[Subhaditya]

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 ?

[Subhaditya]

Protectionism might allow the less developed countries to legitimately close their economies from more advanced producers and develop their local industries and trade with economies that are at similar stage of development…So protectionism at least gives an opportunity for less developed countries to catch up with the West before opening their markets to their companies and improve the material quality of life of their people.

[Subhaditya]

mcolome1 wrote:

… the vast majority of the human beings must have control over the means of production.

How will you implement this… spgb is proposing elected delegates who can be recalled and their decisions reversed…. it looks fine to me, much more accountable than what we have today…. But you see these delegates will be the acting leaders of the socialist society. Even the media will be run by elected delegates… so we will still have leaders in a socialist place just they will be much more accountable to the majority than we have today as we can 'reverse their decisions' immediately if we dont like them thus giving us much more power than we have today.I only hope information flows freely in such a place or we will have another ruling class coming up.

[Subhaditya]

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 group

I 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.   

[Subhaditya]

mcolome1 wrote:

It contradicts what you have said on your first post, you show up as a  teacher, and now you are student on Democracy. This situation  will not take place under the capitalist demcoracy. One thing is to understand the real concept of democracy which can only takes place under a socialist society, and another thing is to propagate or repeat the same rubbish of the capitalist society

In that post I was giving my opinion on our sexual behavior and how it can affect the chances of socialism succeeding.Here I am asking how technically you will implement majority participation in decision making…. a socialist society will still need to implement democracy… as Dave B said there could be technical difficulties in implementing the majority's participation in decision making. The only place I heard which successfully implemented majority's participation in decision making sort of was Athens… and that was a small city-state. It didnt have a chief or a small council instead a good chunk of the population from all strata of society was always involved in decision making.. I mean no decisions could be made without a good chunk of the population from poor peasants to landlords approving the decision. There is also the problem of information access… if flow of information is controlled by a small minority as we have now even under socialism the leadership 'the delegates' will be able to make people do just about anything including murders by selectively revealing information or outright lies and it will all be done 'for the greater good'. 

[Subhaditya]

ALB wrote:

So, what do you understand by "delegate" in the term "participatory delegate democracy" that you introduced?

Sorry if I got the terms wrong… I am not very familiar with these terms.I thought local assemblies would have final say on delegates decisions… that is after delegates arrived at a decision the individual local assemblies would have to approve it for it to come into force. That is every decision needed to be approved by the local assemblies unless they were of routine nature.But I suppose the power to recall and reverse the decision of a delegate can more efficiently do the job of making them more accountable.

[Subhaditya]

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.  

[Subhaditya]

ALB wrote:

"Participatory delegate democracy" is not the same as "direct democracy" (where everybody votes on everything). It's where everybody gets a chance to elect a delegate to pursue the mandate of the group (community, workplace, etc) of which they are a membe and where the person elected is answerable for their decisions to that group and who can be recalled by a vote at any time.This could have existed long before the invention of the internet. It doesn't rule out some issue requiring a yes or no answer being but to a referendum, but this is not appropriate in all cases since in most cases there are more than one possible answer and so best decided by a committee of elected delegates.

But how is this all that different from representative democracy… I mean if we add the ability to recall a representative and have referendums like the swiss do representative democracy looks the same as participatory delegate democracy with most of the decisions being taken coming from above and the bottom only selecting their guides and occasionally holding a referendum and if they get suspicious of their guides they recall him…. so most of the decisions are being taken by a minority at the top or where am I going wrong here…

[Subhaditya]

robbo203 wrote:

I find this a little confusing.  On the face of it it seems to be saying that the king having access to as many women as he likes should have no need to crave power.  Would that that were the case in real life!

I am saying the King had such a right because he was powerful… or else he would have to live like the poor commoners with a wife to get sex from… its power that gave him such a right and that is why he craved it…Student unions of colleges here are mostly recruiting organs of political parties.Now I know of a student union secretary of a college here who deftly manages to get girls to have sex with him while a parent is waiting for their daughter to get her admit card to gain admission to the college in the next room. You see the parent doesnt know what their daughter is upto in the next room neither was the daughter until she enters the room… and the daughter knows her education will be badly affected if at that moment she doesnt do what the union secretary is telling her to do, and most of the time she chooses to satisfy him rather than have her education affected. A girl did go to the police station to complain … the police verbally abused her away.This union secretary stopped holding elections for the student union… I suppose he doesnt want to lose his position of authority… power can be the most pleasurable thing there is I suppose.I read Gaddafi's story in the book by Annick Cojean… same thing he was using his power to get more pleasure… I dont think Gaddafi would have gotten even a tenth of the sex he managed if he didnt have power.Anyway I was reading the article on Alexander Kollontai,  I am confused about Red Love, what does it mean… is there anywhere I can find more details about it.      

