[SSDR]

@Julian658, There is a difference between having sex, and "sexualizing" things. Just because a culture is not sexualized, doesn't mean that there is less sexual activity. Sex is fun. Sex is medicine. Sex is pleasure. Sex is relief. But sexualizing things in a glorifying manner is capitalist.

You are genetically defending patriarchy. There is no fixed human nature. Women can be as powerful as men both individually and collectively.

[colliric]

Prior to the 1900's, men were smaller, shorter, skinnier, and less masculine. This was the times before growth hormones were added to foods. These times were before meat was consumed on a very high level. Back then, meat was expensive, and was a symbol of the capitalist elites.

.... It was also prior to the proliferation of easily accessible gymnasiums(previously only for the upper class professional athletes until the Leisure Centre, then later retail gymnasiums were invented), food supplements, multi-vitamin pills, steroids and protein shakes/bars. In other words prior to the creation of the modern health and fitness industry.

You know, things that have nothing to do with meat consumption.

How many times do you "work out" each week?

[Julian658]

@Julian658, There is a difference between having sex, and "sexualizing" things. Just because a culture is not sexualized, doesn't mean that there is less sexual activity. Sex is fun. Sex is medicine. Sex is pleasure. Sex is relief. But sexualizing things in a glorifying manner is capitalist.

Sex has no relationship to capitalism unless a woman is selling sex. Or a pimp running a stable of prostitutes.
Otherwise sex is ALL the things you mentioned. Do you know why sex feels good?

You are genetically defending patriarchy. There is no fixed human nature. Women can be as powerful as men both individually and collectively.

Making an observation is not defending or advocating. Sadly, evolution did no favors to women by choosing the female to bring the baby to term.
It is what it is. You don't know what is like to have a ton of babies. Today the women that avoid having children are as successful as men.

[SSDR]

@Julian658, You grew up in an over sexualized culture, and many "socialists" (anarchists) in your country are for an over sexualized culture. A sexualized culture is a symbol of capitalism because it values the sexualized people, and it makes people more socially competitive, which is a characteristic of an alienated culture.

[Julian658]

@Julian658, You grew up in an over sexualized culture, and many "socialists" (anarchists) in your country are for an over sexualized culture. A sexualized culture is a symbol of capitalism because it values the sexualized people, and it makes people more socially competitive, which is a characteristic of an alienated culture.

Sex feels good to entice humans to have offspring. Otherwise, humanity would have ended a long time ago. The system is designed to pass DNA to the next generation.

QUESTION:

Why are feminists women regressing to Victorian times?

[SSDR]

@Julian658,

Society was sexualized in the German Confederate Empire (prostitution, sex work for people who couldn't find spouses/singles) and in Nazi Germany (brothels, sex slavery). Wiemar was a pro American, liberal capitalist state that was very sexualized in the 1920's, there were gay bars. These are all capitalist traits of society.

Sexualization of society makes women look like sex objects. It makes society more socially competitive. Sexualized culture also makes unattractive people look undesirable, which is socially oppressive to them.

[BigSteve]

@BigSteve,

I never said that I am "denying" anything. Where did I say the term "denying?"

You can't call something "pathetic" if that something didn't happen.

You said that, in order to get pregnant, one has to have sex. That's a false statement by any measure.

And you're afraid to admit you said it simply because it's been (easily) proven false.

That's funny...

[BigSteve]

Sex feels good to entice humans to have offspring. Otherwise, humanity would have ended a long time ago.

I doubt that.

The vast majority of species on the planet have sex solely to procreate. "Feeling good" doesn't enter the picture.

Consequently, if it didn't feel good, there's not a single reason to believe that humans wouldn't also have sex for the simple purpose of procreation...

[Truth To Power]

Capitalism has made me a wealthy man, and has allowed me to enjoy the fruits of my labor.

If capitalism has made you wealthy, it is probably by enabling you to appropriate the fruits of others' labor.

[BigSteve]

If capitalism has made you wealthy, it is probably by enabling you to appropriate the fruits of others' labor.

You don't know the first fucking thing about me, so perhaps you should stop belching up your verbal diarrhea as if you do...

[Truth To Power]

The vast majority of species on the planet have sex solely to procreate. "Feeling good" doesn't enter the picture.

No, they have sex with no intention of procreating, which they can't even really imagine, but simply because it satisfies their sexual instinct, and thus feels good to them.

Consequently, if it didn't feel good, there's not a single reason to believe that humans wouldn't also have sex for the simple purpose of procreation...

It is almost certain that if sex did not feel good, people wouldn't do it, and would have died out long ago. In particular, before the 20th century, childbirth was so risky and painful for women that very few of them would have chosen to have sex just to have a baby. In fact, it is possible that when people first realized the connection between sex and babies, which no animal species appears to understand, humanity was only saved from extinction by rape, until women could evolve maternal and sexual desires strong enough to overcome their fear of pregnancy and childbirth.

You don't know the first fucking thing about me, so perhaps you should stop belching up your verbal diarrhea as if you do...

I seem to have touched a nerve, so that is one thing I know about you. I also know enough about capitalism to know that statistically, it is very unusual to become wealthy without the aid of privilege -- most often ownership of land -- which enables its owners legally to appropriate the fruits of others' labor. I also know that some of the comments you have posted here would be expected from someone anxious to persuade himself that his success was obtained by commensurate contributions to production, and not merely by placing himself in a position to profit from the injustices inflicted on others, or even by inflicting them.

