My Thoughts on Sex (the act of)

[Snard]

This will again be taken from my writer's profile from WritersCafe.org. Since I can't technically post a link, I'll put it below with a few spaces in between so you guys can go to its origin. I had trouble deciding whether I should put this in the philosophy section or here in the opposing ideology section, and clearly I decided on this. So, here you go.

------------------------------------------------------------
Sex
A Chapter by Newspaper Boy
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Where do I start?

Sex is much too overplayed. Taken so seriously to the point that people put restrictions on it, and disgrace and alienate those who take part in it. Now I realize that is a broad statement, and much too generalized. Not everyone is alienated for sexual participation. Right now, however, I will only speak of the tormented, and the tormentors.

Sex, I understand, has been a sensitive act for millenniums. People seem to think that flesh touching flesh for pleasure(and other such reasons) is bad. Virginity is nothing but a socially constructed concept, and the only physical occurrence that may go along with said concept is the breaking of the hymen in a woman. Innocence and purity are things that are long gone by the time that humans are physically and biologically ready for sexual interaction. Sure, some are more "innocent" than others, but innocence is relative, no? To go back to the actual topic, I just can't fathom why people would think sex is a bad or overly-sacred thing. STD's are not as common as you think, overprotective parents. Not every person is sexually inept. I think I will split it, at this point. Teenage sex, and "adult" sex.

Teenage sex: I am a bit more open minded when it comes to people being worrisome about teenage sex. A lot of younger people are unfortunately complete idiots. I'm around them for hours every day. When most can't speak their first language properly, how can you expect them to have anything short of bacteria infested sex with the school "gets around" girl/guy. So, with this, I support certain concerns. Idiots should not be doing a lot of things, including sex, until they are educated in it. This brings me to the next portion of the teenage sex topic: Educated teens. There are quite a few(though not the majority) of teens who are quite educated in more things than just sex and modern technology. I know a few, and I consider myself to be smarter than your typical idiot. These educated teens, sexually and otherwise, I think should be trusted. The main problem, which I totally forgot to mention beforehand, is parents/guardians of teens. I think this brings many of the issues full-circle. Guardians(whom I am just going to refer to as "parents" from now on), are usually afraid of one or more of these things happening after/during sex:
~ Illusory innocence and purity being lost.
~ STD's
~ Loss of control or connection over/with their "child."
~ Other shit that I sadly haven't identified.
I feel I've worn this part of my topic thin. I will be addressing the whore/slut ordeal near the end, after I've addressed the adult situation next.

Adult sex: I find this has a lot less restrictions than teenage sex, but it also seems to have a few that are unique to it, however I can't exactly identify those by firsthand experience since I am no physical or legal adult. First off, many adults sadly seem to be less inclined to have sex. No doubt this is due to puberty ending and hormones "balancing." It seems many sexual problems are encountered at the adolescent stage of development, with exception to erectile dysfunction and other age difficulties; however not saying that erectile dysfunction is a nonexistent problem for teens. I don't really have many adult-specific issues to address, so I'll mesh the two again.

Overall issues: It seems everyone, young and old, faces the biggest non-physical problem when it comes to sex: Labels and torment. For some reason, it is unacceptable to the masses for people to have sex with multiple people and/or often. They are labelled negatively a "slut" or "whore", or whatever your choice word(s) is. This is completely unnecessary and is only a manifestation of typical people-problems. You have your own problems, so you in turn torment another because of your shit-feeliness. I don't think people realize that they are bullies in this regard. Sexual interaction is nothing to be ashamed of or alienated for. It is not a crime to have consensual sex, so why is it looked down upon by the large majority? Well, it all ties back into traditions, and those traditions formed from where? You got it! The root of most all problems in the world: Religion. From here I am only coming together with my previous writing on theology, so I will not dwell on it too much. Religion is quite famous for making you do irrational things and be ashamed of natural actions and things like your body. It is no surprise that a huge natural human pleasure, sexual intercourse, is considered to be extraordinarily taboo. I will soon delve into a criticism on religion if I continue on from here, and since this is not the right place for that, I will reach my conclusion.

In case you for some reason couldn't tell, I find that sex is not what it is played up to be. It is not immoral or sinful. It's just a pleasuring act. Meh. That's it for this.

------------------------------------------------------

www .writerscafe .org/writing/Snard/1235152/

[d3crypt]

Pretty good. I hate how girls get called sluts for enjoying sex.

[#FF0000]

Think the bit about how "teenagers are dumb lol can't even speak their first language" and then use "amoral" incorrectly (looks like you were looking for "immoral".

Your point is well-taken though -- you can't deny teenagers actual sex education and leave them to figure these things out on their own, at least without putting them at considerable risk.

[bcbm]

When most can't speak their first language properly

language evolves


First off, many adults sadly seem to be less inclined to have sex.

not anyone i know...

[Skyhilist]

I mostly agree but some parts have a slightly ageist tone. I have no troubles speaking english and don't know many my age who do either.

[Fakeblock]

Jesus Christ. "I'm much smarter than your typical idiot", "most youngsters can't even speak their first language". I don't if you wrote this, OP, but the author should really have some fucking humility. And let's face it, teenagers today are probably much more sexually educated than in the past. Despite the complaints of avid MTV watchers teenage pregnancy, for example, has really declined in the US (37 percent in 20 years).

I think parents being worried about their children losing their 'innocence' is connected to the fear of losing control. The same could be said for drugs and alcohol, although there's probably also some old school sexism behind the fetishism of sexual purity (no pun intended) that doesn't apply to stimulants.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

There are obviously some really good parts of this (slut-shaming is shitty, virginity is socially constructed), but a lot of it needs to be thought out a bit more. Please don't take this as an attack, I mean my criticisms in a comradely light.

For Millenniums
For one, sex hasn't been a sensitive act for millennia, because, like virginity (the latter being an obvious corollary to this fact), sex itself is a social construct. Sex/uality-as-such (like gender) has been fluid and multifaceted across times and cultures, so to posit it as a single "thing" (i.e. sex) is wildly reductionist. So, saying "not everyone is alienated for sexual participation," misses the point - in fact, either sexual participation or non-participation is impossible to disentangle from alienation, insofar as "sex" is a discourse of power, and the premise "participation" in sex(-as-particular-acts, e.g. fucking) is a means of drawing lines that serve the ends of defining un/healthy sex, un/safe sex, etc. which serve particular ends.

Re: The assertion that teens "can't speak their first language properly".
What the fuck is "properly" in this context? The subtext in this is, "like the educated middle class", which, implicitly means, in a language that is increasingly tailored to serve the ends of particular socio-political projects (comprehensible to the pigs, useful for communicating "practical" information in the context of class rule, etc.). The "need" to standardize language along lines set by the ruling class is precisely a need of the ruling class. Interestingly, this becomes particularly true in how we talk about sex.

The Obscene Suppliment
So, you touch on slut-shaming, but miss the flip-side of the coin - the insistence that one should be fucking. In fact, in saying things like, "sadly seem to be less inclined to have sex," (emphasis mine) reinforce this equally problematic approach to sex. The reality is, even in (most) fundamentalist Christianity, one is not told simply to "Do not have sex!" but "Have the correct type of sex - heterosexual vaginal intercourse in a monogamous relationship with the man on top!" Simply multiplying the "correct" types of sex "Have safe sex!" "Have fun sex!" doesn't really address the underlying problem: patriarchy. In fact, in context, discourses of sex positivity as often serve the interests of the thus-constructed sexual desires of men rather than to liberate sex from heteropatriarchy (which, of course, can't be done away with by reforming sex).

"It's just a pleasuring act."
"Sex" is sphere of activity in which heteropatriarchy actualizes itself in endemic violence, systemically (e.g. rape culture, transphobia), and systematically (e.g. legal frameworks which de facto privilege rapists, restricted access to abortion, etc.). While I'd love it if sex were just all about two (or more!) people getting consensually steamy, this is liberal fairytale. Unfortunately, we need to confront sex as it is, and not how it should be.

[Art Vandelay]

Jesus Christ. "I'm much smarter than your typical idiot", "most youngsters can't even speak their first language". I don't if you wrote this, OP, but the author should really have some fucking humility. And let's face it, teenagers today are probably much more sexually educated than in the past. Despite the complaints of avid MTV watchers teenage pregnancy, for example, has really declined in the US (37 percent in 20 years).

No kidding, the only thing I could think while reading this, was how unbelievably pompous this person sounds. Also I'm not even really sure what the point of this 'article' was, the author had nothing interesting, enlightening, or new to say.

[Consistent.Surprise]

I'm going to pop in & say give the kid a break (yes, you are a kid because I could have birthed you). S/He is trying to bounce things off of us but I have to admit, you're all over the place in many ways, OP. Thoughts are not fully developed, your writing is far too personal & not analytical enough. That said, develop those thoughts. Question the language you use to the audience. I think you need to look at chastity instead of virginity. I think you need to question WHY sex is considered a deviant thing. Question everything you write in such an instance as this.

BTW sex is awesome. I enjoy it immensely.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Yeah, I know my above post comes off as sex-negative (and Intercourse is a pretty good read! ;)), but this is, hopefully, because the OP (Hey OP!) already gets why "sex negativity" is bad (they seem to).

[Rafiq]

Do not underestimate the structural and ideological complexities surrounding sex. It is one of the most intriguing subjects that exist.

[Rafiq]

Sex is completely a social construct, we can not even become aroused without being taught what is and is not attractive. It is not something that comes naturally at all.

[Consistent.Surprise]

Sex is completely a social construct, we can not even become aroused without being taught what is and is not attractive. It is not something that comes naturally at all.

But fucking is completely natural? ;-)

[Rafiq]

Natural? Only if all human social relations are natural, only if you define the ever changing organizational relationships and structures as "natural". It is a silly term. What then, is not "natural"? Such is the logic of bullshit post 90's neoliberal ideology, this focus on ideologically legitimizing things because they are "natural".

[Consistent.Surprise]

Well, what do we refer to procreation as? If we weren't the animals we are, and naturally evolved to procreate, then how do we still exist?

[Rafiq]

You make it as if the ever revolutionary nature of human social relations and all the complexities that surround our mode(s) of organization and communication are somehow divorced from our animality and our evolution. You just don't understand what an animal is or the nature of sexual relations. Other animals are linguistically simple and are organizationally static, their relationship to nature is so direct it completely defines them. We do "naturally" procreate, but the means from which we procreate, just as the same means from which we survive, eat and house ourselves, is not "natural".

[Tenka]

You make it as if the ever revolutionary nature of human social relations and all the complexities that surround our mode(s) of organization and communication are somehow divorced from our animality and our evolution. You just don't understand what an animal is or the nature of sexual relations. Other animals are linguistically simple and are organizationally static, their relationship to nature is so direct it completely defines them. We do "naturally" procreate, but the means from which we procreate, just as the same means from which we survive, eat and house ourselves, is not "natural".

And of course "not natural" does not necessarily mean anything negative as I assume some readers might assume. I for one hope for a utopian future socialism wherein people reproduce asexually, with machines doing all the hard work, so that sex becomes purely non-productive and thus properly enjoyable.

[Rafiq]

Sex is not "bad", but it is not "good" because it is natural

[Vireya]

Meh, I'll stick with my sex negativity. People glorify sex too much it should be discouraged.

[Snard]

Sadly, when typing I do tend to sound pompous. I apologize for this, as it wasn't my intention. I do, however, think that I am "smarter than the typical idiot", and I don't think there is anything wrong with feeling self aware towards that fact.

To the multiple people who addressed my comment on people who can't speak their first language properly, I see it much too often. Yes, I am a teenager and I see it much more often than someone in their mid-twenties or anything beyond that (most likely), but just because it is somewhat of an age-relative thing, does not make it any less real. In addition, just because some (or perhaps all) of you have not seen/heard these people, it does not mean they don't exist. Idiots are everywhere, and as leftists I have absolutely no doubt that you know this and have had experiences with them. Probably a lot of them.

And the point of this was really nothing "enlightening". I write essays and such on my thoughts on the writing website and decided to post it here as well. I am nowhere near being educated-enough to make my words sound perfectly constructed and fully develop my thoughts. I'm still quite new to this whole scene, so if you could try to give me a little slack that would be much appreciated.

I thank the people here who gave me good constructive criticism, it always helps.

[#FF0000]

Sadly, when typing I do tend to sound pompous. I apologize for this, as it wasn't my intention. I do, however, think that I am "smarter than the typical idiot", and I don't think there is anything wrong with feeling self aware towards that fact.

Yeah, I had a feeling you were going towards something like that with that line but I don't think it got through. :lol:

[Red_Banner]

Sex is completely a social construct, we can not even become aroused without being taught what is and is not attractive. It is not something that comes naturally at all.

I disagree.

Before I even understood sexuality I had my first boner when I was 8.

It was simply a woman walking by.


What told me to like that particular kind of woman?

I don't even remember what she looked like, but I was attracted to her.

[Snard]

Basic attraction is not a social construct. I don't think this is nature vs. nurture; it's a mixture of both. Humans are attracted to one another whether they are the same gender or opposite genders or something in between. Everyone has a different mind and likes different things with AND without social conditioning.

[Consistent.Surprise]

You make it as if the ever revolutionary nature of human social relations and all the complexities that surround our mode(s) of organization and communication are somehow divorced from our animality and our evolution. You just don't understand what an animal is or the nature of sexual relations. Other animals are linguistically simple and are organizationally static, their relationship to nature is so direct it completely defines them. We do "naturally" procreate, but the means from which we procreate, just as the same means from which we survive, eat and house ourselves, is not "natural".

Ok. Think I'm picking up what you're putting down: social construct (which isn't a naturally occurring thing) is misconstrued as "natural" as we pair off/interact with others and whom we pick as mates is conditioned in us (for most likely a few thousand years, if not longer) and what we currently view as "sex" is a socialized construction of our animalistic need to procreate thus not natural.

[Reticential]

What told me to like that particular kind of woman?

I don't even remember what she looked like, but I was attracted to her.

