militancy, and sleeping around with comrades

[black magick hustla]

the other day i was discussing with a comrade or whatever about this. i think sleeping around with people you do political work, unless you are like life comrades and fall in love or whatever is so dumb that i am surprised people fail to understand this.

something similar happened in an anarchist org some months ago. there was some manarchist scumbag fuck who was in his 30s and was using his charisma and righteousness to horizontally recruit college aged girls. then there was a huge clusterfuck and some people dropping out of it because of feuds and one girl almost committeed suicide (she was my fucking friend, btw), etcetera. if you read the news you always read about dudes infitrating by using sex as a weapon. if you read about the famous healytes, same shit happened. but a lot of fucking anarchists need to sexualize everything and they don't seem to get it. if this was a neutral society and class-less and we where living communism then probably that shit wouldn't matter, but this ssociety is fucked up. you can't have the same type of honest discourse if people start sleeping with each other. its just fucking pussy who gives a fuck.

[communard71]

I don’t know if sexuality will disappear in a classless society, but I hear what you’re saying. Comrades should approach each other first and foremost as, well, COMRADES. We should leave the nonsense out as much as possible in order to be respectful, honest, and disciplined. There is plenty of time for the other stuff outside any organization and it is pretty lame to exploit young girls’ whether you’re communist or not. Sorry about your friend.

[black magick hustla]

I don’t know if sexuality will disappear in a classless society, but I hear what you’re saying. Comrades should approach each other first and foremost as, well, COMRADES. We should leave the nonsense out as much as possible in order to be respectful, honest, and disciplined. There is plenty of time for the other stuff outside any organization and it is pretty lame to exploit young girls’ whether you’re communist or not. Sorry about your friend.
i was saying that if we were living communism we could be sexual and be completely honest but we are not, we are fucking abortions of a class society built upon violence and slave/master morality.

[communard71]

I think your right, I just dont know if I believe in "completely honest." Still, there would be more honesty when people can pursue each other in an environment devoid of what you rightly described as slave/master morality.

[red cat]

The OP points out a very common phenomenon in leftist parties that are based primarily in the petite-bourgeoisie and are really glamour-clad reformist organizations in essence. This is not confined to groups that claim to be anarchist.

[black magick hustla]

The OP points out a very common phenomenon in leftist parties that are based primarily in the petite-bourgeoisie and are really glamour-clad reformist organizations in essence. This is not confined to groups that claim to be anarchist.
i dont think its because they are petit bourgeois, i think it has to do that a lot of us are horny 20somethings

[Zanthorus]

I don't really understand this whole 'horizontal recruitment' thing. I mean how exactly does the thought process go? "I want to manipulate people into having sex with me, what would be the best way to do that? I know, I'll join some marginal leftist organisation that probably spends most of it's time arguing over what Trotsky ate for breakfast the day of the Kronstadt rebellion."

On a lighter note, perhaps this shows an upside to having large number of obsessive nerds involved in communist politics :D

[black magick hustla]

I don't really understand this whole 'horizontal recruitment' thing. I mean how exactly does the thought process go? "I want to manipulate people into having sex with me, what would be the best way to do that? I know, I'll join some marginal leftist organisation that probably spends most of it's time arguing over what Trotsky ate for breakfast the day of the Kronstadt rebellion."


eh, people who have marginal leftist ideas think they can get laid better with other marginal leftist nobodies. i think its pretty common, especially with college aged radicals.

[red cat]

i dont think its because they are petit bourgeois, i think it has to do that a lot of us are horny 20somethings

Wherever a self-proclaimed "militant" group without any real activism has some popularity among college students, many petite-bourgeois students will join it solely to be identified as leftists; or just because they emotionally sympathize with communism, without knowing anything substantial about theory and practice. These reformist groups exist not due to their leadership failing to see the correct line of action, but rather due to them being agents of the ruling class being appointed to liquidate potential revolutionaries. In such cases the leaders try to make as much as possible out of the situation. It is very easy to exploit young girls in such organizations, specially when the exploiter is a de-facto leader. In other cases, students do these things just to show off. You won't see much of all this in proletarian organizations that take part in regular class struggle.

[¿Que?]

It's just pussy? I don't think TC (and the other militant feminists on this site) are going to like that very much...

[agnixie]

if this was a neutral society and class-less and we where living communism then probably that shit wouldn't matter, but this ssociety is fucked up. you can't have the same type of honest discourse if people start sleeping with each other.

A lot of people can't. A lot of people can. But yeah, the manarchist was an idiot, and obviously couldn't; sex is a bad recruitment tool, just as it's not a proof of much, even love, and there's a difference between not being jealous and playing games with other people.

[black magick hustla]

It's just pussy? I don't think TC (and the other militant feminists on this site) are going to like that very much...

well its just a dick, a pussy or whatever. my point is that you can just not whip it out and is worth it in situations like that

[black magick hustla]

A lot of people can't. A lot of people can. But yeah, the manarchist was an idiot, and obviously couldn't; sex is a bad recruitment tool, just as it's not a proof of much, even love, and there's a difference between not being jealous and playing games with other people.
i think most people can't

[¿Que?]

well its just a dick, a pussy or whatever. my point is that you can just not whip it out and is worth it in situations like that
Well that sort of thing is bound to happen when you have men and women together working closely in highly emotionally charged projects, though. Unless you plan on making a formal rule in your organization then there's no real way to avoid that.

