Polygymy Vs. Monogamy

[Red Heretic]

I was having a discussion recently with a comrade of mine, and he made the point that the concept of polygamy (sexual relations where a single man controls many women) was specifically from fuedal and slave societies.

He also made the point that Monogamy is very intimately interwoven with bourgeois society, and bourgeois morality. He said that the desire for a single partner comes out of the bourgeois conception of property relations, and the bourgeois family model.

And finally he made the point that he believes that proletarian sexual relations in the Soviet Union and China were never able to be revolutionized in those societies, and that they were a part of the remnants of the bourgeoisie which still existed in the super-structure of society.

He argued that a new form of sexual relations, polygymy (different from polygamy), should replace bourgeois monogamy. In polygymy, conceptions of partner/property ownership would be abolished, and people (both men and women) would be allowed to have multiple partners.

I know that this theory was promoted by many revolutionaries in France and the USA during the 1960's, when the turmoil of proletarian revolution touched the imperialist countries for the first time since the rise of imperialism. Most notably, groups like Weather Underground (who I don't really agree with) put forward this theory.

I'd like to hear the arguements of other comrades on these topics.

[Avtomatov]

That would work out better for me. Woman like a manly man who woos them and is super charismatic. Im just intelligent, mildly charismatic, and reclusive, and girly. And I am transexual so i prefer to act like a women does when dating, but im expected to be the opposite cuz im a male. So tearing down gender roles and dating cliches would all work out better for my love life. Me thinks.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

There is a topic in chit chat about this.

I am against polygamy and think monogamy is just silly.

I think Polyamory is the way forward!

[ack]

I don't see anything wrong with it, except that people get jealous. I know that I wouldn't like my girl to be off with some other dude.

[Floyce White]

Why not just dump the whole -gamy thing and abolish marriage?

Mating is part of the biology of sexed species. Marriage is a property transfer.

We call mating "falling in love." It's a natural biological urge. It's ridiculous to try to control biological functions. You might as well scrape all the adult hair off your body and pretend to be a sexless child.

[ack]

People like commitment and security. Not all people, but it's their own decision to get married. Why not just keep marriage as an option? What's so harmful about it?

[Floyce White]

Who would be doing the marriages? The state? No state. The church? No church.

Saying "let's keep marriage as an option" is like saying "let's keep prostitution as an option." It's an option that makes no sense in a world without property.

[ack]

What you say is very true. But, couldn't couples make statements? The only reason the state keeps track of marriages is for tax reasons.

[Ali.Cat]

Whatever works for you I guess. If having multiple partners is what you're down for - and the people you are 'being multiple' with (hahaha) are cool with it then that's awesome.

But I'd have to agree with Floyce... who is going to marry anyone in a communist society? I totally understand the whole security factor that goes along with marriage... but surely there is another way to feel secure without getting married.


We call mating "falling in love." It's a natural biological urge. It's ridiculous to try to control biological functions

Definately - that's a good way of explaining it.


I don't see anything wrong with it, except that people get jealous. I know that I wouldn't like my girl to be off with some other dude

And that's cool. Just because having multiple partners may be seen as acceptable in a communist society doesn't mean that you HAVE to do that. You can do what is comfortable for you - the point is that you could have the OPTION of doing what you WANT and not be looked down upon but the rest of society because it isn't "the norm"

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 12:52 AM
my girl
Interestingly, this seems to be a perfect example of the bourgeois property relation conception of monogamy!

You currently view the woman that you are dating as being yours!

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 02:33 AM
People like commitment and security.
I find this interesting. You said that people like security... Security from what? Being economically impoverished like women in this society are if they try to seek a divorce?

Or perhaps you mean security from being single (as if there is something wrong with that)? I've been single for about two years, and it's not like I have any dire need to be in a sexual relationship. If I find one that I'm interested, then I'm all over that shit, but I don't necessarily see the need to always be in a relationship (and that idea that you do need to be in a relationship probably plays into bourgeois culture as well).

[Morag]

There's nothing wrong with either concept, it all depends on how they are carried out.

