Touching women, part 2

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

To continue a previous thread re: touching, consent etc.

I was disappointed to see a number of comrades taking quite a blase attitude to the issue.

Consent is a formal expression, it is not always an implicit expression of will, and there is a key distinction.

If a woman gives her consent under pressure (but not physical duress), or because she feels she 'should', and as a man we take advantage of that, are we not helping the social construct that perhaps led to the woman feeling pressured in the first place?

Because really, if a woman consents in terms of formal expression, but is not actually consenting as a positive expression of her will, then really the problem is not solved, merely hidden away.

I'd be interested to hear other comrades' views on this, or any experiences you've had of this.

[RGacky3]

If a woman gives her consent under pressure (but not physical duress), or because she feels she 'should', and as a man we take advantage of that, are we not helping the social construct that perhaps led to the woman feeling pressured in the first place?


This is total bullshit, there is always gonna be pressure, just as there is pressure if your a man, are we gonna say that women should'nt pressure men for stuff? Of coarse not, its the way things go.

Your basically saying men should not try and get laid.

As long as there is no power dynamic (like a boss pressuring women with financial implicit threats), or physical duress, its just the game of love.


Because really, if a woman consents in terms of formal expression, but is not actually consenting as a positive expression of her will, then really the problem is not solved, merely hidden away.


If I implied that I want to be in a relationship, sleep with a woman, then don't want to be in that relationship, have I slept with her without her consent?

[black magick hustla]

ugh stop.

[Tim Cornelis]

Consent is a formal expression

"hello there, do I have permission to flirt with you?"
"I hereby consent to flirtatious comments."
...
"do I have permission to casually touch your shoulder?"
"I do not consent to being casually touched on the shoulder."

[l'Enfermé]

Has anyone that responded in the previous thread actually ever talked to a woman?

[Ele'ill]

This is total bullshit, there is always gonna be pressure, just as there is pressure if your a man, are we gonna say that women should'nt pressure men for stuff? Of coarse not, its the way things go.

Men aren't oppressed within that specific hierarchy and do not feel the societal pressures that women do.



Your basically saying men should not try and get laid.

Maybe they should try having sex.




As long as there is no power dynamic (like a boss pressuring women with financial implicit threats), or physical duress, its just the game of love.

So there's no social control element to hierarchy and oppression?




If I implied that I want to be in a relationship, sleep with a woman, then don't want to be in that relationship, have I slept with her without her consent?

I don't believe this is what's being said anywhere at all but I didn't write what you were responding to so

[#FF0000]

itt: embarrassment, gacky saying dumb shit

[Os Cangaceiros]

Often I think this is an issue that the left overthinks to a large degree.

Anyone who's ever been in a relationship knows that consent isn't an formal expression in that it isn't stated explicitely (well, for most people, some people may want it stated explicitely, I don't know). Whether someone you're with says that he or she is OK with fucking but in the back of their mind is really thinking, hmm, actually I rather be doing my taxes...that's something that I guess people will have to approach with their best judgement, on a case by case basis. I don't know what more there is to say about this. Most people I know will back off when someone says that they're not really into having sex at the moment. There are definitely people out there who will badger people into having sex, or will try to anyway, but luckily I don't know many of them.

I can see why people outside the left look at something like a "consent workshop" and are puzzled, honestly. Lets be clear, mainstream society is a very sexist place. But at the same time I don't think you should complicate something that really isn't complicated, from my perspective anyway.

[danyboy27]

Well its obvious, consent is meaningless if the person is pressured by social, cultural factors or peer pressure, its a formality to give the impression to the other person that everything is okay while in fact its not.

Its should be obvious.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

To me it is a very complicated subject, and to say otherwise is really to just push the issue under the carpet.

I'm obv not saying guys shouldn't try to have sex with girls, if that is what they desire. I'm merely saying that - and I know this from experience - when a girl formally consents, it is not always her express will. Now, I suppose your average joe might not give a fuck, but surely as feminists we should. Not from a moral standpoint, no, but from the standpoint that we should NOT be part of society's construction of women as sex objects to be used and abused.

[#FF0000]

Well its obvious, consent is meaningless if the person is pressured by social, cultural factors

Doesn't this mean it's impossible to give consent?

[The Douche]

Doesn't this mean it's impossible to give consent?

It means that even consensual sex is tainted by patriarchy, as long as patriarchy exists.

[Ostrinski]

I'm basically never ever going to speak to women just to be safe

[#FF0000]

It means that even consensual sex is tainted by patriarchy, as long as patriarchy exists.

Aight, but how, exactly?

[black magick hustla]

god i miss nine. she would shit on all of youse

[black magick hustla]

It means that even consensual sex is tainted by patriarchy, as long as patriarchy exists.

this is one mm before the whole sex under capitalism is rape bs just so that u have that one clear

[Althusser]

This is really dumb...

[Ostrinski]

This is really dumb...Yeah discussing on a discussion board look at these tools

[Lobotomy]

It means that even consensual sex is tainted by patriarchy, as long as patriarchy exists.

I feel like this basically implies that women are incapable of truly deciding what we want for ourselves, and I don't take kindly to that idea at all

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I feel like this basically implies that women are incapable of truly deciding what we want for ourselves, and I don't take kindly to that idea at all

:rolleyes::lol: Here we go...

[RGacky3]

Men aren't oppressed within that specific hierarchy and do not feel the societal pressures that women do.


Well its different in different societies, and the pressures are different.

Think of the difference between a man not wanting sex and a woman, no woman turning town sex would be called a "faggot."


So there's no social control element to hierarchy and oppression?


Those words are extermely vague, I was pointing out a specific situation where it could come in place, such as the workplace, or perhaps a very traditional marriage.

But meeting a girl at a bar, no, its not really there.


I don't believe this is what's being said anywhere at all but I didn't write what you were responding to so

My point is that you were saying "what if she consents, but not as a positive expression, is it still consent." I'm saying that its as much as a problem as consenting under a false premis. Its not a problem at all.

[Ele'ill]

So just because this is OI doesn't mean that threads should be fucked up by one liners and stuff. Just a general suggestion.

[Ele'ill]

I feel like this basically implies that women are incapable of truly deciding what we want for ourselves, and I don't take kindly to that idea at all

I don't think that this is what's being said.

[Ele'ill]

Think of the difference between a man not wanting sex and a woman, no woman turning town sex would be called a "faggot."

No, she runs the risk of being called a prude, alienated, ostracized and you know raped.

[RGacky3]

No, she runs the risk of being called a prude, alienated, ostracized and

No more than a man.


and you know raped.

If a woman is having sex because she's afraid of being raped, that IS rape.

[Ele'ill]

No more than a man.

Much more frequently and I'd think that the 'demand' of women from men would be evident in just how much more frequently women are raped in comparison to men and the entire rape culture that follows




If a woman is having sex because she's afraid of being raped, that IS rape.


I was referring to a non-consensual situation turning into rape and I have no idea what you're actually talking about or replying to here.

[RGacky3]

Much more frequently and I'd think that the 'demand' of women from men would be evident in just how much more frequently women are raped in comparison to men and the entire rape culture that follows


Oh sure, women are raped more than men for many reasons, one being its physically much more difficult for a woman to rape a man and also becasue there are more heterosexual men than homosexuals men.

It also perhaps has to do with biological reasons (a man can have sex with a woman and not get pregnant and thus not worry about it, not so with a woman).

But saying there is more societal pressure for women to be sexually active than men is rediculous.


I was referring to a non-consensual situation turning into rape and I have no idea what you're actually talking about or replying to here.

Yeah ... Rape is wrong ... I think we're talking over each other here.

Could you clarify your origional point?

[The Douche]

this is one mm before the whole sex under capitalism is rape bs just so that u have that one clear

Yes, I know, and I will explain in a moment.


I feel like this basically implies that women are incapable of truly deciding what we want for ourselves, and I don't take kindly to that idea at all

I disagree, I think the "all sex under capitalism is rape" line, is sexist, because it implies that women are so dominated and controlled by patriarchy that they cannot even give consent to sex, and I think that is disempowering and sexist.


However, all relationships between a man and woman under capital are tainted by patriarchy. There is, to some degree, an element of patriarchy that exists in even those relationships which strive to be free of it, simply because it is what we know and what we have shoved down our throats every day.

Capital absorbs and twists everything to its own purpose in this society, and that includes consensual relationships, to an extent.

[Tim Cornelis]

Much more frequently and I'd think that the 'demand' of women from men would be evident in just how much more frequently women are raped in comparison to men and the entire rape culture that follows


I very much doubt that most rapes occur because a woman had previously refused sex to a man. That doesn't seem to be the average rapist.

I think men and women are roughly equally pressured into 'sex'. If a man refuses sex, he is a "pussy", "faggot", etc.

[The Douche]

I very much doubt that most rapes occur because a woman had previously refused sex to a man. That doesn't seem to be the average rapist.

I think men and women are roughly equally pressured into 'sex'. If a man refuses sex, he is a "pussy", "faggot", etc.

Rape largely occurs as an attempt to dominate another, socially men are often told that they are failures/lesser men if they cannot have sex with lots of women/have lots of sex. Men who are unable to do this sometimes engage in rape in order to validate themselves as men.

Women are not pressured into sex by society, they are pressured to abstain from sex by society as a whole (if a woman has many sexual partners or freely engages in sex she is a whore or easy), but of course men are pressured in the opposite way, which means, individual men attempt to pressure women into having sex. (this is not social pressure)


Finally when rape does occur the courts and the entire judicial system are set up in the favor of the man, and not the woman.

To say that women and men are on equal footing when it comes to sexual politics is downright sexist.

[l'Enfermé]

It means that even consensual sex is tainted by patriarchy, as long as patriarchy exists.
Did any of your sexual partners ever tell you that your sexual relations were tainted by patriarchy? Mine haven't either.

I don't think that this whole "we're feminist knights on white horses battling the woes of women that may actually not exist" is just plain bullshit. Especially since you're basically subscribing to bourgeois feminist thought and this forum is apparently for Socialists only.

Regarding patriarchy and capitalism, patriarchy predates capitalism and is as old as human civilization. In fact, it's under capitalism that the old system of male privilege and female subordination has been gradually dismantled, though not entirely. The same cannot be said of racism though, as racist ideology and practice are only as old as capitalism(not to say that xenophobia didn't exist, but xenophobia is in no way racist, the ancient Greeks for example were what we would call "color-blind")

[The Douche]

Did any of your sexual partners ever tell you that your sexual relations were tainted by patriarchy?

Yes.


Especially since you're basically subscribing to bourgeois feminist thought and this forum is apparently for Socialists only.


Explain.

[Ravachol]

Regarding patriarchy and capitalism, patriarchy predates capitalism and is as old as human civilization.

