Queer Vanguard

Pantheon Rising wrote:The introduction of socialism isn't going to get rid of competition in the bedroom, only in the market. Silly.

But this strikes at the core of the problem, competition is not a good thing. Competition is a biological form of entropy.

Human beings can be groomed, I think we all know that. They were groomed into accepting capitalism, imperialism, fascism, I see no reason they could not be groomed into accepting a metaphysical communism that transcends merely the seizure of "stuff" and "land". But in fact, seeks to change how human beings think and interact as a whole.

Which is what I was trying to convey. You say it's human nature to be sexual, I'm sure it is. Just as selfishness, ignorance, sadism, murder tendencies, what have you. All of it can be minimized and replaced with other features with the right tweaking in population growth and conditioning laws that people just come to accept as "that's the way things are". Revolutionaries don't take things as they are, they seek change simply for it's own sake.

Another words; human beings might be one way, but they can be made another artificially, by other human beings controlling their environment. So the argument then becomes whether or not that is right or wrong, which many don't want to say, because usually the people that define everything we do as permissible, are the ones that don't want to state objective morality.

Human beings cannot afford to this live this way. Plagued with all these primitive desires that distract and beguile them. I would hope that in a truly communist society, we wouldn't need to worry about sexuality for the same reasons we wouldn't need to worry about food or board. We could argue that sexuality could still hold it's place for "amusement" purposes, but it still ends up creating discriminatory sessions, and internal conflict. Why should that be tolerated? Out of tradition? Because we refuse to even try to change it? Because if we change it, we'll be "playing God"?

Therefore, sex in itself should be seen as a form of labor. Well, more so what comes after sex... lol! But I admit, it will not happen overnight. It could take decades, centuries, because it's all intertwined. But I look at my anti-homosexuality stance less like a "it's wrong because it hurts society" thing, and more of a "it's wrong it's PART of society" thing. Homosexuals have always existed, and in some of the most empirical societies, they were even the norm and welcome. Homosexuals have a long line of misogyny when they'd rather give their fortune to another man, then a woman. And many liked to self indulge in little boys. And these were horrible times to live in. Filled with lion pits, slavery, kings and servants... I see homosexuality as a piece to that puzzle.

I used to know a bisexual communist, and considered him a friend. His name was AtheismCentral. He was a hardcore Stalinist. And he wasn't too happy about my gay stance, and wasn't going to budge. I told him that if it made him feel better, I see all sex as bad. It's just heterosexuality is "a necessary evil", where as homosexuality is an unnecessary evil. As well, it was his own identity politics that was offending him. I never said anything bad about "AtheismCentral". But when I said something bad about gays, he took offense to it. He took it personally. This is how the bourgeois use us. They find all these groups to conflict with each other, so they can profit off their wars, their loss, and their desperation for supremacy. Competition is the greatest sin.

Ironically, I spoke very well of atheists. Which didn't make up for it apparently. Because I said people were better off atheists then being spiritually bamboozled. And that religion tends to get people lost in the details. How many denominations of Christianity are there? And wasn't Christianity more or less a denomination of Judaism because The New Testament is a sequel? It's like if Trekkies were literally not talking to one another, and their ancestors killed each other because "Captain Janeway isn't cannon!" (Albeit I could definitely see that... lol!)

But people pick and choose what offends them. Because I talk about getting rid of language boundaries, nationality, racial identity, religious separation, one world government/religion, and they're down with that... then I say "no gays", and all of a sudden I'm that Powerman 5000 song "Super Villain". (Which I love btw... lol!)

Jim Profit wrote:But this strikes at the core of the problem, competition is not a good thing. Competition is a biological form of entropy.

We are hardly even talking about competition here, your main problem is discrimination based on looks. You think that ugly people should not have to complete with pretty people (which are all subjective terms btw) for mates. You're not going to force people to accept mates they don't find attractive, deal with it. Are you, perhaps, ugly by any chance?

Human beings can be groomed, I think we all know that. They were groomed into accepting capitalism, imperialism, fascism, I see no reason they could not be groomed into accepting a metaphysical communism that transcends merely the seizure of "stuff" and "land". But in fact, seeks to change how human beings think and interact as a whole.

You can keep your social engineering programs, capitalism does enough social engineering of its own and forces people into social positions and actions based on property relations. It will indeed change how human beings think and interact, but changing property relations will HARDLY change what and who people find sexually appealing.

Which is what I was trying to convey. You say it's human nature to be sexual, I'm sure it is. Just as selfishness, ignorance, sadism, murder tendencies, what have you. All of it can be minimized and replaced with other features with the right tweaking in population growth and conditioning laws that people just come to accept as "that's the way things are". Revolutionaries don't take things as they are, they seek change simply for it's own sake.

Selfishness, ignorance, sadism, murder are all negative human attributes that bring suffering. Sex, for the most part, brings human happiness and pleasure. Nice try though. No need to change what people find attractive.

Another words; human beings might be one way, but they can be made another artificially, by other human beings controlling their environment. So the argument then becomes whether or not that is right or wrong, which many don't want to say, because usually the people that define everything we do as permissible, are the ones that don't want to state objective morality.

