the 40th anniversary of the 'page 3 model'

[Palingenisis]

Fuck you. Pro-ana websitges are usually run by peple who are in denial.

It could be also be argued that a lot of people defending sexual promiscuity are people in denial (in the real world where we arent talking about sociopaths they usually are).

The fact is that they are using typical liberal discourse to justify and deny their self destructive behaviour. Liberalism is dangerous. Literally murderous.

[Palingenisis]

Let's be real, you were supporting NKVD's suggestion of psychologically pressuring people into self harm (including eating disorders) as a means of keeping them from being polygamous.

Sociopaths have to be kept in line.

[Widerstand]

Yes there is.

It sets an example and acts as a deterrant for others. As Ive said before the areas where women and girls can feel a large though obviously not complete degree of safety are those where men know that if they mess with a girl under 16 they will be executed and that serious physical punishment along with being driven from communities goes hand in hand with sexual crime. They actually feel a lot less brutal than areas dominated by drugs and other crap where people can often feel isolated and powerless....But Im sure from your middle class or labour aristocrat bubble things appear very different.

Yeah, if society was run by Stalinists instead of us petty bourgeois, anarchist labor aristocrats, there would be no more rape because the authority would fight it harder! There would be no more drugs because we could just lock the dealers up or even better, publically torture them! And no more AIDS, because all those fucking around too much be encouraged to kill themselves :rolleyes:

There would also no more be abortions or reactionary luxuries sex changes.

All hail the Palinist-Stalinist Revolution!

[Widerstand]

Sociopaths have to be kept in line.

Yeah, rapists and mass murders are the same as polygamos persons.

I better get away from my affinity group, who know what those insane girls might think up next, they already have polyamory and "have sex hate sexism" stickers all over their notebooks, soon they'll rape men and kill innocent children.

[Palingenisis]

Yeah, rapists and mass murders are the same as polygamos persons.

Uh where did I say that?

Again the hyperbole.

[Widerstand]

Uh where did I say that?

Again the hyperbole.

You said polygamy is an expression of sociopathy. Obviously mass murder and rape can be expressions of sociopathy as well.

I find that funny, because sociopathy is described as a "personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with strongly amoral conduct." Surely, those who like having sex have "an abnormal lack of empathy", whereas those who want them to kill themselves don't?

[Palingenisis]

I find that funny, because sociopathy is described as a "personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with strongly amoral conduct." Surely, those who like having sex have "an abnormal lack of empathy", whereas those who want them to kill themselves don't?

Out in the big bad world there are both men and women who use their sexual power to well gain dominance over through manipulation, exploit for material gain and seduce other people's partners and wreck relationships for kicks. Such people should be shunned no matter how charming they are.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Out in the big bad world there are both men and women who use their sexual power to well gain dominance over through manipulation, exploit for material gain and seduce other people's partners and wreck relationships for kicks. Such people should be shunned no matter how charming they are.

Pali, I don't want to know about your mum.

[Palingenisis]

Pali, I don't want to know about your mum.

Scrapping the barrel there a bit a chara? How is your hang over?

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Scrapping the barrel there a bit a chara? How is your hang over?

Not too bad.

[Widerstand]

Out in the big bad world there are both men and women who use their sexual power to well gain dominance over through manipulation, exploit for material gain and seduce other people's partners and wreck relationships for kicks. Such people should be shunned no matter how charming they are.

Are you saying that everyone who isn't monogamous is like that?

[Palingenisis]

Are you saying that everyone who isn't monogamous is like that?

No.

[Quail]

It could be also be argued that a lot of people defending sexual promiscuity are people in denial (in the real world where we arent talking about sociopaths they usually are).

The fact is that they are using typical liberal discourse to justify and deny their self destructive behaviour. Liberalism is dangerous. Literally murderous.
Eh? Promiscuous people are usually sociopaths?
Some people may be in denial about their behaviour, but I'm pretty sure that there are also a lot of people who are perfectly aware of the fact they're slleeping with someone just for fun. Having sex with people is usually a choice, whereas eating disorders aren't. As someone who has used pro-ana websites as a source of support, I'm kind of offended that you're being so dismissive of them.

[Spawn of Stalin]

You are quite right and I am well aware of the liberalisation of sex via music, tv and the internet. but if I'm being honest I didn't realise that the train of thought currently being showcased was so prevalent on the left. A culture created by capitalism which promotes heartless fucking, and usually to such a young audience, historically this has never had anything to do with women's liberation...until now apparently. My mum is an anarchist, she believes that ultimately culture should not tell us how to behave, which is why she opposes the "sex culture" which is promoted by capitalism today. She always taught me that it is unfair to myself and other people to sleep with anyone who's up for it. Most people I know see this kind of behaviour as a symptom of capitalism, maybe I spend too much time with Stalinists.

