Why is Casual Sex so demonized?

[Hexen]

I found a very interesting article...

http://www.alternet.org/sex/147884/6_reasons_to_have_casual_sex/

One of the things that bother me is that why is our society so negative towards casual sex while it favors monogamous relationships and even celebrates marriage?

Is this another trait of capitalist society?

[this is an invasion]

There are anarchists in Santa Cruz that are in a bunch of open, polyamorous relationships. People basically have sex with who ever they want. Which is tight if you're into that.


That also have crabs and shit. Which is why I look down upon casual sex.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I'd never touch no vile casual sex hedonist pigs.

[Uppercut]

I think it loses its meaning if you just go around banging anyone who looks attractive.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Interesting note: One of the common threads that run through nearly all cults (The People's Temple, The Temple of Love, The Narubians, Heaven's Gate etc.) is the repression of member's sexuality.

Controlling people's sexuality is just one facet of social control, more generally.

[Tablo]

I see no problem with casual sex. I guess having sex that way does increase your chances of getting STDs though. xP

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Interesting note: One of the common threads that run through nearly all cults (The People's Temple, The Temple of Love, The Narubians, Heaven's Gate etc.) is the repression of member's sexuality.

Controlling people's sexuality is just one facet of social control, more generally.

There are also cults that encourage and revolve around casual sex and so called "sexual liberation", so that doesn't really say anything.

[Os Cangaceiros]

There are also cults that encourage and revolve around casual sex and so called "sexual liberation", so that doesn't really say anything.

It does when the leaders of certain cults preach sexual abstinence, while simultaneously engaging in all manner of deviant sexual behavior. It reveals sexual repression as a method of control that groups and governments use for their own ends. Although that's not to say that all prudish sentiments are the work of some diabolical social control conspiracy, but only that sexual repression is just one aspect of the dominant ideology of the day.

[RadioRaheem84]

This might be the perfect time to bring it up but I keep hearing an anti-communist rumor that Lenin abolished marriage in the USSR's early days? Is this true?

[gorillafuck]

I dislike people who are anti-casual sex based on moralistic shit just as much as I dislike people who think that in the future there will be no monogamy and everyone will polygamous and have loads and loads of sex with multiple people.

[bcbm]

I think it loses its meaning if you just go around banging anyone who looks attractive.

it has "meaning?"

[el_chavista]

Let me say some "politic thoughts of mine" before they come to move this thread to chit-chat.
In the capitalist society there exists the "comunity of women" for the bourgeoisies (who doubts that a billionaire can't take his girl friend away?) -see the Manifesto. We communists are to abolish that capitalist social phenomenon through equality of treatment and education for girls and boys. If casual sex is a regular behavior for we homosapiens, then it would be the norm for an egalitarian society.

[leftace53]

Casual sex is the shit.
There's many factors that contribute to the demonization of casual sex. Such as the whole idea of valuing virginity or other puritanical stances. There are also factors of financial and social stability that seem to come attached with a monogomous relationship.
Then there are of course STIs and two pump chumps that ruin the give and take aspect of sex.

I have no issue with monogamy as long as I'm not part of it. :lol:

[La Comédie Noire]

I daresay some people don't like casual sex because they aren't getting any themselves. :laugh:

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Any sex is okay as long as it doesn't hurt oneself or others. There has been a of of experimentation, from the 60s/70s, to today in polyamorous communities. To my knowledge most of these projects, like the Kerrista commune in the Bay Area, did not work out well.

[bcbm]

i don't see why sti's are a big deal regarding casual sex. besides hiv, most of them really aren't that big a deal and can be cleared up in one visit to the doctor and popping some pills.

[this is an invasion]

I just don't like to be sick.


I really don't have any problem at all if people want to have casual sex. It's just not something I am personally into. People who want to control other people's sexuality are my enemies.

[mollymae]

i don't see why sti's are a big deal regarding casual sex. besides hiv, most of them really aren't that big a deal and can be cleared up in one visit to the doctor and popping some pills.

Well, yes and no. People should always do their best to protect themselves from STIs, and if they know they have one, they should do their best to protect others from it, just as you would if you had the flu. And HIV isn't the only really dangerous STD. HPV, for example, is believed to cause cancer in women. Also, chlamydia can cause infertility in women if left untreated for too long (which happens often since sometimes there are no symptoms). But overall, it seems like STDs are usually made to be a bigger deal than they really are, and the general population is horrifically ignorant of them. I think they're a lot more common than most people think. For example:


Results of a nationally representative study show that genital herpes infection is common in the United States. Nationwide, 16.2%, or about one out of six, people 14 to 49 years of age have genital HSV-2 infection.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/herpes/stdfact-herpes.htm

I also remember reading that something like 80% of the population has oral herpes.

[Vanguard1917]

i don't see why sti's are a big deal regarding casual sex. besides hiv, most of them really aren't that big a deal and can be cleared up in one visit to the doctor and popping some pills.

And in the non-drug injecting heterosexual (and, i guess, lesbian) population in the developed world, HIV is very rare and very difficult to transmit. Furthermore, when it is transmitted to people within that population, it is usually not through 'casual sex' (one night stands, etc.), but through repeated unprotected exposures, i.e. when in some sort of longer-term relationship with a person who has HIV.

But the facts should not get it the way of cynically exploiting the threat of disease in order to control public behaviour.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I couldn't care less, as long as proper consent is involved. Its not like we all have strict sexual rules ingrained into us; different people are into different things. Some are into BDSM, some aren't. Some like to have different sexual partners, some stick to one.

Personally, I am in a comfortable relationship with one other person, and we are happy with one another and don't feel the need to have other partners. That's my view, though, and as far as I'm concerned, sexual preference is a personal matter.

[bcbm]

Well, yes and no. People should always do their best to protect themselves from STIs, and if they know they have one, they should do their best to protect others from it, just as you would if you had the flu. And HIV isn't the only really dangerous STD.

well i didn't say they were harmless.


HPV, for example, is believed to cause cancer in women.

some types of hpv. the types that cause warts on the outside can actually be beneficial against the kind that cause cancer because they weaken later infections of hpv.


Also, chlamydia can cause infertility in women if left untreated for too long (which happens often since sometimes there are no symptoms).

well yeah this is why you get tested every six months or w/e


I also remember reading that something like 80% of the population has oral herpes.

hsv1 and hsv2 are actually pretty much identical apart from their preferring choice of where to attach to nerves and can both occur genitally or orally, among other places.

another informative edition of "the more you know..."

[Ele'ill]

Casual sex without education on STD's and pregnancy is dangerous.

Casual sex without genuine maturity is dangerous.

[bcbm]

what is "genuine maturity?"

[Crux]

Uhm...vis a vis STD's, I'm afraid I am stating the obvious here but...wear a rubber?

[9]

Uhm...vis a vis STD's, I'm afraid I am stating the obvious here but...wear a rubber?


You would think..

This whole thread is really bizarre, honestly. "I'm completely opposed to people who want to control other peoples' sexuality. That said, I know people who have casual sex and they all have crabs. Furthermore, STI's! HIV! Chlamydia! I don't have a problem with it, if that's what you're into. I just don't want to get sick, and clearly that's what casual sex entails." lol

I think it's also hilarious that immediately this association is made between casual sex and people who live in crab-infested polyamorous communes, as if casual sex is some sort of lifestylist cult where everybody does everybody else, rather than something that most people in their twenties tend to do casually (one-night-stands, as someone mentioned) without ascribing any sort of political significance to it.

[fionntan]

Would yous let your dughters do it?

[Pretty Flaco]

Casual sex is demonized mostly because it goes against traditional religious values.
...
And also because it's the primary reason why STDs are running rampant.

[Ele'ill]

what is "genuine maturity?"

An educated and mature attitude.

[Blackscare]

I've got nothing against casual sex really, I've done it and I daresay I'll do it again. But I prefer to be in a relationship.

Getting sex randomly from casual partners is fine and all but if that's your main mode of doing things (rather than say, going out and doing that for a while between relationships or whatever), it presents it's own baggage and bullshit just like monogamy. I just don't like dealing with it. I prefer a single partner at a time.

[727Goon]

I used to fuck around a fair amount, its a personal choice I guess but probably not the most emotionally healthy one. All I can say is that having a kid of my own has really changed my perspective on sex and I guess its hypocritical but I'm very worried she will have the same attitude about sexuality as I did a year or two ago when she gets older. So yeah, I guess I might be a bit protective and having sex is a part of growing up and whatnot, but it still worries me just on the emotional level.

[Tablo]

I used to fuck around a fair amount, its a personal choice I guess but probably not the most emotionally healthy one. All I can say is that having a kid of my own has really changed my perspective on sex and I guess its hypocritical but I'm very worried she will have the same attitude about sexuality as I did a year or two ago when she gets older. So yeah, I guess I might be a bit protective and having sex is a part of growing up and whatnot, but it still worries me just on the emotional level.
It's normal for you to be protective like that.

[Invincible Summer]

I think the underlying question here is: are humans "meant" to be monogamous?

[leftace53]

I think the underlying question here is: are humans "meant" to be monogamous?

Making me open up hotmail again :glare:
regardless, I finally have some sort of an article for something CNN (lol) article about how monogamy is unnatural for us peeps. (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/27/ryan.promiscuity.normal/index.html?hpt=C2)

I don't think humans are really "meant" for either one, they just choose whatever makes them happier on an individual basis.

[Vendetta]

I daresay some people don't like casual sex because they aren't getting any themselves. :laugh:

I think someone's hit it on the head.

[meow]

Would yous let your dughters do it?
hows that relevent? why not say children? are only female children worthy of havin sexuality controlled? how you going to stop them? lock them up?



i think so long as people practice safe sex they should sex with whoever whenever they want. most std can be prevented and most can be cured if prevention fail.

moralizing about sex is something that no true leftist should do. (and i should now! im a true scot!)

[Adi Shankara]

If people want to go have casual sex, then by all means.

however, I am strongly against it and would never consider someone who has "one night stands". I hope women feel the same way about men who engage in such behavior.

why? such people are often crass, disease can spread, pregnancy, etc. etc.

It's not christian guilt; almost every culture around the world ritualize sex and courtship, even in matriarchal societies.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I found a very interesting article...

http://www.alternet.org/sex/147884/6_reasons_to_have_casual_sex/

One of the things that bother me is that why is our society so negative towards casual sex while it favors monogamous relationships and even celebrates marriage?

Is this another trait of capitalist society?

Well in a capitalist society, weddings make for more business than condoms. Hence they can rack in more $$$.

[Tablo]

Nah, I'm in a Dom/sub relationship with my gf, so I'm allowed to do whatever I want with whatever girl I want, and it gets her off to watch me fuck others...but surprisingly, when you have that much power, it starts to lose it's appeal, so I prefer monogamy.
Good for you. Some of us like having multiple sexual partners.

[R_P_A_S]

Maury Popovich

[Devrim]

I think it's also hilarious that immediately this association is made between casual sex and people who live in crab-infested polyamorous communes, as if casual sex is some sort of lifestylist cult where everybody does everybody else, rather than something that most people in their twenties tend to do casually (one-night-stands, as someone mentioned) without ascribing any sort of political significance to it.

There is a very strange attitude towards sexual question on RevLeft. Maybe it is down to it being a predominately young male audience, and maybe as a reaction to the intense social conservatism in the US where many of the posters are.

I don't think that casual sex is particularly demonized. Of course it comes under attack as one of the things destroying society from religious moralists, but that is about it.