Yes, it's as old as 'civilization', that is, the system of sedentism, agriculture, states and hierarchy. But it's not as old as human societies. Primitive humans were largely foragers with hunting playing a secondary role, the idea of women 'setting in their cave, raising children' while men 'went out and hunted for food as alpha males' is 19th century bullshit. Child-raising in primitive hunter-gatherer societies was a communal practice, engaged in by the entire community (as opposed to the nuclear family which didn't even exist back then). Similarly, hunting wasn't a 'male-only' task and most food was foraged anyway by women and men together. Only when pastoralism was replaced by intensive agriculture and animal husbandry, permanent sedentism became the norm and surplus accumulation, specialisation and the emergence of solid elites become the norm in the bronze age was patriarchy fully institutionalised.

[l'Enfermé]

Yes.
lol, must have been an awkward conversation.



Explain
Explain what? The fact that your, and the view of other white-knight feminist crusaders on this forum, are essentially bourgeois feminism? I contrast bourgeois feminism with proletarian/Marxist feminism, but in any event, feminism is first and foremost a bourgeois ideology, whose aims oppose the aims of the working classes. Though Feminism is excusable in Anarchists, after all, Anarchism springs from petty-bourgeois mentality, it's hardly excusable in self-proclaimed Marxists(and I've seen a few bourgeois-feminist Marxists)


Yes, it's as old as 'civilization', that is, the system of sedentism, agriculture, states and hierarchy. But it's not as old as human societies. Primitive humans were largely foragers with hunting playing a secondary role, the idea of women 'setting in their cave, raising children' while men 'went out and hunted for food as alpha males' is 19th century bullshit. Child-raising in primitive hunter-gatherer societies was a communal practice, engaged in by the entire community (as opposed to the nuclear family which didn't even exist back then). Similarly, hunting wasn't a 'male-only' task and most food was foraged anyway by women and men together. Only when pastoralism was replaced by intensive agriculture and animal husbandry, permanent sedentism became the norm and surplus accumulation, specialisation and the emergence of solid elites become the norm in the bronze age was patriarchy fully institutionalised.
Yes, primitive humans weren't civilized, so there's the problem. Anyways, the first domestic institution humans had was the matrilineal clan(and yes, at this point, the family didn't exist), as Engels wrote. What we call didn't patriarchy only began to take over with the beginning of farming/pastoralism. "Mother-right" was overthrown by "Father-right" with the advent of ownership of property.

[Ele'ill]

Explain what? The fact that your, and the view of other white-knight feminist crusaders on this forum, are essentially bourgeois feminism? I contrast bourgeois feminism with proletarian/Marxist feminism, but in any event, feminism is first and foremost a bourgeois ideology, whose aims oppose the aims of the working classes. Though Feminism is excusable in Anarchists, after all, Anarchism springs from petty-bourgeois mentality, it's hardly excusable in self-proclaimed Marxists(and I've seen a few bourgeois-feminist Marxists)


jesus christ you chop and divide the working class better than the bosses do

[black magick hustla]

btw only one female talked in the whole thread and she basically opposed all the dude feminists in this thread. maybe this says something imho.


anyway now cuz' someone pmed me about this bullshit thread i'll add my 2cents. i don't believe much in the behavioral approach the "left" (well now that i think about it i hate the left so lol) has taken up much recently. you know, the idea of "fixing" behavioral attitudes about sex and lifestyles by evangelizing what is non-sexist and non-racist thing to do. historically, this approach probably had to do with the fact that a lot of academics had fuck to write about cuz' the class struggle was ebbing in the 90s so now they became obsessed with semiotics and finding how mcdonald lunch boxes are oppresive to feminist muslim women, and this torrent of shit trickled down to the activist scene cuz' in the US students form a huge part of it.

i've been in activist circles where people shout at each other about how something was racist or sexist and then you have wingnut shouting matches about it. its really impractical, because for every politicized woman telling you something, you'll find another radical woman saying otherwise. this goes for people railing on about white supremacy, etc. in practice, a lot of the times becomes this gross spectacle of tokenization and artificial social relations. worse, you end up with some straight white dude going on to women about how vaginal sex is sexist.

i believe theory has only use if it can come up with something measurable or can be used to come up for a solution. saying stuff like "sex is tainted by patriarchy" is just a sociological factoid. doesn't really imply any solution or anything to change. saying that the state prohibiting abortions is sexist, however, implies something measurable and some sort of solution. saying, the male "gaze" and sexual objectification are sexist, is also another sociological factoid etc. what are you going to do about a dude staring at a girl's ass?

[brigadista]

it has to be asked why there isnt a thread called "touching men"- just saying

[RGacky3]

Because its not a problem ... for most men.

[brigadista]

Because its not a problem ... for most men.

that was my point :)

[Deicide]

What should I do if a women grabbed my asscheek (without permission) in a bar and I didn't like it?

[RGacky3]

What should I do if a women grabbed my asscheek in a bar and I didn't like it?


Tell her not to do it ...

[Crux]

I very much doubt that most rapes occur because a woman had previously refused sex to a man. That doesn't seem to be the average rapist.


Rape largely occurs as an attempt to dominate another, socially men are often told that they are failures/lesser men if they cannot have sex with lots of women/have lots of sex. Men who are unable to do this sometimes engage in rape in order to validate themselves as men.

Women are not pressured into sex by society, they are pressured to abstain from sex by society as a whole (if a woman has many sexual partners or freely engages in sex she is a whore or easy), but of course men are pressured in the opposite way, which means, individual men attempt to pressure women into having sex. (this is not social pressure)


Finally when rape does occur the courts and the entire judicial system are set up in the favor of the man, and not the woman.

To say that women and men are on equal footing when it comes to sexual politics is downright sexist.
I would like to say that most rape is perpetuated by a partner, ex-partner, family member, friends or aquintances. Most rapists know their victim and usually are even close to their victim. Most reported rapes are not prosecuted, and out of those prosecuted few go so far as the court and of those that go to court a majority are dismissed as well. This, added to the previous fact that rapsists are usually probably somebody close to the victim, in all likelyhood tells us something about the rapes that are not reported at all.

and RGacky3 yes there are plenty of forms of social controlagainst women perpetuated by men, even outside socially conservative marriages, even in bars. And yes it is not a problem for men because men generally speaking are under little threat and it also happens less frequently. Sexual harassment against women is very very common.

[RGacky3]

I would like to say that most rape is perpetuated by a partner, ex-partner, family member, friends or aquintances. Most rapists know their victim and usually are even close to their victim. Most reported rapes are not prosecuted, and out of those prosecuted few go so far as the court and of those that go to court a majority are dismissed as well. This, added to the previous fact that rapsists are usually probably somebody close to the victim, in all likelyhood tells us something about the rapes that are not reported at all.


Yes, and raping someone will put you in prison.

ANd those that are not prosecuted should be, and thats a problem with the legal system.

NOT a problem with flirting, or people using psychological pressure for sex (it may be douchy but its not anything like sexism).

rape is forced sex, if she consents, then its NOT RAPE, no one consents to sex because of fear of rape.

Thats like saying I'm gonna give you all my money because you might steal it.


and RGacky3 yes there are plenty of forms of social controlagainst women perpetuated by men, even outside socially conservative marriages, even in bars. And yes it is not a problem for men because men generally speaking are under little threat and it also happens less frequently. Sexual harassment against women is very very common.

Yeah, but sexual harrassment in bars will generally get you kicked out (in a respectable place), but either way, saying sexual harrassment happens, does nothing to show that flirting is somehow wrong.

[Crux]

Yes, and raping someone will put you in prison.

ANd those that are not prosecuted should be, and thats a problem with the legal system.

NOT a problem with flirting, or people using psychological pressure for sex (it may be douchy but its not anything like sexism).

rape is forced sex, if she consents, then its NOT RAPE, no one consents to sex because of fear of rape.

Thats like saying I'm gonna give you all my money because you might steal it.



Yeah, but sexual harrassment in bars will generally get you kicked out (in a respectable place), but either way, saying sexual harrassment happens, does nothing to show that flirting is somehow wrong.
It's not, primarily, a legal problem. Although of course the inherent sexism in all the branches of the judcial system plays a role as well.

However sexism is prevalent in other parts of society as well, and if rape goes unpunished, if it is in a "socially acceptable" setting like in a relationship, what about far more subtle acts of aggression and dominance?

And I'm not saying flirting is wrong.

[l'Enfermé]

What should I do if a women grabbed my asscheek (without permission) in a bar and I didn't like it?
Nothing cause patriarchy blablablabla and shit, we must swap it with matriarchy!


jesus christ you chop and divide the working class better than the bosses do
In what manner? In what you quoted, I've noted that:
1) Bourgeois feminism is an anti-proletarian ideology that benifits the bourgeois and works against the interests of the proletariat
and
2) Anarchism comes from petty-bourgeois mentality, so for Anarchists to hold anti-proletarian, pro-bourgeoisie beliefs is not a very odd thing, the fact that they are bourgeois-feminists is not the problem, the problem is that they are Anarchists and not Socialists, but for Marxists to hold bourgeois-feminist views is a very odd thing and demands explanation.

What does any of that have to do with chopping and dividing the working class? Perhaps bourgeois feminists, to whose ideology many here subscribe(and I assume you do as well), "chop" and "divide" the working class much better than I do?


btw only one female talked in the whole thread and she basically opposed all the dude feminists in this thread. maybe this says something imho.

It does say something.

[The Douche]

rape is forced sex, if she consents, then its NOT RAPE, no one consents to sex because of fear of rape.


If you coerce somebody into having sex you have raped them.

You are a rape apologist.

[The Douche]

lol, must have been an awkward conversation.



Explain what? The fact that your, and the view of other white-knight feminist crusaders on this forum, are essentially bourgeois feminism? I contrast bourgeois feminism with proletarian/Marxist feminism, but in any event, feminism is first and foremost a bourgeois ideology, whose aims oppose the aims of the working classes. Though Feminism is excusable in Anarchists, after all, Anarchism springs from petty-bourgeois mentality, it's hardly excusable in self-proclaimed Marxists(and I've seen a few bourgeois-feminist Marxists)


Yes, primitive humans weren't civilized, so there's the problem. Anyways, the first domestic institution humans had was the matrilineal clan(and yes, at this point, the family didn't exist), as Engels wrote. What we call didn't patriarchy only began to take over with the beginning of farming/pastoralism. "Mother-right" was overthrown by "Father-right" with the advent of ownership of property.


No, it wasn't awkward, because I recognize my male privilege. I can have a mature conversation with a woman regarding my privilege in society.

You didn't explain anything, you didn't demonstrate how what I am talking about is bourgeois feminism, as opposed to proletarian feminism.



BMH, you're throwing out so many strawmen, its laughable. But I think you made one important comment:


for every politicized woman telling you something, you'll find another radical woman saying otherwise.

So I know its easy for you to talk about students and straight white cis-males in this thread, but you know for a fact that there are just as many politicized women who agree with my position as there are who disagree.

[The Guy]

Reading through previous posts, I still don't understand why this is such a raging issue. It's simply making a manhole out of a crack in the ground. No wonder the left isn't as strong.

Let's discuss to what extent pigeons created economic inflation and if holding the female ones is classed as perversion.

