Leftists and Sex

[apathy maybe]

The more sex the better! I'm not getting any just now :(.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

This isn't a joke dudes. I was wondering the leftist and radical views concerning sex and marriage. I understand that a lot of people here have different ideas and philosophies and I'd like to hear them all. I've read from some feminist girls here at my school that sex via male and female is an oppressive act as it stands right now and that sex can be made better so it isnt oppressive - such as positions where the female does not feel humiliated and what not.

Also I was thinking about marriage. Although it is well known that Marx acted like a bourgois and made his dauthers' husbands seek permission from him the father in order to marry them, I know that many anarchists do not believe in marriage as it is a traditionally repressive thing and I'd like to hear more about the reasons pro and con for this.

[apathy maybe]

Haha. More serious reply now.



This isn't a joke dudes. I was wondering the leftist and radical views concerning sex and marriage. I understand that a lot of people here have different ideas and philosophies and I'd like to hear them all. I've read from some feminist girls here at my school that sex via male and female is an oppressive act as it stands right now and that sex can be made better so it isnt oppressive - such as positions where the female does not feel humiliated and what not.There is absolutely nothing wrong with sex (so long as it is consensual). Anyone who says otherwise is either overly moralistic, or a scum bag or both.


Also I was thinking about marriage. Although it is well known that Marx acted like a bourgois and made his dauthers' husbands seek permission from him the father in order to marry them, I know that many anarchists do not believe in marriage as it is a traditionally repressive thing and I'd like to hear more about the reasons pro and con for this. A while ago I knocked over all the objections (at least to my satisfaction) anyone could come up with for keeping marriage (in the legal/religious sense) around. The only two objections that I could not really knock over were, "but I love her", religious and in some places the social/economic structure (the reason for marriage in the first place).
That thread is, http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...965&hl=marriage (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=27965&hl=marriage)


On the issue of "gay" marriage, and other non-"traditional" relationships. I am all for them, so long as they are consensual and can be broken up when ever one party wants to quit.

[Demogorgon]

All fully consensual sex is good in my book. I am not a fan of Victorian Prudishness. The upshot of that sort of thinking tends to be large amounts of hypocricy anyway.

Marriage originated in most cultures as an extremely unpleasant concept of a man taking ownership of a woman, but that has largely changed in the western world.

[MrDoom]

Marriage is the traditional conversion of women from the private property of her father to the property of her husband. Besides being expensive, socially useless, and statisticly doomed on a coin flip, I am adamantly opposed to it.

EDIT: I also forgot the whole enforced monogamous heterosexuality issue.

[izquierda80]

Sex per se isn't oppressive, in my opinion, but it reflects an oppressive state of affairs. That being the case, the biological act of sex itself doesn't need to be altered that much, if at all, but rather the oppressive state of affairs that surrounds it.

Marriage, as it currently stands, is part of that state of affairs and is definitely more oppressive than not, especially the more traditional and paternalistic forms. Other forms may be much more progressive, but they are unfortunately the exception rather than the rule in the current world.

What is needed, therefore, is either to entirely redefine the concept of marriage or simply replace it with that of "unions". Sex should be a much more flexible, voluntarily act between consenting human beings, with equivalent rights and obligations (including those of abortion, separation, etc. etc. that are not limited by oppressive moral codes).

[Political_Chucky]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 09:35 PM
Sex per se isn't oppressive, in my opinion, but it reflects an oppressive state of affairs. That being the case, the biological act of sex itself doesn't need to be altered that much, if at all, but rather the oppressive state of affairs that surrounds it.

Marriage, as it currently stands, is part of that state of affairs and is definitely more oppressive than not, especially the more traditional and paternalistic forms. Other forms may be much more progressive, but they are unfortunately the exception rather than the rule in the current world.