'9' is right. It is something that most people do. Also for most people most long term relationships start with what is casual sex. You don't sleep with somebody for the first time expecting them to be your lifelong partner.

Devrim

[NoOneIsIllegal]

The only ones criticizing are the ones not having it.

[Dimentio]

I found a very interesting article...

http://www.alternet.org/sex/147884/6_reasons_to_have_casual_sex/

One of the things that bother me is that why is our society so negative towards casual sex while it favors monogamous relationships and even celebrates marriage?

Is this another trait of capitalist society?

Not really. Much like racism, its a consequence of early capitalism (and to a large extent different puritanist movements in the 15th and 16th centuries).

In Sweden, the sunday addenda to the main newspapers are all pro-casual sex and even giving people advice on how to have female-on-female sex while being in a heterosexual relationship, on what sex toys are the best, and how to handle a polyamorous relationship as well as mock tests on gay sex terms.

That might be because the Nordic countries in general are more secular, but I think that capitalism in general is moving in that direction.

The USA for example is less moralist today than it was in 1910.

Under capitalism, there has slowly been a breakdown of all repressive institutions apart from the institution upholding property relations.

Of course, there has been non-puritan civilisations before, like ancient Rome.

[Quail]

I find it odd that people on here are so judgemental about people who have casual sex.

Casual sex can be a fun confidence boost for some people, or it can be a way or dealing with emotional problems. If someone is doing it for the right reasons, they shouldn't be judged for it.

[progressive_lefty]

I personally can see some point in opposition towards casual sex.
From my point of view, I'm not really interested in girls that have slept with a bunch of guys, and I'm not really the kind of guy that likes to sleep with a bunch of women. I think you'll usually find that promiscuous men and women always seem to attract each other, bar the odd informality/or mistake on the behalf of someone that wasn't aware of the circumstances. I guess the way I see it, sex is a big thing, and when you commit to having sex with a woman in a short period of knowing her, you have to realise that she might see being with you beyond this act, and so therefore, it's not so easy to just walk away from having casual sex with a girl (though there are obviously girls that can handle that).

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The struggle for sexual liberation is - and should largely be - a struggle for taking away sex from politics, in the term of surveillance, control and the public. Sex, like religion, food flavours and musical taste should be separated from the political sphere - the sphere where everything is everyone's business.


Nonsense. Nothing exists outside of politics.

[Tenka]

My standards are too reasonable for 'casual sex' to have any appeal to me. Most people are imbeciles, and this quality is an overwhelming turn-off.

If you wouldn't want to be in a long-term relationship with someone, they really aren't worth fucking.

[Il Medico]

Nonsense. Nothing exists outside of politics.
I really really really really really hope you are kidding.



Also, as for the OP:
Because of tradition morality (mainly from religion) that plays to the benefit of the current structure of Society (capitalism). But I agree with Devrim, it isn't super demonized, even in America. (and we are huge prudes.)


Also, Am I the only one tired of reading about Thomas' sex life?

[Dimentio]

Nonsense. Nothing exists outside of politics.

Okay, tell me the correct line on Tacos then?

[Obs]

Okay, tell me the correct line on Tacos then?
"Your tomato soup is reactionary!"

[Crux]

Okay, tell me the correct line on Tacos then?
A dual symbol of spanish colonalism and the latino minority in appropriation by capitalist cultural norms.



;)

[Tenka]

Tacos are food. Food is fuel for the revolutionary (or not) mind! It's not so complicated as you would make it out to be. Food is no doubt political, as possession of it is means to life.

[Dimentio]

Tacos are food. Food is fuel for the revolutionary (or not) mind! It's not so complicated as you would make it out to be. Food is no doubt political, as possession of it is means to life.

Yes. My point is, the reason why something is suddenly political is that it generally is made scarce, either through laws or actual physical scarcity. The struggle should really be a struggle from politics.

[NecroCommie]

I think it loses its meaning if you just go around banging anyone who looks attractive.
Since when did it have meaning beyond just banging?

[ContrarianLemming]

note: couples which ingage in "open relationships" - ie: the husband is free to have sex with another mans wife feely, no one has a problem with it, and visa versa - tend to be happier and healthier relationships

theres a difference between "making love" and sex.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Nonsense. Nothing exists outside of politics.
I do.

[Dimentio]

note: couples which ingage in "open relationships" - ie: the husband is free to have sex with another mans wife feely, no one has a problem with it, and visa versa - tend to be happier and healthier relationships

theres a difference between "making love" and sex.

I think that's an individual question. What is making one individual happy could have no effect on another individual. Moreover, some people are so certain of themselves that they almost always could acquire happiness, whereas others have so stilted emotions that they never could reach true happiness.

Ultimately, that is not something which should - or could - be regulated politically.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Okay, tell me the correct line on Tacos then?
Whats the correct line on my nipples.

(Oh shit, I have a political tattoo on my boob from back in my authoritarian days):(

[NecroCommie]

I think that's an individual question. What is making one individual happy could have no effect on another individual. Moreover, some people are so certain of themselves that they almost always could acquire happiness, whereas others have so stilted emotions that they never could reach true happiness.

Ultimately, that is not something which should - or could - be regulated politically.
On that I agree. I would also like to add that political organs have no right to assume any form of sexuality or relationship.

[Delenda Carthago]

There are also cults that encourage and revolve around casual sex and so called "sexual liberation", so that doesn't really say anything.
Well,actually,being "against" casual sex for the hell of it its just like beeing pro it:Both cases,you have to put yourself in a box,and adjust your behaviour on those rules,which is bs in the end of the day.I am pro people doing whatever THE FUCK they want to.You cant/shouldnt force either way...

[Dimentio]

With the exception of people having sex without consent or with agents who could not consent either to age, intoxication, unawareness, specie-differences or other factors.

This should be a given, but after the al8 debacle...

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

With the exception of people having sex without consent or with agents who could not consent either to age, intoxication, unawareness, specie-differences or other factors.

This should be a given, but after the al8 debacle...
As long as the sex is truly consensual I don't give a fuck how many people someone fucks.

[Dimentio]

Neither do I. Read what I wrote again. ^^

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Neither do I. Read what I wrote again. ^^
I was know what you wrote. I was agreeing.

[Vendetta]

A cause of drugs? :confused:

[kitsune]

I think much of it has to do with cultural conditioning. People are taught from the time they're children that certain behaviors are "bad," and those ideas are continually reinforced. It becomes an unquestioned assumption, which makes it difficult to reject that idea, or even to examine it objectively, and most never try. They simply fit the belief into the context of their value system.

[durhamleft]

It's a cause of drugs and dragging home people you wished you never slept with when sobering up...

:lol:

Go on then bubbles, let me in on your little secret. You have sex with someone you meet in a club and therefore naturally proceed to shoot smack?

[InuyashaKnight]

I don't care if people have sex. Thats their choice and not mine to interfere

[gorillafuck]

Nonsense. Nothing exists outside of politics.
Would you consider musical scales to be progressive or reactionary politically speaking?

[Reznov]

When you get some disease or god knows whatever you can get nowadays, dont complain.

[Rafiq]

Hey guys, not to be offensive, but what if someone you know dear and love (Mother, Sister, Girlfriend) went and had sex with a bunch of people. It is natural to love someone, so, when you love a girl, or a man, you don't want them to have sex with anyone but you, so put this into someone else's perspective.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Hey guys, not to be offensive, but what if someone you know dear and love (Mother, Sister, Girlfriend) went and had sex with a bunch of people. It is natural to love someone, so, when you love a girl, or a man, you don't want them to have sex with anyone but you, so put this into someone else's perspective.
Well if you don't want your mother to have sex with anyone but you, that sounds to freudian for me to understand.

[Ele'ill]

Hey guys, not to be offensive, but what if someone you know dear and love (Mother, Sister, Girlfriend) went and had sex with a bunch of people. It is natural to love someone, so, when you love a girl, or a man, you don't want them to have sex with anyone but you, so put this into someone else's perspective.


The issue isn't being in a relationship and continuing to have sex with lots of people. Unless that's what you and your partner want.

It's about being single and 'getting lots of ass.'

[Ele'ill]

As a side note- is everyone- male and female- on this site ovulating?

There is an overabundance of sex threads and sex posts.

[leftace53]

Hey guys, not to be offensive, but what if someone you know dear and love (Mother, Sister, Girlfriend) went and had sex with a bunch of people. It is natural to love someone, so, when you love a girl, or a man, you don't want them to have sex with anyone but you, so put this into someone else's perspective.

Its adorable that you only feel the need to impose your morality on mothers sisters, and girlfriends, but obviously not on fathers, or brothers. Nice save with the "or a man" thing. Regardless, some people's love is not monogamous, so sweeping generalizations, while it may work for you, don't necessarily work for us all.

[ZeroNowhere]

Well if you don't want your mother to have sex with anyone but you, that sounds to freudian for me to understand.
He was stressing that it is a complex issue.

Sorry.


Hey guys, not to be offensive, but what if someone you know dear and love (Mother, Sister, Girlfriend) went and had sex with a bunch of people. It is natural to love someone, so, when you love a girl, or a man, you don't want them to have sex with anyone but you, so put this into someone else's perspective.Well, that would depend on the relationship, and is probably something which the two members would have to agree on. Of course, if one betrays the other's trust, then the other has every right to terminate the relationship. Nonetheless, some people may be perfectly fine with their partner screwing around, I suppose, and others may be alright so long as it's only screwing and not actual affection. I don't think that it's necessarily natural to not want somebody to have sex with anybody else, and it's not a necessary part of love, although I don't think that there's much wrong with it, necessarily.


Would you consider musical scales to be progressive or reactionary politically speaking?Psychotic Waltz were pretty progressive, I hear. The guys nearly abolished capitalism with a riff once.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

He was stressing that it is a complex issue.

Sorry.


That maybe true, but I was just stressing that he must have a complex.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

As a side note- is everyone- male and female- on this site ovulating?

There is an overabundance of sex threads and sex posts.
No. I'm actually feeling really *****y, retaining water, craving chocolate.

[nip]

Because it's usually underage teenagers.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I'm not underage, thank you very much.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Would you consider musical scales to be progressive or reactionary politically speaking?

Music theory is 100% reactionary rubbish.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Music theory is 100% reactionary rubbish.

I like music. :crying: Am I reactionary rubbish too?

[nip]

Because it's usually underage teenagers.


I'm not underage, thank you very much.

Notice how I put usually in there.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Notice how I put usually in there.
The people who've managed to get into my pants are, more often than not, older than me.

[nip]

The people who've managed to get into my pants are, more often than not, older than me.

Define older.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Define older.
Any age over 23 is older than me. Though my last relationship was with someone twice my age.
Since then I've basically said no more relationships. I don't do commitment.

[Tenka]

A good (actually disgusting and contemptible) portion of this thread surely belongs in Chit-Chat. Maybe someone should amputate.

[bailey_187]

I think it loses its meaning if you just go around banging anyone who looks attractive.

nah it dont

[nip]

Any age over 23 is older than me. Though my last relationship was with someone twice my age.
Since then I've basically said no more relationships. I don't do commitment.

OK just didn't if older was like one year or as you said someone twice your age.

[9]

A good (actually disgusting and contemptible) portion of this thread surely belongs in Chit-Chat. Maybe someone should amputate.

Agreed. The whole last however many pages of one-liners should be split and trashed.

[gorillafuck]

Hey guys, not to be offensive, but what if someone you know dear and love (Mother, Sister, Girlfriend) went and had sex with a bunch of people. It is natural to love someone, so, when you love a girl, or a man, you don't want them to have sex with anyone but you, so put this into someone else's perspective.
Oh no, my sister is having sex with people! The horror!