[Widerstand]

You are quite right and I am well aware of the liberalisation of sex via music, tv and the internet. but if I'm being honest I didn't realise that the train of thought currently being showcased was so prevalent on the left. A culture created by capitalism which promotes heartless fucking, and usually to such a young audience, historically this has never had anything to do with women's liberation...until now apparently. My mum is an anarchist, she believes that ultimately culture should not tell us how to behave, which is why she opposes the "sex culture" which is promoted by capitalism today. She always taught me that it is unfair to myself and other people to sleep with anyone who's up for it. Most people I know see this kind of behaviour as a symptom of capitalism, maybe I spend too much time with Stalinists.

LOL That's some impressive double speak you got there, saying that "culture shouldn't tell us how to behave" while preaching in tune with the whole "culture should encourage monogamy crowd".

[Palingenisis]

Eh? Promiscuous people are usually sociopaths?
.

No you misunderstood what I was trying to say (or else you understood perfectly and are deliberately twisting my meaning for what purpose I do not know)...When people are promiscuous there can be several reasons behind it such as emotional trauma from sexual abuse, assult or rape, a seeking of validitation because the society around them doesnt offer them any other apparent route to it and we all need to feel valididated, seeking love very similarly that has been denied them by neglectful parent/s, etc, etc...So they use promiscuouscity to mask or escape emotional and/or psychological trauma that they are in denial of.

Than there are sociopaths....

[bricolage]

remember kids, no sex before marriage

[Quail]

No you misunderstood what I was trying to say (or else you understood perfectly and are deliberately twisting my meaning for what purpose I do not know)...When people are promiscuous there can be several reasons behind it such as emotional trauma from sexual abuse, assult or rape, a seeking of validitation because the society around them doesnt offer them any other apparent route to it and we all need to feel valididated, seeking love very similarly that has been denied them by neglectful parent/s, etc, etc...So they use promiscuouscity to mask or escape emotional and/or psychological trauma that they are in denial of.

Than there are sociopaths....
There can be emotional trauma behind promiscuity (as I know first hand) but you can also have healthy sex for fun with someone you don't know. I've had both healthy and unhealthy "promiscuous" sex.

[Spawn of Stalin]

What makes them unhealthy?Look, I'm not saying it's bad for everyone, but thanks to capitalism most people can't even handle one partner at a time, much less two or three. I have only ever know one person to have open/plural relationships and she became very depressed and lonely, she is actually engaged now which is fantastic but for quite some time she found it impossible to get close to anyone. Ultimately your relationships are your business but I think that in a country like Britain which has something of a sex crisis among teenagers, the last thing we need is society giving polygamy the OK, people fuck around too much as it is.

[ZeroNowhere]

To be honest, I think that this discussion should be split? It doesn't seem entirely on-topic.

Nonetheless, I'm asexual, and this has made even more striking the degree to which sexual people want, and, it seems, enjoy sex. This applies just as much to non-promiscuous as to promiscuous ones, generally. I think it's perfectly possible that a person may want sex but not attachment (the former seems more or less a natural urge for most people, the latter by no means a necessary corollary), and it's probably less harmful that they exercise this desire in having sex with somebody who is also willing to simply do the same, rather than actually getting into a relationship (which is, in fact, what happens in a large quantity of high school and college relationships, and tends to explain their rather messy ends.) The affliction is in both cases simply sexuality, and while I agree that such is a serious and harmful mental disorder, nonetheless it's pretty common and by no means restricted to the promiscuous. Not wishing to be in a relationship, on the other hand, is understandable in many cases.

[Spawn of Stalin]

LOL That's some impressive double speak you got there, saying that "culture shouldn't tell us how to behave" while preaching in tune with the whole "culture should encourage monogamy crowd".
Read my post again and see if you can figure out why you are wrong.

[Widerstand]

Ultimately your relationships are your business

Then I fail to see why you join in with NKVD and Palin who basically argued that polygamy "destroys society", and should be culturally suppressed, with polygamous persons becoming social outcasts encouraged to kill themselves.


Read my post again and see if you can figure out why you are wrong.

Nope, sorry, can't find it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes there is.

It sets an example and acts as a deterrant for others.

Evidence, please.