That's 8 years of being socialised into knowing what 'kind' of woman you should be attracted to. I doubt you existed in a vacuum until this point; you would have seen films, read books, been bombarded by adverts in magazines, on billboards on TV with how women are 'supposed' to look. Everything told you to like that particular woman.

[Snard]

That's 8 years of being socialised into knowing what 'kind' of woman you should be attracted to. I doubt you existed in a vacuum until this point; you would have seen films, read books, been bombarded by adverts in magazines, on billboards on TV with how women are 'supposed' to look. Everything told you to like that particular woman.

This is quite an interesting viewpoint. I think that if we were in a primal society, where media did not exist, we would be attracted to most all women(from a heterosexual male viewpoint, for all of you who may say/think I am being sexually normative). Media and societal "norms", I feel, dull one's sense of beauty.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

A few thoughts:

First, and sorry to keep coming back to it, but the "proper" language thing is important. If you dig the video I posted in chit-chat (http://www.revleft.com/vb/my-home-seriously-t183259/index.html), you'll get a sense of how working class (white) people, where I'm from, speak. It'd be some fuckin stoopid to call Noova Scootians, like, stoopid cos, like, we don't tock proper, eh? And because while that might be a load of gibberish to your ears, "proper" speech coming the other way sounds like some pretentious "Oh, so yeh wen' to school in fuckin' Torono, eh?" bullshit (i.e. the language of bosses and bureaucrats).

Second, I know it's easy, but it's worth trying to avoid generalizing "heterosexual man" when using "we" statements, unless it's for some really particular reason. It's good to talk from your own experience, and to use "I" statements. It's really important to locate our own experiences, and thereby be clear about our limitations (in terms of the forces that have subjectively shaped us: e.g. I'll never "know" what it's like to be a woman in this society). At the same time, starting from a "we" that only includes people like us is a way to very quickly make a lot of people feel pretty alienated, especially when "we" means "people with a whole lot of systemic and systematic privilege".

Third, about the construction of sex/uality and gender, I think it's worth emphasizing that in a "primal" society (which, for the record, I don't really think has ever or will ever exist) you wouldn't be attracted to "women" because "women" as a social category wouldn't (necessarily) exist. Across times and cultures, genders have been defined in a variety of (often non-binary) ways that don't conform to the formula of x biology = y gender. You might be attracted to people with certain physical characteristics (though probably still only on a specific basis), but that doesn't necessarily line up with gender outside of our current context. There are things I want to say to illustrate this point, but they are all "filthy" (:p) so I'll hold off.

[Rafiq]

Like the ability to hunt, and to walk properly, sex must be taught.

[Red_Banner]

That's 8 years of being socialised into knowing what 'kind' of woman you should be attracted to. I doubt you existed in a vacuum until this point; you would have seen films, read books, been bombarded by adverts in magazines, on billboards on TV with how women are 'supposed' to look. Everything told you to like that particular woman.


Au contraire.

Alot of the media back then was pushing long blonde hair women with big breasts.

If anything it did the opposite.

This is what I like regardless of brest size:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dfIwz34LAM0/UHMmAgXHDJI/AAAAAAAADXY/YfCKUCQeL2U/s1600/Alizee+Latest+Wallpaper+2012-2013+11.jpg

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Au contraire.

Alot of the media back then was pushing long blonde hair women with big breasts.

If anything it did the opposite.

This is what I like regardless of brest size:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dfIwz34LAM0/UHMmAgXHDJI/AAAAAAAADXY/YfCKUCQeL2U/s1600/Alizee+Latest+Wallpaper+2012-2013+11.jpg

Dude, what the hell? Think about this for, like, two seconds.

Is that a woman you know? Is she someone you "like regardless of breast size" because you acknowledge her as a real and complex human being, or is that some creepy-ass rape-y "that's a type of body I'd fuck!" shit?

When you say "this is what I like", and you're talking solely about women's bodies in the abstract you're objectifying women. You're talking about people, not goddamn sextoys.

Seriously, please, spend some time thinking about how you think of women, and how you think of sex. I'm not saying you're "a bad person", or that you're "a sexist" (I don't know you) - but that post was undeniably and extremely sexist.

[Red_Banner]

Dude, what the hell? Think about this for, like, two seconds.

Is that a woman you know? Is she someone you "like regardless of breast size" because you acknowledge her as a real and complex human being, or is that some creepy-ass rape-y "that's a type of body I'd fuck!" shit?

When you say "this is what I like", and you're talking solely about women's bodies in the abstract you're objectifying women. You're talking about people, not goddamn sextoys.

Seriously, please, spend some time thinking about how you think of women, and how you think of sex. I'm not saying you're "a bad person", or that you're "a sexist" (I don't know you) - but that post was undeniably and extremely sexist.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=1348&pictureid=11100

So according to you physical features can't play into sexuality?

I am supposed to go with a woman I find physically unattractive?

"Sexist"?

Hah!

I'm as "sexist" as Emma Goldman.

[Reticential]

Au contraire.

Alot of the media back then was pushing long blonde hair women with big breasts.

If anything it did the opposite.

This is what I like regardless of brest size:


...good for you?

'this' *facepalm*

Anyway...fair, the slim-blue-eyed-blonde-with-disproportionately-large-breasts has always been an obvious fetishised ideal, however never was it the only variant of women that the media decided to portray. Just the fact that you had your baby-boner to a woman and not a man is indicative in itself of having a hetero-normative atomosphere. There are things we accept without questioning them. We've all been conditioned into it.




Third, about the construction of sex/uality and gender, I think it's worth emphasizing that in a "primal" society (which, for the record, I don't really think has ever or will ever exist) you wouldn't be attracted to "women" because "women" as a social category wouldn't (necessarily) exist. Across times and cultures, genders have been defined in a variety of (often non-binary) ways that don't conform to the formula of x biology = y gender. You might be attracted to people with certain physical characteristics (though probably still only on a specific basis), but that doesn't necessarily line up with gender outside of our current context. There are things I want to say to illustrate this point, but they are all "filthy" (:p) so I'll hold off.

This woulda been my point also :tt2: As we're talking about gender and sex/uality being as social construct, in a 'primal' society these things would not exist.

[#FF0000]

So according to you physical features can't play into sexuality?

you should lance your ego and read his post again

[Red_Banner]

\. There are things we accept without questioning them. We've all been conditioned into it.

What and I don't have any autonomy with regards to what I like?


That I only follow some fate?

You are trying to say other people determined what I like.

Well then how did they themselves come to that determination of "what is sexy"?

[Red_Banner]

you should lance your ego and read his post again

Lance your's first.

I know this woman outside of a mere picture.

Now I don't know her in person but I listen to her music, watch her music videos, concerts, documentaries about her, and interviews.

Should I have to put an imaginary Burqa over all women and like all of them?

[#FF0000]

What and I don't have any autonomy with regards to what I like?

No. They are just saying that socialization has something to do with what people find attractive.


Lance your's first.

I'm not the one who makes endless angry posts without comprehending what other people posted.


Should I have to put an imaginary Burqa over all women and like all of them?

Yo, again, you should read that post again.

[Reticential]

What and I don't have any autonomy with regards to what I like?


That I only follow some fate?

You are trying to say other people determined what I like.

Well then how did they themselves come to that determination of "what is sexy"?


I don't quite see how you can confuse 'fate' and 'conditioning'.

Your tag says 'far leftist' so I'll assume this is how you identify; to do so requires the knowledge that what you've been given to accept is fucked up. You have autonomously chosen to disregard some of what you've learned. But we live in a patriarchal society, we have institutionalised discrimination. You have not been immune to that. Hence why, y'know, you used that woman as an object, an advertisement of your physical preferences. There were other ways to do that. Use your words.

How did the rich white men in power come to determine what was sexy? Same way they determine everything. According to their needs and their ability.

[Red_Banner]

No. They are just saying that socialization has something to do with what people find attractive.

Okay, it has something, but it isn't everything.





I'm not the one who makes endless angry posts without comprehending what other people posted.



Yo, again, you should read that post again.

I have comprehended.

It's not my fault you can't recognise that.

[Reticential]

Should I have to put an imaginary Burqa over all women and like all of them?


Also a burka is just another form of objectification. Jus' sayin'.

[#FF0000]

I have comprehended.

It's not my fault you can't recognise that.

No, you haven't, because nothing you said had anything to do with what TGDU said, especially when you went "I'm as sexist as Emma Goldman" because he specifically said that he was not calling you sexist.

[Red_Banner]

No, you haven't, because nothing you said had anything to do with what TGDU said, especially when you went "I'm as sexist as Emma Goldman" because he specifically said that he was not calling you sexist.


Funny, he said this
I'm not saying you're "a bad person", or that you're "a sexist" (I don't know you) - but that post was undeniably and extremely sexist.He is saying I am sexist, but he is not saying it. Atleast according to him. :rolleyes:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=1348&pictureid=11101

[Art Vandelay]

He is saying I am sexist, but he is not saying it. Atleast according to him. :rolleyes:

All you are showcasing here is your lack of ability to comprehend what you read. In fact it would be rather humorous, if not so frustrating, because this latest post is yet another further, and ironic, example of a failure in reading comprehension. You actually directly quote his post, only to then jumble up its meaning following the quote. No he was not calling you sexist, in fact, as you quoted, he explicitly stated: "I'm not saying you're "a bad person", or that you're "a sexist" (I don't know you)." What he then followed this up with, was stating that while he can't accuse you of being a sexist since he doesn't know you, he can say that the post you had just made was undeniably sexist, which it was. You posted a picture of a woman and engaged in textbook objectification. There is nothing wrong with finding particular physical characteristics of women appealing, albeit its interesting to understand why certain physical characteristics are seen as more desirable, but there is something wrong with posting a picture of someone and as TGDU said being all like:"that's a type of body I'd fuck!" The definition of objectification is 'treating a person as a thing, without regard to their dignity' and when you talk about an individual (male or female) the way you did, that's a perfect example of objectification. You objectify them by discussing them as if they're some tool for your purposes; you objectify them by discussing them as if they're only the sum total of their physical traits and are interchangeable, you don't say 'I like x physical characteristic of this woman' you say 'I like....(insert body part here);' you objectify when you deny their subjectivity and present yourself as if their is no need for concern for their emotions/experience. Now I don't think that was your intention when you made that post, which is why I really think you should calm down, take a step back, and really open yourself up to what is being stated here. We all invariably end up internalizing negative aspects of capitalist society, in turn if we want to be fighters for our class, we need to be open to self criticism and willing to evolve. Instead of flippantly and arrogantly dismissing what is being said, take a good long look at your post and try to understand why people would say it was sexist.

[Red_Banner]

I wasn't objectifying, you are barking up the wrong tree.

And I have already stated I do not objectify this particular woman.


You objectify them by discussing them as if they're some tool for your purposes; you objectify them by discussing them as if they're only the sum total of their physical traits and are interchangeable, you don't say 'I like x physical characteristic of this woman' you say 'I like....(insert body part here);' you objectify when you deny their subjectivity and present yourself as if their is no need for concern for their emotions/experience.

I didn't. Don't slander.


No he was not calling you sexist, in fact, as you quoted, he explicitly stated: "I'm not saying you're "a bad person", or that you're "a sexist" (I don't know you)." What he then followed this up with, was stating that while he can't accuse you of being a sexist since he doesn't know you, he can say that the post you had just made was undeniably sexist, which it was.

So how do you or him abstract the post from me?

If you or him are saying I am not sexist, how can my statements, my post be?

[Snard]

Mr.Populi provided a very nice point, but I think most of you are overanalyzing what Red Banner said. Trying to point out how he was being sexist without him actually being blatantly sexist is somewhat intrinsically sexist in itself, no? I mean, RB could have perhaps not even have been speaking of her herself, but maybe her style/clothing/etc. Assumption causes a lot of problems, as has been proven here and in many other places throughout life. I agree that objectifying anyone is wrong, but was that really what he was doing? Or were you guys just trying to interpret it that way on purpose? That is actually a question, not rhetorical sarcasm.

[Art Vandelay]

Mr.Populi provided a very nice point, but I think most of you are overanalyzing what Red Banner said. Trying to point out how he was being sexist without him actually being blatantly sexist is somewhat intrinsically sexist in itself, no? I mean, RB could have perhaps not even have been speaking of her herself, but maybe her style/clothing/etc. Assumption causes a lot of problems, as has been proven here and in many other places throughout life. I agree that objectifying anyone is wrong, but was that really what he was doing? Or were you guys just trying to interpret it that way on purpose? That is actually a question, not rhetorical sarcasm.

I'm certainly not trying to interpret his post in any particular way. I don't look through the forums, just waiting to see someone slip up, so I can jump in and shout sexist. Again, no one has done so, he has not once been called sexist. Indeed the opposite has been continually stated. It is perfectly possible for anyone, who may not necessarily hold prejudicial views, to engage in a act/statement/etc that is prejudiced on occasion. Now to be fair, in my post in this thread, I wasn't trying to say that those examples of objectification were explicitly stated by the poster in question, however what I was trying to make clear was that when you post a picture of a women prefaced with the following comment: 'that's what I like regardless of breast size,' certain sentiments are implicitly stated along with it. I really don't see how it isn't obvious to anyone, why that original statement was in bad taste and reflects a certain amount of the internalization of negative aspects of capitalist society, that we are all subjected to.

[Snard]

I mean, there is no reason to keep dwelling on this small issue. Perhaps he did speak somewhat poorly, but sense of implication is relative. What might mean one thing to one person may not or even mean something else to another. This is getting too generalized. Also, Mr.Populi, notice that I was not directly speaking of you when I said "but I think most of you are overanalyzing what Red Banner said". See, your sense of implication told you that I was speaking of you, and my sense of implication is telling me that your sense of implication told you that I was speaking of you. So it is all relative. In reality, I was actually adressing pretty much everyone but you, Mr.Populi. You've been one of the most decent characters during this little...whatever the fuck it is. Really everyone here could be interpreting everything extremely incorrectly, perhaps even to a ridiculous degree. Who knows?