I notice you only mention you think its bad when females are promiscuous....

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

A good (actually disgusting and contemptible) portion of this thread surely belongs in Chit-Chat. Maybe someone should amputate.
How is it disgusting?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

nah it dont
Well, it may to some.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It's really strange to me that some *ahem* Stalinists take a dim view on certain libertine initiatives, such as casual sex and drug use. It makes me seriously question what they're fighting for...cuz personally I'm hoping that communist society puts Sodom & Gomorrah to shame. I want to live long enough to witness some serious Fall of the Roman Empire-type shit.

[bailey_187]

It's really strange to me that some *ahem* Stalinists take a dim view on certain libertine initiatives, such as casual sex and drug use. It makes me seriously question what they're fighting for...cuz personally I'm hoping that communist society puts Sodom & Gomorrah to shame. I want to live long enough to witness some serious Fall of the Roman Empire-type shit.

im not fucking no angels god sends though

[Hexen]

Oh no, my sister is having sex with people! The horror!

I notice you only mention you think its bad when females are promiscuous....

The "Men can be promiscuous but women are expected to be faithful to their men" model is also the pure definition of Hypocrisy...

[Os Cangaceiros]

im not fucking no angels god sends though

your loss!

[9]

It's really strange to me that some *ahem* Stalinists take a dim view on certain libertine initiatives, such as casual sex and drug use.

Self-denial is the only way! Physical pleasure is base and degenerate. Torture and mass rape, on the other hand (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalin-use-toture-t140559/index.html)...



I notice you only mention you think its bad when females are promiscuous....

That's hardly an uncommon sentiment, although I'm sure it varies from place to place. I don't think it is so unreasonable to imagine it could have its origins in, or be a holdover from, this:


Originally Posted by the article leftace53 linked to a couple pages back (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/27/ryan.promiscuity.normal/index.html?hpt=C2)
"For nomadic foragers who might walk hundreds of kilometers each month, personal property -- anything needed to be carried -- is kept to a minimum. Little thought is given to who owns the land, or the fish in the river, the clouds in the sky, or the kids underfoot. An individual male's "parental investment," in other words, tends to be diffuse in societies like those in which we evolved, not directed toward one particular woman -- or harem of women -- and her children, as conventional views of our sexual evolution insist.

But when people began living in settled agricultural communities, social reality shifted deeply and irrevocably. It became crucially important to know where your property ended and your neighbor's began. Remember the 10th Commandment: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that [is] thy neighbor's." With agriculture, the human female went from occupying a central, respected role to being just another possession for men to accumulate and defend, along with his house, slaves and asses."But before moralists start raaaging, it's purely speculation.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Thou shalt not covet your neighbor's ass. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[durhamleft]

Any age over 23 is older than me. Though my last relationship was with someone twice my age.
Since then I've basically said no more relationships. I don't do commitment.

Aged 16, my last relationship was with a 22 year old, though I have tended to be with women aged 1 to 3 years older than myself. I think it's to do with finding the maturity attractive, as whenever I have 'got' with females of my age, they have always looked old...

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Aged 16, my last relationship was with a 22 year old, though I have tended to be with women aged 1 to 3 years older than myself. I think it's to do with finding the maturity attractive, as whenever I have 'got' with females of my age, they have always looked old...
It just happens to be that they are older than me, I'm into personalities.

Right now I'm happy on my own though.:) Just me and my vibrator.:thumbup:

[Bright Banana Beard]

It is more of not knowing where the others' boundary end up. I don't mind women being promiscuous and I wouldn't worry about it unless she just using me and treating me shit. This is the case where the problems rose. Sometime, the women thinks men doesn't have emotional feelings about her when the opposite is the true.

Just be aware about others, no matter how simple it is.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

If I'm honest with them, they can decide if they want me. If they can handle me being a tramp, great, have fun.
If they can't handle it, oh well they better find someone else.

[GreenCommunism]

i am pretty inexperienced in sex, but casual sex doesn't make much sense to me, i fall in love with too many girls at once to think it is possible. of course it isn't true and deep love that you have when you are in a couple for years and develop a strong sense of intimacy. but having sex with a woman i don't fall in love at first sight or so would be pushing it for me.

also, most people think sex with monogamy and i very much disagree, though i would argue that i am more deeper in love with one girl or another at certain time. i can attest to the fact that being in love with multiple person is possible.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

i am pretty inexperienced in sex, but casual sex doesn't make much sense to me, i fall in love with too many girls at once to think it is possible. of course it isn't true and deep love that you have when you are in a couple for years and develop a strong sense of intimacy. but having sex with a woman i don't fall in love at first sight or so would be pushing it for me.

also, most people think sex with monogamy and i very much disagree, though i would argue that i am more deeper in love with one girl or another at certain time. i can attest to the fact that being in love with multiple person is possible.
Love is overrated. I don't do love.:tt2:

[GreenCommunism]

i only got much of a boner strictly sexually when i was a kid full of hormones.

maybe i mistake a desire for affection with love.

[Comrade Gwydion]

This might be the perfect time to bring it up but I keep hearing an anti-communist rumor that Lenin abolished marriage in the USSR's early days? Is this true?

Anarchists in catalonia did....
Though they eventually did issue 'proletarian marriage' (but it wasn't called marriage)

[Fietsketting]

Love is overrated. I don't do love.:tt2:
Haha thats what i said for ages and then BANG, you can't sleep because the other person aint home yet from the late night shift. :blushing:

[Blackscare]

i am pretty inexperienced in sex, but casual sex doesn't make much sense to me, i fall in love with too many girls at once to think it is possible. of course it isn't true and deep love that you have when you are in a couple for years and develop a strong sense of intimacy. but having sex with a woman i don't fall in love at first sight or so would be pushing it for me.

also, most people think sex with monogamy and i very much disagree, though i would argue that i am more deeper in love with one girl or another at certain time. i can attest to the fact that being in love with multiple person is possible.



I think you're confused as to what love really is if you think you can "fall in love" at "first sight". Especially if you're apparently doing this quite often with multiple women. Methinks you're confusing simple infatuation with love.

[rednordman]

I must be the only person who is perplexed by the title of this thread. Is casual sex really demonised as much as it used to be? I very much doubt it.

If anything, its more of a shame to be a virgin nowadays than to be promiscusus (there is nothing wrong with either really).

I think the real problem with casual sex is whether or not it is really casual at all. Alot of people who do this tend to have underlying feelings to the person they are doing with. OK, this isnt the case of having sex with total strangers, but is that what the op actually meant? That is something totally different, with is rather dodgy in my opinion, simply because you dont know that person. So called meaningless sex with someone who you want it to mean something with, WILL cause problems in the long run.

If you look at the media, it is often the case that 'sex sells', and lets be honest, celebrites (especially men) who have reputations for sleeping with lots of people, are generally celebrated rather than condemned. All that society seems to be geared towards today, is trying to emulate pop culture, so I do not see how anyone can actually say that casual sex is demonised at all.

After all, How many of you (men) have recieved a bollocking from your mates after getting laid? come on be honest.

I think the really issue is whether casual sex and promiscuinity is the same for women as it is for men. Men seem to get away with it, with pats on the back. Women get labelled hoars and tagged as dirty...

[Magón]

Love is overrated. I don't do love.:tt2:

SOMEONE QUICKLY FIND ME A BETTER WORD THAN LOVE! I NEED TO FINISH THIS SENTENCE WITH: I THINK I'M IN (insert better word than love.)

Esperanza, will you come live with me! :lol: I'm already living with a chick, but she wouldn't mind... I'm pretty sure she'd be open for anything. :drool: :lol:

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

SOMEONE QUICKLY FIND ME A BETTER WORD THAN LOVE! I NEED TO FINISH THIS SENTENCE WITH: I THINK I'M IN (insert better word than love.)Euphoria


Esperanza, will you come live with me! :lol: I'm already living with a chick, but she wouldn't mind... I'm pretty sure she'd be open for anything. :drool: :lol:
Well, Depends on whats in it for me...

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I must be the only person who is perplexed by the title of this thread. Is casual sex really demonised as much as it used to be? I very much doubt it.

If anything, its more of a shame to be a virgin nowadays than to be promiscusus (there is nothing wrong with either really).

I think the real problem with casual sex is whether or not it is really casual at all. Alot of people who do this tend to have underlying feelings to the person they are doing with. OK, this isnt the case of having sex with total strangers, but is that what the op actually meant? That is something totally different, with is rather dodgy in my opinion, simply because you dont know that person. So called meaningless sex with someone who you want it to mean something with, WILL cause problems in the long run.

If you look at the media, it is often the case that 'sex sells', and lets be honest, celebrites (especially men) who have reputations for sleeping with lots of people, are generally celebrated rather than condemned. All that society seems to be geared towards today, is trying to emulate pop culture, so I do not see how anyone can actually say that casual sex is demonised at all.

After all, How many of you (men) have recieved a bollocking from your mates after getting laid? come on be honest.

I think the really issue is whether casual sex and promiscuinity is the same for women as it is for men. Men seem to get away with it, with pats on the back. Women get labelled hoars and tagged as dirty...
You think I have a problem with being a whore? But I'm not dirty.

[Magón]

Euphoria


Well, Depends on whats in it for me...


Hmm... Euphoria works.. well, Euphoric Bliss is more like it. :lol:

And I'm not exactly sure besides Sex, what you're into, but living in Santa Cruz hasn't been a bad time in my life. If you can stand living in a College/University Town. Besides, there's the beach/ocean! :thumbup1:

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Hmm... Euphoria works.. well, Euphoric Bliss is more like it. :lol:

And I'm not exactly sure besides Sex, what you're into, but living in Santa Cruz hasn't been a bad time in my life. If you can stand living in a College/University Town. Besides, there's the beach/ocean! :thumbup1:
Santa Cruz, as in California? I'm sold.:thumbup:

[durhamleft]

It just happens to be that they are older than me, I'm into personalities.

Right now I'm happy on my own though.:) Just me and my vibrator.:thumbup:

Me too, but... I think I find older people more emotionally mature and prefer them because of that? I'm actually not that sure what it is.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Me too, but... I think I find older people more emotionally mature and prefer them because of that? I'm actually not that sure what it is.
Stability. I like someone who is stable. Otherwise I'd rather be on my own.

[durhamleft]

Stability. I like someone who is stable. Otherwise I'd rather be on my own.

I'm not sure, I can't handle people who call you up every other night in tears, and I wouldn't want a partner who messed around, but at the same time, I don't like people to be normal, but I suppose that's different to stability. Difficult one.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I'm not sure, I can't handle people who call you up every other night in tears, and I wouldn't want a partner who messed around, but at the same time, I don't like people to be normal, but I suppose that's different to stability. Difficult one.
I'm high maintanence. I'm a bit prissy. Do the math.

[Tenka]

Self-denial is the only way! Physical pleasure is base and degenerate. Torture and mass rape, on the other hand (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalin-use-toture-t140559/index.html)...


Before you make a habit of bringing that up, you might want to remind yourself that you're the first one in the thread to mention rape, and that al8 was the only one advocating rape.


I must be the only person who is perplexed by the title of this thread. Is casual sex really demonised as much as it used to be? I very much doubt it.

If anything, its more of a shame to be a virgin nowadays than to be promiscusus (there is nothing wrong with either really).

Also this.

To me, promiscuity indicates in a person a dismal impulsiveness and general lack of character. These are obviously subjective values, but I can't feel a sense of comradery among vapid whores.