They actually feel a lot less brutal than areas dominated by drugs and other crap where people can often feel isolated and powerless....But Im sure from your middle class or labour aristocrat bubble things appear very different.

You know, we used to have the most horrific punishments for all kinds of shit back in the Middle Ages... yet crime was rampant. They may not have had guns with which to kneecap people, but they nonetheless had more than their fair share of physically disfiguring punishments. Yet for some reason we've abandoned the idea that punishments have to be as horrific as possible. Aside from throwbacks like you of course.

Another thing to consider is that if the consequences for rape are bad enough, perpetrators will be naturally encouraged to take steps to conceal their crimes. Generally this includes killing the victim so they can't squeal.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Then I fail to see why you join in with NKVD and Palin who basically argued that polygamy "destroys society", and should be culturally suppressed, with polygamous persons becoming social outcasts encouraged to kill themselves.
I don't actually take an individualist stance on decision making, on the contrary, I do believe that people should be influenced to make the correct choices in life by society, but not a capitalist society which promotes anything profitible regardless of how harmful it may be. Society and social norms should be managed by a workers state, not some billionaire.

Nope, sorry, can't find it.
See above. And I said my mother doesn't believe people should be told how to behave, not that I don't. I was making an example, although she is basically a social libertarian, she still believes in some cultural standards. I take a much stronger stance than this.

[9]

Its not to long ago that I was teenager and I remember stuff like Christina Aguleria or whatever she is called and basically soft porn nature of some of her videos, and she was far from being alone...Even actual hardcore porn can be watched with hipster Irony without the traditional shame and "dirty old men" vibe...It might have past generally its "idealistic" phase but the "wack liberal sex movement bullshit" is very much alive. People on here are basically vomiting back up what the dominment culture has fed them.
I'm pretty convinced at this point that you're a troll. If you're not, I'd highly, highly recommend getting out once in a while.

[bailey_187]

so am i the only 'stalinist' who likes to have non-meaningful sex with random girls i may meet at a club or similar surrounding?

[Jazzratt]

No you misunderstood what I was trying to say (or else you understood perfectly and are deliberately twisting my meaning for what purpose I do not know)...When people are promiscuous there can be several reasons behind it such as emotional trauma from sexual abuse, assult or rape, a seeking of validitation because the society around them doesnt offer them any other apparent route to it and we all need to feel valididated, seeking love very similarly that has been denied them by neglectful parent/s, etc, etc...So they use promiscuouscity to mask or escape emotional and/or psychological trauma that they are in denial of.

Than there are sociopaths.... It's interesting that you've mentioned that there are "several reasons" behind promiscuity and managed to avoid the elephant in the room in the form of the reason a lot of people are promiscuous; people enjoy sex. They don't have sex to validate themselves, they don't have sex because of trauma they have sex because, when all your bullshit and moralising and psuedo-psychology is stripped away and we face the bare facts sex is great. Obviously some people become promiscuous for the reasons you've listed, but I think that represents a minority of people. The vast majority, I think, are normal people who don't see the need to self-flagellate through denial.

[Palingenisis]

is stripped away and we face the bare facts sex is great.

Yes it is...under the right conditions.

Have you ever actually had it?

[Jazzratt]

Yes it is...under the right conditions. You're shrouding it in unnecessary mysticism. The "right conditions" are basically having all involved parties consenting. There is extra shit that makes it more or less enjoyable, obviously, but that varies immensely from person to person.


Have you ever actually had it? This is an odd question to ask. It's a pointless ad-hominem designed to make me defensive and any answer I give you is almost irrelevant as it's clearly a question which you have answered (for yourself) in the asking. If I answer yes, you'll accuse me of being dishonest because it doesn't fit with the dirty tricks argument you're trying to build but it is easy, given that my answer will be unverifiable anyway, to make such a charge; if I say no, on the other hand, that'll suit you down to to the ground and you can dismiss anything I say from this point forward and finally, if I abstain, you'll assume a no. For what it's worth, yes, I have had sex.

It's interesting that someone advocating for a staid, uptight society with minimal sexual openness would be the first to start asking personal questions and building innuendo. It's not really surprising though that someone with your notable lack of intellectual honesty would try it on.

[HamishFTW]

Heartless fucking? Meaningless sex? Do people have such low opinions of themselves, and others?

[Aeval]

Infatuated with more than one person yes.

In love as in properly being in love. No.

Sorry to go back to something but this stuck out - what are you basing this on? You seem to have quite a mystical view of love, are you not a materialist? This sounds like the tag line for a rom-com...

