[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives

File: 1717648235882.jpg (943.29 KB, 2498x1602, fm2m2ui6vcf61.jpg)

 [View All]

"The Pornography Question"

I've been doing off and on research into what I call "The Pornography Question". Let's define pornography as explicit material, sexual in nature, created by one or more consented adults, for the consumption by adults. Basically, is it compatible with communism? Is it inherently anti-women? Is it inherently unethical? A sign of capitalist decay?

Prior to this I had a fairly negative outlook on the medium as a whole, mostly stereotypes. Mostly insofar as, assuming the overwhelming majority of women are not willingly be in the industry, either they've been coherced, trafficked or had to for the money, and thus, consuming the material is inherently harmful to women. But at the same time, I've dated a couple of Sex Workers, I've dated a dancer/softcore model and an onlyfans creator. The onlyfans creator said it was a way to empower herself, she said it was far less degrading that working as a waitress, I believe it. I never cared in either case, it's a job, get the bag, it ain't tricking if you've got it. Of course both of these relationships were before I was really a commie, so I lacked the more systemic understanding of how neoliberalism works to commodify the personal. And, admittingly, the stereotypes still played a role in the acceptance of my ex's work, ie "Something must have happened in her past to cause her to do this but I don't care that she does it".

A former friend, whom is a 36 year old former model (remember Suicidegirls?), lamented about not being able to model anymore because she was worried about the *stigma* and how it might reflect on her as a professional, career wise. She was very proud of her past career. In fact, her upbringing was very strict, with Christian gender roles and a traditionalist worldview. The same type of culture that created incredibly creepy events like Purity Balls, the same culture that normalizes treating women as objects to be traded between men. That sort of southern Christian culture that I've long rallied against. It's these personal contradictions that prompted further critical introspection into the medium as well as my own ingrained opinions on it.

Almost every study I read completely ignored or outright handwaved gay and queer porn, and this to me presents an issue. How can you handwave a significant part of a medium and then say the entire medium is bad? If someone made the argument that horror movies are degenerate bourgeoisie decadence, but only used films like Saw and Hostel as examples, that would be pretty disingenuous no? So I started reading interviews with queer people who work in the industry. 1/2 Very common sentiment was that this medium provided a space for them to express their queerness in ways they might otherwise not be able to. So, many of the earlier, more anti-pornography SWERFs and studies straight up ignored queer people, and when we do see the perspective, it's basically the opposite of the assumed one.

One issue I had with Dworkin's arguments is that she lacks a material basis for her claims, while also using a fairly narrow definition of pornography that's not really accepted by the mainstream society has a whole. She defines pornography as a medium that is inherently showcasing acts of violence against women, and then uses this definition to showcase how porn contributes to the mass normalization of a patriarchal society. Which is to say, she draws a distinction between pornography and erotica in such a way, that few others who aren't also SWERFs do. By their own definition many Onlyfans creators would not be creating pornography but erotica, because their definition of pornography requires some act to be done to a woman (rarely if ever does she mention queer people). Dworkin and her contemporaries, such as MacKinnon, distinguished between pornography and erotica based on the presence of violence and degradation. Erotica, in their view, is consensual and non-degrading sexual expression, whereas pornography inherently involves the subjugation and objectification of women. However, the overwhelming majority of people do not make this narrow distinction. This, fundamentally, is leads to issues because we're working with two definitions here.

The crux of Dworkin's argument is that pornography is a manifestation of the misogyny embedded in patriarchal society, how can this be true, if those same patriarchal forces are directly responsible for the repression and censorship of pornographic materials? Further, how can this be true if, as mentioned later we look at pre-Christian societies, and how sex was depicted in a much more open sense in a variety of cases? Further, how does this account for gay porn? Trans porn? Queer porn? Consider a typical pornographic scenerio, a slender woman is rough, passionate sex with two large, fit men. Their faces are obscured, and she's centered in the film's composition. This is, by Dworkin's definition absolutely pornography, and thus a manifestation of our patriarchal society. Now, consider the same scenario without a woman involved. A slender twink is having rough sex by two fit men. Does this evoke the same reaction inherent "wrongness" in relation to a patriarchial society, or does it evoke the inherentness of male sexuality, something we've been trained culturally to accept? Is it that our culture continues to subliminally and consciously acknowledge female sexuality as inherently innate?

