Sexuality and reaction

I'd like to talk about something serious and overlooked in leftist circles, sexuality and the way capitalists use it to make the proletariat reactionary as well as to create and maintain support for imperialism.

I'll leave a quote and a link in the hope that people will download and read the source, or at least ask and discuss about it.

''sexual repression aids political reaction not only through this process which makes the mass individual passive and unpolitical but also by creating in his structure an interest in actively supporting the authoritarian order The suppression of natural sexual gratification leads to various kinds of substitute gratifications. Natural aggression, for example, becomes brutal sadism which then is an essential mass-psychological factor in imperialistic wars. The mass -psychological effect of militarism is essentially libidinous.
one only has to remember the recruiting posters with texts like this, "If you want to see the world, join the Royal Navy." The far away world is represented by exotic women. Why are such posters effective? Because our youth, as a result of sexual suppression, is sex-starved. "

archive.org/details/WILHELMREICHTheMassPsychologyOfFascism

Pic unrelated.

Attached: 30254.jpg (333x500, 41.38K)

Other urls found in this thread:

vimeo.com/75534042
wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/01/nyta-m01.html
poserorprophet.wordpress.com/2017/12/20/on-reading-cat-person-with-white-bros-or-you-can-take-a-horse-to-the-library-but-you-cant-make-it-not-eat-the-books/
mega.nz/#F!DJdkhYTR!gNrR2Hm7we5O0dyfwBHG0g
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Maybe girls should lower their insane standards then.

We need to seize the means of reproduction, comrade

shut the fuck up

No, fuck you. If 20% of men weren't fucking 80% of the women maybe there wouldn't be a school shooting every month.

>>>/r9k/

Maybe you should kill yourself? You'll probably be a virgin for the rest of your life, why even bother?

Why should I kill my self because girls have unrealistic standards? Girls should just lower their standards tbh.

Suck Dicks officially confirmed for worst posters on this board.

>>>Zig Forums
>>>/v9k/
Shoot yourself in the nuts before you shoot yourself in your empty skull when you inevitably kill yourself faggot.

Why are you so angry? I must be striking a nerve.

Girls need to lower their standards for the good of society. You know i am right.

Attached: 888.jpg (500x534, 40.48K)

Maybe you should lower your standards and bite the bullet?

Yeah, don't blame guys. We're ready and willing for women to put out.

do not respond to swedish socdem holy shit

Why are gay incels always ignored in these kinds of discussions?

I mean, not him, but everyone has pretty unrealistic standards nowadays due to mass media and the sex industry. Everything is extremely over-exaggerated now and peoples view on what a spouse or partner should be has shifted to honestly unreasonable levels.

You can very easily read 'homosexual repression' through the lines.

I don't want to buy an orgone box, thank you.

Stinks like liberalism to me.

To be gay and incel you have to be really ugly or live in a really bad area for homo sex. I would call myself semi-incel, guys are willing to bend over for me but not girls

This is the first time I've encountered you and I already can't stand you, I can't imagine having to deal with you on person regularly.
What you need to understand is that while there is no guarantee that improving yourself will get you a partner, remaining bitter, immature, awkward, socially inept, hateful and shallow will most certainly keep you alone for your whole life.

Maturing isn't easy, no man can remake himself without pain, for he's both the marble and the sculptor, it will take years, it will be hard, but it is worth it, my life, my mental and emotional well being has been considerably improved ever since I decided to introspect and become mindful.

What do you have to lose?

Well that means that girls DEFINITELY need to lower their standards then.

i bet there are tons of girls willing to accept you, even some that share your stupid nerd interests, but i'm willing to bet you don't want to fuck those, because you don't really want to fuck women you want the right to fuck the hottest women while remaining a shitstain

That's not true at all, but nice try.

its more likely hes just never met them and is therfore convinced they dont exist.
and, if hes tried to interact with girls, he made a bad impression and went for ones he was attracted to but didnt otherwise have much reason to interact with.
if guys and girls didnt self segregate so much as they do, especially around hobbies, he'd probably have met a nice like-minded girl years ago and never ended up like this.