[gorillafuck]

It means that even consensual sex is tainted by patriarchy, as long as patriarchy exists.so what does this say about the way you think of women, cmoney?

that they cannot ever give real, completely full consent and their judgment in regards to their own sexuality can not be fully correct?

this is misogyny.

[gorillafuck]

I feel like this basically implies that women are incapable of truly deciding what we want for ourselves, and I don't take kindly to that idea at allI sure hope lobotomy isn't banned for breaking the revleft female party line set by male feminists. hey everybody remember 9 lol!

[The Douche]

so what does this say about the way you think of women, cmoney?

that they cannot ever give real, completely full consent and their judgment in regards to their own sexuality can not be fully correct?

this is misogyny.

I clarified my position already.

[gorillafuck]

Yes.I don't mean to be a dick, but you're the most outwardly macho member of the board. nobody else has ever said they would beat a man for making a remark at their girlfriend. did that cross your mind when you answered this question?


However, all relationships between a man and woman under capital are tainted by patriarchy. There is, to some degree, an element of patriarchy that exists in even those relationships which strive to be free of it, simply because it is what we know and what we have shoved down our throats every day.

Capital absorbs and twists everything to its own purpose in this society, and that includes consensual relationships, to an extent.this still doesn't mean consensual sex is always tainted by patriarchy.

[hatzel]

rape is forced sex, if she consents, then its NOT RAPE, no one consents to sex because of fear of rape.


If you coerce somebody into having sex you have raped them.

You are a rape apologist.

Might be worth mentioning that he said explicitly on the previous page:


If a woman is having sex because she's afraid of being raped, that IS rape.

Does this not suggest that his first comment actually intended to argue that 'consent' acquired under threat of rape cannot ever be considered consent; no one CONSENTS to sex because of fear of rape, as whatever they do - which may even include saying 'yes' - is something wholly different, and certainly not consent. An abandonment of active resistance, relenting through fear is - in the eyes of both of you - non-consensual, ergo the act remains very obviously rape.

I think you misunderstood him. You think he's saying that if people don't want to have sex, they'll refuse, even when threatened. From that position, of course, one could argue that forcing somebody to say 'yes' rules out the possibility of rape, as their compliance could only come through a desire to proceed, never through coercion, which is clearly rape apologism, I agree with you. I think he's saying that somebody saying 'yes' due to threats has not in fact consented, but done something else. This isn't rape apologism.

It's just a different understanding of the sentence there...

[Leftsolidarity]

Might be worth mentioning that he said explicitly on the previous page:



Does this not suggest that his first comment actually intended to argue that 'consent' acquired under threat of rape cannot ever be considered consent; no one CONSENTS to sex because of fear of rape, as whatever they do - which may even include saying 'yes' - is something wholly different, and certainly not consent. An abandonment of active resistance, relenting through fear is - in the eyes of both of you - non-consensual, ergo the act remains very obviously rape.

I think you misunderstood him. You think he's saying that if people don't want to have sex, they'll refuse, even when threatened. From that position, of course, one could argue that forcing somebody to say 'yes' rules out the possibility of rape, as their compliance could only come through a desire to proceed, never through coercion, which is clearly rape apologism, I agree with you. I think he's saying that somebody saying 'yes' due to threats has not in fact consented, but done something else. This isn't rape apologism.

It's just a different understanding of the sentence there...

This is all getting very confusing and has become a lot of word play but I agree with this. While I don't exactly agree with what RGacky3 is saying, I don't think he is a rape apologist. I think it was a misunderstanding of the point he was trying to make. I didn't write the comment, though, so I can't really talk for him.

[Tim Cornelis]

Rape largely occurs as an attempt to dominate another, socially men are often told that they are failures/lesser men if they cannot have sex with lots of women/have lots of sex. Men who are unable to do this sometimes engage in rape in order to validate themselves as men.

Women are not pressured into sex by society, they are pressured to abstain from sex by society as a whole (if a woman has many sexual partners or freely engages in sex she is a whore or easy), but of course men are pressured in the opposite way, which means, individual men attempt to pressure women into having sex. (this is not social pressure)


Finally when rape does occur the courts and the entire judicial system are set up in the favor of the man, and not the woman.

To say that women and men are on equal footing when it comes to sexual politics is downright sexist.

I'm just saying that rape doesn't occur because of sex in most cases.


Myth: Rape is sex.
Fact: Rape is experienced by the victims as an act of violence. It is a life-threatening experience. One out of every eight adult women has been a victim of forcible rape. (National Victim Center and Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, 1992) While sexual attraction may be influential, power, control and anger are the primary motives. Most rapists have access to a sexual partner. Gratification comes from gaining power and control and discharging anger. This gratification is only temporary, so the rapist seeks another victim.

[Crux]

I'm just saying that rape doesn't occur because of sex in most cases.
Yes and power and control is what the patriarchy is all about. Sexual harassment is not about sex either. Sexism is not about sex.

[Revolution starts with U]

If you coerce somebody into having sex you have raped them.

You are a rape apologist.

So I just want to clarify here:

if a woman is asking me to have sex, and I say I don't want to, but she just says "help me get off and I'll blow you later" then she has raped me? Or is it only when that happens in reverse (the man pestering the woman?) (Note that I'm not implying any kind of anti-pc "women are the real oppressors" bullshit)

Ok, so one time I was at my friend's wedding. It was clear the best lady (w/e you call that bs) was into me. At first I was just kind-of blowing her off, because she wasn't really my type. As the night extended, it became clear to me that I had a great opportunity to get laid, it was going to happen if I allowed it. So, even though I didn't really like her all that much, I did. Am I misunderstanding you, or did she rape me? Or.. did I rape her... maybe? I'm just very confused by what the point is here.


I think I'm just misunderstanding the nature of the whole debate here.... :confused:
Someone plz clarify :(

[Le Rouge]

This thread makes me cry

[Zav]

Touching someone without explicitly expressed consent is something I consider to be most inappropriate, save perhaps a tap on the shoulder or a tug on the sleeve to get attention. Unfortunately we live in a patriarchal world, and women have been considered inferior and weak (not true at all) for thousands of years in various societies. That women often feel intimidated by the presence of men into giving false consent is horrid, and will take generations to undo. We should just do away with gender roles entirely, along with 'race', by refusing to identify with them. Presto! Problem solved.


And yes it is not a problem for men because men generally speaking are under little threat and it also happens less frequently.
This is contestable, actually. The statistics are uncertain. Most men are ashamed to report sexual harassment or rape due to male gender roles or fear of prison beatings. If there is a leaning, it would be that women are raped more often, but it would not be as great as ''little threat'' implies.

[ridethejetski]

leftist moonbats talking about sex and human interaction is like the funny advice on sex Iranian mullahs used to give, or the pope discussing the positive and negatives of condoms

[gack]

So I (RGacky3) was aparently banned, I'm not sure why, but I suspect it was this thread,

specifically

"rape is forced sex, if she consents, then its NOT RAPE, no one consents to sex because of fear of rape. " (me)

Then Cmoney: "If you coerce somebody into having sex you have raped them.

You are a rape apologist. "

I just to clarify, I was not saying sexual coersion is not rape, of coarse it is and its abhorent, any violence, threat of violence, implication of violence, or implication of other harm (economic, political, or otherwise) is wrong, and is rape.

What I was saying was that if societal pressure is involved or relationship pressure, such as "if you don't have sex I don't want to be in a relationship with you," or "if your not gonna have sex your a prude," is not rape, and should'nt be threated as such, is it a conversation that should be had about what these societal pressures or personal pressures do? Yes.

I am in NO WAY a rape apologist, nor am I saying that coersion into sex, is'nt rape, even something like "I'll fire you if you don't have sex with me," is rape, since its a threat of a kind of violence (economic violence) to get sex.

Hazel wrote this


Does this not suggest that his first comment actually intended to argue that 'consent' acquired under threat of rape cannot ever be considered consent; no one CONSENTS to sex because of fear of rape, as whatever they do - which may even include saying 'yes' - is something wholly different, and certainly not consent. An abandonment of active resistance, relenting through fear is - in the eyes of both of you - non-consensual, ergo the act remains very obviously rape.

I think you misunderstood him. You think he's saying that if people don't want to have sex, they'll refuse, even when threatened. From that position, of course, one could argue that forcing somebody to say 'yes' rules out the possibility of rape, as their compliance could only come through a desire to proceed, never through coercion, which is clearly rape apologism, I agree with you. I think he's saying that somebody saying 'yes' due to threats has not in fact consented, but done something else. This isn't rape apologism.

It's just a different understanding of the sentence there...

That carifies basically what I was saying about if you consent under the threat of rape its still rape, because no one consents under the threat of rape, it IS rape.

So I'd like the ban to be lifted, since obviously it was a missunderstanding of what I wrote.

If it was something else that got me banned, (I have no idea, never heard from anyone), I'd like to know.

[Revolution starts with U]

Gack you know sockpuppets are not allowed. I don't support your ban, as it is clear you were taken out of context. Yet with the quickness you were taken out of context, I can only wonder if it was something personal...

[Per Levy]

yeah, cmoney banned you because you were a "rape apologist", pretty fishy all in all. but they wont unban you even without the socket account(that will give them the reason now) they wouldnt have. its sad really.

[Sendo]

This is my first time on this board in ages and I absolutely have to comment here. I have to say that cmoney, or rather, Chris, has made a grave error in his reading comprehension.

I'll paraphrase this:

Mari3L: there is rape and there is also non-consensual sex

Gacky: if you give consent, then it is not rape. (implied: Where there is no consent, there is rape.)

This means that Gacky feels that non-consensual sex is rape and should be treated accordingly.

cmoney: I think that Gacky equates the vocalizing the words of consent with consent. I think that Gacky believes that a woman who utters "okay" under knife-point is giving consent. (What probably happened next: I will now ban Gacky, because I believe his rape apologism to be indisputable.)


*Gacky's original point is that ""consent"" given under coercion is not consent. Some posters maintain that rape and non-consensual sex and pressured "consensual" sex involving a power dynamic are all different...a position I find horrifying. His logic is completely sound. Non-consensually handing over your money to a man who is holding you at gun point because you are scared he will shoot you and take your wallet from your dying, limp body......THEN YOU WERE ROBBED. If you don't give "consent" and the man shoots you and does in fact take your wallet from your dying, limp body.........THEN YOU WERE ROBBED.

[gack]

I understand using a sockpuppet is against the rules, but I only had 2 options.

1. Just accept the ban dispite it being totally unjustified and based on clearly taken out of context statements.
or
2. Brake a rule only for the purposes of contesting it and hope that other admins or mods will take into consideration the fact that I was banned unjustifiably based on posts taken out of context and missread.

I think its pretty clear to anyone reading this thread that I am in no way shape or form anything close to a rape apologist.

[Kotze]

It means that even consensual sex is tainted by patriarchy, as long as patriarchy exists.
I feel like this basically implies that women are incapable of truly deciding what we want for ourselves, and I don't take kindly to that idea at allWhen I say that what kind of work contracts I consent to is tainted, even when things are going well, and it's tainted by natural resources and means of production being controlled by a minority (that I'm not a part of, duh), does it imply that workers are like little children who could never decide what they want for themselves?

