What would be a Marxist critique of sex and human sexuality?
Sexual lust is a stain on civilization. It destroys communities, promotes selfishness and furthers the idea that human beings are worthy only insofar as they provide pleasure or “usefulness” to the other. One can clearly see the link between the normalization of sexual lust and eugenics for this reason. It also causes social instability and moral decay.
Non-sexual love is about what you give to the other person, lust is about what you mindlessly take from the other person.
So far, the only philosophers and thinkers I’ve seen who thoroughly critique human sexuality are either ancient and medieval thinkers, or modern-day right-wingers who rely on said ancient/medieval critiques. Where are all the Marxist critique of sexual lust and what a massively destructive force it is? Marxism needs to promote the idea sex is solely for the act of procreation and mutual pleasure between monogamous partners. It is because our modern society is ruled by lust that we see vast amounts of moral decay. Moral relativism is everywhere. Secularism and capitalism have destroyed any sense of virtue. Desire to take from others sexually has made these things almost impossible to fight against.
Marxism must critique sexuality and promote sexual abstinence and purity.
I don’t care about people having sex, I just want free healthcare.
>What would be a Marxist critique of sex and human sexuality?
Shulamith Firestone
im a marxist and i have sex all the time
Sex as escapism is bad because all escapism is bad
>>2858817Be honest anon, what are your psychosexual neuroses and hangups. This post is nothing to do with Marxism or even with sex, you are just bothered by something. Your weird aside into being bothered by a loss of virtue makes this particularly clear.
Are you mad you can't have sex, or autistic and bothered that it occupies so much of everyone's time for such an ostensibly boring end? (I ask this not as an insult, but from a place of sympathy if so.) Do the big 5 personality test and post results, then I can give you a more tailored analysis. (I promise not to be mean if you do the same.)
>>2858817Capitalism forces selfishness therefore the only thing you can get out of relations is either sex or money or anything that leverages those two things or appearance thereof
a dialectical materialist analysis of what you're talking about would focus on the profit motive for this sexual-medical complex. all of the "degeneracy" is simply a symptom, or product, of this. for example: sexual promiscuity is a byproduct of birth control medication. "trans" is a byproduct of a large assortment of medical industries and providers. homosexual promiscuity after AIDS is a byproduct of the medical complex as well, selling things like PREP. all of these also have a considerable overlap with the liberal state, which subsidizes the consumption of the production and also the research. either way the way you're framing it isn't "marxist" at all (you sound like some pussy trad larper) but there is certainly a methodology to be used
>>2858869You forgot the biggest factor of all, the fact that we don’t live and work on farms anymore
>>2858817You cant use Marxism to come up with morals.
This is ultimately a moral question, as marxist we understand ethics are a product of the ruling class. Look at where we pull our ethics from they are all bourgeoise teachers (Mill, Kant) or from previous ruling class (St. Thomas [born noble given to the church]).
My morality is still a bourgeoise one, as a materialist I follow the empiricism of Utility. So I dont care who you fuck as long as it doesnt cause trouble.
>>2858878Largely due to imperialism and getting all our fruits and veggies from LatAm, yes.
>>2858880There’s no amount of mechanized agriculture that would make it possible to grow bananas or avocados on US soil
>>2858879It’s also hard to see how a proletarian sexual morality would be substantively different than the bourgeois one
>>2858817>Non-sexual love is about what you give to the other person, lust is about what you mindlessly take from the other person.Lust darkens the mind, in the words of Saint Augustine.
>>2858879How do Catholic sexual ethics oppose the goals of Marxism? Thomas Aquinas was practically an anarcho-communist.
Sexual love is also about what you can give the other person if you aren’t a prick
>>2858895The homophobia and the opposition to abortion
>>2858895I never said he did.
His contribution to ethics and being part of the clergy was merely ane example of how the ruling class creates ethical systems.
>>2858901How is that a problem for Marxists?
>>2858902Because you’re supposed to overthrow the ruling class not reproduce it. What good are patriarchal gender norms when we don’t live in feudalism? We’re mechanized to the point gender doesn’t matter.
>>2858907How was Aquinas wrong?
>>2858879>So I dont care who you fuck as long as it doesnt cause trouble.Sex is inherently a social process though. Children are especially so. Reproduction shouldn't be private in a communal society. It needs to be something that is managed. This is what religion and tradition used to do before they were dismantled.
>>2858909Christ was not the son of God nor did he die for our sins nor did he rise from the dead. That’s the start.
>>2858911Regulated in what sense? Rape and child abuse are already illegal, what more do you want? A parenting license ? A sex license?
>>2858817I was with the guy in the video until he started regurgitating bullshit about migrants raping 12-year old white girls.
>>2858913Letting people choose their sexual partners is entirely a product of capitalism and bourgeois morality. For most of human history, marriages were arranged, and this was a much better outcome since arranged marriages made live and sex a communal affair rather than an individual one. In socialism, arranged marriages could be used to offset eugenics (since the disabled are rarely ever considered desirable in capitalist ideology and no one wants to have children with disabled folks on the basis the child will be disabled) and could be used to prevent predatory relationships with power imbalances (like a 40-year old man having sex with an 18-year old girl). It’s only due to capitalist propaganda that we see love and sexuality in purely individualist (consumerist) terms.
>>2858932I’m not letting a state bureaucrat who I have never known and have no relationship with choose who I have sex with, that’s completely insane.
>>2858933So you’d rather have people choose their partners based on hypergamy and eugenics?
How is that consistent with socialism?
>>2858944Equality has nothing to do with communism
May as well have a Marxist Critique of Biology
>>2858956All multicellular organisms are worker coops, and like worker coops they’re counterrevolutionary
>>2858944You're a dipshit
>>2858932>>2858944Wokecels proving themselves to be just as bad as incels.
>>2858933Yet you support said state bureaucrat to do the thing you complain about but to people below the magic age line of adulthood. That’s just hypocrisy.
>>2858817>watches videoWhy would a Marxist care about what Plato and Maimonides say about sex?
Or better yet, why would a Marxist care about people fucking? We don't adhere to Victorian social morals. Who cares about "sex scandals"?
>>2859055>”sex scandals”Rightoids certainly do. MeToo and Epstein are just exceptions to the broader norm of rightoids moralfagging over sex.
And why is that? For the same reason radfems have created an entire ideology out of “rape” being this spectacular event that warrants the world’s attention: Sexual moralfaggotry is the preoccupation of the middle class, and both radfems and conservatives are middle class, so outrage over sex scandals function as a form of class solidarity.
In fact, the rise in reactionary lumpen coincides with the downward mobility of the western meddle classes into full-on lumpenproletariat
>>2859057#metoo was an absolute disaster. Since when do we allow people to act as judge, jury, and executioner on the basis that they *might* have been sexual abuse victims? How many of the men accused actually went to trial? The only ones I can think of are Weinstein, Diddy, and R. Kelly.
>>2858956Isn't that Lysenkoism?
>>2859073capitalist gender relations are about as much the product of free choice as wage labour is
>>2858869the problem with this theory is that most of these things aren't that profitable. birth control is mostly available in the form of cheap generics and basically nothing about transgender care makes sense if profit is your primary motive. i've gone through this before but i am going to kep doing it.
- why the long wait lists and in-depth assessments for something that's given to cisgender women for free?
- if you can psyop men into wanting to be women, why not psyop them into wanting more expensive treatments but - crucially - treatments that are still within their price range. (the vast majority of transwomen don't get surgery because it's too expensive! bad psyop!)
- why such poor insurance coverage when they could get in on the scam?
- why go to all this effort for a product which fundamentally operates on "high volume, low margin" principles? when cisgender women hit menopause the majority of them are prescribed estrogen. if you wanted to make more money on estrogen, bumping up the recommended dose by even 1 microgram would make you more money than all the transsexuals in the world since the year dot.
- if surgery is the aim for reasons we can't ascertain, why not try to get western cis people to embrace plastic surgery as South Koreans have? 33% of South Korean women have had some kind of cosmetic surgery versus only 5-6% of American women. Even though surgery has much better margins, playing with the tiny number of transgender people when you could use these powers to profit from a much bigger market makes no sense.
- why did this powerful medical lobby not stop Trump coming to power and meddling with transgender care? why does it allow the UK to operate as TERF island? (don't say "because the NHS eliminates the profit motive", the NHS is full to the gizzard with private sector grift and is now e-mailing everyone's medical data to palintir.)
i don't entirely object to the theory birth control leads to promiscuity, but promiscuity has actually declined because we've all gotten online since then and a lot of 1960s-90s promiscuity was basically just boredom. the rise of transgender identity owes much more to the internet lowering the social costs of transition and increasing information + making your irl body less relevant than it does to medical developments, and as for male homosexual promiscuity: PREP may enable it to some degree, but it's not like they were all monogamous trads until it was invented…>>2859047they are just incels. they won't post their big 5 results because they know it will show they do not have a communist disposition and have simply stumbled upon an aesthetic that they think can be used to validate their neuroses. latter day narodniks without any of the comedy.
>>2859075so an improvement on the status-quo-ante? you might be a kinky little serf who likes living in bondage, but for everyone else there's mastercard.
>>2859075>"you WILL date and breed with the tards! if you refuse it's because you've been BRAINWASHED by capitalist ideology!"Fuck off.
A thread by and for church ladies
We will destroy OP with our potent sexual energy. Rape those who critiques SEXO.
Agreed OP. Sex is counter-revolutionary. One cannot be a revolutionary without also being a virgin. The greatest anti imperialist revolutionaries of our time (Putin, Orban, Alice Weidel) are all virgins.
>>2859055If you watch his other videos you’ll see he’s a Dugin fan and a Strauss cultist from the Claremont Institute.
He also has several videos promoting Zionism.
>>2859075It’s far more progressive than arranged marriages under feudalism.
>>2858817Dafuq kind of incel bullshit is this?
>>2858817>Sexual lust is a stain on civilization. It destroys communities, promotes selfishness and furthers the idea that human beings are worthy only insofar as they provide pleasure or “usefulness” to the other. One can clearly see the link between the normalization of sexual lust and eugenics for this reason. It also causes social instability and moral decay.
>Non-sexual love is about what you give to the other person, lust is about what you mindlessly take from the other person.All of these are appeals to emotion.
>>2858817>Marxism needs to promote the idea sex is solely for the act of procreation and mutual pleasure between monogamous partners.Why? On what basis does this advance the proletariat or the communist project in any way?
>>2859533You could have made this argument on the basis of practicality before the invention of the pill and the condom and PREP, afterwards? Come on
>>2859509Autistic retard, emotion is a rational thing. It is a specific modernist ideology to impose the erroneous assumption that emotion is somehow a disentangled, irrational substance without meaningful basis. I know what the fallacy you're referencing is, but to that I'd simply say fallacy fallacy. I categorically reject the presupposition upon which you dogmatically defer to the fallacy, such that the fallacy is no longer a fallacy at all. There is teleological meaning inherent to the emotions we experience, and if you want to handwave them away rather than actually contend with their substance, you're just omitting and eclipsing a vital slice of reality, which ironically makes you the less rational person. But autism tragically incurs a myopic sense of "logic" in its victims, so I doubt you'll ever fathom beyond your own nose.
>>2859062>>2859062It's just their reputation being destroyed (and all the things they get as result of that status and reputation)
Their rights remain, their property remains, their private dignity remains,
so getting metoo'd doesn't actually harm anyone.
All it does is hold people to a higher standard and make the public reflect on who and they choose to uplift and look up to and why.
That can only be a good thing from a Marxists perspective since getting people to wake up from bourgeois ideology that the rich and successful deserve what they have and are in some sense better than everyone else.
This entitledness of saying that "their lives are being ruined" only exposes the fact that the privileges they had were unearned in the first place, that the lives they had were never a result of the people they were but simply of the position they were given in a social hierarchy, so, slowly and beggrudgingly, this kind of situation helps remove the status of that hierarchy as well as those that occupy it.
The idea that someone might suffer "undeservingly" is a misdirection from the fact that it is not a person themselves that is in question but only the privileges they hold, that's what they're "deserving of" , or NOT.
Unique IPs: 28