I don't think terms like "my [man/woman/boy/girl/love muffin]" inherently lay claim. I say, "my friend," a lot, and I'm not suggesting they belong to me, while the relationship, sans sex/lovey dovey crap, is inherently the same as in my "romantic" relationships. Also, if it holds true for one sex, it should hold true for both... For instance, some people might see the phrase "my girl," as laying claim, while if someone else said, "my man," it is generally seen as an explanation. I've seen a woman get very angry at a man for saying "my wife," and let it slide when a lesbian said the exact same thing! Is "my girl" that much different then "my girlfriend"? (On the other hand, I think this one is completely up to the two people in the relationship. They get to decide how to present their relationship to others, just as they get to decide what that relationship is.)

[encephalon]

Let people do whatever the hell they want. If they want to be polygymous, then let them. If they want to be monogamous, let them. As long as there's no exploitation or oppression involved, it's up to the parties involved.

[Severian]

The communist position is abolition of the family (as an economic unit), not a new form of family. See Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.

Trying to design new family forms also smacks of utopian blueprinting to me.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 13 2006, 04:36 PM
I was having a discussion recently with a comrade of mine, and he made the point that the concept of polygamy (sexual relations where a single man controls many women) was specifically from fuedal and slave societies.
Any system where one individual takes on multiple partners (be they male or female) is usually related to property issues within that society. Along the Himilayas there are some societies where an entire group of brothers will all take one wife, in order to preserve the family's land (since it is small and cannot be divided up). Others adopt a free-love system for similar reasons.


He also made the point that Monogamy is very intimately interwoven with bourgeois society, and bourgeois morality. He said that the desire for a single partner comes out of the bourgeois conception of property relations, and the bourgeois family model.

Historically, the desire for a single partner (aside from Christian shit) was linked, again, to property. Knowing you were the only person having sex with your wife was useful when the time came to give land away, since you knew the children were yours.



He argued that a new form of sexual relations, polygymy (different from polygamy), should replace bourgeois monogamy. In polygymy, conceptions of partner/property ownership would be abolished, and people (both men and women) would be allowed to have multiple partners.

I think it is somewhat silly to dictate sexual mores for a society as though they would be enforced. Of course people would be allowed to have multiple partners... if everyone in the relationship agreed to it!


I know that this theory was promoted by many revolutionaries in France and the USA during the 1960's

Actually, free love has been a component of revolutionary theory (particularly among some anarchists) since at least the late 19th century.

[Forward Union]

I don't see how marriage would really have a place in a socialist society, if we want to abolish organised religion, and remove religion from the public sphere, how can we condone any form of marriage?. How can you morally permit monetary benefits for "official couples" and not other forms of relationships? What is it other than petty benefits within capitalism and religious superstition and tradition that makes Marriage mean anything?

We are for the liberation of the individual, right? On these grounds we must support every individuals right to love on their own terms, and view all expressions of love as valuable.

I can't see how anything other than free love would be appropriate as a social norm for a libertarian society. This would allow individuals to be monogomous as well as polysexual, although after one has managed to abandon the myth of monogomy or once society has undergone a form of 'sex liberation', I can't really see why anyone would choose to be monogomous, but that's just me. :rolleyes:

[RaiseYourVoice]

I really dont want to see my girlfriend with another man, i dont like the idea and my girlfriend doesnt like the idea seeing my with another women, so in respect of each others feeling we stay monogamous. its not about property, if she doesnt want this style of living she can leave me.

Love is also human nature, you can love more than one person though. the problem is jealusy. if you love someone you want to be loved the same way, so if one partner has multiple partners that it cant work. i think a family not restricted to two persons is a valid option. if you find 3+ people that all live together and all like/love each other i think its a very good alternative to 2 person love

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 11:25 AM
I really dont want to see my girlfriend with another man, i dont like the idea and my girlfriend doesnt like the idea seeing my with another women, so in respect of each others feeling we stay monogamous. its not about property, if she doesnt want this style of living she can leave me.