[l'Enfermé]

Perhaps if banned members were allowed to appeal their bans, those who were banned without proper justification, like RGacky, wouldn't need to create sockpuppets.

[#FF0000]

yeah gacky was p. much banned because he is a big dummy and communicated hella poorly.


What I was saying was that if societal pressure is involved or relationship pressure, such as "if you don't have sex I don't want to be in a relationship with you," or "if your not gonna have sex your a prude," is not rape, and should'nt be threated as such, is it a conversation that should be had about what these societal pressures or personal pressures do? Yes.eeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhh i dunno about that. like that sort of shit, to the right person with fucked-up self esteem and all that, would probs be enough to get them to do things they wouldn't want to do, and taking advantage of that sort of thing is certainly fucked up and at best a moral gray area.

I mean lets be real most people would laugh at something as pathetic as that but, like i said, to the right person...

EDIT: Oh I missed this:


Oh sure, women are raped more than men for many reasons, one being its physically much more difficult for a woman to rape a man and also becasue there are more heterosexual men than homosexuals men.

Mmmm that sounds like bullshit to me, gack. Why aren't women so disproportionately targeted, then, in all crimes?

[Rafiq]

What should I do if a women grabbed my asscheek (without permission) in a bar and I didn't like it?

To be fair this is just like the "reverse racism" nonsense.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rafiq]

so what does this say about the way you think of women, cmoney?

that they cannot ever give real, completely full consent and their judgment in regards to their own sexuality can not be fully correct?

this is misogyny.

You don't get it. It is not meant to criticize the act of sex, but the system, of which consumes it. This type of real, concrete consent is still tainted, just as Communes under capitalism are. You cannot remove it unless you crush the bourgeois class.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[A Marxist Historian]

Oh sure, women are raped more than men for many reasons, one being its physically much more difficult for a woman to rape a man and also becasue there are more heterosexual men than homosexuals men.



I hesitate to even get into this bizarre thread, but one small reality check.

There are over two million Americans in prison these days, the great majority men, and that prisoners get raped is so common and generally accepted these days that it's pretty much seen as part of the punishment.

So probably in fact men are more often raped than women in America.

-M.H.-

[Lanky Wanker]

Not that we don't have a point or anything, but this is the kind of thing people laugh at leftists for discussing in relation to capitalism. "smash da capitalizmz, it r evil in every way! my bread is so capitalist it mak3s me sick!!"

[gorillafuck]

You don't get it. It is not meant to criticize the act of sex, but the system, of which consumes it. This type of real, concrete consent is still tainted, just as Communes under capitalism are. You cannot remove it unless you crush the bourgeois class.how, specifically, is all consent and consensual sex tainted by patriarchy?

[Fawkes]

how, specifically, is all consent and consensual sex tainted by patriarchy?

Because patriarchy is an intrinsic element of the society that we live in/produces us.


as far as why there's no "touching men" thread, when's the last time one of your guy friends on his way home was surrounded by 5 dudes saying "hey ma, lemme get some of that ass"?

[Rafiq]

how, specifically, is all consent and consensual sex tainted by patriarchy?

It is the nature of Bourgeois society. It is hard to think beyond it, as we are constrainted by it. Like I said, in regards to my analogy about communes in capitalism.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[gorillafuck]

It is the nature of Bourgeois society. It is hard to think beyond it, as we are constrainted by it. Like I said, in regards to my analogy about communes in capitalism.except we can analyze the ways in which patriarchy effects the other aspects of our lives and society. and yet you back up the claim that full, deliberate consent is always, 100% of the time tainted in bourgeois society, but can't explain, or even tell of any specific ways in which it is?

[Hiero]

When MIM proposed that all sex was rape revleft thought they were crazy, now people sort of agree?

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

If I understand correctly, Mr. Stammer and Tickle enunciates we should wait for the woman to act first? I mean, that's the only assured notion of confirming that both parties are in a mutual agreement, with no pressure, to engage in sexual intercourse. To that I say : I'm not an opponent of that.

[#FF0000]

no it's not

[Ostrinski]

If I understand correctly, Mr. Stammer and Tickle enunciates we should wait for the woman to act first? I mean, that's the only assured notion of confirming that both parties are in a mutual agreement, with no pressure, to engage in sexual intercourse. To that I say : I'm not an opponent of that.The problem is that the common view is that men should always do the approaching.

[Ostrinski]

I wouldn't ask unless she was already half naked.

[Revolution starts with U]

The problem is that the common view is that men should always do the approaching.

That's understandable... and quite annoying really :lol:

But what of a man who does do the approaching? Is it really rape, just because it fits within the patriarchical system, even if not patriarchical itself?

I'm just having a hard time understanding the position people are taking in regrads to this, and whether or not it is possible to actually have consensual sex in capitalism... :blushing:

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Ew, srsly? So gross.

http://i43.tinypic.com/rhv85u.jpg

[Agent Ducky]

That's understandable... and quite annoying really :lol:

But what of a man who does do the approaching? Is it really rape, just because it fits within the patriarchical system, even if not patriarchical itself?

I'm just having a hard time understanding the position people are taking in regrads to this, and whether or not it is possible to actually have consensual sex in capitalism... :blushing:

Nobody is saying that it's not possible to have consensual sex in capitalism, just that, while capitalism still stands, any consent is tainted by the social structures and pressure of capitalism.

[gorillafuck]

Nobody is saying that it's not possible to have consensual sex in capitalism, just that, while capitalism still stands, any consent is tainted by the social structures and pressure of capitalism.and yet when asked how all consent and consensual sex is tainted, apparently the response is that it is in ways too profound for us to even analyze and we can't know, and it just happens to be the only aspect of patriarchy which is that way.

[Per Levy]

Nobody is saying that it's not possible to have consensual sex in capitalism, just that, while capitalism still stands, any consent is tainted by the social structures and pressure of capitalism.

doesnt that mean that any decision a human being could make is tainted by capitalism?

also lets make it a little bit more practical, a woman and man are in love and both want to have sex wich each other because they love each other, how is the consent here tainted by capitalism?

[honest john's firing squad]

It is the nature of Bourgeois society. It is hard to think beyond it, as we are constrainted by it. Like I said, in regards to my analogy about communes in capitalism.
Whilst it might, on the surface, appear to be only logical to conclude that patriarchy negatively affects intimate interactions between the different sexes, in reality, when you fail to provide evidence for your arguments, this sort of stuff really just comes across as empty phraseology with no real substance.

P.S. is this thread really still going?

[Thirsty Crow]

Nobody is saying that it's not possible to have consensual sex in capitalism, just that, while capitalism still stands, any consent is tainted by the social structures and pressure of capitalism.
A lot people have been claiming this for a while now, and while I don't necessarily disagree with it, I still haven't seen a coherent explanation, just assertions. That's what zeekloid also noticed, and people still fail to explain their opinion.
And no, silly analogies with "communes" under capitalism don't actually explain anything.

[corolla]

It is true that patriarchy exists on a structural level. But to suggest that as a result, every individual relationship between a man and a woman in this society is characterized by the domination of the woman by the man, which as far as I can tell is what is implied by saying that all acts of consensual sex are tainted by patriarchy, is absolutely absurd. It is a typically condescending white male perspective, and as Lobotomy pointed out, it denies women any sexual agency, which is in itself sexist.

[ridethejetski]

I think this theory is adopted by sexually frustrated boys to justify for themselves their sexual inactivity, maybe. Just a thought.

[gorillafuck]

I think this theory is adopted by sexually frustrated boys to justify for themselves their sexual inactivity, maybe. Just a thought.to be honest that's a stupid low blow (and unfounded). it's really easy to show the people endorsing this idea how ridiculous it is without completely making up snide scenarios.

[NGNM85]

Does this not suggest that his first comment actually intended to argue that 'consent' acquired under threat of rape cannot ever be considered consent; no one CONSENTS to sex because of fear of rape, as whatever they do - which may even include saying 'yes' - is something wholly different, and certainly not consent. An abandonment of active resistance, relenting through fear is - in the eyes of both of you - non-consensual, ergo the act remains very obviously rape.

...I think he's saying that somebody saying 'yes' due to threats has not in fact consented, but done something else. This isn't rape apologism.

It's just a different understanding of the sentence there...

I think that's rather generous. It's so abundantly obvious that that is what he meant, it leads one to wonder whether or not this wasn't a deliberate 'misunderstanding.'

[Hiero]

It is true that patriarchy exists on a structural level. But to suggest that as a result, every individual relationship between a man and a woman in this society is characterized by the domination of the woman by the man, which as far as I can tell is what is implied by saying that all acts of consensual sex are tainted by patriarchy, is absolutely absurd. It is a typically condescending white male perspective, and as Lobotomy pointed out, it denies women any sexual agency, which is in itself sexist.

They also propose that it is only men who can work it out. There is an assumption made that women do not know that the world is sexist and that is why they have sex. It is like a straight mans burden.

If we move from this, we know there are other power relationships. With race it would mean that white people should never try to engage black people or become their friends because of structural racism. It is apparently only the one who can be categorised as the oppressor that is aware or the system of domination, so the 'Other' has to be quarantined. The Other is so victimised that they can not manage the various relationships of power.


Originally Posted by ridethejetski http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2433106#post2433106)
I think this theory is adopted by sexually frustrated boys to justify for themselves their sexual inactivity, maybe. Just a thought.

It is more like an original sin thing going on.

[Ostrinski]

I think this theory is adopted by sexually frustrated boys to justify for themselves their sexual inactivity, maybe. Just a thought.There might actually be some grain of truth to this, as a sexually frustrated person myself, I can definitely see where some kind of ideological cover can make it more comforting.

[l'Enfermé]

It is like a straight mans burden.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Quail]

I think the issue of consent should be simple. Is the person capable of consent (e.g. not too intoxicated)? Do they seem responsive and comfortable in their body language? Have they suggested that they want to have sex?

*trigger warning*

I think it can be a little more complicated in some situations though. I was assaulted by my first boyfriend. Before he assaulted me, he used various mind games to pressure me into allowing him to do things (making me feel worthless, etc). I internalised those messages and when I was a teenager I felt that I needed to get with people to be worth anything. There were a lot of times when I was doing sexual stuff that I really didn't want to do at all, despite having consented, because men can be pushy and I felt bad about myself if I didn't.
Obviously this is specific to me and the way my ex fucked me over, but I just wanted to give an example of the way that patriarchy affected my ability to give meaningful consent. The problem is that there are far too many men willing to take advantage of a drunk, vulnerable woman.

So I do think that a woman's ability to consent can be affected by patriarchy to a greater or lesser degree, but I also think that we can empower ourselves by thinking about our motives and our feelings and learning to be assertive enough to say no.

