No.1845997
>>1808406Yes and No.
For both answers, read Frantz Fanon, Black Skin White Masks, there is a good section on agreement of the problematic nature of White Man-Brown/Black Woman or vice versa and to be rejected, but also that it is not entirely problematic and can be completely fine or encouraged, Fanon himself was with a white woman I believe.
No.1846054
>>1819959It's simply that Black women are racialist af and will not have their daughters marrying outside the tribe, as it were.
No.1846168
Reason number twenty thousand Americans will never have a revolution, they will crawl through hell and back before giving up their porn habits. NOTHING is more important to these guys than sustaining their dopamine addiction at the expense of everyone else, as the replies in this thread can testify
No.1846184
>>1846168You pearl clutchers still can't explain what's so bad about porn
No.1846189
>>1846184Sexual frustration makes people more willing to believe anything.
No.1847205
>>1845979Racism is prejudice plus power. POC cannot under any circumstances be racist towards whites.
No.1847208
>>1846184Finklestein proved that Gooning is the gateway to fascist ideology.
No.1847213
>>1847208And that's why communists edge one another
No.1847217
>>1791196>Is there anything we can do to correct this imbalance and promote more healthy, productive relationships between our socialist cadres?Every society on Earth figured this out for 1000s of years and then people said let's have a sexual revolution(a libertine flash in the pan that's happened repeatedly through history) the same predictable stupid shit happened as it always does. People remember why they had rules and mores in the first place.
No.1847258
>>1847217>Every society on Earth figured this out for 1000s of years and then people said let's have a sexual revolution(a libertine flash in the pan that's happened repeatedly through history) the same predictable stupid shit happened as it always does. People remember why they had rules and mores in the first place.your black and white thinking is ahistorical and frankly stupid
you should be reading, not posting
No.1847266
>>1808406in other words, you want to restrict WOC rights. you racist misogynist.
No.1847274
>>1847266Took quite a long time to get to this answer, didn't it
No.1847762
>>1847217Sorry, tradfag, fertility cultism isn't a solution to anything. Read Engels and kys
No.1847780
>>1847217Based and J. D. Unwin pilled.
This is the only serious work that has attempted to study this matter across time and multiple civilizations and lies un-refuted by all:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_Culture No.1847783
>incels ITT arguing that previous cultures didn't fuck for pleasure or that people even took the rules seriously
my brother in christ do you seriously not realize that this "all cultures were prudes" shit was just the ruling classes getting to write the textbooks at the time
No.1847787
>>1847783 (me)
Like just as one example, holy hell do you people not know how much seminary students in medieval europe fucked? They got shithoused at taverned, fucked girls like jackrabbits, and bought an indulgence. This whole "urr durr sexual revolution was le social entropy" shit is ahistorical as fuck
No.1847798
>>1847780Stop reifying your feelings as truths, fascist birtch. All of you are going to be the world's onaholes
No.1847878
>>1847217Lmao, your idea of history is so childish. Literally just "all people always had morals". Yeah uygha, DIFFERENT morals. Men shot each other over any perceived insult 150 years ago. I won't tell you to read Engels because you're not even starting to think about the issue, but whining about evil women.
No.1847920
>>1847798>Can't argue against social science research so devolves into screeching and impotent rage and strawmanning typical
Just want to ask a question to see if you can rub two brain cells together: if families can't trust or sacrifice for each other why would strangers in a workplace trust and sacrifice for each other? You can't have it both ways. Anarchy in the family leads to market anarchy in the economy. No existing or previously-existing socialist state has ever adopted the sexual revolution and its contingent laws.
No.1847937
>>1847920>pious Angloid bullshit is "research"Lel. You should kys for thinking that greatness is something that ought to exist.
>families>workplacesYou should kill yourself for trying to create imaginary friends.
>Anarchy in the familyYou should kys for worshipping imaginary friends like "the economy".
>existing or previously-existingYou should kys for their "right to exist" bullshit.
No.1848187
>>1848184I'm not a rank and file member of a "leftist" sex cult, I have a healthy sex life.
No.1848190
>>1848187Anyways just going off what OP said. I don't know if true or not because I have never been in one.
No.1848373
>>1848173It depends on what the lines are supposed to mean, exactly. According to Engels, the next step in the development of human reproduction after lifelong monogamy was to be serial monogamy, which seems to be more or less where we are now:
<But what will quite certainly disappear from monogamy are all the features stamped upon it through its origin in property relations; these are, in the first place, supremacy of the man, and, secondly, indissolubility. The supremacy of the man in marriage is the simple consequence of his economic supremacy, and with the abolition of the latter will disappear of itself. The indissolubility of marriage is partly a consequence of the economic situation in which monogamy arose, partly tradition from the period when the connection between this economic situation and monogamy was not yet fully understood and was carried to extremes under a religious form. Today it is already broken through at a thousand points. If only the marriage based on love is moral, then also only the marriage in which love continues. But the intense emotion of individual sex-love varies very much in duration from one individual to another, especially among men, and if affection definitely comes to an end or is supplanted by a new passionate love, separation is a benefit for both partners as well as for society – only people will then be spared having to wade through the useless mire of a divorce case. No.1848388
>>1791198Maoist sex guru here. AMA.
"Guard against revisionism, and sexually please your guru."
No.1848390
>>1848375Look just answering OP's damn question:
>1. For rank-and-file members, left-wing organizations are extremely sex-negative. Their social events are the most awkward, un-romantic things imaginable, and a lot of the time orgs will actively instruct their members not to form intimate relationships with each other.
>2. In contrast, the leadership of these organizations are fucking constantly. Whether it's DSA polycules, Trot rape cults or Maoist sex gurus, org leaders always end up having far more sex than regular members. Often they end up fucking rank-and-file members, creating imbalanced relationships that end in scandal and abuse.
>So why is this the case? Why are left-wing sects so imbalanced when it comes to having sex? Is there anything we can do to correct this imbalance and promote more healthy, productive relationships between our socialist cadres?This is run of the mill shit that goes on in every cult. I guess you could call it a heightened form of patriarchy really.
No.1848394
>>1846184Commodification and degradation of intimate social activity
No.1848471
>>1848173It's a childish, cartoonish answer produced out of your emotions.You don't actually look at men or women. No shit, people like hot people. No shit, commodification rips people's personalities apart - in this case ripping apart "having fun" from "work" is the most relevant. No shit, it creates harmful behaviour like spending sprees, alcohol and drug use, irresponsible and contextless sex.
However, men are more affected. They are the ones building whole industries around sex - not just prostitution and sexual content, but domestic prostitution, which makes porks hundreds of times more money. But you choose to be mad at party girls who are just trying to "have fun" the only way capitalist society taught them to and not even hurting anyone but themselves in the process.
>they hurt meNo, they don't. Your own material conditions hurt you, such as the lack of socialization.
No.1848490
>>1848471Show me where anyone said anything about being mad at anyone let alone women?
No.1848562
>>1848471>in this case ripping apart "having fun" from "work" is the most relevantMarxism is not a slave pride movement. Go watch
Fraggle Rock or some other class collaborationist shit.
>boo hoo mean old capitalism corrupted my hecking pure Protestant lifestyleStop posting until you have actually read Marx.
No.1848622
>>1791196It's a way of marking the followers from the "leaders". It is ubiquitous in liberal society. They brag about splitting the human race in two. For the losers, there is constant thought policing, and they are not allowed any friendship. For the winners, "it's a big club, and you're in it". The greatest taboo is to say what any of this actually is, or acknowledge what this society does to the world and its members. Yet, it goes on, because humans don't know anything else. They don't.
No.1848629
I think a reasonable adult knows that none of this thought policing is about any genuine moral concern. Humans have a sense of what sexual relationships are foul. You know who sets the "workers cannot fraternize" rule? Managers, who brag that they are exempt from the rule and have an untrammeled right to access their subordinates in all ways. Otherwise, no one would care what the workers do, at least not in management. It wouldn't be a thing regulated by company policy for any actual purpose, like they're here to tell us who we're allowed to marry or how we are to relate to each other. This extends to any social interaction. Masters do not want the slaves talking to each other, because that's how slaves get ideas about their situation being different in any way. The models they aspire to are rooted in American chattel slavery, hence the ubiquitous racism. But, it's a much more elaborate system than a retread of what they did in the 19th century.
This is also noted as a way to disrupt and disorient political parties. It's standard ratfucking tactics to play this game - to invent moral rules. The leadership of any political organization knows what the real score is, laughs that they keep their herd in line. The usual cadre only allows the leaders to speak to other cadres. Everyone else is on a need-to-know basis, and what the leaders need their grunts to know is always as little as possible. That way, lumps of nothing can be given as "carrots", and the rubes think this is some reward.
No.1848638
The US military is the opposite, enlisted ranks are able to fraternize, but officers are forbidden.
No.1848640
>>1791196degenerates all of them. this shit and the furryfags on leftypol extinguish all my hopes for achieving communism. I dont expect people who can't even display an ounce of self-control to stop gooning to lead a revolution
No.1848642
>>1848490You post incel arguments and suggest restricting women's rights, because that's what these "morals" inevitably entail. You also edited your post. I would call that being mad about women, or at least women's rights.
>>1848562Commodification isn't a class collaborationist idea, pointing out the many ills it creates in modern society isn't being a prude. The only way to deal with it is creating a new society.
No.1848652
>>1848629>It's standard ratfucking tactics to play this game - to invent moral rules.You call it ratfucking, PMCs call it "moral leadership." The PMC and M-Ls are very close ideological cousins; both seek a capital-labor relation managed by a specialized knowledge class, with some symbolic Great Men at the top. Those who wonder why the M-L program is unpalatable to the average American can be answered with "they already have it".
>>1848642>pointing out the many ills it creates in modern societyThis isn't "modern" society, it's a pre-capitalist social formation running alongside finance capitalism. Protestant society's ONLY mark of vitality is that it breeds true and prolifically, and that's a bug, not a feature.
No.1848871
>>1848638US military is super retarded.
In russia its normal for inter-officer romance.
No.1849138
>>1848871Exemplify those kissless Puritan values, officers
No.1849141
>>1848642> You also edited your post. I would call that being mad about women, or at least women's rights.How can you edit a post on leftypol?
No.1850466
>>1791286>Man should change nature, not be controlled by it.Thats impossible
Unique IPs: 28