Fine, that's up to you two. Monogamy as an enforced social model says that anything other than single partner relationships is wrong, I take it you're not advocating that, but rather saying monogamy is something you desire as a lifestyle choice. Sounds to me like your in favour of free love as a social model though, in which people have the choice to be monogamous.


Love is also human nature, you can love more than one person though. the problem is jealusy. if you love someone you want to be loved the same way, so if one partner has multiple partners that it cant work.

You say that, but my partners have other partners, or at least one does, and I don't feel jealous. They might be having sex right now, and here I am with a terrible hangover editing a post, I have no life ... :P

[bcbm]

AF, nobody is saying monogamy should be forced. Everyone is saying the exact opposite, in fact, so I don't understand why you keep bringing that up?

[RaiseYourVoice]

You say that, but my partners have other partners, or at least one does, and I don't feel jealous. They might be having sex right now, and here I am with a terrible hangover editing a post, I have no life ...
well that thinking is new to me, but if its good for you and your partners, fine ^^

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Red Heretic+Jul 14 2006, 05:14 AM--> (Red Heretic @ Jul 14 2006, 05:14 AM)
[email protected] 14 2006, 12:52 AM
my girl
Interestingly, this seems to be a perfect example of the bourgeois property relation conception of monogamy!

You currently view the woman that you are dating as being yours! [/b]
Have you never had a girl/boyfriend or something?

If you refer to your partner as being yours, they actually like it!

People need to read: The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm) before coming up with silly "theories" on how sexual relations will be under socialism/communism.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 14 2006, 10:10 AM
I don't see how marriage would really have a place in a socialist society, if we want to abolish organised religion, and remove religion from the public sphere, how can we condone any form of marriage?. How can you morally permit monetary benefits for "official couples" and not other forms of relationships? What is it other than petty benefits within capitalism and religious superstition and tradition that makes Marriage mean anything?
Alot of people keep bringing up marriage... I didn't say anything about marriage! That's a whole different topic.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Massoud+Jul 14 2006, 07:58 PM--> (Massoud @ Jul 14 2006, 07:58 PM)
Originally posted by Red [email protected] 14 2006, 05:14 AM

[email protected] 14 2006, 12:52 AM
my girl
Interestingly, this seems to be a perfect example of the bourgeois property relation conception of monogamy!

You currently view the woman that you are dating as being yours!
Have you never had a girl/boyfriend or something?

[/b]
I have been in many relationships through out my life, and I am also conscious that throughtout the series of those relationships, I played an overwhelmingly chauvinistic role. I am trying to reassess my own sexuality and understand how to build sexual relations that are built solely on the basis of equality proletarian morality (of course, total equality in a relationship within the capitalist system is impossible).


If you refer to your partner as being yours, they actually like it!

Women in fuedal societies also "liked" competing with the other wives of a man to be a favorite in many instances. If you pull sexual social relations into the abtract like that, it isn't going to get us anywhere. Sexual relations in bourgeois society naturally carry bourgeois conceptions of beauty, bourgeois conceptions of morality, and bourgeois conceptions of love.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Red Heretic
(of course, total equality in a relationship within the capitalist system is impossible).

If both are class-conscious and divorced from class-relations, it is.


Women in fuedal societies also "liked" competing with the other wives of a man to be a favorite in many instances. If you pull sexual social relations into the abtract like that, it isn't going to get us anywhere. Sexual relations in bourgeois society naturally carry bourgeois conceptions of beauty, bourgeois conceptions of morality, and bourgeois conceptions of love.

I didn't just mean for girls/women, but also for boys/men. If I had a girlfriend and she said I was "hers" I would enjoy it, and if she loved me she would enjoy me saying that as well. Actually I've been in such a situation and that proved to be true, so I know it's a fact.

Of course if she didn't enjoy me saying she's "mine" I wouldn't care, but most of them do, and there is no reason at all for that being wrong, "reactionary", "sexist" or whatever you think it is.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 08:12 PM
If both are class-conscious and divorced from class-relations, it is.