There is no such thing as objective morality, and even if there was, every society has taken pleasure in Sex (except maybe those ruled by the catholic church...) so even then your argument fails. I take it you are some sort of freaking crazy Stalinist who wants to stand above everyone and engineer these social outcomes. It ain't gunna happen buddy. We are the masters of our own destiny but I am telling you right now the only way you're getting me to partake in sex with someone I don't find attractive is you're going to have to knock me out and force it. That is called rape.

Human beings cannot afford to this live this way. Plagued with all these primitive desires that distract and beguile them. I would hope that in a truly communist society, we wouldn't need to worry about sexuality for the same reasons we wouldn't need to worry about food or board. We could argue that sexuality could still hold it's place for "amusement" purposes, but it still ends up creating discriminatory sessions, and internal conflict. Why should that be tolerated? Out of tradition? Because we refuse to even try to change it? Because if we change it, we'll be "playing God"?

Why do you worry about sexuality? This reminds me of a post about "free lovers" a while back that think socialism is going to usher in an era where even ugly people will get to have sexual relations as much as everyone else. Discriminatory sessions? So a girl decides to have sex with another guy that is not you, deal with it dude. You are really just sounding like someone who is very ugly and very jealous.

Therefore, sex in itself should be seen as a form of labor. Well, more so what comes after sex... lol! But I admit, it will not happen overnight. It could take decades, centuries, because it's all intertwined. But I look at my anti-homosexuality stance less like a "it's wrong because it hurts society" thing, and more of a "it's wrong it's PART of society" thing. Homosexuals have always existed, and in some of the most empirical societies, they were even the norm and welcome. Homosexuals have a long line of misogyny when they'd rather give their fortune to another man, then a woman. And many liked to self indulge in little boys. And these were horrible times to live in. Filled with lion pits, slavery, kings and servants... I see homosexuality as a piece to that puzzle.

Yes, because two guys in a relationship is the same as slavery and lion pits. Totally. They are also anti-woman because they don't want to have sex with a woman. I guess I am anti-male then cause I won't have sex with a male. And anyone that would not willingly have sex with you is also anti-male and also anti-you. Why do you have such a problem with them indulging in little boys then? Hey, if they didn't, they would be discriminating against little boys y'know.

I used to know a bisexual communist, and considered him a friend. His name was AtheismCentral. He was a hardcore Stalinist. And he wasn't too happy about my gay stance, and wasn't going to budge. I told him that if it made him feel better, I see all sex as bad. It's just heterosexuality is "a necessary evil", where as homosexuality is an unnecessary evil. As well, it was his own identity politics that was offending him. I never said anything bad about "AtheismCentral". But when I said something bad about gays, he took offense to it. He took it personally. This is how the bourgeois use us. They find all these groups to conflict with each other, so they can profit off their wars, their loss, and their desperation for supremacy. Competition is the greatest sin.

Uh no you probably would have just avoided the thing by avoiding the whole gay issue all together. Those who attack the gay issue are just as bad as those who seek to make it an issue within socialism. You're as bad as a religious nutter, all sex is bad? That is ridiculous. Why? Because people won't have sex with you?

Because I talk about getting rid of language boundaries, nationality, racial identity, religious separation, one world government/religion, and they're down with that... then I say "no gays", and all of a sudden I'm that Powerman 5000 song "Super Villain". (Which I love btw... lol!)

As a man with a racial/ethnic identity and a nationality AND a religion (not a christian), I kindly say to you sir... fuck off. Good luck getting rid of me.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I agree with what you said about prostitution; but as a guy who has never even really contemplated visiting a strip club (not my thing..) I do not see why such industries should be abolished. Even with the porn industry, some women DO enjoy what they do, and do not enter into such industries out of desperation. As long as society does not necessitate that they enter industries out of desperation (which it will not) I see no problem with women entering into such an industry provided that socialism is extended to their workplace as well.

The outlawing and abolition of porn and strip clubs sounds more like people imposing their own morality on others rather than anything progressive. I suppose this abolition you speak of would also abolish the exploitation of male strippers by females that pay to see such acts?

The outlawing or abolition of the porn industry is no more about imposing morality upon others than the outlawing or abolition of racism. As one socialist theorist has put it and put it quite succinctly: sexual labour is perhaps the greatest achievement of market values since slavery. We are talking about one of the world's most lucrative industries that is known to play a part in the following:
human trafficking;
exploitation of cheap labour in former Soviet states;
violence and coercion and the compounding of trauma (the industry's most successful actress doesn't even deny this BTW);
sexualised racism;
and, before you offer up the delusion that things might improve if we regulate this industry like any other, the misogyny inherent in both its production and product alike;
which brings me to, _hegemonic_ depictions of women.
Your defending a _commodity_ that is not about "sex" but about _capital_ and hence leveling the charge of moralism looks intellectually lazy and at that a commodity that is ultimately calculated to arouse simpletons and this says a great deal about just how superficial some people's "socialism" can be and how quick they are to forget critiques of hegemony wth respect to gender asd soon as getting off eclipses their apparent politics and principles.

Pantheon Rising wrote:What is meant by objectification? Any job can technically be objectifying. Plumbing can be seen as an objectifying profession, as it fulfills a desire, a human want. So does a lap dance. We prohibit hard drugs (cocaine, heroin, etc. it is my opinion that marijuana should be legalized though I am not a smoker), because they are so bad for you. We can not compare cocaine to the likes of porn or a strip club.