What is needed, therefore, is either to entirely redefine the concept of marriage or simply replace it with that of "unions". Sex should be a much more flexible, voluntarily act between consenting human beings, with equivalent rights and obligations (including those of abortion, separation, etc. etc. that are not limited by oppressive moral codes).

What is needed, therefore, is either to entirely redefine the concept of marriage or simply replace it with that of "unions"

Whoa, from my experience with working unions, there is a lot of paper work involved. How is that gonna work in the heat of the moment? hahaha :lol:

[izquierda80]

Well, I meant "unions", as in a more progressive form of civil unions or something like that. :P

As for the paper work, it would consist of declaring that the individuals involved are freely and willingly going to live together and consent to any mutually agreed activity, while allowing for the possibility of dissolving the union either jointly or unilaterally, given certain possibilities or simple decisions.

Ok, so the paperwork would still suck, but the most complex issue would mainly be that of what happens with the material and immaterial properties when the union is dissolved (custody of children would still be a problem, for example, even if private property per se was a non-issue)...I guess that including the subject in the pre-union declaration could work, though not perfectly.

Or you could simply do away with all the paperwork and give maximum freedom to all those involved, if total anarchism is your thing. I'd hope for something a bit more formal though, if only for any legal complications that might ensue.

[Blue Collar Bohemian]

Marrige is a cop-out. You say "till death do us part" and all that other bullshit and then you stop putting any effort into the relationship. Why let love grow stale and worn out? Lets throw out marrige and embrace love.

[RedStruggle]

I believe that anyone should have the freedom to engage in any form of sexual behaviour and enter into any form of relationship, on the condition that the consent of all those involved (not I say all and not both persons because relationships and sex can involve many participants if so desired) is not given through coercion but on the basis of choice.

I accept that love in all its intensity does, more often that not, not last for the full extent of one's adult life, and thus marriage places unfair and unrealistic restrictions on our emotions and relationships. Given that, under that under Marxist analysis, the economic mode of production determines the political, social, and legal superstructure in any given society, and given that the institution of marriage did not exist prior to class society, it is likely that marriage serves some purpose in upholding class society. I personally feel that marriage is part of the ideological sphere (that is, part of how people interpret the world around them) as it subconsciously enforces private propety through restraining our bonds of comradeship to the immiediete nuclear family. It should be noted, for example, that the restoration of family life in the Kibbutz movement established a future transition to a full market mode of production in the form of private propety.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 17 2006, 03:33 AM
The more sex the better! I'm not getting any just now :(.
Send me a pic and we'll see what we might do about that :P

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 04:12 AM
Marriage originated in most cultures as an extremely unpleasant concept of a man taking ownership of a woman, but that has largely changed in the western world.
The traces of property exchange still exist, the family is still primarily a cash relation in the eyes of the state enforcing marriage.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 10:21 AM
The traces of property exchange still exist, the family is still primarily a cash relation in the eyes of the state enforcing marriage.
Definately.

Although, in a communist society, I would have no objection to marriage. Considering its cash relation now nonexistant, it could be more something of two people loving eachother and wanting to have a kind of celebration to show their commitment and love to eachother. Is it still useless? To some people, but some people would like that.

The key is the paradigm shift from it being a cash relation to being based solely on human interaction and interest. In that kind of society, it would have actual value.

[Wanted Man]

How do we feel about it?
Pretty good, thanks for asking.

[Guerrilla22]

I honestly am never going to get married, because I feel like it makes the woman a slave. Like Marx said in the Manifesto the modern bourgeoisie see their wives as their property, something that only they are entitled to.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 07:26 PM
I honestly am never going to get married, because I feel like it makes the woman a slave. Like Marx said in the Manifesto the modern bourgeoisie see their wives as their property, something that only they are entitled to.
Will your getting married mean you will magically change your views on women? (Not an attack or anything, personally I think marriage is a bad idea, as it is a bourgeoise and relegous institution, but at the same time I doubt you would suddenly come to view whoever you married as 'property'.)