Standards are why I don't have friends.:(

[Os Cangaceiros]

life's tough for otaku stalinists :crying:

[Tenka]

life's tough for otaku stalinists :crying:

I'm neither of those things, honestly. Maybe if I was I'd have friends.

Back to the topic, then?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

To me, promiscuity indicates in a person a dismal impulsiveness and general lack of character. These are obviously subjective values, but I can't feel a sense of comradery among vapid whores.
There are varying factors that can effect one into promiscuity. For me it was habit caused by shit I went through.



Standards are why I don't have friends.:(
Standards? What are those? A new kind of chair?

[Autumn Red]

Biologically there is in fact a chemical in both sexes known as Oxytocin that actually creates a bond between the two parties. Oxytocin is responsible for many things, everything from orgasms to a woman's maternal instincts when they see their babies for the first time. This is also one of the contributing factors to why women stay with abusive men.

Anyways, one could say that if you have sex with a multitude of partners it would be detrimental to your mental and emotional health. Eventually you will simply be unable to connect with a partner on a deeper emotional level because you've basically overused your Oxytocin levels. (Sort of like having an orgasm too often, will affect the amount of pleasure you get each time)

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Biologically there is in fact a chemical in both sexes known as Oxytocin that actually creates a bond between the two parties. Oxytocin is responsible for many things, everything from orgasms to a woman's maternal instincts when they see their babies for the first time. This is also one of the contributing factors to why women stay with abusive men.

Anyways, one could say that if you have sex with a multitude of partners it would be detrimental to your mental and emotional health. Eventually you will simply be unable to connect with a partner on a deeper emotional level because you've basically overused your Oxytocin levels. (Sort of like having an orgasm too often, will affect the amount of pleasure you get each time)
Explains a lot. Well, except for the fact I still have a maternal instinct.

I don't like this oxycotin. It runs out too fast.

[rednordman]

You think I have a problem with being a whore? But I'm not dirty.I never said there was anything wrong with it tbh;). Just that it is a term that is used to piginhole 'easy' women;-P

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I never said there was anything wrong with it tbh;). Just that it is a term that is used to piginhole 'easy' women;-P
Like myself...

[9]

Biologically there is in fact a chemical in both sexes known as Oxytocin that actually creates a bond between the two parties. Oxytocin is responsible for many things, everything from orgasms to a woman's maternal instincts when they see their babies for the first time. This is also one of the contributing factors to why women stay with abusive men.

Anyways, one could say that if you have sex with a multitude of partners it would be detrimental to your mental and emotional health. Eventually you will simply be unable to connect with a partner on a deeper emotional level because you've basically overused your Oxytocin levels. (Sort of like having an orgasm too often, will affect the amount of pleasure you get each time)

Explains a lot.

No, it fucking doesn't - it's essentialist bullshit.

This whole thread is really pathetic.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

No, it fucking doesn't - it's essentialist bullshit.

This whole thread is really pathetic.
I was referring to my specific case. Why I'm so fucked up.

[9]

I was referring to my specific case. Why I'm so fucked up.

ugh, yeah, sorry.
shitty day + logging into revleft = bad idea. I prob should have flamed the otaku stalinist instead, but yours was the last comment I read.

[MarxSchmarx]

Interesting note: One of the common threads that run through nearly all cults (The People's Temple, The Temple of Love, The Narubians, Heaven's Gate etc.) is the repression of member's sexuality.

Controlling people's sexuality is just one facet of social control, more generally.

You forgot to mention Roman Catholicism and Islam, not to mention Tibetan Buddhism and Orthodox Judaism.

[the last donut of the night]

I legitimately find this thread fucking creepy. We, revolutionaries, should be at the forefront of every progressive (ie. that which is in the interest of the proletariat) cause in society today, yet here I see "revolutionaries" spewing ridiculous and patronizing lines on casual sex that most people our (presuming most people here are either teenagers or twenty-somethings) age don't really carry. And even if they did, we shouldn't agree with them, for fuck's sakes. People, let me fuck who I want to, regardless of race, gender, political orientation, lifestyle, etc, etc.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

ugh, yeah, sorry.
shitty day + logging into revleft = bad idea. I prob should have flamed the otaku stalinist instead, but yours was the last comment I read.
I'll admit, I'm not the best example of a healthy productive person. Sometimes I feel like I hate myself. But I'm actually sort of trying to pull my life together.

[Invader Zim]

I don't know, but i think there are both social and 'natural' reasons for it. Social reasons, in that it is expected. 'Natural' in that if you have ever been in a really serious relationship, there is a time when you simply don't notice other people in the same way. Sure you might see that they are attractive, but you just aren't interested.

Well that is my experience, and I knew that my last relationship was in a really shit state when I did begin to take interest in other women, which i hadn't done for about 2-3 years.

[bailey_187]

whats an otuko stalinist?

[Autumn Red]

No, it fucking doesn't - it's essentialist bullshit. Science is bullshit? Where's the evidence to say otherwise?



whats an otuko stalinist?Otuko (or Otaku) in Japanese describes an obsessed person, but usually it is in reference to manga or anime. o_o'

[TwoSevensClash]

Use condoms don't break peoples hearts and have fun and casual sex is fine by me.:)

[Widerstand]

Use condoms don't break peoples hearts and have fun and casual sex is fine by me.:)

Signed. As long as the casualty is mutual there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

[Scary Monster]

I think it loses its meaning if you just go around banging anyone who looks attractive.

Lol but why is sex supposed to have this "meaning" though? People do it cuz it feels good.

[Cyberwave]

I'd say the only real reason for "casual sex" is boredom within capitalist society. Of course it feels good and there is probably the sheer "perversion factor," or the thrill, but really it is just a means of curing boredom and even the stress that just inevitably builds up from living in capitalism. Then considering there is on the one hand, the conservative attitude towards sex, and the more liberalized view, it just further illustrates the inconsistent and contradictory nature of society, and there then become scores of ways to look at casual sex. In some sense, those who are "pro-casual sex" may be considered hedonists, or individualists of sorts, but it really depends who you're asking, and most importantly the context of the sexual acts themselves. I think when it comes down to it, casual sex, pornography, and the like are generally "counter-productive" but only because capitalism itself breeds such counter-productivity [e.g. wasting talents on redundancy and so forth]. However, I don't necessarily believe that casual sex should be punished, nor that sex should be controlled. Homosexuality and the like should be perfectly legalized, BDSM should be perfectly legalized, and so forth. The real problem is when these types of things become "publicity acts." Being so excessively open about ones sexual life is just problematic and trivial, and so this type of irresponsible behavior should be "demonized." Ideally, communist society would evolve past "casual sex" because of its new-found appreciation for humanity.

[9]

Science is bullshit?

Things you learned from your church =/= science. I don't really care to have this discussion, though. The wikipedia entry on oxytocin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin) is, surprisingly, well-sourced. Take five minutes to read it.


I'd say the only real reason for "casual sex" is boredom within capitalist society. Of course it feels good and there is probably the sheer "perversion factor," or the thrill, but really it is just a means of curing boredom and even the stress that just inevitably builds up from living in capitalism.


I think when it comes down to it, casual sex, pornography, and the like are generally "counter-productive" but only because capitalism itself breeds such counter-productivity [e.g. wasting talents on redundancy and so forth]. However, I don't necessarily believe that casual sex should be punished:lol:

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Homosexuality and the like should be perfectly legalized
... such high expectations for freedom...

... Oh of course, us queers should just be thankful and praise Hoxha for graciously allowing us to exist.:rolleyes:

[Cyberwave]

... such high expectations for freedom...

... Oh of course, us queers should just be thankful and praise Hoxha for graciously allowing us to exist.:rolleyes:

I figured someone would mention that, although I'm surprised you said Hoxha and not Stalin. At any rate, there is ironically some evidence that Hoxha was himself a closeted homosexual. However, there isn't a whole lot of evidence on the specifics of Hoxha or Stalin's policies regarding homosexuality. As far as Stalin goes, Yezhov was bisexual and there was a Soviet diplomat who was homosexual, but Stalin never troubled them for their sexuality. He seldom spoke of the subject anyway, and I doubt Hoxha did all that much as well. Where it was delegalized in the Soviet Union or Albania, you have to examine historical context, and most importantly, you can't pitifully attempt to pin the problems on one individual alone.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I figured someone would mention that, although I'm surprised you said Hoxha and not Stalin. At any rate, there is ironically some evidence that Hoxha was himself a closeted homosexual. However, there isn't a whole lot of evidence on the specifics of Hoxha or Stalin's policies regarding homosexuality. As far as Stalin goes, Yezhov was bisexual and there was a Soviet diplomat who was homosexual, but Stalin never troubled them for their sexuality. He seldom spoke of the subject anyway, and I doubt Hoxha did all that much as well. Where it was delegalized in the Soviet Union or Albania, you have to examine historical context, and most importantly, you can't pitifully attempt to pin the problems on one individual alone.
I wasn't even referring to history, I was referring to your specific statements. It is like saying that left handedness should be legal. I was saying your bar is set kind of low.

p.s. I kind of figured that would be your reply.

[Invader Zim]

I figured someone would mention that, although I'm surprised you said Hoxha and not Stalin. At any rate, there is ironically some evidence that Hoxha was himself a closeted homosexual. However, there isn't a whole lot of evidence on the specifics of Hoxha or Stalin's policies regarding homosexuality. As far as Stalin goes, Yezhov was bisexual and there was a Soviet diplomat who was homosexual, but Stalin never troubled them for their sexuality. He seldom spoke of the subject anyway, and I doubt Hoxha did all that much as well. Where it was delegalized in the Soviet Union or Albania, you have to examine historical context, and most importantly, you can't pitifully attempt to pin the problems on one individual alone.

While accepting the structural/functional role that Stalin played in the USSR, it is more than telling that under his regime the social structure of the regime altered from initial tolerance to sending homosexual to years of hard labour in the gulags. Your snivelling apologism is sickening.

[Thirsty Crow]

While accepting the structural/functional role that Stalin played in the USSR, it is more than telling that under his regime the social structure of the regime altered from initial tolerance to sending homosexual to years of hard labour in the gulags. Your snivelling apologism is sickening.
Even more so since sexual orientation has no bearing on one's acceptance of the existing order (given the fact that the apparatuses of this order have no stance towards its citizens' sexuality). In other words, this insistence on "historical context" is a blatant cop-out. What, did homosexuality pose a threat toSoviet demographics? Was it considered an STD which could produce depopulation?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

As far as Stalin goes, Yezhov was bisexual and there was a Soviet diplomat who was homosexual, but Stalin never troubled them for their sexuality.
So your almighty Stalin, the fearless leader with the porno mustache, was just an asshole who tokenized a couple gay men and you try to paint that as LGBT friendly?

Comes off like:
"I'm not homophobic, I have a gay friend."

[Obs]

So your almighty Stalin, the fearless leader with the porno mustache, was just an asshole who tokenized a couple gay men and you try to paint that as LGBT friendly?

Comes off like:
"I'm not homophobic, I have a gay friend."
That's totally what he said and this thread is totally supposed to be about Stalin.

[Cyberwave]

So your almighty Stalin, the fearless leader with the porno mustache, was just an asshole who tokenized a couple gay men and you try to paint that as LGBT friendly?

Comes off like:
"I'm not homophobic, I have a gay friend."

Would now be a good time to mention I'm gay myself? :)

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Would now be a good time to mention I'm gay myself? :)

Congratulations! I'm a transsexual who swings both ways.