[gorillafuck]

Obviously this is specific to me and the way my ex fucked me over, but I just wanted to give an example of the way that patriarchy affected my ability to give meaningful consent. The problem is that there are far too many men willing to take advantage of a drunk, vulnerable woman.with the way the debate has swayed, the assertion is about all sex, and since we are seeing if it applies to all sex then the debate is necessarily about, for lack of better word, the "ideal" scenario of sex in our society. it's obvious that 100% of sex does not happen when women are drunk or have been degraded into submission.


So I do think that a woman's ability to consent can be affected by patriarchy to a greater or lesser degree, but I also think that we can empower ourselves by thinking about our motives and our feelings and learning to be assertive enough to say no.I think you've really misunderstood what has been said about patriarchys effect. what cmoney, rafiq, and fawkes have been saying is that when women agree to have sex in any and all scenarios, the consent they give is tainted by patriarchy.

[Quail]

I think you've really misunderstood what has been said about patriarchys effect. what cmoney, rafiq, and fawkes have been saying is that when women agree to have sex in any and all scenarios, the consent they give is tainted by patriarchy.
I said that it can affect a woman's ability to consent "to a greater or lesser degree." I can't really make a generalisation as to how it affects every woman because there isn't one universal female experience, so I just gave my experience.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Learning Good Consent (http://www.phillyspissed.net/node/32)
Support 'Zine (http://www.phillyspissed.net/node/18)

[gorillafuck]

I said that it can affect a woman's ability to consent "to a greater or lesser degree." I can't really make a generalisation as to how it affects every woman because there isn't one universal female experience, so I just gave my experience.huh?

what you just said isn't related to what I said.

[Luís Henrique]

One huge problem is that women are socialised to not take the initiative regarding sex. So if they are interested in having sex, they (as a general rule, of course there are exceptions, and they pay a price for being exceptions) don't just walk to the object of their intentions and start a conversation, much less simply ask if that person is interested in sex. Instead, they give indirect hints of their interest, and expect that the other person will understand such signs and take the appropriate initiatives.

Luís Henrique

[Quail]

huh?

what you just said isn't related to what I said.
Yes it is:


I think you've really misunderstood what has been said about patriarchys effect. what cmoney, rafiq, and fawkes have been saying is that when women agree to have sex in any and all scenarios, the consent they give is tainted by patriarchy.
I was responding to the bolded bit with the comment below. I agree that patriarchy does affect our decisions to give consent, but how much it affects an individual is down to their personal circumstances.

I said that it can affect a woman's ability to consent "to a greater or lesser degree." I can't really make a generalisation as to how it affects every woman because there isn't one universal female experience, so I just gave my experience.

[Rafiq]

except we can analyze the ways in which patriarchy effects the other aspects of our lives and society. and yet you back up the claim that full, deliberate consent is always, 100% of the time tainted in bourgeois society, but can't explain, or even tell of any specific ways in which it is?

Every act that is devoid from the empowerment of labor is tainted by Bourgeois society... Even Labor itself can.

The act of you typing on this computer is tainted by Bourgeois society, in one way or another. It's because we all are, as we live in Bourgeois society. Only labor can provide us an exit from this (As in, Labor itself, which is opposed to capital, etc.)

It is not so much I am going to Morally criticize the act of sex, though, one shouldn't avoid recognizing the fact that it is, to some extent influenced by Bourgeois society. I could be wrong that this is, like you said, 100%, as there does exist a genuine revolutionary form of Sex.

The point is to criticize Bourgeois society in itself and the basis of which, not the several currents that are brought about from it as a reflection.

[Rafiq]

Whilst it might, on the surface, appear to be only logical to conclude that patriarchy negatively affects intimate interactions between the different sexes, in reality, when you fail to provide evidence for your arguments, this sort of stuff really just comes across as empty phraseology with no real substance.

P.S. is this thread really still going?

Two human beings living in capitalism, brought about via the Bourgeois family structure. Or do you want to deny the existence of the Bourgeois family strucuture as well? Shall I divulge in evidence proving that, because it isn't difficult by any means.

If you believe the works of Freud, you know that virtually all acts of sex are to some extent influenced by the interactions within the family structure.

[corolla]

Two human beings living in capitalism, brought about via the Bourgeois family structure.
This is not even an argument. You haven't got a clue, have you? You really are not even trying.
Not to mention, unless you lead an extremely sheltered existence, you should know that the 'bourgeois family structure' has been tremendously eroded, and many children today are raised by single mothers...


If you believe the works of FreudAnd I would certainly hope that people here don't, as much of what Freud said was pseudo-scientific sexist garbage.

[corolla]

It's also interesting to note that men are pressured immensely by society to be sexually prolific, a standard which many men try to live up to even if it may not be what they really want for themselves, but in spite of this, no one ever second-guesses whether they are capable of giving genuine consent.

[Ele'ill]

I'll paraphrase this:

Mari3L: there is rape and there is also non-consensual sex



What?

[gorillafuck]

I agree that patriarchy does affect our decisions to give consent...you agree with them? okay. in what specific way(s) is consent tainted that applies to all instances of heterosexual sex?

also, I don't get the whole italicized "there is not one universal female experience" statement being directed at me (at least it seems to be, because it was italicized in a response to what I said). considering that I haven't made one comment that in any way whatsoever at all implies that there is one universal female experience. I feel like you just assigned that viewpoint to me for some reason.


The act of you typing on this computer is tainted by Bourgeois society,uh, okay. then you basically just said that "tainted" actually doesn't mean anything bad at all by your standards. unless you're prepared to argue that there is something wrong with me typing on this computer, considering that this act is also "tainted" apparently.


If you believe the works of Freud, you know that virtually all acts of sex are to some extent influenced by the interactions within the family structure.I'm not familiar with the ways in which Freud theorized that sex is influenced by the family structure with the exception of the mother/father attraction stuff. tell me.

[Hiero]

Two human beings living in capitalism, brought about via the Bourgeois family structure. Or do you want to deny the existence of the Bourgeois family strucuture as well? Shall I divulge in evidence proving that, because it isn't difficult by any means.

If you believe the works of Freud, you know that virtually all acts of sex are to some extent influenced by the interactions within the family structure.


Consent is more or less, a bourgeoisie right (in the sense of the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class and modern law). Even though we have large structures, the family structure in the bourgeois era being one, does not mean that women can not give consent. The original OP basically meant that consent can not be given because of these structures. In a wierd contradiction consent emerged from these structures.

I think Foucault would be better able to understand this concept, because he deals primarily with power and sexuality.

[Rafiq]

For christs sake, I never said they couldn't give consent.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Quail]

also, I don't get the whole italicized "there is not one universal female experience" statement being directed at me (at least it seems to be, because it was italicized in a response to what I said). considering that I haven't made one comment that in any way whatsoever at all implies that there is one universal female experience. I feel like you just assigned that viewpoint to me for some reason.

It wasn't directed specifically at you, more just a point I wanted to emphasise. Sorry if that was unclear.

you agree with them? okay. in what specific way(s) is consent tainted that applies to all instances of heterosexual sex?
I can't give a blanket answer that applies to everyone, because every woman has different experiences growing up. Some experience abuse or assault, but we grow up surrounded by social pressures which are influenced by patriarchy. I remember as a teenager it was seen as a terrible thing for a girl to be "frigid" - i.e. if she said no to sexual acts the guys would tell their friends, make fun of her and she'd be seen as undesirable. Many women have low self esteem which is added to by patriarchal beauty standards, so they may consent to sex with someone because they feel they can't do any better and they feel under pressure.

Sorry if I haven't explained myself well, need to get back to my son.

[ridethejetski]

It is not so much I am going to Morally criticize the act of sex, though, one shouldn't avoid recognizing the fact that it is, to some extent influenced by Bourgeois society. I could be wrong that this is, like you said, 100%, as there does exist a genuine revolutionary form of Sex.
.

whats the revolutionary form of sex? I wish to try it. Is it some sort of wild positions that have broken with bourgeois oppressiveness of missionary and the lumpen degeneracy of doggystyle?

this is all very weird.

[Luís Henrique]

whats the revolutionary form of sex? I wish to try it. Is it some sort of wild positions that have broken with bourgeois oppressiveness of missionary and the lumpen degeneracy of doggystyle?

this is all very weird.

According to an Italian grafitti of 1968, il sesso anale sconfita il capitale. But it is not true, capital is happy manufacturing KY and extracting surplus value in the process.

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

uh, okay. then you basically just said that "tainted" actually doesn't mean anything bad at all by your standards. unless you're prepared to argue that there is something wrong with me typing on this computer, considering that this act is also "tainted" apparently.

Of course the act of typing on your computer isn't a bad thing. But none the less, tainted by bourgeois society in one way or another. Like I said, you cannot operate external from this constraint.


I'm not familiar with the ways in which Freud theorized that sex is influenced by the family structure with the exception of the mother/father attraction stuff. tell me.


According to Freud, our conception of Sexual attractiveness is heavily influenced by the personality, the structure, and the face of our family members. In that, unless you know it and are aware, you're most likely to be attracted to women who more or less resemble your mother. Of course, this is ideological, i.e. It's done unconsciously. When you realize it (That if you lived in family relations with heavy patriarchy, you could eventually realize that's not what you want, etc. suppression of the unconscious). And most of us here know that the Bourgeois family structure in itself, is, well, unique only to Bourgeois society. Therefore the act of sex itself, that of which heavily influenced by the nature of our family structure, etc. Is tainted by Bourgeois society/ Patriarchy in some way. Not just the act of inserting your penis in a vagina, but the very character, the way in which this is done, how it began, etc. Are tainted. It is not the objective fact of Fucking, it is the process and the character of those who are doing the fucking that makes it tainted.

[Rafiq]

whats the revolutionary form of sex? I wish to try it. Is it some sort of wild positions that have broken with bourgeois oppressiveness of missionary and the lumpen degeneracy of doggystyle?

this is all very weird.

Hah, no, that's not what I meant.

Christ this is getting ridiculous. I meant like the act of Sex among Bolshevik Revolutionaries, or others, etc. I don't want to say "Well this form is better or morally superior" or any of that bullshit. I'm not a life stylist. I mean the act of sex as something spontaneous by two revolutionaries whilst, you know, fighting for some cause or whatever, which later becomes irrelevant. Sex between two individuals who are ready to sacrifice each other in the fight against Capital and Bourgeois society.

Christ, do you say this should be attempted by users here? Fuck no. Don't even. Please. Who knows in the future, though, if there is a revolutionary situation. I don't know, just ignore me. There's nothing wrong with fucking if both consent to it. End of story. Moving on. .

[The Machine]

Sex between two individuals who are ready to sacrifice each other in the fight against Capital and Bourgeois society. .

I also enjoyed for whom the bell tolls

[ridethejetski]

Hah, no, that's not what I meant.

Christ this is getting ridiculous. I meant like the act of Sex among Bolshevik Revolutionaries, or others, etc.... I mean the act of sex as something spontaneous by two revolutionaries whilst, you know, fighting for some cause or whatever, which later becomes irrelevant. Sex between two individuals who are ready to sacrifice each other in the fight against Capital and Bourgeois society.
.

lmao, what?

[Rafiq]

lmao, what?