Unfortunately it isn't that simple. No matter how class conscious or revolutionary two people are, it doesn't abtract them from bourgeois society. Their relationship still exists within the framework of bourgeois society, so there are economic and cultural factors that weigh in.

There is the economic inability to leave a person (and its women that are overwhelmingly affected and oppressed by this), and the economic advantage that comes from being in a couple. There is also the cultural pressure that is applied through friends, family, and mass media which promotes the preservation of the bourgeois family model, and frowns on women (and to a lesser degree men too) who divorce/separate/or remain single.


I didn't just mean for girls/women, but also for boys/men. If I had a girlfriend and she said I was "hers" I would enjoy it, and if she loved me she would enjoy me saying that as well. Actually I've been in such a situation and that proved to be true, so I know it's a fact.

Of course if she didn't enjoy me saying she's "mine" I wouldn't care, but most of them do, and there is no reason at all for that being wrong, "reactionary", "sexist" or whatever you think it is.

Yes, I realize what you are getting at, but that doesn't make it any less a part of the bourgeois culture, which exists in the super-structure of society.

For example, many women may "enjoy" sexual fetishes like bondage, S&M, and being completely dominated, beaten, and controlled during sex. It "turns them on." Despite that supposedly "pleasing" them, they are in reality being affected by male chauvinistic and bourgeois culture. Similarly, many women believe that the sole purpose of their existence is to raise children, which is as well a part of the larger social relations of bourgeois society.

[bcbm]

For example, many women may "enjoy" sexual fetishes like bondage, S&M, and being completely dominated, beaten, and controlled during sex. It "turns them on." Despite that supposedly "pleasing" them, they are in reality being affected by male chauvinistic and bourgeois culture.

Who are you to question the authenticity of their feelings? I doubt enjoying being dominated sexually has anything to do with bourgeois culture and male domination, as it is common among all sexes and sexualities. If everyone involved is consenting, who gives a shit?

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Red Heretic
For example, many women may "enjoy" sexual fetishes like bondage, S&M, and being completely dominated, beaten, and controlled during sex. It "turns them on." Despite that supposedly "pleasing" them, they are in reality being affected by male chauvinistic and bourgeois culture. Similarly, many women believe that the sole purpose of their existence is to raise children, which is as well a part of the larger social relations of bourgeois society.

I agree with BBBG, this is a bit silly. You realise that there are just as many men who enjoy being completely dominated, beaten and controlled during sex? Some by womyn, and some by other men - thus linking SM fetish' to male chauvinism is quite shaky ground.

[TheProfessor]

What the institute of Marriage really boils down to is LEGAL SEX. Or better put, PERMITTED SEX. Any type of Sexual Activities taking place outside of marriage is basically frowned down upon, viewed as sinful, and considered adultery. If you have sex, make sure it's consensual and you're weary of the risks that could happen. Otherwise, we shouldn't judge anyone on there sexual orientation or sexual activities.

[Ali.Cat]

What the institute of Marriage really boils down to is LEGAL SEX. Or better put, PERMITTED SEX. Any type of Sexual Activities taking place outside of marriage is basically frowned down upon, viewed as sinful, and considered adultery. If you have sex, make sure it's consensual and you're weary of the risks that could happen. Otherwise, we shouldn't judge anyone on there sexual orientation or sexual activities.


That's a pile of crap. what the institute of marriage really boils down to is: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law.... not LEGAL SEX.

I don't know what kind of situation you are living in, but where I am sex is an awesome thing that people pretty much cheer on. Viewed as sinful? oh no... where do I even begin? It is only sinful if you choose to "follow the path of 'god'" and all that jazzy stuff, which many people here don't do.

[Red Heretic]

Who are you to question the authenticity of their feelings?

Many of the slaves who lived in the house with the master during slavery "loved" their masters. Should I not question their feelings? This reminds me of the chauvinistic arguement I hear most chauvinistic men retort when they are criticzed for trying to domesticate women.


I doubt enjoying being dominated sexually has anything to do with bourgeois culture and male domination, as it is common among all sexes and sexualities.