[agnixie]

i think most people can't

I don't think it's a fair assumption. That said I admit there are cultural pressures towards jealousy. And I'm basically trying to reply something intelligent to a pithy one-liner in a situation of understandable and justifiable anger.

[black magick hustla]

I don't think it's a fair assumption. That said I admit there are cultural pressures towards jealousy. That said I'm basically trying to reply something intelligent to a pithy one-liner.
I don't think it has anything to do with jealousy though. Also what did you want me to reply, you also replied with a one liner before. I am just talking about evidence that has existed in the millieu that it is a bad idea. Its kindof like the idea of not sleeping around your roomates or workmates except 10xxxxxx more important.

[black magick hustla]

Well that sort of thing is bound to happen when you have men and women together working closely in highly emotionally charged projects, though. Unless you plan on making a formal rule in your organization then there's no real way to avoid that.
I think it is bound to happen but I think people need to think more about it. I also think there is a difference between falling in love and being a bunch of horny 20somethings.

[Tablo]

Meh, people will have sex if they want to no matter what. What needs to happen is people need to quit being so dramatic with it and quit treating relationships so seriously. Also, FUCK manarchists.

[agnixie]

I think it is bound to happen but I think people need to think more about it. I also think there is a difference between falling in love and being a bunch of horny 20somethings.

Being horny tends to involve less in the way of mind games - it's just sex, no higher meaning. Some people manage to o this in love, despite cultural pressures. And some people are stupid and put meaning to sex tat shouldn't be there well beyond sex. People like that asshole manarchist, for one.

[punisa]

I read the whole topic and I don't get anything yet... :(
I do however believe that close comrades in a revolutionary organization should not have sex or any other romantic relationship between each other.
There are times when the cause is far more important and the energy should be focused on that.

Aside from that - people should have as much sex as they can and not really care too much about.
Your friend did not try suicide because of sex - its emotions.

For example - did anyone ever committed suicide solely because of sex? I sincerely doubt it. We are emotional beings and its the emotions that can bring us pain or pleasure.
Sex is just mechanics like taking a piss, or having lunch.

[Luís Henrique]

I don't think this is a political topic.

Some people like to have sex with comrades. Some don't. Some people are manipulative about it. Some people are naïve and get manipulated. I can't see how this can be regulated by the organisation. Except, of course, safety issues are a real concern, but this is rarely the case in bourgeois democracies.

Luís Henrique

[Tim Finnegan]

Aside from that - people should have as much sex as they can and not really care too much about.
Your friend did not try suicide because of sex - its emotions.

For example - did anyone ever committed suicide solely because of sex? I sincerely doubt it. We are emotional beings and its the emotions that can bring us pain or pleasure.
Sex is just mechanics like taking a piss, or having lunch.
I've had some lunches of no small emotional significance. Not sure how that fits into the equation.

I don't think people are necessarily capable of the self-imposed emotional distance you imagine. It's something that varies hugely from individual to individual, and from circumstance to circumstance. Certainly, there's not particular virtue in emotionless sex, as some of the latter day advocates of free love- if I understand them properly- seem to think.

[The Red Next Door]

If i catch that going on within my branch, i am putting a fucking bat to someones nuts. :D:mad:

[Sun at Eight]

This is a common issue which gets most of its problematic nature from the patriarchal society we live in, the manarchists (not necessarily anarchist) who can thrive in this environment, and issues around "prefigurative politics" regardless of whether the group officially claims to espouse the latter. It means that people's ideas of what a just, equitable and anti-oppressive sexuality is or could be are in flux and the reality can be a big problem. Along with break-ups and cheating being painful for any social group.

However, my main reason for posting was my pedant side wishing to explain what "horizontal recruitment" is referring to. It's a jocular way of referring to people coming to a political group or view through a sexual partner. Sometimes there are accusations or gossip of a group deliberately attempting to do this. I'm sure some have used the self-image that they are "horizontal recruiters" for some deeply problematic behaviour, but there are a number of people who will admit they came to leftist politics through "horizontal recruitment". I also suspect, and here someone can über-pedant me, that it's wordplay on horizontal as opposed to vertical recruitment (peers in the workplace, that sort of thing).

[Spawn of Stalin]

I don't think this is a political topic.

Some people like to have sex with comrades. Some don't. Some people are manipulative about it. Some people are naïve and get manipulated. I can't see how this can be regulated by the organisation.

Sure it can. Don't recruit scum.

These organisations with "open" recruitment are pretty much begging for trouble, any old cop, fascist, or pedo can just waltz in and go bananas, and it's the leadership's fault for letting that person join in the first place.

Another reason why decentralisation is ridiculous.

Another reason why SPGB-style recruitment should be adopted by all small and medium size organisations.

