Socialism will fail if sex is not used for group cohesion
- This topic has 145 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 12 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:And the example the discussion thread seems to be advocating for is that "humans or any intelligent species finding itself with only a non-monogamous option for reproduction where the genetic contribution of each individual towards each offspring is unknown will invariably have the emergent property of socialism. And the stronger argument is that with only monogamous options for reproduction, socialism will not be a stable emergent property of human organization and that capitalism is a better evolutionary fit for the monogamous reproduction environment. …magnitude of connection and ability to reward instead of the ability to punish
I think this might be what I have been trying to say all along… ability to reward with sex for cooperative behavior rather than selfish one is a massive boost to the incentives for cooperative behavior…. if the best thing in life(for me that is 'Kama' – love and intense physical pleasure) is a reward for cooperative behavior for the collective rather than for behaving selfishly like getting for yourself a palace, becoming a millionaire etc it will encourage socialistic cooperation… but miserable monogamy or polygamy will not allow it.No sex for good behavior just a pat on the back isnt as good as sex and pat on the back for good behavior…Say for example if I help several people out and they let me have sex with them… I end up getting to experience Kama from them… I get to experience the sweetest thing there is just for helping out.But instead if I have to steal their land to get sex from them and some love too… just to survive some will give me love… if domination gets me sex and love rather than cooperation domination is what will happen unless those losing out are better armed more organized than the conquering men…I know I am not supposed to compare with animals but its happening with chimps as well maybe thats just a co incidence maybe not, I dont know. I dont talk of women as I dont see women organizing armies then trying to capture land, resources through violence… I have only seen men doing this like say right now ISIS is prominently upto.I think we go where pleasure is and away from pain… maybe monogamist do not think this is the case but this is how the ruling classes of monogamist societies was portrayed in the article ALB linked :
Socialist Standard in 1910 wrote:The members of our bourgeoisie, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take special delight in mutually seducing each other's wives.Pleasure drives us… and this description of the smartest people of a land is only confirming this to me.Now if you could get sex and love for sharing with the collective instead of keeping it all to yourself…. the rewards of sharing might start feeling as good as stealing other peoples land and turning them into your slaves…. and this is why I keep running down monogamy and also polygamy… they discourage sharing.What Steve said sounded much better than monogamy or polygamy… a situation where the genetic contribution of each individual towards each offspring is unknown will make men care more for all offspring rather than just their own… which is exactly what monogamy or polygamy is all about. It tries to reward you for just looking after one person and your own offspring rather than for the society as a whole… it discourages cooperation hence by extension socialism.It discourages sharing of resources and encourages aggregation of resources for yourself. Why? … because there is MORE pleasure in it.
This is strange, or this is only coincidence, but these two individuals they always show up, or post at the same time, and they both agree in the same idea. It looks like they are both the same person using different names. I think Linda is correct when she says that we are only posting rubbish and irrelevant issues. We have more important issues taking place around the world, that dealing with bourgeois garbage
I repeat again. and I will repeat thousands times. What is the relationship of this crap with socialism ? This is only a bourgeois argumentation that justifies power in order to obtain sex.It is the same thing used at the present time in order to promote prostitution within children and youngsters, and used by many dictators and pervert to dominate women. As socialists, are we going to support this crap ? Are we going to support a pseudo science propagated by the bourgeois known as social Darwinism ? We can not apply animalistic behaviors to our human societyIn a real socialist society peoples are going to be able to enjoy sex in a freely manner without any use of power, and without the intervention of any religious group
mcolome1 wrote:In a real socialist society peoples are going to be able to enjoy sex in a freely manner without any use of power, and without the intervention of any religious groupI never said you should rape people… but you are assuming it just as you are assuming me and Steve San Francisco are the same person. At least check our joining dates its there with every post or ask the forum moderators if our IP addresses are from the same place.The most you can accuse me of is that I have started believing in something that might infact be in the interest of the minority but I am mistakenly believing it is in the interest of the majority.But what I am saying the bourgeoisie mainstream media is discouraging… I would think if paternity uncertainty was in the interest of the bourgeoisie it would be all over the mainstream media… media would be saying good girls are promiscous and if you are not promiscous there is something wrong with you and not the other way round.
Quote:But what I am saying the bourgeoisie mainstream media is discouraging… I would think if paternity uncertainty was in the interest of the bourgeoisie it would be all over the mainstream media… media would be saying good girls are promiscous and if you are not promiscous there is something wrong with you and not the other way round.The last time I looked at adverts I would think sexual promiscuity was being heavily promoted by the media and aids to this end are commodities in their own right. The capitalist commodification trick is to transform all human activity into marketable propositions.I think all of this is a diversion.