It has everything to do with bourgeois culture and male chauvinism. I suspect that in many cases, even female to male S&M is actually a reaction AGAINST male chauvinism, caused by the existence of male chauvinism. It corresponds with a general culture of fetish through violence and domination.


If everyone involved is consenting, who gives a shit?

Well that's the thing... it isn't consensual. It is derived by compulsion either directly from the person themself, OR indirectly through the super-structure of society. For example, a woman might be compelled to ask her "partner" to choke her, because she believes that if she doesn't allow her partner to dominate her, he will not be attracted to her and will cast her off (which is exactly what happens to feminist women in bourgeois society).

To use the example of my own life, I have discovered that since I have stopped being a male chauvinist, women no longer find me attractive. I am still essentially the same person, but because I try to build relationships on the basis of equality, I am viewed as feminine and weak. The vast majority of women find that I do not fit into the the role of the chauvinistic male that they are used to, and are thus turned off by me.

[ack]

Originally posted by Red Heretic+Jul 14 2006, 01:18 AM--> (Red Heretic @ Jul 14 2006, 01:18 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 02:33 AM
People like commitment and security.
I find this interesting. You said that people like security... Security from what? Being economically impoverished like women in this society are if they try to seek a divorce?

Or perhaps you mean security from being single (as if there is something wrong with that)? I've been single for about two years, and it's not like I have any dire need to be in a sexual relationship. If I find one that I'm interested, then I'm all over that shit, but I don't necessarily see the need to always be in a relationship (and that idea that you do need to be in a relationship probably plays into bourgeois culture as well).[/b]
People feel more secure when they are in a relationship. It's a fact.


Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 14 2006, 05:14 AM


[email protected] 14 2006, 12:52 AM

my girl

Interestingly, this seems to be a perfect example of the bourgeois property relation conception of monogamy!

You currently view the woman that you are dating as being yours!

Have you never had a girl/boyfriend or something?

If you refer to your partner as being yours, they actually like it!

People need to read: The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State before coming up with silly "theories" on how sexual relations will be under socialism/communism.

Seriously. I doubt that you've ever been in a relationship.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 05:02 AM
People feel more secure when they are in a relationship. It's a fact.
But WHY is it that they feel that way? Is it "human nature" like the bourgeoisie constantly retorts, or is it the by product of bourgeois culture? Bourgeois culture constantly attacks and bombards women into thinking they need to be tied to a man, or they'll be lonely their entire lives, and single women are shoved out of many social activities which are only for "couples."


Seriously. I doubt that you've ever been in a relationship.

I have been in many relationships, some more serious than others. However, you can drop the childish personal attacks now, and try to actually engage in some discussion here.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 15 2006, 05:43 PM
Many of the slaves who lived in the house with the master during slavery "loved" their masters. Should I not question their feelings? This reminds me of the chauvinistic arguement I hear most chauvinistic men retort when they are criticzed for trying to domesticate women.
They probably did love their master, because he protected their individual interests. Of course, this comparison is completely fucking absurd. We're talking about sexual practices that, generally, have fuckall to do with what happens outside the bedroom, not people being kidnapped and forced into something. Once again, the major component here is consent, despite what you say. But hey, don't take my word for it:

http://www.fetishexchange.org/abuse1.shtml


It has everything to do with bourgeois culture and male chauvinism. I suspect that in many cases, even female to male S&M is actually a reaction AGAINST male chauvinism, caused by the existence of male chauvinism.

Ok... prove it.


For example, a woman might be compelled to ask her "partner" to choke her, because she believes that if she doesn't allow her partner to dominate her, he will not be attracted to her and will cast her off

I get the feeling you know absolutely nothing about how BDSM works. I think perhaps you should do something about that before you continue this discussion any further.


To use the example of my own life, I have discovered that since I have stopped being a male chauvinist, women no longer find me attractive. I am still essentially the same person, but because I try to build relationships on the basis of equality, I am viewed as feminine and weak. The vast majority of women find that I do not fit into the the role of the chauvinistic male that they are used to, and are thus turned off by me.