The importance of encouraging rank and file members to interact with each other and really get to know each other, and to develop personal relationships with senior members cannot be overstated, if everyone knows each other well then everyone is safer. If people are going to become intimate with each other it is more likely that they will be doing so because they actually have special feelings for one another, not because they think they want to go to bed together. How many times have you had a one night stand with someone from your core friendship group, chances are it is less than the number of times you had a one night stand with someone from outside your core friendship group or even someone you didn't know the name of.

Marxist-Leninist parties don't really have problems like these as much as others, and if they do, the women are doing a really good job of keeping quiet about it, there are lots of couples and family members in CPGB-ML, but no instances of people being taken advantage of, this is because they have a pretty decent recruitment strategy, and because if you're not willing to get to know the other people you are working with, you can't join, end of discussion.

As for sleeping with comrades, it's going to happen regardless, where there are people, there are sexual relationships, my partner was until recently a member of two parties in different countries and I was a member of one, and we did not meet through a shared interest in this thing. It is to be expected that quite a few of us are going to end up having life long relationships with other communists. But it goes without saying that anyone who joins a political organisation because they want to pick up girls should be dealt with swiftly and harshly.

[Spawn of Stalin]

If i catch that going on within my branch, i am putting a fucking bat to someones nuts. :D:mad:

This is the attitude that everyone should adopt, unfortunately in a lot of these organisations a large proportion of the membership only cares about certain issues such as anti-cuts, anti-war, or individual liberty, sometimes they don't care about any of these and they only joined because they see their friends doing it, and sometimes they care but are more interested in the social experience. Hardly sounds like disciplined cadre to me.

[RED DAVE]

the other day i was discussing with a comrade or whatever about this. i think sleeping around with people you do political work, unless you are like life comrades and fall in love or whatever is so dumb that i am surprised people fail to understand this.I'm surprised that you're so rigid :D about this.


something similar happened in an anarchist org some months ago. there was some manarchist scumbag fuck who was in his 30s and was using his charisma and righteousness to horizontally recruit college aged girls.The Right doesn't have a monopoly on slobs.


then there was a huge clusterfuck and some people dropping out of it because of feuds and one girl almost committeed suicide (she was my fucking friend, btw), etcetera.Sounds like the group and/or the people in it were pretty unstable to begin with.


if you read the news you always read about dudes infitrating by using sex as a weapon. if you read about the famous healytes, same shit happened.This was aggravated by the authoritarianism of their structure and the mind trips that Healy and others were pulling off.


but a lot of fucking anarchists need to sexualize everything and they don't seem to get it. if this was a neutral society and class-less and we where living communism then probably that shit wouldn't matter, but this ssociety is fucked up. you can't have the same type of honest discourse if people start sleeping with each other. its just fucking pussy who gives a fuck.It seems to me that what's going on in the milieu you're describing is an absence of honest feelings and, you should pardon the expression, a lack of common sense.

RED DAVE

[Salyut]

This was aggravated by the authoritarianism of their structure and the mind trips that Healy and others were pulling off.


Can you share some stories of these guys? It sounds like a pretty odd group.


If i catch that going on within my branch, i am putting a fucking bat to someones nuts.

:rolleyes:

[Tim Finnegan]

Can you share some stories of these guys? It sounds like a pretty odd group.
Conjure up every caricature of the far-far-left you can imagine. Absurdly sectarian mentality, hyperdogmatic party lines, incessant splitting, shady links to Arab despots, the lot. Got it? Right, well, that's the Workers Revolutionary Party. ;)

[agnixie]

Can you share some stories of these guys? It sounds like a pretty odd group.



:rolleyes:

This whole attitude reminds me of the sexist bullshit Kollontai was subjected to because she was a libertine. I'm not really intent on defending the manarchist, it's just that you're finding an easy thing to blame (the fact that he had sex) instead of the obvious fact that he was a manarchist and thus had shit politics whether he slept around or not. Also the fact that honesty seems to have been a problem anyway something sex only exacerbates if it's there to begin with.
Also I never said emotionless sex, there's a difference between the lack of higher significance and the lack of emotion.
Oh, and the whole sexual energy thing is a myth (and a historically misogynist one).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Seems like this is another argument against leftist sects. It sure as hell isn't an argument against sex.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Sure it can. Don't recruit scum.

These organisations with "open" recruitment are pretty much begging for trouble, any old cop, fascist, or pedo can just waltz in and go bananas, and it's the leadership's fault for letting that person join in the first place.

Another reason why decentralisation is ridiculous.

Another reason why SPGB-style recruitment should be adopted by all small and medium size organisations.

The importance of encouraging rank and file members to interact with each other and really get to know each other, and to develop personal relationships with senior members cannot be overstated, if everyone knows each other well then everyone is safer. If people are going to become intimate with each other it is more likely that they will be doing so because they actually have special feelings for one another, not because they think they want to go to bed together. How many times have you had a one night stand with someone from your core friendship group, chances are it is less than the number of times you had a one night stand with someone from outside your core friendship group or even someone you didn't know the name of.