No matter if any studies were done to show how porn "impacts the male psyche" the fact is that it isn't responsible for the breaking up of families and relationships. There are many females who enjoy the viewing and taking part in pornography as well.

Not sexual morality, no sir. The imposing of sexual morality on people by the state is reminiscent of the christian dark ages. There are natural things, that must be outlawed obviously, like pedophilia because the child has no say and is not of age to make a decision; however, two full grown adults do have the right to do whatever. No matter how funky I or you may think it is. If a woman wants to make a video of herself having sex and then exchange it, it is in my opinion, tyrannical to tell her she can't.

I still do not see what is so wrong with the industry, male or female, provided it is done on their own volition. There are women who practice pole dancing all the time; to them it is an art and just as valid as any other dance.

1. re Pole-dancing. The normalisation of this practice to the extent that girls as young as ten are even doing it for exercise simply means that men have won the war of the sexes all thanks to the complacency of people like you.

2. If a critique of sexual labour is "moralising" than so too is a critique of racism of any other injustice in this world. You belong to a movement that is meant to be egalitarian... do you need to be reminded that egalitarianism has its roots in moralising about equality or would you prefer to remain completely and utterly ignorant as long as you can feel good about yourself for using and consuming products that exemplify market values at their worst?

Your libertarian attitude relies on delusions of choice of agency that are simply not realistic not reconcilable with left thought either for that matter. Any clown can try to equate the average feminist or humanist who opposes porn wth religious fantatics but this a cop out and quite frankly quite stupid.

3. How you draw the conclusion that porn cannot be responsible for breaking up families because women use and consume it is anyone's guess but contrary to the lies you keep telling yourself studies show that pornography fosters problems between couples and does play a part in the disintegration of unions. Further it has been shown time and time again to cultivate violence against women and no amount of liberal myths and infantile anti-censorship rhetoric can dismantle this truth.

4. I don't think anyone is going to deny that all kinds of work can be dehumanising... however, if you place a metaphorical gun in the mouth of a man and make him do menial labour day after day this might be slavery but it isn't rape. Placing the same gun in the mouth of a girl or a young women and making her sleep with men is and what underpins a critique of sexual labour is the questions it raises about the value of consent of choice in the marketplace.

You seriously need to drop the anti-religious fanatic hysteria and engage with reality and mature sound debate about industry.

sovereign.individual wrote:The outlawing or abolition of the porn industry is no more about imposing morality upon others than the outlawing or abolition of racism.

That is quite frankly retarded. I do not support the outlawing of any speech, "racist" or non-racist. Outlawing racism? You can't even define racism. If you're talking about race chauvinism than such will be discouraged in education.

As one socialist theorist has put it and put it quite succinctly: sexual labour is perhaps the greatest achievement of market values since slavery.

Only in so far as capitalism and the market actually exists.

We are talking about one of the world's most lucrative industries that is known to play a part in the following:
human trafficking;
exploitation of cheap labour in former Soviet states;
violence and coercion and the compounding of trauma (the industry's most successful actress doesn't even deny this BTW);
sexualised racism;
and, before you offer up the delusion that things might improve if we regulate this industry like any other, the misogyny inherent in both its production and product alike;

How can you equate porn with human trafficking? Getting rid of porn isn't going to mean less human trafficking, especially since there is hardly illegal sex slaves going into the porn industry. It isn't lucrative since getting caught means less profit. So, no human trafficking is really a separate issue here.

Cheap labor in the soviet union has absolutely nothing to do with porn so I have no idea where that came from.

And sexualized racism? What the hell is that? It sounds like you're trying to turn this into a RevLeft thread where the word sexist and racist is thrown around all the time.

which brings me to, _hegemonic_ depictions of women.
Your defending a _commodity_ that is not about "sex" but about _capital_ and hence leveling the charge of moralism looks intellectually lazy and at that a commodity that is ultimately calculated to arouse simpletons and this says a great deal about just how superficial some people's "socialism" can be and how quick they are to forget critiques of hegemony wth respect to gender asd soon as getting off eclipses their apparent politics and principles.

I don't care about stupid little gender hegemony theories and it has nothing to do with socialism. Once capitalism is gone people will have more freedom and gender roles will play out naturally since they are no longer dependent on market forces. Keep your social engineering to yourself please.

sovereign.individual wrote:1. re Pole-dancing. The normalisation of this practice to the extent that girls as young as ten are even doing it for exercise simply means that men have won the war of the sexes all thanks to the complacency of people like you.

To some, it is simply an art as I have said. You're the one sexualizing everything. War of the sexes? What is that shit? There is no war of the sexes and it exists only in your mind. Man and woman are meant to live in harmony, not war, and the obstruction to harmony is one of the main reasons for rejecting capitalism.

2. If a critique of sexual labour is "moralising" than so too is a critique of racism of any other injustice in this world. You belong to a movement that is meant to be egalitarian... do you need to be reminded that egalitarianism has its roots in moralising about equality or would you prefer to remain completely and utterly ignorant as long as you can feel good about yourself for using and consuming products that exemplify market values at their worst?

How the hell do you know what I belong to? I don't belong to any movement at this period in time. And for the record, I don't "consume" porn or strippers, I am simply against their outlawing. Just because I don't drink or smoke doesn't mean I support the outlaw of marijuana or alcohol either.

