Celibacy

[The Z-Man]

What do you guys think on the topic of celibacy. Here's my standpoint:

I think that couples SHOULD NOT do anything until marriage. However. I think today's term of marriage are ridiculas. I don't need a piece of paper to say that I love someone. Thats stupid. However, here is what marriage is to me - two people get together and agree to love each other forever and be loyal. Some kind of personal vow or whatever. No church, no wedding, just love. :wub:

[romanm]

This question is an important one. We have been discussing in a very indepth way here: http://marxleninmao.proboards43.com/index....read=1118621781 (http://marxleninmao.proboards43.com/index.cgi?board=w&action=display&thread=1118621781)

It is related to the question: is all sex rape? I would encourage discussion on this.

[The Z-Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 07:44 PM
This question is an important one. We have been discussing in a very indepth way here: http://marxleninmao.proboards43.com/index....read=1118621781 (http://marxleninmao.proboards43.com/index.cgi?board=w&action=display&thread=1118621781)

It is related to the question: is all sex rape? I would encourage discussion on this.
Very interesting. Good question too. I'm really confused though...

[Clarksist]

Celebacy is just a way to control. I think that if you have sex with someone who wants to have sex with you, so be it.

I would just hope you use a good form of BC and that you are both ready to take on having a baby. But I mean come, on... celebacy? People have an actual phsychological need for sex.

[C_Rasmussen]

I think celibacy is a good idea seeing at is a good way to show self-control. I am not saying that people MUST practice celibacy seeing as I believe everyone should be able to do what they want but it would be a good idea :).

['Discourse Unlimited']

I think issues surrounding celibacy are too connected with religion. That is, people seem to have this crazy notion that the act of 'sex' is something to be ashamed of, or something "evil", tolerated only as a means of reproducing the species...

I think we need to rid ourselves of this idea. If you want to practice celibacy, that's cool. But do it for your own reasons, not for the sake of the Church!

[Pawn Power]

I don't want any fucking relgion, laws, or morals telling me when and when not I can have sex.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 10:22 PM
Celebacy is just a way to control. I think that if you have sex with someone who wants to have sex with you, so be it.

I would just hope you use a good form of BC and that you are both ready to take on having a baby. But I mean come, on... celebacy? People have an actual phsychological need for sex.
Oh how are we in NEED of sex? I am just fine even though I've never had it.

[Pawn Power]

Oh how are we in NEED of sex? I am just fine even though I've never had it.

Then how would you know.


It isn’t that one needs sex, it is that it is natural and beautful. No one should be able to tell you and your partner when you can have sex.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Revolution is the [email protected] 22 2005, 11:40 PM

Oh how are we in NEED of sex? I am just fine even though I've never had it.

Then how would you know.


It isn’t that one needs sex, it is that it is natural and beautful. No one should be able to tell you and your partner when you can have sex.
Um well lets see here, its not like you&#39;re going to die if you don&#39;t do it <_<.

[Pawn Power]

Um well lets see here, its not like you&#39;re going to die if you don&#39;t do it .

OBVIOUSLY



Your getting off track here. The point that is being made, is that sex is the dession of the individual and the other, not the state or a religion or some outside influence.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by The Z&#045;[email protected] 22 2005, 02:37 PM
However, here is what marriage is to me - two people get together and agree to love each other forever and be loyal. Some kind of personal vow or whatever.


People change, love does not have to be forever, you might think it is at the time and that is good. However people can grow appart or just feel that they need a change or whatever the circumstance may be.
We are growing, mentally and physically, what is right today is not for tommorow.

[LSD]

That is all sex rape? thread made me so unbelievably angry. :angry:

It&#39;s such an example of the very patriarchal thinking that they&#39;re supposed to be condemning.

The tacit assumption in that thread that all communists are men and that it is their responsibility to "protect" women from their oppressive dicks is so disgustingly paternalistic.

Yes, there is sexism and obviously this is a patriarchal society, but that does not mean that women are entirely incapable of consenting to voluntary acts. It disempowers women to say that no matter how liberated or how educated or informed or how political or how empowered, they can never truly control their own body.

How is this progressive?
How is this liberating?

Women, even in capitalism, even in patriarchy, are not "weaker"&#33; Yes, they&#39;re oppressed, and yes, they&#39;re marginalized, but they must fight back. They must regain their own power. And they cannot do this if they are told that they can never make free choices regarding their bodies.

Would we tell this to the proletariat?
That they are so oppressed that they shouldn&#39;t even try&#33;?

Women don&#39;t need men to "save" them from patriarchal society, they need to liberate themselves. We don&#39;t want the bourgeois to "liberate" the proletariat. They won&#39;t&#33; The proletariat needs to liberate itself.

Likwise, women must emancipate themselves from patriarchy themselves. And, yes, one of the first steps of this is siezing control of one&#39;s own body, to do with ones own body whatever one wants.

Arguing that all sex is rape implies that women are incapable of sexual desire of their own. That they are merely being used by men for the purposes of male pleasure, but that they can never want it themselves.

This is just a return to 19th century notions of female "chasitity". It turns women into sexual object, there for the amusement of men, but not sexual beings in their own right.

This does not liberate women&#33; It enslaves them&#33;

Women want to FUCK, they get HORNY, they want LOVE and SEX and ACTION and FUN and SEX.

Saying that they are unable to do these things because they are are socially "incapable" reduces women to quivering messes waiting for men to "ride in" and "liberate them". What kind of communist says that? What kind of communist wants the oppressor to liberate the oppressed&#33;?

That thread utterly dehumanizes women.

In terms of what men should do. They should spread the word, they should teach about communism and about liberation and then SHUT THE FUCK UP. If you want to refrain from sex because of some nutbar religious crap, fine. But don&#39;t you dare claim that its a political statement, or that it&#39;s helping woman&#33;

That kind of paternalistic patriarchal bullshit is exactly what we are supposed to be fighting against, not reinforcing you neo-puritanist paternalistic vanguardist Maoist little fucks&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

"I&#39;m sorry, I can&#39;t have sex with you. I believe that you are socially incapable of making rational determinations regarding you own body".

Yeah? FUCK YOU&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :angry:

[redstar2000]

A discussion with a woman from the Maoist Internationalists Movement ("the celibacy party") on patriarchy...

The Struggle Against Patriarchy (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1085060593&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Enjoy.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Bugalu Shrimp]

Good sex is good excercise and regular ejaculation keeps ones tubes clean and sperm healthy. Also the physical act of sex is a bonding, rewarding, invigorating experiance.

[JazzRemington]

Or we could go the John Kelogg route and say that the release of sexual "juices" is a drain on the nervous system.

[LSD]

Or we could go the John Kelogg route and say that the release of sexual "juices" is a drain on the nervous system.

That man was deeply disturbed.

[TC]

I totally agree with Lysergic Acid Diethylamide&#39;s post. Its so stupid when some tendencies of maoists and rad feminists try to sound leftist while arguing for basically conservative politics that amount to controlling people&#39;s bodies and taking away their sexual freedom...its really no different from trying to take away abortion rights, birth control or insisting on marriage...except that the "all sex is rape" line is even more aggressively conservative in that it sexually humiliates men as &#39;rapists&#39; and women as &#39;victims&#39;, dismissing their actual personal experiance with religious propaganda put in communist language.

I want to know if MIM&#39;s followers think that Jiang Qing and Mao Zedong never ever had sex before the revolution :lol:.

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

About the origional question on "celibacy" (or rather, abstinence from sex till marriage, celibacy useually implies also not getting married or having relationships at all)...I think that setting artificial conditions on when you have sex in a relationship just makes it dirtier and feeds into feelings of guilt about your sexuality that can&#39;t help a relationship. It reduces emotional intimacy and its potentially a lot less fun. Its crappy to do things when you feel insecure, but its also crappy to feel guilty about doing something that you otherwise would enjoy.

The rightwing insistence that sex be within the &#39;confines of marriage&#39; has a lot to do with traditional family structures aimed at controlling women&#39;s sexual and reproductive rights...it makes people more dependent on their husbands if they can&#39;t have sex as an independent person in more casual relationships, which is why the same people who promote traditional 1950&#39;sish gender roles also promote abstinence till marriage (and they don&#39;t like abortions, gays, masturbation, pornography, birth control, ect. anything that reduces a traditional father/husband types social power).

Having sex without being absolutely in love with someone doesn&#39;t make having sex with someone you&#39;re really in love with any less special; and having sex without a commitment to a long term relationship doesn&#39;t make the sense of security and comfort in a commited sexual relationship less real...

[Enragé]

IF I WANT SEX, AND SOMEONE ELSE WANTS TO HAVE SEX WITH ME (consentual sex) WHY THE FUCK NOT&#33;

[seraphim]

Originally posted by The Z&#045;[email protected] 22 2005, 07:37 PM
What do you guys think on the topic of celibacy. Here&#39;s my standpoint:

I think that couples SHOULD NOT do anything until marriage. However. I think today&#39;s term of marriage are ridiculas. I don&#39;t need a piece of paper to say that I love someone. Thats stupid. However, here is what marriage is to me - two people get together and agree to love each other forever and be loyal. Some kind of personal vow or whatever. No church, no wedding, just love. :wub:
Fine if your a monk

[danny android]

I&#39;m celibat. Not particularly for any religious reason, though I am a christian. But because I don&#39;t really want to be responsible for getting some chick pregnant. Don&#39;t really think that I am ready forthat one. I also don&#39;t really want wierd coloflower looking things growing all over my penis, that is just me.

[Batman]

Totally up to the individual IMO.

I find it strange that the Catholic Churchs foot soldiers take a vow of celibacy but denounce homosexuals because it&#39;s unnatural. In my opinion celibacy is something completly unnatural and might be one of the reasons there is so much paedophilia in the Church.

[Kristatos]

Originally posted by Revolution is the [email protected] 22 2005, 11:40 PM
No one should be able to tell you and your partner when you can have sex.
Exactly. Making other people feel bad about doing something that&#39;s really just awesome and wonderful is retarded. I think celibacy is also retarded to a degree. My mother always advises me to "try the glove before purchasing it".

[Kristatos]

Originally posted by danny [email protected] 23 2005, 02:43 PM
I&#39;m celibat. Not particularly for any religious reason, though I am a christian. But because I don&#39;t really want to be responsible for getting some chick pregnant. Don&#39;t really think that I am ready forthat one. I also don&#39;t really want wierd coloflower looking things growing all over my penis, that is just me.
Then use connies. The source of most statistics that tell you that even protected sex is pretty risky is usually some fundamentalist pro-abstinence organization. That&#39;s like taking sexual advice from a munk... actually, that&#39;s exactly what it is.

[Socialist Dave]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 02:46 PM
Totally up to the individual IMO.

I find it strange that the Catholic Churchs foot soldiers take a vow of celibacy but denounce homosexuals because it&#39;s unnatural. In my opinion celibacy is something completly unnatural and might be one of the reasons there is so much paedophilia in the Church.
The reason Catholic priests are celibate is because in old times (some time beetween the 10th century and the 17th) the Vatican were worried that if preists had children, then they would leave church owend land to their children. Now-a-days, there is no real reasons why celibacy should be optional in priests. You may have a point with the paedophillia, but true preachers shouldn&#39;t become a priest for the celibacy.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Kristatos+Jun 23 2005, 04:02 PM--> (Kristatos @ Jun 23 2005, 04:02 PM)
danny [email protected] 23 2005, 02:43 PM
I&#39;m celibat. Not particularly for any religious reason, though I am a christian. But because I don&#39;t really want to be responsible for getting some chick pregnant. Don&#39;t really think that I am ready forthat one. I also don&#39;t really want wierd coloflower looking things growing all over my penis, that is just me.
Then use connies. The source of most statistics that tell you that even protected sex is pretty risky is usually some fundamentalist pro-abstinence organization. That&#39;s like taking sexual advice from a munk... actually, that&#39;s exactly what it is. [/b]
Um if the condom breaks (yes even the good ones) then your fucked (not in a good way).

[TC]

this is like whats wrong with &#39;abstinence only&#39; only sex education...kids think that birth control doesn&#39;t work when it almost always does (unless you use it incorrectly, because you&#39;ve had &#39;abstinence only&#39; sex ed :-p) so these kids who try to &#39;wait till marriage&#39; are actually more likely (http://www.registerguard.com/news/2005/06/14/ed.edit.silverring.0614.html) to end pregnant or with stds.

when condoms are used correctly they work very reliably to prevent pregnancy and stds.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 10:35 PM
this is like whats wrong with &#39;abstinence only&#39; only sex education...kids think that birth control doesn&#39;t work when it almost always does (unless you use it incorrectly, because you&#39;ve had &#39;abstinence only&#39; sex ed :-p) so these kids who try to &#39;wait till marriage&#39; are actually more likely (http://www.registerguard.com/news/2005/06/14/ed.edit.silverring.0614.html) to end pregnant or with stds.

when condoms are used correctly they work very reliably to prevent pregnancy and stds.
I never had any sex ed and I turned out just fine<_< with the only knowledge I have is from certain televised sex shows (I think you know the one) and from friends and oh yeah medical books.

Some of you make it out to seem like birth control is perfect when like I said it isn&#39;t. Sometimes the condom breaks as forementioned. Really there is no "safe" sex but then again do what you will as I am not trying to change you minds on the issue just giving my opinion.

[Raisa]

Celibacy isnt natural.

And I dont think just cuase you have sex with someone you should have to be with them forever.
WHat the hell for?

If I fall in love with someone then Ill want to be with them forever. That doesnt have a WHOLE lot to do with sex as much as consideration when you&#39;re making LOVE.

[Vallegrande]

If all sex was rape, then I would be raping myself everytime I loaded on myself.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 04:39 AM
Celibacy isnt natural.

And I dont think just cuase you have sex with someone you should have to be with them forever.
WHat the hell for?

If I fall in love with someone then Ill want to be with them forever. That doesnt have a WHOLE lot to do with sex as much as consideration when you&#39;re making LOVE.
The only thing I want to know out of this quote is how is celibacy unnatural?

[romanm]

Celibacy and asexuality are good. But, if you can&#39;t hack it then monogamy is the next best thing.

marxleninmao.proboards43.com

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 04:16 AM
Celibacy and asexuality are good. But, if you can&#39;t hack it then monogamy is the next best thing.

marxleninmao.proboards43.com
Did you even read LSD&#39;s post?

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by NoXion+Jul 1 2005, 04:26 AM--> (NoXion @ Jul 1 2005, 04:26 AM)
[email protected] 1 2005, 04:16 AM
Celibacy and asexuality are good. But, if you can&#39;t hack it then monogamy is the next best thing.

marxleninmao.proboards43.com
Did you even read LSD&#39;s post? [/b]
Err I read LSDs post again and it has nothing to do with what Romanm posted. Actually I totally agree with Romanm.

[LSD]

Actually I totally agree with Romanm.

You agree that all sex is rape and that all heterosexual communist men should refrain from having sex because women are socially incapable of making their own decisions regarding their own bodies?

[romanm]

I said all sex is rape, I didn&#39;t exempt homosexual sex.

People are filled with all kinds of false consciousness. Consent is a myth in class society. It&#39;s fine if you claim that bourgeois and patriarchical ideology isn&#39;t all enconpassing, but then don&#39;t claim to be a Marxist.

You want to say there is this private realm, call it a "soul" that is cut off from the society that it finds itself. You are upholding some kind of Christian soul talk. It&#39;s a myth face it. Social being determines consciousness. Thinking that consent is any different is just part of romantic culture ideology. How is a decision "free"? Marx dispensed with your kind of metaphysical thinking a long time ago.

I guess you can have your view, but you should call yourself a liberal and not a Marxist. As long as we&#39;re clear about that. Marxism is a scientific approach to these questions it traces the reality of power. Your approach is metaphysics, dogmatism - it&#39;s left over soul talk.