Marxist-Leninist parties don't really have problems like these as much as others, and if they do, the women are doing a really good job of keeping quiet about it, there are lots of couples and family members in CPGB-ML, but no instances of people being taken advantage of, this is because they have a pretty decent recruitment strategy, and because if you're not willing to get to know the other people you are working with, you can't join, end of discussion.

As for sleeping with comrades, it's going to happen regardless, where there are people, there are sexual relationships, my partner was until recently a member of two parties in different countries and I was a member of one, and we did not meet through a shared interest in this thing. It is to be expected that quite a few of us are going to end up having life long relationships with other communists. But it goes without saying that anyone who joins a political organisation because they want to pick up girls should be dealt with swiftly and harshly.

In other words, you're pretty much happy to forgo any chance of ever being big enough to do anything other than watch videos of the great Stalin in local community halls.

IMO, that, and the SPGBs recruitment policy, is awful. It's completely antiquated. Nobody is interested in Marxist-Elitism. You don't just turn workers away because you have a personal issue with them or because they aren't 'family-orientated' enough for you. How bourgeois and elitist.:rolleyes:

[Queercommie Girl]

Meh, people will have sex if they want to no matter what. What needs to happen is people need to quit being so dramatic with it and quit treating relationships so seriously. Also, FUCK manarchists.

Agree.

[Spawn of Stalin]

In other words, you're pretty much happy to forgo any chance of ever being big enough to do anything other than watch videos of the great Stalin in local community halls.

IMO, that, and the SPGBs recruitment policy, is awful. It's completely antiquated. Nobody is interested in Marxist-Elitism. You don't just turn workers away because you have a personal issue with them or because they aren't 'family-orientated' enough for you. How bourgeois and elitist.:rolleyes:
Things would be different if the left was in a position to build a proper mass party right now, the fact is it's not. The level of class consciousness is still close to zero, of course you can start recruiting en masse but with such limited resources you end up wasting time on people who simply aren't worth it better to build a small to mid sized cadre party which is well equipped to form the foundations of a mass party when the time comes. Having members who know little about the fundamentals of what we believe is ok, as long as you have a core group of well educated, properly class conscious cadre at the centre of things holding everything together. Without the hardcore members you just have a large mob of people who may or may not be communists running wild on the party, only interested in doing political work if it fulfills their individualistic desires.

And I wouldn't exactly call my gripes with the scum described in this topic personal at all, but if you insist on thinking that they are then yes, you can just turn workers away if you have a personal issue with them, prime example: a worker wants to join the party not to advance the interests of his class, but to have sex with lots of easy women. Solution? You turn them away. Nothing personal about that, it's purely political.

[Summerspeaker]

The topic raises an important issue. Like everyone else, I've seen the emotional damage connected with sexual relationships undermine various groups. Manarchists and sexual predators always exists as a threat. However, I'm not sure a simple invocation to avoid such sexual relationships best addresses the problem. Does that exclude couples from radical politics? Should revolutionary leftists only engage in sex acts with liberals (or, Goldman forbid, conservatives)? Moreover, eschewing sex doesn't deal with similar nonsexual social dynamics of power, passion, and personal betrayal that commonly affect organizations. Emotional intimacy and intensity aren't limited to folks sleeping together, as much as modern culture attempts impose such a boundary. These connections make us vulnerable, but I would find the radical community an intolerably bleak place without at least the possibility of passionate affection. (I find it quite lacking in this regard already.)

[TC]

Your post is well taken, I don't necessarily agree wtih it but I"m sympathetic to it.

But this comment:

its just fucking pussy who gives a fuck.

Was really not cool.

[gorillafuck]

I don't think that male leftists in groups thinking they're somehow entitled to fuck girls in their leftist groups is strictly a college thing (or, "petit bourgeois"). Case in point...


I took a lot of bullshit as a young man in the BPP. Typically the youngest among any group of Panthers, I remember that not one of the sister back in LA would give me any pussy. "Oh, he's so young," they'd say. Wow, I thought. I was risking my life just like the rest of the brothers, which was all that was required to get laid in the BPP. At least that's what I was led to believe.

from Flores Forbes who was an extremely high ranking Black Panther.

[Summerspeaker]

I don't think that male leftists in groups thinking they're somehow entitled to fuck girls in their leftist groups is strictly a college thing (or, "petit bourgeois").

No doubt about that. Dudely sexual entitlement definitely stretches across class distinctions.

[black magick hustla]

The topic raises an important issue. Like everyone else, I've seen the emotional damage connected with sexual relationships undermine various groups. Manarchists and sexual predators always exists as a threat. However, I'm not sure a simple invocation to avoid such sexual relationships best addresses the problem. Does that exclude couples from radical politics? Should revolutionary leftists only engage in sex acts with liberals (or, Goldman forbid, conservatives)? Moreover, eschewing sex doesn't deal with similar nonsexual social dynamics of power, passion, and personal betrayal that commonly affect organizations. Emotional intimacy and intensity aren't limited to folks sleeping together, as much as modern culture attempts impose such a boundary. These connections make us vulnerable, but I would find the radical community an intolerably bleak place without at least the possibility of passionate affection. (I find it quite lacking in this regard already.)