Your libertarian attitude relies on delusions of choice of agency that are simply not realistic not reconcilable with left thought either for that matter. Any clown can try to equate the average feminist or humanist who opposes porn wth religious fantatics but this a cop out and quite frankly quite stupid.

No. As I have said there is times with the capitalist system that it is involuntary, that will go away once capitalism is abolished though. What we are talking about is voluntary "stripping" and porn. Your authoritarian attitude relies on the delusion that you hold the moral high ground.

3. How you draw the conclusion that porn cannot be responsible for breaking up families because women use and consume it is anyone's guess but contrary to the lies you keep telling yourself studies show that pornography fosters problems between couples and does play a part in the disintegration of unions. Further it has been shown time and time again to cultivate violence against women and no amount of liberal myths and infantile anti-censorship rhetoric can dismantle this truth.

Can you please post the finding of these studies? I'd be interested in seeing the results.

4. I don't think anyone is going to deny that all kinds of work can be dehumanising... however, if you place a metaphorical gun in the mouth of a man and make him do menial labour day after day this might be slavery but it isn't rape. Placing the same gun in the mouth of a girl or a young women and making her sleep with men is and what underpins a critique of sexual labour is the questions it raises about the value of consent of choice in the marketplace.

No one is putting a gun in a woman's mouth, that is called rape. Much different from voluntary sex or performing.

Some of the Left used to argue that Homosexuality was a symptom of the bourgeois society, drawing parallels with the decadence of ancient Rome and the simultaneous rise of visible Homosexuality there. Not to say I agree with this, but how is Homosexuality of use to a workers' uprising? The instinctive rejection of Homosexuality, right or wrong, is itself predominant amongst working people.

Doesn't wholehearted support for cultural ethics prominent amongst the bourgeois, but largely shunned by the workers, damage your appeal to the very people you claim to represent?

On another point, what does sexuality have to do with Capitalism? Heterosexuality is and always has been the norm, it's a law of nature, not one of us here could exist without Heterosexuality. This is why Heterosexuality is superior to Homosexuality.

Not everything the workers think is right. That's why we're not already in a socialist society. I favour a more centrist approach to social issues, including gay rights.

Jim Profit's point about the gay subculture being divisive in society is I think partly a result of the social exile most homosexuals experience. (That and having to frequent different clubs for logistical reasons) There wouldn't be as much of an issue if homosexuals were an accepted part of society.

RedSun wrote:Not everything the workers think is right. That's why we're not already in a socialist society. I favour a more centrist approach to social issues, including gay rights.

Jim Profit's point about the gay subculture being divisive in society is I think partly a result of the social exile most homosexuals experience. (That and having to frequent different clubs for logistical reasons) There wouldn't be as much of an issue if homosexuals were an accepted part of society.

Please Homophobia is so 90s and in my opinion the above is not true.Homosexual culuture is currently trendy in many circles in the media especially and it should have no place in our communitys its degenerate in many cases and hardly family friendly.Homosexuals are not the problem the culture of it is.Now in a homosexual autonomus commuity this is fine but in ours the culture is not acceptable.

TheocWulf wrote:Please Homophobia is so 90s and in my opinion the above is not true.Homosexual culuture is currently trendy in many circles in the media especially and it should have no place in our communitys its degenerate in many cases and hardly family friendly.Homosexuals are not the problem the culture of it is.Now in a homosexual autonomus commuity this is fine but in ours the culture is not acceptable.

You have to accept them within our community, the Gay Englishmen is still an Englishmen. However, I agree it is a not a good influence, the fact that they can't have children means they are outcasted from family life, which is a grounding and stabilising force. Drugs and promiscuity is more common amongst the Gays because they lack the aspiration and social anchor of family. Homosexuality is a terrible affliction, it so often leads to an unfulfilled and trivial life robbed of the right to have children, the Gay people, who have no choice than to be anything but Gay, deserve our sympathy and our condolences and it serves no common good to erect divisions between us and them.

This entire issue is being blown out of proportion.

The objections being made to what has been referred to as "homosexual culture" are nonsense. Surely, contemporary bourgeois culture in general is sexualized to such a great extent that singling out the homosexual community is an arbitrary exercise. The abolition of capitalist social relations will invariably lead to a significant alteration in the sexualization of all associated cultures.

The question of whether or not society will ever reach the point where homosexuality is generally regarded positively is anyone's guess. The real question is whether homosexuality will continue to be the cause of such a level of social fission within communities. In my estimation, this will not be the case in future socialist commonwealths, due to the simple fact that the material conditions which foster such antagonisms (to the extent that they currently do) will cease to exist.

In any case, the human rights of homosexuals are clearly as important as those of any other group and should therefore be properly prioritized by a socialist state. Furthermore, I sincerely doubt that homosexuality or heterosexuality will ever constitute a serious framework for political secession.

TheRedSquirrel wrote:You have to accept them within our community, the Gay Englishmen is still an Englishmen. However, I agree it is a not a good influence, the fact that they can't have children means they are outcasted from family life, which is a grounding and stabilising force. Drugs and promiscuity is more common amongst the Gays because they lack the aspiration and social anchor of family. Homosexuality is a terrible affliction, it so often leads to an unfulfilled and trivial life robbed of the right to have children, the Gay people, who have no choice than to be anything but Gay, deserve our sympathy and our condolences and it serves no common good to erect divisions between us and them.