You're using one example to generalize hundreds of millions of people? Good lord, this shouldn't be in the "Science" section. Plenty of women like men that aren't chauvinists. Many even prefer it.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Red Heretic
Unfortunately it isn't that simple. No matter how class conscious or revolutionary two people are, it doesn't abtract them from bourgeois society. Their relationship still exists within the framework of bourgeois society, so there are economic and cultural factors that weigh in.


Doesn't that make talking about it mere mental masturbation which serves no purpose?

Yes, it does.


There is the economic inability to leave a person (and its women that are overwhelmingly affected and oppressed by this), and the economic advantage that comes from being in a couple. There is also the cultural pressure that is applied through friends, family, and mass media which promotes the preservation of the bourgeois family model, and frowns on women (and to a lesser degree men too) who divorce/separate/or remain single.


I don't deny the existence of these things. My point is that talking about something which is inevitable, that is, the effect of the superstructure on peoples consciousness, is completely pointless. If you go further and refer to those people as reactionary then you are being silly, see MIM.


Yes, I realize what you are getting at, but that doesn't make it any less a part of the bourgeois culture, which exists in the super-structure of society.

For example, many women may "enjoy" sexual fetishes like bondage, S&M, and being completely dominated, beaten, and controlled during sex. It "turns them on." Despite that supposedly "pleasing" them, they are in reality being affected by male chauvinistic and bourgeois culture. Similarly, many women believe that the sole purpose of their existence is to raise children, which is as well a part of the larger social relations of bourgeois society.

Class-conscious women don't think that raising children is their sole purpose of existence.

Also, a quick question for you; do you believe Lenin or Mao were oppressing their wives?


I have been in many relationships, some more serious than others. However, you can drop the childish personal attacks now, and try to actually engage in some discussion here.

Actually I think he was referring to me. I don't care though, I agree with you, he should drop his childish nonsense.

[Red Heretic]

We're talking about sexual practices that, generally, have fuckall to do with what happens outside the bedroom, not people being kidnapped and forced into something. Once again, the major component here is consent

Ironically, this is the same arguement used by capitalists to claim that the proletarians they exploit are being exploited out of their own free will. Communists reject that arguement because they see the larger picture of broad social relations which force the proletarian to work for the capitalist.

There is no such thing as a completely consensual relationship, or completely consensual sexual relations inside of bourgeois society, because bourgeois society in itself compels women into relationships, sexual relations themselves, and promotes and denotes certain forms of sexual relations.

You are approaching this issue from a petit-bourgeois individualistic point of view. You are looking at the situation and contradictions between two people, but not how the much larger society plays into that. All relations between people are effected by the super-structure of society. Even if both people in the relation are opposed to that super-structure, the super-structure still has an effect on them.


Ok... prove it.

A perfect example that comes to mind is how after 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld was being promoted all over the bourgeois media as being "incredibly sexy" because of the way that he had just unleashed monstrous violence against the people of Afghanistan. He was promoted as a part of the bourgeois conception that violent men are sexy.


You're using one example to generalize hundreds of millions of people? Good lord, this shouldn't be in the "Science" section. Plenty of women like men that aren't chauvinists. Many even prefer it.

I was just trying to relay how my own life experiences correlate with the much larger social relations. I was NOT trying to project my own personal life over those social relations with a me-first attitude. I'm sorry if you took it that way.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Massoud+Jul 16 2006, 10:30 AM--> (Massoud @ Jul 16 2006, 10:30 AM)
Red Heretic
Unfortunately it isn't that simple. No matter how class conscious or revolutionary two people are, it doesn't abtract them from bourgeois society. Their relationship still exists within the framework of bourgeois society, so there are economic and cultural factors that weigh in.


Doesn't that make talking about it mere mental masturbation which serves no purpose?

Yes, it does. [/b]
What are you talking about?! This is a very serious issue that needs to be discussed. Relationships need to undergo revolutionary transformation in socialism.


I don't deny the existence of these things. My point is that talking about something which is inevitable, that is, the effect of the superstructure on peoples consciousness, is completely pointless. If you go further and refer to those people as reactionary then you are being silly, see MIM.