You know, I've been told that you can't be pro-communist and be, you know, pro-pornography, because it's inherently anti-women, right? To be honest, the idea that there's no way a woman could want to have or participate in such activities, but if it's a man or a queer person, or gay porn or whatever, then it's different, that to me seems like inherently misogystic contradition to posit. Especially when we consider the root of this obsession with controlling the sexuality of people, namely working class people, is rooted in 17th-18th century English aristocracy. In fact, the first law that criminalized pornography was the English Obscene Publications Act 1857, and to this day, any depiction of female ejaculation in pornography is completely banned in the UK.

Soon after, similar laws spread across much of the other imperial nations of the time, America's 1865 Comstock Act (which also sought to control abortion and contraceptives), as well as Tsarist Russia, with the anti-pornography laws on the books in the USSR being inhereted from this era. We can look at former Eastern block states like East Germany and Yugoslavia for much more lax laws on the material as well. Going further back now. We can see in various pre-AD societies, that sexual expression was much different than it is in our current, western culture. From trans priestesses in Sumeria, to ancient Nubian and Cretan matriarchial societies, as well as the Japanese tradition of Shuga, among countless other examples, it's clear our society's sexual culture is not innate to the human experience itself. A historical material analysis shows us this.

We see that the rise of industrialization, and indeed the earliest stages of capitalism saw the rise of these anti-pornography censorship laws. In some places, even the mere act of masturbation was deemed obscene, causing mental illness. As the working class formed during this urbanization, industrialization period, these laws and cultural stances served as a means of controlling the working class further. Workers lived closely, often in flop houses and other packed, cramped buildings. Company towns were not uncommon. Your boss is your neighbor, and your boss is the mayor, and these additional layers of control served as a means to both pacify and create a culture of shame around the sexual nature humans inately have, these layers of control are a central means in which the capitalist class normalizes and diffuses a layer of anxiety that allows for the boss, the manager, the overseer, to enact further control over the working classes.

How can the argument that pornography, as a medium, is inherently a manifestation of the patriachy, if the root cause of the patriarchy, according to a Marxist feminist view, is capitalism, and we know that, during the rise of capitalism and industrialization, the culture of sexual shame and censorship was made manifest via various laws in-acted by the capitalist class to control the proletariat? Further, how can one reduce the medium to it's most obscene interactions, and then judge it on those merits alone? And finally, if those obscene interactions are done consentually, then is to judge them as inherently patriachial not, ironically, re-inforcing the patriarchal denial of women as innately sexual beings, while re-inforcing the ideal that men, innately are? We would not scoff at a man who responds to "Why did you become a porn star?" with "Because I like sex." but, the same response from a woman in our current societal framework would, for most, evoke a different reaction.

There are issues, but these issues are worker's issues. Safety, consent, trafficking, sexual harassment. Many of these issues are bought up as a way to paint pornography as inherently maleficant but, other industries are plagued with them as well. Trafficking for example, is very common for hotel house keeping services, typically women as well. Sexual harrassment from customers and co-workers plagues various industries, including tech, think about the treatment of women at game companies like Blizzard for example.

My ex, as mentioned above, was pretty open that she liked to get off, and that she felt more degraded as a waitress than selling videos online. When one asks female performers, aside from workers issues stated above, they mention the stigma. The lack of career options after they exit the industry, the social stigma, the scarlet letter that performing in porn brings upon them. Does this not reflect the same psychological control mechanisms mentioned above? If pornography is, as some of my contemporaries have put, "the peak of neoliberalism", why then, do major payment systems like Visa, Mastercard, Cashapp, Paypal, etc shutdown sex work and pornographic content creators so often?