Love is simply chemical reactions, it's our brains giving us nice endorphins as a reward so we'll keep doing what ever it is we're doing and hopefully reproduce. Obviously human society is more complicated than that of other animals and so love has become detached from sex. We are able to love people who we don't want to have sex with and we are able to have sex with people we don't love. I'm in a monogamous relationship but the feelings of fondness and affection that I feel towards my partner I also feel towards other people, so of course you can love more than one person at a time, you just decide (predominantly based on how you have been socialised) whether you want to have sex with one, some, all or none of them.

Also, humans aren't monogamous, only around 3% of mammals are, and scientist has discovered that monogamous species tend to have a different level of vasopressin to non-monogamous species:


The brain of males uses vasopressin as a reward for forming lasting bonds with a mate, and men with one or two of the genetic alleles are more likely to experience marital discord. The partners of the men with two of the alleles affecting vasopressin reception state disappointing levels of satisfaction, affection, and cohesion. Vasopressin receptors distributed along the reward circuit pathway, to be specific in the ventral pallidum, are activated when AVP is released during social interactions such as mating, in monogamous prairie voles. The activation of the reward circuitry reinforces this behavior, leading to conditioned partner preference, and thereby initiates the formation of a pair bond.

Obviously humans can go beyond simply succumbing to their hormones, but generally long-lasting relationships are based on the feeling of friendship, of getting along with someone and becoming use to them (or simply out of material necessity) rather than that initial feeling of "love"

[ZeroNowhere]

Love is simply chemical reactions, it's our brains giving us nice endorphins as a reward so we'll keep doing what ever it is we're doing and hopefully reproduce.I think that this is very much a simplification when it comes to human love and relationships, quite apart from the personification of the brain, which I think gives a misleading image.

[Aeval]

I think that this is very much a simplification when it comes to human love and relationships, quite apart from the personification of the brain, which I think gives a misleading image.

which is why I went on to say that human society and indeed relationships are more complicated than that of other animals, and that in the long term our relationships tend to become based on things such as friendship, common interests and even just being use to somebody. However, that initial giggly spark that rom-coms so love is a chemical reward, we see someone we like, our pupils dilate - we get a rush of endorphins - if we hug someone we get oxytocin, etc etc, this is pleasurable thus we want to do it again. Obviously it's not like our brain is some separate entity which is sat there planning all this, it just happens.

You're right, of course human love and relationships are more complicated than it just being chemicals and nothing else, but it doesn't change the fact that Palingenisis is still wrong in saying that we can only love one person at a time, there's no logical reason for us only finding one person physically attractive out of the many many people who we get on with and care about.

and I've just realised this has gone way off topic, so with regards to page three girls, something I've always found odd is when they put someone in it who is only just legal, and make a massive deal about this fact, and then have a story about say, a teacher running off with a school girl (who is also legal) on the next page where they make him out to be an evil paedophile (I actually saw this by the way in one issue whilst I was still at school). As people have already pointed out, it's not so much there being a naked person there but that along with the other bile written in that paper makes it truly contemptible.

[Wanted Man]

You people (NKVD, Palingenesis, motionless) are fucking idiots in my book. You don't have to be a libertarian to relegate your whiny patronising bullshit to the trash heap where it belongs. In fact, some strands of libertarianism strongly overlap with hardcore social conservatism. The idea here is that state restrictions are unnecessary; individuals will simply all decide that promiscuity is depraved and wrong and shun anyone who disagrees. Sounds familiar to me.

bailey_187: out of the tens of millions of 'stalinist' workers in the world, I'm sure a significant amount would have a good laugh if they met some of our Moral Majority friends here. And then they would probably be acquainted to their significant others and siblings... :blushing:


This is an odd question to ask. It's a pointless ad-hominem designed to make me defensive and any answer I give you is almost irrelevant as it's clearly a question which you have answered (for yourself) in the asking. If I answer yes, you'll accuse me of being dishonest because it doesn't fit with the dirty tricks argument you're trying to build but it is easy, given that my answer will be unverifiable anyway, to make such a charge; if I say no, on the other hand, that'll suit you down to to the ground and you can dismiss anything I say from this point forward and finally, if I abstain, you'll assume a no. For what it's worth, yes, I have had sex.

It's interesting that someone advocating for a staid, uptight society with minimal sexual openness would be the first to start asking personal questions and building innuendo. It's not really surprising though that someone with your notable lack of intellectual honesty would try it on.

Shit. I want to be an admin so I can give you positive rep whenever I want.

So anyway, let's talk about Page 3 girls again. LOL THEY'RE DUMB SLUTZ!111!