[Subhaditya]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

it's the limited vs unlimited nature of sex or violence that seems relevant to discussions of socialism more than the attractiveness of the sex vs violence

Yes thats what I am trying to say by limiting sex we are creating a shortage of a critical need where power will get you more of it… how will you have cooperation if both sides dont benefit from it… you have to eliminate your competitor to get it as there isnt enough for both… whole point of socialism seems to be based on there being enough for both competitors so they dont have to fight over it… else they will be fighting over it.  

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

Or we can have a society with very little sex and very little violence which would limit both.

But we cant if we go by James W. Prescotts research, its noticed in bonobos and chimps too… little sex = more violence and more sex = less violence. Its either or we cant have both.It all goes with a critical need not being met as well for the majority as it is for the powerful(rich) being able to meet it better or more sufficiently. I mean in a monogamous society since ancient times a high net worth individual could experience hundreds or thousands of women by just paying for it. So if a strong need is met so much better by having more material resources to offer than the average person can, will fellow competitors be wanting to share resources or keep it to themselves to try get richer than others ? After all if you are richer than others you get more sex especially in a monogamous or polygamous place… Will competitors behave like bonobos who get a lot of sex(they have sex dozens of times each day) and call others to come and enjoy the food pile they have come across or behave like sex starved chimps who will try to exclude others from access to the food pile and keep all to himself. Perhaps he will give selective access to those who will help him meet his sexual needs better since he is not getting much?Christopher Ryans research shows clearly we are promiscuous beings…. we are not wired to be attracted to only one person. We dont want to have sex with just one person. What if power offered you the opportunity to have sex with as many as you like…In the Hindu sacred scriptures a King had the divine right to have sex with as many as he liked while a poor man only had his wife… wouldn't you desire power in such a place, I would. I mean getting to experience as many women as I like… who wouldn't want that. When we watch porn its all we do… experience someone other than our wives. If you found yourself in a position to turn your desires into reality would you not go for it… I did imagine most would. Therein lies the need for power. But what if you could do this that is turn your porn desires into reality as an average Joe…. that will be one less reason now for craving power and being content as the average Joe.If no one or hardly anyone was watching porn we could say we are very satisfied but we arent are we. Legislatures wont be needing to pass laws and regulations effectively banning porn from theaters and television, to prevent porn from going mainstream… thats what was happening in the 70s in America until their legislature banned it from theaters. Same is the story in other countries. Thats what our masters are upto, promote monogamy and hate and ostracize the slut… and we are falling for it as we usually do.  If we loved the whore by which I mean a promiscuous woman not a prostitute… we will see the reticence of  women vanishingbut alas we 'shame the slut', we think that is some odd abnormal behavior. Everyday mass media bombards us with the message that monogamy is good natural and promiscuity is bad or stupid or abnormal. But it is not such an open and shut case yet where are the discussions on it in the mass media… 

[Subhaditya]

mcolome1 wrote:

I do not see any relationship with that manhood and socialism, and those ideas sound very reactionaries and backwards  to me

Ok sex is clearly a motivator, even ISIS uses sex to motivate its fighters.Porfirio Rubirosa may have seduced a few heiresses for money… but he also bedded thousands of poor women not for money but for pure physical pleasure… and he was an ambassadors son and got  a foreign education and had money enough to spend lots and lots of time with prostitutes which is more than what the average Dominican could afford… he wasnt poor. If you could get people to risk their lives and kill other people for more sex dont you think its a serious need as important as food or shelter.British soldiers used to sing of a 'lakh and lass a day' while drinking where lass is a woman and lakh is 100,000 Indian currency… it wasnt just for money they were off to conquering the world… it was also for more sex… that is they werent just deprived of material needs they were also deprived of their sexual needs and the sexual needs were as important as the material needs.So I am saying for peoples needs were to be met adequately through peaceful cooperation… the critical needs that need to be met isnt just going to be food, water,shelter but food,water,shelter and sex…. James W. Prescott's research shows that monogamous and any society that tries to discourage physical pleasure seeking is a violent one.So how will socialism succeed in an environment of violence… people will be killing each other not for food, water or shelter but for sex… need for sex is no less trivial than need for food,water or shelter… so shouldnt socialism deal with it as seriously as it deals with issues like food,water, shelter ?