Lets be clear here. My comrades are almost like my brothers and sisters and I would do anything to help them. Our relationships are anything but bleak.

[Summerspeaker]

Lets be clear here. My comrades are almost like my brothers and sisters and I would do anything to help them. Our relationships are anything but bleak.

I wish I could say the same about the community here. I brought that up because I've encountered the nonsexual interpersonal dynamics as emotionally intense and divisive as sexual ones. Folks rightfully want respect, affection, and meaningful decision-making power. When these things don't happen we get upset.

[Rusty Shackleford]

This is not my position on the subject, but i figured it was very related. check this out.

http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/naked-maoists-before-a-naked-wall/
http://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/k1.jpg?w=475&h=335

For two brief years in the late 1960s, there existed on Stuttgarter Platz in Berlin a notorious squat often referred to as the Horror Commune. Kommune I was a Maoist microsect which aggressively promoted sexual promiscuity-as-liberation. Its members rejected such bourgeois norms as personal privacy — the bathrooms had no doors — and devoted themselves to organizing political protests and stunts. It had been set up in March 1967 by Fritz Teufel; his notoreity began after he broke into the dean’s office at the Freie Universitat, took his cigars, toga and chain of office, then rode a bicycle through the corridors to the auditorium, where he allowed the cheering student body to appoint him the new dean. His first official act was to sack all of the unpopular professors.
When the American Vice-President Humphrey visited Berlin in April 1967, eleven Kommunards tried to ‘assassinate’ him by attacking him with puddings, flour and yogurt; the absurd joke was lost on Die Zeit, which called them the “eleven little Oswalds”. Teufel was one of the eleven, and was soon arrested. He soon became a celebrity, helped by his last name, which means “devil” in German.
During Teufel’s absence from Kommune 1, it circulated a self-portrait: seven nude young men and women splayed against a wall, displayed with the headline: Das Private ist politisch! (“The personal is political”). The photo was taken by Thomas Hesterberg, and was captioned ”Naked Maoists Before a Naked Wall” when the photo ran (partially censored to remove private parts) in Der Spiegel in June 1967. Although it would be subjected to much parody (http://www.flickr.com/photos/oxfamdeutschland/5104054049/) and mockery in later years, the photo was extremely controversial and divisive when many German newsmagazines decided to reprint it.
The photo’s message was as explicit as its contents were: the commune tried to draw the parallel between the pictures of helpless, naked concentration camp bodies and the rebelliously unclothed bodies of Maoist revolutionaries. Thusly, deeper message was that adolescent promiscuity should force the older generation to be open about sex, and consequently about their past, i.e., Hitler and everything else. The Kommune’s proclamation that “If Germans can look at the truth about our bodies, they will be able to face other truths as well” provoked Rudi Dutschke (an influential conventional leftist of the older order) so much as to condemn the Kommunards as ‘neurotics’.
For the Kommune, it was all downhill from there. In April 1968, two members were arrested for attempting to burn down a department store in Munich. During their trial that October, rioting broke out, and about 400 sympathizers were arrested. Teufel’s original visions, Spass-Guerillero (“fun guerrilla”) and Witz als Waffe or (“joke as weapon”), were soon forgotten; Teufel found out that fame too was considered a bourgeoise anathema when he himself was expelled from the Kommune. When the Kommune dissolved in 1969, its remnants slowly turned into a terrorist cell: in the early 1970s, a splinter Kommunard group banded together to form the Baader-Meinhof Gang, also known as the Rote Armee Fraktion (RAF). The allusions to the Royal Air Force (RAF) was not accidental: just as the British had bombed Germany from above, they intended to raze ‘new fascism’ (i.e., capitalism) from within. A chaotic game of cat and mouse with the authorities followed, culminated with the mysterious deaths of the gang’s leaders in their cells. In total, the RAF carried out almost 250 attacks, robbed 69 banks, kidnapped a few dozen politicians, businessmen and journalists, and murdered 28 people.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I've never heard whether or not they had forced group sex like some of our U.S. sects though..

Capitalism is fucked up and does fucked up things to people. That's often amplified rather than muted in these ideological sects, most run by "intellectuals." Like I said, I think that says much about capitalism & political grouplets and cults than sex.

[9]

If i catch that going on within my branch, i am putting a fucking bat to someones nuts.
This is the attitude that everyone should adopt.

ITT: Stalinoid teenagers (and people acting like them) who think that anti-sexism means patronizing women like the weak, helpless, emotionally-unstable little babies they presume them to be, so that for once in their lives, they can feel like hardmen.

If there are manipulative people at the center of an organization, that is the problem. What sort of relationships responsible, consenting adults choose to have - and whether or not they are "in love" - is not the business of a political organization and it is not a political question.

What a stupid thread.

[Delenda Carthago]

Its members rejected such bourgeois norms as personal privacy — the bathrooms had no doors — and devoted themselves to organizing political protests and stunts.

