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

Should pornography be legal?

POST REPLY

Pornography?

Permitted without restrictions
19
22%
Permitted with some restrictions
39
46%
Forbidden with light penalties
9
11%
Strictly forbidden
10
12%
Other
8
9%
 
Total votes : 85
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 18 Nov 2014, 20:03
Erichs_Pastry_Chef wrote:
I am pretty sure people wanked in the USSR as much as they did in the Paris Commune and even in prehistoric times,

Our closest relatives, chimpanzees, definitely do. If they do something that's also found in human society, it's a pretty good indication that it's always existed. They live in what's basically primitive communism.

Quote:
Can you provide a history of wanking, showing a positive, causative correlation with the rise of the bourgeoisie?

Oh my god, yes. We would love a History of Chicken-Choking.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 18 Nov 2014, 20:45
Quote:
They live in what's basically primitive communism.


Not really, because primitive communism requires a capability for empathy, democratic debate and division of labor. Engels also calls it "military democracy". Chimps treat each other like shit all the time because they're like little children.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 18 Nov 2014, 20:54
Erichs_Pastry_Chef wrote:
I am pretty sure people wanked in the USSR as much as they did in the Paris Commune and even in prehistoric times, that mysterious time where alienated relationships were supposed to have never existed. Can you provide a history of wanking, showing a positive, causative correlation with the rise of the bourgeoisie?

Wanking is much harder to discuss. Sex in general would perhaps be a better subject to talk about.

It is a little awkward to cite this after Kirov's rant about the book, but Engels' Origins of the Family gives a detailed account of sexuality through states of the family, "Reconstructing thus the past history of the family, Morgan, in agreement with most of his colleagues, arrives at a primitive stage when unrestricted sexual freedom prevailed within the tribe, every woman belonging equally to every man and every man to every woman."
In later stages of the family, the nuclear family was formed.

Why would men want to change this system if they were sacrificing sex with as many women as they wanted for just one? At some stage it must have become apparent that jealousy over women was becoming violent (much like in the animal kingdom), and such jealousy disabled cooperation between different members of tribes. This need to change social relationships to allow for cooperation was the source of the creation of the family.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... y/ch02.htm



It is just my view that this sexual evolution defeats the idea that animalistic instincts for sex cannot be abridged.
Do you think wanking would be very important to men willing to give up sex with hundreds, if not thousands, of women in their lifetimes? I think here, right when our early animalistic instincts were broken by the early family, we can pick a time in history when desire for sex was not important. I highly doubt a single male would have had interest in masturbating at this period in human history (where he would have just given up the pleasures of communal sex).
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9187
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Mar 2005, 20:08
Embalmed
Post 18 Nov 2014, 21:00
@Mabool and Loz's girlfriend
Actually you're both wrong, chimp social organization is extremely primitive (compared to the baboon master race). Early humans on the other hand were able to make stone tools to dismember animal corpses and also make things such as clothes. Chimps on the other hand are stuck in stupid trees and can't even walk like people because they have hands on their legs instead of feet. At best they use sticks to catch ants, but that is like a sad joke compared to what humans did.

Also, it is now becoming apparent that the earliest humans were scavengers because they were too shitty at killing stuff as their tools weren't good enough.

@Have3333333

Evolution is not progressive, bud.
Image

"Bleh, i don't even know what i'm arguing for. What a stupid rant. Disregard what i wrote." - Loz
"Every time is gyros time" - Stalinista
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 18 Nov 2014, 21:04
Quote:
It is just my view that this sexual evolution defeats the idea that animalistic instincts for sex cannot be abridged.


No, that doesn't make any sense. If you look at Engels's work, you'll see how he explains the formation of the nuclear family on an economic basis - survival is of course more important than sexual gratification. I doubt these men suddenly got less horny because that's just a huge non sequitur.

Quote:
Do you think wanking would be very important to men willing to give up sex with hundreds, if not thousands, of women in their lifetimes?


I think you're confusing a process of social development that took millennia (it still isn't completed in Saudi Arabia for frag's sake) with some imaginary heroic sacrifice.

Quote:
I think here, right when our early animalistic instincts were broken by the early family, we can pick a time in history when desire for sex was not important. I highly doubt a single male would have had interest in masturbating at this period in human history (where he would have just given up the pleasures of communal sex).


Why are you only talking about male masturbation?