The reason that Maoists talk about the super-structure is because we want a revolution in the super-structure. A revolution that transforms social relations and culture, and creates new relationships on the basis of equality.

Do you think talking about the exploitation of the proletariat is just "mental masturbation?"


Class-conscious women don't think that raising children is their sole purpose of existence.

Regardless, there are still pressures that compell women toward those things, even if they are class conscious. No matter how conscious a woman is, that doesn't stop pressures from her partner, pressures from her family, pressures from her friends, pressures from bourgeois culture itself, etc. Your "between two class conscious people" arguement requires not just two individual class conscious people, but a class conscious planet.


Also, a quick question for you; do you believe Lenin or Mao were oppressing their wives?

Lenin was married? I didn't know that.

Regardless, Mao's marriage existed inside the context of revolutionary socialism. What I am discussing in this conversation is the inequalities that exist inside of relationships in capitalism, and in the earlier stages of socialism.

I do not believe that Mao was "oppressing his wife" as you put it. I also never said that all men in capitalist societies are "oppressing their wives." I said that those relationships cannot exist on the basis of total consent and equality within the framework of bourgeois society. You're distorting my arguements.

[Forward Union]

well that thinking is new to me, but if its good for you and your partners, fine ^^

You've never heard of free love??


AF, nobody is saying monogamy should be forced. Everyone is saying the exact opposite,

Then what are we disagreeing on?


Alot of people keep bringing up marriage... I didn't say anything about marriage! That's a whole different topic.

Polygamy is marriage... :huh: oh you said polygymy, my mistake.

[More Fire for the People]

Lenin was married? I didn't know that.
She was a significant feminist in Russia.
Nadezhada Krupskaya archive. (http://marxists.org/archive/krupskaya/index.htm)

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 16 2006, 04:29 PM
Ironically, this is the same arguement used by capitalists to claim that the proletarians they exploit are being exploited out of their own free will. Communists reject that arguement because they see the larger picture of broad social relations which force the proletarian to work for the capitalist.
Except that you don't starve if you're not into BDSM. :rolleyes:



There is no such thing as a completely consensual relationship, or completely consensual sexual relations inside of bourgeois society, because bourgeois society in itself compels women into relationships, sexual relations themselves, and promotes and denotes certain forms of sexual relations.

If you entirely remove people's own feelings and motivations from consideration, then their actions can mean basically anything, which seems like a suspect position to me. Obviously the larger societal context influences sexual relations but I still don't see anything wrong with people enjoying harmless sexual practices. Many of those in to domination are also extremely social conscious and active in feminist struggles. Being dominated during sex does not affect other facets of their life, which is the point, and so I don't see any point in condemning it.

And if there can be no consensual relations inside of bourgeois society, then shouldn't all sex within such a society be opposed? After all, sex without consent is...



A perfect example that comes to mind is how after 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld was being promoted all over the bourgeois media as being "incredibly sexy" because of the way that he had just unleashed monstrous violence against the people of Afghanistan. He was promoted as a part of the bourgeois conception that violent men are sexy.

Cite? Not being a dick, I just really don't remember this at all.



I was just trying to relay how my own life experiences correlate with the much larger social relations. I was NOT trying to project my own personal life over those social relations with a me-first attitude. I'm sorry if you took it that way.

Sorry, it seemed like you were using it as "proof" of what you were saying.

[Clarksist]

This is why I love RevLeft, I was just thinking about this issue, and here it is being discussed!


Being dominated during sex does not affect other facets of their life, which is the point, and so I don't see any point in condemning it.

Amen.

Bourgeois based relationships are central to bourgeois society in a specific economic sense. But to say that sexual fantasies are based on societal issues is stretching it a bit.

Yes, some taboo is sexy because it is taboo. But the attraction is not towards the specific act, it is to the disdain for it. Most sexual fantasies are anything the person has experienced socially, that they have found arousing.

Sex is something that is also more instinctual than most other things, and isn't dominated solely by society. It is in certain ways, but not all.