[Red_Banner]

Again, no one has done so, he has not once been called sexist.
Yes I have been called "sexist".
My post was my thoughts, me.
To call the post "sexist", he is calling me "sexist".


wasn't trying to say that those examples of objectification were explicitly stated by the poster in question, however what I was trying to make clear was that when you post a picture of a women prefaced with the following comment: 'that's what I like regardless of breast size,' certain sentiments are implicitly stated along with it.


How hard is it for you to understand that I was rejecting the big media's idea then of "what is sexy"?

They were saying to like large breasts, where as I don't care what size they are.

The Garbage Disposal Unit (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=9855) was saying that I "objectify women" which is a baseless claim.

He doesn't seem to be able to infer that I like most everyone else, am not attracted to somone on a mere physical attraction alone.

There has to be a personality that works.

So while yes I do find the woman in that photo to be attracive, we'd have to get along with eachother to a reasonable extent for the relationship to work.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Alright, Red Banner, hold up for a second.
Regardless of how you feel about your original post, you need to think about how to respond to criticism.
For one, when somebody criticizes something you've done, you're missing the point if you start defending yourself. Nobody's perfect, and everybody can benefit from having their mistakes pointed out. Instead of saying "I'm not sexist!" (defending yourself), consider what action the person is actually criticizing. Being able to do this is really important, because there are times when, especially if you've really hurt somebody, they will be all like, "You stupid dick-for-brains, I want to cut off your balls and feed them to you!" - and it's when you've done something that pisses somebody off that much, that you really need to get past your own hurt, and figure out how you've fucked up.
Second, if you've unintentionally said/done something sexist, don't compound it by comparing yourself to a woman (e.g. Emma Goldman). This is in the same category as, "I have a black friend." Don't do it, if purely for your own sake: It's not convincing, and it makes you look really silly.

That dealt with, on to the original post: it was textbook objectifying. You posted a picture of a woman, using her body, as an object, to illustrate what bodies serve as objects of your subjective desire.
That doesn't mean it's not OK to like bodies. That doesn't mean it's not OK to find certain bodies attractive and not others. That doesn't mean you're a bad caricature of a meathead.
Just step back, and try to be sensitive. Think about the way that men going on about how, "My type is X" impacts the way women feel about their bodies. Think about how defining your attractions in terms of things like, "regardless of breast size" normalizes certain attitudes about women's bodies.

[Snard]

Wow, I'm on both sides of this fence now. TGDU has provided an excellent point, but I still partially stand by my statement of "you guys are overanalyzing this". I do think people (such as Red Banner, in this case) should consider what they may have said that was objectifying and/or sexist and try to improve upon their mistakes. However, I personally think it is obvious that he already realizes what happened. And he himself knows he is not sexist. So what is the point of this? Is it just going to be 2 pages of more back and forth until someone else posts something slightly (insert negative term here)? I think this could be much more productive than it has become.

[Quail]

Wow, I'm on both sides of this fence now. TGDU has provided an excellent point, but I still partially stand by my statement of "you guys are overanalyzing this". I do think people (such as Red Banner, in this case) should consider what they may have said that was objectifying and/or sexist and try to improve upon their mistakes. However, I personally think it is obvious that he already realizes what happened. And he himself knows he is not sexist. So what is the point of this? Is it just going to be 2 pages of more back and forth until someone else posts something slightly (insert negative term here)? I think this could be much more productive than it has become.
I think there is a danger that when people "know that they aren't sexist" they don't analyse their actions. In order to actually be anti-sexist then not only do you have to say the right things, but also do the right things. Obviously we all pick up bits of sexism because we've grown up in a patriarchal society, so I don't think there is any shame in putting your hands up and admitting that you said something inappropriate and then trying to fix it/work on not doing it again. The problem is that people don't always do that. They defend the inappropriate comment for ages, they don't listen to what people are saying and you get this situation where a thread gets derailed. Part of fighting for equality involves reflecting upon yourself and your own beliefs and behaviour and it's a shame people aren't more willing to do that.

[Red_Banner]

Alright, Red Banner, hold up for a second.
Regardless of how you feel about your original post, you need to think about how to respond to criticism.
For one, when somebody criticizes something you've done, you're missing the point if you start defending yourself. Nobody's perfect, and everybody can benefit from having their mistakes pointed out. Instead of saying "I'm not sexist!" (defending yourself), consider what action the person is actually criticizing. Being able to do this is really important, because there are times when, especially if you've really hurt somebody, they will be all like, "You stupid dick-for-brains, I want to cut off your balls and feed them to you!" - and it's when you've done something that pisses somebody off that much, that you really need to get past your own hurt, and figure out how you've fucked up.
Second, if you've unintentionally said/done something sexist, don't compound it by comparing yourself to a woman (e.g. Emma Goldman). This is in the same category as, "I have a black friend." Don't do it, if purely for your own sake: It's not convincing, and it makes you look really silly.

That dealt with, on to the original post: it was textbook objectifying. You posted a picture of a woman, using her body, as an object, to illustrate what bodies serve as objects of your subjective desire.
That doesn't mean it's not OK to like bodies. That doesn't mean it's not OK to find certain bodies attractive and not others. That doesn't mean you're a bad caricature of a meathead.
Just step back, and try to be sensitive. Think about the way that men going on about how, "My type is X" impacts the way women feel about their bodies. Think about how defining your attractions in terms of things like, "regardless of breast size" normalizes certain attitudes about women's bodies.

"That dealt with, on to the original post: it was textbook objectifying. You posted a picture of a woman, using her body, as an object, to illustrate what bodies serve as objects of your subjective desire."
What do you mean "objectifying"? I recognise that women aren't mere unconscious collections of matter.

"Just step back, and try to be sensitive. "
Are you purporting that I am not sensitive?

"Second, if you've unintentionally said/done something sexist, don't compound it by comparing yourself to a woman (e.g. Emma Goldman)"


If I compared to a man, would your response be the same?

"This is in the same category as, "I have a black friend." "
No, what I was saying that Goldman's ideas on sexism are much the same as mine.

If I had posted a picture of a man, would your response be the same?

Are you for actual sex and gender quality, or are you for feminine sexism/chauvanism?

What you are doing is alienating natural human sexual attraction.

[Art Vandelay]

An admin/mod should just step in and infract at this point. Revleft is the one place where sexist bullshit should never be posted, as communists we should know better. It's been patiently explained to him how his post was textbook objectification, he is either unwilling or unable to get the point an engage in any sort of critical self relfection. I for one, refuse to go in anymore circles with him. Kudos to those with more patience then I, his reverse sexism claim (or female chauvanist) did me in.

[Red_Banner]

An admin/mod should just step in and infract at this point. Revleft is the one place where sexist bullshit should never be posted, as communists we should know better. It's been patiently explained to him how his post was textbook objectification, he is either unwilling or unable to get the point an engage in any sort of critical self relfection. I for one, refuse to go in anymore circles with him. Kudos to those with more patience then I, his reverse sexism claim (or female chauvanist) did me in.

I didn't claim that, I merely asked him a question.

And there isn't an ounce of objectification in it.

"for one, refuse to go in anymore circles with him. "

You were the one beating around the bush with " No he was not calling you sexist, in fact, as you quoted, he explicitly stated: "I'm not saying you're "a bad person", or that you're "a sexist" (I don't know you).""

You don't seem to understand that when TGDU said " I'm not saying you're "a bad person", or that you're "a sexist" (I don't know you) - but that post was undeniably and extremely sexist." he was saying I wasn't "sexist" while at the same time calling my post "sexist".

Calling my post "sexist" is the same thing as calling me "sexist".

[Thirsty Crow]

When you say "this is what I like", and you're talking solely about women's bodies in the abstract you're objectifying women. You're talking about people, not goddamn sextoys.

So, according to the criteria set out in the post I quoted, it would be completely impossible to talk of preferred physical traits exclusively, in the sense of failing to mention personality and and so on, without regard for context.

The context of Red Banner's post which got all this going was that he stated that he finds attractive physical traits that aren't widely disseminated as such, by the media and so on. This strictly relates to the argument at hand, how is sex (and attraction) socially constructed.

What I wrote above would necessarily rule out any talk of physical preference. Merely broaching the subject would amount to entering the zone of objectification.

I don't think I need to point out that I disagree.

On the other hand, if what seems to be at stake here is found problematic - expressing oneself insensitively - that should be clearly stated.

As for objectification, I don't consider having preferred physical traits and talking about it any such thing. Moreover, it would be interesting to see just how much this rigid view stems from traditional bourgeois sexual morality.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Calling my post "sexist" is the same thing as calling me "sexist".

OK, so like a lot of stuff in this thread, there's a lot of lines that are really hard to walk, and a lot of things that can be difficult to pinpoint.

I'm going to fill this out a bit.

I'm assuming that, since you're posting on a site called "Revolutionary Left" that, in theory, and, to the best of your ability in practice, you're committed to women's liberation. Consequently, calling you "a sexist" would probably be somewhat unfair, especially based on one shitty post on the internet ('cos, hell, we all type-first-and-think-later, right?).

And there's a big difference between someone who wants to fight patriarchy, but is still figuring out how (because, that's, like, everyone who's fighting patriarchy!), and someone who doesn't care about fighting patriarchy. Like, I want to offer criticism and support to the former so that we can struggle together; I could care less about the latter.

So when I say, "That post was sexist," it's my way of saying, "I trust that you're sincere." When I say, "You're sexist," I'm saying, "Shut your mouth, or I'll shut it for you." I'm still posting in this thread because I still trust that you're not an irredeemable asshole.

Therefore, I want to unpack some more things:


If I had posted a picture of a man, would your response be the same?

Of course not - because capitalist patriarchy is the world we live in. The class position of women, and the violence directed at women, are fundamentally different than anything men experience. So this misses the point. As the saying goes, "The law in all its majesty forbids equally the rich and poor from sleeping on park benches". The thing is, obviously, the rich are never going to have to sleep on park benches; the poor are. Similarly, men aren't sexualized and made objects of male violence the way that women are. We need to get over formal approaches ("on paper", "in theory") and look at how sexism really works - and it works because there are systems of power and violence that target women.


Are you for actual sex and gender quality, or are you for feminine sexism/chauvanism?

OK, I know this is a popular idea - that some feminists are "reverse sexist" or whatever. But let's look at how sexism really works: Control of women's reproductive labour (eg access to abortions, contraceptives), compulsory domestic labour (lack of affordable daycares, men's expectations of "mothers"), laws and cultural norms that enable sexual assault and rape, etc. This is all coming out of a really concrete history: if you want to go back and look at the interrelationship between capitalism and patriarchy (Caliban and The Witch (http://libcom.org/library/caliban-witch-silvia-federici) by Silvia Federici is a great starting point!), it becomes pretty clear that "reverse patriarchy" isn't really possible any more than "reverse capitalism" is.
That doesn't mean women can't be shitty to men, that men are evil and always in the wrong, or anything like that. It just means that men aren't going to experience sexism like women experience any more than the bourgeoisie is going to experience what the working class experiences.


What you are doing is alienating natural human sexual attraction.

Naw man - (hetero)patriarchy is alienating human sexual attraction. The sexualized oppression of more than half of the population is alienating human sexual attraction. Sure, I'm trying to make our everyday "normal" hetero male sexuality more complicated, and I'm trying to make us question, "What do we get off on, and why?" I'm not trying to make us quit getting erections, or having fantasies, or any of that, but when, how, and to whom we express those desires is important. We need to step back and try to figure out how "normal" hetero male sexuality fits in with capitalism and patriarchy.

Look, I know this stuff is really hard - but getting a handle on it will not only help you fight patriarchy in the abstract. It will actually improve your relationships with women (and men!), and change the way you think about / approach sex in ways that will make sex better.

[Red_Banner]

Thanks, that response was decent.


Naw man - (hetero)patriarchy is alienating human sexual attraction. The sexualized oppression of more than half of the population is alienating human sexual attraction

While there is that the niches of matriarichal sexism should be recognized and combatted too, even if it isn't as prevelant has the patriarchy.

[Thirsty Crow]

While there is that the niches of matriarichal sexism should be recognized and combatted too, even if it isn't as prevelant has the patriarchy.
What niches of matriarchal sexism?

The mistake you make consists of the fact that matriarchy, as a set of society wide formed attitudes with corresponding actions and conditions directly subordinating men to women simply doesn't exist.

Any statement as to the inherent less worth of males is to be taken as an overreaction due to centuries of gendered oppression and very probably personal experience, not as "matriarchal sexism". Though, to be clear, if it ever comes to a movement of women explicitly seeking structural power over men, that would be something to oppose (I don't think any such movement exists and I don't think it ever will).

[Red_Banner]

What niches of matriarchal sexism?

The mistake you make consists of the fact that matriarchy, as a set of society wide formed attitudes with corresponding actions and conditions directly subordinating men to women simply doesn't exist.

Any statement as to the inherent less worth of males is to be taken as an overreaction due to centuries of gendered oppression and very probably personal experience, not as "matriarchal sexism". Though, to be clear, if it ever comes to a movement of women explicitly seeking structural power over men, that would be something to oppose (I don't think any such movement exists and I don't think it ever will).

Well let's take this "ladies first" kind of crap for example.
I don't know if a man or woman came up with it, not that that really matters, what matters is that particular example of sexism still exists.

[#FF0000]

Calling my post "sexist" is the same thing as calling me "sexist".

EDIT: nvm it looks like this was already handled


Well let's take this "ladies first" kind of crap for example.
I don't know if a man or woman came up with it, not that that really matters, what matters is that particular example of sexism still exists. If that's all men have to worry about in terms of "matriarchal sexism" then it's not worth talking about.

FWIW that's a modern remnant of early modern "chivalry", which itself is based on the weird, condescending sort of sexism that puts women just barely above children as far as capacity to act as rational actors goes.

[Red_Banner]

Well what about courts in child custody cases that rule in favour of the mother more often than not?

The assumption that a mother is the 'better parent"?

I'm not saying that there aren't courts that rule in favour of the father, but this is common enough for concern.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Well what about courts in child custody cases that rule in favour of the mother more often than not?

The assumption that a mother is the 'better parent"?

I'm not saying that there aren't courts that rule in favour of the father, but this is common enough for concern.

I think this is actually a really interesting example that's worth exploring for a bit, because it can illustrate some of the weird ways that patriarchy and gender operate to privilege men-as-a-whole, while sometimes really hurting men individually.

So, why do courts very often rule that the mother is the "better parent"? To a large degree, it's because of the sexist notions of women's "innate" "nurturing" nature. There's a sexist idea about women that "motherhood" is just part of being a woman, and, therefore, they just "are" the better parent, regardless of reality.
Secondly, for systemic reasons, women are often the ones who end up taking on the bulk of the domestic labour: they actually are the better parent, not because of something natural in womanhood, but because discrimination in wages and employment mean that it's often "common sense" for the father to be the primary wage earner. In Canada, for example, about 27% of women are employed only part-time, as compared to about 12% of men.

So, does this still suck for individual good Dads who lose custody of their kids? Of course it does! But is this because the courts are sexist against men? Nope - it actually reflects a broader societal context in which women are oppressed.

[human strike]

What and I don't have any autonomy with regards to what I like?

Let's momentarily consider this question in reference to something else entirely. What is it about a certain song or style of music that causes you to like it? I don't think you would suggest that it is something in your biology, so what's the difference when it comes to sexual attraction?


Meh, I'll stick with my sex negativity. People glorify sex too much it should be discouraged.

Porn, rape and procreation are routinely glorified, but I rarely see the glorification of sex that falls outside of these categories, i.e. sex for pleasure. Capitalist patriarchal society is inherently sex negative.

"Present day civilisation makes it plain that it will only permit sexual relationships on the basis of a solitary, indissoluble bond between one man and one woman, and that it does not like sexuality as a source of pleasure in its own right and is only prepared to tolerate it because there is so far no substitute for it as a means of propagating the human race." Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents

In other words this society only tolerates sex because it has not come up with a more efficient way of reproducing capitalist patriarchal society. If there are no babies, there is no patriarchy. If sex outside of marriage is illegal, the demand for it might threaten the capitalist state. Why do you think homosexuality was illegal and still is in some places?Consensual sex that is done for its own sake, for the sake of pleasure, in fact threatens the entire basis of this society that is productivist, capitalist, and patriarchal.


This is quite an interesting viewpoint. I think that if we were in a primal society, where media did not exist, we would be attracted to most all women(from a heterosexual male viewpoint, for all of you who may say/think I am being sexually normative). Media and societal "norms", I feel, dull one's sense of beauty.

Whilst this is true, I think it is important not to over-emphasise the impact media has. The media didn't invent patriarchy. The media reflects patriarchal social relations. It is effective because it takes the ideas that are already in our heads. The media is like a mirror that takes all the oppressive shit in our heads and reflects it back at us whilst taking the good and turning it bad, removing its radical content, commodifying demands for something better and selling it back to us. Ultimately a lot of patriarchal ideology is learned during childhood, largely from parents. As always, the revolution starts at home.


I think this is actually a really interesting example that's worth exploring for a bit, because it can illustrate some of the weird ways that patriarchy and gender operate to privilege men-as-a-whole, while sometimes really hurting men individually.

So, why do courts very often rule that the mother is the "better parent"? To a large degree, it's because of the sexist notions of women's "innate" "nurturing" nature. There's a sexist idea about women that "motherhood" is just part of being a woman, and, therefore, they just "are" the better parent, regardless of reality.
Secondly, for systemic reasons, women are often the ones who end up taking on the bulk of the domestic labour: they actually are the better parent, not because of something natural in womanhood, but because discrimination in wages and employment mean that it's often "common sense" for the father to be the primary wage earner. In Canada, for example, about 27% of women are employed only part-time, as compared to about 12% of men.

So, does this still suck for individual good Dads who lose custody of their kids? Of course it does! But is this because the courts are sexist against men? Nope - it actually reflects a broader societal context in which women are oppressed.

Furthermore, during the 19th century in developed capitalist economies (and in less developed economies today) fathers routinely won custody of their children. This reflected the different property and labour conditions that existed then. When children were workers, which was typically the case at the time, the child was of economic value to a father - the capitalist patriarchal institutions that were the courts reflected this reality and ruled in favour of fathers. When children lost this value, i.e. when child labour became less common, legislated against etc., why, from the perspective of said courts in all their sexist and capitalist ideology, would a father need children? Especially when that father should be working outside the home, not raising children.

[#FF0000]

Porn, rape and procreation are routinely glorified, but I rarely see the glorification of sex that falls outside of these categories, i.e. sex for pleasure. Capitalist patriarchal society is inherently sex negative........

That's a really interesting/good point. I mean, look at the weird mini-moral panic that surrounds "hook-up culture".

[human strike]

That's a really interesting/good point. I mean, look at the weird mini-moral panic that surrounds "hook-up culture".

Hook-up culture is very interesting in itself. I was reading a paper recently that referenced studies that suggest a lot of people (I think it may have only been discussing the phenomenon in relation to students) who engage in hook-ups experience negative feelings afterwards (First few pages of this paper: http://convention.myacpa.org/archive/programs/Vegas13/Handouts/90/Yes%20Means%20Yes.pdf). This has actually been my general experience of it. I think there are a lot of different reasons for this, but basically it's patriarchy fucking up fucking since the dawn of civilisation.

It's interesting to note that there is, especially for women, a cultural pressure to have sex whilst simultaneously a pressure not to (linked, I think, to the virgin-whore dichotomy). I suspect this comes down in part to the fact that, as I mentioned before, certain kinds of "sex" are to an extent glorified, whilst others are very much discouraged. I think it is probably more complex than just this though.

[Art Vandelay]

It's interesting to note that there is, especially for women, a cultural pressure to have sex whilst simultaneously a pressure not to (linked, I think, to the virgin-whore dichotomy).

This. Its actually really interesting to think about since, at least for me personally, I've seen in play out so many times. Its almost like a weird Orwellian doublethink; on the one hand there are extreme and many times frightening societal pressures on women to engage in sexual activity, while simultaneously all the negative repercussions inherent for women who engage in sexual activity.

[#FF0000]

Well what about courts in child custody cases that rule in favour of the mother more often than not?

The assumption that a mother is the 'better parent"?

I'm not saying that there aren't courts that rule in favour of the father, but this is common enough for concern.

1) That's founded in traditional patriarchal gender roles, though. There's nothing "matriarchal" about that.
2) Most of those child custody cases where the child goes to the mother are decided outside of court without mediators -- that is, between the parents. So that isn't quite what it seems either.

[Art Vandelay]

2) Most of those child custody cases where the child goes to the mother are decided outside of court without mediators -- that is, between the parents. So that isn't quite what it seems either.

From my own personal experience, as well as most of the people I know, this is how it is predominantly handled (out of court) unless one parent is seriously unfit for custody or the divorce/separation/whatever was messy.

[human strike]

This. Its actually really interesting to think about since, at least for me personally, I've seen in play out so many times. Its almost like a weird Orwellian doublethink; on the one hand there are extreme and many times frightening societal pressures on women to engage in sexual activity, while simultaneously all the negative repercussions inherent for women who engage in sexual activity.

It seems impossible to find a balance, but then patriarchy does generally demand that people aspire to impossible standards. And so much of it is to do with image and appearance too rather than what is actually going on in the bedroom and beneath the sheets, as it were.

[Art Vandelay]

It seems impossible to find a balance, but then patriarchy does generally demand that people aspire to impossible standards. And so much of it is to do with image and appearance too rather than what is actually going on in the bedroom and beneath the sheets, as it were.

Absolutely, I mean a good example relating directly to the issue of the societal pressures put on both men and women, as far as sexual activity goes, is the fact that both men and women, especially growing up, have intense societal pressure to engage in sexual activity; I'm not saying these societal pressures are the same, but both experience it. Except the reaction to the engagement in sexual activity among peers is so different between the sexes. Men get pats on the back for reckless and frequent sexual encounters, whereas women get slut-shamed. Likewise, both men and women are bombarded with unrealistic interpretations of what they should aspire to look like, but when a man goes out at night, dressed in the latest fashion, attempting to look attractive, etc...the reaction tends to be positive. Whereas when women do likewise, the reaction are the opposite, claims of promiscuity and when sexual violence does happen, its this social and artificially reinforced conception of the 'physically attractive female' and their attempts to live up to it, which is blamed as the source of the problem. I mean obviously this is all basic stuff, but I don't think many people here fully understand or address the striking differences under patriarchy and the full range of its scope.

[Vireya]

Let's momentarily consider this question in reference to something else entirely. What is it about a certain song or style of music that causes you to like it? I don't think you would suggest that it is something in your biology, so what's the difference when it comes to sexual attraction?



Porn, rape and procreation are routinely glorified, but I rarely see the glorification of sex that falls outside of these categories, i.e. sex for pleasure. Capitalist patriarchal society is inherently sex negative.

"Present day civilisation makes it plain that it will only permit sexual relationships on the basis of a solitary, indissoluble bond between one man and one woman, and that it does not like sexuality as a source of pleasure in its own right and is only prepared to tolerate it because there is so far no substitute for it as a means of propagating the human race." Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents

In other words this society only tolerates sex because it has not come up with a more efficient way of reproducing capitalist patriarchal society. If there are no babies, there is no patriarchy. If sex outside of marriage is illegal, the demand for it might threaten the capitalist state. Why do you think homosexuality was illegal and still is in some places?Consensual sex that is done for its own sake, for the sake of pleasure, in fact threatens the entire basis of this society that is productivist, capitalist, and patriarchal.



Whilst this is true, I think it is important not to over-emphasise the impact media has. The media didn't invent patriarchy. The media reflects patriarchal social relations. It is effective because it takes the ideas that are already in our heads. The media is like a mirror that takes all the oppressive shit in our heads and reflects it back at us whilst taking the good and turning it bad, removing its radical content, commodifying demands for something better and selling it back to us. Ultimately a lot of patriarchal ideology is learned during childhood, largely from parents. As always, the revolution starts at home.



Furthermore, during the 19th century in developed capitalist economies (and in less developed economies today) fathers routinely won custody of their children. This reflected the different property and labour conditions that existed then. When children were workers, which was typically the case at the time, the child was of economic value to a father - the capitalist patriarchal institutions that were the courts reflected this reality and ruled in favour of fathers. When children lost this value, i.e. when child labour became less common, legislated against etc., why, from the perspective of said courts in all their sexist and capitalist ideology, would a father need children? Especially when that father should be working outside the home, not raising children.

I don't know about all the patriarchy talk, but I loath the idea sex for pleasure outside of a couple or marriage. I don't find such sexual frivolity to be permissible, in the maintainence of a healthy and orderly society.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I don't know about all the patriarchy talk, but I loath the idea sex for pleasure outside of a couple or marriage. I don't find such sexual frivolity to be permissible, in the maintainence of a healthy and orderly society.

Why exactly is sex loathsome, and why outside a coupling?

"Maintenance of a healthy and orderly society?" Are you Mussolini, Hirohito, Pinochet or something? Just because you dislike sexual acts (outside marriage apparently? What is this, Victorian England?) doesn't mean that there's something inherently wrong with sex for pleasure that 'poisons' society, and saying otherwise is just projecting your weird bias onto the world around you. For example, I fucking hate hardstyle techno music with a burning passion, but I don't go around saying that it's detrimental to society or anything. That'd be demagoguery at it's finest.


Kill people burn shit fuck school (and have sex outside marriage).

[Thirsty Crow]

Well let's take this "ladies first" kind of crap for example.
I don't know if a man or woman came up with it, not that that really matters, what matters is that particular example of sexism still exists.
It is irrelevant whether a man or a woman was an instigator of a social practice.

What is important here are the gendered conditions prevailing, which form the system of attitudes and practices, into which new elements are added (if we consider "ladies first" a new element).

These conditions were, and still are, that of (relative) male dominance. In this sense, it is impossible to talk of pockets of matriarchal sexism.

[human strike]

I don't know about all the patriarchy talk, but I loath the idea sex for pleasure outside of a couple or marriage. I don't find such sexual frivolity to be permissible, in the maintainence of a healthy and orderly society.

Could you explain why? I don't see the pursuit of pleasure as being frivolous, I see it as being essential to a healthy lifestyle and healthy society.

[Vireya]

Why exactly is sex loathsome, and why outside a coupling?

"Maintenance of a healthy and orderly society?" Are you Mussolini, Hirohito, Pinochet or something? Just because you dislike sexual acts (outside marriage apparently? What is this, Victorian England?) doesn't mean that there's something inherently wrong with sex for pleasure that 'poisons' society, and saying otherwise is just projecting your weird bias onto the world around you. For example, I fucking hate hardstyle techno music with a burning passion, but I don't go around saying that it's detrimental to society or anything. That'd be demagoguery at it's finest.


Kill people burn shit fuck school (and have sex outside marriage).

Being opposed to sexual promiscuity makes me a fascist? Any society should want to be healthy and orderly, unless you like chaos and an ill populace.

Disliking a music genre and disliking a social practice are quite different, the latter has a much more profound influence upon how society conducts itself. With all the sex the media brainwashes people with, is it any wonder why we have so many pregnant teens now?

[Red_Banner]

Let's momentarily consider this question in reference to something else entirely. What is it about a certain song or style of music that causes you to like it? I don't think you would suggest that it is something in your biology, so what's the difference when it comes to sexual attraction?



Porn, rape and procreation are routinely glorified, but I rarely see the glorification of sex that falls outside of these categories, i.e. sex for pleasure. Capitalist patriarchal society is inherently sex negative.

"Present day civilisation makes it plain that it will only permit sexual relationships on the basis of a solitary, indissoluble bond between one man and one woman, and that it does not like sexuality as a source of pleasure in its own right and is only prepared to tolerate it because there is so far no substitute for it as a means of propagating the human race." Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents

In other words this society only tolerates sex because it has not come up with a more efficient way of reproducing capitalist patriarchal society. If there are no babies, there is no patriarchy. If sex outside of marriage is illegal, the demand for it might threaten the capitalist state. Why do you think homosexuality was illegal and still is in some places?Consensual sex that is done for its own sake, for the sake of pleasure, in fact threatens the entire basis of this society that is productivist, capitalist, and patriarchal.



Whilst this is true, I think it is important not to over-emphasise the impact media has. The media didn't invent patriarchy. The media reflects patriarchal social relations. It is effective because it takes the ideas that are already in our heads. The media is like a mirror that takes all the oppressive shit in our heads and reflects it back at us whilst taking the good and turning it bad, removing its radical content, commodifying demands for something better and selling it back to us. Ultimately a lot of patriarchal ideology is learned during childhood, largely from parents. As always, the revolution starts at home.



Furthermore, during the 19th century in developed capitalist economies (and in less developed economies today) fathers routinely won custody of their children. This reflected the different property and labour conditions that existed then. When children were workers, which was typically the case at the time, the child was of economic value to a father - the capitalist patriarchal institutions that were the courts reflected this reality and ruled in favour of fathers. When children lost this value, i.e. when child labour became less common, legislated against etc., why, from the perspective of said courts in all their sexist and capitalist ideology, would a father need children? Especially when that father should be working outside the home, not raising children.

Well biology might play into it, or a simple thought of survival.

I'm not going to want a 300 pound woman, cause she isn't really healthy for breeding children, she wouldn't be able to keep up with me, and I'd get crushed durring sex.

[Quail]

Being opposed to sexual promiscuity makes me a fascist? Any society should want to be healthy and orderly, unless you like chaos and an ill populace.

Disliking a music genre and disliking a social practice are quite different, the latter has a much more profound influence upon how society conducts itself. With all the sex the media brainwashes people with, is it any wonder why we have so many pregnant teens now?
I don't think the media is the cause of teenage pregnancy... If teens felt less ashamed of talking about sex with their parents, if teens under 16 were allowed to discuss contraception, etc., with their doctor confidentially, if there was more information about effective contraception (I only really learned about condoms and the pill) and better sex education for teens, if teenage girls felt they actually had the hope and prospect of a life beyond motherhood... all of these things would reduce teenage pregnancy. Moralising about sex will not.

[Thirsty Crow]

Being opposed to sexual promiscuity makes me a fascist? No, but it makes you a social conservative, something that is also antithetical to human liberation.


With all the sex the media brainwashes people with, is it any wonder why we have so many pregnant teens now?
How about the brainwashing done by conservatives such as yourself, and the moral panic surrounding the issue of contraception and teenage sexual activity?

[Red_Banner]

I don't think the media is the cause of teenage pregnancy... If teens felt less ashamed of talking about sex with their parents, if teens under 16 were allowed to discuss contraception, etc., with their doctor confidentially, if there was more information about effective contraception (I only really learned about condoms and the pill) and better sex education for teens, if teenage girls felt they actually had the hope and prospect of a life beyond motherhood... all of these things would reduce teenage pregnancy. Moralising about sex will not.

I don't view teen pregnancy as a bad thing like the big media does.

Teen pregancy shouldn't be demonised.

What makes teen pregnancy such a difficult complicated thing is the socio-economic conditions you get from capitalism.

[Quail]

I don't view teen pregnancy as a bad thing like the big media does.

Teen pregancy shouldn't be demonised.

What makes teen pregnancy such a difficult complicated thing is the socio-economic conditions you get from capitalism.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with teen pregnancy (I had my son in my late teens), but it does make life an awful lot more difficult in a capitalist society. I stayed and finished my university course, but it was hard, especially when I was living on my own, although financially there was a fair amount of support and my family were really helpful and supportive.

Part of sexual liberation (and being "pro-choice") is provisions for things like childcare and support so that young (or older) women can continue to study and do the things they want to do with their life while they bring up their child(ren). Obviously a society which moralises about young people having sex and sex outside of a committed relationship isn't going to provide that kind of support.

[Reticential]

I don't know about all the patriarchy talk, but I loath the idea sex for pleasure outside of a couple or marriage. I don't find such sexual frivolity to be permissible, in the maintainence of a healthy and orderly society.


Just wondering, what exactly you 'don't know about all the patriarchy talk'?

And I don't see how having multiple sexual partners directly means you'd have an unhealthy society. To begin with the benefits of sex are generally positive medically. Also, as people have said it's not so much sex itself that is the problem but the way it's portrayed. If people had access to better contraception, were educated about it and their worth as something other than broodmothers was established I don't see why sex should be restricted to one partner.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I don't know about all the patriarchy talk, but I loath the idea sex for pleasure outside of a couple or marriage. I don't find such sexual frivolity to be permissible, in the maintainence of a healthy and orderly society.
Being opposed to sexual promiscuity makes me a fascist? Any society should want to be healthy and orderly, unless you like chaos and an ill populace.Since sexual promiscuity causes societal chaos and prevents an orderly society, would it be wrong for us to make such people feel ashamed for causing all these evil things? Can we use special names for these type of people? If we can prevent society from collapsing by getting rid of promiscuity, then morally there should be nothing wrong with prosecuting and jailing such people, right?

[human strike]

Vireya, could you please explain the reasons for your sex negativity? It's hard to discuss if you don't.


I don't think the media is the cause of teenage pregnancy... If teens felt less ashamed of talking about sex with their parents, if teens under 16 were allowed to discuss contraception, etc., with their doctor confidentially, if there was more information about effective contraception (I only really learned about condoms and the pill) and better sex education for teens, if teenage girls felt they actually had the hope and prospect of a life beyond motherhood... all of these things would reduce teenage pregnancy. Moralising about sex will not.


I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with teen pregnancy (I had my son in my late teens), but it does make life an awful lot more difficult in a capitalist society. I stayed and finished my university course, but it was hard, especially when I was living on my own, although financially there was a fair amount of support and my family were really helpful and supportive.

Part of sexual liberation (and being "pro-choice") is provisions for things like childcare and support so that young (or older) women can continue to study and do the things they want to do with their life while they bring up their child(ren). Obviously a society which moralises about young people having sex and sex outside of a committed relationship isn't going to provide that kind of support.

QFT. Not just reproductive rights, but reproductive justice.

[Vireya]

I don't think the media is the cause of teenage pregnancy... If teens felt less ashamed of talking about sex with their parents, if teens under 16 were allowed to discuss contraception, etc., with their doctor confidentially, if there was more information about effective contraception (I only really learned about condoms and the pill) and better sex education for teens, if teenage girls felt they actually had the hope and prospect of a life beyond motherhood... all of these things would reduce teenage pregnancy. Moralising about sex will not.

You know what, I realize the difference between openness about sex (i.e talking about it and educating about it) and being promiscuous. It is the latter I'm against, not the former.

[Quail]

You know what, I realize the difference between openness about sex (i.e talking about it and educating about it) and being promiscuous. It is the latter I'm against, not the former.
But you can't really have openness about sex if it's seen as immoral. What teenager is going to want to talk openly to their parents about sex if they feel that their parents will strongly disapprove of it? If everyone thinks promiscuity and sex outside of committed relationships is horribly immoral, schools won't be able to be seen as "promoting" it so they won't be able to discuss how to minimise the repercussions, i.e., deliver proper sex education. People might feel afraid of asking for contraception in case they're assumed to be promiscuous. It just wouldn't work.

Besides, I genuinely don't see what's wrong with being promiscuous. The idea of "no sex outside of marriage" is basically a way of controlling women's sexuality and ensuring that any children born are in fact the father's children so that property doesn't leave the family. It's just reactionary, plain and simple.

[Vireya]

Just wondering, what exactly you 'don't know about all the patriarchy talk'?

And I don't see how having multiple sexual partners directly means you'd have an unhealthy society. To begin with the benefits of sex are generally positive medically. Also, as people have said it's not so much sex itself that is the problem but the way it's portrayed. If people had access to better contraception, were educated about it and their worth as something other than broodmothers was established I don't see why sex should be restricted to one partner.

Better access to contraception won't help if you have people having sex with more and more partners. More partners increases chances of unwanted pregnancy (i.e, needing to get more abortions) and STD infection. Promiscuous people also have difficulty maintaining longterm relationships.

[Art Vandelay]

Better access to contraception won't help if you have people having sex with more and more partners. More partners increases chances of unwanted pregnancy (i.e, needing to get more abortions) and STD infection.

You mention better access to contraceptives, but then go on to talk about increases in STD's and unwanted pregnancy, as if better access to contraceptives and proper sex education won't help to seriously diminish those things.

Promiscuous people also have difficulty maintaining longterm relationships.

This strikes me as completely false, just off the top of my head, but I'd be interested in seeing where you are getting this from.

Also it just puzzles me how anyone could be against sex. Its one of the most enjoyable acts human beings can engage in. How a healthy and active sex life could be seen as something negative is astonishing.

[Vireya]

But you can't really have openness about sex if it's seen as immoral. What teenager is going to want to talk openly to their parents about sex if they feel that their parents will strongly disapprove of it? If everyone thinks promiscuity and sex outside of committed relationships is horribly immoral, schools won't be able to be seen as "promoting" it so they won't be able to discuss how to minimise the repercussions, i.e., deliver proper sex education. People might feel afraid of asking for contraception in case they're assumed to be promiscuous. It just wouldn't work.

Besides, I genuinely don't see what's wrong with being promiscuous. The idea of "no sex outside of marriage" is basically a way of controlling women's sexuality and ensuring that any children born are in fact the father's children so that property doesn't leave the family. It's just reactionary, plain and simple.

I think you're being a bit excessive with that description. Drugs are demonized by society for their destructive characteristics, yet schools and communities had programs in which they openly discuss the effects of using and how it is detrimental to ones life, why couldn't a sex negative society not do the same with sexual promiscuousity?

You're partially right, it's do we don't have bastard children with floozy mothers and absentee, deadbeat "fathers". It is an important factor for family stability.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Better access to contraception won't help if you have people having sex with more and more partners. More partners increases chances of unwanted pregnancy (i.e, needing to get more abortions) and STD infection. Promiscuous people also have difficulty maintaining longterm relationships.

I don't think that's true - I'm still in my twenties, and many of my relationships, including overlapping relationships, have lasted upwards of a year. Further, most (I can think of a couple exceptions) have ended on terms such that all concerned are still good friends. Literally, two of my best friends in this city are people I dated, quite seriously (like, in one case, lived with for a year).
I've had upwards of thirty sexual partners, even if you go by the narrow definition of sex-as-vaginal-penetration, and I've never had any STIs. I get tested at least once a year regardless, as well as before and after hooking up with anyone new. I've only been involved in one pregnancy, that came out of an intentional decision to experiment with herbal birth control (obv., it didn't pan out) by my partner: a decision she made, not at my urging, and knowing the risks involved. Safer sex. Consent. It's complicated sometimes, but it's not difficult.
I'm now in a sexually monogamous relationship (have been for just under a year), and it hasn't been compromised or damaged by my previous sexual behaviour. In fact, that I am still good friends with previous partners has meant that I can't hide anything or pull any wack shit - because my girlfriend is in direct communication with people who have known my behavior and sexual history going back a decade.

I'm not making an argument here for or against either monogamy or non-monogamy: I'm just saying that it doesn't really matter whether you're sleeping with one person or five - honesty, open communication, and an ethic of care are what matter.

I'm not saying I've been perfect, either. But certainly, I'm doing at least as well as countless practitioners of exclusive monogamy.

[Vireya]

You mention better access to contraceptives, but then go on to talk about increases in STD's and unwanted pregnancy, as if better access to contraceptives and proper sex education won't help to seriously diminish those things.
If people have more sex with more partners, which will happen with the increasing normalization of promiscuous behavior, it will dilute the effects of sex education and ease of contraceptive access.



This strikes me as completely false, just off the top of my head, but I'd be interested in seeing where you are getting this from.

Also it just puzzles me how anyone could be against sex. Its one of the most enjoyable acts human beings can engage in. How a healthy and active sex life could be seen as something negative is astonishing.
Enjoyable =/= beneficial

[Quail]

Better access to contraception won't help if you have people having sex with more and more partners. More partners increases chances of unwanted pregnancy (i.e, needing to get more abortions) and STD infection. Promiscuous people also have difficulty maintaining longterm relationships.
Pretty sure that's bullshit. Surely the number of times you're having sex/when in your cycle you're having it would be more likely to affect your chances of getting pregnant? Compare someone who has sex with a different partner once a week with someone who has sex with a regular partner every day (both using contraception properly). I don't see a problem with people getting abortions either, if they find themselves pregnant at an inconvenient time, but that's somewhat off topic.

Also, if everyone was encouraged to look after their sexual health (for example if there was less stigma attached to visiting the sexual health clinic), then there would be fewer instances of STDs. However, if sexual health clinics are seen as the place that "immoral sluts" go to sort out their infections, then people aren't going to go and get tested, so again your moralising is counter-productive.

[Quail]

I think you're being a bit excessive with that description. Drugs are demonized by society for their destructive characteristics, yet schools and communities had programs in which they openly discuss the effects of using and how it is detrimental to ones life, why couldn't a sex negative society not do the same with sexual promiscuousity?
Ha, drugs education is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote my post. Drugs education is schools is awful in that it basically tells young people "drugs are bad, don't do drugs" - but, young people do drugs anyway. Drugs education should be impartial and informative, and go over ways to minimise risk and harm - but it can't do that because drug-taking is seen as immoral and taboo. Why would the same not happen with sex education?


You're partially right, it's do we don't have bastard children with floozy mothers and absentee, deadbeat "fathers". It is an important factor for family stability.
I have a "bastard child" (and am no longer with his father) so am I a "floozy mother"? As long as children have people around them who love and care for them, they'll turn out okay. Children can be raised successfully in a variety of environments, not just the nuclear family. I think a more community based system would be better, where groups of parents helped each other out.


If people have more sex with more partners, which will happen with the increasing normalization of promiscuous behavior, it will dilute the effects of sex education and ease of contraceptive access.

How?



Enjoyable =/= beneficial
Sex is generally considered to be beneficial mentally and physically. I haven't really seen any evidence to the contrary.

[Art Vandelay]

I have a "bastard child" (and am no longer with his father) so am I a "floozy mother"? As long as children have people around them who love and care for them, they'll turn out okay. Children can be raised successfully in a variety of environments, not just the nuclear family. I think a more community based system would be better, where groups of parents helped each other out.

I'm a 'bastard child' as well, I wonder if my mother is a 'floozy mom' and my dad a 'deadbeat dad.' Vireya's social conservatism, in this case, just showcases a subconscious support for the traditional nuclear family and all the oppressive social relations inherent with it.

[Quail]

I'm a 'bastard child' as well, I wonder if my mother is a 'floozy mom' and my dad a 'deadbeat dad.' Vireya's social conservatism, in this case, just showcases a subconscious support for the traditional nuclear family and all the oppressive social relations inherent with it.
I don't think it's all that "subconscious"...

[Art Vandelay]

Yeah I kinda forgot we were in OI. I guess I probably don't have to ask Viyera why they were restricted.

[Vireya]

Ha, drugs education is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote my post. Drugs education is schools is awful in that it basically tells young people "drugs are bad, don't do drugs" - but, young people do drugs anyway. Drugs education should be impartial and informative, and go over ways to minimise risk and harm - but it can't do that because drug-taking is seen as immoral and taboo. Why would the same not happen with sex education?

Well, the anti-drug campaigns work well enough, more often than not people don't experiment with anything harder than marijuana. I'd like to know how you plan not being "impartial" to something that has an inherently negative effect on society?


I have a "bastard child" (and am no longer with his father) so am I a "floozy mother"? As long as children have people around them who love and care for them, they'll turn out okay. Children can be raised successfully in a variety of environments, not just the nuclear family. I think a more community based system would be better, where groups of parents helped each other out.
Well, did you have sex with men other than your child's father during your relationship? You can answer that yourself. As for your idea of a communal parents helping eachother, I'm not hostile to that sort of arrangement.



How?
Simple, more people having sex, increased probably for infection and pregnancy. Not hard to connect the dots.



Sex is generally considered to be beneficial mentally and physically. I haven't really seen any evidence to the contrary.
Capitalism is generally considered to be beneficial as well, what is generally accepted is meaningless.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Capitalism is generally considered to be beneficial as well, what is generally accepted is meaningless.

You can go on Google and look up tons of studies about the benefits of sex. Whereas those who say capitalism is good base it entirely on personal beliefs and faulty economics, the science around the study of sex isn't "meaningless".


Well, the anti-drug campaigns work well enough, more often than not people don't experiment with anything harder than marijuana. I'd like to know how you plan not being "impartial" to something that has an inherently negative effect on society?

Anti-drug campaigns (the war on drugs) has not succeeded at all. Well, it did, but the purpose was to help pharmaceutical industries that profit off the fact that those drugs are illegal. Sure, cocaine isn't a good thing, but typical anti-drug campaigns aren't helping with that and they attack the use of marijuana. In reality, those who are usually for legalization of all drugs usually have better solutions for such issues regarding actual harmful drugs and with other drugs as well such as marijuana. Even within capitalism, if drugs weren't so demonized we'd be better at finding and treating those with addictions.

[Art Vandelay]

Well, did you have sex with men other than your child's father during your relationship?

That's extremely irrelevant and quite frankly none of anyone's business; it also has no bearing on one's ability as a parent.

[Vireya]

That's extremely irrelevant and quite frankly none of anyone's business; it also bears no bearing on one's ability as a parent.

It isn't a relevant question seeing as she asked me whether or not I'd consider her a floozy. If I don't know how she conducted herself during her relationship, she involved her person in the argument, not me. I'm not all "oh muh gerd ur a whore cuz u b separated, hurr", I'm not a republican. Though, I'd argue against suggesting a promiscuous parent could be an good role model for a child.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Though, I'd argue against suggesting a promiscuous parent could be an good role model for a child.

If a parent has a healthy yet promiscuous sex life, they can still be a great parent and role-model for their child. Being promiscuous has nothing to do with parenting capabilities.

[Rafiq]

The prospects that Vireya opposes sex for the reasons that she sais she does, like any social conservative, are zero. How ridiculous, are we really meant to believe that they genuinely oppose sex because of any potential health risks? Even if everyone was incapable of reproducing, even if no stds existed, they would still oppose it, because they are sexists, they worship the gods of the bourgeois family and are afraid of female sexual emancipation.

[liberlict]

This dude is just tying to pimp his URL.

[Quail]

Well, the anti-drug campaigns work well enough, more often than not people don't experiment with anything harder than marijuana. I'd like to know how you plan not being "impartial" to something that has an inherently negative effect on society?
But casual sex doesn't have an inherently negative effect on society and you don't have any proof of that. (For that matter "drugs" don't have an inherently negative effect on society either; most harm is due to the fact they're illegal, but again that's off topic.)


Well, did you have sex with men other than your child's father during your relationship? You can answer that yourself. As for your idea of a communal parents helping eachother, I'm not hostile to that sort of arrangement.
I was just curious about what constitutes a "floozy mother" but anyway, I'm not ashamed of the number of people I have had sex with while my son has been alive and it has had no impact on my parenting.


Simple, more people having sex, increased probably for infection and pregnancy. Not hard to connect the dots.
I don't think it really works like that. More people having safe sex would probably be better than fewer people having risky sex. Besides, who is to say being open about sex and a good quality sex education programme would automatically make people have more sex?


Capitalism is generally considered to be beneficial as well, what is generally accepted is meaningless.
There aren't any scientific studies about the benefits of capitalism.

[Vireya]

The prospects that Vireya opposes sex for the reasons that she sais she does, like any social conservative, are zero. How ridiculous, are we really meant to believe that they genuinely oppose sex because of any potential health risks? Even if everyone was incapable of reproducing, even if no stds existed, they would still oppose it, because they are sexists, they worship the gods of the bourgeois family and are afraid of female sexual emancipation.

To an extent you are correct. Pregnancy and STD infection aren't my only point of opposition to not sex in itself, but to frivolous and meaningless casual sex. As I've said I've stated my questioning of the ability such people to be positive role models for children or people in general, I also question their mental and emotional health ( it is known that individuals suffering from emotional issues tend to be more willing to engage in risky and promiscuous sexual behavior.)

To be honest, I couldn't give less of a damn about "sexual emancipation" for anyone, male, female, agendered, homosexual, or whatever. The less casual sex the better in my book.

[Art Vandelay]

To an extent you are correct. Pregnancy and STD infection aren't my only point of opposition to not sex in itself, but to frivolous and meaningless casual sex. As I've said I've stated my questioning of the ability such people to be positive role models for children or people in general, I also question their mental and emotional health ( it is known that individuals suffering from emotional issues tend to be more willing to engage in risky and promiscuous sexual behavior.)

To be honest, I couldn't give less of a damn about "sexual emancipation" for anyone, male, female, agendered, homosexual, or whatever. The less casual sex the better in my book.

I'm not really sure what your professed politics are, but what is quite clear is that you are certainly no radical leftist (in the sense of the two streams, anarchism and Marxism, which split from the 1st international). Social conservatism is entirely antithetical to human liberation. On top of this, although I feel like its beating a dead horse at this point, for the proletariat to organize itself as a 'class for itself' (meaning a class which is aware of its collective relation to the means of production and organized as a class to pose a serious threat to capital), it necessarily includes organizing the struggles of oppressed minorities into the broader class struggle. Upholding the abolishment of patriarchy, racism, homophobia, etc...which include with it sexual liberation, among other things....is inherent in fighting for a stateless and classless society. And to be honest if you don't strive for these things, I wonder why you choose to hang around a radical message board and perhaps worse why I have have spent the time responding.

[lassy]

sex is the basis of wedding life!:grin:

[Vireya]

I'm not really sure what your professed politics are, but what is quite clear is that you are certainly no radical leftist (in the sense of the two streams, anarchism and Marxism, which split from the 1st international). Social conservatism is entirely antithetical to human liberation. On top of this, although I feel like its beating a dead horse at this point, for the proletariat to organize itself as a 'class for itself' (meaning a class which is aware of its collective relation to the means of production and organized as a class to pose a serious threat to capital), it necessarily includes organizing the struggles of oppressed minorities into the broader class struggle. Upholding the abolishment of patriarchy, racism, homophobia, etc...which include with it sexual liberation, among other things....is inherent in fighting for a stateless and classless society. And to be honest if you don't strive for these things, I wonder why you choose to hang around a radical message board and perhaps worse why I have have spent the time responding.

Ugh...there is some room for misinterpretation in my terminology. I'm in general only truly conservative in the topics of sex and abortion, otherwise I use it as a general description of me being anti-liberal ( I'm American so for us, conservative equates to being opposed to social liberalism). For the most part I'm not particularly leftist or rightist socially (which would still mean I'm probably much further to the right than this site's norm).

I will say this, I don't consider sexual "liberation" in the sense of permitting the normalization and encouragement of promiscuity to be constructive or desirable, at all.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I will say this, I don't consider sexual "liberation" in the sense of permitting the normalization and encouragement of promiscuity to be constructive or desirable, at all.

You still haven't explained why, though. :rolleyes:

Please show me these universal laws of physics on the top of slippery slope hill where if you have sex outside marriage or monogamous coupling you have destroyed society.

Piraha living in the Amazon have been living in polygamous relationships for hundreds of years, yet their society seems to have kept perfectly in tact. The only 'threats' were Christian missionaries who tried to impose the same shit on people that you seem to want to.

I will say this, I consider sexual liberation in the sense of permitting the normalization and encouragement of promiscuity to be constructive and desirable, absolutely. We need to burn Victorian archaisms at the stake, the fear-mongering about sexual activity being one of them.

[Vireya]

You still haven't explained why, though. :rolleyes:

Please show me these universal laws of physics on the top of slippery slope hill where if you have sex outside marriage or monogamous coupling you have destroyed society.

Piraha living in the Amazon have been living in polygamous relationships for hundreds of years, yet their society seems to have kept perfectly in tact. The only 'threats' were Christian missionaries who tried to impose the same shit on people that you seem to want to.

I will say this, I consider sexual liberation in the sense of permitting the normalization and encouragement of promiscuity to be constructive and desirable, absolutely. We need to burn Victorian archaisms at the stake, the fear-mongering about sexual activity being one of them.

I stated my reasoning already, multiple times in this thread.

Last time I checked, the Pirahã are still primitive jungle men wiping their asses with leaves. So much for their "society".

I'll say I believe all the sexual notions of "sexual emancipation" should be eliminated from civilization. It is a hinderance to progress.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Last time I checked, the Pirahã are still primitive jungle men wiping their asses with leaves. So much for their "society".

Aye, as opposed to the "superiority" of a culture that clearcuts entire bioregions and poisons our own groundwater with bleach for the civilized progress of wiping our asses with soft paper?

If that's the social order emerging from our sexual practices, gimme a handful of leaves, thanks.


I'll say I believe all the sexual notions of "sexual emancipation" should be eliminated from civilization. It is a hinderance to progress.

HXx1akRY_18

[Reticential]

I'll say I believe all the sexual notions of "sexual emancipation" should be eliminated from civilization. It is a hinderance to progress.

A complete disregard for this kind of emancipation not only hinders progress but halts it entirely. It's the same kind of thing as women's lib. 'oh just wait until after the revolution, it's just a distraction.' You can't put one struggle on a pedestal and ignore the others. Nah, man they're far too interlinked.

Also the family is as much of a social contruct as sex. It has not been the only way of human grouping to be associated by 'blood'.

As for your idea of a communal parents helping eachother, I'm not hostile to that sort of arrangement.
Family 'stability' becomes less important if there are more people a child feels safe with, surely? because the stability is part of a wider sphere.


Enjoyable =/= beneficial

(I think this means 'does not equal' correct me if I'm wrong, ofc). While this is true for many things it is not for sex. It's a way humans bond. How can that be a bad thing, bonding with many people?

[Vireya]

Aye, as opposed to the "superiority" of a culture that clearcuts entire bioregions and poisons our own groundwater with bleach for the civilized progress of wiping our asses with soft paper?

If that's the social order emerging from our sexual practices, gimme a handful of leaves, thanks.



HXx1akRY_18

I'd rather have that than live a life scrounging for food like a macaque, primitivism is foolish. The only interesting thing about the Pirahã is their language.

As for your video, it doesn't appear on my screen, I'm using an iPhone. Send me a link to it.

[Reticential]

Send me a link to it.
Please.

[d3crypt]

Ugh...there is some room for misinterpretation in my terminology. I'm in general only truly conservative in the topics of sex and abortion, otherwise I use it as a general description of me being anti-liberal ( I'm American so for us, conservative equates to being opposed to social liberalism). For the most part I'm not particularly leftist or rightist socially (which would still mean I'm probably much further to the right than this site's norm).

I will say this, I don't consider sexual "liberation" in the sense of permitting the normalization and encouragement of promiscuity to be constructive or desirable, at all.

Reactionary! Why do you hate sex so much? Did something happen to you that made you such a puritan?

[#FF0000]

Reactionary!

:rolleyes:


Did something happen to you that made you such a puritan?

Kind of a fucked up question.

[blake 3:17]

To be honest, I couldn't give less of a damn about "sexual emancipation" for anyone, male, female, agendered, homosexual, or whatever. The less casual sex the better in my book.

What do you care about?

[Vireya]

Reactionary! Why do you hate sex so much? Did something happen to you that made you such a puritan?

Hmm, usually I'd object to being called a reactionary, but it would be an appropriate label for my position on sexual manners seeing as I would like to reverse much of what came out of the "Sexual Revolution".

And if you're trying to ask if I was raped or something, the answer is no. But thanks for assuming I couldn't possibly form my own sex negative position without having been sexually assaulted.

[Snard]

Vireya, are you only opposed to sex due to a personal bias? Perhaps people don't want to engage you sexually, and you therefore construct a childish opposition towards it?

Really this is just a question, not some sarcastic rhetoric.

[Lowtech]

my first inclination to this post was laughter (no offense intended). many take sex much too seriously. although sex is very important. be it in a purely procreative sense or cultural. imo, the problems really arise from how sex is portrayed in popular media. violent, male oriented, female oriented, cliches, etc. people start to think of sex and relationships the way they are portrayed on TV rather than how they are in reality. people are fickle. the one always demanding loyalty and honesty becomes the liar and cheater. good men don't actually have the personality of a cat (twilight reference). simply put, reality conflicts with television/movies and this causes problems for a society that's grown up to believe popular media defines how people act and love each other.

[Vireya]

Vireya, are you only opposed to sex due to a personal bias? Perhaps people don't want to engage you sexually, and you therefore construct a childish opposition towards it?

Really this is just a question, not some sarcastic rhetoric.

No. Like most other sociable young people (I'm in my early 20s), I've had plenty opportunities for sex (from both males and females) presented to me. A shortage in my oversexed contemporaries wanting to bed me isn't the source of my reasoning. That'd be childish indeed.

[Snard]

No. Like most other sociable young people (I'm in my early 20s), I've had plenty opportunities for sex (from both males and females) presented to me. A shortage in my oversexed contemporaries wanting to bed me isn't the source of my reasoning. That'd be childish indeed.

Well, I'm glad to hear that. However you have yet to provide a real, rational reason for being opposed to sex. You continue to address certain people's statements, except for the ones who actually ask "Why?".

So, WHY? (please provide a rational and understandable reason)

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

http://cupofzup.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/http-_cutiejz.tumblr.com_.jpg

I agree that sex is a vastly over-hyped phenomenon if you think about it. I mean, it's just massaging various muscles for a release. It's also sticky, clumsy and awkward and it doesn't matter if you're Don Juan, this is true. The hilarity of sex almost up shows the actual gratification of the act. It's one of the most basic but bizarre of rituals we hoomans engage in. It is what it is, it's natural and people are gonna fuck, there is no stopping it, deal with it. The only thing that should be squashed is the oppressive elements of sexual relations between persons due to patriarchy and or capitalism. I'm thinking specifically here of the need to revamp the sex industry. Anywho, let's all get naked and get weird.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Not to go off topic, and what I'm about to say is just my personal experience with a handful of cases, but I find that it's easier for a man to get custody in a divorce.

A breakup or divorce would usually be more catastrophic for a woman because the man in the relationship is expected to be the so called "bread winner". A divorce often has a bigger affect on a woman's material well being, and in my experience the court usually uses material wealth as an indicator of who would be the better parent. My dad got custody of my siblings and I because he owned a business and could provide each of us with our own beds in our own rooms with computers and TVs while my mom was living in a messy house on welfare. I'm not sure which was the better parent. My mom was strict and I always resented that, but my dad was neglectful and he often left us with his parents, one of which was going senile. I guess my point is that the court didn't really take that stuff into account. Whenever my mom complained to them they would always say "Well his house is cleaner and he has more stuff". I'm not trying to say that women don't get custody more often. Frankly I've never looked at the data but I don't find it hard to believe. I'm trying to say that there are some situations where it's actually harder for a woman to get custody and even if they do get custody more often it's because of some "maternal instinct" bullshit which is an example of sexism against women negatively affecting men.

[Vireya]

What do you care about?

People having the means to respectable living conditions and conducting themselves in an orderly, responsible, and healthy manner.

[Consistent.Surprise]

People having the means to respectable living conditions and conducting themselves in an orderly, responsible, and healthy manner.

Non-monogamous or promiscuous people are not all disorderly, irresponsible, and/or unhealthy. Just as not all monogamous/coupled people abide by order, responsibility, & health.

[Snard]

People having the means to respectable living conditions and conducting themselves in an orderly, responsible, and healthy manner.

The definition of each of these terms is subject to opinion and quite relative.

And guess what, you still won't answer the "Why?"

[Vireya]

Non-monogamous or promiscuous people are not all disorderly, irresponsible, and/or unhealthy. Just as not all monogamous/coupled people abide by order, responsibility, & health.

Most promiscuous people tend to have erratic sexual relationships and are prone to risky behavior in general. None of that can be considered beneficial.

[Vireya]

The definition of each of these terms is subject to opinion and quite relative.

And guess what, you still won't answer the "Why?"


I've stated why I dislike people's permissive sexual mores already. I'm at a loss at what you're trying to get out of me.

[Quail]

Most promiscuous people tend to have erratic sexual relationships and are prone to risky behavior in general. None of that can be considered beneficial.
I think really this depends on why people are promiscuous. It's possible to have "healthy" and "unhealthy" promiscuous sex (and I know this first hand) - the former is fun, harmless and I don't see why it wouldn't be beneficial and the latter is usually a symptom of poor mental health. Symptom, that is, not cause.

Obviously it would be better if people didn't have casual sex (for example) because they felt as though their self-esteem depended on it, but the way of stopping that from happening is to make society a better place - capitalism and patriarchy are bad for people's mental health.

[Snard]

I've stated why I dislike people's permissive sexual mores already. I'm at a loss at what you're trying to get out of me.

I'm only trying to understand why you are opposed to certain freedoms. I consider a freedom-hater an asshole, and I assume most others on this site would agree.

And I'm also trying to get a better answer.

[Consistent.Surprise]

Most promiscuous people tend to have erratic sexual relationships and are prone to risky behavior in general. None of that can be considered beneficial.

Fact or assumption?

Lack of education & resources lead to risky behavior. You have no issue lumping the behavior with risk when that is not the cause. You should stop passing judgements & instead look at demographics

[d3crypt]

Most promiscuous people tend to have erratic sexual relationships and are prone to risky behavior in general. None of that can be considered beneficial.

What is your view on polyamorous relationships?

[Radio Spartacus]

I've stated why I dislike people's permissive sexual mores already. I'm at a loss at what you're trying to get out of me.

He's likely digging for something beyond baseless speculation. You can blame sex all you want, but unless you can conjure up something scientific this will remain a battle of anecdotes. There is no compelling evidence that sexual promiscuity=irresponsibility, that view is based on antiquated bourgeois morals transparent to the monogamous and polyamorous alike.

Anti-Sex views (and I'm no longer specifically speaking of yours) are often just a sign that the elite are getting nervous about women asserting their right to be as sexually active as men.

[#FF0000]

Anti-Sex views (and I'm no longer specifically speaking of yours) are often just a sign that the elite are getting nervous about women asserting their right to be as sexually active as men.

Or that people have some concerns about what it means for a woman to assert one's right to be as sexually active as men in a patriarchal society.

I think there are some actual concerns there, though I don't think that's Vireya's angle.

[Consistent.Surprise]

To touch on #FF0000's reply: Vireya might be looking at how the whole of society, as well as media (plus news media), create a double-edge sword (I cannot speak for non-US images/portrayal of women)

1. Societal standards for women in the US still hold that sex is sacred; women have a thing to "give" when they opt to start having sex. This is still very much a part of the morality imposed not only on females but also males pertaining to females and sex. The presence of religious morality holds a female's virginity and willingness to have sex at a far higher level than that of males (yes, the "sex will make you a man" and the "enjoyable sex is for sluts" mentality, which I think is VERY much alive in the US). But we also have the fact that sex ed, contraception, and birth control, are NOT discussed; our youth are not being educated when they need to be and the fact that preventative measures are not readily available is, in part, why teen pregnancies & STD's are so common amongst teens and people in their early/mid 20's.

2. Media then contradicts the above; reality TV and even sitcoms are promoting how women can go ahead and USE their sexuality to get what they want, both through sex as well as just teasing. Many shows also are revolving doors of relationships (look at soap operas of any sort but primarily daytime ones). The entertainment industry is saying the opposite of the standards we have "set" in society but each of these still does not talk about the risks of unprotected sex; a number of females still think being on birth control will protect them (and we all know it won't and learned that either from experience or through honest education/discussion in our pasts). So media is saying have sex if you want but not telling how to protect yourself.

3. News media falls towards sexual oppression when they report on affairs or possible poly situations, which demonize the choices people have made that most likely do not injure others (physically. Psychological is very possible). Not much with news media differs from societal standards other than it completely AVIODS sex education or preventative measures.

I in no way agree with Vireya; I find their views antiquated and allowing the social constraints on people to be promoted and shame those that opt to have casual relationships or polyamorous coupling. Neither of these things are wrong and are not risky behavior when people are responsible which is NOT exclusive to monogamous coupling; there are a number of people who move from monogamous relationship to monogamous relationship that can carry illnesses and do not get tested, which, is risky behavior.

At the heart of it all: we need detailed and open discussion about sex and preventative measures. The US also needs to have clinics at easier access all over, including inner city, burbs, rural... cover that shit like a condom with nonoxynol-9 smeared all over!

[argeiphontes]

conducting themselves in an orderly, responsible, and healthy manner.

Like it or not, this is us:

http://totallycoolpix.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/20120830_yawalapiti_tribe/yawalapiti_008.jpg

https://newcentrist.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/punk_112097_concert.jpg

[Vireya]

To touch on #FF0000's reply: Vireya might be looking at how the whole of society, as well as media (plus news media), create a double-edge sword (I cannot speak for non-US images/portrayal of women)

1. Societal standards for women in the US still hold that sex is sacred; women have a thing to "give" when they opt to start having sex. This is still very much a part of the morality imposed not only on females but also males pertaining to females and sex. The presence of religious morality holds a female's virginity and willingness to have sex at a far higher level than that of males (yes, the "sex will make you a man" and the "enjoyable sex is for sluts" mentality, which I think is VERY much alive in the US). But we also have the fact that sex ed, contraception, and birth control, are NOT discussed; our youth are not being educated when they need to be and the fact that preventative measures are not readily available is, in part, why teen pregnancies & STD's are so common amongst teens and people in their early/mid 20's.

2. Media then contradicts the above; reality TV and even sitcoms are promoting how women can go ahead and USE their sexuality to get what they want, both through sex as well as just teasing. Many shows also are revolving doors of relationships (look at soap operas of any sort but primarily daytime ones). The entertainment industry is saying the opposite of the standards we have "set" in society but each of these still does not talk about the risks of unprotected sex; a number of females still think being on birth control will protect them (and we all know it won't and learned that either from experience or through honest education/discussion in our pasts). So media is saying have sex if you want but not telling how to protect yourself.

3. News media falls towards sexual oppression when they report on affairs or possible poly situations, which demonize the choices people have made that most likely do not injure others (physically. Psychological is very possible). Not much with news media differs from societal standards other than it completely AVIODS sex education or preventative measures.

I in no way agree with Vireya; I find their views antiquated and allowing the social constraints on people to be promoted and shame those that opt to have casual relationships or polyamorous coupling. Neither of these things are wrong and are not risky behavior when people are responsible which is NOT exclusive to monogamous coupling; there are a number of people who move from monogamous relationship to monogamous relationship that can carry illnesses and do not get tested, which, is risky behavior.

At the heart of it all: we need detailed and open discussion about sex and preventative measures. The US also needs to have clinics at easier access all over, including inner city, burbs, rural... cover that shit like a condom with nonoxynol-9 smeared all over!

Yes!!! It would seem you're better at explaining my viewpoint than I am.

Also, just to clear things up, I'm not opposed to polygamy (though, being American, I find it odd) as those types of relationships are still committed. I'm opposed to casual/random sexual behavior.

[Snard]

I'm opposed to casual/random sexual behavior.

Which is still a hugely baseless opposition.

[Consistent.Surprise]

Yes!!! It would seem you're better at explaining my viewpoint than I am.

Also, just to clear things up, I'm not opposed to polygamy (though, being American, I find it odd) as those types of relationships are still committed. I'm opposed to casual/random sexual behavior.

The big thing is you're attacking a group instead of saying it's a personal preference; you give off a moral/ethical superiority that is very reactionary. So the question is can you cope with others opting to live how they choose to, if they let you? It seems you think you must impart this standard & that is, for the most part, why you are being questioned & instead it *should* be a personal view/ethic/lifestyle choice.

[Vireya]

The big thing is you're attacking a group instead of saying it's a personal preference; you give off a moral/ethical superiority that is very reactionary. So the question is can you cope with others opting to live how they choose to, if they let you? It seems you think you must impart this standard & that is, for the most part, why you are being questioned & instead it *should* be a personal view/ethic/lifestyle choice.

In general I'm rather permissive, however I'm not so on issues regarding sexuality. Live and let live isn't always an ideal course of action.

As I admitted before, I'm quite reactionary about how I believe society should conduct itself sexually. From my point of view, reversing the liberization of the "Sexual Revolution" is just as important as eliminating Capitalism.

[human strike]

From my point of view, reversing the liberization of the "Sexual Revolution" is just as important as eliminating Capitalism.

It's one or the other, you can't have both. Capitalism is built on the notion of acceptable sex that you advocate.

[Remus Bleys]

It's one or the other, you can't have both. Capitalism is built on the notion of acceptable sex that you advocate.
:confused::confused::confused::confused:
What?

[Vireya]

It's one or the other, you can't have both. Capitalism is built on the notion of acceptable sex that you advocate.

I find it to be the opposite. Capitalism thrives off of impulsive and uninhibited decision making, this includes the promotion of promiscuity and the pseudo-feminist propaganda downplaying the importance of the family.

[#FF0000]

I find it to be the opposite. Capitalism thrives off of impulsive and uninhibited decision making, this includes the promotion of promiscuity and the pseudo-feminist propaganda downplaying the importance of the family.

Want to point out here that the "Family" as you know it is a direct result of captialism, and not some "natural order of things".

[argeiphontes]

Live and let live isn't always an ideal course of action.

Actually, in matters of personal behavior, it almost always is. I think that you're romanticizing the past. Repression isn't healthy for individuals, who benefit from healthy and copious expressions of their sexuality. Just because issues are hidden from the public, or supressed on an individual and social level, like they were pre-sexual-revolution, doesn't mean they're not there or that they don't affect society in negative ways.

For example, maybe you'd like a return to Victorian morés, where male children who masturbated were threatened with, or in some cases subjected to, castration by their parents? So that Freud could write about castration anxiety as a general feature of human psychological development whereas in reality it was a contingent feature of Victorian morality.

No thanks. Fortunately, the times they are a changin' and it's good for both genders.