Quote:
Actually you're both wrong, chimp social organization is extremely primitive (compared to the baboon master race). Early humans on the other hand were able to make stone tools to dismember animal corpses and also make things such as clothes. Chimps on the other hand are stuck in stupid trees and can't even walk like people because they have hands on their legs instead of feet. At best they use sticks to catch ants, but that is like a sad joke compared to what humans did.


I agree with everything you're saying here. Why am I wrong?
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9187
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Mar 2005, 20:08
Embalmed
Post 18 Nov 2014, 21:08
Oh, I didn't actually read your post now that I think about it, I just subconsciously wanted you to be wrong, I guess.
Image

"Bleh, i don't even know what i'm arguing for. What a stupid rant. Disregard what i wrote." - Loz
"Every time is gyros time" - Stalinista
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 18 Nov 2014, 21:15
Sigh... Excessive masturbation leads to a release of Dopamine, Norepinephrine, Oxytocin, and Serotonin. The fact that self-satisfaction is sought for (which is an illusion, you just want the chemical discharges), rather than the sexual act itself, means that masturbation is comparable to drug use.

This is all I've got left. It was fun playing.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9187
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Mar 2005, 20:08
Embalmed
Post 18 Nov 2014, 21:18
By that analogy, sex is drug use plus sharing needles. Or at least can be when its a person you don't particularly care for and are driven solely by the desire to have sex. How do we ban that too?
Image

"Bleh, i don't even know what i'm arguing for. What a stupid rant. Disregard what i wrote." - Loz
"Every time is gyros time" - Stalinista
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 18 Nov 2014, 21:41
Kirov wrote:
By that analogy, sex is drug use plus sharing needles. Or at least can be when its a person you don't particularly care for and are driven solely by the desire to have sex. How do we ban that too?

I never called for banning anything.

Also, are you saying sex is not an addiction? It is in fact an addiction that many people seek treatment for.
Last edited by Have at thee on 18 Nov 2014, 21:42, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 18 Nov 2014, 21:42
Havee3333333 wrote:
Wanking is much harder to discuss. Sex in general would perhaps be a better subject to talk about.


Not quite, I am intrigued as to why you think that masturbation is an alienated form of sex, brought about by alienating social relations between humans. It sure as anything seemed that was what you've been implying over this thread, and I really cannot see the link between it, or why it is a bourgeois act, as you have stated.

Quote:
Excessive masturbation leads to a release of Dopamine, Norepinephrine, Oxytocin, and Serotonin. The fact that self-satisfaction is sought for (which is an illusion, you just want the chemical discharges), rather than the sexual act itself, means that masturbation is comparable to drug use.


From the same chemicals/hormones that are released by the brain with sex or no. It is possible to have deeply unsatisfying sex that feels worse than masturbation with someone you feel affections and love for, why does human sexuality have to be reduced to this simplistic chemical interpretation? It's massively complicated, perhaps more so for gay people than it is for straight people as they have to run the daily gauntlet of abuse if others with little empathy and a false Christian piety are made aware of their sexuality. I only mention homosexuality as it has been brought up on the board by another member who is insistent it causes disease or whatever 1950s nonsense you can dredge up from the past.
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9187
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Mar 2005, 20:08
Embalmed
Post 18 Nov 2014, 21:49
Havee3333333 wrote:
I never called for banning anything.

Also, are you saying sex is not an addiction? It is in fact an addiction that many people seek treatment for.


So why differentiate it from relatively harmless wanking that won't get you HIV or hepatitis and at worst will make you appear lazy and unmotivated for a little while? It's like comparing weed and krokodil.
Image

"Bleh, i don't even know what i'm arguing for. What a stupid rant. Disregard what i wrote." - Loz
"Every time is gyros time" - Stalinista
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 18 Nov 2014, 21:54
Quote:
Excessive masturbation leads to a release of Dopamine, Norepinephrine, Oxytocin, and Serotonin.


As does any pleasurable activity. I don't think neurotransmitters do what you think they do.

And hey, I've practiced nofap as well and found it really interesting, but you're just being completely neurotic about this.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 18 Nov 2014, 22:34
Recreational jogging (i.e. to not really improve personal fitness) is bourgeois too, it releases those same chemicals in the brain, and doesn't achieve anything other than pure self-indulgence. Havee3333333, is that related to the effects of bourgeois atomism and alienation from one's fellow humans?
Hard labour actually does the same thing to the brain. Are you saying anybody engaged in tough physical labour is bourgeois? I had a job at a duck farm until recently, and can claim a similar sense of satisfaction after the work had ended, the hard bit was moving an entire ton of hay and spreading it across the duck's area of habitation. It was alienating work for sure, but how does that feeling of satisfaction and then exhaustion for a while make me bourgeois?
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 18 Nov 2014, 22:41
Mabool wrote:
Not really, because primitive communism requires a capability for empathy, democratic debate and division of labor. Engels also calls it "military democracy". Chimps treat each other like shit all the time because they're like little children.