From Zizek's book. Why is that funny?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rafiq]

This is why I was uneasy in typing that... I know how immature and perverted users here are...

To be quite frank, I don't see any use in "Revolutionary Sex". It's like revolutionary shitting, not important.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Luís Henrique]

Sex between two individuals who are ready to sacrifice each other

Winston and Julia?

Luís Henrique

[Ele'ill]

I keep reading this thread title as '...part 3' and I get really stressed out

[gack]

Could some moderator or admin respond to my appeal? I'm trying to do this honestly.

[Luís Henrique]

It means that even consensual sex is tainted by patriarchy, as long as patriarchy exists.

... and, of course, even abstinence is tainted by patriarchy, so it is more or less irrelevant; the only relevant thing is to fight against patriarchy. Whether you have or have not sex during the process doesn't actually affect it.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I think its pretty clear to anyone reading this thread that I am in no way shape or form anything close to a rape apologist.

You are not, and if you are banned because of that, it only speaks against the intelligence of the person who did the banning.

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

Winston and Julia?

Luís Henrique

Oh please, those two counter revolutionaries? That is reactionary fucking.

[Luís Henrique]

Oh please, those two counter revolutionaries?

Because IngSoc is actually revolutionary?

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

Because IngSoc is actually revolutionary?

Luís Henrique


IncSoc is revolutionary: They managed to surpress the class enemy and defend revolution from Reactionary Eastasia, and Stalinist Eurasia.

[honest john's firing squad]

IncSoc is revolutionary
lol now I see where you get your politics from

[gorillafuck]

It wasn't directed specifically at you, more just a point I wanted to emphasise. Sorry if that was unclear.alright.


I can't give a blanket answer that applies to everyone, because every woman has different experiences growing up. Some experience abuse or assault, but we grow up surrounded by social pressures which are influenced by patriarchy. I remember as a teenager it was seen as a terrible thing for a girl to be "frigid" - i.e. if she said no to sexual acts the guys would tell their friends, make fun of her and she'd be seen as undesirable. Many women have low self esteem which is added to by patriarchal beauty standards, so they may consent to sex with someone because they feel they can't do any better and they feel under pressure.that still doesn't mean that when 2 people have sex within a healthy and understanding relationship, the consent is "tainted". I'm being very strict in the rationales that people are giving as to whether they apply because it was such an extremely all encompassing claim.


Of course the act of typing on your computer isn't a bad thing. But none the less, tainted by bourgeois society in one way or another. Like I said, you cannot operate external from this constraint.okay...


According to Freud, our conception of Sexual attractiveness is heavily influenced by the personality, the structure, and the face of our family members. In that, unless you know it and are aware, you're most likely to be attracted to women who more or less resemble your mother. Of course, this is ideological, i.e. It's done unconsciously. When you realize it (That if you lived in family relations with heavy patriarchy, you could eventually realize that's not what you want, etc. suppression of the unconscious). And most of us here know that the Bourgeois family structure in itself, is, well, unique only to Bourgeois society. Therefore the act of sex itself, that of which heavily influenced by the nature of our family structure, etc. Is tainted by Bourgeois society/ Patriarchy in some way. Not just the act of inserting your penis in a vagina, but the very character, the way in which this is done, how it began, etc. Are tainted. It is not the objective fact of Fucking, it is the process and the character of those who are doing the fucking that makes it tainted.so the way that all sex is "tainted" is because we are more likely to sleep with people who are like our mothers and father....?

so in other words, you say that anything at all, regardless of whether or not it' oppressive, that affects our sexual attraction is in essence, something that "taints" it?

[Rafiq]

so the way that all sex is "tainted" is because we are more likely to sleep with people who are like our mothers and father....?[/QUOTE

No. The Bourgeois Family structure is unique to Bourgeois society, and the behavior of our "Mothers and Fathers" are a mere product of this. Therefore sex itself is tainted by Bourgeois society if there exists influence from the parents. That is the point.

[QUOTE]so in other words, you say that anything at all, regardless of whether or not it' oppressive, that affects our sexual attraction is in essence, something that "taints" it?]


The Bourgeois family structure is undoubtedly oppressive. These structures are unique to capitalism.

[Luís Henrique]

IncSoc is revolutionary: They managed to surpress the class enemy and defend revolution from Reactionary Eastasia, and Stalinist Eurasia.

Reductio ad Orwellian achieved, cease fire...

Time to unban rGacky3; far more reactionary things have been spewed in this thread.

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

Reductio ad Orwellian achieved, cease fire...

Time to unban rGacky3; far more reactionary things have been spewed in this thread.

Luís Henrique

Incsogism is not a banable offense.

I really distaste Orwell and his grossly Idealist "Totalitarian" nonesense. Only in a fantasy-planet like the one in 1984 can such occur. Orwell is a fucking creep, and a rapist. It's no wonder in his book the protagonist had like a rape fetish or something.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[l'Enfermé]

IncSoc is revolutionary: They managed to surpress the class enemy and defend revolution from Reactionary Eastasia, and Stalinist Eurasia.
Are you serious or did you never read the novel? Can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

[Luís Henrique]

Incsogism is not a banable offense.

Third positionism is.

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

Third positionism is.

Luís Henrique

Incsog is Bordigist, that's not third positionism

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[corolla]

Incsog is Bordigist, that's not third positionism

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

You aren't very bright, are you? It is pretty obvious at this point, so now would probably be a good time for you to stop pretending like you have the faintest clue what you are talking about.

[Koba Junior]

I'm disturbed by some of the responses I've seen. It is important, as a man, not to take advantage of women in situations in which their better judgment might be affected, as when intoxicated or under duress. There will always be "pressures" that affect a woman's decision, ranging from traditional expectations to her own desires. In cases like this, it is advisable to be honest about one's intentions with another human being and to respect boundaries.

[honest john's firing squad]

Incsog is Bordigist
you are off your rocker

[Luís Henrique]

Incsog [sic] is Bordigist, that's not third positionism

http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/small/0909/grasshoppers-facepalm-fail-facepalm-face-pedo-demotivational-poster-1252243283.jpg

Words fail me.

Luís Henrique

[Vanguard1917]

anyway now cuz' someone pmed me about this bullshit thread i'll add my 2cents. i don't believe much in the behavioral approach the "left" (well now that i think about it i hate the left so lol) has taken up much recently. you know, the idea of "fixing" behavioral attitudes about sex and lifestyles by evangelizing what is non-sexist and non-racist thing to do. historically, this approach probably had to do with the fact that a lot of academics had fuck to write about cuz' the class struggle was ebbing in the 90s so now they became obsessed with semiotics and finding how mcdonald lunch boxes are oppresive to feminist muslim women, and this torrent of shit trickled down to the activist scene cuz' in the US students form a huge part of it.

Well pointed out.

Also, implicit in a lot of discussions like this is the condenscending idea that the female sex is some kind of delicate flower that can't really be expected to function in society without the caring, considerate guardianship of gentlemen. As in the OP, there is often even the explicit statement that women can't be expected to give informed consent to sex in the same way that men can. In other words, women are a bit like children. This is Victorian-era sexual morality recycled by pseudo-left mumbo jumbo.

[Rafiq]

You aren't very bright, are you? It is pretty obvious at this point, so now would probably be a good time for you to stop pretending like you have the faintest clue what you are talking about.

The fact that you read that seriously means you're a fucking moron.

Do you actually think I believe that? You're not very bright, are you?

It's hilarious how everyone's flipping their shit: "LUR HA HA DUZ HE ACTUALLY TINK DAT?"

Though I don't know what to be depressed about more, the fact that Incsog exists for you outside a ficticious realm of Bourgeois thought, or that you believe I think Orwell depicted it as Bordigist. How can you even think someone would hold that view?

Idiots.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[corolla]

Honestly once you start ranting about revolutionary fucking, I wouldn't put anything past you.

[Rafiq]

Honestly once you start ranting about revolutionary fucking, I wouldn't put anything past you.

And you call this a "rant", and none the less, you take this seriously?

It seemed as if you took what I said very seriously, actually. Perhaps you should try shutting the fuck up before you start making half blind assertions, of which do nothing but confirm what a worthless Jackass you are.

[l'Enfermé]

The fact that you read that seriously means you're a fucking moron.

Do you actually think I believe that? You're not very bright, are you?

It's hilarious how everyone's flipping their shit: "LUR HA HA DUZ HE ACTUALLY TINK DAT?"

Though I don't know what to be depressed about more, the fact that Incsog exists for you outside a ficticious realm of Bourgeois thought, or that you believe I think Orwell depicted it as Bordigist. How can you even think someone would hold that view?

Idiots.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
Judging by some of your other nonsensical beliefs, assuming you were serious isn't such a silly thing to do.

[corolla]

And you call this a "rant", and none the less, you take this seriously?

It seemed as if you took what I said very seriously, actually. Perhaps you should try shutting the fuck up before you start making half blind assertions, of which do nothing but confirm what a worthless Jackass you are.

Lol, "consensual seckz involving wimmins is tainted by patriarchy becuzz Freud and Bourgeois Family Structure. Unless of course it is between people who are willing to sacrifice each other for soshulizm" :lol:

I think you are the one who should shut up and stop making stupid assertions.

[Rafiq]

Judging by some of your other nonsensical beliefs, assuming you were serious isn't such a silly thing to do.

Then you've grossly misinterperated them.

Of course, I'd expect you, an apologist of Imperialism, would support such a fictitious, massive Bourgeois power, maybe to civilize all of the "barbaric" colonies?

[Rafiq]

Lol, "consensual seckz involving wimmins is tainted by patriarchy becuzz Freud and Bourgeois Family Structure. Unless of course it is between people who are willing to sacrifice each other for soshulizm" :lol:

That isn't what I said, and anyone whose read my post would understand that. I said in the process of revolution (like the Bolsheviks), not in the process of for filling some stupid Idea. And it isn't humorous at all, it is from Zizek's analysis of For whom the bell tomes.

You're just a useless idiot, is all. Go fuck yourself, champ.



I think you are the one who should shut up and stop making stupid assertions.


Then let's debate. Come on, fucker, let's do it. Why don't you divulge deeper in why it's a "Stupid assertion", huh, you piece of shit? Come on, give it ago.

You won't. You'll just end up embarrassing your own sorry ass. Piss off now, what is this, your first post or something?

[brigadista]

get over yerselves - what exactly are you all on about? :):)

[ridethejetski]

Incsogism is not a banable offense.

I really distaste Orwell and his grossly Idealist "Totalitarian" nonesense. Only in a fantasy-planet like the one in 1984 can such occur. Orwell is a fucking creep, and a rapist. It's no wonder in his book the protagonist had like a rape fetish or something.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Of course such a society that Orwell depicted in 1984 would not be achieved in real life. Despite the wishes of many regimes of the past to have such control over society, it isn't usually possible. But it's fiction. Many Communist dissidents who fled Eastern Europe after the consolidation of the regimes praised Orwell for being able to portray such a society which in some ways resembled how their own society was heading. Of 1984 would be an exaggeration, but the point still stands. I'll take their word for over yours with your weird revleft education.