[Autumn Red]

Things you learned from your church =/= science. I'm not saying I don't agree with casual sex, I'm saying there are always biological consequences for having sex. You have too much sex too often = the pleasure you get from orgasms starts to lower until you can build your oxytocin levels back up.

I didn't learn this from church. My Biology IV Honors teacher explained this all to us.

[9]

I'm saying there are always biological consequences for having sex.

Yeah (http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/08/cz_af_1008health.html).



I didn't learn this from church. My Biology IV Honors teacher explained this all to us [citation needed]OK, so I found this really long (pretty obnoxiously-written) piece which actually deals with all of the claims you've made in this thread. Here is an excerpt:



The oxytocin-and-sex bus seems to have really gotten its gas with Dr. Erik Keroack (http://www.slate.com/id/2154249), a popular lecturer for the National Right to Life Committee and the National Abstinence Clearinghouse. Ex-President Bush appointed him to head Title X, our national family planning program, for the Department of Health and Human Services. There are about a hundred reasons why that appointment made a lot of people feel stabby, but the biggest one is that Keroack was strongly against family planning. It was a lot like putting an anti-gun activist in charge of the NRA. Keroack was also particularly fond of talking about oxytocin and making claims about it (claims unsupported by science) to support his own agenda, such as that (http://www.abstinence.net/library/index.php?entryid=4641), "People who have misused their sexual faculty and become bonded to multiple persons will diminish the power of oxytocin to maintain a permanent bond with an individual."
Many claims about oxytocin regarding love, sex and bonding cite some science, but often very selectively and dubiously, so much so that some scientists whose studies have been used to make agenda-driven claims (http://www.huliq.com/421/how-keroack-got-oxytocin-wrong) have strongly objected (http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/525396/) to the use of their studies to do so. As well, when people are talking about studies done on oxytocin and sex or pair-bonding, the vast majority of those studies have been done with and about prairie voles, not people.
A prototypical conservative claim about oxytocin, sounds a lot like this (http://www.ampartnership.org/TeenAbstinenceOxytocin.asp):
Oxytocin is a hormone that is released in a woman during childbirth, nursing a child, and during sexual activity. Commonly referred to as “glue,” oxytocin creates a strong bond between the woman and the other involved. In the case of childbirth and nursing this bond is important because it creates a nurturing environment for the child. In a marriage relationship where sex is safe and beneficial, oxytocin helps keep the bond between a husband and wife strong. Outside of marriage however, the oxytocin bond can increase the emotional pain when the relationship has ended. Oxytocin is impartial. Whether during sexual activity between husband and wife or in a teenage hook-up, the hormone is still released and the bond is still created. Oxytocin promises an involuntary chemical commitment.
Every parent, educator, and school administrator can undertake the mission of teaching abstinence with heightened significance as the intensity of the oxytocin bond explains why teens suffer emotionally after breakups, and often even during a relationship. Sex was created to unite two people, bringing a bond unlike any other relationship. This powerful bond is what sustains husband and wife until “death do us part” contributing to trust and security. Outside of marriage the release of oxytocin can lead to distrust, hostility, and insecurity. Sexual relationships without commitment still have a lasting bond. Oxytocin even has the power to sustain attachment within abusive relationships.
That's from The Oxytocin Factor (Kerstin Uvnas-Moberg, 2003, Aspire, Scott Phelps, 2008, The Medical Institute of Sexual Health, 2006). The Medical Institute of Sexual Health is an abstinence-only organization (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Medical_Institute_for_Sexual_Healt h). Its advisory board reads like a Who's Who of purity pushers, including W. David Hager, another former Bush appointee, to the FDA's advisory board on reproductive health, who suggested prayer as a cure for PMS and whose ex-wife stated in The Nation that he had repeatedly raped her (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090706/valenti/2). The AMA it's not. I have not found any study done on oxytocin that shows oxytocin alone creates emotional bonds (rather than potentially playing a part in them or creating a feeling in someone they they may be bonded, even if they are not), no studies done exclusively within marriage to show it is different for married or unmarried people, and none done to determine what role, if any, oxytocin may play in the pain of a breakup. I also have not found any oxytocin studies done within or about intimate partner violence to support conclusions that the reason people stay attached to abusive partners is chemical. If only it were that simple.
These kinds of sentiments about oxytocin are often the impetus for such popular abstinence-only routines as "Miss Tape." (http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/033107dnmetabstinence.391dfeb.html) (Which I just demonstrated for my friend's four-year-old, who now promises to never tart it up.) Here's another example (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=567964) of some socially conservative claims about oxy:
Oxytocin also helps females bond with men. When a woman and man touch each other in a loving way, oxytocin is released in her brain. It makes her want more of that loving touch, and she begins to feel a bond with her partner. Sexual intercourse (http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3336) leads to the release of even more oxytocin, a desire (http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3393) to repeat the contact, and even stronger bonding. But, like dopamine, oxytocin is values-neutral. It's a chemical reaction, or, as the authors write: "[I]t is an involuntary process that cannot distinguish between a one-night stand and a lifelong soul mate. Oxytocin can cause a woman to bond to a man even during what was expected to be a short-term sexual relationship." So when that short-term relationship ends, the emotional fallout can be devastating, thanks to oxytocin.
"The authors" in that quote are Joe McIlhaney and Freda McKissic Bush, who are affiliated with the abstinence-only group the Medical Institute for Sexual Health.

[source] (http://www.scarleteen.com/blog/heather_corinna/2010/08/04/pump_up_the_voleume_talking_oxytocin)

[bcbm]

You have too much sex too often = the pleasure you get from orgasms starts to lower

a weak orgasm is still an orgasm

[Decommissioner]

I understand the attitude against casual sex. It is rubbish. Before I immersed myself in leftists politics about 4-5 years ago, I took a culturally conservative stance on sex, love, relationships in general. I was politically inclined towards leftism, and I've never been religious, but I will say the attitude against casual sex is rooted in monotheism..when I learned more about leftist politics and feminist politics, I began to understand the roots of my own disdain for casual sex. I realized that just being an atheist and a lefist does not shield one from being brainwashed by christian morals.

My stance on casual sex and monogamy is they are both natural, while not being de facto natural. We have sex to feel good...and what feels good for us means many different things. It can be just the feeling of the act itself, or it can be the feeling of acceptance, love. It can be as simple as stress relief...or it could be a conscious choice to have a child (something our higher brain functions enable us to do, since we can correlate sex with offspring).

I know this will sound stereotypical and "jock" ish..but to those morally opposed to casual sex...get the fuck out more. Did me a lot of good to actually meet all kinds of people of all walks of life in party settings, formal settings, and political settings. One thing that reinforced my prejudices, before taking on a more realistic view of sex and sexuality, was simply not socializing enough, and judging those that socialize in ways I did not. If you care about others having casual sex, chances are you care too much about sex. Any hardline stance for or against sexuality is to care too much about something that comes naturally, it is to mystify it and divorce it from the real human experience.

I could care less about sex, I go out and have fun. If I meet a partner that strikes me as a relationship type, I embrace it(though in this juncture in my life, I feel a serious relationship would drag me down). If someone approaches and just wants sex, and we are compatible and enjoy each others company..why the fuck not? I personally dont go out looking for sex, I find the act of chasing sex and relationships boring, I would much rather have fun with friends and do productive things which is why I take a more passive approach to sex and relationships. But some people love to preoccupy themselves with trying to get mates, either casually or for marriage..who am I to judge? I can respect those that just want to be in monogamous relationships, I understand how that feels because I once felt the same way, I just can't respect any stance taken that tries to uphold certain forms of sexuality and relationships over the other. Whatever makes us happy is natural and thats all that matters.

[Crux]

You have too much sex too often = the pleasure you get from orgasms starts to lower[...]
Tantrasex would be the obvious answer here.

[FreeFocus]

It's irresponsible in my opinion, but people can do what they want.

[pastradamus]

I used to do it all the time. Its only now when I look back at things I know how lucky I was that I never picked anything up from having causal sex. Even using contraceptives is no guarantee these days. Though it was college....and it was awesome. :D

[Scary Monster]

I'd say the only real reason for "casual sex" is boredom within capitalist society. Of course it feels good and there is probably the sheer "perversion factor," or the thrill, but really it is just a means of curing boredom and even the stress that just inevitably builds up from living in capitalism. Then considering there is on the one hand, the conservative attitude towards sex, and the more liberalized view, it just further illustrates the inconsistent and contradictory nature of society, and there then become scores of ways to look at casual sex. In some sense, those who are "pro-casual sex" may be considered hedonists, or individualists of sorts, but it really depends who you're asking, and most importantly the context of the sexual acts themselves. I think when it comes down to it, casual sex, pornography, and the like are generally "counter-productive" but only because capitalism itself breeds such counter-productivity [e.g. wasting talents on redundancy and so forth]. However, I don't necessarily believe that casual sex should be punished, nor that sex should be controlled. Homosexuality and the like should be perfectly legalized, BDSM should be perfectly legalized, and so forth. The real problem is when these types of things become "publicity acts." Being so excessively open about ones sexual life is just problematic and trivial, and so this type of irresponsible behavior should be "demonized." Ideally, communist society would evolve past "casual sex" because of its new-found appreciation for humanity.

Frankly, i think you are looking waaaayyyy too much into this. What two or more consenting people do with themselves should be no one else's business. People have always been having lots n lots of sex (casual or not) long before capitalist society, which is why there is so many of us!

[Adi Shankara]

Right now I'm happy on my own though.:) Just me and my vibrator.:thumbup:

Thanks for sharing! :thumbup1:

[Adi Shankara]

ANYWAYS...what one wants to do on their own is fine with me as long as they don't contribute to spreading sexual diseases or unwarranted pregnancies. otherwise, I want a girl who'll be mine and mine alone. casual sex gets boring without the emotional element anyways.

[NonServiam]

There is nothing *inherently* wrong with casual sex so long as one acknowledges that it serves only to satisfy selfish sexual longings. Like masturbation, casual sex is a mean to achieving self-gratification. Unlike masturbation however, it often takes on a exploitive character as many people are perfectly content in objectifying others for personal gain (status, self-gratification, sexual conquest etc.). One could see it as equivilent to the "profit motive", a motive that often lead to people stabbing each other in the back.

One cannot be lead to believe that promiscuity alone can lead to any form of revolution. In the real world (as oppossed to the idyllic world we like to believe we live in), casual sex and promiscuity often result in feelings of distrust, betrayal and jealousness, many times corroding social relationships and networks. More often than not those who engage in casual sex do not communicate their sexual practices with their partners and this often results in social rifts.

Capitalism has socialized us to seek to commodify one another and seeking out sex in others is perhaps no different. Unless the one who engages in casual sex actually maintains supporting relationships based on trust, reciprocity and communication it usually devolves into the dark and decadent parts of human behavior.

Furthermore the word Polyamory is disingenuous in implying "many loves". In my experience the greater majority of people who claim to be polyamourous, were not interested in cultivating loving relationships but were merely interested in hooking up with many people. In my observations, a great deal of polyamourous "relationships" ended in total disaster, becuase one person engaged in non-committal promiscuous practices, often without communicating this fact, while the other felt a need for stronger, often exclusive bonds.
The result is that the practitioner of polyamory often goes about life in a selfish bubble wrecking many hearts and social relations along the way. Mind you, I do believe there are those whom practice casual sex or polyamory in a reciprocal manner and it can be healthy. Unfortunately these people are more often then not an exception to the rule.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that some people here take the concept of "relationship" waaaaay too seriously.


it serves only to satisfy selfish sexual longings.