It's for these reasons that I have to conclude that pornography, as defined in the introduction, is not inherently anti-woman, nor is it inherently bad. Like video games, or film, or music, pornography is a medium of expression, in it's case, sexual expression. Could it be that it's the very deeply ingrained sexual culture created over the last 200 years of industrialization that's the issue? Someone spends an hour playing a highly realistic simulation of war, these games are highly popular, played primarily by young men and the development of these games are often funded, in part, by the US Department of Defense. We don't have any level of shame built around these simulations of violence, yet, they often lead enlistments, to real death, real trauma. One must ask, why is sexuality shamed and admonished, but violence celebrated?
250 posts and 35 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


How many SW have either of you ever meet or even talked to? I get a strange feeling its 0


They don't hate it, they just want to blackmail you with it


you don't talk to coal miners to find out why black lung happens, sex workers in the imperial core are often petit Bourgeois anyway


>What, do you actually think that they prefer to work that kind of job?
Some do


Reported for pseudo-scientific religious crap


"sex positive" feminism is liberal cancer that disregards systemic analysis and the ways individual choices are influenced by material conditions. conservative moralfags are even more retarded though so nuanced takes are rare


>Porn and prostitution are considered sex "work". T
Maybe but they are best not to form in to one, they are very different enviroments that affect a very different subsets of people in very different ways.
>"sex positive" feminism is liberal cancer that disregards systemic analysis and the ways individual choices are influenced by material conditions.
Very true. I legitimately have never seen these people on this site come up with any good argumentation besides sloganeering and building straw men of 'morality' or 'prudeness'.
Worse I have only ever seen them conflate Prositution/Pornography/OnlyFans in to one thing, their 'sex work', in order to obsfucate the very radically different material conditions those within these secetors find themselves in.

It's similar to addicts justifying addictions, but at least addictions tend to mostly harm the user.


sex positivism is based actually, take the GDR Pill chinletdie and have sex.


>the GDR Pill
Prostitution was not legal in the GDR and it was treated like as a social issue, retard.


>porn =/= prostitution, do you think wresting is real?
So the pro porn people are now pretending that their "industry" doesn't generate a constant demand for both prostitution and human trafficking?


None, it is just an ad


Well, are you including drawn stuff in the bunch? Because if yes, then it depends


Since a certain someone keeps reporting shit all over the goddamn place for "rightism", I shall specify that an uber-generic "rightism", as in the right tendency within marxism, is not a bannable offense


sex was openly accepted by every corner of GDR society, i don't care that prostitution was banned, it was still positive about sex instead of going on about how icky and decadent is to have it, you fucking mongrel.


So the mods do in fact see the report thing, interesting


Spam reports
now that's a good idea


please quantify this lmao


Communists will wonder why the masses think they are all weirdos but then rant about how women should be covered up and how sex is degenerate.


>Very true. I legitimately have never seen these people on this site come up with any good argumentation besides sloganeering and building straw men of 'morality' or 'prudeness'.
>Worse I have only ever seen them conflate Prositution/Pornography/OnlyFans in to one thing, their 'sex work', in order to obsfucate the very radically different material conditions those within these secetors find themselves in.

You must not have read the OP


it's so interesting that anti-porn arguments always come down to the cliché of "that's someone's daughter"

"would you want your daughter doing that?"

It's interesting how the gender is so critical to whether or not the sexual expression is exploitive or not.


File: 1718683493825-0.jpg (Spoiler Image, 53.64 KB, 640x521, medieval torture device ci….jpg)

File: 1718683493825-1.png (Spoiler Image, 59.32 KB, 776x365, circumcision sadist.png)

File: 1718683493825-2.jpg (Spoiler Image, 169.76 KB, 653x1024, circumstraint.jpg)

Circumcision is an outdated practice from times when people didn't have the provisions to properly maintain their hygiene, because there's not many showers or bodies of water in deserts and middle-eastern plains.


The daughter isn't playing a gender role here, but the role of "viable seed" of the classical family order and the "community". Her contribution to the social order is her submission of her labor power to the masculine will, and particularly that of her eventual husband. Her duty is to understand "his" will correctly and produce a house and children in "his" image, so that they too will reproduce in true form.

Non-canonical ideas and experiences, often directly contradicting the florid protective myths of degeneration and ruin woven into their culture, in fact corrode the reproduction of their cultural property by tarnishing its supposed perfection. The classical household is constructed on the conceit that others have a general duty to refrain from interference in the reproduction of that property, yet they believe in no reciprocal duty to other ideologies.

Conservatoids are therefore fierce and relentless in contesting the nature and content of education and public entertainment, because their total system can only be reproduced as a community. Anyone losing their chains should be no less than twice as fiercely and relentlessly throwing rocks, spanners, and bodies preferably theirs into their cultural reproductive machinery until it is irreparably destroyed.


kids are utterly obsessed with porn, it 100% rots your brain.
genuinely should be banned as if it were a national security threat or a virus.
it also turns people into lowlifes obsessed with masturbation
beyond being just a moral issue is clearly a health one-
we don't live in 1920 where porn was a couple magazines, now people is exposed to screens all day.