Wilhelm Reich wrote that back in the 30s, things have changed a lot since then. Reich's ideas were highly influential among the 60s new left, laying the bases for the sexual revolution and a world were self expression(including but not limited to sexuality) is the ultimate value. Look up ESALEN and the human potential movement. But somewhere along the way, something went horribly wrong. There can be no true liberation without true economic and political change. We have access to porn ie. an endless panopticon of anonymous flesh available at any moment any time and hook up apps such as tinder. This results in a whole different set of sexual neuroses. Think about the controversies related to Asiz Ansari, affirmative consent and that 'Cat Person' story that plague the urban bourgeoisie. These people are obviously alienated from their sexuality and unable to form real human connections. Incels and r9k types on the other hand, tend to use sexuality as a proxy for the rest of their problems

I wonder what would Reich would have made of this?
vimeo.com/75534042

im reading this(its from the new yorker right?) and it sgetting too fucking inane to continue.
whats the point of this?

...

And at the same time, shame such a willingness to put out.

Nice stealth incel thread. Top notch

it's ephemera. it's only relevant to a certain ingroup and outside of that ingroup it has no value. that said i haven't read it i'm only reacting to what you're saying

Don't. I detest the author for thinking this was worth writing for publication and the publication for thinking it was worth publishing. My skull hurts imagining the shit who thought this deserved to go outside the iphone exchange with a friend about how she was bummed out over what happened with a guy that it was obviously born as.

im overreacting, Im just mad because I interrupted a cockshott video for this.

the newyorker has been shit for decades

these people are trapped in a bizarre ironic hell of their own making
wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/01/nyta-m01.html

poserorprophet.wordpress.com/2017/12/20/on-reading-cat-person-with-white-bros-or-you-can-take-a-horse-to-the-library-but-you-cant-make-it-not-eat-the-books/

Initially, the bros were arguing that the story had nothing to do with patriarchy or toxic masculinity or the oppression of women or any such thing – they argued that the story showed two people who were equally fucked up and who both got hurt and, really, the female lead, Margot, was probably a whole lot more nasty than the awkward-but-oh-so-lovable male lead, Robert. Thus, my first response went as follows:

So, here’s the thing, reread the story but think about Margot and her anxieties, actions, thoughts, and responses, in light of what it is like for women to live in a patriarchal society (if you haven’t given that much thought, Kate Manne’s “Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny” isn’t a bad place to start). Reading the story in that light, you’ll notice that, constantly, Margot is worried more about Robert than about herself and that she is afraid to act in ways that prioritize herself over Robert (because, even though she is fully justified in doing that, patriarchy teaches women that they exist to meet the emotional and physical needs of men and that, if they deviate from that, they will be punished — hence, fear of being murdered, hence why her friend writes the text for her, hence running from the bar, etc. — and so, esp for a 20 year old woman in some kind of relationship with a 34 year old man, mapping a way to do this may be difficult). Similarly, looking at Robert, you see how even seemingly “nice guys” (he is even a cat person!) who aren’t the obvious macho dick or bully in the schoolyard, can still take objective advantage of patriarchal structures even if, subjectively, they are (for the most part) sensitive, nonviolent-ish, and not mainstream or whatever (although the story also helps to make sense of stats about how women are more like to be raped by dates, friends, and study buddies than they are to be raped by some random predator stalking the streets — most men who rape don’t see themselves as villains… most men who rape are probably a lot more like Robert). The folks rushing to play the “Margot was, like, mean or dishonest or whatever and she’s just as fucked up as Robert” card are missing that Margot’s struggles are symptomatic of what it’s like living as a woman in a man’s world (and they also sound like people who play the “what was she wearing?” and “why did you go home with that guy and kiss him?” and “you sent mixed messages and probably have equal blame in this” cards in response to rape survivors) . So, yeah, I persist in thinking that the story is a brilliant analysis and deconstruction of how patriarchy impacts the formation of subjectivities (hence, Foucault’s “subjected subjectivities” as applied to women in this context) and what avenues of action it opens for men (at what cost, with what benefits), versus what avenues of action it opens for women (at what cost, with what benefits). If that all seems a little too subtle, then maybe give the story another read.

This is depressing, it seems all sex between males and females is rape apparantly.