[Koba Junior]

In other words, you'll take fiction over fact.

[gorillafuck]

so the way that all sex is "tainted" is because we are more likely to sleep with people who are like our mothers and father....?

No. The Bourgeois Family structure is unique to Bourgeois society, and the behavior of our "Mothers and Fathers" are a mere product of this. Therefore sex itself is tainted by Bourgeois society if there exists influence from the parents. That is the point.so the bourgeois family structure is oppressive

sex is influenced by bourgeois family structure because we like sexual partners who are similar to our mothers and fathers (can this be backed up...? I am not a fan of Freud so an appeal to authority with him isn't going to convince me)

therefore consent is tainted because we are more likely to grant consent to people who are similar to our mothers or fathers

this is what you are saying? just so I know what it is you are specifically stating about the way in which consent is tainted?


Incsog is Bordigist, that's not third positionismit's not at all, for a shitload of reasons. the most painfully obvious two being that it is explicitly stated that a capitalist class exists within Oceania, and that it is a nationalist ideology (IngSoc is even short for english socialism...). did you even read 1984? I can't believe I'm participating in an argument about this, lol.

you have to be trolling about this.

[Krano]

Not even Saudi Arabia is this sexually repressive, atleast there you can talk to a woman without being labelled a rape apologist.

[ridethejetski]

In other words, you'll take fiction over fact.

What?

[corolla]

That isn't what I said, and anyone whose read my post would understand that. I said in the process of revolution (like the Bolsheviks), not in the process of for filling some stupid Idea. And it isn't humorous at all, it is from Zizek's analysis of For whom the bell tomes.

You're just a useless idiot, is all. Go fuck yourself, champ.




Then let's debate. Come on, fucker, let's do it. Why don't you divulge deeper in why it's a "Stupid assertion", huh, you piece of shit? Come on, give it ago.

You won't. You'll just end up embarrassing your own sorry ass. Piss off now, what is this, your first post or something?

First off, maybe you should calm down, breh. What is this, a bar fight?

Secondly, there is nothing to debate you about. You haven't actually backed up anything that you're saying, despite several thoughtful replies from people arguing against you. That was the whole point of my parody of your argument in my previous post. You are just making assertions, which are not only totally empty, but don't really even have any connection to the main point of contention in this thread.

Basically your posts in this thread have consisted of you claiming that female consent is tainted because of The Bourgeois Family Structure. When asked to clarify or explain, you mentioned Freud (I assume you were referring to his Oedipus and Electra complex) and how apparently people often seek mates with certain traits in common with their parents. Even if you believe that this is true, and that Freud was correct, it still isn't remotely clear what connection any of this even has with your argument that female consent is tainted.

[corolla]

Not even Saudi Arabia is this sexually repressive

Give me a break. :rolleyes:

[Rafiq]

Of course such a society that Orwell depicted in 1984 would not be achieved in real life. Despite the wishes of many regimes of the past to have such control over society, it isn't usually possible.

Elaborate. I'm sure it would be useful for the Bourgeoisie, to some extent, to have such control, but I doubt that there exists a "State" as depicted in the book which operates external from the interests of a class which wants to "Control" it's "People" (And I put marks around People, because the concept of "The people" is lubricious, as if they were a homogeneous collective group of interests opposed to the state).


But it's fiction. Many Communist dissidents who fled Eastern Europe after the consolidation of the regimes praised Orwell for being able to portray such a society which in some ways resembled how their own society was heading.

The likes of Sheila Fitzpatrick, whom was not a communist by any means, denounced the "Totalitarian" model as useless. And she was right, it was simplistic and all together not in correspondence with reality. I'd say a lot of the "Dissidence" who spewed such nonsense were delusional. Of course such societies were shit holes. But that isn't a reason for us to have illusions about their character all together.


Of 1984 would be an exaggeration, but the point still stands. I'll take their word for over yours with your weird revleft education.


And we can go on playing this "Whose more credible" game. If I wanted, I can take any Communist leader's word over yours, I can take Sheila Fitzpatrick's word over yours, I can take several academic's word over yours, whom are more credible, and so on.

This game of "yeah well I'll go ahead and believe these guys" is useless. How's a say you stick to fucking facts, okay?

[Rafiq]

so the bourgeois family structure is oppressive

sex is influenced by bourgeois family structure because we like sexual partners who are similar to our mothers and fathers (can this be backed up...? I am not a fan of Freud so an appeal to authority with him isn't going to convince me)

So first, you ask if Freud actually believed this. And now, you say you are "Not a fan of Freud". Of course it can be backed up. Several studies, Bourgeois studies, have been done on this and confirmed it as a fact. It's an accepted fact, actually.


therefore consent is tainted because we are more likely to grant consent to people who are similar to our mothers or fathers


Whose attributes are a reflection of the Bourgeois family structure and would, in turn, mimic them, yes.


this is what you are saying? just so I know what it is you are specifically stating about the way in which consent is tainted?


Indeed.


it's not at all, for a shitload of reasons. the most painfully obvious two being that it is explicitly stated that a capitalist class exists within Oceania

It wasn't a captialist class, it was the Bordigist mass party movement. Even Orwell acknowledged this:


I tried to Portray Incsog as a party modeled off of the works of Amadeo Bordiga, a Totalitarian Italian intellectual.



, and that it is a nationalist ideology (IngSoc is even short for english socialism...)

It's not Nationalist, it's Socialism in one country.


. did you even read 1984? I can't believe I'm participating in an argument about this, lol.


Yup.


you have to be trolling about this.


You have to be trolling to even assert that you think I hold this kind of belief.

For the record, I was only trolling about Incsog being revolutionary or Bordigist or whatever. The rest wasn't.

Anyway, I did it because 1984 is a steaming pile of Idealist shit which has no correspondence with any kind of reality and really, only serves the purpose to tingle the balls of Libertarians universally. The fact that it depicts the State as something with no class character sais enough about it. It's this model which is inherent only to Bourgeois thought.

[gorillafuck]

So first, you ask if Freud actually believed this. And now, you say you are "Not a fan of Freud". Of course it can be backed up. Several studies, Bourgeois studies, have been done on this and confirmed it as a fact. It's an accepted fact, actually.I didn't ask if freud actually believed this. I asked what you were saying he said. small but still valid difference.

and I'm not a fan of him, he had some views which are unsubstantiated and ridiculous. but by saying that I'm "not a fan" doesn't mean I'm denying the assertion. I just want you to provide evidence. post some studies or something.


Indeed. okay then I'll just repost what corolla said...

"Basically your posts in this thread have consisted of you claiming that female consent is tainted because of The Bourgeois Family Structure. When asked to clarify or explain, you mentioned Freud (I assume you were referring to his Oedipus and Electra complex) and how apparently people often seek mates with certain traits in common with their parents. Even if you believe that this is true, and that Freud was correct, it still isn't remotely clear what connection any of this even has with your argument that female consent is tainted."


It wasn't a captialist class, it was the Bordigist mass party movement. Even Orwell acknowledged this: except it wasn't.


It's not Nationalist, it's Socialism in one country. which is bordigist, how?


For the record, I was only trolling about Incsog being revolutionary or Bordigist or whatever. The rest wasn't. okay yeah that's what I meant. there's no way I believe that you actually think that Oceania was in line with bordigas views.

[ridethejetski]

Elaborate. I'm sure it would be useful for the Bourgeoisie, to some extent, to have such control, but I doubt that there exists a "State" as depicted in the book which operates external from the interests of a class which wants to "Control" it's "People" (And I put marks around People, because the concept of "The people" is lubricious, as if they were a homogeneous collective group of interests opposed to the state).

Much of Eastern Europe attempted to extend massive control over their populations. Mussolini openly admitted his 'totalitarian' objectives. If you are attempting to be a Marxist with the above paragraph, you come across more as a parody than anything else.




The likes of Sheila Fitzpatrick, whom was not a communist by any means, denounced the "Totalitarian" model as useless. And she was right, it was simplistic and all together not in correspondence with reality.

WHat at all is the relevance of this? Yeah, great, Fitzpatrick and the revisionists show that the USSR never lived up to its attempt at taking complete control over society etc. Whats your point?



I'd say a lot of the "Dissidence" who spewed such nonsense were delusional. Of course such societies were shit holes. But that isn't a reason for us to have illusions about their character all together.

Yes, once committed Soviet style Communists who upon seeing their party and ideology in action have a change of heart are all just delusional. The deluded are those who carried on 'believing'.




And we can go on playing this "Whose more credible" game. If I wanted, I can take any Communist leader's word over yours, I can take Sheila Fitzpatrick's word over yours, I can take several academic's word over yours, whom are more credible, and so on.

This game of "yeah well I'll go ahead and believe these guys" is useless. How's a say you stick to fucking facts, okay?


I think its fair to take the above described former-Communist dissidents, who having experienced the the horrors of Soviet Communism in the late 1940s and 1950s denounced their former most likely genuine beliefs. I don't see what relevance Sheila Fitzpatrick is here. Her work mostly focuses on the Russian Revolution up to the end of the 1930s, and I don't think she ever has weighed in on merits of George Orwell's novel (Although I would imagine, as with most intelligent people, she was a fan).

My point never was that any society ever replicated or mirrored the Ingsoc's in 1984, but that many of those who experienced life in the Communist Party's in Eastern Europe as the ascended to power praised aspects of it for being relatable to their own life. It often happens with novels and works of fiction - it doesn't mean they are claimed to completely represent reality. Ismail Kadar's novel The Succesor quite well describes the madness that the 'official party line' in Albania often created, when IIRC one it talks of a body being redug up from the grave numerous times for a new assessment of the cause of death, depending upon the politics of the party. WHile that situation itself is fiction as far as I know, it describes the way a political decision taken by a communist party means history is altered in favour of the new etc. It would probably even relate to some small marxist sects in the western world. Do you see my point about fiction, and how it can often be relatable and describe in some ways a reality while obviously being fiction it is much more elaborate and perhaps exaggerated?

[ridethejetski]

Anyway, I did it because 1984 is a steaming pile of Idealist shit which has no correspondence with any kind of reality and really, only serves the purpose to tingle the balls of Libertarians universally. The fact that it depicts the State as something with no class character sais enough about it. It's this model which is inherent only to Bourgeois thought.

I wonder what novels you enjoy lol

Perhaps officially approved works of the Soviet Writers Union?

[Koba Junior]

Mussolini openly admitted his 'totalitarian' objectives.

That was actually Giovanni Gentile who specifically used the world totalitario to describe the objectives of the fascist state. That being said, I don't think a fascist's corroboration really lends credence to an idea.



Yes, once committed Soviet style Communists who upon seeing their party and ideology in action have a change of heart are all just delusional. The deluded are those who carried on 'believing'.Or they are opportunistic. You cannot ascribe "commitment" to a cause to people who abandon it, no matter what you speculate their innermost thoughts might be.