Empathy, sure. Debate, maybe, but debate in the sense we'd think of didn't come until complex language. That'd be too symbolic for the earliest of human societies. Hence why I used the chimpanzee example; they can abstract enough to learn basic sign language, but haven't done anything past that and may be incapable of it. We had bigger brains and better grasp of tools early on, which let us get past that. But otherwise, their society is closer to a hunter-gatherer/primitive-communist one than anything around. Besides still-extant primitive human groups, and I don't think anthropologists have watched to see if they touch themselves. Chimps do.

Also, hunters could also gather and gatherers could also hunt, per observed hunter-gatherer societies. Division of labor didn't really come until domestication. That'd be the transition from a band society to a tribal one, from paleolithic to neolithic. Whether or not the latter is primitive-communism is very debatable. It's more hierarchical than something like the Khoisan at the very least.

I agree 100% with your apply to Havee, though.

Havee3333 wrote:
Sigh... Excessive masturbation leads to a release of Dopamine, Norepinephrine, Oxytocin, and Serotonin. The fact that self-satisfaction is sought for (which is an illusion, you just want the chemical discharges), rather than the sexual act itself, means that masturbation is comparable to drug use.

1) "Excessive masturbation." We're talking masturbation in general, you keep shifting back and forth on whether you're talking about it in general or it in excess. As if you see the two as the same.

2) Know what else leads to a release of dopamine? Eating chocolate. To a lesser degree eating literally anything that tastes good,. Something as simple as pizza can be a psychological addiction. Does that mean socialism means living off stale bread?

I mean, seriously, this line of reasoning could mean taking away anything pleasurable. Because, after all, "self-satisfaction is bourgeois."
Last edited by MissStrangelove on 19 Nov 2014, 00:31, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 18 Nov 2014, 23:19
To further that point, MissStrangelove, paleoanthropologists can point to the growing size of the human brain by looking at the scattered and fragmented record of our ancestors over about 2 million years when we were still most definitely a competing species and not possessing the hegemony we do now, naked and hairless without the ability to craft tools and fashion clothing from either hides or cotton or nylon, this is one of the things that really sets us apart from chimps. Remains in Scotland point to early humans using a cave as a base camp in the Winter months, with vast piles of oyster shells and some flint shards and cutting edges, oysters are a great source of fat, protein, carbs and vitamins. They could only access them by using tools fashioned from the antlers of deer, as exhibited as damage marks on the shells themselves. A chimp would see a stick and use that: a human would see two stag deer fighting and comment on the strength of the antlers and proceed to kill, eat and utilise every part of the animal using any kind of tool available, in this case, flint. This could suggest a division of labour in travelling tribes. Knapping a bit of flint that you can cut a deer open with is a skill you learn from experience and specialisation.

I am against a puritanical understanding of the world, the only virtue I really get behind is a notion of social justice, and to paraphrase Marx I want people to enjoy the fruits of their labours. Enjoyment isn't a decadent symptom of a decline in moral standards, but simply the human condition - we all mourn and experience severe grief at one point, we all experience the all-encompassing joy and sorrow of Mahler, we all enjoy eating a bit of fatty food every now and again. Is enjoying the fruits of your labour, or the labour of others (alienated labour as you did not do it yourself) a bourgeois trait?
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 18 Nov 2014, 23:41
Quote:
I am intrigued as to why you think that masturbation is an alienated form of sex


It is basically having indirect mental sexual interaction with another individual without their knowledge. Turning individuals into sexual mental icons is not a dignified or respectable expression of sexuality. It is basically exploitation of another person's image to gain personal benefit. Perhaps if the person you were having such thoughts about had knowledge, personally witnessed, or assisted in the wanking, it wouldn't be so alienated, but I just cannot see how you don't regard masturbation an alienated relationship between two individuals.

