全 130 件のコメント

[–]Triplanetary 11ポイント12ポイント  (31子コメント)

Pushing polyamory as the new sexual normativity, however, is not automatically anti-capitalist.

I mean maybe I'm just out of the loop, but I've never heard anyone claim it is, so I'm not sure what the article is arguing against.

[–]Bituquina[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

You might be indeed out of the loop.

[–]d_sch 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Looks like it's the one day out of the year when I agree with JMP.

Kidding aside though, I haven't really heard anyone on the left promote polyamory as a good in itself, as opposed to simple acceptance of polyamory (my only objection being that the word should really be "multiamory"; let's have some etymological agreement, folks).

Obviously, we're against all oppressions on the basis of sexual orientation (or lack thereof) or relationship setup (or lack thereof). I have occasionally seen liberals of various stripes attempt to promote a "radical" politics based specifically on in-the-bedroom sexual practices; a great response is found in Yasmine Nair's short essay Your Sex is Not Radical.

[–]Bituquina[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

"The revolution will not come on the tidal wave of your next multiple orgasm had with your seven partners on the floor of your communal living space. It will only happen if you have an actual plan for destroying systems of oppression and exploitation." Thanks for that...

[–]Dennis-Mooresocial democrat/reactionary wuss 6ポイント7ポイント  (31子コメント)

"Thus, wanting to have as much sex with as many people as possible is very capitalist."

Til most 15 year old boys are just biologically capitalists

Edit: still shaking my head at this. Is adultery a symbol of not only infidelity but the exploitation of labour? Since capitalisms overthrow is the goal of any socialist revolutionary, surely we should work to eradicate "very capitalist" frames of mind. Nightclubs will be banned outright, of course, and it would also probably be best to install confession booths in bars. That way tipsy patrons will avoid the wicked bourgeois desires of wanting to have sex with more than one person by only being able to see one in any given night. Of course, there is always the possibility that they will go to another bar and want to have sex with someone there, too, but its not a perfect system, and eventually socialism will see these "very capitalist" tendencies ironed out of the social landscape since they are clearly related to this contradictory mode of production and certainly not an unavoidable part of having DNA. /s Seriously what would possess someone to write such a sentence

[–]Bituquina[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (30子コメント)

Yes, they are in a way... The capitalist and the fifteen year old are very similar.

[–]Dennis-Mooresocial democrat/reactionary wuss 6ポイント7ポイント  (6子コメント)

Do we need to suppress adolescence until it no longer exists?

[–]Bituquina[S] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (5子コメント)

Well, as a dialectic materialist anthropologist I can tell you the analogy you have made is mistaken. Non monogamy was filtered out western society because of the criminality levels it created. It is tricky....some non monogamists claim they are so promoting equality, as in both partners having the same right to procure other partners. Assuming males and females have the same starting point. Which is not the case. was is a couple of months ago the right for equal wages in the US was rejected again? And that is WAGES.

[–]Dennis-Mooresocial democrat/reactionary wuss 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Non monogamy causing criminality? Non monogamous relationships would have to already be criminal (implying a largely monogamous society) for it to be phased out because of its criminality. Unless there were other crimes that monogamy was causing?

Also if you didn't like my analogy why did you agree with it?

[–]Bituquina[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

It wasn't as much of a suppression, more like avoidance.

[–]Dennis-Mooresocial democrat/reactionary wuss 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

So we should avoid adolescence?

[–]Bituquina[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Adolescence, unlike keeping it in your pants, is unavoidable.

[–]Dennis-Mooresocial democrat/reactionary wuss 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

So what were you saying was more like avoidance?

[–]AprilMariagood old fasioned dirty commie -3ポイント-2ポイント  (22子コメント)

most of them also fantisise about getting a hummer for their 16th or 17th birthday (depending on what country they hail from) and having a hip hop music video girl on each arm, which is also a symptom of unbridled capitalism

[–]Per_Levyultralinks 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

wow, that is stereotyping to the max, you should be proud of yourself. cause i havnt seen stereotyping like this in a while.

[–]AprilMariagood old fasioned dirty commie 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

you could also say that what the guy i was replying to was stereotyping except i said that that behaviour was a symptom of unbridled capitalism where as he seems to think his stereotype is in their very nature which is much more insulting.

[–]Dennis-Mooresocial democrat/reactionary wuss 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Sorry are you saying that wanting sex with more than one person is a symptom of unbridled capitalism?