What's wrong with self-gratification? :blink:

[NonServiam]

Nothing is necessarily wrong with it. It's just important to recognize it for what it is.
Fucking will not bring about the revolution or any other societal change for that matter.

But there *is* something wrong with being a selfish prick. Our user-customizable, self-centric culture wants nothing more than for us to masturbate to our own identity and alienate ourselves from others. Selfish people are destructive and corrosive to social networks. By propagating the notion that selfishness is good, we feed into the anomie of society and lay groundwork for a more vicious back-stabbing society.

There is nothing wrong with satisfaction, we need it to not fall in the void of utter despair. However like all things it must be done in harmony with exterior forces.

While I certainly possess the tendencies of an Individualist/Egoist Anarchist I view it as a foundation to further reinforce the collective/communal. One must feel empowered, whole and confident as an individual if one is to engage in collective struggle. Often collectivism encourages us to view ourselves as a million little ants. Individualism on the other hand seeks to craft the individual into a fearsome Lion. If we were to layer these concepts in unison, we are mighty army of Lions, both operating in concert and in diverse cooperation.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Fucking will not bring about the revolution or any other societal change for that matter.

I don't think that anyone has argued that it would.

[Crux]

ANYWAYS...what one wants to do on their own is fine with me as long as they don't contribute to spreading sexual diseases or unwarranted pregnancies. otherwise, I want a girl who'll be mine and mine alone. casual sex gets boring without the emotional element anyways.
Oh do tell.

[leftace53]

Biologically there is in fact a chemical in both sexes known as Oxytocin that actually creates a bond between the two parties. Oxytocin is responsible for many things, everything from orgasms to a woman's maternal instincts when they see their babies for the first time. This is also one of the contributing factors to why women stay with abusive men.

Anyways, one could say that if you have sex with a multitude of partners it would be detrimental to your mental and emotional health. Eventually you will simply be unable to connect with a partner on a deeper emotional level because you've basically overused your Oxytocin levels. (Sort of like having an orgasm too often, will affect the amount of pleasure you get each time)

Yes yes I'm slow, but still, a reply is better than none right?
Now the argument above. Assuming this is true, that overdoing your oxytocin levels is possible, and results from vast amounts of sex, and other forms of bonding. Wouldn't this just be an argument against lots of sex (albeit a poor argument, but one nonetheless) and not just arguing against multiple sex partners? I mean, what if there is a monogamous couple that just likes sex. What about the amount of emotional stress that goes into a monogamous relationship? That has to use a shitload of oxytocin right?
So really, its just an argument against all forms of interaction with other people :lol:

[bailey_187]

bare wastemen/women inn a dis ting

[9]

lol what

[Ghost Hound]

Fucking will not bring about the revolution or any other societal change for that matter.

Surely all the rebels from the waist down must be revolutionizing in some way!

:sleep:

[bailey_187]

lol what


too many communists are.....social outkasts???? i dont mean no offense and shit but fuck it

[9]

^this drunken stalinohipster is disrupting the flow of abstinence-only propaganda.

[bailey_187]

^this drunken stalinohipster is disrupting the flow of abstinence-only propaganda.

burecrats like to orgy

[bailey_187]

^this drunken stalinohipster is disrupting the flow of abstinence-only propaganda.

im not hipstar son


call me hipstar because my shirt fit, but the way your girlfriend hit my chirp make her hip hurt, and she agree with my third position comminternnn

[Quail]

Go to bed, bailey_187

[Invader Zim]

There is nothing *inherently* wrong with casual sex so long as one acknowledges that it serves only to satisfy selfish sexual longings. Like masturbation, casual sex is a mean to achieving self-gratification. Unlike masturbation however, it often takes on a exploitive character as many people are perfectly content in objectifying others for personal gain (status, self-gratification, sexual conquest etc.). One could see it as equivilent to the "profit motive", a motive that often lead to people stabbing each other in the back.

Have you ever even had a sexual encounter, casual or otherwise? It doesn't sound like it, unless all of your partners have been assholes. In my experience all sexual relationships, be they serious or casual, revolve not around self gratification but mutual gratification. You don't merely attempt to get yourself off, rather you have a vested interest in your partners experience and the best sex is when it is really good for both of you. The next best is when it is really good for them, and at a distant third is when it is only good for you and not your partner.

-------

I guess the main problem with casual sex is difficulty in keeping it casual. To cite a (very) recent (in fact still more or less mid crunch) misadventure of my own, I started hooking up with a friend of mine, on a purely casual level, no strings. I wasn't interested in another serious relationship after having come out of one just a couple of weeks earlier, and she is waiting on another guy who was going out with another girl. So a casual sexual relationship, in addition to our already close friendship, was very comfortable until one of us got our heads straight.

Or at least that is what we both assumed going into is. However, I guess for me it began to get a little too serious. I could feel myself getting a little too involved, which I knew was a mistake, but I ignored it. So when this guy, who is the object of my friends 'desires' (for lack of a better word), broke up with his girlfriend I felt really weird in a very unpleasant way, because I knew full well that this spelled the end of my own 'casual' relationship, which for me was rapidly becoming less and less casual. Of course, this is before either of the other two parties had made a move (which they still haven't, at least as far as I'm aware). Which kind of brings you upto speed. Either way, for me it is time to end the sexual element of our relationship. Things will get out of hand and someone will get hurt, probably me; but by the same token I don't want to hurt anybody else, best to nip it in the bud.

[Rafiq]

Well if you don't want your mother to have sex with anyone but you, that sounds to freudian for me to understand.


Ewwww... Wow you totally misread what I wrote.


Just because people are protective over relatives doesn't mean they want to have sex with them! That's fucked up!

[Rafiq]

Its adorable that you only feel the need to impose your morality on mothers sisters, and girlfriends, but obviously not on fathers, or brothers. Nice save with the "or a man" thing. Regardless, some people's love is not monogamous, so sweeping generalizations, while it may work for you, don't necessarily work for us all.



Hey, I was just throwing it out their, something to think about for everyone.... That doesn't mean I fully endorse being protective. I probably don't.

I was just throwing something out their to think about.... For all of YOU. Not me, because to be honest, I am not protective nor do I "impose morality" on my siblings and if I DID than I would do it on brothers and fathers too.

And who the HELL said it works for me? Why don't you shut the fuck up and think before you start making stupid assumptions.

[Obzervi]

Most people on the right are sexually insecure and therefore want to control women's bodies. They feel threatened by the notion of women having sexual freedom.

[Inciting.Riots]

Things like monogamy, love, romance etc. are all ideals sold to the public in another attempt to tell us what we should be striving for in life. I have nothing against any of those things, or anyone who may engage in them. Nor am I saying that those things do not exist. That is just simply the way I see it.

I think that religion plays a large part in this as well as the demonizing of casual sex and the championing of monogamy in general. Except for, of course, some Mormon sects that condone/practice polygamy.

I think it is safe to say that the human animal is not monogamous by nature. If we were then men and women wouldn't lust after multiple people at a time. And make no mistake about it, they do and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. It is simply an evolutionary mechanism to insure the propagation of our species. I liken it to gardening; the more seeds you plant the higher the likelihood your plants will produce.

[Crux]

There's nothing "simply" about that though. Sex and lust is not foremost procreation but social interaction. Claiming that it's "root" lie in procreating the species, while a common belief, is probably not true.

[Inciting.Riots]

The act of sexual intercourse is obviously, first and foremost, about procreation of the species. That is really all it does. Aside from alleviate stress and all of that kind of stuff. Really, though, sex is something humans do because it furthers species. I doubt sex would exist if it weren't how we reproduce. But if you think its roots lie somewhere else you need to provide proof of that claim. Just saying that my views are "probably not true" is not going to cut it. Put up or shut up. :)

[Devrim]

The act of sexual intercourse is obviously, first and foremost, about procreation of the species... Really, though, sex is something humans do because it furthers species.

This isn't true. Sex is an activity that humans do because it is pleasurable. People don't sit there and think "Let's have an early night. I want to further the species".

Now of course, any species that didn't have an urge to indulge in its reproductive acts would go extinct pretty quickly, so it is sort of inevitable that sex is pleasurable. It is connected to reproduction, but that is generally not why we do it.

Devrim

[L.A.P.]

Marriage is cool and all and I myself plan on getting married one day but before I get married I'm going to have a lot of casual sex and it really is the only logical thing to do when you're at a young age. I'm actually surprised by how many people on a leftist formun are actually against casual sex. Sexuality is just another one of those things where people look down upon your desires and we all have to follow a certain code. Also, there was some point in history where religious groups just got disgusted with human sexuality and I couldn't tell you when (probably around the Dark Ages i could at least guess) and why that happened in history.

[Inciting.Riots]

This isn't true. Sex is an activity that humans do because it is pleasurable. People don't sit there and think "Let's have an early night. I want to further the species".

Now of course, any species that didn't have an urge to indulge in its reproductive acts would go extinct pretty quickly, so it is sort of inevitable that sex is pleasurable. It is connected to reproduction, but that is generally not why we do it.

Devrim

Are you really that daft? Yes, sex is pleasurable. If it weren't pleasurable we wouldn't want to do it. And no, people probably don't have furthering the species on their mind when they are having sex but that doesn't mean that isn't the main purpose of sex.

I never said people only have sex to procreate. However, sex, at its base level, is nothing more than a way of furthering the species. What about this is so hard to understand? Lay off the bong.

[Devrim]

You said:


Really, though, sex is something humans do because it furthers species

I don't think that is the basic reason why humans have sex.


Are you really that daft?

I see although you have only just joined, you have easily fitted into the general rudeness of forum culture here.


Lay off the bong.

I have no idea what this phrase means, but I presume it is supposed to be insulting in some way.

Devrim

[#FF0000]

Are you really that daft? Yes, sex is pleasurable. If it weren't pleasurable we wouldn't want to do it. And no, people probably don't have furthering the species on their mind when they are having sex but that doesn't mean that isn't the main purpose of sex.

I never said people only have sex to procreate. However, sex, at its base level, is nothing more than a way of furthering the species. What about this is so hard to understand? Lay off the bong.

lol Have an infraction

[Inciting.Riots]

I know exactly what I said. And that IS the reason why humans are motivated to have sex. It is a biological impulse that we all have. I never once said that procreation is the ONLY reason people have sex. However, whether you are capable of understanding it or not, procreation is the main underlying reason that the act of sex exists. This really shouldn't be such a hard concept to grasp.

Rude? I asked a question. If that question is rude to you then you are the one with the problem, not me.


I have no idea what this phrase means, but I presume it is supposed to be insulting in some way.

It means if you stop smoking so much weed, simple concepts might not so easily fly right over your head.

[Inciting.Riots]

lol Have an infraction

Oh noes! Not an infraction! Boo fucking hoo. You can take your infraction and shove it up your ass. It is not my fault some people are incapable of understanding a simple concept.:cool:

[Devrim]

I know exactly what I said. And that IS the reason why humans are motivated to have sex. It is a biological impulse that we all have. I never once said that procreation is the ONLY reason people have sex. However, whether you are capable of understanding it or not, procreation is the main underlying reason that the act of sex exists. This really shouldn't be such a hard concept to grasp.

Procreation is of course the reason that sex exists. That, however is not the reason that humans, or other animals do it. They do it because they find it pleasurable. Now of course they are genetically programmed to find it pleasurable, and any species that didn't have a genetic urge to commit the sexual act would die out pretty quickly.