:lol:

[bcbm]

i think you could only get upset about various members of intellectual hobbyist sects fucking each other if you ascribe to them more importance than they warrant. i don't see what the big deal is. i've been in a number of groups across the anarchist and communist milieu and sure, people sleeping with each other can lead to problems. but just as easily it can not matter at all. personally i have friends i've slept with doing political work with who are close, and some who i don't speak with. the same is true of people i wasn't doing political work with. i don't think any of the fucking broke up groups though... the police, time, distance, evolving politics (in short- life's course) seemed to do a better job. can sex break up groups? probably. do people foster fucked up relationships in radical groups? absolutely. i don't think it happens on a larger scale than outside these groups though or that it can be resolved by cutting sex out of the equation.

[727Goon]

so what if homie gets it in. its not really your business, and its not political.

[black magick hustla]

actually this is a dumb thread nvm

[bcbm]

can we still cuddle?

[black magick hustla]

i def. wont date moonbats tho

[black magick hustla]

if anybody wants to discuss this shit you are fine but i am not defending the op anymore

[bcbm]

idk i like dating moonbats, not being able to talk about whatever obscure bullshit you just read is like poison to a relationship

[black magick hustla]

there arent many moonbats that are down with the shit i read anyway

[black magick hustla]

i realized i was wrong when the people thanking me where stalinists

[black magick hustla]

im not gonna opine about gender shit until i figure it out im still mulling over it and im sorry but i grew up with a bunch of mexican boozers that talk about "*****es" all day and have no female friends i just wanna figure out my humanity and how to not be a dick!!!!! i also dont wanna be guiltripped by feminist moonbats because that is dishonest just tryin to be honest

[Hammilton]

It seems to me that the right pretends that sex is sinful outside of rigid constraints, and should only be for procreation, and the left pretends it's nothing but mechanics. At least the left tries to base their belief in science and a 2000 year old book, but neither is right. One is just more wrong than the other.

Research has definitively proven that sex isn't purely mechanics. It releases some neurotransmitters, activates the reward pathway, turns off parts of the brain, lights others up like Palin hearing about a Senator getting shot :)

Sex results (for almost everyone) in emotional attachment, plain and simple. It's easy to see why evolutionarily this would develop in our species.

Some people can have sex without involving their feelings (mostly men, I would guess), but the vast majority cannot and doesn't.

In a small group if, and really when, jealousy does erupt , it can easily tear the group apart.

I don't think that comrades can't sleep together, but that they should treat their relationships seriously, and remain committed to each other, and avoid sleeping with a multiple members.

[Queercommie Girl]

The topic raises an important issue. Like everyone else, I've seen the emotional damage connected with sexual relationships undermine various groups. Manarchists and sexual predators always exists as a threat. However, I'm not sure a simple invocation to avoid such sexual relationships best addresses the problem. Does that exclude couples from radical politics? Should revolutionary leftists only engage in sex acts with liberals (or, Goldman forbid, conservatives)? Moreover, eschewing sex doesn't deal with similar nonsexual social dynamics of power, passion, and personal betrayal that commonly affect organizations. Emotional intimacy and intensity aren't limited to folks sleeping together, as much as modern culture attempts impose such a boundary. These connections make us vulnerable, but I would find the radical community an intolerably bleak place without at least the possibility of passionate affection. (I find it quite lacking in this regard already.)

No-one is saying socialists should completely abstain from sex or something.

[Rakhmetov]

"Orgy-porgy, Ford and fun,
Kiss the girls and make them One.
Boys at One with girls at peace; Orgy-porgy gives release."--- Brave New World

[Queercommie Girl]

No doubt about that. Dudely sexual entitlement definitely stretches across class distinctions.


True, but I think it also illustrates that unfortunately even in supposedly socialist and Marxist organisations, people are often not truly equal, and some individuals have more social power (access to dates is a manifestation of social power in general) than others in various ways.

Of course it's still much much less extreme than in capitalist China at the moment, where rich businessmen have dozens of mistresses while poor migrant workers have absolutely no access to any kind of sex at all.

Such are general symptoms of class societies and the unequal power relations they inevitably create.

[bcbm]

access to dates is a manifestation of social power in general

elaborate

[Queercommie Girl]

elaborate

In a political party with a hierarchical structure, those in leading positions would have easier access to dates compared with grassroots and younger party members. That's what that guy was complaining about, essentially.

In ultra-capitalist class societies, this kind of trend is taken to the extreme.

[black magick hustla]

i think the dates are human beings too tho

[Queercommie Girl]

i think the dates are human beings too tho

So are the mistresses of rich capitalists. It doesn't matter. Inequality in dating is a reflection of social inequality.

[black magick hustla]

So are the mistresses of rich capitalists. It doesn't matter. Inequality in dating is a reflection of social inequality.
but where do you draw the line. a better looking dude would probably do better at dating too.

[Tim Finnegan]

but where do you draw the line. a better looking dude would probably do better at dating too.
Who said anything about "drawing a line"? :confused: Iseul's saying that inequity of power is reflected in terms of sexual success ("success"?), not that setting up a system of shag-rationing is the path to equality.

[Queercommie Girl]

but where do you draw the line. a better looking dude would probably do better at dating too.

