>Promiscuity in sexual matters is bourgeois. It is a sign of degeneration. The proletariat is a rising class. It does not need an intoxicant to stupefy or stimulate it, neither the intoxicant of sexual laxity or of alcohol. It should and will not forget the vileness, the filth and the barbarity of capitalism. It derives its strongest inspiration to fight from its class position, from the communist ideal. What it needs is clarity, clarity, and more clarity. Therefore, I repeat, there must be no weakening, no waste and no dissipation of energy Self-control and self-discipline are not slavery; not in matters of love either. But excuse me, Clara, I have strayed far from the point which we set out to discuss. Why have you not called me to order? Worry has set me talking. I take the future of our youth very close to heart. It is part and parcel of the revolution. Whenever harmful elements appear, which creep from bourgeois society to the world of the revolution and spread like the roots of prolific weeds, it is better to take action against them quickly. The questions we have dealt with are also part of the women’s problems.
- Vladimir Lenin
Thoughts?
50 posts and 8 image replies omitted.>>2403199My main thought is that I won’t treat Lenin like a prophet and start accepting his hottest takes
Then again this can be utilized to bolster the black pill
>>2404459Why is not having sex “strong”?
Why is having sex “weak”?
Do you have a non-spooked answer?
>>2403199Lenin was misinformed since some level of promiscuity was inherent in humans as animals.
If you want to look at the sexuality of a classless society look at hunter gatherer society. Mostly long term pair bonds but partner switching i.e. divorce, pre-long term partnership sex i.e. pre-martial in the modern sense. The rigidity of static marriage and patriarchal religion is what is the historical oddity, not that.
The fact is serial monogamy with a few one night stands is probably the default mode of human sexuality.
>>2404696You can't google?
https://www.marxists.org/archive/zetkin/1925/lenin/zetkin2.htmHere is the full bit.
>“The revolution calls for concentration and rallying of every nerve by the masses and by the individual. It does not tolerate orgiastic conditions so common among d’Annunzio’s decadent heroes and heroines. Promiscuity in sexual matters is bourgeois. It is a sign of degeneration. The proletariat is a rising class. It does not need an intoxicant to stupefy or stimulate it, neither the intoxicant of sexual laxity or of alcohol. It should and will not forget the vileness, the filth and the barbarity of capitalism. It derives its strongest inspiration to fight from its class position, from the communist ideal. What it needs is clarity, clarity, and more clarity. Therefore, I repeat, there must be no weakening, no waste and no dissipation of energy Self-control and self-discipline are not slavery; not in matters of love either. But excuse me, Clara, I have strayed far from the point which we set out to discuss. Why have you not called me to order? Worry has set me talking. I take the future of our youth very close to heart. It is part and parcel of the revolution. Whenever harmful elements appear, which creep from bourgeois society to the world of the revolution and spread like the roots of prolific weeds, it is better to take action against them quickly. The questions we have dealt with are also part of the women’s problems.” >>2403199Within capitalism promiscuity is definitely bourgeois. It's anti-woman (due to childcare) and it privileges those with wealth. Most people can't afford to live alone, and a couple is a form of relationship that serves this need well.
But if everyone had access to adequate housing and childcare was less of an individual burden, would this make promiscuity the default?
Still at the end of the day you don't want to be stuck old and less desirable with only the pool of rejects to draw from, but that's so long as there's a general tendency to form pairs and stop being sexually open. I think some fundamental questions about human sexuality are still unanswered, like about biological impulses towards (only towards since it's obviously not absolute) pair-bonding in humans. Serial monogamy is my guess for the common desired outcome, but this also has issues since the timing of ending a relation or starting a new one likely won't be equally satisfactory to both parties. If this was the norm both parties, so long as they're experienced enough, could be expected to take self-protective measures by trying to stay detached and leaving first. This seems like an unsatisfying way to relate to others by making it competitive and not a save relationship for feeling much tenderness. If people realize this and actively choose long-term monogamy in response, this would shift things again towards needing to secure a decent partner before being left with the undesirables, bringing things back to where we are now…
>>2404639How does having casual sex harm society?
I will 100% accept Marxism-Rogersism I just want the MLoids floating the idea to say it openly instead of beating around the bush
Unique IPs: 37