Hmmmm intresting if it was the 70s id say your critic is about right however today I dont see that as the case in my country.Ultimatley its up to each folk community what is and what isnt acceptable in its boundries.

Admin wrote:This entire issue is being blown out of proportion.

The objections being made to what has been referred to as "homosexual culture" are nonsense. Surely, contemporary bourgeois culture in general is sexualized to such a great extent that singling out the homosexual community is an arbitrary exercise. The abolition of capitalist social relations will invariably lead to a significant alteration in the sexualization of all associated cultures.

The question of whether or not society will ever reach the point where homosexuality is generally regarded positively is anyone's guess. The real question is whether homosexuality will continue to be the cause of such a level of social fission within communities. In my estimation, this will not be the case in future socialist commonwealths, due to the simple fact that the material conditions which foster such antagonisms (to the extent that they currently do) will cease to exist.

In any case, the human rights of homosexuals are clearly as important as those of any other group and should therefore be properly prioritized by a socialist state. Furthermore, I sincerely doubt that homosexuality or heterosexuality will ever constitute a serious framework for political secession.

So a Homosexual sub culture does not exist?
I think it does in some cases (and not all I grant you) "Fag" culture is an identity for some but I also concur it is fuelled by capitalism as is the rest of the sexualisation of many cultures.

TheocWulf wrote:Hmmmm intresting if it was the 70s id say your critic is about right however today I dont see that as the case in my country.Ultimatley its up to each folk community what is and what isnt acceptable in its boundries.

I would say we need to remove the modern positive discrimination that extends to the Gays along with other minority groups, and we need to break away from glamourising being Gay. Yet homosexuality exists in nature, imperfection exists in nature. I believe we have to accept the lot given to our community by nature and make the best of it, I wouldn't throw Gays out of my community for the same reason why I wouldn't throw out those with down syndrome.

TheRedSquirrel wrote:I would say we need to remove the modern positive discrimination that extends to the Gays along with other minority groups, and we need to break away from glamourising being Gay. Yet homosexuality exists in nature, imperfection exists in nature. I believe we have to accept the lot given to our community by nature and make the best of it, I wouldn't throw Gays out of my community for the same reason why I wouldn't throw out those with down syndrome.

I think we all know what two people do in private is not an issue its only a problem when it is harmfull to the community.

TheocWulf wrote:I think we all know what two people do in private is not an issue its only a problem when it is harmfull to the community.

Of course.

There is no doubt that homosexuality occurs naturally in nature, and that it is pointless to blame someone for being afflicted with it.

Homosexual sub-culture on the other hand is nothing more than bourgeois-liberalism though.

TheocWulf wrote: So a Homosexual sub culture does not exist?
I think it does in some cases (and not all I grant you) "Fag" culture is an identity for some but I also concur it is fuelled by capitalism as is the rest of the sexualisation of many cultures.

The latter part of your statement indeed identifies the general parameters of this question. The extent to which such a culture exists — via its own own unique customs, traditions, etc. — is heavily dependent upon what has been marketed to that particular demographic. In other words, homosexuals have simply been influenced by the same commodification of sexuality that the rest of Western society has.

Now, due to the fact that other social contexts — beyond the those found in the contemporary capitalist West — have been (and continue to be) far more sexually repressive, nothing resembling what one might consider a "homosexual culture" has ever materialized. Therefore the question of what would materialize, on an genuinely organic basis, is debatable. I am not interested in conjecturing on such a trivial matter, but I strongly doubt that much of culture would develop out of mere sexual preference in a socialistic society.

[quote="Pantheon Rising"]

which brings me to, _hegemonic_ depictions of women.

I don't care about stupid little gender hegemony theories and it has nothing to do with socialism. Once capitalism is gone people will have more freedom and gender roles will play out naturally since they are no longer dependent on market forces. Keep your social engineering to yourself please.

1. Retarded? I thank you for showing your age... do you expect people to take you seriously when you talk like a 15 year old? Also... what cannot be defined is "free speech"... it's nothing more than an abstract... industry is real. An industry that exploits and abuses women is hardly mere speech. Education? So it's OK to tailor education to suit your agenda (i.e. to censor dissenting views) but it's not OK to "censor" an industry... thank you for demonstrating one of the most transparent fallacies of left-think.
2. Women and children are trafficked and sold into prostitution _and_ porn. Try educating yourself about these industries instread of parroting _bourgeois_ liberal myths and lies about them. You're a complete and utter hypocrite as far as your superficial anti-capitalist drivel goes.
3. Wrong again. Research has shown that even established American pornographers are using cheap labor in former Bloc states. You seem to think erecting myths and lies and then saying you don't know where the truth is coming from discredits the truth... how are you any better any different than the avregae corporate swine? Again. You're a hyporite.
4. Lol? Once again you're demonstrating that you're a juvenile imbecile incapable of comprehending the dynamics of the issue at hand or indeed anything... porn is saturated with racism and you are either blind or about as dumb as it gets.
5. Now it's my turn to laugh out loudly... the _left_ are as guilty as the Right of misogyny as evidenced in your own complacency when it comes to sexual labour and your sheer prejudice and ignorance about gender politics. If you honestly think the left and the left alone will bring about equality of the sexes then you have the intellectual capacity of a teenage boy. I have met more misogynist dickheads on the left than I have on the Right... and besides... pretending to respect girls and young women when you support industries that exemplify the market values you purport to fight against makes this delusional claim of yours deeply flawed... if a "socialist" like you can't get even past their own gratification with commodities made for idiots to actually bother to resist capitalism then what hope is there? Grow up. Seriously.

to pervert left-wing nationalism

Quite literally!