I'm talking about greater access to dates based on political and economic power. Communism believes in political and economic equality: no classes, no states.

"Better looking" is in the eye of the beholder. Today it's largely determined by the mainstream capitalist media.

[9]

Who said anything about "drawing a line"? :confused: Iseul's saying that inequity of power is reflected in terms of sexual success ("success"?)
It seems like pretty much strictly a male perspective.

[Tim Finnegan]

It seems like pretty much strictly a male perspective.
How so?

[Queercommie Girl]

It seems like pretty much strictly a male perspective.

It is a product of a society that is patriachal and class-differentiated. It's more of a male perspective, but not exclusively so, because in a patriachal class society, poor men are more affected by this kind of inequality than poor women.

One would certainly expect this to significantly lessen at least in a genuinely classless and stateless society.

[Summerspeaker]

Sex results (for almost everyone) in emotional attachment, plain and simple. It's easy to see why evolutionarily this would develop in our species.

So does radical organizing and social struggle, though not necessarily with the same intensity. (This varies.)


I don't think that comrades can't sleep together, but that they should treat their relationships seriously, and remain committed to each other, and avoid sleeping with a multiple members.

While I see the practical utility of this advice, supporting monogamy just makes me feel dirty.


Of course it's still much much less extreme than in capitalist China at the moment, where rich businessmen have dozens of mistresses while poor migrant workers have absolutely no access to any kind of sex at all.

Except access to the ultimate in safe sex, but being poor and overworked probably makes this option less fun than it should be.

[9]

How so?

Uh, because most women don't have much of a problem - at least not that I am aware - 'getting access to dates'.

[gorillafuck]

women fear dates like the black plague.

[Tim Finnegan]

Uh, because most women don't have much of a problem - at least not that I am aware - 'getting access to dates'.
Now that is a strictly male perspective! :laugh:

[9]

Now that is a strictly male perspective! :laugh:
And for the second fucking time (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2061406&postcount=64), I'm not a male.

[bcbm]

heterosexuality is the opiate of the masses

[Tim Finnegan]

And for the second fucking time (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2061406&postcount=64), I'm not a male.
Never said you were, mate. You get proletarians in possession of elements of bourgeois ideology, do you not? So why not women in possession of elements of patriarchal ideology?


heterosexuality is the opiate of the masses
I'd say it's rather closer to bran flakes than it is to opium. ;)

Edit: For the record, yeah, my original post was what 9 said it was. I changed it to something which I thought was less stupid, but, in retrospect, was just as stupid, and even more pompous to boot. Nice going, Tim.

[9]

You're a jackass

EDIT: btw, this was originally in response to this:





And for the second fucking time, I'm not a male.
Oh, yeah, I forget, sorry. You've got such a manarchist vibe that it's kinda hard to remember...

which tim finnegan then edited to say something totally different.

[Tim Finnegan]

You're a jackass
I'm sorry?

[gorillafuck]

Never said you were, mate. You get proletarians in possession of elements of bourgeois ideology, do you not? So why not women in possession of elements of patriarchal ideology?And this is where the recently flourishing revleft style feminism leads us.

[9]

*flaming*

[Tim Finnegan]

And this is where the recently flourishing revleft style feminism leads us.
No, this is where diverging from happy-fluffy-fun-fun liberalism leads us. You want to talk about something nice and inoffensive, find a church coffee morning.


Shove it up your ass, you pompous cock
That seems unnecessary. I mean, yes, I offered a frank personal criticism, but surely that means you should respond in kind, not simply insult me.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Never said you were, mate. You get proletarians in possession of elements of bourgeois ideology, do you not? So why not women in possession of elements of patriarchal ideology?

Gender traitors!

[black magick hustla]

i think the point is that you always dismiss her opinions as dudely

[black magick hustla]

uncletomming since 4/1

[Tim Finnegan]

Gender traitors!
I wouldn't put it in quite so stereotypical terms.


i think the point is that you always dismiss her opinions as dudely
She has some very dudely opinions. What's a bugger to do?

(And, yeah, the first time was a fuck-up, and I apologised for that. I was out of line there, and I don't dispute it for a second.)

[gorillafuck]

No, this is where diverging from happy-fluffy-fun-fun liberalism leads us. You want to talk about something nice and inoffensive, find a church coffee morning.I have sex at church coffee morning.

[9]

*flaming*

[bcbm]

I'd say it's rather closer to bran flakes than it is to opium. ;)

cornflakes are counterrevolutionary

[Tim Finnegan]

Yeah, a "personal critique" on par with calling someone a "self-hating Jew" or otherwise pathologizing their politics. So again, take your disgusting university politics and shove it up your ass.
Well, I certainly didn't intend for it to sound like that, and I'm sorry that I miscommunicated so poorly. (Also, I wouldn't say that internalised oppression- not to suggest that this is something you suffer from- is a pathology, but, in fact, the very opposite: it's a structural problem, not an individual one.) What I meant is that the conviction that romantic struggle is a purely male burden is a view typically held by men, and tends to be one of the favourite planks in the platform of the "men's rights movement". It's a rather counter-productive position to hold when attempting to combat gender inequality, ignoring, as it does, the large number of women- less than men, perhaps, but still significant- who are not so lucky.