No. Abstaining from sex isn&#39;t going to smash patriarchy. That kind of approach isn&#39;t even reformism, it is SUB-reformism. Although there are good reasons to be celibate or monogamous. Rape isn&#39;t going to be ended by a handfull of out of power communists being celibate. Do you see my point that you are still thinking at a sub-reformist level? It really isn&#39;t a problem that is going to be solved individually. Although there are things that we can do within organizations to fight patriarchy. Adopting the all sex is rape line is one of them. It cuts back on sexual abuse of positions by poeple in the movement, especially males. Would you really want a recruiter going out with the line "we are better in bed"? It&#39;s a no-brainer.

We aren&#39;t even touching on these topics in the deep way it deserves. There is a whole thread of detailed posts on this topic over on marxleninmao.proboards43.com

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 1 2005, 06:11 AM

Actually I totally agree with Romanm.

You agree that all sex is rape and that all heterosexual communist men should refrain from having sex because women are socially incapable of making their own decisions regarding their own bodies?
No I just agree that celibacy is a good thing. Thats what I agreed with him on.

[LSD]

No I just agree that celibacy is a good thing. Thats what I agreed with him on.

WHY?


People are filled with all kinds of false consciousness. Consent is a myth in class society.

What?&#33;?

What is this, determinism?

If consent is a "myth", then any independent human action becomes impossible. You&#39;re saying that people (but mainly women <_<) have no free will and are unable to make decisions for themselves. That&#39;s a pretty, frankly, insane position to take and I don&#39;t think you realize the implications of it.

First of all, why are you only limiting this to sex?

If "consent is a myth", then how can I consent to revolution?

Doesn&#39;t that mean that revolutionaries shouldn&#39;t be permitted to revolt since their revolting is not actually their own decision but rather socially determined?

How about something as simply as playing football? If the two of us kick a ball around, am I being forced to play because I am actually unable to consent to playing (since "consent is a myth").

I trust you can see how bizarre this is.

Yes, society influences all of us all the time, but that doesn&#39;t mean that we have no individuality. And even if we didn&#39;t ...what could we do about it?

We have to live our lives assuming that we are independent rational actors, because otherwise there&#39;s no point to life.

And, again, why the focus on sex?

Why start a campaign that all sex is rape and not all football is slavery or all choirs are prison camps?

I think your problem is that you seee sex as inherently bad, therefore consent is somehow doubly required for it. More than the consent that is required for everything else we do in life. That is a ridiculously puritanical position to take. Sex is as natural a part of life as anythings else. Women want sex, men want sex, everyone wants sex.

Furthermore, on the issue of the "myth of consent", don&#39;t you see that your position actually makes rape acceptable?

Rape is wrong because it violates consent. The rape victim wants a certain thing for their body and the rapists does the opposite. Rape is only wrong if consent exists.

If consent is entirely illusury, then what the rape victim thinks they want for their body is no more real than what the rapists thinks they should want. If there is "no such thing as consent&#39;, then consent cannot be breached and rape is not longer wrong.


You want to say there is this private realm, call it a "soul" that is cut off from the society that it finds itself. You are upholding some kind of Christian soul talk.

:lol:

I don&#39;t know where you&#39;re trying to go, but you&#39;re on your own there...


How is a decision "free"?

Who the fuck are you quoting? :huh:

Where the fuck did I use the word "free"?


I guess you can have your view, but you should call yourself a liberal and not a Marxist.

Show me where Marx advocated celibacy or equated sex to rape.

Oh wait, I forgot, in your world, Marxism is whatever MIM says it is...


Although there are good reasons to be celibate or monogamous.

Such as?


Adopting the all sex is rape line is one of them. It cuts back on sexual abuse of positions by poeple in the movement, especially males.

No it doesn&#39;t&#33;

For one thing, it makes actual rape seem less of a problem. Afterall if all sex is rape, than real rape is just another kind of sex, right?

Secondly, adopting the position that women are incapable of making decisions regarding sex disempowers women. It tells them that they are always inferior.

Thirdly, arguing that consent does not exist makes rape morally acceptable. If my wishes for my body are not real than why would it matter if you violate them?


We aren&#39;t even touching on these topics in the deep way it deserves. There is a whole thread of detailed posts on this topic over on marxleninmao.proboards43.com

Stop spamming.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 1 2005, 07:07 AM

No I just agree that celibacy is a good thing. Thats what I agreed with him on.

WHY?

Whats wrong WITH it?

[LSD]

Whats wrong WITH it?

Sorry, that&#39;s not the way logic works.

You are promiting a lifestyle that is directly contrary to natural living and that takes away an enjoyable and socially important activity. The oweness is on you to provide arguments, not on the rest of us to provide counterarguments.

You claim that "celibacy is a good thing". Again, I&#39;m asking WHY?

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 1 2005, 07:13 AM

Whats wrong WITH it?

Sorry, that&#39;s not the way logic works.

You are promiting a lifestyle that is directly contrary to natural living and that takes away an enjoyable and socially important activity. The oweness is on you to provide arguments, not on the rest of us to provide counterarguments.

You claim that "celibacy is a good thing". Again, I&#39;m asking WHY?
Thats just my opinion. I don&#39;t think there is anything wrong with it and its alright if we live without it. Then again its your body do what you want with it.

[LSD]

Thats just my opinion.

Obviously, as you&#39;re the one who posted it&#33;

I&#39;m asking as to why that&#39;s your opinion and why you contend that "celibacy is a good idea".


I don&#39;t think there is anything wrong with it and its alright if we live without it.

If we lived without sex, the human race would die.

And we&#39;d all be a lot grumpier&#33; :lol:

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 1 2005, 07:19 AM

Thats just my opinion.

Obviously, as you&#39;re the one who posted it&#33;

I&#39;m asking as to why that&#39;s your opinion and why you contend that "celibacy is a good idea".


I don&#39;t think there is anything wrong with it and its alright if we live without it.

If we lived without sex, the human race would die.

And we&#39;d all be a lot grumpier&#33; :lol:
If you look at from a procreational view (a view I certainly disagree with) then it can be good but recreational? In that case I see no point for it.

[LSD]

If you look at from a procreational view (a view I certainly disagree with) then it can be good

Not just good, essential.

And how the fuck can you disagree that sex is needed for procreation?


but recreational O_o. In that case I see no point for it.

What?

What&#39;s the "point" of any recreation?

It feels good, it&#39;s fun, it&#39;s enjoyable, it gives us pleasure, it brings us closer with others, did I mention that it feels good?

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 1 2005, 07:24 AM

If you look at from a procreational view (a view I certainly disagree with) then it can be good

Not just good, essential.

And how the fuck can you disagree that sex is needed for procreation?


but recreational O_o. In that case I see no point for it.

What?

What&#39;s the "point" of any recreation?

It feels good, it&#39;s fun, it&#39;s enjoyable, it gives us pleasure, it brings us closer with others, did I mention that it feels good?
First point: I didn&#39;t say that I disagreed that its NEEDED for procreation but I just don&#39;t like the idea of procreation. Look at the population crisis in the world and you&#39;ll know what I mean. Look at the third world countries.


Second point: Maybe for you its good recreation but for me several beers is more my thing. Then again it brings around that point of "do what you want, its your body".

[LSD]

First point: I didn&#39;t say that I disagreed that its NEEDED for procreation but I just don&#39;t like the idea of procreation.

Yes, there is definitely an overpopulation crisis. But the solution is controlled procreation, not no procreation.

Actually, the best way to ensure lower population growth is the further spread of contraception and wealth. All studies show that as poverty decreases, population growth does as well.


Second point: Maybe for you its good recreation but for me several beers is more my thing.

Whatever floats your boat, man.

But that really doesn&#39;t address my point. You didn&#39;t say I don&#39;t like sex which is a personal discussion, you said "celibacy is a good idea" which is an impersonal one.

It says that "celibacy is a good idea" in the abstract, that people other than you should be celibate. Such a statement needs justification.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 1 2005, 07:34 AM

First point: I didn&#39;t say that I disagreed that its NEEDED for procreation but I just don&#39;t like the idea of procreation.

Yes, there is definitely an overpopulation crisis. But the solution is controlled procreation, not no procreation.

Actually, the best way to ensure lower population growth is the further spread of contraception and wealth. All studies show that as poverty decreases, population growth does as well.


Second point: Maybe for you its good recreation but for me several beers is more my thing.

Whatever floats your boat, man.

But that really doesn&#39;t address my point. You didn&#39;t say I don&#39;t like sex which is a personal discussion, you said "celibacy is a good idea" which is an impersonal one.

It says that "celibacy is a good idea" in the abstract, that people other than you should be celibate. Such a statement needs justification.
First point: Also unless you disagree I think you forgot to mention laws like China had going there for a good long time. I think it was something like a "One Child Policy" or something of that nature. I think if those laws were enforced there would be a good lowering of population along with the idea of spreading the concept of birth control (which alot of people no nothing of).

Second point: I didn&#39;t say I DIDN&#39;T like it but I am just saying that celibacy isn&#39;t good on a recreational level for the very fact that it really isn&#39;t that big of a deal (but then again there goes the arguement of a plethora of other things that wouldn&#39;t be needed either).

[LSD]

Also unless you disagree I think you forgot to mention laws like China had going there for a good long time. I think it was something like a "One Child Policy" or something of that nature. I think if those laws were enforced there would be a good lowering of population

Once again, such draconian policies are not needed. Simple education is remarkable effective.

And, by the way, China&#39;s policy didn&#39;t ban sex, just children. Most of those who followed the law did so by using contraception&#33;


I didn&#39;t say I DIDN&#39;T like it

You said "several beers is more my thing".


am just saying that celibacy isn&#39;t good on a recreational level for the very fact that it really isn&#39;t that big of a deal (but then again there goes the arguement of a plethora of other things that wouldn&#39;t be needed either).

I was very confused by that sentance. I&#39;m not at all certain what you were trying to say.

From what I can gather, you don&#39;t think that sex "good on a recreational level" and that giving it up isn&#39;t "really isn&#39;t that big of a deal" ...correct?

But that&#39;s a nonargument. Most recreational things aren&#39;t "that big of a deal" and can be, theoretically at least, "given up". So I&#39;ll ask the question again, why is celibacy a "good idea"?

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 1 2005, 07:47 AM

Also unless you disagree I think you forgot to mention laws like China had going there for a good long time. I think it was something like a "One Child Policy" or something of that nature. I think if those laws were enforced there would be a good lowering of population

Once again, such draconian policies are not needed. Simple education is remarkable effective.

And, by the way, China&#39;s policy didn&#39;t ban sex, just children. Most of those who followed the law did so by using contraception&#33;


I didn&#39;t say I DIDN&#39;T like it

You said "several beers is more my thing".


am just saying that celibacy isn&#39;t good on a recreational level for the very fact that it really isn&#39;t that big of a deal (but then again there goes the arguement of a plethora of other things that wouldn&#39;t be needed either).

I was very confused by that sentance. I&#39;m not at all certain what you were trying to say.

From what I can gather, you don&#39;t think that sex "good on a recreational level" and that giving it up isn&#39;t "really isn&#39;t that big of a deal" ...correct?

But that&#39;s a nonargument. Most recreational things aren&#39;t "that big of a deal" and can be, theoretically at least, "given up". So I&#39;ll ask the question again, why is celibacy a "good idea"?
Ok about the China maybe its just I didn&#39;t look into and got the bare miniums on what it was about.

Well the only reason I made the beer comment is not because I dont&#39; like sex, its just I am too shy so I turn to beer for my recreation.

and the for the last part I am kinda tired so sorry if it didn&#39;t make that much sense.

What you gathered from that sentence is correct.

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by The Z&#045;[email protected] 22 2005, 07:37 PM
What do you guys think on the topic of celibacy. Here&#39;s my standpoint:

I think that couples SHOULD NOT do anything until marriage. However. I think today&#39;s term of marriage are ridiculas. I don&#39;t need a piece of paper to say that I love someone. Thats stupid. However, here is what marriage is to me - two people get together and agree to love each other forever and be loyal. Some kind of personal vow or whatever. No church, no wedding, just love. :wub:

You say you are against marriage, but you still seem to assume that sex and love are one and the same. To be honest, I cannot understand why anyone would voluntarily choose to be celibate. Though each to their own ...

[romanm]

I am impressed with LSD&#39;s remarks. I have not learn to expect much from RevLeft in the past.. LSD, you have put some time into thinking about this.

LSD says: If "consent is a myth", then how can I consent to revolution?

He also asks about determinism.

On this issue, I am just speaking for myself. Yes, it is a myth. And, Amerikans won&#39;t consent to revolution. Revolution will be imposed on the Amerikan class enemy. Marx did not have some view of revolution as a "social agreement" - consenting to revolution would be pure contractian liberalism. Marx used war metaphors to describe social change, not social contracts. If itis social contracts you wnt, fine, but call yourself a liberal not a Marxist. It is useful to look at redstar&#39;s liberalism in another thread here. His view is a liberal and non Marxist view which at bottom has some kind of metaphysical idea of a soul behind it. Now, as to which view is right. All I can say is that my view is scientific and the liberal view at bottom is metaphysical and religions. My view has some degree of predictive and explanatory power, your view is as useful as any other hocus pocus. If you reject science at a fundamental level, nothing I say is going to convince you otherwise.

Liberalism is all over revleft posing as Marxism. Combating liberalism would be a full time job over here. I usually don&#39;t bother.

I support a scientific view, one that traces behaviors back to various power relations and material conditions. I actuall support believe that human actions are *overdetermined*. This means that any behavior x is going to be determined by several factors, not just one. So, behavor x is determined by culture, economy, etc.. But, I would never explain behavior x by tracing it back to a soul or a "free will" - that would be plain Christianisty or metaphysics. So, yes, I do support a kind of non-reductionist determinism. It&#39;s called overdeterminism. I think it is the only epistemology compatible with Marxism.

As Marx said social being determines consciousness.

Again, I compliment LSD on his question. Given that he uses the monikor "LSD" I am even more suprised. I invite him to marxleninmao.proboards43.com .

[LSD]

I support a scientific view, one that traces behaviors back to various power relations and material conditions. I actuall support believe that human actions are *overdetermined*. This means that any behavior x is going to be determined by several factors, not just one. So, behavor x is determined by culture, economy, etc.. But, I would never explain behavior x by tracing it back to a soul or a "free will" - that would be plain Christianisty or metaphysics.

...or logic.

Again, don&#39;t you see that arguing that consent does not exist makes rape acceptable?

Rape is wrong because it violates a peron&#39;s wishes for their own body. It breaches consent. If my wishes for my body, however, are entirely socially determined than they are of no more value than the socially determined wishes for my body expressed by a rapist.

That is, if what I want for my body and what a rapist wants for my body are both merely socially determined externalistic phenomena with no actual relationship to myself, then neither is more valid than the other. My desire not to be raped is only the result of a collection of social factors, it has absolutely no intrinsic relevence.

Rape is defined as the lack of consent, if consent "does not exist", than consent cannot be lacking. I.E., if consent cannot be given, then it cannot not be given.

If I am incapable of saying yes to sex, than I am incapable of saying no to sex, because if I can say no, I can say not no which is yes, but if I can&#39;t say yes then I can&#39;t say not yes which is no.

If I am incapable of giving consent, then I am incapable of withholding consent, therefore my consent cannot be breached and there is nothing wrong with you raping me. There is no intrinsic immorality in your performing an action on my vody which I do not want if that want is merely the expression of overdeterministic social factors. One set of socially determined wants is no more valid than another, and since both are entirely "overdetermined", it doesn&#39;t matter which of us is expressing whcih one.

If a being is incapable of independent consent, then that being cannot object (because any such objection is merely the expression of deterministic social phenomena) ...and rape isn&#39;t wrong.

Not to mention that you are completely dismissing personal responsibility. Not only are you, effectively, making rape acceptable, you&#39;re making the rapist no longer responsible for his rape. How can we punish him when his actions are merely the result of "social factors"?

If you dismiss independent decision making, then you dismiss accountability. No one can be held responsible for the actions they commit. What kind of society does that lead to? What kind of people does such an ideology create?


As Marx said social being determines consciousness.

determines consciousness.

But what you do with that consciousness is up to you.