Pantheon Rising wrote:To some, it is simply an art as I have said. You're the one sexualizing everything. War of the sexes? What is that shit? There is no war of the sexes and it exists only in your mind. Man and woman are meant to live in harmony, not war, and the obstruction to harmony is one of the main reasons for rejecting capitalism.

How the hell do you know what I belong to? I don't belong to any movement at this period in time. And for the record, I don't "consume" porn or strippers, I am simply against their outlawing. Just because I don't drink or smoke doesn't mean I support the outlaw of marijuana or alcohol either.

No. As I have said there is times with the capitalist system that it is involuntary, that will go away once capitalism is abolished though. What we are talking about is voluntary "stripping" and porn. Your authoritarian attitude relies on the delusion that you hold the moral high ground.

Can you please post the finding of these studies? I'd be interested in seeing the results.

No one is putting a gun in a woman's mouth, that is called rape. Much different from voluntary sex or performing.

1. Learn to think. I wasn't implying that the war of the sexes was "real" but if you doubt that misogyny that patriarchy that male privilege is real then you're an imbecile. Plain. Simple. Art? I take it that you're never studied art. Art has no utilitarian value. Pole-dancing is to gratfiy as much as it is to "entertain". It isn't art by any stretch of the imagination. So because some people think a completely inartistic exercise is artistic it's OK? Art is still a commodity... are you a socialist or just some bourgeois dill who thinks anything goes if it's "art". To some people exploiting people for profit is a pefectly fine artistic exercise... you'd better put down your copy of "Socialism for Dissaffected Teens" and call it a day.

2. Sure you don't.

3. Once again. Voluntary. Choice. Agency. Hegemony. Do these words mean anything to you? Do you honestly think if capital had no impact upon the value of choice of _consent_ that women would choose to pander to misogyny to misogynist dickheads? Media (read capitalism) has conditioned girls and young women to think pandering to misogynists is normal because it's profitable... you're complicit to capitalism. Why are you here again? And moral high ground? Socialism claims a moral high ground over capitalism. you will need to do better than that to accuse me of moralising.

4. Read socialist theorist D. A. Clarke. Read Stan Goff. Read the testimonies of women fwho have worked in the industry. Fuck. Just read. There is a whole host of literature available that dispels the lies by industry schills and bourgeois academia alike. You're like so many young males that get into "socialism"... you want to have your cake and eat it too. The _only_ papers that aim to demonstrate that porn does not cultivate violence against women rely on a methodology that denies that _any media_ can socialise human behaviour _in general_... if you believe that then you're not only a fool you're a tool for the system. To paraphrase a magistrate who has presided over countless rape trials only an iidot would deny that porn doesn't condition men to think about women as objects as property... in Australia a number of national reported crimes demonstrated the impact of this commodity on communities. Your response seems to be that if something is "artistic" no matter how much it reflects market values then its "OK"... you're entitled to your opinion but it is an opinion that supports capitalism.

5. _Metaphorical_ gun. Are you deranged? Because it's fairly obvious that you're young and you want to rage against something you don't even understand... for what it's worth some porn is made at the end of an actual gun but I'm talking about "choice" about "consent" at the end of the need for money for survival. I explained that capital plays a part in informing that choice that consent. Women who have left the industry describe the experience as sexual violence because essentially they wouldn't be doing the work i.e. being fucked and dehumanised by groups of men if they didn't _have to_. You're no socialist.

sovereign.individual wrote:1. Retarded? I thank you for showing your age... do you expect people to take you seriously when you talk like a 15 year old?

I calls um as I sees um. There was no other adjective to describe what you said. Do you expect people to take you seriously when you make retarded statements?

2. Women and children are trafficked and sold into prostitution _and_ porn. Try educating yourself about these industries instread of parroting _bourgeois_ liberal myths and lies about them. You're a complete and utter hypocrite as far as your superficial anti-capitalist drivel goes.

I am well aware women can be trafficked for prostitution (which is a separate issue), but in the west it is likely that women illegally abducted are not used in porn on a wide scale because it is illegal and that means less profit if they get caught. It also isn't practical when there is plenty of women WILLING to do porn, or forced into economic conditions that they go into the industry. Use common sense.

3. Wrong again. Research has shown that even established American pornographers are using cheap labor in former Bloc states. You seem to think erecting myths and lies and then saying you don't know where the truth is coming from discredits the truth... how are you any better any different than the avregae corporate swine? Again. You're a hyporite.

Yes, i am no better than a corporate swine because I am the one talking about all this research that has been done yet I haven't linked to one study to prove it. Cheap labor is cheap labor, and as long as capitalism exists there will be cheap labor, whether in porn or not.

4. Lol? Once again you're demonstrating that you're a juvenile imbecile incapable of comprehending the dynamics of the issue at hand or indeed anything... porn is saturated with racism and you are either blind or about as dumb as it gets.

