No.1751299[Reply]
>For Reagan not only saw communists as parricides, but also as extremely active sexually-completely in contrast to the actual sexual code in most communist countries. For instance, when he ran for Governor of California, one of the central themes of his campaign was “the mess at Berkeley,” a place where, he said, they held “sexual orgies so vile I can-not describe them to you,” promising if elected to “investigate the charges of communism and blatant sexual misbehavior on the Berkeley campus.” A good part of the reason why he was elected was that, as one biographer put it, “hidden away in the hearts of parents was the fear that their own children might one day go away to college, grow beards and march against authority.”… Reagan promised these voters that his first targets as Governor would be the students at Berkeley, “advocates of sexual orgies, drug usage, and filthy speech,” who wanted only to “disrupt the academic community” and who therefore must be brought under control immediately. The situation at Berkeley, he told a woman’s club in April of 1966, was now so bad that their “morality gap is so great that we can no longer ignore it.” He had proof, he said, that the Alameda County District Attorney had just investigated a student dance which had turned into “an orgy,” where they had displayed on a giant screen “pictures of men and women, nude, in sensuous poses, provocative, fondling.” Since Reagan had waved a piece of paper in the air during the speech, saying that he had the report of the DA’s investigation “in his hand,” curious reporters later asked the DA for a copy, only to be told that “my office made no investigations of the college dance.” - Lloyd deMause, "REAGAN’S AMERICA"
You can even see this sort of mentality in people like Ben Shapiro who conflate communism, socialism, and "the left" with rebellion against all authority and goodness for the sake of mindless pleasure. Not to mention the endless obsession with LGBTQ+, qanon pedophile theories, porn, abortion, etc.
What is the actual materialist explanation for the right wing obsession with sex? Does porky get some sort of benefit from everyone being a heterosexual monogamous who goes to church once a week? if not why the backlash? is it just to ensure a constant supply of new workers?
31 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view. No.1798945
>>1751299>Does porky get some sort of benefit from everyone being a heterosexual monogamousmore children = more reserve labor
>who goes to church once a week?The church serves as a substitute for welfare and offers a way for people to socialize in an environment that's otherwise heavily regulated. Part of it is also the enduring influence that religion had before the colonial era, particularly in places like Europe where the Catholic Church was effectively in charge or the United States where settlers were organized by Protestant sects.
>why the backlash [against sex]?As stupid as it is, lots of people just hate sex. They aren't asexual, which is a perfectly legitimate reason to dislike sex; rather, they're heterosexual men and women who have been
taught to hate sex. Places like the United States have abysmal sex ed, where young adults are told to shut up and repress anything they feel rather than sit down and talk about it or engage with it in a healthy way; this leads to revulsion as they grow older, and repeat the cycle down the line.
For conservatives in particular, being anti-sex is a great way to control people. They can tap into the sexual repression I mentioned above and claim moral depravity if someone has sex, which is very effective fuel for outrage culture and offers an easy answer to problems in society.
No.1799070
>>1752191This is only true in monotheism whose priesthood is usually made up of eunuchs and people who are generally disgusted by their bodies (philosophers), like paul who says that even to have a wife is sinful and implies that procreation is actually the "original sin" that mankind is bound in (an ode to the early christian gnostics).
Pagan religion is incomparable, even though all human cultures generally attempt to guard the concept of sexual modesty (which freud explicates in "totem and taboo" is the first act of restriction that enters man properly into civilisation by disbanding the sexual monopoly of "the primal father [kronos] by arranging marriages thereafter for the sake of peacekeeping).
No.1799071
>What is the actual materialist explanation for the right wing obsession with sex?
Jouissance. Taboo creates the "surplus enjoyment" of denial, politically with the public-private distinction, which leftists erode this by publicising sexual identity and relations.
Ive already made the point before too about the jouissance of homophobia arising from a constitutive homoeroticism, by emptying the signifier of activity from its anunciation (but by formalising relations you disperse what you [didnt] have by refraction - like how you fall into a relationship, you dont one day say that youre bf and gf, thats anti-social). Youre allowed to be "gay" by not being gay, thats why there are no publicly gay athletes or soldiers, because homoeroticism barrs the autonomy of this identity through enjoying it's coded placation.
Think for example too of the whole "trap" phenomenon. The womanly image sustains an "excess" through her male sex, which is the "enjoyment" of her condition, and this is also why MtF transhumanists who get their cocks cut off lose all of their appeal, because they are caught within the constitution of a contradiction which gives meaning to their character.
So the conservative enjoyment is in this pre-political relation of the informal sexual excess, where leftists usually want to bring this into formality, thus creating political autonomy but losing the qualitative excess.
This is the same divide political between femboys and transhumanists. One is allowed to have this discursive excess of being a boy while appearing as a girl, while the other has identified with the cause of their subjectivity and so lost their mystique.