Also, "disgusting university politics"? Pardon? :confused:

(Edit: Also, yes, reading back, I'm being kind of a mansplainy douche, and for that I apologise. I'll try to moderate my pompous cock-ness in future.)

[Os Cangaceiros]

I wouldn't put it in quite so stereotypical terms.

That's basically what it amounts to, though, right? If patriarchy is anti-female, and a woman espouses supposedly patriarchal views, then aren't they being traitors to their genders? I mean, this only really applies to people who believe in "universal sisterhood" and that Hillary Clinton and an immigrant woman who cleans hotel rooms have anything in common besides their sex organs, but I think that pretty much sums it up.

I tried to think of a gender equivalent to the phrase "Uncle Tom", but alas, my vocab failed me. :(

Also, to the next person who uses the word dudely: I'm going to come through your computer screen and cut your fucking fingers off, I swear to christ.

[Summerspeaker]

The dominant culture constructs women as the sex class: a resource for dudes. Thus women's bodies - assuming patriarchy compliance - stand in constant demand. At the same time, society pressures respectable women to play gatekeeper and accept only suitably qualified men. While women who fit into the required age and appearance boxes can usually find plenty of sexual attention, they still often have trouble locating desirable partners.


Also, to the next person who uses the word dudely: I'm going to come through your computer screen and cut your fucking fingers off, I swear to christ.

Who else uses it besides me? If you come, please spare me the pain and go right for the throat.

[Tim Finnegan]

That's basically what it amounts to, though, right? If patriarchy is anti-female, and a woman espouses supposedly patriarchal views, then aren't they being traitors to their genders?
Only if one assumes that complicity with the hegemonic ideology implies treason, which I'm not at all sure is true. There's a difference between, if you'll allow a less-than-perfect analogy, a working class person supporting liberalism and a working class person crossing a picket line.

And, again, I wasn't accusing 9 of "espousing patriarchal views", or at least not as such, but of uncritically accepting an item of patriarchal ideology. Do remember, this started with me making a snarky- and, in retrospect, perhaps ill-judged- remark, not proclaiming her to be a self-oppressing tool of the patriarchy.

[black magick hustla]

I tried to think of a gender equivalent to the phrase "Uncle Tom", but alas, my vocab failed me. :(
.

sarah palining

[Os Cangaceiros]

Who else uses it besides me? If you come, please spare me the pain and go right for the throat.

I must stop the contagion's spread!

[black magick hustla]

fuckin wingnuts

[Summerspeaker]

I must stop the contagion's spread!

I have to tell you, threatening me with death will only encourage me. I picked up the term from the excellent blog I Blame the Patriarchy (http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/).

[Tim Finnegan]

I must stop the contagion's spread!
I'd start saying "blokeish", but I'm not sure if anyone outside of the British Isles and the Antipodes actually knows what that means.


fuckin wingnuts
Who now?

[gorillafuck]

I don't give a fuck, if i catch it, I am going to bust your balls open and i don't care what LA, chicago and DC.If you catch a man and a woman in your organization having sex you're going to beat up the male?

That's a pretty condescending attitude towards women having consensual sex.

[Salyut]

oh god im so confused

[No_Leaders]

Oh hi this thread.. so the only thing i have to say is. I disagree with people using their status or the fact that they're part of some org to get in girls pants so to say. It's just obvious sexism on the male's part and it's horrible for the organization. Comrades need to focus on the task at hand and having someone using their views as a way to manipulate really would just create drama and internal fighting. Consensual on the other hand i see nothing wrong with, its just when people basically coerce one another into sex.

[nuisance]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8W4r7BLGDc

[PhoenixAsh]

I really do not care about people only wanting to have sex with somebody.....I do not see that as inherrently sexist.

I care about when people try to play the emotions card to make somebody believe their intentions are other than they are. Misleading people, boys or girls, or outright lies to get people in the sack is obviously wrong and objectionable.

As to sexual relations in the same group...well...thats something you can have your own personal views on. I do not think you can forbid it or even that you should forbid it. That simply will only make things happen in the shades which is a whole other can of worms. Instead you should and could ask for people to be honest about such things going on.

If a consensual relation breaks off...well...generally thats when the shit starts. If everybody wants to meddle and have an opinion about that and take sides...well thats simply the reason why such conflicts tend to spiral out of control and groups split.

Simply make it clear that unless something really wrong happened both partners should keep their emotions out of the group unless they can be fair about them. If not...the one who starts the trouble is the one leaving....and if both can not behave then both leave.

[Franz Fanonipants]

social libertarianism is basically capitalist degeneracy and patriarchy utilizing the cover of freedom to recreate itself

end thread

[black magick hustla]

social libertarianism is basically capitalist degeneracy and patriarchy utilizing the cover of freedom to recreate itself

end thread
dawggg "social libertarianism" has been pushed by the likes of kollontai since early 20th century. too many maoist children took a leak on your brain