>an outdated practice from times when people didn't have the provisions to properly maintain their hygiene
No it isn't. That's historical revisionism that serves the pro-circumcision narrative by validated made up post-hoc rationalizations for it. People didn't even have an understanding of hygiene that is used to justify it (germ theory etc) until modern times. Further, it is not more hygienic or an effective prophylactic for diseases. Most of the world never practiced it and did not suffer for it at all. It was only considered "cleaner" in a ritualistic sense.

The - openly and often loudly stated - purpose of it was almost always to inflict harm, by reducing function permanently, inflicting severe pain, and inflicting lifelong trauma to deter having sex that wasn't approved of. This was very directly stated by the people who promoted the practice in the contexts where it caught on. The main examples of these are the Jewish scholar Maimonides who was supporting the radically more destructive form of the practice that had been popularized among Jews in the Roman Emprie, and John Harvey Kellogg who popularized the practice in the United States in the first place. IDK if there is literature from the Islamic world about this (other than influence from Maimonides), but that would be the other main group to look at on the topic.


>People didn't even have an understanding of hygiene
<Oh muh historical people were all savages!
Outdated narrative. Yes germ theory or whatever wasn't a concept, but cleanliness was absolutely a thing, do you think people walked around dirty and sweaty and stinking because they want to? Ancient Greeks for example promoted the importance of bathing and cleanliness, as did the Egyptians and Mesopotamians. However clean fresh water is not available everywhere, and you don't need to have germ theory to observe a pattern of dirt and sand and moisture getting under the foreskin leads to all sorts of diseases and sores. It was a common problem even in recent times, with US soldiers that weren't circumcized and who didn't have the ability to maintain their cleanliness had issues with their penises and it was so bad that the US military issued a rumor about Black Syph to encourage better crotch hygiene (t.knew vets and stuff from there).


pornography is quite popular into market economies, and is widely used as a method of destruction and subversion against the working class as it breaks the social accords that create cohesion within it makingsaid working class subordinate to a series of hierachies within a consumption market
as a recurrent method of demoralization Israelis would capture palestinian TV stations and air pornography for days

pornography is part of a materialistic trend of mercantilization of the sexual world, turning it from a social reproductive accord that would satisfy workers biological needs to a constant competition within a market economy for a very obsolecent good. just like people can be more easily exploited when food is not secured, removing the accord in sexuality that secured sex further ground for exploitation.

porn does, in fact, empower women, it gives them market value and makes of each vagina a bourgeois capital accumulation organ, each proletariat woman transitions into a petit bourgeois that can exploit the biological fault of males (their hypersexuality) in a contractual fashion to become herself a entrepeneur.
women are no longer suitable revolutionaries tied to labour force and labour exploitation, they are now producers and exporters of their own. (do not conflate pornography with prostitution)

in a context of pornography sexuality is a market good, with consumption value that is intended to be offered at the rate is demanded
but then again, what if pornography was non-profitable?

sex remains mercantilized because its not part of a social accord, because in a context of contractual sexuality the forementioned becomes a trade good used as a blackmailing based on biological terror, just like contractual exploitation

sex needs to be a welfare good, sex work needs to be a valid and endorsed, but state controled. or alternative part of an unquestionable social fabric.
because otherwise it becomes a weapon of subversion used by the oligarchy against the working class.
who will fight each other and compete ruthlessly in the context of a mercantilized sex market where the value is not defined by work but from a series of obsolecent consumption goods and status symbols


I was about to post almost exactly the same response, thank you.

I would add, as late as 1935, in the British Medical Journal, one R.W. Cockshut (yes, really) tells us about how the British ideal of "civilisation" requires chastity.

The other anon is right. You're engaging in scientistic presentism and validating capitalist biopolitics by claiming they have been fulfilled. And of course only someone who has never known having a foreskin and the rich sensations and pleasures it provides would have such a casual disdain of it, that it might be something to throw aside like yesterday's underwear.

There is more evidence that genital mutilation rites develop as markers of social distinction between classes (Egyptian slaves) or tribes (Israelites, among others), and that medical rationalizations are constructed ad hoc, after the fact. The foreskin is a means of pleasure and gratification that costs nothing, but in a more dismal light, it is also in excess of the minimum conditions of human reproduction, and therefore potentially subject to appropriation. The rite as promoted by the Anglo-imperial diaspora intends, however tacitly, to damage the site of that self-production by separating practice from its conditions, to produce a more broken, more dependent, more submissive lumpen.


>pornography is part of a materialistic trend


meds, i'm ESL, i tend to be redundant


>Instead of going on about how icky and decadent is to have it, you fucking mongrel.
Quite literally responding to what nobody is saying. Only proving very well about those straw-men you are fascinated with in an complete and absolute refusal to approach the subject matter materially. Two can play at this game you see;
Look, if you want to throw large members of the most vulnerable people in society under the bus with moralizing so you can feel good about being an economic rapist fine but just admit it.
> practice from times when people didn't have the provisions to properly maintain their hygiene,
What? In a time before antibiotics and science-based wound-care? And what of female-circumcision?
Not an ancient history guy but that doesn't make sense to me anon.


makes you wonder who the real barabarians are…


>i would draw my own porn if i had to
been there


>Basically, is (irrelevant thing that neither favors nor works against proletarian organization) compatible with communism?
Stop making retarded questions for fuck's sake. Not everything needs to be elevated into a political issue, even less if you're a communist.


If it's such a sensitive part, getting rid of it lets you last longer which would make coomers even hornier.

Either way, I am happy I didn't grow up with a worm for a dick.


File: 1718737995874.jpeg (16.79 KB, 568x666, 1696303722033.jpeg)

okay ladies but are we pretending women do not approach sexuality in a biologically different way males do?
we (mammals) are clearly predisposed to matriarchal sexuality by our very material and biological nature.
women ARE pickier, and tend to chose mates based on liability of capital accumulation, social status, power, agression and assertiveness.
males are trying to stick their cocks anywhere and go neurotic if they can't, as long as any woman offers them sex in exchange of their work they will adhere

patriarchy was a nobel revolution of sexuality that happened sometime in the late stage of human evolution, arround the paleolithic, as a way to disempower women from making contractual relations proletarizing male labour in exchange for sex, which is actually the way things turn, in a context where physical threat from the proletariat is supressed by institutions of power.
women do not have the workforce, but they have the capital (pussy) they use to extort the biologically skewed male figure, which evolved to cum as many times as possible.

either we totally collectivize sexuality and make of it a secured good for the working class, no different from food, or males are bound to be neurotic and enter depressive-maniac episodes


File: 1718739175635.jpg (220.87 KB, 1726x970, PAh33wcdjD2uZymnL45RqN.jpg)

>One must ask, why is sexuality shamed and admonished, but violence celebrated?
Civilisation begins with sexual taboo yet violence is an unconditional aspect of existence - our food comes from bleeding out animals while they cry for mercy. The sexual relation by contrast comes into civic consciousness along with the distribution of mates. One pertains to an anarchy of production while the other is regulated.
Interestingly, things are reversed today where sex is free yet even to speak certain words is considered "violent" and is prohibited. Even on this site you can post all of the porn you want but get banned for wrongthink.
Our morality thus has shifted pertaining to the relations of production where what is free is good and what is constricted is bad.
Its somewhat opposite on the right where porn is seen as degen.erate yet any vocal/textual obscenity is permitted. This aligns with the right wing glorification of violence and of sexual regulation.


Essentialist evo psych schitzoism meds


The issue is that women's power is only underlied by a vanguard of males who provide protections. Thats where real power is, in the state. Even capital cannot function without it.


>only underlied by a vanguard of males who provide protections
Cope, seethe and dilate, post-teen


File: 1718742530256.jpg (54.89 KB, 960x720, Jarawa.jpg)

which incidentially further worsens the sexual scene, in the absence of some state redistribution of sexual capital, such as public brothels, the sexual market becomes a transactional and contractual between women, who are picky and tend to be much less horny, making of them the ones biologically bond to retain and accumulate capital for investment and even speculation, and men, who are constantly horny and fail to reach negotiation grounds unless its provided they can attain sexual security.
women are said to lose value as their bnody count increases precisely because of this perceived inherent values the woman has and the male steals/takes from her.
the man value steems from work value instead.
thus creating a Bourgeois female who profits from the retention of sexual capital and a proletarized male class in conflict with other proletariat and the female in a negotiation and competition to acquire the sexual capital.

the Mammalian male is a inherent proletarian biological unit, in fact the male is, whereas the female is always the distributor of capital, setting prices and value, the more footing they have to set a minimum value the higher the price in work will be and the lower the retribution, in a scenario where both are in equal footing regarding strenght, of course, as the proletariat has the power of force


Well i think in some sense youre right but also wrong. I think the dominant mode of mammalian males is of soldiers, huntsmen or lumpen. I think what today's sexual market creates is a mass of lumpen males, not proletarianised males.
Capitalism in general faces this problem though, where it arises in the first place through the disposability of excess life (wrought by the savong of children during childbirth which also spawned darwinian and malthusian thought).
Capital uses men's bodies as machines to fit into the schema of an excess which builds excesses as a result.
This today has reached a critical point especially with automation where monopoly (and sexual monopoly) pools up while the general population are made surplus and consumers.
Today there is much sexual consumption in porn made by sexual surplus, but there is a lack of sexual meaning.
Thats why i think the issue isnt inceldom (not having sex), its not having love - the same way capital cannot facilitate social relations outside of the commodity form.
In essence, we must overcome sex and be brought into love. Sex produces surplus by its nature, like capital. We need a more monogamous public consciousness. The issue isnt no sex, its too much sex.


>using "proletarian" to describe something that has nothing to do with wage labor


File: 1718743539809.png (16.29 KB, 220x223, ClipboardImage.png)

Even on the left, imageboard posters cannot go five minutes without making everything under the sun about how they're not getting sex. Holy fucking shit, grow up and understand not everything is about your dick.


>lacking analogical thinking
A sign of autism
Also "proletariat" is latin for "those who have children" and so signifies the self-reproduction of a class of people as opposed to the infertile bourgeoisie
Males as compared to females would likewise be analogous since males are largely by nature disposable while females are the carriers of the species, same way capitalists are the job creators for billions of workers.
>Bases sexual relations to "muh dick".


File: 1718746878564.jpeg (60.93 KB, 715x738, GPIKRjBXcAA7old.jpeg)

Pretty much, the real consideration is that as vertebrates we are bond to perceive male life as a disposable, males compete and destroy each other to impress women and women are bond to be judgamental about losers and despise most males they deem unfit.
It is even deeply ingrained in our language, female animals "chose" partners while male animals "get" partners.
The female is the one that on a basis of her biology makes an investment when mating, but to make an investment she as well creates value by reducing her sex drive and "saving" sexualiaty.
on the other hand men make the lower investment sexually, so they try to fuck as much as possible, nontheless, as females started gatekeeping themselves, a contractual relation was established.
Male bodies had become working units for exploitation, as the biological legacy we have shows clearly, males are larger, stronger, taller, more resilent and live shorter. A dispensable proletarian unit intended to work.

So while in certain point this order was reverted by the patriarchy, in this era, where the patriarchy has been reverted and sexuality has reverted to the natural order, many males turn into lumpen, as the very source of their neuroticism with life is the rejection from members of his own class, incels are quite an expression of this phenomenom in a large scale.
Thus is why, in this current state, i deem it would be impossible to mobilize much of the male population for the working class cause. As you say, we are reaching a critical point in that regard

And somehow i agree, as capitalism surges from surplus and we have a male surplus, their disposability is a given and the surplus of sex we are presented with (with no consciousness whatsoever, as sex is a merely transactional aproach to the life, not a necesity and instrument for a cause) with no love, nor for the rest of people, nor for women, nor the working class, and especially not for men.


I think in common places of male excess like the military is the presence of brotherly love which could also be afforded today. Now is the possibility of genuine friendship.
I have hope in the diminishing returns of pornographic culture though and do think the species yearns for authentic connection, where our matriarchal overlords bend to the level of the common man for her own inspiration.
A political tactic could be a male sex strike, or even homosexuality. But the ebbs and flows will organically align into balance over time, where love will rule as the principle of social life (and hate will also be castigated to the competitions of men in war that will kill eachother).
The meek will inherit the earth.


>However clean fresh water is not available everywhere, and you don't need to have germ theory to observe a pattern of dirt and sand and moisture getting under the foreskin leads to all sorts of diseases and sores.
It doesn't. This is false. We wouldn't have evolved this feature to be like this if it was such a problem. The vagina is well known to have self-cleaning features like most of our orifices (ears, nose, mouth, eyes), and there's reason to see the same with the glans and foreskin, but the subject barely studied at all because science as a whole tends to be ruled by the position of "it's vestigial at best and gross at worst" so little study of the subject is done. People will say "ew, smegma! Cut that foreskin off," but nobody says "ew boogers! Cut that nose off!" And nobody was doing it for that reason, they just switched up the narrative way way later after "I want to make sex painful and rare and instill primal fear of losing body parts in my child" stopped being an accepted thing to say about it. This isn't speculation, we have the records of people saying those things.
>It was a common problem even in recent times, with US soldiers that weren't circumcized and who didn't have the ability to maintain their cleanliness had issues with their penises and it was so bad
The US military has famously never ever exploited its hierarchy to conduct dubious medical experiments, huh? The example you just used has them lying about disease to trick people.
>Yes germ theory or whatever wasn't a concept, but cleanliness was absolutely a thing,
And circumcision has nothing to do with cleanliness.
>do you think people walked around dirty and sweaty and stinking because they want to?
Different cultures have different standards of cleanliness, but what you're describing is not particularly common. Especially compared to the kinds of things women often deal with like yeast infections and UTIs. But everybody understands it would be absurd to claim that you can effectively prevent those by amputating parts of the vulva. And the people who practice FGM generally haven't used that sort of justification until introduced to it from cultures where those concerns dominate. It's a modern concern for modern people. Most people historically didn't connect disease with cleanliness in the way you describe, so your argument is a non-sequitur. Depending on culture, the theories of disease were based on things like humours, spirits, miasma, curses, imbalance of life energy, etc. This isn't a matter of being stupid and unwashed. It's just a matter of science not getting there yet. You are projecting modern ideas onto the past.


Proletarian is a relation to property. Working-class is a relation to labor. The first, therefore the second. Don't take television "communists" seriously.

Cringiest mythologizing I have seen all day, /siberia/ pls go


I just know that the american glowies are very hellbent on promoring pornography and female empowerment so it is probably some pipeline into financial feudalism and recostructing the woman into a petit-bourgeois


>We wouldn't have evolved this feature to be like this if it was such a problem.
Hominids did not evolve in the Sahara desert or in muggy tropical rainforests, but in open plainlands, often near the shore and proceeded to spread out across different climes and areas which lead to the various "racial" phenotypes we have today. Higher melanin in sunnier areas for example. Furthermore, you do realize that prior to modern day human life expectancies were not high right? And you do realize that Evolution is about who can pass on genes, not who is less bothered by dirty penis. The sensory nerves of the penis and other benefits means that the negatives are outweighed.

Also you do realize I'm on your side that Circumcision isn't a good thing right? I'm just saying that in the far distant past when things were different, there was a possible explanation for this, but that this isn't an excuse today.
>The US military has famously never ever exploited its hierarchy to conduct dubious medical experiments
Considering that I literally made several effortposts on the subject, including on things that most people here have never heard of (such as the Plutonium tests) you're barking up the wrong tree. My point is that in THIS case the US military was exaggerating to its troops about a supposed STD called Black Syph in order to get the troops to start maintaining their junk properly and stop getting all sorts of issues with their foreskins due to neglected hygiene.
>circumcision has nothing to do with cleanliness
Take a person with a circumcised and uncircumcised penis and stick it deep into sand. It's a hell of a lot easier to clean off the former. Again, I agree it's not a good thing, but it certainly can make cleaning that area faster and easier.

>It's just a matter of science not getting there yet

Anon, you don't NEED science for basic shit, washing yourself is not a scientific process, it's common sense, something people have always had. You don't need science to tell you to drink water, your body tells you. You don't need science to avoid contact with a predatory animal, it's common sense, it's why when people don't follow common sense, we laugh at them. Besides science has existed for millennia and tenets about cleanliness and so on existed long before common era.

Unique IPs: 21

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]