Otto Weininger was also right about everything. Intercourse and Geschlecht und Charakter are the twin Bibles I recurr to when I want to morally justify my Inceldom

Attached: 585_480n.jpg (480x331, 52.57K)

Look lesbo, straight women are NEVER going to have sex with your fat ass. Just let it go, lesbian feminists are worse then incels.

No, I'm really not seeing it. He was almost certainly concerned more with whether she was enjoying herself than his own feelings when they were going out too, thats just normal empathy in that sort of situation, any guy who isnt a sociopath will be the same. He just had no clue what he was doing. He was almost certainly insecure about whether she was enjoying herself and if he was ruining it the whole time. Hence 'dont worry I wont kill you or anything'.
If this says anything at all its either "no shit" or wrong.

Attached: michel-houellebecq-447364.jpg (640x884, 130.74K)

BOURGEOISIE FAMILY IS COMMUNIST

Made by Houllenbeq Gang

Reading Dworkin reveals Butler and hooks as the clowns they are.

Spotted the newfag.

hy are such posters effective? Because our youth, as a result of sexual suppression, is sex-starved.

is tihs wirtten in the middle ages?

Egalitarian, empathetic and caring leftist coming through.
Eugenics is neoliberalism trickle down reagantrump-nomics.
If the sexual market fails to provide, cease to reproduce you lazy parasite!

Attached: randroid.jpg (600x745, 44.07K)

why are you a leftist at all? who cares about welfare when your basic social needs are not met? worship of the social market is the same as randian/rothbardian worship of the economic market

Attached: 1515849393927.jpg (800x732, 65K)

As a Freudian/Lacanian I am inclined to react in this (not so good) thread… The very premise of OP is false:

>something serious and overlooked in leftist circles, sexuality
The "left" (a category I think proper communists don't really fit into) has spent its last 40-50 years obsessively involved in "sexual politics" – something I think is in reality truly apolitical – among others. For me to try to justify this previous statement I have to reveal my theoretical cards.

First, on the 'nature' of human sexuality: it is the most perverted phenomenon among animals on Earth, to the point of it being as far as removed from the inclinations of the 'evolutionary program' as it can get. We flirt, we kiss, we hold hands, we send ambiguous 'signals' constantly to our (potential) partners, we cheat, we fuck using contraception… we mess about constantly all the time, in fact, if you look at an ordinary couple only 0,01% (0,001%?) of their sexual acts end in procreation. 'Nature' (our genetic predisposition) would dictate a rather different, 'natural' route: direct procreation without any by-pass roads. So we empirically detect a disjunction here: animals proper procreate (the means and end-aim overlap), while human-animals make a fetish out of avoiding that very goal (our means avoid the 'natural aim'). We fuck, but our fucking lacks the natural duty to fulfill our 'genetic program' directly. In fact – and this is a crucial point – we regard this detour as erotic! Imagine a couple who proclaims that "We are going to fuck in the missionary position in order to procreate!" – is there anything less erotic, less human?!

Second, if we accept the above mentioned, we can conclude that human sexuality in this sense is above politics, above negotiation, above collective decision making. Our eroticism (the very denial of the 'natural program') is as is: we do it the way we do it because we enjoy it in this way, and any other way is a perversion of our unnatural ways. It is not any more defective (from the human POV) to say that 'we should procreate' than to say that 'we should negotiate this already perverted human sexuality between us.' The fact is: you can't 'negotiate, politicize, etc.' something that makes us human.

Third, so far all of this might have seem to be conservative, but I honestly don't think it is. From the Freudian perspective a gay folk or a trans person is not more 'perverted' than any 'regular' heterosexual.

Fourth, I'd like to point out two divergences from materialism. Much like how Marx & Engels tried to make their case for a 'scientific' socialism, Freud tried to do the same with psychoanalysis. I'm one who'd argue against calling Marxism "a science" just like I'd argue against calling psycho[-analysis; -therapy; -logy; and psychiatry) a 'science'. This is not to devalue these practices but a way to acknowledge limitation. But back to the point: just like how Marxism saw divergences from its main theses, psychoanalysis suffered the same. Back to OP, since he cites Wilhelm Reich: just like Marxism suffered idealist deviations, so did psychoanalysis. To cut a long story short, in psychoanalysis' history there have been two deviations: a liberal one (Reich) and a conservative one (Jung). Both are problematic from a materialist's perspective.

