low under a synthetic filter identifying it unorthodox, but recognised for its nature. With synthetic impurity removed, all which will remain in sex will be objective meaning in health, beauty and domination—at which point the new unorthodox will become weakness; sexual deviancy will align itself with such weakness, and nobody looking for power in embracing the unorthodox wants to be considered weak. In this scenario, human culture may lock into place, unable to reenter a future cycle of degeneracy as to do so, individuals would need to knowingly manifest weakness in serving their sexual indulgences. Those who choose still to embrace indulgence regardless of shame will be stripped of their cast as aggressors, then rendered pray to a strength equipped with a fortification of sexuality. Then, health can rest in security and growth, harnessing all psychological variables in its fortification.