[Snard]

In general I'm rather permissive, however I'm not so on issues regarding sexuality. Live and let live isn't always an ideal course of action.

As I admitted before, I'm quite reactionary about how I believe society should conduct itself sexually. From my point of view, reversing the liberization of the "Sexual Revolution" is just as important as eliminating Capitalism.

Hmm. I have two questions for you.

1. Reversing sexual liberization isn't in the same ball park as the importance of eliminating capitalism. It's not even in the same league. It's not even the same fucking sport.

2. Why do you care? It's looks to me like this is just something you enjoy complaining about because you may or may not have anything better to do. Why does it even matter to you, really? Other people's sex has nothing to do with you. I would understand slightly if it did, but it doesn't. At all. And it never will. Simply just get over what other people are doing when it is not harming you. Even more so when it doesn't even concern you.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I find it to be the opposite. Capitalism thrives off of impulsive and uninhibited decision making, this includes the promotion of promiscuity and the pseudo-feminist propaganda downplaying the importance of the family.

I think there's some interesting notions to be explored, and not dismissed out of hand here. That said, I think you're missing the role of the family in the reproduction of labour power, not to mention the very real judico-political support that continues to exist for the family (including monetary incentives to parents, legal protection for certain types of relationships, provision of various services including education and daycare subsidies, etc.).
That said, yes, "the family" is increasingly subject to disintegration along certain lines, particularly in the transformation of reproductive labour along post-industrial lines, increasingly meaning more standing in lines, doing paperwork, waiting on phonelines, etc. as opposed to its traditional forms (washing, cooking, cleaning, which are increasingly "outsourced").
So, what is the relationship between these developments and "promiscuity"? For one, I think you're conflating two related but contradictory developments: sexual liberation and the transformation of women's sexual/reproductive labour. I think this can be understood similarly to the development the working class in "post-'68" or "post-modern" capitalism generally. We are faced with a situation where subjects increasingly confront their subjectivity as a limit on their struggles: the working class finds itself as a barrier to be overcome. I think sex needs to be understood similarly, as convoluted as that might sound.

[Vireya]

Actually, in matters of personal behavior, it almost always is. I think that you're romanticizing the past. Repression isn't healthy for individuals, who benefit from healthy and copious expressions of their sexuality. Just because issues are hidden from the public, or supressed on an individual and social level, like they were pre-sexual-revolution, doesn't mean they're not there or that they don't affect society in negative ways.

I believe you have some misconceptions about what exactly I'm arguing for. I'm not against contraception, openly discussing sex, or sex education. I'm opposed to the promotion of casual sex and the increasing tolerance of perverse fetishes.


For example, maybe you'd like a return to Victorian morés, where male children who masturbated were threatened with, or in some cases subjected to, castration by their parents? So that Freud could write about castration anxiety as a general feature of human psychological development whereas in reality it was a contingent feature of Victorian morality.

No thanks. Fortunately, the times they are a changin' and it's good for both genders.

I'm not opposed to masturbation.

[Vireya]

Hmm. I have two questions for you.

1. Reversing sexual liberization isn't in the same ball park as the importance of eliminating capitalism. It's not even in the same league. It's not even the same fucking sport.
Destroying social liberalism in all forms is integral to the socialist cause.


2. Why do you care? It's looks to me like this is just something you enjoy complaining about because you may or may not have anything better to do. Why does it even matter to you, really? Other people's sex has nothing to do with you. I would understand slightly if it did, but it doesn't. At all. And it never will. Simply just get over what other people are doing when it is not harming you. Even more so when it doesn't even concern you.
Sexual "emancipation" is part of liberal capitalism's control mechanism, it should be combatted and eliminated.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I'm not opposed to masturbation.

What about circle jerks? ;)

[Vireya]

What about circle jerks? ;)

:lol:

That'd be awkward, but I could see that happening in a polygamist relationship. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed in that context.

[Yuppie Grinder]

http://cupofzup.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/http-_cutiejz.tumblr.com_.jpg

I agree that sex is a vastly over-hyped phenomenon if you think about it. I mean, it's just massaging various muscles for a release. It's also sticky, clumsy and awkward and it doesn't matter if you're Don Juan, this is true. The hilarity of sex almost up shows the actual gratification of the act. It's one of the most basic but bizarre of rituals we hoomans engage in. It is what it is, it's natural and people are gonna fuck, there is no stopping it, deal with it. The only thing that should be squashed is the oppressive elements of sexual relations between persons due to patriarchy and or capitalism. I'm thinking specifically here of the need to revamp the sex industry. Anywho, let's all get naked and get weird.

If sex weren't a weird experience would it really be as worthwhile? If it were like how it is in the movies would it mean as much?


.

I've heard of sex-negative feminism, and I've heard of asexuality as a result of some peoples hormonal situations, but I don't really understand your point of view and I don't see you having any argument what so ever for it.

[argeiphontes]

I believe you have some misconceptions about what exactly I'm arguing for. .... I'm opposed to the promotion of casual sex and the increasing tolerance of perverse fetishes.

I include casual sex and fetishes as healthy sexual expressions. It doesn't hurt me or even affect me if the guy next door is a gay fisting bottom. That is an individual expression of sexuality that I may not understand, but I have no right to interfere with. Casual sex has always been with us and always will, regardless of how it's used by capitalism or whatever other forces are militating against it.

Besides, think of how many millions of hours of social productivity could be lost if everybody was walking around sexually repressed. Bonobo society tends to run more smoothly because everybody is doing it with everybody else. ;)

I'll bud out of this conversation because I am opposed to some circle jerks, but I think the roots of your attitudes are personal/psychological and don't have much to do with socialism. I don't see how more repression could possibly help the socialist cause, if socialism is about liberation, which to me it is. Try recruiting people to make a more sexually repressive society and tell me how it goes...

Besides, there is a very real ethical problem here: sexual freedom is fundamental to one's absolute right to control over one's own body. (IMO this is a primordial right that comes from the very fact of being stuck in a physical body.) Fetishes may seem "perverted" to you, but whatever the roots of fetishes are, nothing gives someone else the right to repress them away. It's not like they're going to disappear because of "out of sight, out of mind" fantasies. And that's all I think it is, fantasies of a previous innocent, garden-of-eden state that never actually existed.

edit: Fantasies that harm real people.

[Lobotomy]

I know this is besides the main point of your article, but I want to comment on it anyway.


STD's are not as common as you think, overprotective parents

The thing is that some STDs are actually extremely common. one in four women have HPV at some point in their lives. At least 60% of americans have oral herpes (also known as cold sores) and the virus can potentially be spread to genitals via oral sex. one in 5 americans have genital herpes. I can provide sources if asked, or you could just find it on the CDC. most STDs are easily prevented by using condoms, but the two that I mentioned (herpes and hpv) can still be spread despite the use of a condom, so perhaps that is why they are so common.

I think this is something that our society needs to be more accepting of. people don't talk about it and A LOT of people who carry STDs actually don't know that they have anything because they never get symptoms and haven't been tested. there's a huge social stigma against even talking about STDs before you sleep with someone. instead of brushing it under the rug and pretending it's not common I think our society should finally just accept that normal people get STDs all the time, even if they are being responsible.

Sorry if someone already mentioned this somewhere in the thread, I didn't read through all the pages.

[RadioRaheem84]

This is a bad ass subject I've never even explored.

Comrades, please provide links with articles and books on the subject. I'd like to know more.

[Vireya]

If sex weren't a weird experience would it really be as worthwhile? If it were like how it is in the movies would it mean as much?



I've heard of sex-negative feminism, and I've heard of asexuality as a result of some peoples hormonal situations, but I don't really understand your point of view and I don't see you having any argument what so ever for it.

I'm not asexual, I think about sex as much as anyother person my age, I am human. I simply don't believe in acting impulsively on any urge I may have. I'd say I'm more along the lines of sex negative feminism.

[Snard]

I think I'll just blatantly say that your opposition is stupid.

[human strike]

I'm not asexual, I think about sex as much as anyother person my age, I am human. I simply don't believe in acting impulsively on any urge I may have. I'd say I'm more along the lines of sex negative feminism.

If you think that then you really don't understand what "sex negative" feminism is.

[Vireya]

I think I'll just blatantly say that your opposition is stupid.

That's nice.

[Vireya]

If you think that then you really don't understand what "sex negative" feminism is.

How so?

[human strike]

How so?

You're sex negative because you want to preserve the patriarchal nuclear family. "Sex negative" feminists are sex negative because they want to destroy the patriarchal nuclear family. You advocate and defend a kind of sex that those feminists do not.

[Snard]

This is sad.

[Vireya]

You're sex negative because you want to preserve the patriarchal nuclear family. "Sex negative" feminists are sex negative because they want to destroy the patriarchal nuclear family. You advocate and defend a kind of sex that those feminists do not.

In what way am I advocating for patriarchy? It'd be different if I said, I supported the whole "men will be men" concept and the "women that have sex are sluts" thing, but I'm not. The nuclear family isn't inherently patriarchal.

[human strike]

In what way am I advocating for patriarchy? It'd be different if I said, I supported the whole "men will be men" concept and the "women that have sex are sluts" thing, but I'm not. The nuclear family isn't inherently patriarchal.

No, you're only saying that women who have sex outside of stable relationships are a danger to society - totally different, of course. And the nuclear family so is inherently patriarchal.

[Vireya]

No, you're only saying that women who have sex outside of stable relationships are a danger to society - totally different, of course. And the nuclear family so is inherently patriarchal.

Women AND men that are promiscuous are lacking restraint, civility, and are a health hazard to any community. Not one or the other, both men and women, hetero and gay.

How is the nuclear family patriarchal?

From Webster's-

"Nuclear Family:: a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children."

I mean you could make a stretch and say the exclusivity of "man & woman" is patriarchal, but that'd be nitpicking. There is nothing inherently patriarchal in that definition. If the man and woman share equal responsibility and decision making power, I don't see it.

[Snard]

Women AND men that are promiscuous are lacking restraint, civility, and are a health hazard to any community. Not one or the other, both men and women, hetero and gay.


Why do they need sexual restraint if it's consensual? They don't. This "civility" you speak of is a relative term. What you consider civil could be considered the opposite by someone else. I fail to understand how sexual behavior is uncivilized, and you continue not to provide a real, rational reason to combat that.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

This shit is still going?


Women AND men that are promiscuous are lacking restraint, civility, and are a health hazard to any community.


Comparing promiscuity to rape and sexual disease. No wonder you're restricted.

I can tell you now, the 'community' where I live would find it mighty repulsive and uncivil if some arse like you started prancing down the street telling people that their consensual, sexual activities should be made illegal.

Also, did you know that by using this consistent right-populist crap about 'the community' that you supposedly love so much, you're basically aping fascistoids on social policy? "I think benefits for the disabled are incredibly harmful to the welfare of the community. They're all subhuman and uncivil anyway."

[Jimmie Higgins]

Women AND men that are promiscuous are lacking restraint, civility, and are a health hazard to any community. Not one or the other, both men and women, hetero and gay.I just don't see how this argument holds. First of all promiscuity is a relative and abstract designation - any way we can define this is steeped in socially constructed ideas about people's behavior. Any interpersonal relationship can cause interpersonal tensions, but in many more or less egalitarian-like communities it seems pretty common for people to have all sorts of different romantic relationships. Even in class societies, people tend to have lots of sex in many different kinds of ways... the main difference seems to be in how society views and responds to these behaviors.

So if something is a problem for a community, what kind of community are we talking about? So family, and relationships IMO can not be seperated from the society in which they function.



How is the nuclear family patriarchal?

From Webster's-

"Nuclear Family:: a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children."
Well this doesn't explain a modern nuclear family very specifically. It would be like defining a car as "consisting of gears and metal parts". The question is how do these units function in society and what are they for? I don't seek to see an end to loving relationships (and I don't care if people do that as a generation of parents with their children or multi-generational groups) but this is sort of besides the point (or mearly an ideal) when it comes to the modern nuclear family in capitalism. So the function of these groupings in capitalism is to have an institution which can be primarily be the site of social reproduction. So this includes biological reproduction but also class reproduction. Working class families teach their kids how to function in this society, make sure they are fed and get the education necissary for them to go out an become workers themselves one day; capitalist and petit-bourgeois families pass on wealth and property and skills to their children.

For working class families, a family structure is the main social unit for dealing with capitalism (networks of larger family members and friends as a secondary way of dealing with capitalist society). It's often through family that people learn about specific jobs or a general trade or skill. It's also the primary way capitalism deals with social problems (or actually passes the buck to workers)... rather than a social safty net, unemployed workers often have to lean on family or move back home or whatnot... rather than have childcare, parents are left to figure out how to balance work, chores, and raising kids at the same time (this often is seen as the primary or "natural" role of women in the family too). Rather than have services for the elderly or disabled, again, families have to deal with this - either pay someone else or take on the duties themselves.

Capitalism has a strange role in regards to how we live because on the one hand it removes the sort of practical imperitives of families in feudal or other class societies where more children meant extra hands in making things and farming. Workers earn wages as induviduals, but then this creates a problem because if induviduals support themselves through wage-work, then they have no community ties (for good and bad), and those workers who can not find or meet the requirements of wage-work have no legal means of supporting themselves.

So this is the "disorder" to communities that happens in capitalism because of capitalism... the nuclear family is capitalism's attempt to deal with these problems. The modern family was really solidified in the Victorian era and if you think of Dickens novels, you can really see it: the books are anxious about all the problems created by modern capitalism (impoverished street-children, gangs of unattached men taking advantage of people, poverty for the old or sick or lame) but the answer is usually "family". Scrooge is not evil in the novels for exploitation, but for not paying a family wage that can keep Tiny Tim alive and his mom cooking goose. But this answer to capitalism's problems is an inadaquate one because it forces a lot of social stress onto families, it has been built on sexism because the "family wage" came about with the implicit concept that families deal with keeping society orderd, and it's women in those families specifically that will do the (unpaid) labor.

[Red Flag Waver]

People having the means to respectable living conditions and conducting themselves in an orderly, responsible, and healthy manner.
This sounds horrible.