Cont.: OP's second statement is ambiguous – at best – as well.

If you look at the history of sexuality through a historical materialist perspective you'll find that [current year's] treatment of it is no more special or more 'reactionary' than, say, it was treated under feudalism. First of all because there's no and can be non 'non-reactionary' view on human sexuality. Don't misunderstand me: relegating "gender roles" has always been per definitionem reactionary, but sexuality has always prevailed over social regulation. Monks under feudalism has fucked nuns the same way OP fucks his bf/gf…

This brings up another related topic: conflating human sexuality with human gender-roles. These are, as it should be quite obvious from my above post, radically different. For a 'leftist' to criticize gender-roles is not the same to comment upon human sexuality. This is something that is conflated, made the same, even, by the "new left". To cut a long story short: we should criticize culturally preordained "roles" in every sphere of life, including sexuality! But – and this is where the "new left" is mistaken – human sexuality is different from the previously mentioned.

If I'm being condition to assume a 'macho' identity as a male, it has to do more with 'gender roles', but, ultimately, with identities. Say my conservative father wants me to be a rigid robot to ensure that I don't get gay. Well, this has to do with social roles, and not with human sexuality.

But what is the difference between these two from the Freudian perspective? For Freud and Lacan 'social roles' are basically a part of identity-formation, something that has to do with how I relate to my fellow human beings. This is, obviously, culturally, historically, etc. contingent. The latter, human sexuality, is something primordial for these theorists, moreover, they assert that each and every one of us as toddlers have chosen a specific path to regulate our desires, with the ultimate aim of domesticating our personal sexuality to the socially dictated rules. This latter conception literally implies that we, as toddlers, at the age of 2-3 have chosen a subjective path that became the corner-stone for our later subjectivity. We chose something 'back then' and can not nudge from it.

Moving on.
I have no idea how gender roles/sexual identification can/should/might/etc. lead to imperialism, but we have already established (I think), that OP is a fag…

This is the reality of the situation. There are systems in place that encourage what you think, do, and eat, and sex is one of the most commodified things in capitalism. It’s really a conversation about what teaches people and how the go about it, because people always have their conceptions, and they interact with what we as a society condition them for, which is a beloved commodification of work, sex, and entertainment, all meant to impart a certain idea.

I remember reading some pdf i found that talked about sexuality in nazi Germany. And it said the idea that sex was repressed under the far right was exaggerated, and in fact there was lots of weird sex shit going on and of course Hitler encouraged women to have lots of kids.


There was also a section that talked about how people get horny when their team wins. Whether in a micro sense like a football match or macro sense winning an election or war.

cont.

Well, this is a rather naive conception, innit? For sure we've seen alt-righters with 2GB collection of black dick pic/video collections. But to attack the heart of the matter: where is this supposed "repression"? If you look at Freud's or Lacan's conception of repression – something that is constitutive of neurosis – you'll find a different picture. Moreover, I must proclaim the following: the nazis/alt-right are made up by buncha' perverts, as far as psychoanalytic clinical categories go.

This brings us to another point or problematic: detecting the "problem". For Freud and Lacan there are three possible psychological subjectivities: psychotics, perverts, and neurotics. "Repression" is indicative of neurosis. Fun fact: neurotics are the only people occupying subjective positions that can become revolutionary.

Is this not where the theorist's ALARM BELL goes off? "Mass individual?" … An oxymoron sounds good on paper, but ffs, lets keep it on the ground. >le stirnerites

This is an old libertarian meme: we have our sexual/gender/identitarian/group/etc. problems due to >authoritarianism. I hope that my above posts clarified or at least contextualized such simplified statements…

We've already seen that there was nothing "natural" in human sexuality.

This is properly anti-Freudian and shall I say, anti-materialist. There's no "human nature proper" which is betrayed by modern life, specifically. Human sexuality has always been 'problematic' throughout our collective history. There never was a "harmonic point", to put it differently!