How I feel about sex: It's a wonderful, wonderful thing although I personally would not want to have sex with somone I did not love, I will not condemn somone who does, in the same way I do not condemn people who introduce all kinds of toys and paraphenalia to the event.

How I feel about marriage: Really it can fuck off. Why do you have to formalise love? Why do I sound like such a fucking hippy?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 03:35 AM
I've read from some feminist girls here at my school that sex via male and female is an oppressive act as it stands right now and that sex can be made better so it isnt oppressive - such as positions where the female does not feel humiliated and what not.
This sounds far too close to the batshit 'all sex is rape' line. The whole thing rests on the premise that a sensible, sane woman with a clear mind who is asked if they want to have sex and say 'yes' are somehow forced - either by the man asserting his social role or society making her think that she needs to have sex for acceptance. This ignores the large number of women who enjoy sex and seek it out. I can't really comment much further on the issue as most arguments from there rely on both people making arguments are female - and I am not.

Also the 'positions' thing sounds a little ambigious, and (I never thought 'd have to ask this question on a serious political forum) are you refering to social or sexual positions?

[Cryotank Screams]

My thoughts on the current marriage tango;

"The horror of wedlock, the most appalling, the most loathsome of all the bonds humankind has devised for its own discomfort and degradation."-Marquis de Sade.

My thoughts on sex;

"'Sex' is as important as eating or drinking and we ought to allow the one appetite to be satisfied with as little restraint or false modesty as the other."-Marquis de Sade.

[MolotovLuv]

I'm a female, and I love sex =) but I generally don't go "seeking it out" because I find the most enjoyable sex happens when i'm having sex with someone I am genuinely into. I don't find any particular position to be oppressive because there are plenty to choose from and I like to mix them up ;) A couple things that piss me off from my experiences: men never bring up the condom, and when I do the guys act like the condom will cut off the circulation to their penis and they will lose it if they put one on. Another thing, men seem to EXPECT oral sex. It just seems wrong and demeaning to have someone put their hand on my head and push it to their crotch, it doesn't make me feel sexy, it makes me feel like a tool, as if they are telling me, this is your job, to give me pleasure.

This is not a rant against men btw, I love men :wub:

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by NWOG+Oct 17 2006, 09:29 PM--> (NWOG @ Oct 17 2006, 09:29 PM)
apathy [email protected] 17 2006, 03:33 AM
The more sex the better! I'm not getting any just now :(.
Send me a pic and we'll see what we might do about that :P [/b]
You do know that I am male right ?
And that I am on a different continent right ?

So long as you can accept those two things then I am fine, but you have to come to me.


MolotovLuv (and others actually): You might be interested in a thread on the word "slut". (Not saying you are or are not one, read the thread. I'm not trying to insult you at all.)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50504 (Quite good.)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46880 (Okish.)

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 11:37 PM
Comrade Scarlett Hammer, um... Maybe it's not such a good idea to quote the Marquis de Sade when talking about sex. Just a thought.
My post was more about what was said, than whom said them; granted I know Marquis de Sade, is highly controversial figure, I just happen to agree with his views on the two subjects presented, I believe sex is just another appetite, and that the current marriage game is a degrading practice, why shouldn’t I use two quotes that sum up these views?

I wasn't talking about or agreeing or referencing to Sade's own person sexual preferences, I was simply agreeing with the two quotes provided.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by MeetingPeopleIsEasy+Oct 17 2006, 05:51 PM--> (MeetingPeopleIsEasy @ Oct 17 2006, 05:51 PM)
[email protected] 17 2006, 10:21 AM
The traces of property exchange still exist, the family is still primarily a cash relation in the eyes of the state enforcing marriage.
Definately.

Although, in a communist society, I would have no objection to marriage. Considering its cash relation now nonexistant, it could be more something of two people loving eachother and wanting to have a kind of celebration to show their commitment and love to eachother. Is it still useless? To some people, but some people would like that.