[Saint-Just]

Rape is wrong because it violates a peron&#39;s wishes for their own body. It breaches consent. If my wishes for my body, however, are entirely socially determined than they are of no more value than the socially determined wishes for my body expressed by a rapist.

That is, if what I want for my body and what a rapist wants for my body are both merely socially determined externalistic phenomena with no actual relationship to myself, then neither is more valid than the other. My desire not to be raped is only the result of a collection of social factors, it has absolutely no intrinsic relevence.

Rape is defined as the lack of consent, if consent "does not exist", than consent cannot be lacking. I.E., if consent cannot be given, then it cannot not be given.

If I am incapable of saying yes to sex, than I am incapable of saying no to sex, because if I can say no, I can say not no which is yes, but if I can&#39;t say yes then I can&#39;t say not yes which is no.

If I am incapable of giving consent, then I am incapable of withholding consent, therefore my consent cannot be breached and there is nothing wrong with you raping me. There is no intrinsic immorality in your performing an action on my vody which I do not want if that want is merely the expression of overdeterministic social factors. One set of socially determined wants is no more valid than another, and since both are entirely "overdetermined", it doesn&#39;t matter which of us is expressing whcih one.

Whilst I totally diagree with MIM&#39;s view on sex acts and gender there is some logic in their argument. MIM say that all sex under patriarchy is rape. Previously LSD said that this view was patriarchal in itself since the view implied that women are not capable of giving, consent whilst men were. Under patriarchy men are gender oppressors and masters of gender whilst women are the gender oppressed and the victims of patriarchy. This is why, under patriarchy, women cannot give their consent. Women cannot giver their consent because under patriarchy women are pressured by patriarchy into fulfilling a role as sex subjects.

LSD said


That is, if what I want for my body and what a rapist wants for my body are both merely socially determined externalistic phenomena with no actual relationship to myself, then neither is more valid than the other.

Patriarchy is systemic, it is difficult and rare for a woman to be unaffected by it. Under patriarchy consent to sex, therefore, is likely to be consent given under the pressure of patriarchy. In a society in which patriarhcy does not exist this consent can be given without the pressure of patriarchy. As such, consent can, more freely, be given in a society where patriarchy does not exist.

LSD said


Not to mention that you are completely dismissing personal responsibility. Not only are you, effectively, making rape acceptable, you&#39;re making the rapist no longer responsible for his rape. How can we punish him when his actions are merely the result of "social factors"?

All criminals are victims of they society they live in. If it is not mostly social factors that cause crime then what is it? an innate will to do evil?
.
Whilst some responsibility lies with the rapist, much of it lies with the society the rapist lives in. This does not mean that it is not expedient and virtuous to punish criminals. Even though the rapist is a victim of environmental factors, it is nevertheless desirable to punish the rapist to deter others from a similar course of action, to recompense (to a small extent) the victims and to protect society from the rapist.

[LSD]

Whilst I totally diagree with MIM&#39;s view on sex acts and gender there is some logic in their argument. MIM say that all sex under patriarchy is rape. Previously LSD said that this view was patriarchal in itself since the view implied that women are not capable of giving, consent whilst men were. Under patriarchy men are gender oppressors and masters of gender whilst women are the gender oppressed and the victims of patriarchy.

That&#39;s a seperate argument.

Romanm is arguing that all sex, be it heterosexual, homosexual, male-male, male-female, female-female, is rape because "consent is a myth" in class society.

A seperate argument is that consent does exist but that women are not able to truly consent due to social pressures limiting their capacity to make independent decisions.

The former argument is ludcrious at face, the second is paternalistic and degrading, but they are two seperate arguments.


Patriarchy is systemic, it is difficult and rare for a woman to be unaffected by it. Under patriarchy consent to sex, therefore, is likely to be consent given under the pressure of patriarchy.

Absolutely, but like with any form of oppression, it can be fought.

The solution is not to "protect" women, but for them to liberate themselves.

Stating that "all sex is rape" ignores the potential for women to make independent decisions even within oppressive society. Patriarchy is very real, but it isn&#39;t omnipotent. Patriarchical society pushes women into specifc roles, but that does not mean that women must fall into them. More importantly it does not mean that everything that women do is caused by underlying social phenomena. A good deal of it is because they genuinely want to do it.

A women deciding to have sex with someone may be making that decision because of patriarchal expectations, but she may well not be as well.

Besides, the fact is that contemporary patriarchal society is rather contradictory on the subject of sex. It advocates sex on the one hand, but chastizes women for "promiscuity" on the other. Popular culture promotes sexualization, but condemns "sluttiness".

It&#39;s all a rather confusing mess&#33;

There is no monlithic Voice of Patriarchy, different messages come from different elements of society at different times. The cumulative result being that, in the end, women, if they are intellectually self-aware, are capable of making independent decisions regarding what they want to do with their own bodies.

They have a harder time doing so because of patriarchal power structures, but they can still do it.

Furthermore, the view of sex as rape completely ignores women&#39;s own desire for sex. It makes the tacit assumption that women only have sex due to patriarchal social pressure, never becasue they want it themselves. This is, again, a very puritanical position to take which denigratedsand dehumanizes women.

If all sex is rape then women can never want sex since if they wanted it it wouldn&#39;t be rape.

Rape is defined as a breach of consent, if consent is given then it is not rape. Yes, that consent may be influenced by pervailing social factors, but it is also influenced by the person making the decision.

Context matters&#33;

There are some circumstances in which a woman obstensibly consents to sex, but is only doing so under the duress of an abusive relationship or mysogenist community.

There are some circumstances in which a woman consents because she honestly want to fuck the person in question.

Which one describes a particualar sexual encounter depends on the specifics of the situation and the people involved. It is intellectually dishonest to say that the former characterizes "all sex" when it clearly doesn&#39;t.

All sex is most definitately not rape&#33;

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 1 2005, 09:50 PM

Whilst I totally diagree with MIM&#39;s view on sex acts and gender there is some logic in their argument. MIM say that all sex under patriarchy is rape. Previously LSD said that this view was patriarchal in itself since the view implied that women are not capable of giving, consent whilst men were. Under patriarchy men are gender oppressors and masters of gender whilst women are the gender oppressed and the victims of patriarchy.

That&#39;s a seperate argument.

Romanm is arguing that all sex, be it heterosexual, homosexual, male-male, male-female, female-female, is rape because "consent is a myth" in class society.

A seperate argument is that consent does exist but that women are not able to truly consent due to social pressures limiting their capacity to make independent decisions.

The former argument is ludcrious at face, the second is paternalistic and degrading, but they are two seperate arguments.


Patriarchy is systemic, it is difficult and rare for a woman to be unaffected by it. Under patriarchy consent to sex, therefore, is likely to be consent given under the pressure of patriarchy.

Absolutely, but like with any form of oppression, it can be fought.

The solution is not to "protect" women, but for them to liberate themselves.

Stating that "all sex is rape" ignores the potential for women to make independent decisions even within oppressive society. Patriarchy is very real, but it isn&#39;t omnipotent. Patriarchical society pushes women into specifc roles, but that does not mean that women must fall into them. More importantly it does not mean that everything that women do is caused by underlying social phenomena. A good deal of it is because they genuinely want to do it.

A women deciding to have sex with someone may be making that decision because of patriarchal expectations, but she may well not be as well.

Besides, the fact is that contemporary patriarchal society is rather contradictory on the subject of sex. It advocates sex on the one hand, but chastized women for "promiscuity" on the other. Popular culture promotes sexualization, but condemns "sluttiness".

It&#39;s all a rather confusing mess&#33;

There is no monlithic Voice of Patriarchy, different messages come from different elements at different times. The cumulative result being that, in the end, women, if they are intellectually self-aware are capable of making independent decisions regarding what they want to do with their own bodies.

They have a harder time doing so because of patriarchal power structures, but they can still do so.

Furthermore, this view completely ignores women&#39;s own desire for sex. It makes the tacit assumption that women only have sex due to patriarchal social pressure, never becasue they want it themselves. This is, again, a very puritanical position to take which denigrated and dehumanizes women.

If all sex is rape then women can never want sex since if they wanted it it wouldn&#39;t be rape.

Rape is defined as a breach of consent, if consent is given then it is not rape. Yes, that consent may be influenced by pervailing social factors, but it is also influenced by the person making the decision.

Context matters&#33;

There are some circumstances in which a woman obstensibly consents to sex, but is only doing so under the duress of an abusive relationship or mysogenist community.

There are some circumstances in which a woman consents because she honestly want to fuck the person in question.

Which one describes a particualar sexual encounter depends on the specifics of the situation and the people involved. It is intellectually dishonest to say that the former characterizes "all sex" when it clearly doesn&#39;t.

All sex is most definitately not rape&#33;
Well from reading that it sums everything up nicely and yes I did read everything too.

[romanm]

LSD writes:Again, don&#39;t you see that arguing that consent does not exist makes rape acceptable? Rape is wrong because it violates a peron&#39;s wishes for their own body. It breaches consent. If my wishes for my body, however, are entirely socially determined than they are of no more value than the socially determined wishes for my body expressed by a rapist. That is, if what I want for my body and what a rapist wants for my body are both merely socially determined externalistic phenomena with no actual relationship to myself, then neither is more valid than the other. My desire not to be raped is only the result of a collection of social factors, it has absolutely no intrinsic relevence.Rape is defined as the lack of consent, if consent "does not exist", than consent cannot be lacking. I.E., if consent cannot be given, then it cannot not be given.

Your approach is very anti-Marxist. Let&#39;s be clear about that. It is not rooted in logic. I suspect you don&#39;t even know what logic means. Logic is about rules of inference. It says nothing about the metaphysics underlying those inferences unless you buy into some silly Aristotlean argument about substances corresponding to subject and predicate or whatever. The asumptions behind LSD&#39;s picture of how behavor originates is a Christian soul, a free will - whatever. Mine is a scientific approach. Your view is completely contrary to Marx.

As Comrade Fdapatriarchy wrote in another forum where we&#39;ve already addressed all this: "Regarding the rape vs. &#39;rape lite&#39; debate:

Yes, there are different kinds of rape. Ones that need to be dealt with (ie. not allowed by Party/army members, and punished among the masses) and there are ones that we can live with til we can make the systematic measures to eliminate them.

The point of &#39;All sex is rape&#39; is to destroy the myth that rape is based solely on individual decisions and that if we just choose the right partner and act nice then it&#39;s all good. MIM says no, there is still coercion, still power differences. You may be happy and you may not see the coercion, but that doesn&#39;t mean it doesn&#39;t exist. For example:

"Marx does not care if the individual worker is happy after a day at work or is glad to have a contract or thinks wages are great. In the case of millions of workers Marx described in some specific mathematical cases in Capital, those workers are still exploited whether they know it or not. Exploited workers happy as individuals simply have "false consciousness." So it is with sex."
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/gender/f...1805.html" (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/gender/fpegender041805.html") (Source: http://marxleninmao.proboards43.com/index....9615715&page=2) (http://marxleninmao.proboards43.com/index.cgi?board=w&action=display&thread=1119615715&page=2))

Capitalists often use LSD&#39;s reasoning to deny real explotation. Libertarians often make claims that workers themselves are not exploted because they don&#39;t complain and they have consented to their situation. I would say that nobody consents to be exploited, the liberal disagrees. He maintains a view of free will and a notion of justice based on some kind of contract. Marxists are scientists who see the reality of power behind the empirical. This is basic Marx.

Capitalists, who share your reasoning, might say "since fair contracting is impossible, we should always exploit&#33;" or "since consent is impossible we should always rape&#33;" - As LSD is implying. He&#39;s looking at things from the view of the oppressor now. It&#39;s like saying "capitalism is a system based on exploitation, therefore we should exploit." Just because there are differences and degrees of exploitation or rape, doesn&#39;t mean you throw up you hands and say "I guess we should rape&#33;"

From a reformist point of view you might maintain some essential difference between rape and rape lite - the liberals argue the same way about exploitation. They say only REAL exploitation has to be eliminated. See what I mean? You&#39;ve moved from sub-reformism to reformism now. Maoists take a revolutionary view on rape. But, we are out of state power, so we won&#39;t be able to deal with it in the comprehensive way we would like to until we do have state power.

We&#39;ve covered this all in a very dep way over on marxleninmao.proboards43.com .. If you are really interested in exploring this issue, you&#39;ll come over there.

[LSD]

Your approach is very anti-Marxist. Let&#39;s be clear about that. It is not rooted in logic. I suspect you don&#39;t even know what logic means. Logic is about rules of inference.

Logic is a system for making rational determination based on deductive and inductive reasoning. It has nothing to do with "Marxism" or a lack thereof.

If Marxism is inductively or deductively verified then it is logically valid, otherwise it is not.

Logic is apolitical.


The asumptions behind LSD&#39;s picture of how behavor originates is a Christian soul, a free will - whatever.

:lol:

Calling something "Christian" doesn&#39;t prove your case anymore than calling me "liberal" does.

Name calling is the antithesis of logic.

You are making the assumption that all human actions are socially determined and that we are no actually the independent rational actors we appear to be. That&#39;s a hell of an assertion and it is your responsibility to prove it.

Our baseline assumption, however, based on all the current available evidence, is that we are rational actors and therefore we make moral and social decisions based on that.

That&#39;s logic. Taking available evidence and formulating a theoretical model from it. And as far as we can currently tell, humans are capable of making independent rational judgments on their own. Yes, social factors play a signifiant role, but by all indications, psychologically healthy human beings are nonetheless able to make determinations themselves.

You reject this and, with no logical justification, claim that "consent does not exist" and accordingly that humans are incapable of independent decision-making&#33;

On of us is espousing dogma, but it isn&#39;t me.


The point of &#39;All sex is rape&#39; is to destroy the myth that rape is based solely on individual decisions and that if we just choose the right partner and act nice then it&#39;s all good.

Again, you&#39;re evading the issue. If "consent does not exist", then consent cannot be not given and rape is morally acceptable.

If I am incapable of giving consent, then I am incapable of withholding consent, therefore my consent cannot be breached and there is nothing wrong with you raping me. There is no intrinsic immorality in your performing an action on my body which I do not want if that want is merely the expression of overdeterministic social factors. One set of socially determined wants is no more valid than another, and since both are entirely overdetermined, it doesn&#39;t matter which of us is expressing which one.


MIM says no, there is still coercion, still power differences.

Of course there is, but that does not mean that it&#39;s rape&#33;

Rape has a specific meaning and you&#39;re abusing that meaning by stretching it to include all sex.


He&#39;s looking at things from the view of the oppressor now. It&#39;s like saying "capitalism is a system based on exploitation, therefore we should exploit." Just because there are differences and degrees of exploitation or rape, doesn&#39;t mean you throw up you hands and say "I guess we should rape&#33;"

NO&#33;

You&#39;re the one who&#39;s saying that. You are saying that "all sex is rape", but we can&#39;t really do anything about that until the revolution, so for now it&#39;s OK to rape.

I am saying that all sex is most definitely not rape and that it is not Ok to rape.


We&#39;ve covered this all in a very dep way over on marxleninmao.proboards43.com .. If you are really interested in exploring this issue, you&#39;ll come over there.

Seriously, this is your last warning on this front.

STOP ADVERTISING&#33;

[Saint-Just]

Quoting LSD and proceeding to quote him only.


The solution is not to "protect" women, but for them to liberate themselves.

MIM does stipulate that the solution is for women to liberate themselves. However, they MIM also says that men should not add to their oppression until society had been freed of patriarchy.


Stating that "all sex is rape" ignores the potential for women to make independent decisions even within oppressive society. Patriarchy is very real, but it isn&#39;t omnipotent. Patriarchical society pushes women into specifc roles, but that does not mean that women must fall into them. More importantly it does not mean that everything that women do is caused by underlying social phenomena. A good deal of it is because they genuinely want to do it.

I agree. I do not know what MIM have to say about this. My view is that even though some women are intellectaully advanced enough to realise what is going on, and make decisions for themselves independent of the current state-of-affairs in capitalist society, it does not mean that many women are not being exploited.


A women deciding to have sex with someone may be making that decision because of patriarchal expectations, but she may well not be as well.

True, of course.