As a Leninist I must make clear how this is an example of an epic non-sequitur. Our specific socio-historical condition doesn't pervert our sexuality, quite to the contrary, our always already perverted (un-natural) sexuality adjusts itself to our current socio-historical condition. When I said that these people (Reich, Jung) were idealists (non-materialists, that is) I was alluding to these kinds of theoretical missteps, exactly. Also of note: "Natural aggression" – what the fuck is this shit? But back to Lenin: are you (thru Reich) seriously trying to suggest that imperialism is due to humanity's psychological inclinations?!

TL;DR: Reich's proposed model of: natural aggression → sadism → imperialism is pure non-materialist idealism…

Well, yes, and no. Everything from playing Pokemon games, through shopping, to voting in "democratic elections" is libidinous… The reason ciwhy Reich feels like circumscribing "imperialism" to the libido is a mystery! Keep in mind, though, that a proper communist movement is militant! There's no going around this fact. If you dislike this, well, you are a liberal. Sorry to break the spell for you…

Not even Freud would be so reductive (everything is due to our childhood).

So to sum up: while Jung was a conservative deviation from Freud, Reich was a liberal one. Both were anti-materialist. (I could go on, but let's see where this thread goes eventually.)

HOW DO I INTO PSYCHOANALYSIS?!

mega.nz/#F!DJdkhYTR!gNrR2Hm7we5O0dyfwBHG0g
1997 → 2007 → 1995

Oh, another thing. Julius evola literally wrote books about sex magik

Attached: evola sex wizard lel.jpg (1399x2148, 571.46K)

Theoretically speaking the problem isn't his theory 'aging wrong' per se, but it being wrong in the first place.
And we've seen the dead end where it lead.
Look up the Orgone machine, ya 'tard.
Not "along the way" but from the very beginning. Reich was wront, anti-materialist and anti-Freudian from the getgo, even before his psychotic-break.
People following the anti-humanist and old Marx would have a rather pessimistic message to you: there will be no 'liberation' in the sense you idealize it.
We have had unrestricted access porn under different guise throughout our human history. What changed wasn't its 'explicity' but its essential nature which corresponds to exchange value.
Lel. We are literally nothing more or less than flesh. Learn2materialism.
What is wrong with that platform is its market-like nature and not anything else, you idiotic humanist!
Everyone is constantly 'alienated' from their sexuality, you brainlet. Read Althusser to get a hint on how and why "Alienation theory" as removed from the workforce is utter idealism.

Attached: Sumer.jpeg (178x283 5.5 KB, 14.83K)

why are Althusserians so dogmatic?

'humanist Marxism' ie. Dunkayevskaya is more appealing to me than Althusserian meme antihumanism, which can seem like a self serving rationalization for the academic lifestyle. In practice it amounts to setting fences you are forbidden to think beyond because muh SCIENCE and fetishised remnants of Plato and 19th century positivism.

…yeah?
impregnation is hot.
non-procreative sex acts are hot too but the idea of cumming inside and getting her pregnant is too in a particular way.
I dont know, maybe this is just what happens when I spend too much time on sankaku channel, but the most erotic things in my 2d are enthusiasm and enjoyment from both parties but especially the girl, and going in the vagoo with no protection possibly resulting in prognont

Althusserians are dogmatic! Being surrounded with pomo "whatifs" and "whynots" is a plague in our mind. You – regardless of your theoretical bg – should be able to articulate where you actually stand. HUE: you are not, so fuck you…

Again:

Attached: ef5d2cd336ea78a7ac0519bc2a181af51cdd20cac68ad7a4c48125de7b1b301b.png (625x773, 110.98K)

im sorry, I need to read more books, then ill be able to embrace the eros of asphyxiation snuff

Attached: apustaja.jpg (240x240, 12.01K)

fucking this. a bunch of neokantians

He's not here in good faith you retards

pretty sure men and women have pretty even numbers of sexual partners per lifetime but okay

the importance of sexuality has been overstated, let's focus on bread and butter issues until we all have enough to eat

we can continue being neurotic until then for all I care

Weren't you blown the fuck out back in '72?

Attached: 619L3ZOR8uL.jpg (857x1400, 125.8K)

If you believe anything you read, then everything was BTFO at some point.

Did I ask for your reply you fucking worm?

Do you think I care what you want you narcissist?

are you one of those MRA dudebros? you probably deny the pay gap as well lol

I'm going to stomp your head into the fucking curb

Cool.

If sexual repression has the effect of guiding people toward reinforcing authority as a means of accessing substitutes for sexual release (it is), then the biggest contributor to this is probably circumcision, which removes the majority of sensitivity from the penis (crippling a man's enjoyment of sex) and renders it uncomfortable/painful for whomever is penetrated by it (impeding the woman's enjoyment of sex) due to the loss of friction-reducing motility of the foreskin and the lubrication of the mucosa membrane that is removed or dried out. This is something that has been done to about half of American males. At times it was done upwards of 90% of the time.

Deleuze is literally the French Jordan Peterson

its too hard to tell if this is satire, actual redditfags, or Zig Forums to respond at this point
bls stobbid ;_;

A lot of the radlib views on feminism are tied into capitalism

- "Buy this, you'll be beautiful"
- "An empowered woman buys from these brands"
- "Female police are queens"

also google "pink capitalism"


Tumblr anlib.

Haha I love how the idea of women "dating down" could trigger so many "leftists". Yes, we should totally not point out that the majority of men struggle to find partners because of women's unwillingness to date men that are "weaker" read: physically weaker and make less money than them. Even though men do this all the time.
You're all just a bunch of liberals.

Just in case they're serious:
I do not affiliate with "MRA" communities and do not subscribe to many of their ideas.


Swedish socdem incel is a notorious shitposter and "incel" is one of leftypols fnords.
im pretty sure you could get some of them to agree women have some harmful attitudes and prejudices about men and dating if you walked on eggshells to carefully, painstakingly constructed the argument from a feminist angle, given that 'women lowering their standards' is implied by wanting to do away with gender ideals as spooks to which people must conform or else be failures to conform to the spook.

This board is a shithole mate. It's 90% reactionary red liberals. It used to be better but sometime last year it became a lot less leftist and more basic rad lib for some reason. Sucks. We used to have conversations about true sexual egalitarianism but it all turned around for some reason. I blame the Chapo crowd.

There was an influx of redditors at some point and the board moderation turned shitty, driving lots of people to Zig Forums or just away.

we must critically support swedish socdem incel in his fight against the chad-bourgeois

Why should they, there is plenty of Chad to go around.

reddit rejects and crossies have been trickling in for as long as Ive visited here.

almost this but unironically. the worst weird twitter and reddit cockroaches here like to use him as a vessel to rationalize their disdain for "low-status" men, and as "evidence" that virgin losers are Zig Forums. critical opposition to his detractors, sans actual support for him of any kind. its like the USSR for a social anarchist, almost.

A handful of threads that always get anchored did all that, wow!

Are we really facing "sexual repression" today though? The west is incredibly permissive when it comes to casual sex and pornography is literally everywhere. Getting your rocks off is not the problem.

The problem is the inability of people to form stable, meaningful relationships due to the atomization and alienation of modern capitalism. It's a problem of intimacy, not sexuality.

Fun fact: neurotics are the only people occupying subjective positions that can become revolutionary.

Not to be read that way, subjective positions don't change from person to person but also from time to time, including hours of difference, so the same subject can occupy different subjective positions and in rela practice still be a revolutionary

But I'm incredibly aggressive yet have submissive fetishes not sadistic ones

And maybe wanting to get gangbanged by a group of black guys while trying to maintain your position of nazi causes some agression?

Sex and love aren't important, solidarity is.

Thanks for your posts Freudfag.

This is why I am pro-safe-sex-work folks (as in the woman being her own pimp and having the necessary power to do things as she chooses). Sometimes the rules need to be broken. You can at least admit this much. I bet your ass this kid wouldn't be Isis-tier if he'd had a taste of that sweet, pristine, soft and godly thing that we call the Labia Maximus! The power of gods arises therefrom. Also he's probably ugly af and no woman will touch him with an 8 foot pole otherwise. This is why I have sex with fat women too. It's charitable and sagacious.

This post was really obnoxious.


People who mock others for being ugly and lonely are complete trash and lower than Nazis, but sadly it has to be done. If your movement gets associated with sexual rejects you will be laughed out of any debate a priori. See new atheists or, increasingly, the alt right.

Maybe you should just pay a prostitute.