[–]AprilMariagood old fasioned dirty commie -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

read the article. Kind of, not so much in having sex with a few but having sex with lots and lots and lots of people, especially amongst men is a status symbol and teenage boys are conditioned to think that having lots of sex and having lots of money, fancy cars, fancy women will make them a valuable member of humanity All excesses are interlinked

[–]Dennis-Mooresocial democrat/reactionary wuss 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't make a habit of quoting the article without having read it. I don't even know how that would be possible, but thanks anyway.

So you're not saying that wanting sex with a lot of people is capitalist, only that sex with an absurdly high number as a status symbol combined with personal wealth and social standing is. Which I kind of agree with, in that sex is commodities and used as status parallel to capitalist power, but on the other hand, there were harems long before there was wage labour. Capitalism certainly does, as you seem to be implying, play a central role in such desires.

But that reasonable viewpoint is not what I was quoting, and not what I was calling out as highly questionable if not absurd. If wanting sex with a lot of people is capitalist then... The implications of tying that impulse inextricably to a mode of production is not well founded.

[–]Bituquina[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (16子コメント)

False consciousness is false consciousness is false consciousness...

[–]AprilMariagood old fasioned dirty commie -2ポイント-1ポイント  (15子コメント)

Its kinda cute how some people can be so selective about it with a straight face.

[–]Bituquina[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (14子コメント)

It's very convenient when the amnesia comes with such perks.

[–]AprilMariagood old fasioned dirty commie -1ポイント0ポイント  (13子コメント)

Well it also seems to come with your own harem so its not surprising so many are advocating it "its not self serving at all" (airquotes)

[–]Bituquina[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (12子コメント)

I love the "free spirit" argument though...it's a good one. Have you met it?

[–]AprilMariagood old fasioned dirty commie -1ポイント0ポイント  (11子コメント)

yeah i have. I dont mind people being "free spirited" its just at one point you have to take responsibility for yourself if you want to have a family, but i wouldnt hold an active sex life against anyone when they are single, it just doesnt personally suit me to have casual relationships while single.

[–]Bituquina[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

Funny enough the only free spirits I know come from bourgeois, whenever I got arrested with "Free spirits", their parents would come get them out of jail. Sometimes they'd rat on friends... I just love the immoral little pretenders.

[–]Solna 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Houellebecq has a theory that the sexual revolution was liberalism in the sexual and social sphere, and that as collective identities are broken down and humanity atomised into elementary particles there is a widening of the sphere of competition: competition is more than ever not just economic but encompasses absolutely everything about us. It's not an explicitly formulated theory - except in the titles of the books! - just a broad general theme.

His critique is powerful and I feel desrve to be mentioned even though he's not a socialist, he just hates everything and that probably includes himself more than anything else. His books are very self-derogatory and they also deal with mental health issues. I believe he's said he has some kind of need to be loved despite his bad sides, and therefore parade them. Whether he also need to provoke people to get headlines or just don't care is anyone's guess (his nost recent book, that I haven't had a chance to read and don't know if I will, is about an Islamic takeover of France...) - but anyway it's kinda hard to dislike the guy. And his works are poignant - I oftentimes find myself laughing at how he points of absurdities in modern society - and from a very human perspective; at least his earlier works before he was accused of writing the same thing over and over and his writing took a turn for the worse.

There's a German movie, Elementarteicheln (Atomised), that'd probably be a good introduction. A lot of people unfamiliar with Houellebecq is kinda put off with it, though, and the movie adaptation though well made has a very slight Christian undertone not present in his work (I believe he's said the only thing he's sure about about in his beliefs is that he doesn't believe in God).

[–]AprilMariagood old fasioned dirty commie -3ポイント-2ポイント  (60子コメント)

That is one of the best articles on the subject i have ever seen, i could never understand how polymory is revolutionary if anything, to me it seems regressive a quote from the article that sums up my feelings: "Cell 16, one of the first radical feminist groups in North America, emerged partly in response to poly-radical ideology. And the reason Cell 16 would promote celibacy was not out of conservative puritanism. They understood that the sexual revolution was thoroughly patriarchal, that it was replicating the feudal practice of polygamy, and that it was not radical/progressive for women to be told they were "counter-revolutionary" by refusing to "get with it" and participate in hippy neo-harems. Thus celibacy, in this specific instance, was revolutionary whereas both polyamory and monogamy were judged regressively patriarchal. Again, the point is not to elevate one sexual practice (or in this case lack of sexual practice) over another––I am not claiming that celibacy is inherently radical––but to indicate that no sexual practice is essentially more revolutionary than another. It's a bit like arguing that the colours red and black are essentially revolutionary even though fascist flags and uniforms have used these colours with as much frequency as communists and anarchists."