That doesn't mean that this statement is correct:


Really, though, sex is something humans do because it furthers species.

It is not the reason why people do it. Humans were very probably having sex before they even realised that it perpetuated the species.

Devrim

[Inciting.Riots]

You just get dumber with every post.

It doesn't matter one bit whether people realized that sex furthered the species; though it is very doubtful that wasn't quickly figured out. People are biologically programed to want to have sex BECAUSE IT PROPAGATES THE SPECIES. So yes, procreation is one of the reasons that people have sex. Now cut it out before your idiocy gets me another infraction. ;)

[#FF0000]

lol you know what

In the future, please report rudeness and flaming. Especially in the Learning forum. I don't know about the other mods but I'm personally not tolerating it anymore.

[Invader Zim]

This isn't true. Sex is an activity that humans do because it is pleasurable. People don't sit there and think "Let's have an early night. I want to further the species".

Now of course, any species that didn't have an urge to indulge in its reproductive acts would go extinct pretty quickly, so it is sort of inevitable that sex is pleasurable. It is connected to reproduction, but that is generally not why we do it.

Devrim

Yes... and personally speaking, everytime i have had sex, ever, I have insisted that measures be taken so i don't "further the species" (though the world would be a better place with more of me). However, it seems obvious that the reason it feels good, and we are instinctively drawn to fornication, is because (if not intellectually, then) biologically, procreation is the point of sex. Naturally contraception, choice of partners, bodyclocks, etc. limit when actual reproduction occurs, but surely at a base level that is what it is about.

[Vanguard1917]

Bottom line: let's keep our noses out of other people's bedrooms.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Bottom line: let's keep our noses out of other people's bedrooms.
Unless someone invites you.

[Vanguard1917]

Unless someone invites you.

Agreed.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Ewwww... Wow you totally misread what I wrote.




Hey guys, not to be offensive, but what if someone you know dear and love (Mother, Sister, Girlfriend) went and had sex with a bunch of people. It is natural to love someone, so, when you love a girl, or a man, you don't want them to have sex with anyone but you, so put this into someone else's perspective.


you don't want them to have sex with anyone but you


anyone but you

Have fun Sigmund!

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

I agree with Lenin's opinion of casual sex, quoted in Zetkin's Reminiscences of Lenin


Although I am nothing but a gloomy ascetic, the so-called ‘new sexual life’ of the youth – and sometimes of the old – often seems to me to be purely bourgeois, an extension of bourgeois brothels.

(Cue the insipid comments from dogmatic anarchists about how this proves Lenin was an "authoritarian")

[Wanted Man]

I don't quite get why so many people here are so strongly opinionated about how others should have sex, and with whom. Why do some people have all kinds of endless apologising rants about how they "are all for sexual freedom", but then they see fit to bring up cults, chlamydia, etc.? Maybe some people aren't as enlightened as they think.

Also, maybe it's a cultural difference, but where is casual sex "demonised" as such? Certain kinds of it are demonised by certain groups within society, some of them more dominant in the US than elsewhere, but that's about it.

Tying into this, I get the idea that most people here are unclear about what "casual sex" is. Most people apparently need to see it within some particular context for it to make sense to them, like cheating in a relationship, or simply fucking around without getting into relationships at all, or open relationships. What if you simply get attracted to someone, have sex, and only develop a more serious relationship later on? Is that also "demonised"? Or, on the flip side, does that also tie in to chlamydia and doomsday cults?

Finally, I agree with this:


There is a very strange attitude towards sexual question on RevLeft. Maybe it is down to it being a predominately young male audience, and maybe as a reaction to the intense social conservatism in the US where many of the posters are.

I don't think that casual sex is particularly demonized. Of course it comes under attack as one of the things destroying society from religious moralists, but that is about it.

'9' is right. It is something that most people do. Also for most people most long term relationships start with what is casual sex. You don't sleep with somebody for the first time expecting them to be your lifelong partner.

Devrim

[Rafiq]

Have fun Sigmund!





LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL I meant a WOMAN/ MAN YOU ARE IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH LOOOOLLL...


I must admit I should have been more specific...

Sorry, but LOL I wasn't talking about RELATIVES. Sure, we all love our mothers and fathers... But not that much...


Anyway, I meant a Woman/Man, you are in a relationship with, not your mother :lol::lol::lol::lol:


So if you have a Girlfriend or boyfriend you have been in a relationship with say five years... And Your GirlFriend or BoyFriend was having Sex with another person.... I bet you would be pissed off.. Just saying....



Yeah, and A lot of people do not like their fathers/Mothers, even sisters/brothers having sex a lot... But those are only massive conservative familys..

[GreenCommunism]

sex has psychological benefits. sex and affection is the opposite of rape, it gets your self-esteem up. though it is understandable that someone would not want to have sex especially with a stranger when such an event has taken place in his/her life.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

I don't quite get why so many people here are so strongly opinionated about how others should have sex, and with whom. Why do some people have all kinds of endless apologising rants about how they "are all for sexual freedom", but then they see fit to bring up cults, chlamydia, etc.? Maybe some people aren't as enlightened as they think.

For me it's mostly an agreement with Lenin that the "casual sex" culture repeats the conditions of the "bourgeois brothel" by viewing sexual partners as commodities, and sex as primarily about "pleasure" (a.k.a. physical and psychological high) rather than social bonding.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

For me it's mostly an agreement with Lenin that the "casual sex" culture repeats the conditions of the "bourgeois brothel" by viewing sexual partners as commodities, and sex as primarily about "pleasure" (a.k.a. physical and psychological high) rather than social bonding.

Puritan nonsense dressed up in Marxist garments. There's nothing wrong with engaging in sex purely for mutual pleasure - Lenin's problem derives not from Marxism, but from his backward views on female sexuality.

[Hiero]

I don't know whether the answer that can be drawn form Engels "On the origin of the family and state" has been brought up up yet.

Basically we derive our morals from the economic base, production. The capitalist need individual free labour, workers. The monogamous and nuclear family is the best suited to provided discipline subjects, that is workers. It also do not confuse inheritance with the rule of the production of commodities and ownership of the means of production.

Secondly it created the "mother". That is unpaid labourer, someone who would stay at home and care for the kids, clean the house, serve the father etc.

Constant engaging in causal sex threatens the superstructure. There is risk of collapse of capitalism because the primary and first institution that creates disciplined workers is collapsing. In "post"modern capitalist society there is ambvilance towards causual sex, not out right condemenation. That is there are rules and a time frame for engaging in causual sex. But at the end of the day people are mean to settle down, and normally they do. A cheating father can be a threat to the system as the children can become undisciplined due to breakdown in the family.


Biologically there is in fact a chemical in both sexes known as Oxytocin that actually creates a bond between the two parties. Oxytocin is responsible for many things, everything from orgasms to a woman's maternal instincts when they see their babies for the first time. This is also one of the contributing factors to why women stay with abusive men.

Anyways, one could say that if you have sex with a multitude of partners it would be detrimental to your mental and emotional health. Eventually you will simply be unable to connect with a partner on a deeper emotional level because you've basically overused your Oxytocin levels. (Sort of like having an orgasm too often, will affect the amount of pleasure you get each time)


Maybe. They first part is mostly science, the second part is a social assumption that people can't connect with multiple people

[9]

Biologically there is in fact a chemical in both sexes known as Oxytocin that actually creates a bond between the two parties. Oxytocin is responsible for many things, everything from orgasms to a woman's maternal instincts when they see their babies for the first time. This is also one of the contributing factors to why women stay with abusive men.

Anyways, one could say that if you have sex with a multitude of partners it would be detrimental to your mental and emotional health. Eventually you will simply be unable to connect with a partner on a deeper emotional level because you've basically overused your Oxytocin levels. (Sort of like having an orgasm too often, will affect the amount of pleasure you get each time) Maybe. They first part is mostly science

It isn't actually. I already posted an article in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1850192&postcount=152) debunking these claims. It is known only at this point that Oxytocin plays some role in orgasm and bonding, not that it "creates" either orgasms or social bonds, and certainly not that its effects are limited to "two parties". The statement about it "being responsible for a woman's 'maternal instincts' when they see their babies" is also completely unfounded in terms of scientific evidence, as is the statement about oxytocin being responsible for "women stay[ing] with abusive men" - which frankly reeks of sexist essentialism, in addition to lacking a single shred of scientific support.

I also don't agree with either of these statements:



Constant engaging in causal sex threatens the superstructure.
A cheating father can be a threat to the system as the children can become undisciplined due to breakdown in the family.As I recall, Engels argued that monogamy from the beginning had "the specific character of monogamy for the woman only, not for the man". So there really isn't too much conflict between a 'cheating husband' and the monogamous family as an historical institution; on the contrary, they have largely gone hand in hand, to a greater or lesser extent. And yet I don't think a cheating wife would be any threat to the system either. I don't think the isolated actions of individuals, with regard to their sexual lives no less, can meaningfully represent "a threat to the system".
I also fail to see any meaningful link between "a cheating father" and "children [...] becom[ing] undisciplined".

[Obs]

For me it's mostly an agreement with Lenin that the "casual sex" culture repeats the conditions of the "bourgeois brothel" by viewing sexual partners as commodities, and sex as primarily about "pleasure" (a.k.a. physical and psychological high) rather than social bonding.
Care to tell where Lenin said this?

[nuisance]

There are some right fuckin' weirdos on this site. Do you really wonder why people enjoy partaking in a mutually enjoyable activity?

[Magón]

There are some right fuckin' weirdos on this site. Do you really wonder why people enjoy partaking in a mutually enjoyable activity?

Not if you're one of them. :thumbup1: lol

[Nihilist_Pig]

Stop talking about "love" as something objectively real and completely alien to our bodily senses and processes. It's not. Love is an idealistic concept, which should be abandoned in favor for free relationships, unbounded by paranoia, fear of rejection and emotional dissatisfaction.

What people should understand is that emotions are nothing more than reactions in their brains and learn to deal with them, instead of falling victims to self-loathing and denial of reality.

[Tomhet]

There are some right fuckin' weirdos on this site. Do you really wonder why people enjoy partaking in a mutually enjoyable activity?
Well said hahaha..

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

Just to clarify where I am coming from.

Firstly, I agree with Kollontai when she wrote, in Theses on Communist Morality in the Sphere of Marital Relations, that "sexuality is a human instinct as natural as hunger or thirst".

I also agree with Engels' critique of monogamy:


This is the origin of monogamy as far as we can trace it back among the most civilized and highly developed people of antiquity. It was not in any way the fruit of individual sex-love, with which it had nothing whatever to do; marriages remained as before marriages of convenience. It was the first form of the family to be based, not on natural, but on economic conditions – on the victory of private property over primitive, natural communal property. The Greeks themselves put the matter quite frankly: the sole exclusive aims of monogamous marriage were to make the man supreme in the family, and to propagate, as the future heirs to his wealth, children indisputably his own. Otherwise, marriage was a burden, a duty which had to be performed, whether one liked it or not, to gods, state, and one’s ancestors. In Athens the law exacted from the man not only marriage but also the performance of a minimum of so-called conjugal duties.

Thus communism requires the abolition of institutional monogamy and "traditional family values". Good fucking riddance.

However, this does not mean I am agreement with comrade Hiero, who wrote:


Constant engaging in causal sex threatens the superstructure. There is risk of collapse of capitalism because the primary and first institution that creates disciplined workers is collapsing.