Matt wrote:The last time I looked at adverts I would think sexual promiscuity was being heavily promoted by the media and aids to this end are commodities in their own right. The capitalist commodification trick is to transform all human activity into marketable propositions.I think all of this is a diversion.Oh no they are not promoting promiscuity …. they are promoting guilty pleasures, shameful bad behavior that magazines in Victorian times also promoted. They never said it is a positive thing. I cant think of one recent movie that said promiscuous behavior is a good thing… monogamy is always the positive thing and promiscuous behavior even while being enjoyed is still a stupid evil shameful thing taking place.Sometimes they wont explicitly say its a bad thing like a dutch movie I saw recently where we see a young female protagonist behave promiscuously but in the end she inflicts violence on herself by cutting her ear with scissors because shes losing out on love from men by being promiscuous…. if she wants love she better become monogamous… While a movie like 'It Is Fine! Everything Is Fine.' which actually shows promiscuous behavior in a positive light cant find any corporate financiers or distributors so the person who financed it out of his own pocket has to go from theater to theater trying to convince the theater owner to screen it. It has an ugly middle aged man with cerebral palsy who is wheelchair bound living out his fantasy by having actual sex with one beautiful woman after another… even a 12 year old seemed willing to give him sex if she was allowed to.I am imagining if women behave this way with a sick old ugly person they will behave this way with healthier more attractive people too, I just dont see how monogamy is better than this… it sounds crazy to say monogamy is better than women behaving this way. Dr. Susan Block gets harassed by police and dragged to court for promoting pleasuring middle aged and young women….After a group of swingers in the bible belt are featured in a documentary all of them lose their jobs or are forced to quit except one who got married during its making "purely for financial reasons".I am astonished people cant see all round repression of non-monogamous behavior just because it is not as subtle as it was during Victorian times…. and the repression gets subtler the more egalitarian the place is… so while a husband is punished by his family for infidelity in an American movie in a Swedish movie the partner tries to commit suicide or cries inconsolably when he/she discovers it. Both are discouraging it.Speaking of that movie 'It Is Fine! Everything Is Fine.' what will sick or ugly people do in socialism if no one wants to have sex with them… in capitalism they can at least pay for it…. how will they get sex in a socialist place if no one wants to have sex with them because they are too ugly / unattractive…. if what I said in my first post was practiced this would be a non issue, they will get what the protagonist in the movie gets.And if you try to give sex to uglies why should the better looking ones be left out.I cannot fathom why sharing of pleasure is being looked down upon and keeping it all to yourself is being upheld as the more ideal behavior… amazing when selfishness is considered a virtue and sharing a sin that too in a socialist place.If I have a drink you want and you have only water… if I share my drink with you will that promote trust and cooperation or letting you stick to your water while I have my drink make you more cooperative.When a gay man approaches us for sex we can always deny him, but he will surely like it if we turned around and give him what he wants. Where will he love us more, where he will care for us more? Place where he is denied and told to find a fellow faggot to fuck and if possible try turning that into a monogamous relationship or where people turn around and give him what he wants. Where will he believe more strongly you can get what you want through peaceful cooperation, no need to force anyone to do anything.When the sight of hips gives you pleasure, if the hips proceed to give you the most pleasure you can possibly experience with them, will you like her more or would you like her more when she denies them to you. When will you care for her more, when she is denying you or when she is trying to give you the maximum pleasure you can have with it ?
I am pretty promiscuous but your post is creeping me out.
Matt wrote:I am pretty promiscuous but your post is creeping me out.Alright I will not talk about it anymore.
Subhaditya wrote:mcolome1 wrote:In a real socialist society peoples are going to be able to enjoy sex in a freely manner without any use of power, and without the intervention of any religious groupI never said you should rape people… but you are assuming it just as you are assuming me and Steve San Francisco are the same person. At least check our joining dates its there with every post or ask the forum moderators if our IP addresses are from the same place.The most you can accuse me of is that I have started believing in something that might infact be in the interest of the minority but I am mistakenly believing it is in the interest of the majority.But what I am saying the bourgeoisie mainstream media is discouraging… I would think if paternity uncertainty was in the interest of the bourgeoisie it would be all over the mainstream media… media would be saying good girls are promiscuous and if you are not promiscuous there is something wrong with you and not the other way round.
Promiscuous is a religious term frequently used by the Evangelical. I am not promiscuous because I have been married to the same person that i met 47 years ago,and I am happy with what I have, and I have a family, and I have a daughter with a very happy marriage, therefore, I am not going to be looking for somebody else, in that case, I am not a pervert.I do not know if you are watching the news and the media broadcasted from a monastery, because the bourgeois press is constantly promoting sex and promiscuity, and they do not even talk about the red of child prostitution that exist around the world
Looks like capitalism offers better quality sex life for the uglies of the world… you get monogamy + prostitutes + higher you go the more proletarian wifes and daughters will be at your disposal.
Subhaditya wrote:Looks like capitalism offers better quality sex life for the uglies of the world… you get monogamy + prostitutes + higher you go the more proletarian wifes and daughters will be at your disposal.Looks like nothing of the kind, other than in your sex obsessed mind. Who are you to consider any human as 'ugly' anyway?No one will be at the 'disposal' of another in a socialist society.
Pure bourgeois crap
mcolome1 wrote:Pure bourgeois crapHear hear. At least the male Trumps or the male Clintons of this world haven't yet argued the "defence" of "group cohesion".
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.