Besides, the fact is that contemporary patriarchal society is rather contradictory on the subject of sex. It advocates sex on the one hand, but chastizes women for "promiscuity" on the other. Popular culture promotes sexualization, but condemns "sluttiness".

I do not believe that patriarchal society universally chastises women for promiscuity. Promiscuity is somewhat irrelevent to patriarchy anyway, patriarchy oppresses women and may or may not care how many men they have sex with.


There is no monlithic Voice of Patriarchy, different messages come from different elements of society at different times. The cumulative result being that, in the end, women, if they are intellectually self-aware, are capable of making independent decisions regarding what they want to do with their own bodies.

This is true, however, those women that are not self aware are still being exploited. And, although there are conflicting messages coming from different elements of society there is still a prevalent weltanschaung in many societies that involves patriarchy and the ideas that eminate from it pervade all of society.


Furthermore, the view of sex as rape completely ignores women&#39;s own desire for sex. It makes the tacit assumption that women only have sex due to patriarchal social pressure, never becasue they want it themselves. This is, again, a very puritanical position to take which denigratedsand dehumanizes women.

Whilst it is true that women do, in different forms, have a desire for sex, patriarchy often directs this desire, forms it and controls it. The view of sex as rape, therefore, does not make the tacit assumption that women only have sex due to patriarchal social pressure but rather patriarchy has a strong influence over that female desire to sex; that is, patriarchy forms a specific nature for this desire, directs the way in which it manifests itself and, in general, simply wields a great deal of control over the desire of the woman to have sex.


If all sex is rape then women can never want sex since if they wanted it it wouldn&#39;t be rape.

Under patriarchy, a women gives her consent to sex, but it is patriarchy has influenced her, on many occasions, to giver her consent. As such, her consent is based on force. I could give my consent to many things if I was forced. A woman can feel that she wants sex, but beyond her immediate consciousness, she is being forced. The reasons that make up her mind to want sex are not necessarily reasons that allow her a free and rational choice. Whilst a woman may want sex, the reasons compelling her might simply be restricting her over making a free and unadulterated choice. It is difficult to discuss since there are many reason a woman may want sex, however, a reason such as she is attracted to the potential sex partner is better than a reason inspired in her by patriarchy.


Rape is defined as a breach of consent, if consent is given then it is not rape. Yes, that consent may be influenced by pervailing social factors, but it is also influenced by the person making the decision.

Yes, I am not refuting this, and I agree that context matters. But that does not deny that fact that under patriarchy women are often being raped.


I am only trying to defend MIM&#39;s reasoning. I do not believe that patriarchy exists to a significant extent at all in western societies. Although, I do believe what MIM says about the consent of individuals being compromised by inimical cultural influences.

[LSD]

I agree. I do not know what MIM have to say about this. But, even though some women are intellectaully advanced enough to realise what is going on, and make decisions for themselves independent of the current state-of-affairs in capitalist society, it does not mean that many women are not being exploited.

Absolutely.

Of course gender oppression and exploitation are symtematic of our society.

I am only refuting the ludicrous claim that all sex is rape.


I do not believe that patriarchal society universally chastises women for promiscuity. Promiscuity is somewhat irrelevent to patriarchy anyway, patriarchy oppresses women and may or may not care how many men they have sex with.

Well our society, largely, chastized women for promiscuity and our society is patriarchal. Hence our society is an example of a patriarchal society condemning promiscuity.

Again, our society is a complex one and expresses itself, often, in seemingly contradictory ways.

Patriarchal expectations are largely based on assumptive social paradigmatic models of how women "are". Among thse models is the view of women as inferior to men. This translates to sexuality as well.

Women are oppressed by the notion of them being "less than" men, in terms of sexuality, this means portraying women as being nonsexual, as not having innate sexual desires of their own.

Therefore women expressing their own sexual feelings challanges this paradigmatic assumption and those women are condemned for "promiscuity".


Whilst it is true that women do, in different forms, have a desire for sex, patriarchy often directs this desire, forms it and controls it. The view of sex as rape, therefore, does not make the tacit assumption that women only have sex due to patriarchal social pressure but rather patriarchy has a strong influence over that female desire to sex

But a "strong influence" is not force ...it&#39;s a strong influence.

If MIM wanted to say that sex in class society is unequal, I would have no objection. But the statement that all sex is rape assumes not only inequality and social influence, but a lack of consent.


Under patriarchy, a women gives her consent to sex, but it is patriarchy has influenced her, on many occasions, to giver her consent. As such, her consent is based on force.

There is a difference between consent based on force, and consent based on underlying social phonomena.

The former is not truly consent at all, it is aquiesance. The later, however, is merely influenced consent. That is, consent mitigated by existing circumstances.

Patriarchy is not a loaded gun, it is a pervailing social reality. It is certainly a powerful one, but it is still merely a set of assumptions, paradigms, and ideas. Women can free themselves of it.

Indeed, one of the best ways to do this is to reject patriarchal demands and assumptions and sieze control of one&#39;s own body. The making of truly independent decisions regarding one&#39;s own body is one of the most important steps in defeating patriarchal influence.

Advocating that all sex is rape prevents this from happening because it argues that women can never control their own body and no matter how liberated, they are never actually making decisions.

It is ludicrous to assume that workers can fight capitalism but women cannot fight patriarchy&#33;

And no matter how socially influenced, influences consent is not nonconsent. Equating the two is a serious error which minized the true horror of rape.

Rape is wrong because it violates consent, if consent is given, regardless of the social phenomena that led to that consent being given, it is not rape.

It is unequal to be sure, and often when women become more aware of their exploitating they decided that, if they had the chance again, they would have made difference decisions regarding sex. But this does not mean that it was rape&#33;

It means that they realize that they made a mistake in giving consent. That their decision was based on societal assumptions that they did nor recognize as such ...but they still gave consent.

It&#39;s wrong, and it&#39;s unfair, and it&#39;s unjust, but it is not rape&#33;


The reasons that make up her mind to want sex are not necessarily reasons that allow her a free and rational choice. Whilst a woman may want sex, the reasons compelling her might simply be restricting her over making a free and unadulterated choice.

It might and it might not.

Again, it depends on the circumstances involved.


But that does not deny that fact that under patriarchy women are often being raped.

As I&#39;ve already said, it is often true that women are in positions in which they are indeed consenting out of duress ...it depends on the situation.

What I object to is the MIM delcaration that "all sex is rape", because it is not only demeaning to women, but it dismisses the possibility that women could ever free themselves of social coercion within contemporary society.

[Saint-Just]

Quoting LSD only.


Patriarchal expectations are largely based on assumptive social paradigmatic models of how women "are". Among thse models is the view of women as inferior to men. This translates to sexuality as well.

Women are oppressed by the notion of them being "less than" men, in terms of sexuality, this means portraying women as being nonsexual, as not having innate sexual desires of their own.

Therefore women expressing their own sexual feelings challanges this paradigmatic assumption and those women are condemned for "promiscuity".

Yes, I said in one of my previous two posts that women are portrayed as sexualk subjects, while of course men are the objects. Female sexuality therefore does not exists except in the sense that it is derived from male sexuality. However, does this view oppress women, or is it really just a benign manifestation of patriarchy? I believe the latter.


Advocating that all sex is rape prevents this from happening because it argues that women can never control their own body and no matter how liberated, they are never actually making decisions.

It is ludicrous to assume that workers can fight capitalism but women cannot fight patriarchy&#33;

You really have to look at what MIM actually say about this. They say that all sex is rape under patriarchy. Therefore, woman can liberate themselves and gain control of their bodies once they destroy patriarchy. MIM frequently repeats that women can fight patriarchy.


It is unequal to be sure, and often when women become more aware of their exploitating they decided that, if they had the chance again, they would have made difference decisions regarding sex. But this does not mean that it was rape&#33;

It means that they realize that they made a mistake in giving consent. That their decision was based on societal assumptions that they did nor recognize as such ...but they still gave consent.

It&#39;s wrong, and it&#39;s unfair, and it&#39;s unjust, but it is not rape&#33;

Whether sex under patriarchy is frequently rape depends on one&#39;s definition of rape. Regardless of whether it can be called rape or not, it is still a terrible thing.

[romanm]

LSD says: Logic is a system for making rational determination based on deductive and inductive reasoning. It has nothing to do with "Marxism" or a lack thereof. If Marxism is inductively or deductively verified then it is logically valid, otherwise it is not. Logic is apolitical.

This is pretty much what I said, although I wouldn&#39;t include "inductive reasoning as logic" due to the various problems advanced by Goodman, Schlick, and others..

In anycase, you missed the entire point. The enitre view you are working with is a liberal view of the self. It has nothing to do with logic. You view social relations as the liberal does in terms of contracts, agreement, that is why you uphold the myth of consent as a mental act. Your argument is rooted in a Liberal metaphysical view of the world. There isn&#39;t going to be any convincing you because your view is metaphysical. Your position is pure dogmatism.

It is actually your reasoning that leads to oppressive conclusions in terms of drawing an essential distinction between rape and rape lite, therefore, you reason, all rape is okay because sex is okay. This also has a parallel when describing exploitation. You see free agents making contracts, I see power relations. Your view is not dissimiliar to a religious one.

Where did I say we can&#39;t do anything about rape right now? Obviously you can do something about some kinds of rape even within a bourgeois society - the fact that some rape is outlawed proves that. But, this is the limits of bourgeois law and outlook . This is why your view, is at best liberal reformist. I challenge you to find any passage where MIM says you can&#39;t do anything now?&#33; If anything MIM&#39;s position calls for greater enforcement against all rape. It&#39;s only your twisted oppressor argument that says "rape is okay because sex is rape" - Sex is obviously not OK under current conditions. The very fact that so many wimmin have felt raped at one point of another shows this. If you did a parallel study and asked how many men felt they were rapists - I assure the numbers wouldn&#39;t match up. MIM&#39;s argument raises the issue to as far as it can go within a realisitic context. MIM radicalizes the issue - and this is a good thing, especially when movement history is filled with all kinds of sexism and rape.

LSD says: Rape is defined as the lack of consent, if consent "does not exist", than consent cannot be lacking. I.E., if consent cannot be given, then it cannot not be given.

I wouldn&#39;t define it exaclty that way. The line is actually all sex is rape in class society, not all sex is rape. Perhaps, I wasn&#39;t clear about that. So, having non-rape sex is possible. I just don&#39;t define consent as you do. You view consent as some kind of intentional mental act. I think this is BS folk psychology rooted in a soul. It&#39;s a perfect male defination - men have almost perfected date rape to a tee. "She didn&#39;t say NO" "Here, have another drink".. There is a whole science of rape - so men can rape without being seen as rapists. In so far as consent has any meaning it can only defined in terms of power relations being equal - lack of coersion. I would prefer get rid of the term consent entirely. But, when putting forth radical ideas it is necessary to bridge the paradigms by compromising your terminology in order to be understood. I&#39;m not sure if my position on this lines up with MIM&#39;s or not.

There are all kind of epistemological problems with the mental act point of view. When is there reall consent? What unconscious factiors are involved? What is someone has been brutalized into yielding and it doesn&#39;t occur to her to think anything but "yes"? My view is in class society it&#39;s all rape pure and simple - there is always coersion going on. It is just a matter of type and degree of coersion - there will be epistemological problems here even, but less than your view. And, the issue of rape will only fully be solved under communism. If anything my view is a call to fight partiarchy. You view is to let men ramage wimmin and feel good about themselves. Your view is pretty sick actually.

It is pure dogmatism if you are hanging your argument on what Webster says. Isn&#39;t that what is at issue? The nature of rape? Yor dogmatism on this question is astounding.

MIM says :"Denying that all sex is rape in the majority-exploiter countries is taking the oppressor&#39;s side in the principal contradiction-- the struggle between the oppressed nations and imperialism. Who benefits in that contradiction from the two lines? The MIM line applied in the imperialist countries says the imperialist countries are full of lying, raping and decadent people (who should want a revolution just to straighten out their short-term romance culture mess)--and we&#39;ve provided mountains of factual evidence for that. It&#39;s not something we have to invent with some guru mysticism." source: http://marxleninmao.proboards43.com/index....19615715&page=2 (http://marxleninmao.proboards43.com/index.cgi?board=w&action=display&thread=1119615715&page=2)

So we can take Redstar&#39;s line that "revolutionary cred" corresponds to good sex. This is the liberal line. Or, you could hold your militants to a higher standard in order to fight sexism and patriarchy.

I think it&#39;s sick and disgusting that you would defend rape. And then slander those who are fighting it. As MIM said of another, you wouldn&#39;t know integrity if it slapped you in the face. (source: http://marxleninmao.proboards43.com/index....9615715&page=2) (http://marxleninmao.proboards43.com/index.cgi?board=w&action=display&thread=1119615715&page=2))

[LSD]

Saint-Just


Female sexuality therefore does not exists except in the sense that it is derived from male sexuality. However, does this view oppress women, or is it really just a benign manifestation of patriarchy? I believe the latter.

Of course it oppresses women. It dehumanizes them and is yet another example of patriarchal denigration.

How can you argue that suppression of female sexuality and the forced social subserviance of women is "benign"?


You really have to look at what MIM actually say about this. They say that all sex is rape under patriarchy. Therefore, woman can liberate themselves and gain control of their bodies once they destroy patriarchy. MIM frequently repeats that women can fight patriarchy.

What I disagree with is the notion that patriarchy must be defeated before women are capable of making independent decisions.

I would contend that it is the opposite that is true, that it is the making of independent decisions by women that is the first step in destroying patriarchy.


Whether sex under patriarchy is frequently rape depends on one&#39;s definition of rape.

Perhaps, but I object to the redefinition of rape such that it is so broad as to, literally in this case, include all sex. Doing so deleglitamizes real rapes and makes rape merely an exosocial phonomenon and not an immoral act in and of itself.


Regardless of whether it can be called rape or not, it is still a terrible thing.

Why?

Sex can be a terrible thing, it can be a wonderful thing. Again it depends the the specific circumstances.

[LSD]

Romanm


In anycase, you missed the entire point. The enitre view you are working with is a liberal view of the self. It has nothing to do with logic. You view social relations as the liberal does in terms of contracts, agreement, that is why you uphold the myth of consent as a mental act. Your argument is rooted in a Liberal metaphysical view of the world. There isn&#39;t going to be any convincing you because your view is metaphysical. Your position is pure dogmatism.

Such ad hominem attacks contribute nothing to this debate.

Besides, it is you who is making dogmatic assumptions and failing to defend them.

You have still offered no evidence for your contention that "consent is a myth" or that "free will does not exist" or that behavior is "overdeterministically" determined.

Before you critisize be for being "dogmatic", back up your assertions&#33;


Where did I say we can&#39;t do anything about rape right now?

"Yes, there are different kinds of rape. Ones that need to be dealt with (ie. not allowed by Party/army members, and punished among the masses) and there are ones that we can live with til we can make the systematic measures to eliminate them." (emphasis added)


I wouldn&#39;t define it exactly that way. The line is actually all sex is rape in class society

:lol:

If you redefine rape to mean "all sex" then of course "all sex" is rape&#33;

Neat trick, but it doesn&#39;t prove anything.

You need to justify that "redefinition" before anyone will accept it.


I think this is BS folk psychology rooted in a soul. It&#39;s a perfect male defination - men have almost perfected date rape to a tee. "She didn&#39;t say NO"

Oh come on, don&#39;t be obtuse.

The default assumption is lack of consent. Thereby if I shoot you, the assuption is that you did not want to be shot.

Likewise we assume that a woman does not want to have sex unless we hear from her otherwise. So if she is unable to give consent because she is unconscious or drugged then we assume that she does not consent.

But that does not mean that she is incapable of giving consent, merely that she is temporarily unable to. But because she is an independent rational actor, we take our baseline assumption and allow her to either confirm or change it.


When is there reall consent? What unconscious factiors are involved? What is someone has been brutalized into yielding and it doesn&#39;t occur to her to think anything but "yes"?

It depends on the specifics of the example in question, of course.

Sure, it&#39;s possible that someone can be so brutalized as to be in a psychological state that they are unable to truly excersize independent action.