Obviously there are sectors of capitalist society where institutional monogamy and "traditional family values" are eroding. However this is not because of an increased threat against the capitalist superstructure. (After all the porn industry is no threat to the capitalist superstructure)

Comrade Hiero further writes;


[patriarchal exploitation] created the "mother". That is unpaid labourer, someone who would stay at home and care for the kids, clean the house, serve the father etc.

This is clearly the case. However, the mother is going nowhere. Mothers are still expected to "care for the kids, clean the house", etc., as isolated individuals rather than with the help of an extended community. (Maybe if the mother is lucky the state will force the biological father of her child to pay child-support, however this system is highly biased against socially dissident or 'socially undesirable' mothers, and regardless, is by no means a full compensation for the mother's unpaid labor)

With the increasing prevalence of single motherhood, it is becoming less and less expected that the mother must "serve the father", but this is not because the mother is more liberated, but because the father has abandoned what little familial responsibilities he had entirely. (This contradiction is what has forced the capitalist state to create child support laws)

What is happening, in my opinion, is not the corrosion of the capitalist family in favor of newer, more progressive values, but rather its restructuring into a more refined form of exploitation.

18-25 year-old American males are mutant byproducts of the 60s era of sexual liberation. They speak freely of sex and appreciate it, like Kollontai did, as "a human instinct as natural as hunger or thirst". Yet they still do not respect women. They speak of "hitting that shit" or "tapping that ass" as if women were pleasure-providing commodities rather than individuals who may be fun to socially bond with. With the euphemism "to tap" this becomes especially blatant, as sexual intercourse with women is equated with tapping a keg of beer. (Thus sex is just another source of chemical alleviation from the misery of capital, and the woman is no different than a steel keg; a commodity to provide that alleviation) Other common slang such as "nailing", "drilling", "scoring", "tearing up that shit", etc. further reflects a view of sex as a way to conquer women.

Thus we have a youth sex culture where 'bros' wander about nightclubs looking for random physically attracting women to "score with", possibly through deception, drugging, or other forms of coercion. The implicit agreement is that sexual intercourse requires no social responsibility between the two partners, it is only about immediate physical gratification. Thus we have increased numbers of single mothers who are abandoned by their male sexual partners to care for the children on their own.

Now, I am not regurgitating the conservative argument against single mothers, mind you. In most cases this is a blessing in disguise since these women may not want these bone-headed men interfering in their child-rearing. But in a communist society, the burden of the biological mother is eased by the collective child-rearing efforts of the entire immediate community. Unless this new positive society is being created, there is nothing intrinsically progressive about the current disintegration of "traditional family values", there is instead only the potential for such progress. However, the capitalist need for labor is still being supplied. Men still view women as property. (Hence the applicability of Lenin's reference to "bourgeois brothels") Women still provide the system with unpaid labor in the form of child-rearing and all the cleaning, cooking, and miscellaneous labor that entails. The capitalist family dies, but survives in a new form.

A good example of how misguided notions of "sexual liberation" reinforced traditional patriarchal values was the Weather Underground. Group sex was an important part of that organization's social bonding, which is all fine and dandy, but the problem was that homosexual male members were pressured by the mostly heterosexual male leadership into having sex with women to prove they were unrestrained by bourgeois sexual morality. Now, they may have been unrestrained by bourgeois sexual morality, but they had no interest in fucking women nonetheless, thus they were gradually ostracized from the organization and hetero-normative values prevailed.

I am also willing to entertain the possibility that I am a weirdo who hates sex.


Stop talking about "love" as something objectively real and completely alien to our bodily senses and processes. It's not. Love is an idealistic concept, which should be abandoned in favor for free relationships, unbounded by paranoia, fear of rejection and emotional dissatisfaction.

What people should understand is that emotions are nothing more than reactions in their brains and learn to deal with them, instead of falling victims to self-loathing and denial of reality.

That may be true, however my "bodily senses and processes" seem to prefer it when I have sex with someone with intellectual and emotional commonality. I've learned this the hard way. I agree that capitalist "love" is mostly garbage and that we need "free relationships, unbounded by paranoia, fear of rejection and emotional dissatisfaction." However I think this requires some degree of mutual responsibility to work realistically.

If love is dead and sex is nothing more than a way that two or more friends to please their "bodily senses and processes", then they should at least be bound by the basic commitments of friendship. (eg: a good friend does not abandon his sexual partner after he impregnates her)

[Nihilist_Pig]

That may be true, however my "bodily senses and processes" seem to prefer it when I have sex with someone with intellectual and emotional commonality. I've learned this the hard way.
I don't think you have. This is what the system feeds you since the day you're born - that you need emotional connection, similarity of interests, etc. to have normal sex. This is what starts all the paranoia and stupidity:

"She's not good enough for me!"
"I'm not good enough for her!"
"She's acting really strange!"
"Oh, my, am I bothering her?!"
"We've grown so distant, we barely even go out anywhere anymore..."


I agree that capitalist "love" is mostly garbage and that we need "free relationships, unbounded by paranoia, fear of rejection and emotional dissatisfaction." However I think this requires some degree of mutual responsibility to work realistically.
Maybe.


If love is dead and sex is nothing more than a way that two or more friends please their "bodily senses and processes", then they should at least be bound by the basic commitments of friendship. (eg: a good friend does not abandon his sexual partner after he impregnates her)
Friendship =/= sexual relationship. When you confuse a good sexual relationship with friendship and emotional connection with sexual drive, the shit hits the fan. Ever tried hitting on a chick that you've been good friends with for at least a year? Does it really work out?

As for impregnation: true, that wouldn't be the nicest thing to do. That's humanity has invented condoms. Also, I believe (data?) it's largely instinctive (data?) and most people wouldn't do it. Humans are not cruel beasts who only care for rampant self-satisfaction... Maternal and paternal instincts are an important factor.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL I meant a WOMAN/ MAN YOU ARE IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH LOOOOLLL...


I must admit I should have been more specific...

Sorry, but LOL I wasn't talking about RELATIVES. Sure, we all love our mothers and fathers... But not that much...


Anyway, I meant a Woman/Man, you are in a relationship with, not your mother :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Good! We have that dealt with.



So if you have a Girlfriend or boyfriend you have been in a relationship with say five years... And Your GirlFriend or BoyFriend was having Sex with another person.... I bet you would be pissed off.. Just saying....
Actually I'd be amused.



Yeah, and A lot of people do not like their fathers/Mothers, even sisters/brothers having sex a lot... But those are only massive conservative familys..
My sister disapproved of most of the people I've been with.

[Hiero]

It isn't actually.


I hadn't read the whole thread and just went with that assumption. Science is not my strong point. I was suspicious from when I first read it.


As I recall, Engels argued that monogamy from the beginning had "the specific character of monogamy for the woman only, not for the man". So there really isn't too much conflict between a 'cheating husband' and the monogamous family as an historical institution; on the contrary, they have largely gone hand in hand, to a greater or lesser extent. And yet I don't think a cheating wife would be any threat to the system either. I don't think the isolated actions of individuals, with regard to their sexual lives no less, can meaningfully represent "a threat to the system".


Obviously there are sectors of capitalist society where institutional monogamy and "traditional family values" are eroding. However this is not because of an increased threat against the capitalist superstructure. (After all the porn industry is no threat to the capitalist superstructure)


To answer both, the threat is imaginary. Like young black youth, drug users, Lebanese youth, white trash, single welfare mothers etc. The majority of threats are imaginary, but come into play to maintain the system. They pull people back in line.

And 9 I sort of agree with you. I said there was ambivalence towards causal sex. Married men do play out multiple fantasy, they one of the patriarch/head of the family and the other fantasy of male bonding, free from the ties of women. This is engaged in via strip clubs, football gang bangs, porn, flirting whatever.

Causual sex oscilates between freedom from society and towards an imaginary threat. The threat that a whole generation could walk away from the structure.

So society does not think logically and coherently, its actors show disgusts at imaginary threats. They don't logically think "this is only one person", this is only one drug dealer. They think "society is collapsing" "the youth have gone crazy" "the city has fallen to crime" "the nation has fallen to minority politics".


I also fail to see any meaningful link between "a cheating father" and "children [...] becom[ing] undisciplined".

I mean in a Foucauldian sense. And I don't mean the cheating father as in a literally cheating father, but as the person who leaves his disciplining roles. The family prepares young people for futher institutions by turning them into self-disciplined subjects, people who will go to class when the bell rings and work indepently at their station

My whole point was that there is ambivilance towards causual sex. This is between fantasy and structural pressure. I was trying to draw away from people simply arguing "is causal sex wrong or right?".

I haven't read Origins of the family and state for a long time so you probably have a fresher reading then me.


Thus we have a youth sex culture where 'bros' wander about nightclubs looking for random physically attracting women to "score with", possibly through deception, drugging, or other forms of coercion. The implicit agreement is that sexual intercourse requires no social responsibility between the two partners, it is only about immediate physical gratification. Thus we have increased numbers of single mothers who are abandoned by their male sexual partners to care for the children on their own.

This is a bit worrying. These "random physically attracting women" are not buffalo wandering aimless for the lion to attack. Woman go to clubs to "score" as well. Woman do have a sexual drive and engage in sexual conquests. People do have causal sex under free contexts and enjoy it.

[Rafiq]

Actually I'd be amused.




Maybe not if you were in "love" with that person..


But than again, I'm not you...

But I know I would be kinda pissed off.

[Unkut]

My 2 cents is I think that the problem w/monogamy in the past has been that it's been the social norm, and that people feel a sense of coercion towards it in order to fit in and be normal. So the result is that too often they settle for someone due to these pressures. But I think the option for committed relationships and monogamy should be open as well as 'casual' non committed relation, and that likewise there shouldn't be any social coercion or pressure away from monogamy either. The basic problem as I see it is a lack of authenticity in people's person relations and lives

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Maybe not if you were in "love" with that person..
Only poseurs fall in love.


But than again, I'm not you...
Count your blessings;)

But I know I would be kinda pissed off.
Sucks to be you I guess

[Invader Zim]

Sucks to be you I guess

beving able to form, and maintain, a meaningful sexual relationship, and thus not be pissed off if your partner breaks a rather specific part of the social contract inherent in most relationships, 'sucks'?

Have you ever had sex? Really? Sure you aren't a 12 year old posing on 'teh interwebz'?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

beving able to form, and maintain, a meaningful sexual relationship, and thus not be pissed off if your partner breaks a rather specific part of the social contract inherent in most relationships, 'sucks'?

Have you ever had sex? Really? Sure you aren't a 12 year old posing on 'teh interwebz'?
I tend to be detached on an emotional level during sex. I think I'd be pissed if I got stuck with a partner in the first place.

[Invader Zim]

I tend to be detached on an emotional level during sex. I think I'd be pissed if I got stuck with a partner in the first place.

Sucks to be you I guess.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Sucks to be you I guess.
No, I am happiest when I have more freedom, that's why I won't let any guy fully get me in his grips.

Also, the worst thing I could do is trust someone again.

[Widerstand]

Also, the worst thing I could do is trust someone again.

I feel sorry for you. Gotta take a lot of hurt to feel like that.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I feel sorry for you. Gotta take a lot of hurt to feel like that.
Live and learn.

[Widerstand]

Live and learn.

:( Well seeing as how I'm younger and already having a similar attitude, I guess there's not that much left to learn. Though I think it's a dangerous road, but you'll have your reasons for it. It's easy to see the benefits of not getting too emotionally involved.

[bcbm]

i enjoy being emotionally crippled, personally

[Magón]

I say as long as you can get a hard on, or a chick wet (or vise versa), then all the emotion you need is right there already. :thumbup1: