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.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBWAi0ZCfdk
marxism is about class war, it rejects your culture wars and identity politics, therefore there would be no "marxist critique of sex and sexuality". we would reject this, inherently. its your fare on the right, where you try to make people bicker over these culturewars.
>>538366819ywnbaw
i should note, this does include a moderate level of tolerance for bigots >>538366969. i mean, we're not taking part in your culturewars, and we're also not trying to put you down for whatever views you have on homosexuals or whoever. all we want is for people to work together on the most basic levels, and when i write "the most basic levels", i really mean that. recognizing people who are different from you as having a mutual class interest, and recognizing you've got to organize on a basic level on issues pertaining to healthcare, and unions and whatnot. this is what we're about. this is what communists are asking of the people.
>>538366819It’s irrelevant honestly, marxism is economic and beyond producing workers or wasting people’s time sex isn’t something to really consider.Marx himself considered sexual deviants to be degenerates
>>538366969Sexuality is ultimately related to economics.
>>538367149It has economic and societal implications.
>>538366819Idk, but Stalin figured it out
>>538368032Correct. Stalin was based as hell.
>>538366819>>538367018>>538367149>>538367215>>538367766>>538368185>Correct. Stalin was based as hellFaggot Marxism great idea of sex is a bunch of Fat 40-50 year old Trannies Dilating each other.
>>538366819a 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 faggot trad larper) but there is certainly a methodology to be used
>>538366819>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.
>>538366969Marx did have some things to say about pederasty as the typical bourgeois vice iirc.
>>538368032Up until 1934 you could divorce in the USSR by just sending a postcard. You can't build a functioning society on such foolishness.
>>538366819Leftists, include the so called "old leftists", were and still are very gynocentric. They don't have a critique of sexual power or sexual economics because to do so would eventually lead to the wombs being communal property if they were to apply their own standards to sex. Engels was considered the father of modern feminism, and it should be noted that Engels and Marx were both tall, rich, and conventionally attractive. Those things should tip you off immediately that these men would have a very skewed perception of women and their roles in society. Fourier, the man who actually coined feminism, was far more honest. But he was ugly, so his advice/solutions were ignored.For example see this retard >>538367149. The means of reproduction, that is the creation of new workers, is paramount to the continuation and functioning of society. The fact that this leftist thinks it isn't important is why the Left as a political movement is and will be dead in about 40 years when the effects of the birth rate crisis become obvious.>>538366969Feminism was the original idpol, and it was spread by Engels and the utopians before him.
>>538368359Marxism is socially conservative at its core. The Catholic Church was the original Marxist movement.
>>538369059you have to be over 18 to post on this site dumb nigger
>>538368359>a dialectical materialist analysis of what you're talking about would focus on the profit motive for this sexual-medical complex.Hence why it fails. Economics, including profit motive, are down stream from sex competition. Human beings are sexual animals, not economic ones. Males accumulate resources/capital to achieve the best possible mate/genetic material, unless those males themselves have genetic traits that are demanded by the female half of the species. This should be pretty obvious to everyone.Reproductive and sexual capital are the only real forms of capital that cannot be expropriated or redistributed. Either you have it or you don't. Its why leftist tend to stay away from the subject, as trying to grapple with it causes some pretty hilarious things to happen. Fourier for example wanted publicly funded "pleasure squads" to deal with sexlessness. Could you imagine modern leftists backing something like this? How do you think their female voter base, which makes up the majority of their support, would view "sexual conscription"? Engels argued that kids should be raised communally, but he conveniently didn't mention that sexual selection would still be private. What does this mean in practice? Unchecked hypergamy and societal cuckoldry, where only a small amount of men breed and the rest pay for bastards.>>538368032Stalin was far more of a pragmatist than Lenin or Trotsky.
>>538366819>What would be a Marxist critique of sex and human sexuality?it would be neomarxism, as otherwise you'd be attempting to apply a laughably outdated economic philosophy to sexjust do the typical extension of a marxist framework onto irrelevant topics by framing the thing you don't like as 'oppressive' and the people you want to do something about it as 'oppressed'it worked for intersectionalism, and it worked for marxist feminismso:sex = oppressoryou, who has no access to sex (plus whatever cope that it's le bad or whatever) = oppressedthere we go, now it's neomarxism
>>538366969>it rejects your culture warsThe culture war started because marxists failed to push class war shit.
>>538369184>Males accumulate resources/capital to achieve the best possible mate/genetic materiali don't think this is broadly true. IMO a lot of males never have a single thought about their reproductive fitness, or reproduction period. i do think it is factual, historically, that a small amount of men were responsible for the bulk of reproduction in aggregate. i don't think they were accumulating to accomplish that though, rather they reproduce to transmit their accumulated wealth and power
>>538369781>IMO a lot of males never have a single thought about their reproductive fitness>I don't think a lot of men consciously think about their innate, instinctual, biological imperative... so they can't possibly be accumulating resources to secure the best mate...fucking whatwhat is that line of reasoning?you utter moron
You 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.
>>538369781>i don't think this is broadly true.What do you think a bride price is/was? What do you think modern (since the proliferation of industrialization) betabuxxing is? The only reason this doesn't seem obvious is because up until about 50 years ago, there were very old traditional institutions and social customs that dictated how the sex interact with each other. When this was destroyed in the 60s and 70s, the underlying mechanics at play became far more obvious. I'd also agree with you that most men don't think about reproduction, but that is only because the desire is so base that it isn't conscious. Like breathing or blinking.>i do think it is factual, historically, that a small amount of men were responsible for the bulk of reproduction in aggregate.Prior to agriculture, yes. The Neolithic Revolution completely changed how the sexes interacted, and this is where almost all of our social customs came from. The transition to industrialization make these things obsolete, and human have not had enough time to think of new ones.>they reproduce to transmit their accumulated wealth and powerPeople would reproduce regardless of whether they have wealth or power. That is how you know it is upstream from economics. Slaves historically did this, and the poorest places on Earth have the highest birthrates.
>>538370094I would give him the benefit of the doubt here. I think he is right in a literal way. Like>Damn that chick has great genetics. Hopefully my son gets those eyes, or my daughter gets that hourglass shape.Its more like>fuck that bitch is hot, I want to fuck the shit of her>>538370095>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.
>>538370094most men think about fucking. if they thought about primarily about reproducing, then bastard children, orphans, etc would be an anomaly. please stfu>>538370142>What do you think a bride price is/was?the bill for raising a woman>What do you think modern (since the proliferation of industrialization) betabuxxing is?in the case of incels and betas, what they seem to want is "a girlfriend" because they are lonely. again this is very different from actually wanting a family or children, which they frankly probably couldn't handle being pathetic losers and all>People would reproduce regardless of whether they have wealth or power.yes certainly, but this tends to be a byproduct. slaves have children because they are fucking. africans have children because they are fucking, not because ngubu is envisioning some grand lineage (he will also abandon that child lol)
>>538370603>most men think about fucking. if they thought about primarily about reproducinglookneither of those has anything to do with them thinking about their reproductive fitness or notbut you're too dumb to realise you're goalpost-shiftingI won't even accuse you of deliberate sophistryyou said:>IMO a lot of males never have a single thought about their reproductive fitnesswhich means you (somehow) believe most men have never once thought about how attractive they are to the opposite sexand it means they've never done anything they thought would increase their chances with the opposite sexbecause if they did either of those, then it would equate to them thinking about their darwinian fitnessdo you now see why you appear stupid
>>538370095>>538370330Letting 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.
>>538370603>it needs to be managedBoy I hope we finally die back to a level when twats like you don't exist anymore.
>>538371193>In socialism, arranged marriages could be used to offset eugenicswhy ever would you want to 'offset eugenics'?
>>538371047>because if they did either of those, then it would equate to them thinking about their darwinian fitnessyes i stand by my statement. thinking about superficial or material attractiveness only matters in a competitive environment. for most of pre-industrial society this wasn't a thing. relationships and marriages were mediated and planned in advance, as a transaction, from the lowest to the highest classes. there was literally zero incentive to increase attractiveness or "darwinian fitness" for a male because it would not yield any benefit
>>538366819Haha you can't do it because your only answer would be Darwinian Evolution, and that would lead to Eugenics, so you have to rely on ancient philosophy for sex morals
>>538370603>the bill for raising a womanWhen you buy a cow for slaughter, you are paying the bill for raising the cow, correct? I you want more meat, you typically pay more, correct? If you want better genes for your partner, you typically pay more, correct?>which they frankly probably couldn't handle being pathetic losers and alldoubt.jpg>yes certainly, but this tends to be a byproductIts only a byproduct in a system that has welfare programs in place to pay for your elder care. Prior to this system, your children were your primary caretakers in old age.>>538371193>Letting people choose their sexual partners is entirely a product of capitalism and bourgeois morality. Lol no. That shit has been the norm since the advent of sexual reproduction. >For most of human history, marriages were arrangedYes, but I don't care about the period from about 3000 BC to 200 years ago. I'm talking about pre-history, when most of our biological systems were formed. For about 150 million years, females have been free to choose who they reproduce with, with the occasional rape thrown in.>In socialism, arranged marriages could be used to offset eugenicsI second Nigel here >>538371280. Legit disabilities should disqualify somebody from reproducing because they increase the amount of social harm. Nothing good could come from it. The best solution with modern tech is to just euthanize or abort kids with disabilities that impact their ability to live normally. Old tribes would just leave deformed babies in the woods to get eaten. >could be used to prevent predatory relationships with power imbalances (like a 40-year old man having sex with an 18-year old girl)I agree that 40 yo men need to be protected form the sexual power asymmetry of 16 year old girls. The best way to do that is to force these girls into marriage before they turn 20 so they are out of the mating pool, with the only exception being prostitutes.
>>538372172>for most of pre-industrial society this wasn't a thing.You are making the same mistake as the other anon.youtube.com/watch?v=7_H8QMWYIxUMate competition is older than any human system. Our systems are built on these older, Darwinian systems.
>>538372172There's also the Y-chromosome bottleneck where 95% of men didn't have kids for the first few thousand years of the agricultural revolution. That's what cavemen get for killing all the mammoths.
>>538368297I call that gay race communism