The key is the paradigm shift from it being a cash relation to being based solely on human interaction and interest. In that kind of society, it would have actual value. [/b]
I agree. No one should be barred from marriage, of course, but it should have no material social weight whatsoever.


Comrade Mr.Doom, what is the issue with monogamy or heterosexuality?
Personally, I think heterosexuality is only self-enforced; If you are heterosexual,
you will have hetero relationships; If you're not, then you won't. No problem there.
As for Monogamy? what is the issue with monogamy? You continue to look at monogamy as some sort of patriarchal enslavement cooked up by male oppressors, but monogamy is a two- way- street. Many of the Comrades on this forum are talking about love as the basis of relationships; If you truly loved someone, why would you need other sexual partners? Of course, in the case of couples who are into that sort of thing, well... I guess that is their own buisness.
I have no issue with monogamy or heterosexuality. However, marriage as it exists today (and in the past) bars gays and polygamist groups from marriage. What I am opposed to is enforced monogamous heterosexuality in social relations.


If you truly loved someone, why would you need other sexual partners? Of course, in the case of couples who are into that sort of thing, well... I guess that is their own buisness.
It's no one's business save the parties involved. If you can truly love someone, then why can't you truly love others?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 11:43 PM
I'm a female, and I love sex =) but I generally don't go "seeking it out" because I find the most enjoyable sex happens when i'm having sex with someone I am genuinely into.
Sorry, maybe I should have clarified that the women who enjoy sex don't always seek it out, but you know what I mean. (if that was directed at my comments.)


This is not a rant against men btw, I love men :wub: Well one would assume you love men, otherwise you wouldn't have sex with them :lol:

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 03:26 PM
I honestly am never going to get married, because I feel like it makes the woman a slave. Like Marx said in the Manifesto the modern bourgeoisie see their wives as their property, something that only they are entitled to.
This still happens more often than people would think, but I couldn't say I agree with you.

In the times we're in now, it many cases it can be an equally consentual union. There are couples who are married, who share the duties to maintain their survival and home (rather than the woman in the kitchen all the time kind of thing). It can be purely situational, depending on how you and your partner wish to live your lives.

[Guerrilla22]

but at the same time I doubt you would suddenly come to view whoever you married as 'property'

No I wouldn't, and I'm sure many others wouldn't come to that realization either, however, many do and that's why I want no part of marriage. I agree with what you said, why do you have to formalize love? If you love someone won't your bond as two individuals who love each other be enough?

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 10:02 PM

This sounds far too close to the batshit 'all sex is rape' line. The whole thing rests on the premise that a sensible, sane woman with a clear mind who is asked if they want to have sex and say 'yes' are somehow forced - either by the man asserting his social role or society making her think that she needs to have sex for acceptance. This ignores the large number of women who enjoy sex and seek it out. I can't really comment much further on the issue as most arguments from there rely on both people making arguments are female - and I am not.

Also the 'positions' thing sounds a little ambigious, and (I never thought 'd have to ask this question on a serious political forum) are you refering to social or sexual positions?
No my friend is not saying that all sex is rape or naturally oppressive, she is saying that certain kinds of hererosex are. Just like some women find for instance oral sex degrading, doesn't mean they don't like any sex whatsoever. Sorry if the "positions" statements sounded vague or confusing, yes I meant sexual positions. Some feminists believe that certain sexual positions (mostly I hear this about the 'doggy' style positions) are oppressive and or degrading to women.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

:wub: Wow! It seems that everyone here has taken a solid sexual freedom/liberatarian position! Right on! Free love - that's what it's all about friends! ;)

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 02:39 am
:wub: Wow! It seems that everyone here has taken a solid sexual freedom/liberatarian position! Right on! Free love - that's what it's all about friends! ;)
Of course. It would be hard to condemn "free love" and sexual liberation. But remember it's not everyone's cup of tea so you really shouldn't force it down other people's throats.