At least I do not make statements and then instead of backing them up I make childish insults over the internet. So far, I am juvenile, a corporate swine, blind, and as dumb as it gets. You are honestly a very funny character and I am wondering if I know you from somewhere, since you join this site and right away attack my posts. 4/5 of your posts are attacks on me and you have yet to even make an introduction.

5. Now it's my turn to laugh out loudly... the _left_ are as guilty as the Right of misogyny as evidenced in your own complacency when it comes to sexual labour and your sheer prejudice and ignorance about gender politics. If you honestly think the left and the left alone will bring about equality of the sexes then you have the intellectual capacity of a teenage boy. I have met more misogynist dickheads on the left than I have on the Right... and besides... pretending to respect girls and young women when you support industries that exemplify the market values you purport to fight against makes this delusional claim of yours deeply flawed... if a "socialist" like you can't get even past their own gratification with commodities made for idiots to actually bother to resist capitalism then what hope is there? Grow up. Seriously.

You obviously don't know how to analyze anything I have ever typed. I do not support the "industry", but rather I do not support outlawing of what is defined as porn either. You're the misogynist telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body when all capitalistic forces have been eradicated and she has been liberated from the socio-economic structure. Your philosophy is one of control and you believe you hold the moral high ground somehow.

sovereign.individual wrote:1. Learn to think. I wasn't implying that the war of the sexes was "real" but if you doubt that misogyny that patriarchy that male privilege is real then you're an imbecile. Plain. Simple. Art? I take it that you're never studied art. Art has no utilitarian value. Pole-dancing is to gratfiy as much as it is to "entertain". It isn't art by any stretch of the imagination. So because some people think a completely inartistic exercise is artistic it's OK? Art is still a commodity... are you a socialist or just some bourgeois dill who thinks anything goes if it's "art". To some people exploiting people for profit is a pefectly fine artistic exercise... you'd better put down your copy of "Socialism for Dissaffected Teens" and call it a day.

Oh come on, you believe that patriarchy shit? Give me examples of how society is stuck in patriarchy. Give me some examples of how I am privileged as a male.

Second of all, I said they see it as an art and many women enjoy pole dancing. Simple as that. Are you honestly sitting here telling me that a woman shouldn't be able to do whatever dance she damn well pleases around a pole? I guess if I believe she has the right to I am a bourgeois dill teenager. I guess, I guess, I guess...

2. Sure you don't.

Lol, obvious sarcasm. It is not as if I have to prove anything to you though.

3. Once again. Voluntary. Choice. Agency. Hegemony. Do these words mean anything to you? Do you honestly think if capital had no impact upon the value of choice of _consent_ that women would choose to pander to misogyny to misogynist dickheads? Media (read capitalism) has conditioned girls and young women to think pandering to misogynists is normal because it's profitable... you're complicit to capitalism. Why are you here again? And moral high ground? Socialism claims a moral high ground over capitalism. you will need to do better than that to accuse me of moralising.

How is pandering to misogynists profitable? Sometimes the most misogynist parts of the population can be the most poor! (due to lack of education and culture!)

4. Read socialist theorist D. A. Clarke. Read Stan Goff. Read the testimonies of women fwho have worked in the industry. Fuck. Just read. There is a whole host of literature available that dispels the lies by industry schills and bourgeois academia alike. You're like so many young males that get into "socialism"... you want to have your cake and eat it too. The _only_ papers that aim to demonstrate that porn does not cultivate violence against women rely on a methodology that denies that _any media_ can socialise human behaviour _in general_... if you believe that then you're not only a fool you're a tool for the system. To paraphrase a magistrate who has presided over countless rape trials only an iidot would deny that porn doesn't condition men to think about women as objects as property... in Australia a number of national reported crimes demonstrated the impact of this commodity on communities. Your response seems to be that if something is "artistic" no matter how much it reflects market values then its "OK"... you're entitled to your opinion but it is an opinion that supports capitalism.

I really don't care to invest too much of my time into the subject, I asked you to post sources or some findings from studies and you failed. I am beginning to wonder about you. Perhaps if you link to their works I will do a little reading, I do not care to search the web for this shit though.

5. _Metaphorical_ gun. Are you deranged? Because it's fairly obvious that you're young and you want to rage against something you don't even understand... for what it's worth some porn is made at the end of an actual gun but I'm talking about "choice" about "consent" at the end of the need for money for survival. I explained that capital plays a part in informing that choice that consent. Women who have left the industry describe the experience as sexual violence because essentially they wouldn't be doing the work i.e. being fucked and dehumanised by groups of men if they didn't _have to_. You're no socialist.

LOL okay. I am deranged now too. And not a socialist. If you think I support market conditions forcing women into the porn industry than you have read or analyzed absolutely nothing I have typed here anywhere in this thread.

Pantheon Rising wrote:

sovereign.individual wrote:

1. Retarded? I thank you for showing your age... do you expect people to take you seriously when you talk like a 15 year old?

I calls um as I sees um. There was no other adjective to describe what you said. Do you expect people to take you seriously when you make retarded statements?

2. Women and children are trafficked and sold into prostitution _and_ porn. Try educating yourself about these industries instread of parroting _bourgeois_ liberal myths and lies about them. You're a complete and utter hypocrite as far as your superficial anti-capitalist drivel goes.

I am well aware women can be trafficked for prostitution (which is a separate issue), but in the west it is likely that women illegally abducted are not used in porn on a wide scale because it is illegal and that means less profit if they get caught. It also isn't practical when there is plenty of women WILLING to do porn, or forced into economic conditions that they go into the industry. Use common sense.