But such people are rare. It happens, but when it does it is a severe psychological problem. Such a thing is not the result of social phenonoma but of specific targetted psychological torture.

It is ludicrously unfair to compare such psychological distress with class society itself. It is simply not the same thing.

Psychological oppression such as you describe above is systemic and overpowering. It cannot be fought by the person. That&#39;s the point, they&#39;ve been "broken". And while they may recover (because the human mind is an astounding thing), when they were in that state they were unable to concieve of any other.

Clearly this does not describe class society or patriarchal society. While both are pervasive, they are not cognitive factors, they are social ones. The very fact that we are able to have this discussion shows that we are able to concieve of challanges to the present social order. Clearly, then, living within social paradigms is not akin to a psychological condition.

Is patriarchy powerful? Of course, but not as powerful as actual brutalization.

It&#39;s an entirely false comparison that you are creating, and it&#39;s rooted in your dismissal of "free will".

If you genuinely believe that all human actions are only the result of social conditions and nothing else, then of course you would contend that social pheonomena are of equal import as cognitive ones in regards to actions.

The problem is human actions are influenced by more than society.

Dismissing personality and rationality and human consciousness as "liberal" or "bourgeois" does not dissapear the overwhelming bulk of evidence which suggests that they exist.

If you want to claim that human individuality is a "myth", you&#39;ll have to back that claim up with solid evidence.

So far, you have not even come close to doing this.


You view is to let men ramage wimmin and feel good about themselves. Your view is pretty sick actually.

I think it&#39;s sick and disgusting that you would defend rape. And then slander those who are fighting it.

You&#39;re not fighting rape, you&#39;re fighting sex.

What&#39;s sad is that in your neo-puritanical world-view, you don&#39;t even understand the difference.

[romanm]

Look. We can obviously do something about what you consider "real rape" right now - the very fact there are laws against some rape shows that. Don&#39;t be dumb - you know by the context of my posts what I am talking about. The rape that we can&#39;t really do anything about on is what you consider sex.

As far as other rape, we can only hold our own people to higher standards and draw attention to the issue. We can&#39;t enfore celibacy or anything like that, it would obviously hurt other life and death struggles - like the struggle against imperialism.

We are out of state power - obviously we cannot do anything about *all* rape.

I&#39;ve already responed to all your points. You just keep throwing out liberal metaphysics. . Terms like "rationality", "independent action", etc. You think humans have souls, I don&#39;t. I think all humyn action is a function of environment(widely understood) and genetics.. you don&#39;t. You see humyns as free agents making contracts, I don&#39;t.

You defend some rape, I don&#39;t.

There is nothing puritianical about my view. Ceilbacy is a superior practice, monogamy is the next best thing. But, it would be subreformist to think that an individual communist restricting his/her behavior will overthrow patriarch. The reason I have made the claims about celibacy and monogamy have to do with organization security - which is also why drug use is foolish. But, having the all sex is rape will counter a certain male sexist opportunism within movement ranks. It destroys Redstar&#39;s bullying line that lends itself to all kinds of abuses. My line on this is more in synch with anarchist concerns about abuses of power. I find it ironic that its the anarchists over here who uphold a line that obviously lends itself to abuse by males.It&#39;s perfecting of the how to rape science - how to give liberal cover to abuse of wimmin. "yeah.. communists are better lovers baby"

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I&#39;ve already responed to all your points. You just keep throwing out liberal metaphysics. . Terms like "rationality", "independent action", etc.

They are not metaphysics. Rationality is applying the rules of logic to material reality, something which you are not doing.


You think humans have souls, I don&#39;t.

Far be it from me to second guess LSD&#39;s views on the matter, I am willing to bet that he doesn&#39;t believe in souls. If you want to be taken seriously, you would do well to cease the ad hominems.


You defend some rape, I don&#39;t.

He doesn&#39;t defend any rape. You are not listening.


There is nothing puritianical about my view. Ceilbacy is a superior practice, monogamy is the next best thing.

You have yet to demonstrate this to be the case. All I have seen from those defending this ridiculous line that celibacy is best are some sentiments to the effect that all sex is not truly consensual, which I think most females would disagree.


It destroys Redstar&#39;s bullying line that lends itself to all kinds of abuses.

Your obsession with Redstar2000 is pathetic. I&#39;ve seen you put him down all over this forum, but I have yet to see you engage in a meaningful debate with him.
Plus I would like to see evidence that allowing women to make their own choice in sexual matters (You seem to think that women are incapable of thinking for themselves) leads to abuse.


It&#39;s perfecting of the how to rape science - how to give liberal cover to abuse of wimmin. "yeah.. communists are better lovers baby"

You make me sick. If you want to accuse our anarchist members of being rapists, come right out with it&#33;

I&#39;m off to see if I can ask my girlfriend to let me rape her :rolleyes:

[LSD]

I&#39;ve already responed to all your points.

Actually, as of yet, you have not addressed one.

But maybe you forgot, allow me to jog your memory.

1) If consent does not exist, why is rape wrong? If my desire for my body and my rapists desire for my body are both merely externalistic social phenomena, why is either one any more valid?
2) Doesn&#39;t claiming that women are unable to make independent decisions degrade them?
3) Is it not defeatest and sexist to claim that it is impossible for women to escape from patriarchal consciousness? If the proletariat can escape from capitalist oppression enough to revolt, surely women can escape from patriarchy enough to make independent decisions&#33;
4) Why are we only limiting this issue to sex? If consent is truly a "myth", then everything in class society is done under duress.
5) If the issue is patriarchal control over women, why do you claim that homosexual sex is rape as well?


You just keep throwing out liberal metaphysics. . Terms like "rationality", "independent action", etc.

:lol:

Again, you make these insane assertions. Rationality and independent action are not "metaphysical" and you have not offered a shred of evidence that they are.

Just a few posts ago you were complaining that I didn&#39;t understand logic, now you are claimging that rationality doesn&#39;t exist&#33;

Don&#39;t you see the contradiction here?

If humans are incapable of rationality, how can they be logical?

Or, to put it more bluntly, if humans are incapable of rational thinking, how the fuck are we having this conversation?.

Although in your case I will confess that there is a definite lack of reason... <_<


You think humans have souls

I do? :o

What is this, conversion by proxy? :lol:


I think all humyn action is a function of environment(widely understood) and genetics..

And so I ask again, if humans are incapable of making independent decisions, why is rape wrong?


You see humyns as free agents making contracts, I don&#39;t.

I see humans (that&#39;s humans, spelt H-U-M-A-N-S, you revisionist twit) as free agents. The "contracts" part is your own shallow attempt to insinuate that believing in free will means believing in capitalism.

These pointless ad hominems have got to stop.

If you have evidence that free will does not exist, provide it, otherwise you are just spouting rhetorical nonesense.


But, having the all sex is rape will counter a certain male sexist opportunism within movement ranks.

Once again, no it doesn&#39;t. It dehumanizes and denigrates women and it normalizes rape. It sends exactly the wrong message and only leads to a lot of sexually frustrated MIMers.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by romanm
It is useful to look at redstar&#39;s liberalism in another thread here. His view is a liberal and non Marxist view which at bottom has some kind of metaphysical idea of a soul behind it.

I have not the slightest idea what "brought this on"...unless, perhaps, it&#39;s just his way of "taking a poke at me" whenever he thinks too much time has passed since his last poke at me. :lol:

But since his thesis in this thread appears to be based on the proposition that "women cannot consent to sex in a patriarchal society", perhaps a brief consideration may be in order.

It&#39;s quite accurate to observe that the bourgeois "libertarian" ideologues&#39; claim that "workers freely consent to being exploited" is false...since it ignores the material context of that "consent". Workers who withhold "consent" to their own exploitation live on the streets and eat out of dumpsters...a most unpleasant experience and one that generally results in illness and premature death from exposure and malnutrition.

Can this example be extended to include women&#39;s consent to sex under patriarchy? Is a woman materially "punished" if she chooses to withhold consent to sex?

The opposite appears to be the case. The poorest and most exploited women in the U.S. today are young single women with children; particularly women of color.

The "smart choice" for women is to avoid pregnancy by withholding consent to sex from men...that&#39;s her "best shot" at avoiding extreme poverty.

Of course, she is surrounded by a good deal of patriarchal propaganda to do otherwise; to become part of a faithful monogamous relationship and have children. Young women are socialized to this expectation by their parents, their schooling, the media, etc.

Not to mention that young women are, to one degree or another, genetically predisposed to mate and have children...it is "natural" in that sense.

So, we have social and biological forces on one side and a strong material disincentive on the other (though she may not be fully aware of the dimensions of that disincentive).

But what of her "soul"? That is, what of the consequences of all the hundreds and thousands of micro-causes that have given her the conviction of her own individual existence as a person "with free will"? A person who likes cherries and dislikes pears; who enjoys 80s dance music but can&#39;t stand rap; who loves going to the beach but hates camping out in the mountains; who finds this particular young man "hot" and that guy to be a "total loser".

She is not, after all, the product of just a few macro-causes -- biology, class, gender. There are probably countless numbers of micro-causes that have made her (and all of us) what we "are" and given her a very persuasive illusion that she (and we) have "free will".

Micro-causes are just as material as macro-causes...but they are usually too small to notice, especially in early childhood. And they continue to happen -- and to shape our views of ourselves -- throughout our lives.

In reality, our thoughts and deeds are determined by material conditions and the ideologies that sprang from those conditions; but the interplay between macro- and micro-causes is so complex that we subjectively feel ourselves to have "free will".

Romanm imagines that only in a society free of patriarchy would a woman be truly free to consent to sex. But that cannot possibly be true. If patriarchy were entirely destroyed, that would eliminate a macro-cause of human behavior...but there would still be other causes in constant operation, some macro but the vast majority micro.

In other words, the "materialist" romanm also thinks there&#39;s some kind of entity "underneath" the material world of human behavior that, once "liberated" from social constraint, is capable of making "free decisions".

A...um, soul, if you will.

The illusion of "free will" is, by and large, a useful one. We can desire or reject various options "as if" we had free will without wasting a lot of time trying to identify the causes of our desires or antipathies.

That the decisions we make only appear to be "free" and are not really so does not seem to make any practical difference.

If we notice a macro-cause that seems oppressive and act to remove it, we have simply expanded the range of micro-causes that will rush in to take the place of the missing macro-cause.

In communist society, there will presumably be no such thing as oppression based on class, "race", gender, etc. In the absence of those macro-causes, we will be much more the product of micro-causes. We will appear to have "much more free will" than we do now.

And that&#39;s good enough...even if, strictly speaking, it&#39;s not really true.

Thus, I conclude that romanm&#39;s (and MIM&#39;s) thesis -- "all sex is rape under patriarchy" -- is a metaphysical construct. It arbitrarily divides the causes of female sexual behavior into two periods: behavior under patriarchy and behavior in the absence of patriarchy -- and labels the latter a product of "free will".

The absence of patriarchy will make women "feel freer"...but their behavior will still be as much the product of material causes as it is now.

If one is to argue that women can freely consent to sex in the absence of patriarchy, then one has no choice but to concede that they can freely consent to sex now.

And therefore, all sex is not rape.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Saint-Just]

Quoting LSD only.


What I disagree with is the notion that patriarchy must be defeated before women are capable of making independent decisions.

I would contend that it is the opposite that is true, that it is the making of independent decisions by women that is the first step in destroying patriarchy.

MIM says that women can overthrow patriarchy. MIM does not claim that women can not gain a consciousness under patriarchy.


Perhaps, but I object to the redefinition of rape such that it is so broad as to, literally in this case, include all sex. Doing so deleglitamizes real rapes and makes rape merely an exosocial phonomenon and not an immoral act in and of itself.

Rape is, in part a result of problems in society as a whole manifested in the behaviour of single individuals. In the case of &#39;all sex is rape&#39; rape is determined to include sex between individuals wherein the woman is influenced by the social phenomenon known as patriarchy.


Why?

Sex can be a terrible thing, it can be a wonderful thing. Again it depends the the specific circumstances.

I agree. I am saying that in the case of sex influenced by patriarchy (in my interpretation of the view of MIM) it is a terrible thing.

[LSD]

MIM says that women can overthrow patriarchy. MIM does not claim that women can not gain a consciousness under patriarchy.

Yes, but to overthrow it, they must first be aware of it. How can they lead a revolution if they are unable to gain consciousness?


In the case of &#39;all sex is rape&#39; rape is determined to include sex between individuals wherein the woman is influenced by the social phenomenon known as patriarchy.

Obviously. But my point is that that definition is incorrect.

Again, we are all influenced by social factors, but single specific social phenonmena, even those as pervasive as patriarchy are not the sole causes of our decision making.

Obviously, patriarchal conceptions play a role, but that does not mean that they play a dominant one. Personal psychology is ultimately far more important than pervailing social ideas.


I agree. I am saying that in the case of sex influenced by patriarchy (in my interpretation of the view of MIM) it is a terrible thing.

Well, what does "influenced by patriarchy" mean?

Does it mean any sex in class society, or only those sexual encounters where the prime reason for the woman&#39;s consent was patriarchal pressure.

If it&#39;s the later, then I agree. If it&#39;s the former then I most certainly do not.

[Xvall]

I don&#39;t give a damn who people fuck - I just hate it when they produce offspring.

[redstar2000]

There is a very amusing thread on MIM&#39;s "all sex is rape" line here...

http://marxleninmao.proboards43.com/index....read=1119615715 (http://marxleninmao.proboards43.com/index.cgi?board=w&action=display&thread=1119615715)

A member there, "Hyenagirl", gets after MIM for not carrying out their own line...making celibacy a requirement for party membership.

And watch the MIM supporters squirm. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[romanm]

I&#39;m not going to blame redstar for this because he doesn&#39;t know the background on Hyenagirl. Thanks for the plug also.

Hynagirl was an infiltrator, probably a cop; "she" certainly used cop methods. She posed as MIM for awhile. If redstar thinks real hard, he could even probably identify who hyenagirl really is. You dig?

She/he also invented lies and false statements by Prachanda in order to try to reduced our support for the peoples war in nepal. "She" has been identified by name by the admin.

Nothing Hynagirl says is to be taken seriously - "she" was sent to disrupt using cop methods.

Although if someone wants to advocate the line that not having sex in our ranks strikes a blow against the system patriarchy, please, come offer opinions.

If someone thinks "she" made some good points they are welcome to pick up the conversation in good faith.

[redstar2000]

Well, I don&#39;t see anything in that particular thread that was "cop-like" in her posts...although she certainly is being "disruptive" -- in the sense that anyone is disruptive when they point out a glaring contradiction between someone&#39;s political line and their actual practice.

Indeed, I pointed out quite some time ago that if your line is "all sex is rape under patriarchy", then it follows that members of MIM must take a vow of celibacy...if they are to carry out their own line in the one sphere where they actually have the power to do so.

What would my "line" against participating in bourgeois electoral charades be "worth" if you spotted me standing in line at a polling place?

You&#39;d say I was just bullshitting people and "not being serious", right? In fact, you&#39;d gloat -- "I told you redstar was nothing but a social democrat&#33;".

If you (and MIM) say that "all sex is rape under patriarchy" and yet do not enforce celibacy on your own membership, then Hyenagirl is right -- you&#39;re saying in effect that "it&#39;s ok to be a communist and a rapist".

She may indeed be "insincere" and just trying to "mindfuck" you guys...that&#39;s neither here nor there. Her logical argument can stand alone.

In the end, you&#39;re faced with the choice: abandon the line or carry it out&#33; You can&#39;t "sit on the fence".

If you do "sit on the fence", you&#39;ll be regarded like Chomsky -- who&#39;s always yapping about anarchism and workers&#39; control...except when he&#39;s telling people to vote for a billionaire imperialist.

MIM made this mess all by itself...now let&#39;s see if MIM can clean up after itself.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[romanm]

Redstar,

We lost 500 messages a couple weeks ago. So, you only see half of the story. When she originally came on she claimed to be MIM and made all kinds of comments designed to appear radical but make MIM look bad. I could go into great detail about this privately if you really need to know. Three people independently identified the writing style of this internet persynality/cop. If you put your mind to it, you probably could identify them also. Like I said, they did this while claiming to be MIM. The cops/group that sent this persyn has a history of this kind of thing.

After Admin had warned this persyn about blatently lieing. Admin even wanted to debate this persyn and their organization in the math section. Not that this would have been a 2 line struggle, we just wanted a foil. So, admin just required that this persyn give citations when representing themselves as MIM. Hyenagirl then knew her cover was blown and came out arguing more her real position - if she has a real position at all. We know who this persyn is by name. This persyn is a professional liar and possibly a cop. It really doesn&#39;t matter - if it qucks like a duck, then we might aswell asume it&#39;s a duck.

So, that is why I said, I&#39;m not going to call you on this. Cuz, you really don&#39;t know.

IRTR isn&#39;t MIM, it is connected to RAIL. Nobody currently represents MIM line on IRTR. I would like this to change in the future. If you look at the threads closely there are a number of positions expressed.

As always redstar you are welcome to come discuss Marx isn our math section.

[romanm]

Redstar says: Indeed, I pointed out quite some time ago that if your line is "all sex is rape under patriarchy", then it follows that members of MIM must take a vow of celibacy...if they are to carry out their own line in the one sphere where they actually have the power to do so.

Well, you are describing a religous/moralistic approach in my opinion. How is celibacy going to strike a blow at patriarchy? It won&#39;t. We know that. MIM would call this kind of moralizing subreformism.

Lifestylism is subreformism.

Adopting celibacy would also result in tactical problems also. It would put a gap between ourselves and the people we need to be mobilizing for the anti-imperialist struggle. Putting a lifestyle issue first would be not recognizing that the primary contradiction is imprialism vs oppressed nations. I&#39;m sure you see my point about this?

If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of all rape and imperialism and all injustice, I certainly would. But, we are in the real would and have to prioritize our struggles.

I think that the all sex is rape (in some sense) is a good line, tactically speaking. It certainly prods people to think about the issue in new ways. It also lends itself to less abuse than a "communists are better lovers" line.

Regarding your analogy. I don&#39;t think it is the same thing. Voting is about reform not subreform.

Think of it this way. Say you think all capitalism and exploitation is bad. Yet, as an Amerikan, you can&#39;t help but partake in it somehow. Would you drop out of the system? Go hide? "Tune in, turn off, drop out"? Would you give way your money and everything else in order to have a pure lifestyle? I would say this is SUB reformism, it isn&#39;t even reformism. It doesn&#39;t even try to really reform the system. You are not going to strike a blow against capitalism and exploitation by dropping out.

The same goes for patriarchy. Obviously sex is all screwed up and filled with oppression. This is a sick culture. So, what do you do? Do you "drop out"? Become celibate? Cut yourself off from the masses? This would not strike a blow against patriarchy. Instead you work for state power where these problems can be solved in a radical way.

My opinion is that enforced celibacy would hurt the long term goal of smashing patriarchy because it would cut the vanguard forces off from the people it needs to lead. But, this doesn&#39;t mean sex isn&#39;t coersion and oppressive and everything else. It just means we can&#39;t deal with this right now.

MIM does have rules for persynal behavoir. But, they are all based on security more than anything.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by romanm
Think of it this way. Say you think all capitalism and exploitation is bad. Yet, as an Amerikan, you can&#39;t help but partake in it somehow.

That is true...when you live in a sewer, you&#39;re going to stink no matter how "careful" you are.

But there are, after all, things that are widely regarded as flatly unacceptable behavior on the part of communists.

For example, if a comrade suggested to me that s/he was considering joining an imperialist army or a police force, I would "hit the ceiling" in outrage; I would strenuously try to talk them out of such a move...and if they did it anyway, I&#39;d have nothing more to do with them&#33;

I would assume that they were henceforward in "the camp of the enemy" regardless of their verbal promises to the contrary.

There&#39;s just no excuse for that kind of behavior on the part of a communist.

The refusal of communists to participate in imperialist war or domestic repression does not "stop" those things from happening...it just says we will not do those things.

Or "support" anyone who does those things, no matter how much they babble about their "leftism" or "communism".

However small our numbers or weak our influence, we draw lines and say that communists shall not cross those lines...no matter what.

There are lots of "gray areas" in capitalist life; people can and do argue at considerable length about "is it ok for communists to do this or that?".

I don&#39;t think it&#39;s necessary for communists to take "a vow of poverty", for example. But I do find it shocking (:o) when someone on this board admits to spending hundreds of dollars on a single item of clothing...I think they could have found a more politically useful way to spend that money.

Of course, most of the people on this board are not communists...so I don&#39;t usually "get on them" about something like that.

Now let us turn to MIM&#39;s line -- "all sex is rape under patriarchy".

The first question is: is that true?

I&#39;ve already explained why I think it is not true...but MIM believes it is true.

Then the question is: how is this line to be implemented within the party and among the masses?

If that question is ignored, then, of course, it&#39;s not really a "line" at all...it&#39;s just chatter. As someone said, paper will tolerate anything...and the internet even more so. Until a line is put into practice, it doesn&#39;t really mean anything in the real world.

Now, what would be the consequence of putting MIM&#39;s line -- "all sex is rape under patriarchy" -- into practice?

Wouldn&#39;t it mean, first of all, that the members of MIM itself would have to be celibate? Not because their celibacy would "stop patriarchy" but because rape is a reactionary practice that communists should not do.

I will concede that this is at least "quasi-moralistic"...but without drawing such lines, where would we end up? A super-liberal ethic that says "communists can do anything" as long as they express a verbal "commitment" to communism.

A swamp, in other words.

So if MIM is serious about its line, then it has to implement that line among its own members.

Secondly, it must advocate that line among its supporters and potential supporters. It must seek to "win" people to support and implement that line.

Unless you want to argue that patriarchy is "trivial" or a "secondary question", then you are compelled to "fight for your line".

Even if it&#39;s "unpopular" with the masses, you presumably "know it&#39;s true" and therefore, as a matter of political integrity, you must "fight" to win its acceptance.

Like the RCP with its line on the "greatness" of Bob Avakian -- they fight for the popular acceptance of that line inspite of the fact that nearly everyone who hears it immediately rejects it. They are "being honest" and telling all of us what they really think is true...even if all of us know that it&#39;s not true.

MIM has to do the same thing with its line of "all sex is rape under patriarchy"...or else it is being dishonest.

And the penalty for dishonesty in radical politics is very severe...internal rot and corruption.

In the thread on your board, it seemed to me that the MIM supporters were being very evasive about this whole matter...trying at one and the same time to justify both the line and why MIM "can&#39;t" actually implement it even among its own members and close supporters.

This may successfully divert criticism of the line itself...for a while. But MIM&#39;s leadership will pay a heavy price for its temporary avoidance of criticism...MIM&#39;s members will become cynical about the party&#39;s line.

Oh yeah, we have to say that shit but, fortunately, we don&#39;t have to do it.

I don&#39;t have to tell you where that leads.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[romanm]

I actually am not in total disagreement with you. I am absolutely against enforcing celibacy. I don&#39;t know anyone who is for that either.

But, something can be true but not pleasent or whatever. I am fine saying all sex is rape in some sense under patriarchy. I think its the only line compatible with a fully Marxist view of the self. Plus, I think opposing theories are based on crap folk psychology or religious views (or both).

Your point about what good is something if it has no benefit to a movement is a fair one. First I&#39;ll say that something can be tue, without being beneficial. If that case, should we defend it anyway? I think MIM, and I don&#39;t speak for MIM, places a high priority on looking for people who are revoluitionary scientists and will go where truth leads them. Although MIM does seek to lead "the bottom 20%" (this is just a rough kind of estimate, not based on class obviously), I think MIM knows it isn&#39;t going to be winning any populatiry contests with its 3rd cardinal principle about the labor aristocracy. So, my feeling is, MIM isn&#39;t really out there trying to recruit whoever will listen. MIM has even described that kind of approach as akin to the moonies. So, MIM will tell it like it is even if it isolates them from large segments of Amerikkka. MIM has written off most of Amerikkka anyways.

The real concern is about the 20% MIM is trying to lead. I have already pretty much agreed with you - or partially - on this point. I think enforcing such a celibacy only line would absolutely be wrong and cut MIM off from its supporters. Plus, subreformism isn&#39;t really going to get us where we need to be. To put lifestyle purity ahead of or even on par with the fight against imperialism would be wrong in my opinion.

Perrhaps you think that there is even too high a price to have the line at all. Perhaps you think even having the line is going to hurt real work fighting imperialism. I&#39;d say this is the best objection to the line. I have made it myself. As you may or may not know this is not a splitting issue for MIM. MIM only has 3 or 4 real splitting issues, depending on how you could them. MIM calls them cardinal principles. 1 & 2 are basically upholding Maoism. 3 is about parasiticism (Marx&#39;s term) of the 1st world, 4 is over democratic centralism. So, it is possible someone would disagree over the all sex is rape line and still be in MIM - at least that is my understanding.

As far as tactical benefits, there are some. Upholding that kind of line does obviously cut back on abuses by males especially within the organization. It is part of a general tough stand toward partiarchy. I certainly lends itself to less abuse than "communists are better lovers". I have heard that MIM doesn&#39;t allow members to sleep with recruits. So, its just part of an over all attempt to have a high level of integrity. Like MIM has said, its critics wouldn&#39;t know integrity if it slapped them in the face. Would enforced celibacy be having more integrity? In a sense it would. But, it&#39;s a trade off obviously. MIM has picked a position which is the most radical possible under current conditions while still working for change. You might feel it is an empty gesture - I&#39;m not going to apologize for not being able to do more though - I certainly would like to more, but we are where we are.

On the issue about consent after patriarchy. I actually don&#39;t agree with using the word consent at all for the reasons you mention. It is heavy metaphysical folk psychology.

There are at least two separate arguments. 1. Rape is when there is no consent. Consent is impossible under patriarchy. Therefore, all sex is rape.

I disagree with the above forumlation.

Another: 2. Rape is a sexual act where coersion (of a kind) is involved. All humyn relations in class society involve these coersions therefore, all sex is rape under class society.

I agree with the second formulation more. I only use the first argument to get the idea across in an easier way. AsI said to LSD, sometimes we have to make terminological compromises whenn we are trying to bridge paradigms.

Your charge of folk psychology is fair for the 1st formulation, but not the second which is totally compatible with a Marxist view of the self.

I like your line about the sewer. I will use that in the future.

[Taiga]

I am really confused. I am a woman, you know, and suddenly I find out that I have no control over my body. That anytime I want to have sex with somebody he&#39;s raping me. WTF? I really don&#39;t understand.

And, you know, your position is very offensive. :angry:

[romanm]

Actually, I don&#39;t think gender and sex are the same thing. Someone can be biologically male and gendered female, etc.. I actually think there are more genders than simply two. Most first world people are gendered closer to "male", even the females. Some first world males are gendered closer to "females" - prisoners might be an example.

What I want people to do is look at gender oppression as a system and not get hung up on the lifestyle crap. I want people to look at this like Marx looked at exploitation. Marx was not hung up on moral qusi-religious issues in this way. He was about getting to the root of it.

On top of that, I would say so what about your subjective desires? Under capitalism we are programmed with all kinds of oppressive desires?

I may want a pair of Nikes, it doesn&#39;t make it a good thing. Nor, would restricting this want or advocating against Nikes somehow take away freedom unless you believe in an inherent right to oppress.

There is some debate on IRTR about if we should consider some cases of equal status gender oppressor sex as two way rape or not rape at all. The resoning for the second option is because since they are gender oppressors, raping is reaffirming their privilege and status. They are eroticizing their power and position.

Anyways, there are alot of issues that need to be opened up here. But, it isn&#39;t going to be even opened up unless we look at these things in a deeper way that people are use to. All Sex is Rape, if anything, moves the discussion forward.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by romanm
I actually am not in total disagreement with you. I am absolutely against enforcing celibacy. I don&#39;t know anyone who is for that either.

But my point is that MIM should be for that...if they want to actually carry out their line.

The fact that they decline to enforce celibacy suggests that they&#39;re not really serious about that line.

Which, in turn, suggests that MIM put forward this line in order to sound really "radical" rather than as a serious proposition that should be implemented.


But, something can be true but not pleasant or whatever. I am fine saying all sex is rape in some sense under patriarchy. I think it&#39;s the only line compatible with a fully Marxist view of the self.

Actually, I think it would probably be closer to the spirit of Marx&#39;s observations to say that "all sex under the combination of patriarchy and modern capitalism in which we live is prostitution".

Men have money and purchase sexual services from women -- services that may be temporary or quasi-permanent.

It&#39;s not "rape" even metaphorically; it&#39;s a business transaction.

Down towards the bottom of class society where men have very little money...it&#39;s possible for women to essentially ignore financial considerations because there&#39;s no point to them. But the higher you move up, the more important money becomes. In some cases towards the top, the woman will be very wealthy in her own right...and she can either purchase male sexual services (toyboys) or negotiate an equal or quasi-equal relationship with a wealthy male or both.

Most communists, male or female, don&#39;t have much money to begin with; under such circumstances, it seems to me that a relationship essentially free of financial considerations is quite possible...especially if the couple does not have and refrains from having children.

But in most relationships, the male&#39;s earning potential exceeds the female&#39;s by a substantial amount. He is "hiring" her -- he is the "bourgeois" and she is the "proletarian".


So, MIM will tell it like it is even if it isolates them from large segments of Amerikkka. MIM has written off most of Amerikkka anyways.

All the more reason then to go ahead and implement their line on "all sex is rape under patriarchy"...they have nothing to lose.

(Another example of the same phenomenon. MIM considers the American working class to be entirely "aristocratic" -- vastly overpaid for its labor through acquiring a share of "imperialist super-profits".

Very well, that means MIM should publicly oppose all strikes by American workers -- "no raises for lazy parasites", etc.

Does MIM actually do that? Are they willing, once again, to carry out their own line or not?)


Perhaps you think even having the line is going to hurt real work fighting imperialism.

Well, yes. I think it&#39;s a bad line (that is, an incorrect analysis) and will certainly drive away anyone but "asexuals"...people who are just uninterested in mating with anyone.

MIM "ought" to scrap the whole idea and boot the idiots who came up with it -- it&#39;s a line that diminishes the genuine horror of real rape and insults all women as nothing but "helpless victims of male lust".


Upholding that kind of line does obviously cut back on abuses by males especially within the organization. It is part of a general tough stand toward patriarchy.

See what you&#39;re saying here? That "communist" men in MIM "will abuse" communist women in MIM by having sex with them.

Or "male sex = abuse" by definition.

Now If MIM really believes that, then they must demand and enforce celibacy on their membership.

Otherwise, their integrity is down the toilet...no matter what the integrity of their critics.

A liar can call another a liar...and be right.


It certainly lends itself to less abuse than "communists are better lovers".

Only by virtue of MIM&#39;s special definition of abuse -- having sex.


I certainly would like to [do] more, but we are where we are.

So we may assume that you personally have committed yourself to celibacy and you wish that MIM would do so, right?


Rape is a sexual act where coercion (of a kind) is involved. All humyn relations in class society involve these coercions, therefore, all sex is rape under class society.

If "all human relations in class society" involve "coercion", then only the autistic or the social isolate may be said to be free...for neither of those groups interact with others at all.

And so it must always be...for even in a communist society we will still interact with people, feel "compelled" (by micro-causes) to "give way" to this person&#39;s desires while demanding that someone else "give way" to ours.

Communism will involve much greater reliance on persuasion and seduction, no doubt. But even that is "coercion of a kind", is it not?


Actually, I don&#39;t think gender and sex are the same thing. Someone can be biologically male and gendered female, etc.. I actually think there are more genders than simply two. Most first world people are gendered closer to "male", even the females. Some first world males are gendered closer to "females" - prisoners might be an example.

Males as gender are "dominant" and "aggressive"; females as gender are "submissive" and "passive".

If a male acts submissively, he&#39;s gendered "closer to females"; if a woman acts aggressively, she&#39;s gendered "closer to males".

I find it puzzling that you should reduce behavioral traits to gender stereotypes...particularly such dated stereotypes. Those ideas were already starting to crack in the 19th century...now they seem, well, quaint.

Does MIM think that people are still thinking like they did in 1850 or 1900?


Under capitalism we are programmed with all kinds of oppressive desires.

Well, yes and no. Capitalists try very hard to "program us" to buy crap that we don&#39;t need...that&#39;s true.

And they try almost as hard to "program us" with ideas that we don&#39;t need either.

Because we are not computers, their efforts are often unsuccessful.

Desiring a sexual encounter with an attractive partner is not something that capitalists "programmed us" to do...the programming is a bit deeper than that.


There is some debate on IRTR about if we should consider some cases of equal status gender oppressor sex as two way rape or not rape at all.

"Two way rape"?

A MIM love-poem would begin: Come, my love, and let us rape one another until the sky blushes with dawn.

MIM is an "Alice-in-Wonderland" experience.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[romanm]

I find alot of what you wrote dishonest. For example when you try to peg my position as somehow sexist when I clearly used scare quotes in order to avoid that. Again, I am trying to introduce a scientific outlook to the subject where a vocabulary does not exist in full yet. I also said that what most people think are first world "female" gendered are actually "male" gender oppressors. It isn&#39;t about biology - you introduced that. Obviously a first wold gender oppressor with "female biology" can rape. Look at Ms. England in Iraq&#33;

I would like to drop the terms "male" and "female" and "consent" - but I am trying to be understood, that means a certain compromise in our terms. I would be fine if we talked in terms of "gender oppressor type 1A" eventually and so on.. But, nobody would even be able to begin to follow that kind of jargon - and you know it. When bringing a new scientific theory forward, there are usually terminological compromises to bridge the old understanding to the new paradigm. Don&#39;t act so thick - you aren&#39;t that dumb.

You&#39;re the one who introduced the sterotype, not me. Your charge of sexism is a cheap trick to avoid the issue.
Okay, you think all sex is prostitution. Well, gee, maybe you should be celibate&#33; I would agree that sex is prostitution has an element of truth to it also. One MIM supporter actually takes this position on our forum, but developes it better than you position here. But your "all or nothing" attitude about lifestyles is subreformism. Obviously we need to prioritize the contradictions within what is realistically possible. We need to smash patriarchy, in the long term adopting celibacy as a policy will actually hurt that goal because it will alienate the vaguard forces from the masses. But, that does not make it less true&#33;

Redstar says: she can either purchase male sexual services (toyboys) or negotiate an equal or quasi-equal relationship with a wealthy male or both. Most communists, male or female, don&#39;t have much money to begin with; under such circumstances, it seems to me that a relationship essentially free of financial considerations is quite possible...

Most communists in the first world are not exploited and have plenty of money (For anyone who thinks differently, I invite them to our economics forums to talk to some expert Marxist revolutionary economists). I don&#39;t know where you live and I don&#39;t want to know, but in most ghettos I have lived in sex off the street costs about the same price as a couple meals at a fast food place. It&#39;s pretty sick actually.

Redstar says: Desiring a sexual encounter with an attractive partner is not something that capitalists "programmed us" to do...the programming is a bit deeper than that.

I would say that some attractiveness is biological most likely (like body symetery), but most isn&#39;t. I haven&#39;t done the studies, so I really don&#39;t know. Perhaps you have. Can you point me to some literature on this? Or is this just more Redstar hotair?

Nobody said that being attracted to someone was bad in itself&#33; Although certainly most attraction has a negative component in this sewer. Very few people in this society are considered attractive. Most old people over a certain age are considered totally unattractive. Attraction is also tied to all kinds of reactionary shit. You think it is biological to be attracted to someone in a cheerleading outfit? or someone who makes baby talk? or a guy in a Armani? Or someone with gold teeth and baggy pants? Come on&#33; Humyn sexual desire is totally corrupted.

This has nothing to do with the main topic anyways.

The larger issue is to move this from a discussion of subreformism to actually looking at gender as a system which is what MIM is trying.

You can call me in wonderland all you want, we&#39;re in the middle of Amerikkka which is more or less a wonderland. Amerikkka serves up a whole buffet of fantasy lives for Amerikans to choose from and place their energy into. It&#39;s a kind of post modern liberal society, of course it&#39;s based on sucking the 3rd world dry. I&#39;m just trying to unplug people from the matrix - and so is MIM. And, you don&#39;t have to tell me that my ideas seem radical&#33; I&#39;m a revolutionary - I wold be suprised if they didn&#39;t.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by romanm+--> (romanm)I find alot of what you wrote dishonest.[/b]

I find a lot of what you write incomprehensible.

Those are the breaks.


Again, I am trying to introduce a scientific outlook to the subject where a vocabulary does not exist in full yet.

When you have new scientific ideas to put forward, it is often necessary to construct a new vocabulary to express them with precision.

I don&#39;t see any "new ideas" in what you have put forward thus far.

There seems to me to be very little perceptible difference between "all sex is rape" and "all sex is sin"...except that the former dispenses with supernatural disapproval.


Obviously a first world gender oppressor with "female biology" can rape. Look at Ms. England in Iraq&#33;

I was not aware that she actually compelled the victims of her torture to have sex with her or anyone. Are you sure about your statement or are you "expanding" your definition of rape again?


I would like to drop the terms "male" and "female" and "consent" - but I am trying to be understood, that means a certain compromise in our terms.

The problem is not in your terminology; it&#39;s in the lack of clarity in your (and MIM&#39;s) ideas.

You start by not understanding what rape is and isn&#39;t.

Seduction is not rape.

Sexual harassment is not rape.

Prostitution is not rape.

When you try to use rape as a "general metaphor" for all sexual relationships/encounters, you simply generate endless confusion.

There are plenty of useful words you (and MIM) could use to describe the "atmosphere" of patriarchy...but MIM made a very bad choice.

And the more they squirm and wiggle to avoid the consequences of their bad choice, the more unprincipled they look.


Okay, you think all sex is prostitution.

No, that&#39;s not what I said...please read more carefully.


Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)Actually, I think it would probably be closer to the spirit of Marx&#39;s observations to say that "all sex under the combination of patriarchy and modern capitalism in which we live is prostitution".[/b]

And I went on to add this qualification...


[email protected]
Down towards the bottom of class society where men have very little money...it&#39;s possible for women to essentially ignore financial considerations because there&#39;s no point to them.

And then I went on to apply that qualification specifically to communists.


redstar2000
Most communists, male or female, don&#39;t have much money to begin with; under such circumstances, it seems to me that a relationship essentially free of financial considerations is quite possible...especially if the couple does not have and refrains from having children.

That&#39;s not the same as saying that "all sex is prostitution".


But your "all or nothing" attitude about lifestyles is subreformism.

That&#39;s a rather...convenient objection, is it not? If someone insists that MIM should actually practice what it preaches, then MIM can always "dodge the bullet" by labeling their critics "subreformist".

Neat trick&#33; :lol:


Most communists in the first world are not exploited and have plenty of money.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Of course, in the circles you travel in, maybe there&#39;s some truth to that statement. :lol:


...but in most ghettos I have lived in sex off the street costs about the same price as a couple meals at a fast food place.

Well, we can all offer anecdotal evidence. Back in the 1980s, the street-price of sex in San Francisco&#39;s Tenderloin was around &#036;50...about 20% of the monthly rent for a small apartment in that neighborhood. I would imagine the prices are much higher now...but who knows?


I would say that some attractiveness is biological most likely (like body symmetry), but most isn&#39;t.

Why do you think "most isn&#39;t"? Male and female attractiveness seem to fit fairly consistent patterns...that are "cross-cultural".

Of course there are other "attractants" which are cultural in nature. Signs of wealth, status, sexual availability, etc. are certainly cultural in origin and operate independently (or semi-independently) of biology. Those are things that we have to learn as we grow up.

But the available evidence suggests strongly that we have a "template" in our own heads that we measure potential mates against. The closer they are to that "template", the more attractive we find them.


Very few people in this society are considered attractive.

Which is to say that very few people "measure up" to the template in our minds.


Most old people over a certain age are considered totally unattractive.

Well, they are unattractive. Beauty in all societies is strongly correlated with youth.


You think it is biological to be attracted to someone in a cheerleading outfit? Or someone who makes baby talk? Or a guy in an Armani? Or someone with gold teeth and baggy pants? Come on&#33; Humyn sexual desire is totally corrupted.

"Totally corrupted"? Only for those who are simply unable to see past the superficial.

I suspect that you might be in that number...along, perhaps, with many people who would join a group like MIM.


The larger issue is to move this from a discussion of subreformism to actually looking at gender as a system which is what MIM is trying.

Perhaps your difficulty lies in the possibility that patriarchy isn&#39;t a system in the same sense that capitalism is a system.

Patriarchy was an actual system at the dawn of class society...but if you look at "the big picture", it&#39;s been weakening and becoming more "diffuse" for a very long time.

You can actually "see" this taking place in the Christian "holy book". In most of the Old Testament, women are plainly regarded as property and "good women" behave appropriately. In the New Testament, women are more assertive...and the disgusting Paulos of Tarsus must constantly remonstrate with them for their "unruly behavior".

If one understands the capitalist system of our era, it&#39;s plain to see that capitalism undermines patriarchy even while some capitalist ideologues try vainly to preserve it.

The cold eye of commodity exchange does not give a rat&#39;s ass about patriarchy, religion, "race", nationality, or any of the old pre-capitalist crap.

Profit is everything and the only thing that really counts. The remnants of patriarchy still exist...but only because there is still money to be made from it.

I think that even if there were no proletarian revolution in the "first world" over the next couple of centuries, patriarchy would be, in practical terms, a "dead issue".

It would have ceased to be profitable...and been abandoned.


You can call me in wonderland all you want, we&#39;re in the middle of Amerikkka which is more or less a wonderland. Amerikkka serves up a whole buffet of fantasy lives for Amerikans to choose from and place their energy into.

Yes, I&#39;m familiar with the idea of "America as Theme Park".

But, you know, it&#39;s not really like that...except on the dummyvision and in the movies. The "lifestyle choices" for most people are sharply constrained by their economic circumstances. Some few folks may manage to secure or even invent a "liberated niche" in this society...often at the price of catering to the whims of the wealthy.

Imagine the life of a "pet psychologist"? Or a "holistic medicine practitioner"? Or a "host" at a casino?

The real versions of "American fantasy" are, I expect, pretty dismal.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[romanm]

As far as the attractiveness issue - that is separate from this thread. Like I said, I haven&#39;t studied the issue cross-culturally. And, I seriously doubt redstar has. So, it&#39;s kind of not really worth getting into. If Redstar has done a study on this, I would very much ask him to send me a copy - I am somewhat interested in this topic. I encourage him to post his cross cultural studies here or, better yet, over on IRTR forums. I would love a bibliography on the subject.

Anyways - nothing new was said in Redstar&#39;s last post. He thinks I and MIM and myself don&#39;t practice what we preach. This makes absolutely no sense to me since what I peach is that one should adopt the most radical and true line possible on the issue while not undercutting other life and death work. I say cigarettes are bad also, that doesn&#39;t mean I am going to kick someone out of the anti-imperialist struggle because they smoke. The subreformist approach actually hurts the wider goals. It&#39;s called prioritizing the contradictions. A more correct criticism that redstar could make is that the "all sex is rape" line is an empty gesture - and I would say, he is partially right, because we obviously can&#39;t do a whole lot about it without undercutting other work. Redstar refuses to deal with any kind of subtlety on this and instead takes a moralistic religious approach that doesn&#39;t see that struggles are very complicated and adopting a certain position could undercut other work. What I and MIM do is take the most revolutionary position on this issue while not undercutting our other work. Redstar half forumlated a criticism that even to elevate the rape issue to a line is undercutting out other work - this is a criticism worth listening to and struggling with in my opinion. Instead of developing the real criticisms, he instead panders to the lowest denominator - which is pretty damn low.

He, like he always does, throws out the proletarian cred argument - "maybe in the circles you in" - what cricles are those redstar? Waht circles do I travel in?

Instead of dealing with line, he wants to deal in background. Well, revolutionaries don&#39;t give out persynal information online. And he should know that. He has very sloppy security culture.

If he wants to know about MIM, I suggest he look at MIM&#39;s web page. MIM seeks to lead the bottom 20%. They focus alot on captive nation struggles. They also focus on prisons. I think redstar is being very dishonest here or he is projecting his stereotypes onto me. He might check out the fact that a large ammount of MIM articles are written by prisoners. In anycase, he is welcome to his low road.

On class analysis - Redstar has an open invitation to share his wisdom over on IRTR forums regarding class in Amerika.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by romanm
As far as the attractiveness issue - that is separate from this thread.

Only in the sense that if humans found each other sexually unattractive, then celibacy would be easy.

In any event, an interesting and popular study of the matter is...Survival of the prettiest : the science of beauty by Nancy L. Etcoff (ISBN 0385479425).


I say cigarettes are bad also, that doesn&#39;t mean I am going to kick someone out of the anti-imperialist struggle because they smoke.

Cigarette smoking is equivalent to rape???


Redstar refuses to deal with any kind of subtlety on this and instead takes a moralistic religious approach that doesn&#39;t see that struggles are very complicated and adopting a certain position could undercut other work.

You and MIM prefer a "secular liberal" approach that says you should always advocate "the right thing" even when you know damn well that you&#39;re not going to do anything about it.


Instead of developing the real criticisms, he instead panders to the lowest denominator - which is pretty damn low.

If you cannot justify your line (and your failure to implement it) to ordinary people in ordinary language...don&#39;t blame me&#33;

You cannot expect to go around proclaiming that "all sex is rape under patriarchy" and expect people to respond "oh, that&#39;s nice".

It&#39;s not.


What circles do I travel in?

The circles where communists have, in your own words, "plenty of money". Most of the communists I&#39;ve ever known actually had a somewhat lower standard-of-living than the average worker...and some of them were no more than a step or two above homelessness.

Communists "with money" don&#39;t stay communist very long...at least that&#39;s been my experience.

But in your circles?


On class analysis - Redstar has an open invitation to share his wisdom over on IRTR forums regarding class in Amerika.

Easier for them to come here, I would think.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Anarchist Freedom]

All sex under patriarchy is rape? :rolleyes:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Anarchist [email protected] 7 2005, 02:06 AM
All sex under patriarchy is rape? :rolleyes:
That was my reaction. I&#39;m amazed Redstar has the patience to debate such a retarded idea.

[Don't Change Your Name]

I wouldn&#39;t be surprised if we find a "all food is reactionary" thread one of these days...


By the way, according to this notion rape created us.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Anarchist [email protected] 7 2005, 02:06 AM
All sex under patriarchy is rape? :rolleyes:
I was thinking that when I saw Redstar&#39;s reaction to Romanm&#39;s fir post and I didnt come across anything of that sort.

PS: What I also want to know is why people make such a big fucking deal about sex in the first place.

[Black Dagger]

PS: What I also want to know is why people make such a big fucking deal about sex in the first place.

Have sex and your question will (most likely) become redundant.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 7 2005, 09:30 AM

PS: What I also want to know is why people make such a big fucking deal about sex in the first place.

Have sex and your question will (most likely) become redundant.
I am asking that question from a shy xenophobic virgin&#39;s point of view.

[Black Dagger]

Do you enjoy masturbating? Think that, but a million times better, if you dont masturbate, start ;)

People make a &#39;big deal&#39; about sex because it feels great, it&#39;s a way to be close to someone you may love, great at relieving stress, did i mention it feels great? Why do you think the phrase &#39;better than sex&#39; exists? Because sex sets the standard for great feelings&#33;*




* This may depend on you, and your partner :P

[romanm]

Redstar: The circles where communists have, in your own words, "plenty of money". Most of the communists I&#39;ve ever known actually had a somewhat lower standard-of-living than the average worker...and some of them were no more than a step or two above homelessness.Communists "with money" don&#39;t stay communist very long...at least that&#39;s been my experience. But in your circles?

Almost all Amerikkkans have plenty of money - and the ones that do not are not on this forum. You are rich by my standards. They are certainly not exploited according to Marx&#39;s LTV (Which we can explain to you over on IRTR). Most on this forum are rich. Yes, most first world communists have plenty of money. And, since, we have spoken of this at length in the past, all you are doing here is a dishonest ploy for your peanut gallery. You knew exactly what I meant.

Obviously my comments don&#39;t apply to my comrades in the 3rd world who wouldn&#39;t be reading this forum in the first place.

[Black Dagger]

romanm, do you live in the US? Are you a part of the working class?

[romanm]

Blackdagger,

As much as I would love to answer, we don&#39;t answer any background questions. The first reason has to do with security. Redstar know this, which is why his background baiting is so dishonest. I have informed him of this in the past. The second reason has to do with the fact we feel that line is important not background. It really doesn&#39;t matter if you some rich white Amerikan, it doesn&#39;t matter. If you are willing to betray your nation and class of origin, I say more power to you. If you are willing to bound up your life with those who are turly oppressed and take up a proletarian scientific outlook - well, that&#39;s great. History has examples like John Brown and the St. Patrick&#39;s batallion.

My view is that communists in Amerika are behind enemy lines. We don&#39;t need to make the job of the Pigs job easier. We call requests for background information "pig questions" which isn&#39;t to say everyone who is curious is a pig. It just means that asking background questions or baiting people for persynal informtion helps the pigs.

[LSD]

Not to blow your mind, romanm, but if they were so inclined, any "pigs" could easily determine your location by taking a quick look at your IP.

If I really wanted to, I could visit your home town today&#33; :o

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by romanm
You are rich by my standards.

My pension is &#036;1,000 per month. My net worth (all the money I&#39;m likely to have at any given moment) is about &#036;2,000.

If you are really even poorer than I am, you are really in the shit&#33; :o


Yes, most first world communists have plenty of money.

I see...you just like to assert things without troubling yourself with evidence of any sort.

Very well, I will reply in kind.

I think you&#39;re completely wrong about that&#33;

Ok?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Rasta Sapian]

I think that if you are thinking about celibacy you are using your brain too much&#33;

So here is my advise to you, let your head have a rest and allow some of that blood to flow down to your pants and you might change your mind. :P

[BuyOurEverything]

romanm: Just to clarify, you believe all sex is rape. Therefor, I would assume, that you don&#39;t support sex of any kind. How then, would you propose to continue making people?

Also, I know this has already been said, but I would like a clear straightforward answer. Do you believe that all women in our society are incapable of making rational decisions about their actions? Because if you&#39;re saying that all sex is rape, then you are saying that all women who have ever consented to sex are stupid and misguided.

Furthermore, do you believe that women do not have a sexual drive? Or do you believe that they do, but that they should simply repress it for their entire lives so as not to be raped by a partner of their choosing?

One more thing. I realize that I&#39;m stating the obvious here, but if you are in fact stating that all sex is rape, then you are calling a large portion of this board, myself included, rapists. That is a very serious accusation.

[romanm]

One more thing. I realize that I&#39;m stating the obvious here, but if you are in fact stating that all sex is rape, then you are calling a large portion of this board, myself included, rapists. That is a very serious accusation

I don&#39;t really know what persynal lives of the people on this forum. Nor, do I care to know what decadent imperialist lives most in the forum lead.

I&#39;ve already covered your other points - which are just a rehash of earlier posts on the topic. I suggest you reread the thread before adding your 2 cents. Several others raised the exact points you did and were responded to.


Furthermore, do you believe that women do not have a sexual drive? Or do you believe that they do, but that they should simply repress it for their entire lives so as not to be raped by a partner of their choosing?

I actually believe that gender oppressors are programmed to enjoy raping and being raped. 1st world bio men and bio wimmin are gender oppressors and could be considered gendered "male." But, I have already covered this also. there is a whole discussion of this on our forum. If you are really interested, you can come raise your concerns - but please read what others have already written on the subject.

[LSD]

I don&#39;t really know what persynal lives of the people on this forum. Nor, do I care to know what decadent imperialist lives most in the forum lead.

Which is ironic considering your own, um, "decadent imperialist" life. Those who live in glass houses and all....


1st world bio men and bio wimmin are gender oppressors

Wow, was that actually even a sentence? :blink:

What the fuck is a "bio wimmin"&#33;? I tried looking it up on dictionary.com, but my computer exploded.


and could be considered gendered "male."

Which, of course, assumes that male is "naturally" dominant and female "naturally" submissive.

Can you say sexism?

[mexican rebel 13]

sex does not have to be that big of a deal. i mean i dont trust marriage and all that but i&#39;ll try and not to be much of a manwhore but hey life is short you got to have some fun with it.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Certainly, sex occurs in a given context - in a patriarchal, sexually-fucked-up society. The real object of the whole operation, however, is not simply to realize this, but to develop a way by which this can be changed. The "All sex is rape&#33;" line is not, nor will it be, an effective way of addressing the problem.
Saying "Sod sex&#33;" is hardly the first step down the road to undermining gender and patriarchy. A revolutionary program should seek to blur, not reinforce, lines of gender/sexuality, and empower, women, queers, etc. to define and create their own spaces - revolutionary victories amidst the prevailing climate of reaction.
Admittedly, there&#39;s a lot going through my head on this question, only a limited ammount of which is translating itself onto the screen, but ultimately, I think my sentiment can be summed up like this:

Rather than saying "No sex&#33;" we should be saying "Positive sex&#33; And more of it&#33;"

[Monty Cantsin]

Explain to me how modern capitalists societies are patriarchal?

[DaCuBaN]

Explain to me how modern capitalists societies are patriarchal?

I don&#39;t think it&#39;s a product of capitalism (I don&#39;t think that coffin needs any more nails anyway), more a product of a different era that we are rapidly trying to whitewash. Howver, as a general rule in modern society, men earn more than women. More men hold positions of power in the various nation states and more men run the business interests that pull the strings of aforementioned governments. In our (UK) comprehensive schools, boys and girls are subdivided and boys sent to "Technology", girls sent to "Home Economics" (although it&#39;s possible to change, this is the default). This is all aside from the very standardised idea of the father being the breadwinner, the mother the housekeeper - there are endless accounts.

And yes, our societies are for the most part patriarchal. Does this make all sex rape? No - it&#39;s an absurd idea, as our own "free will" is in itself somewhat of an illusion, which brings us to the idea:


"If "consent is a myth", then how can I consent to revolution?"

Which is the really interesting question in this thread :)

It was briefly covered by LSD and Romann*(I think) and furthered by RS a few pages back that the idea of consent is in fact null - if we accept that we are a product of our society, and our actions are, although not predetermined, heavily and continuously influenced by these forces then we cannot have what we like to think of as our "free will" - with a large and complex enough compuation tool and enough time to study a single individual, their actions could be predicted - in essence, we could figure out what makes them "tick".

I&#39;m no determinist, but there&#39;s something in that that makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck...

In regards to the thread itself, the idea of celibacy, some of you may know that I have chosen this life myself for one simple reason: so as to avoid causing suffering to both myself and others. Celibacy is, like promiscuity, a choice (in as much as we have any&#33;) we all must make ourselves. It certainly is laughable to consider it a political policy... Even "godsuckers" who do this purely because their god wishes it fail miserably in this task - clergy and otherwise&#33;

:redstar2000:

[Anarchist Freedom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 12:51 AM

One more thing. I realize that I&#39;m stating the obvious here, but if you are in fact stating that all sex is rape, then you are calling a large portion of this board, myself included, rapists. That is a very serious accusation

I don&#39;t really know what persynal lives of the people on this forum. Nor, do I care to know what decadent imperialist lives most in the forum lead.

I&#39;ve already covered your other points - which are just a rehash of earlier posts on the topic. I suggest you reread the thread before adding your 2 cents. Several others raised the exact points you did and were responded to.


Furthermore, do you believe that women do not have a sexual drive? Or do you believe that they do, but that they should simply repress it for their entire lives so as not to be raped by a partner of their choosing?

I actually believe that gender oppressors are programmed to enjoy raping and being raped. 1st world bio men and bio wimmin are gender oppressors and could be considered gendered "male." But, I have already covered this also. there is a whole discussion of this on our forum. If you are really interested, you can come raise your concerns - but please read what others have already written on the subject.
Sigh.... :rolleyes:

[Palmares]

Objectively, could it be "acceptable" for two members of the MIM to have "sex"?

Ever?

Will "sex" always be "rape"?

Are the MIM pseudo-primitavists? :lol:

[romanm]

If you are interest in MIM&#39;s policy on sex between comrades, I suggest you read their web page.

[Seeker]

Do you hurt anyone by not having sex? No. Celibacy is 100% moral. It is better to go without than to put all the time, effort, and money into courtship and relationship maintenance. Monogamy and marriage are very bad ideas that cause great deals of suffering.

Ideally we would all have sex whenever we want, however we want, with whatever we want. If it is consensual, it is ok.

I think a commitment to a sexual partner should only go as deep as the time you spend practicing together to better please eachother.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 07:31 AM
Do you hurt anyone by not having sex? No. Celibacy is 100% moral. It is better to go without than to put all the time, effort, and money into courtship and relationship maintenance. Monogamy and marriage are very bad ideas that cause great deals of suffering.

Ideally we would all have sex whenever we want, however we want, with whatever we want. If it is consensual, it is ok.

I think a commitment to a sexual partner should only go as deep as the time you spend practicing together to better please eachother.
I totally agree that it doesn&#39;t hurt to be celibate but you do realize that ALOT of other members won&#39;t be as understanding as me right? <_< Yeah but then again you don&#39;t really need to be "in a relationship" to have sex but I guess to make it meaningful then its necessary. I think you made some good points :).

[Palmares]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 03:37 PM
If you are interest in MIM&#39;s policy on sex between comrades, I suggest you read their web page.
Do you know what the policy is?

[romanm]

yes.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 08:50 PM
yes.
And the policy is? :rolleyes:

[redstar2000]

Don&#39;t ask. Don&#39;t tell. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Hate Is Art]

Do you hurt anyone by not having sex? No. Celibacy is 100% moral.

Moral? What&#39;s so great about morality? And who&#39;s morals anyway?

Monogamy and marriage are very bad ideas that cause great deals of suffering.

And a great deal of happiness? Ever been in love?

I think a commitment to a sexual partner should only go as deep as the time you spend practicing together to better please eachother

Ahhh, never been in love then?

[Redmau5]

I think a commitment to a sexual partner should only go as deep as the time you spend practicing together to better please eachother.

If you&#39;re a cold-hearted bastard, then yeah you could easily manage that. Unfortunatly it&#39;s not always that easy. Regardless if you want it or not, feelings for people usually creep up some time or another.

[Rasta Sapian]

Yo ZMan, nice thread bro,

Here is my 2 cents......... Celibacy between 2 people in love.......... holding on.......................waiting....... untill they get married.............sooner tha better........................would definatley make the big night much more intense and places consemation on a hole nother level.

But that takes skills, regular bonified vergion or mind controlling / duck taped underware = chastity belt 10 gauge type of control. Power 2 U my friend.

In regards to the question on is sex rape? Fuck No&#33; Sex or what I like to call getting it on is a consentual agreement between a man and a women, or how ever yall swing. Anyway if I was making out with a lady friend and pulled it out "trying to get it on" and the lady did not want it but it happened anyway then that is rape, its no fucking joke.

peace yall

[Hate Is Art]

Do you have brain damage?

[TheReadMenace]

Fuckin&#39; like bunnies; Breedin&#39; like rats
We’re shittin&#39; out the babies & I’m tellin&#39; you that that’s
Mad against the better judgment in our human history
Take some time to think it over; It&#39;s not difficult to see
You can wait until you&#39;re older; Or you&#39;re in a better place
Just remember there&#39;s no way to win this fucked-up human race
I know you might be searchin&#39; for some meaning on this earth
(But) You’ll be stabbin&#39; nature in the back by givin&#39; into birth

You’re too ugly & I’m too fat
What kind of seed are we to spawn with genetic cards like that?
Plus addiction and depression is just swimmin&#39; in my cum
And we are weak & dumb

Fuckin&#39; like bunnies; Breedin&#39; like rats
We’re shittin&#39; out the babies & I’m tellin&#39; you that that’s
Mad against the better judgment in our human history
Take some time to think it over; It&#39;s not difficult to see

We&#39;re mostly runts & too high strung
In nature, mother eats the young
Who are we to breed?; Put away your seed
We can&#39;t evolve an iron-lung

And you’re too ugly & I’m too phat
What kind of seed are we to spawn with genetic cards like that?
Plus addiction and depression is just swimmin&#39; in my cum
And we are weak & dumb

Too many people on the way
Worlds growing smaller every day
As quantity grows, life quality goes
Our lives are sick & in decay


:lol:

[Commie Rat]

each to his/her&#39;s fucking own, if they dont want to have sex till their married that that is their choice but if want to be be sexually involved with a complet stranger then that is your right.

[Donnie]

Ideally we would all have sex whenever we want, however we want, with whatever we want. If it is consensual, it is ok.
But is sex really consensual in our present system? With such rugged individualism in our present system it&#39;s hard to tell if someone is consenting to sex or whether their just having sex to get something out of it. For example under the eye’s of the law a porn star consenting to sex is a “contract” between her and the porn business; but really is she consenting to sex or is she having to do it because she’s in dire straight poverty?

I don’t think being celibate is the answer, I think we just need to take precaution on whether somebody is really consenting to sex, especially in our present system.

[Black Dagger]

Donnie, you&#39;re sounding like an MIM-ist :/

[Gnosis]

I am married, but not in the traditional sense. When my husband and I decided we needed to devote our lives to eachother and our goels, we were alone on a beach.
That day we had partaken in a religious sacriment of pshychedelic mushrooms.
There was so much emotion and meaning in our ceremony that we are amused when we see more traditional ceremonies because they seem so flat and lifeless compared to our tiny little devotion ritual.

We have been together for over a year and though some may say that is not enough time, we feel as though we are ten times stronger than many other modern, traditional marriages because we put so much emphasis on our combined mission in life and our strong feelings toward each other and the spiritual connection we share.

We both realize we share this connection not just with each other but also with every other person who has ever lived, but we don&#39;t just have sex with whomever we find sexually attractive because not only is that irresponsible, but we know sex to be the physical expression of our spiritual connection with one another and we want that expression to be a meaningful and emotional as possible.

I just don&#39;t think sex with anyone else would feel as good becuase he knows the ways I like it and the ways I don&#39;t because we feel comfortable enough to talk about it and we have been with each other long enough to know each other well enough to know what to do when and why.

[peaccenicked]

Celibacy is least fun when your partner does it.

[Seven Stars]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2005 02:46 pm
Totally up to the individual IMO.

I find it strange that the Catholic Churchs foot soldiers take a vow of celibacy but denounce homosexuals because it&#39;s unnatural. In my opinion celibacy is something completly unnatural and might be one of the reasons there is so much pedophilia in the Church.
Priests do not take a vow a celibacy, they are just not allowed to be married. And there is very, very little pedophilia in the Church. At most it would probably be 1%, it is just greatly exaggerated in the media, especially in the US were there is a lot of anti-Catholic sentiment.

[redflagfires]

Originally posted by The Z&#045;[email protected] 22, 2005 07:37 pm
What do you guys think on the topic of celibacy. Here&#39;s my standpoint:

I think that couples SHOULD NOT do anything until marriage. However. I think today&#39;s term of marriage are ridiculas. I don&#39;t need a piece of paper to say that I love someone. Thats stupid. However, here is what marriage is to me - two people get together and agree to love each other forever and be loyal. Some kind of personal vow or whatever. No church, no wedding, just love. :wub:
I definitely agree, the modern concept of marriage is a jaded at best. not only should there not be stipulations on who can marry(i.e. discrimination of homosexuals) but i think it has been ingrained in our society for so long that we must be unioned. I don&#39;t dislike the concept of marriage per say, but the reasons behind why we get married should be examined.