I think its fair to take the above described former-Communist dissidents, who having experienced the the horrors of Soviet Communism in the late 1940s and 1950s denounced their former most likely genuine beliefs.You simply don't have the power of knowing whether these beliefs were genuine or even "likely" genuine in the least. There are high-profile people in the United States of America who describe our country as a leftist dystopia, and some of them might even claim to be former liberals. How convincing is their case?


Do you see my point about fiction, and how it can often be relatable and describe in some ways a reality while obviously being fiction it is much more elaborate and perhaps exaggerated?
The Hunger Games might be called relatable in that its characterizations are meant to touch upon what is common in the human experience. That being said, no one takes the book as a cautionary allegory against allowing the state to abduct children and make them kill each other on television.

[l'Enfermé]

This whole notion of IngSoc being Bordigist is starting to catch on with me. I think it's a good theory.

[Sendo]

What?


I was referring to a non-consensual situation turning into rape and I have no idea what...


That's what you said.

To paraphrase your bone-headed stance towards sex once again, you believe that non-consensual sex and rape are two different things.

Your stance is what I took issue with.

Non-consensual sex IS rape. How pray tell, does non-consensual sex turn into rape? If someone says "no" to sex and has sex, then that person was raped! In your opinion, I take it, non-consensual sex is the scenario I just described and rape involves physical restraint of the victim??????

The lack of reading comprehension skills on this website never ceases to amaze me. This is one of those threads for the record books. I'm reminded of one of the more ghastly "Would you date a trans-sexual person?" threads that turned into a witch hunt and restriction bonanza. To be sexually attracted to a certain kind of breast size is fine, but being attracted to natural genitalia is to be a trans-phobic person. And now we have this shitty thread that has gone from saying woman are incapable of giving consent like 10-year olds, which, thankfully, has completely derailed.

Hear, hear. I'll add to the banter that taking one's political stances from the fictional works of a useful (but well-meaning) idiot is not terribly sound logic.

Long live Stalin

[ridethejetski]

That's what you said.
Hear, hear. I'll add to the banter that taking one's political stances from the fictional works of a useful (but well-meaning) idiot is not terribly sound logic.

Long live Stalin

no one suggested anything of the sort. Its just ridiculous to shit over Orwell's work simply because it supposedly is 'Bourgeois-Idealist' or whatever out of place phrases Stalinoids and other weirdos want to throw at it.

[Koba Junior]

Its just ridiculous to shit over Orwell's work simply because it supposedly is 'Bourgeois-Idealist' or whatever out of place phrases Stalinoids and other weirdos want to throw at it.

As a Stalinoid, I'd like to share my two-cents about Orwell: I don't think he was a very nuanced or particularly talented writer. He's like a dem-soc Ayn Rand analogue, if you think about it.

[Revolution starts with U]

I'll give Orwell the credit that, when I read 1984 at 17, it basically shattered all Platonic notions I retained. It was upon reading that book that the idea of intellectual elites creating a utopic society became an absurdity to me. (Note that I had never read any Marx, or really any deep political/economic theory)
It sounds silly maybe. But hey, what happens is often silly.

[#FF0000]

words

where is this post you are so mad about even lol

[ridethejetski]

As a Stalinoid, I'd like to share my two-cents about Orwell: I don't think he was a very nuanced or particularly talented writer. He's like a dem-soc Ayn Rand analogue, if you think about it.

I wonder if this view is at all influenced by ideology. I mean, of course you could just genuinely think Orwell was a bad/not very good writer, but your avatar and name suggests perhaps otherwise.

[Comrade Jandar]

touching myself, part 2

[Rafiq]

I didn't ask if freud actually believed this. I asked what you were saying he said. small but still valid difference.

and I'm not a fan of him, he had some views which are unsubstantiated and ridiculous. but by saying that I'm "not a fan" doesn't mean I'm denying the assertion. I just want you to provide evidence. post some studies or something.

Freud's psychosexual theory has little or no evidence to support it, but the concept that Sex is influenced by the family structure is of topic to most psychologists today.


okay then I'll just repost what corolla said...

"Basically your posts in this thread have consisted of you claiming that female consent is tainted because of The Bourgeois Family Structure. When asked to clarify or explain, you mentioned Freud (I assume you were referring to his Oedipus and Electra complex) and how apparently people often seek mates with certain traits in common with their parents. Even if you believe that this is true, and that Freud was correct, it still isn't remotely clear what connection any of this even has with your argument that female consent is tainted."


Because it isn't exclusive to female consent. This applies to males as well, hence all Sex in Bourgeois society is tained by Bourgeois society. And if we recognize the Family strucutre is a product of Bourgeois society, and that this sex is influenced by it, we must come to the conclusion that the Sex itself is tainted.


except it wasn't.

which is bordigist, how?

okay yeah that's what I meant. there's no way I believe that you actually think that Oceania was in line with bordigas views.


I don't.

[Rafiq]

Much of Eastern Europe attempted to extend massive control over their populations. Mussolini openly admitted his 'totalitarian' objectives. If you are attempting to be a Marxist with the above paragraph, you come across more as a parody than anything else.

My, do you dare question my Marxist character, when you yourself adhere to suc hnonsense? There has never been a country which as saught to "Control it's people".

You explicitly ignore the class character of the state, and instead adhere to Liberalist rhetoric: That there is a seperate between both the state and the populations, of which dwell in the nation it "governs". This would imply that the state itself is an external interest from class struggle, of which it is not. Every Bourgoeis state attempts on a continual basis to "Control" it's proletariat, though it strikes me as suspicious as to why you would single out Eastern Europe in this regards. And someone already pointed out you were full of shit in regards to Mussolini, so I'll skip that.

There is no such thing as "totalitarianism". There isn't a need for a state to openly impose a means of Totality on a society, for the capitalist mode of production already does this perfectly, through ideological mystification, and so on. It is not thoughts that control people, but material force, of which these thoughts are a mere product. Capital itself carries the required mechanisms to influence and control society, to bend all to it's will, including the state itself, which to you, supposedly is at the highest section of the food chain.





WHat at all is the relevance of this? Yeah, great, Fitzpatrick and the revisionists show that the USSR never lived up to its attempt at taking complete control over society etc. Whats your point?


First: What is the "USSR" and what is it's "Society"? Are you implying that the State, of which according to you had no class character, wanted to "Control" it's "People"(whom also have no class character)?

This is pure Bourgeois-Liberal Idealism on your behalf.



Yes, once committed Soviet style Communists who upon seeing their party and ideology in action have a change of heart are all just delusional. The deluded are those who carried on 'believing'.

You're right, those loyal to the party were delusional. But how does this refute my point, that your so called dissidents were delusioned as well?




I think its fair to take the above described former-Communist dissidents, who having experienced the the horrors of Soviet Communism in the late 1940s and 1950s denounced their former most likely genuine beliefs. I don't see what relevance Sheila Fitzpatrick is here.

There exists several former citizens of the Soviet Union who walk around carrying massive pictures of Stalin, in quite large numbers, actually. What's your point?


Her work mostly focuses on the Russian Revolution up to the end of the 1930s, and I don't think she ever has weighed in on merits of George Orwell's novel (Although I would imagine, as with most intelligent people, she was a fan).


She denounced the Totalitarian model. And she specialized in Russia during the 1930's, the supposed time in which totalitarianism was at it's peak.


My point never was that any society ever replicated or mirrored the Ingsoc's in 1984, but that many of those who experienced life in the Communist Party's in Eastern Europe as the ascended to power praised aspects of it for being relatable to their own life.

"Aspects"? All Bourgeois societies have Bourgeois propaganda, and? Why is Eastern Europe an exception?


It often happens with novels and works of fiction - it doesn't mean they are claimed to completely represent reality. Ismail Kadar's novel The Succesor quite well describes the madness that the 'official party line' in Albania often created, when IIRC one it talks of a body being redug up from the grave numerous times for a new assessment of the cause of death, depending upon the politics of the party. WHile that situation itself is fiction as far as I know, it describes the way a political decision taken by a communist party means history is altered in favour of the new etc.

For me, Communist states were much more honest in their attempts to alter ideology in favor of the rule of capital: They did it openly. But Bourgeois Liberal states do this as well, or even worse. The difference is that it operates unconsciously. That's a thousand times worse. The fact communist countries even attempted to do things like alter history or suppress books was a positive sign in that, at least it gave many an option to see the holes within the ideological mystification, i.e. There was no functional unconscious ruling ideology. This is hardly the case, in other Bourgeois states.

It would probably even relate to some small marxist sects in the western world. Do you see my point about fiction, and how it can often be relatable and describe in some ways a reality while obviously being fiction it is much more elaborate and perhaps exaggerated?

[Rafiq]

I wonder what novels you enjoy lol

I can't say I've read any fictional books in a while. Mostly because of my academic life, and the only time I have to read books is limited, so it's usually theoretical works. Scold me for saying I think movies are much better and much more honest, I care not.


Perhaps officially approved works of the Soviet Writers Union?


Hilarious.

[Rafiq]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2441024&postcount=64

[Ele'ill]

That's what you said.

To paraphrase your bone-headed stance towards sex once again, you believe that non-consensual sex and rape are two different things.


No that's not even remotely close to what I believe and obviously rape is non-consensual. I haven't really looked back through this thread but I'd imagine I was referring to a situation and interactions before someone is raped because we were discussing social pressures. Also try to be less obnoxious by not posting off topic garbage.

[Luís Henrique]

touching myself, part 2

Oh, a newbie.

Welcome to the Marxist-Onanist website.

Luís Henrique

[Lobotomy]

can I just say that I don't feel oppessed in any way when I have sex (quite the opposite actually). and while I am only one individual, I think it's pretty shitty (and not to mention ironic) that some men might try to tell me that they understand the dynamics of my sex life better than I do, in the name of exposing patriarchy.

I like what Quail was saying--heterosexual sex can sometimes be influenced by societal pressures, but saying "all sex is tainted by patriarchy" is far too general and, judging by this trainwreck of a thread, cannot be backed up with solid evidence.

[Invader Zim]

can I just say that I don't feel oppessed in any way when I have sex (quite the opposite actually). and while I am only one individual, I think it's pretty shitty (and not to mention ironic) that some men might try to tell me that they understand the dynamics of my sex life better than I do, in the name of exposing patriarchy.

I like what Quail was saying--heterosexual sex can sometimes be influenced by societal pressures, but saying "all sex is tainted by patriarchy" is far too general and, judging by this trainwreck of a thread, cannot be backed up with solid evidence.

My God, the voice of reason - on Revleft discussion about gender and sex? Surely not!

Good post. But I'd advice against making more of them, that kind (thoughtful and intelligent discourse) of thing can get you on the fast track to revleft's very own gulag.

[Crux]

My God, the voice of reason - on Revleft discussion about gender and sex? Surely not!

Good post. But I'd advice against making more of them, that kind (thoughtful and intelligent discourse) of thing can get you on the fast track to revleft's very own gulag.
This conversation is already taking place in OI.

[Invader Zim]

This conversation is already taking place in OI.

Touché.

Well, if Lobotomy wants to post outside of the camp... but you get my point.