3. Wrong again. Research has shown that even established American pornographers are using cheap labor in former Bloc states. You seem to think erecting myths and lies and then saying you don't know where the truth is coming from discredits the truth... how are you any better any different than the avregae corporate swine? Again. You're a hyporite.

Yes, i am no better than a corporate swine because I am the one talking about all this research that has been done yet I haven't linked to one study to prove it. Cheap labor is cheap labor, and as long as capitalism exists there will be cheap labor, whether in porn or not.

4. Lol? Once again you're demonstrating that you're a juvenile imbecile incapable of comprehending the dynamics of the issue at hand or indeed anything... porn is saturated with racism and you are either blind or about as dumb as it gets.

At least I do not make statements and then instead of backing them up I make childish insults over the internet. So far, I am juvenile, a corporate swine, blind, and as dumb as it gets. You are honestly a very funny character and I am wondering if I know you from somewhere, since you join this site and right away attack my posts. 4/5 of your posts are attacks on me and you have yet to even make an introduction.

5. Now it's my turn to laugh out loudly... the _left_ are as guilty as the Right of misogyny as evidenced in your own complacency when it comes to sexual labour and your sheer prejudice and ignorance about gender politics. If you honestly think the left and the left alone will bring about equality of the sexes then you have the intellectual capacity of a teenage boy. I have met more misogynist dickheads on the left than I have on the Right... and besides... pretending to respect girls and young women when you support industries that exemplify the market values you purport to fight against makes this delusional claim of yours deeply flawed... if a "socialist" like you can't get even past their own gratification with commodities made for idiots to actually bother to resist capitalism then what hope is there? Grow up. Seriously.

You obviously don't know how to analyze anything I have ever typed. I do not support the "industry", but rather I do not support outlawing of what is defined as porn either. You're the misogynist telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body when all capitalistic forces have been eradicated and she has been liberated from the socio-economic structure. Your philosophy is one of control and you believe you hold the moral high ground somehow.

No. What you do is call something retarded because you're an imbecile you can't comprehend rather simple discussion about capitalism which you _claim_ to oppose.

Women are willing to work in porn because the industry has been normalised by media by capitalism because it's a cash cow... I'm still waiting for that moment where you actually bother to reply and triumph as far as what the most successful female worker in that industry is even saying about its inherent abusive nature. It's abusive. Even in the United States... you claim that you don't consume porn but it's fairly obvious that you have a vested interested or otherwise you wouldn't be ignoring truths about the industry about the devaluing of choice in the marketplace and about a million other things to reduce the debate to one of agency and choice. People in Sri Lanka are willing to work for 7 cents a day for corporate pigs... it's doesn't make that right either... but as soon as sex comes into play imbeciles who tink all sexual behaviour is able and beyond critique any question of hegemony or of exploitation is suspended. You're no socialist. You're a hypocrite. And not a particulalry smart one either making your "retarded" remark ironic at best.

Because raping women who are forced into cheap labour out of necessity so white bourgeois liberal dickheads like you with little to no imagination can jerk off to their image is no different than cheap labour anywhere... misogynist much? Your own internalised misogyny in ignoring the dynamicsof sexual violence at play in these industries makes your claims about the defeat of capitalism spelling the end of gender inequality look as laughable as it gets. Either you're a borderline sociopathic woman-hater for failing to engage with this difference or just playing a game because like the average adolescent imbecile over the internet you can't concede defeat no matter how foolish and uneduaterd and uninformed you have been made to look.

Chidlish insults? Like retarded? Like LOL? With no sources no reinforced arguments. That's you, idiot. I have cited a couple of authors of considerable reknown as far as socialist theory is concerned... read. And for someone whose politics or apparent politics rests on mere egalitarian principles egalitarian _beliefs_ and not _facts_ you're looking more and more like a complete and utter moron by requesting data that supports the truth.

More irony. Where do I tell women they can't do what they want with their bodies? I don't. I'm not entering their bedrooms and telling them what to do... I'm saying that an industry of this nature is market values at its worse... nothing can change that because the transaction will always mean the woman has chosen to sleep with someone _for money_. Always. It will always be capitalistic by nature because it will always be about capital and thsi will always devalue consent devalue choice for that woman. You're the one incapable of analysing anything... or of understanding one of the most _fundamental_ ingredients of the Socialism you claim to believe in... a critique of hegemony. If it amounts to "misogyny" to question the normalisation of sexual labour which is inhrently misogynist then it amounts to classism to question the normalisation of class structures. Plain. Simple. You're not a socialist by any definition... once again with moral high ground... socialiasts are taking a moral high ground as far as class is concerned... you believe in egalitarianism which is moralistic... if you honeslty think that moralism is only about sex and not about life not about warfare bot about all aspects of out lives then you're a dolt. it is taking the moral high ground to oppose war to oppose violence to oppose capital punishment to oppose anything of this nature... it's moralistic... I'm not some teenage boy who gives a fuck if you call me moralistic for challenging industries that are misognist... your complicity to capitalism as well as misogyny makes you look like a joke.

I remind the ones involved in this ( rather pointless..) thread, specially new comers, that personal accusations or insults towards other members of the forum are not tolerated under forum rules. This is not Revleft.