[An archist]

A stance on sex?
politics should have nothing to do with sex, as long as all parties involved agree, it's all fine.
As for marriage: if you really want to have your love made official and trusted to a document, go ahead, though I don't see what it adds to your relationship.

[Felicia]

LOL.... "how do we feel about it"


How you feel about it is how you feel about it! Don't let your political affiliations and beliefs dictate your personal thought! jeesh!

It's not all about 'free love'! Don't use your leftist leanings to justify being a slut, lol. Think about it and figure out how you feel about the subject on your own apart from other influences, than follow that. I'm a leftist and I'm not all about 'free love' however there's nothing wrong with striving for sexual liberation, just not with half the town :P

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 02:39 am
:wub: Wow! It seems that everyone here has taken a solid sexual freedom/liberatarian position! Right on! Free love - that's what it's all about friends! ;)
Were you expecting all of the Leninists to take an anti-sex stance or something?

Turns out we aren't so evil. We quite enjoy sex.

Although the missionary position would have to be renamed the Lenin Position. It should also be the only psition allowed.

Other sexual positions are the manifestation of the decadence of the amerikkan labor bureaucracy and should be fought against.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by SovietPants+October 23, 2006 07:00 pm--> (SovietPants @ October 23, 2006 07:00 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2006 02:39 am
:wub: Wow! It seems that everyone here has taken a solid sexual freedom/liberatarian position! Right on! Free love - that's what it's all about friends! ;)
Turns out we aren't so evil. We quite enjoy sex. [/b]
Lies!

Anyway, I disagree with whoever said not to let politics influence your views on sex. Every leftist should have a leftist view of sex. There can be disagreements amongst leftists, but it is not appropriate to hold conservative views of sex. They are just irrational.

[LuXe]

Sex, as much as possible :P

[Felicia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2006 11:00 pm
Although the missionary position would have to be renamed the Lenin Position. It should also be the only psition allowed.

Other sexual positions are the manifestation of the decadence of the amerikkan labor bureaucracy and should be fought against.
lol, if that's the only position allowed, Lennie's don't know what they're missin! :lol:

[Karl Marx's Camel]

You do know that I am male right ?

Your profile says you have pussy.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Felicia
It's not all about 'free love'! Don't use your leftist leanings to justify being a slut, lol.
Define "slut" pls.


Think about it and figure out how you feel about the subject on your own apart from other influences, than follow that. I'm a leftist and I'm not all about 'free love'
That's completely fine. And the way I define it, "free love" involves doing whatever makes you happy (you know, within the bounds of consent and stuff)- and if that involves being with one person, fine, whatever. It's compulsory monogamy I have problems with.


however there's nothing wrong with striving for sexual liberation, just not with half the town
Whyever not? You seem to be taking a really contradictory position, advocating "free love" but only within acceptable boundaries, which is inherently impossible.

[Nex]

Ah "free love" the by product of stagnating Euro-American individualistic anarchism. Love who you want how you want(if it's concentual), don't hold anyone else to your standards and don't let anyone else hold you to theres.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Nex
Ah "free love" the by product of stagnating Euro-American individualistic anarchism.
Excuse me? What is that supposed to mean?

[Red October]

i dont think the government has any business in people's sex lives. if they want to have sex with someone of the same gender, let 'em do it. same with marriage. the government should just leave it alone. dont ban it, dont regulate it, and dont bother people about it. if the parties consent to it voluntarily, then it should be fine.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by NWOG+October 29, 2006 10:48 pm--> (NWOG @ October 29, 2006 10:48 pm)
You do know that I am male right ?

Your profile says you have pussy. [/b]
My profile at one stage said "other", but I decided that I would rather confuse people like you and have it say "female". I have never actually said that I am female on RevLeft, except in my profile.

Is the offer still open?