In my opinion an equal relationship with one person trumps them both and when it comes to child rearing the best option is an extended family, as in helping your brothers and sisters to raise each others children. I could never understand why the family was ever seen as unsocialist/uncommunist because an equal, cooperative extended family is like a communist society in miniature form the problem is only when its led by a patriarch rather than being a cooperative effort between all members.

[–]WendallStampsLibertarian Marxism 4ポイント5ポイント  (27子コメント)

Wait so you think that polyamory between consenting adults who all love each other (which does exist whether you chose to believe or not) is un-socialist? I'm having trouble following you, the problems most socialists have with traditional families is they are highly patriarchal.

[–]AprilMariagood old fasioned dirty commie -1ポイント0ポイント  (26子コメント)

so are most contemporary polyamorous relationships, even more so. I also have a problem with the traditional family, the way it is now, but it doesnt actually have to be patriarchal from once women have equal rights and equal opportunities (fully equal rights and equal opportunities, we arent there yet) but if you have one man with several women, or one woman with several men, the power is squarely with the one person with the several, if it is several people with several other people it makes parentage of children incredibly hard to track, and it makes it very hard as new people enter and leave communal relationships to avoid brothers and sisters meeting up with and having a relationship with or reproducing with their own brothers and sisters if they dont know who their biological fathers and mothers are, and unless we institute mandatory DNA testing and people compare DNA test results before hopping into bed with each other which is very invasive, the odd case of it happening now is going to become very frequent because people tend to live and settle in the same area, and people who are not socialized from an early age with their own blood kin, when they meet up later often report sexual attraction to them.

[–]Triplanetary 5ポイント6ポイント  (7子コメント)

it makes parentage of children incredibly hard to track

Again, this is only important to patriarchy. In the absence of patriarchy and private property, it's not important at all.

[–]AprilMariagood old fasioned dirty commie -2ポイント-1ポイント  (6子コメント)

It is if you dont want all sorts of deformities from inbreeding, which will most certainly happen

[–]Bituquina[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

" if it is several people with several other people it makes parentage of children incredibly hard to track, and it makes it very hard as new people enter and leave communal relationships to avoid brothers and sisters meeting up with and having a relationship with or reproducing with their own brothers and sisters if they dont know who their biological fathers and mothers are"

He didn't read that part.

[–]AprilMariagood old fasioned dirty commie -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

Apparently not, and some how increased deformity, disability and genetic abnormality isnt bad for a communist or any other society as long as we can reproduce with everyone and anyone.

[–]Bituquina[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's irresponsible as fuck.

[–]AprilMariagood old fasioned dirty commie 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

It is, i mean communism isnt going to absolve us of some level of personal responsibility. That just makes us adults.

[–]Bituquina[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Being an adult induces too much anxiety now a days, according to indoctrinated psychologists.

[–]BjornIronsideGulags are for liberals 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

This ignores non hierachal polyamourous relationships.

Not taking a side, just saying, they do exist.

[–]AprilMariagood old fasioned dirty commie -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

they do but they are even rarer by percentage than equal monogamous relationships and usually exist with equal representation of genders and usually occur amongst bisexuals, although there are exceptions

[–]WendallStampsLibertarian Marxism 3ポイント4ポイント  (15子コメント)

Your problems with polyamory seem hypothetical and also deny the fact that multiple people can be in love with each other without dominating each other.

[–]AprilMariagood old fasioned dirty commie -1ポイント0ポイント  (14子コメント)

they can, hypothetically but i haven't seen it. more than one male and one female, or more than one female and one male, as i said elsewhere the one will always enjoy more attention and sometimes power over the many. two people can also love each other without one dominating the other or having a power struggle, and from what i have observed this seems more common even adjusting for the higher number of monogamous relationships.

[–]Bituquina[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (13子コメント)

I don't think it has anything to do with ownership. It has to do, first of all with sexual maturity and self control. Then with a commitment to maintain a psychologically healthy relationship. It is hilarious. Imagine a woman working ten hours a day to come home every day and deal with the relationship drama included in polyfucking relationships. Trow a kid in. Priceless.