[Subhaditya]

When Brazilian Ronaldo won the World Cup, he said it felt as good as sex… thats the thing sex is the best thing there is….Now if a man gains more control over resources he ends up getting more sex that is more power = more sex… someone called it the "Kissinger Effect"  where an ugly powerful man manages to have sex with way more beautiful women than a poverty stricken handsome man with 'superior genes' manages… power will be the key to happiness.In a world like that men will be eliminating each other to gain power… just for more sex… and this craving for power will be more the more shortage of sex there is. Thats all I was trying to draw attention to when I referred to the primates… the relation between power and sex and how sex can be used to bring about more cooperation or reduce cooperation by increasing or decreasing the amount of sex that is available….I mean the singer whose songs make half the women want to have sex with him probably wont be craving power….. he is getting enough without it.But when relative wealth or call it power is the key to getting more sex… there goes socialist cooperation and desire for equality… well, at least among the ones who fancy their chances… because sex > everything else.  

[Subhaditya]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

Maybe you're refering to the research on the baboon tribe that got most of it's food from a garbage dump.  all the alpha males horded the meat from the garbage dump and wouldn't let less dominant males eat from it.  Then someone dumped tainted meat in the garbage dump and all the alpha males died off. The result was a remarkably more peaceful baboon tribe for a short while.  here's more. .  The Baboon Troop that Mellowed Out After the Alpha Males Diedhttp://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/11/the-baboon-troop-that-mellowed-out-after-the-alpha-males-died-the-sapolsky-and-share-study.html

No it was definitely about chimps and bonobos… I managed to find a link to it… http://www.livescience.com/9882-humans-lot-learn-bonobos-scientist.htmlChimps not sharing with fellow chimps while adult bonobos continue to share with other bonobos.While it says abundance of food allows their cooperation to be a successful strategy… it does say they

Quote:

"use sexual activity to maintain a peaceful collective temperament ". 

So it is saying the same thing about bonobos as James W. Prescott said about humans… even in an environment of abundant food there would be war, violence if the males arent getting enough sex. Since the chimps and bonobos are our closest living relatives it could be they are showing the same patterns of behavior as us humans. The selfishness is not just about food… its about sex as well… and monogamy isnt going to be enough to meet our sexual needs going by JWP's research or Christopher Ryan's research he highlighted in his book "Sex At Dawn".

[Subhaditya]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

i don't know how relevant this is to the topichttp://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/having-sex-believe-in-god-research-religion-duke-university-patty-van-cappallen-a7330076.html

Quote:

Hormones released while having sex can increase spirituality and belief in God, scientists have claimed.

It seems it is not monks who should be celibate but atheists !!

 Its kind of speculative with researchers themselves saying its not conclusive… and yet mass media has to write a nice big article about something that researchers themselves arent sure of.

[Subhaditya]

jondwhite wrote:

What about a particular woman's (or man's) consent?

Jon I dont know if the Mosuo people of China will be able to answer this question, but I am going to try…The Mosuo women have total control over who they have sex with and there is no pressure on them to have sex with one man as they dont marry, the brother acts as the father and helps bring the children up. Like the Tahitians were before the Mosuo are matrilineal with property inheritance happening from mother to daughter.To have sex you have to be invited by a woman to her house at night and it may be for the whole night or a specific hour with other hours being reserved for other men. So women can have as much sex with as many men as they like during the night in their flower rooms i think their room are called. And the only way men are going to get any sex is if a woman invites him to her home for a night or an hour of the night…. and the Mosuo dont have a word for rape or murder or war. And apparently the suicide rate for men is lower there than in a similar patriarchal community.From James W. Prescott's research the lack of violence seems to suggest that the Mosuo men are getting plenty of physical pleasure in their lives and not from just one woman either or they would have gone violent.Seems to me when women get to have sex with whoever they want without any pressure to limit their sexual activities to just one man, like they are under in a patriarchy, the men are better off by which I mean they are getting more sex with more partners.So its patriarchy again that seems to be the root of the problem… and I dont know of any capitalist place that is not a patriarchy.

[Author]

Posts