Nex
Ah "free love" the by product of stagnating Euro-American individualistic anarchism. Love who you want how you want(if it's concentual), don't hold anyone else to your standards and don't let anyone else hold you to theres.What? I think I understand the bit about consensual "love", and standards, but not the "Euro-American individualistic anarchism". Shouldn't all leftists be for "free love" (free as in freedom, not price).

[uber-liberal]

Diogenes taught that all things that feel good should and must be done often and in public.
While I don't go that far, I agree with the sentiment. Sex is natural and, anthropologically speaking, naturally fun or face-to-face sexual encounters that enable clitoral stimulation wouldn't be possible.
While I see monogamy as a safety issue and the best way to prevent the spread of disease, I tend to use the definition of infidelity, "to go outside the unit for sexual gratification."
That unit may be 2, 3, or 4 million. So long as everyone involved stays "monogamous" to the group, it's kosher to me.

EDIT: I also tend to see more benifits sexually in a matriarchal relationship. Women, when allowed to explore their sexuality fully, are usually more sensual thhan men and are better at pushing our buttons and getting us to do what they want sexually than the other way around.

[Nex]

QUOTE (Nex)
Ah "free love" the by product of stagnating Euro-American individualistic anarchism. Love who you want how you want(if it's concentual), don't hold anyone else to your standards and don't let anyone else hold you to theres.

What? I think I understand the bit about consensual "love", and standards, but not the "Euro-American individualistic anarchism". Shouldn't all leftists be for "free love" (free as in freedom, not price).

Should all leftist be for "free love" yes I think they should. But in most communist social models the good of the community comes before the rights of the individual. Thus if for some reason your community frowned upon it you would be up shit creek without a paddle.

[kaaos_af]

My purpose in life is to promote the concept of a proletarian revolution with unlicensed pleasure as its only goal.

[Guerrilla22]

I'm all about free love, not engaging in intercourse often with your fellow man/woman equates individualism.

[Forward Union]

See appropriate link in my signature.

[Marx Lenin Stalin]

Sex? I take Nike's position on it: "Just Do It"

:)

[Nosaltres]

I cannot understand how can a woman be humiliated in sex. By beating her? But this is not sex, this is beating :-)
As for marriage, I agree with this if a couple feels that they want to do it, but it must not be a requirement of society. It is not a "must" for me. A couple can be happy in or out of marriage. And of course I believe that the church shouldn't be involved with it. I want to get married on a beach in summer with everybody dressed in bathing suites and with a big beach-party happening. This is really a dream for me. What makes me angry is that society doesn't accept this atittude, it doesn't accept people doing what will make them feel happy.

[Xiao Banfa]

Do it, it's fucking natural. It's lovely. Use condoms unless you want babies.

Honestly is there anything more you can say about it.

[The Red]

men never bring up the condom, and when I do the guys act like the condom will cut off the circulation to their penis and they will lose it if they put one on.

I think thats just nature although in reality a lot of men dont plan on impregnating a woman in our subconsccious thats the overriding ambition and the rubber just puts them on a natural downer.


Another thing, men seem to EXPECT oral sex. It just seems wrong and demeaning to have someone put their hand on my head and push it to their crotch, it doesn't make me feel sexy, it makes me feel like a tool, as if they are telling me, this is your job, to give me pleasure.

I agree its disrespectful and should onlly be brought up by the woman.

[Dimentio]

Necromancer! :lol:

[Dóchas]

this thread is three years old!!!! why?? how could you?? it was enjoying an early retirement...damn you!!!!!!!!! :lol:

[Black Dagger]

I think thats just nature although in reality a lot of men dont plan on impregnating a woman in our subconsccious thats the overriding ambition and the rubber just puts them on a natural downer.



I agree its disrespectful and should onlly be brought up by the woman.

Please check the time-stamps on threads before you reply, assume that any thread you find via a 'related thread' link at the bottom of the page or through the sites search engine may be several years old.

The person you replying to does not even post here anymore.

So yeah, please be more careful in future.