[–]AprilMariagood old fasioned dirty commie -2ポイント-1ポイント  (12子コメント)

Well considering we are talking about poly relationships your talking about several kids with several mothers and/or fathers. and can you imagine an argument about who does the dishes? or cleans the toilet? with several people all siding with or against each other, madness.

[–]Bituquina[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (11子コメント)

I can't stop laughing. What a shitshow.

[–]AprilMariagood old fasioned dirty commie -2ポイント-1ポイント  (10子コメント)

It does get darker though, how do you decide who has the parental responsibility and the ability to choose for example, medical treatment with a child far too young to understand what is going on let alone give consent?

[–]Bituquina[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (9子コメント)

.....Psychological damage in form of identity and attachment issues....

[–]Bituquina[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (31子コメント)

My personal view is nonmonogamy trends are all perpetuations of male privilege and inequality. I see them as a dangerous privatisation of the self. Counter revolutionary.

[–]AprilMariagood old fasioned dirty commie -3ポイント-2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Also i see we are both being down voted, which on a male dominated sub proves your point comrade

[–]Bituquina[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

In good company then.

[–]AprilMariagood old fasioned dirty commie -4ポイント-3ポイント  (27子コメント)

Exactly, because who benefits most from non monogamy? not the woman and her children, the male able to flit from one female to the other with nothing to enforce him helping to look after his children. Just like we have with polygamy, and in any polygamous situation the women have to compete more with each other and that gives the men more power over them.

[–]GluckmannLeft Nationalism 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

Honestly, that's the kind of analysis I'd expect out of the Red Pill: seeing human sexual relationships as a power struggle between the involved parties.

[–]Triplanetary 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree that that's super gross, but the unfortunate fact is that, under capitalist patriarchy, human sexual relationships kinda are a power struggle. More and more of our lives are a power struggle in the present conditions.

As depressing as it is, I'm less and less convinced that healthy sexuality is even possible in the present conditions. I'm one of those leftists who thinks that sexuality and intimacy are/can be a healthy, beautiful thing (though I've long ceased calling myself "sex positive" because I'm not a fuckin' liberal), but possibly not under capitalism. It simply infects every aspect of our lives - no part of us is safe from its poison. So simply saying "Oh I know the system is patriarchal and fucked up, but I can counteract that in my personal life" strikes me as idealist (and I know you didn't say that in your post, but that seems to be a common sentiment in liberal sexual politics).

[–]AprilMariagood old fasioned dirty commie -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Remember, in my first post i said an equal monogamous relationship is what people should strive for when and if they decide to settle down. That is very easy to do on a 1:1 basis We already have contemporary and historical examples of poly relationships NONE not one SINGLE example was equal. They arent a power struggle in most relationships, or have no need to be, but from once you open relationships at this stage in our development the patriarchy isnt dead therefore if we instituted these relationships as the norm they would end up being polygamous, and both polygamous and polyandrous relationships have their faults far and above monogamous relationships when actually reproducing becomes a concern, fuck who you like responsibly but when you decide to bring life into the world considerations should be different.

[–]Triplanetary 5ポイント6ポイント  (10子コメント)

So your underlying assumptions appear to be:

  • Women don't really want sex, they just want to take care of their babies. No doubt because of their inherent nurturing qualities, amirite?

  • Parents own their children. Yay nuclear family!

Patriarchal as fuck, yo.

(Also, in my experience, using "female" as a noun is usually the mark of a gross misogynist.)

[–]AprilMariagood old fasioned dirty commie -3ポイント-2ポイント  (9子コメント)

Hey gobshite, in case my username didnt make it obvious enough, i am a woman. Of course women want sex, but women tend to get lumped with the kids even now when relationships break down let alone when there are no relationships to begin with. Parents have to look after their children, I didnt say own but they are a tiny human that need to be cared for and its not easy to do.

I also used male as a noun, therefore how is it possible to be both mysogynist and misandrist humm??

It seems i hit a button, im pretty happy about that.

all this stuff is all well and fine for people who dont want families which is their own choice, but for people who do, its a fairly shitty arrangement

[–]BjornIronsideGulags are for liberals 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

So communal parenting doesnt exist or what?

Everything you have written seems to support the traditional nuclear family.

[–]AprilMariagood old fasioned dirty commie -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I said in my first post on the issue which has been so down voted its no longer visible that the best answer is parenting as part of an extended family is the best answer, but bringing in an endless rotation of new partners of various people connected only trough sexuality on the wishes and whims of the adults involved is not a stable way to build a family

[–]Triplanetary 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

in case my username didnt make it obvious enough, i am a woman

It was obvious but I didn't really see the relevance.

I also used male as a noun, therefore how is it possible to be both mysogynist and misandrist humm??

Misandry isn't really a thing so I don't see what your point is. Calling women "females" is pretty gross is all I'm saying.

all this stuff is all well and fine for people who dont want families which is their own choice, but for people who do, its a fairly shitty arrangement

Sure, and we can talk about how to make capitalist patriarchy less shitty, or we can talk about overthrowing them.

[–]AprilMariagood old fasioned dirty commie -2ポイント-1ポイント  (5子コメント)

How is it not relevant, for the record are you a man or a woman?

Its not, even on medical forms, drivers licenses, anything the terms are female or male. Its only misogynist when meant as such. It was termed for the biological genders of those involved because people who identify as another gender (man or woman) are far less likely to dump their children after going trough the trouble of adopting them or using assisted reproduction than what we see constantly happening with straight CIS males and females. Over throwing them? sure im all for that but there is no reason why at all what so ever that monogamous relationships have to be patriarchal some of the most patriarchal cultures on the planet practice poly relationships they are also capitalist countries

[–]Triplanetary 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

there is no reason why at all what so ever that monogamous relationships have to be patriarchal

Haha read some fucking Engels, Christ.

[–]AprilMariagood old fasioned dirty commie -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Quote from the very article we are debating about engles on monogamy "Moreover, polyamory is not very new. In fact, prior to capitalism there were feudal and tributary polyamories that were intensely patriarchal: polygamy. Here we must recall Engels' comments about how, in comparison to polygamoy, "[m]onogamy was a great historical advance." And though he also notes, in the same passage, that monogamy "at the same time… inaugurated, along with slavery and private wealth, that epoch, lasting until today, in which every advance is likewise a relative transgression," Engels' analysis demonstrates that neither polyamory nor monogamy are by themselves revolutionary. (Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, 94) Most importantly, neither sexual practice is linked to a single mode of production: both polyamory and monogamy have existed with and without capitalism, their characteristics mediated and partially determined by more concrete social relations."

In response to your "read some fucking Engels" i say read the fucking article, Engels is present an accounted for, Christ hasnt shown up, however :P

[–]Triplanetary 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah, no shit, and the quote in the article explicitly explains how monogamy is bound up in capitalist patriarchy. It's specifically designed to propagate systems of private property over multiple generations. There won't be any need for any of this nuclear family bullshit when there's no private property, and hopefully the whole issue of monogamy vs. polyamory will be completely moot.

Both monogamy and polyamory are expressions of present material conditions - which is a major part of the article's point - and if you think either one will survive as a cultural institution in communism you're kidding yourself.

[–]Bituquina[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You read fucking Engels dude, if you can't make the distinction. Engels was the epitome of monogamy himself.

[–]Bituquina[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (12子コメント)

Apparently false consciousness is applicable as a denigrating term when needed, but does not inspire retrospection in our male camarades. So much for camaraderie.

[–]AprilMariagood old fasioned dirty commie -1ポイント0ポイント  (11子コメント)

Yeah im getting downvoted to fuck here but im still fighting, can you believe it that one fucker had the cheek to call me a misogynist?

[–]Bituquina[S] -5ポイント-4ポイント  (10子コメント)

Lol. It's probably projection....

[–]AprilMariagood old fasioned dirty commie -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Has to be, speaking to us like we are poor idiots who cant be left outside by ourselves during the revolution (coming soon i hope) and then try to call me a misogynist? ridiculous

[–]Bituquina[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (8子コメント)

Being down voted feels soo good!!! Down vote me stronger!!!

[–]AprilMariagood old fasioned dirty commie -3ポイント-2ポイント  (7子コメント)

Yeah, i have some good karma built up from a few jokes that were well recieved over in /r/ Ireland over the past week, i can take the hit.

[–]Bituquina[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (6子コメント)

You're doing great.

[–]AprilMariagood old fasioned dirty commie -2ポイント-1ポイント  (5子コメント)

the one thing that annoys me about reddit is the Karma thing, it doesnt discourage assholes or trolls because they use throwaways but it makes people less likely to speak their mind or go against the group.

[–]audioredCLR James -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yay! Socially reactionary petty bourgeois academic Maoist fuckwads!