Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Loose attitudes towards sex

POST REPLY

Are attitudes towards sex too loose?

Yes, it should be tightened
10
29%
No, it's just right
4
12%
No, it should it be relaxed
13
38%
Other
7
21%
 
Total votes : 34
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 28 Jun 2012, 11:36
I understand what you mean. I'm not really trying to argue that there is anything metaphysically special at work here.

I guess I'm just expressing some personal sentiments in relation to that particular aspect of the issue.
There are neurological reasons for all of this, but sometimes it's pleasing to romanticize emotions (for neurological reasons of course).

I'm not sure that getting rid of all the injustices of past societies necessitates jettisoning their socially redeeming qualities as well though.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 28 Jun 2012, 11:59
My answer was probably a bit over the top. It's probably because of my own religion trauma that I just get very easily annoyed (even aggressive) when people say things that could be interpreted as meaning that there is more than matter, or that some things cannot be explained by (or reduced to) the sciences, etc. That means I'm often too quick in seeing an anti-rationalist, essentially idealist attitude where there is none. Sorry for that. Of course it's pleasing to romanticize emotions - or rather, romantical emotions are pleasing in and of themselves.

Quote:
I'm not sure that getting rid of all the injustices of past societies necessitates jettisoning their socially redeeming qualities as well though.


I don't know. Do you think marriage is a socially redeeming quality of the past? I don't, and personally I'm glad that marriage, and with it the bourgeois family, are beginning to disappear in Western societies. I don't think that human happiness depends on this or that social quality that has developed in the past.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 28 Jun 2012, 12:29
I wasn't thinking of marriage as a socially redeeming institution. It seems like a functional one that socialism should eventually make redundant, but I don't think we need to outlaw it or anything.

'Romantic' relationships don't usually seem to be quite such a terrible oppressive thing that they need to be removed from the sphere of human experience though.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 28 Jun 2012, 13:01
I don't know. Human happiness seems to be but one part of romantic relationships as a social institution. Lovesickness, self-hate over beauty standards, fierce competition and vitriolic jealousy are other parts of it. I would want these things to end. In fact these things have actually been quite successful at scaring me away from all kinds of romantic involvement.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 28 Jun 2012, 13:18
Better to have loved and lost ... yadda yadda yadda.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 28 Jun 2012, 23:49
Other. I don't understand the question. "Are attitudes towards sex too loose" where? Obviously there are vast differences even within countries and within "the media" (that vast monolithic bloc of evil that people like to generalise about). Of course you always need some simplism when making a poll, but this depends too much on context.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1782
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2009, 20:08
Resident Artist
Post 29 Jun 2012, 23:06
I voted other because whilst loose sexuality and hedonism can be liberating and prevent patriarchs from calling the shots, I find some aspects of loose sexuality dysfunctional, such as the proliferation of STDs and the phenomenon of teenage mothers. Ideally we should find the balance between the two and not return to the hypocritical sexual standards of the past, where people pretended to uphold sexual mores whilst raping children with impunity.
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 29 Jun 2012, 23:26
Tails wrote:
I voted other because whilst loose sexuality and hedonism can be liberating and prevent patriarchs from calling the shots.

that's the thing. Sexual liberation before patriarchy as a whole is destroyed ends up being no more liberating for women- in fact, they end up suffering. We can't pretend we live in a post sexist world.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 29 Jun 2012, 23:41
That's because partriachy cannot he ended by women alone, maybe not at all.

Also I really don't get most of this thread. Just seems like old thinking re-hashed.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2012, 16:12
Ideology: Left Communism
Pioneer
Post 30 Jun 2012, 00:14
Sexual liberation is part and parcel of human emancipation
. We need to get rid of moralistic bullshit: Not only on sexuality but also on culture: Rehashing reactionary moral prejudices under a Red flag is counter-productive.
Cm'on baby, eat the rich!!! - Motörhead
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 30 Jun 2012, 00:36
khlib wrote:
that's the thing. Sexual liberation before patriarchy as a whole is destroyed ends up being no more liberating for women- in fact, they end up suffering. We can't pretend we live in a post sexist world.


I'd be very interested in how you're trying to abstract those from one another. How is an act against patriarchy not simultaneously an act of sexual liberation?
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 7674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2004, 02:08
Embalmed
Post 06 Jul 2012, 19:55
Quote:
I'd be very interested in how you're trying to abstract those from one another. How is an act against patriarchy not simultaneously an act of sexual liberation?

Because it can develop into circumstances where the roles are simply reversed, something that is taking place in some parts where feminism has embraced post-modernist theory ahead of simple egalitarianism. In Sweden you have woman taking pictures of men 'aggressively sitting on the bus' and wanting to remove urinals. A Canadian businessman had literally escaped the country to avoid paying his ex wife child support and alimony(She got the 1.5mil home, child support was 2k/per kid, alimony was 4k/mo and was asking for more). And look out if there is ANY accusation of rape and its not true.

There is no need to advocate for ANY group to have less than another or more than another, but on occasion when acting out lines can occasionally be blurred.
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 06 Jul 2012, 20:44
Mabool wrote:
I'd be very interested in how you're trying to abstract those from one another. How is an act against patriarchy not simultaneously an act of sexual liberation?


I'm using sexual liberation in a specific sense, and I'm speaking more from personal experiences and things I've seen amongst my friends. I am not trying to universalize these observations. That being said, a lot of the "sexual liberation"/sex-positive attitudes that I saw in college seemed to be used to pressure women into engaging in behavior that did not necessarily benefit them positively, and oftentimes was not what they really wanted. Attachment after sex (a natural biological response) was characterized as remnant of the patriarchy, and women were encouraged to dress in revealing clothes and engage in casual (and sometimes risky) sexual behavior as an act of feminism/liberation. I just saw so many of my friends sleep with some random guy after a party, act cool and detached afterwards, yet basically be at his beckon call whenever he wanted her to come over at 2am for some NSA sex, hide their pain by sleeping with other guys, and overall have trouble finding a guy willing to commit emotionally because sex was so easy to come by. I'm really tired, and not sure if I'm explaining this well... I'll try to write more later.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 07 Jul 2012, 03:15
Hmm.... instead of calling that Socialist Alternative group in my university a Trotskyist rabble and telling them that they can all get fragged, I could have toed their line and convinced some female members to sleep with me using "fight the patriarchy" as a pretext. Damn!

Edit: I guess I shouldn't really regret it, after all, individual gratification is ultimately inconsequential, ideal is all that matters.
Image
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.