[BigSteve]

No, they have sex with no intention of procreating, which they can't even really imagine, but simply because it satisfies their sexual instinct, and thus feels good to them.

Are you saying that animal sexual behavior isn't reproductively motivated?

It is almost certain that if sex did not feel good, people wouldn't do it, and would have died out long ago.

What do you base that opinion on?

In fact, it is possible that when people first realized the connection between sex and babies, which no animal species appears to understand, humanity was only saved from extinction by rape, until women could evolve maternal and sexual desires strong enough to overcome their fear of pregnancy and childbirth.

That is, quite simply, the single most bizarre piece of nonsensical bullshit I've ever seen on the internet.

Kudos...

[Truth To Power]

Society was sexualized in the German Confederate Empire (prostitution, sex work for people who couldn't find spouses/singles) and in Nazi Germany (brothels, sex slavery). Wiemar was a pro American, liberal capitalist state that was very sexualized in the 1920's, there were gay bars. These are all capitalist traits of society.

It has nothing to do with capitalism. Ancient Athens was highly sexualized (see Lysistrata), and it wasn't a capitalist society. OTOH, Victorian England was capitalist, but among the most sexually repressed societies in history.

Sexualization of society makes women look like sex objects.

Women are inherently sex objects. That is why they are sexually receptive pretty much all the time, and not just when they are fertile: to provide sexual gratification to men.

It makes society more socially competitive. Sexualized culture also makes unattractive people look undesirable, which is socially oppressive to them.

It's just natural selection, not oppression. Their feelings are not facts.

Are you saying that animal sexual behavior isn't reproductively motivated?

Correct. Animals are unaware that their sexual behavior will result in reproduction. They don't need to know.

What do you base that opinion on?

The fact that in nature, human childbirth is very painful and dangerous, and women's desire for children is not that strong or consistent.


[KS mod note: fixed quote in question.]

[SSDR]

Hey everyone,

Don't bother to waste your time with @BigSteve. He [deleted] can't control his misery.

@Truth To Power, Ancient Greece was worse than capitalism. It was even farther away from socialism.

Women are people. Men can be sexual objects to some women. Some women love to smother men for fun

And the terms "natural selection" are very alarming. These are words that reactionaries, and people in the far right use.

[Mod note: stop the personal insults. Prosthetic Conscience]

[BigSteve]

Correct. Animals are unaware that their sexual behavior will result in reproduction. They don't need to know.

You've heard of "instincts", right?

Animals have those. I don't think we can definitively state that animals don't know that copulation can result in procreation. I think it is safe to say, though, that they probably don't understand it as we do...

[Truth To Power]

I don't think we can definitively state that animals don't know that copulation can result in procreation.

We can. There is no more evidence for them knowing they are procreating than for them thinking they are unicorns.

Women are people. Men can be sexual objects to some women. Some women love to smother men for fun

It would hardly make sense for women to be sex objects if they weren't people.

And the terms "natural selection" are very alarming. These are words that reactionaries, and people in the far right use.

And people who have come to terms with the fact of evolution (i.e., not Marxists).

[Kaiserschmarrn]

[KS mod note: Thread cleaned up and several insults/personal attacks removed.

The quote that has sparked a long pointless back and forth has been corrected to include the whole sentence and the ensuing discussion removed.]

[Hindsite]

The fact that in nature, human childbirth is very painful and dangerous, and women's desire for children is not that strong or consistent.

That must be why so many liberal women today prefer abortions.

[Baloo]

Atheism is the rejection of the claim of the theist "god(s) exist" and nothing more.

Whether you consider that to be evil will depend on which god you believe in and what your respective religious scriptures have to say about those who do not believe as you do.

With regard to whether atheism was responsible for the deaths of millions under communism requires an understanding of why communism proved so murderous in the 20th century.

Vox actually identifies the real issues with communism

The reason Communism has so habitually devolved into violence is because it is an impressively stupid vision that violates both basic human nature in the form of the individual’s desire for material betterment as well as the economic law of supply and demand. Its early institution was such a disaster that Lenin was quickly forced to revise some of his more dysfunctional policies, but he was the first in a long, lethal line of Communist leaders who made a practice of always attempting to force their populations to fit the Communist mold instead of adjusting the utopian vision to fit humanity. Page 247(atheism is evil)

Having identified correctly the historical truth he ignores what he himself has stated to attack atheism.

Hitler was not an atheist and there is no historical evidence that he was, he always considered himself a "man of destiny". The quotes attributed to Hitler can be sourced to Hermann Rauschning who claimed he had over 100 personal conversations with Hitler in his book "Hitler Speaks" The authenticity of these claims are refuted by Swiss historian Wolfgang Haenel, however not all historians agree with Haenal not least because of his association with historical revisionism However respected Hitler and Nazi historians Ian Kershaw and Richard Steigmann-Gall in their respective books The "Hitler Myth": Image and Reality in the Third Reich and The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, do not use any quotes from Rauschning with Steismann-Gall going so far as to say that "Hitler Speaks" is an "overall fake"

[BigSteve]

Whether you consider that to be evil will depend on which god you believe in and what your respective religious scriptures have to say about those who do not believe as you do.

I've been told that, because I don't believe in "God" that I hate Christians.

I've never been able to follow the logic on that...