Erichs_Pastry_Chef wrote:
Recreational jogging (i.e. to not really improve personal fitness) is bourgeois too, it releases those same chemicals in the brain, and doesn't achieve anything other than pure self-indulgence. Havee3333333, is that related to the effects of bourgeois atomism and alienation from one's fellow humans?
Hard labour actually does the same thing to the brain. Are you saying anybody engaged in tough physical labour is bourgeois? I had a job at a duck farm until recently, and can claim a similar sense of satisfaction after the work had ended, the hard bit was moving an entire ton of hay and spreading it across the duck's area of habitation. It was alienating work for sure, but how does that feeling of satisfaction and then exhaustion for a while make me bourgeois?

The release of dopamine is incredibly higher during sex and drug use than any of the activities you've listed here. It is ridiculous to take this on such a pointless route... The excessive discharge of dopamine during masturbation, combined with its wastefulness in productive activity, is what makes it bourgeois.

I might as well take on a functionalist position to address these points - the function of sexual organs is to reproduce, and dopamine is a reward mechanism to increase the desire to reproduce - exploited by excessive and blind usage not intended for reproduction. Only the excessive non-function portion here is bourgeois.

Running and jogging is one of the functions of the evolutionary developed skeletal and muscle structure, so excessive running does not go against the function of running mechanisms - and the reward system is properly used (not bourgeois).

"Hard labour"

Humans have developed as an evolutionary function the ability to create and produce, by both hand and thought, so excess in this department is not bourgeois.

Porn/Masturbation addiction is a real psychological problem... You people are stuck with 1990's and 2000's mindsets that think it is harmless... It is not, just read the Reddit porn addicts support forum.

http://www.reddit.com/r/pornfree/
Last edited by Red Daughter on 19 Nov 2014, 00:08, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Merged with double post
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 18 Nov 2014, 23:48
Please try not to double post.


Quote:
The excessive discharge of dopamine during masturbation, combined with its wastefulness in productive activity, is what makes it bourgeois.


What, before I go to bed after being at work for hours lugging a ton of straw about the place? How is it bourgeois to have a wank before going to sleep? What else are you going to do before going to bed, read some of Lenin's more boring letters and relate them to how to dress up warm for the Winter, or relate them on how to correctly chop an onion?

Porn addiction is more about the internet being simply a new form of transmission of information, rather than spending £5 on a dodgy magazine, you can spend £5 on your dial-up bill downloading 3 grainy images that are in no way erotic and incur the wrath of your ISP as to why you are downloading so much. As far as I know, there are many prehistoric fertility symbols that are carved images of naked women. The implication when looking at the image is an alienated incarnation of the ideal woman, enough to get many people thinking about sex, possibly masturbation.

You also imply that the point of sex is to reproduce, so should we be limited to having sex only when we want to have children? Contraception must be bourgeois! I wanted to bring this up earlier, but you did provide the ammo against yourself, sorry "the rope by which [you will hang yourself]"-V.I. Lenin, rather than me just assuming you would come out with such a stupid statement that every human function is just that - functional and not in any way ceremonial, spiritual or pleasurable. It strikes me that you may have a limited experience with these matters and should really lay off commenting until you've had more time to experience things and just get comfortable with the fact that the complex social arrangements we have to negotiate every second of the day are also limited and/or enhanced by our bodies.
Last edited by Erichs_Pastry_Chef on 19 Nov 2014, 00:02, edited 1 time in total.
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 19 Nov 2014, 00:01
Erichs_Pastry_Chef wrote:
What, before I go to bed after being at work for hours lugging a ton of straw about the place?
How is it bourgeois to have a wank before going to sleep? What else are you going to do before going to bed, read some of Lenin's more boring letters and relate them to how to dress up warm for the Winter, or relate them on how to correctly chop an onion?


As I pointed out earlier, masturbation is a trait legitimizing basic capitalist social relations. I am not going to list these capitalist social relations, as I already did so in previous posts. This is why I recognize it as "bourgeois."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 19 Nov 2014, 00:06
Yes I do masturbate every now and again, what's the problem with that?

Quote:
As I pointed out earlier, masturbation is a trait legitimizing basic capitalist social relations.


No you didn't, and this is why I keep calling you up on this. How is it a bourgeois trait? You really don't give any indication of how this is in any way related to the ownership of the means of production and the gamut of social relations in our complex societies and I would really like you to do so. Are you unwilling to provide evidence? Did the people of France stop wanking in 1789 for a week? Did Russians stop pleasuring themselves for a day in October 1917?
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 19 Nov 2014, 00:14
On page two, I specified it as legitimizing "capitalist consumptivism."

You really couldn't bother to go back and look this up?

And you are really boring to talk to... It is clear you are just defending this just because you personally do it...
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron