What will the radical left do after the Trump win

[Deleted member 210577]

Destructive for EVERYONE.

Speaking AS a woman, it’s very clear to me that I’ve been hurt only by sexual liberation, never by repression.

Motherhood is the highest calling for 99.9% of women.

I don’t understand why you think everyone can be like you. They can’t and they won’t. Not anytime soon. It would be great if everyone were willing and able to understand things and want to transmute but that’s just not how the world works. We have to work with reality.

Just because it's called sexual 'liberation' doesn't mean that's what it actually was though, it was a half liberation at best, and perhaps best described as I did before as a sort of psychological rebound after centuries of sexually repressive living. So I mean yeah, it was destructive because like a dam bursting forth there was tremendous pressure that had to be released, and there was no model or guide available for people.. so hedonistic and addictive tendencies took the reigns.

And speaking as a millennial man, I've been witness to that 'half-liberation' from my early teens onwards.. watching female friends actions and behaviour, seeing how culture mesmerised them into a certain path, and conversely watching other men besides myself who weren't in the top 10% struggle to even get a foot in in the door. Now I'm pushing 40 and all I see is a never ending conveyor belt of single mums and other women who exercised extremely poor judgement, who perhaps could have been quite happy if they took a chance on men like myself.

I had one woman I've been with come back and apologize to me years later, for the way she acted - virtually all the young women have this weird combination of entitlement and false aggrandizement about them. She is the only women of my age cohort that I know who has actually done some reflection, and even though she's less physically attractive than when we had each other in our 20's I was immediately attracted to that degree of self-reflection. That is the real damage of the half-liberation; it wasn't anything really to do with sexuality but a particular mind state that has evolved out of that period of time (and in combination with commercialism etc).

A true sexual liberation, we haven't had. What we had was a brief open sexual market that then got exploited by culture itself, which has benefitted many women tremendously in terms of material gain but been detrimental to many decent men out there, and consequently to family (and community).

A true sexual liberation would see young adults get the obsession out the way first, as part of the broader process of finding the most compatible life partner. And it would divest itself from the constraints of money (and other cultural baggage) that preys on young women especially, in terms of their 'best nest' impulse.

you had me until this point... are you implying we need to push more heteronormative values? suppress homosexuality?

Heteronormative. You know that just making a long sounding word doesn't necessarily add any legitimacy to it, right?

Heterosexual relation is the default standard. That is not even up for debate. None of us would be here chatting if two members of the opposite sex hadn't fucked. I'm not saying we need to hold fertility festivals and dance around the May pole naked, but it is the default mode by which mammals reproduce the species. Nothing is ever going to change that biological reality, no sophistry or woke ideology will ever convince a river to flow backwards.

And I said nothing about supressing homosexuality. Stop looking to be outraged.

 

[someguyontheinternet]

Just because it's called sexual 'liberation' doesn't mean that's what it actually was though, it was a half liberation at best, and perhaps best described as I did before as a sort of psychological rebound after centuries of sexually repressive living. So I mean yeah, it was destructive because like a dam bursting forth there was tremendous pressure that had to be released, and there was no model or guide available for people.. so hedonistic and addictive tendencies took the reigns.

And speaking as a millennial man, I've been witness to that 'half-liberation' from my early teens onwards.. watching female friends actions and behaviour, seeing how culture mesmerised them into a certain path, and conversely watching other men besides myself who weren't in the top 10% struggle to even get a foot in in the door. Now I'm pushing 40 and all I see is a never ending conveyor belt of single mums and other women who exercised extremely poor judgement, who perhaps could have been quite happy if they took a chance on men like myself.

I had one woman I've been with come back and apologize to me years later, for the way she acted - virtually all the young women have this weird combination of entitlement and false aggrandizement about them. She is the only women of my age cohort that I know who has actually done some reflection, and even though she's less physically attractive than when we had each other in our 20's I was immediately attracted to that degree of self-reflection. That is the real damage of the half-liberation; it wasn't anything really to do with sexuality but a particular mind state that has evolved out of that period of time (and in combination with commercialism etc).

A true sexual liberation, we haven't had. What we had was a brief open sexual market that then got exploited by culture itself, which has benefitted many women tremendously in terms of material gain but been detrimental to many decent men out there, and consequently to family (and community).

A true sexual liberation would see young adults get the obsession out the way first, as part of the broader process of finding the most compatible life partner. And it would divest itself from the constraints of money (and other cultural baggage) that preys on young women especially, in terms of their 'best nest' impulse.


Heteronormative. You know that just making a long sounding word doesn't necessarily add any legitimacy to it, right?

Heterosexual relation is the default standard. That is not even up for debate. None of us would be here chatting if two members of the opposite sex hadn't fucked. I'm not saying we need to hold fertility festivals and dance around the May pole naked, but it is the default mode by which mammals reproduce the species. Nothing is ever going to change that biological reality, no sophistry or woke ideology will ever convince a river to flow backwards.

And I said nothing about supressing homosexuality. Stop looking to be outraged.

We have more contraceptives freely available than ever before in history

What evidence do you have that family structure have significantly changed (and what was the actual documented change) and that those changes, the specific ones shown by evidence to the first query, are based purely around sexual activity rather than primarily economic or material conditions?

 

[someguyontheinternet]

Heteronormative. You know that just making a long sounding word doesn't necessarily add any legitimacy to it, right?

Heterosexual relation is the default standard. That is not even up for debate. None of us would be here chatting if two members of the opposite sex hadn't fucked. I'm not saying we need to hold fertility festivals and dance around the May pole naked, but it is the default mode by which mammals reproduce the species. Nothing is ever going to change that biological reality, no sophistry or woke ideology will ever convince a river to flow backwards.

And I said nothing about supressing homosexuality. Stop looking to be outraged.

I just wanted to discuss this point separately. You are correct, heterosexuality does result in reproduction. The idea behind bringing attention to the idea of heteronormativity as a concept is to raise awareness to the fact that heterosexuality is constantly in all of our media, overwhelmingly so in fact. Sexuality has been used and abused by people selling products and by entertainers to draw people's attention. I think this is something you are aware of, its everywhere right?

That's all that is describing, how heterosexual imagery is nearly ubiquitous but combine that with the sexual repression in our cultures and there's this weird overtone of sexual tension. We can't talk about it publicly, comfortably anyway due to social pressures, but its always shoved in our faces. Women in bikinis, men with chiseled abs running together half naked on a beach or whatever.

We just get constantly bombarded by sexuality, we can't talk about it and since people are so accustomed to it when they suddenly see two men running on the beach together its a shock, it's different than what they've been bombarded with for the last 40 years. Its only viewed through the lens of homosexuality being different, because its so different than what the media has been feeding us.

When media shows two women kissing, suddenly people realize that its sexual. Sexuality was always being forced on us, the representation just changed a bit and that made it more obvious but people don't seem to make the connection that it was always there

 

[Cheshire_Kat]

We have more contraceptives freely available than ever before in history

What evidence do you have that family structure have significantly changed (and what was the actual documented change) and that those changes, the specific ones shown by evidence to the first query, are based purely around sexual activity rather than primarily economic or material conditions?

I have lived experience having been born in the 1940's and surviving to this day. To say that the family has not changed since the 1960's is reductive and deconstructive. A mere glance at even movies, television and literature is enough to see the extensive change that has occurred, let alone having lived though it. Your request for"evidence from documentation" is nonsense. Open your eyes and look around you.

 

[someguyontheinternet]

I have lived experience having been born in the 1940's and surviving to this day. To say that the family has not changed since the 1960's. A mere glance at even movies, television and literature is enough to see the extensive change that has occurred, let alone having lived though it. Your request for"evidence from documentation" is nonsense. Open your eyes and look around you.

I'm not stating that it hasn't changed, I'm just looking for specifics and asking how we measure it. I'm not sure that media is a good measure, media has always fed us idyllic versions of what people wanted reality to be

 

[Deleted member 210577]

I just wanted to discuss this point separately. You are correct, heterosexuality does result in reproduction. The idea behind bringing attention to the idea of heteronormativity as a concept is to raise awareness to the fact that heterosexuality is constantly in all of our media, overwhelmingly so in fact. Sexuality has been used and abused by people selling products and by entertainers to draw people's attention. I think this is something you are aware of, its everywhere right?

That's all that is describing, how heterosexual imagery is nearly ubiquitous but combine that with the sexual repression in our cultures and there's this weird overtone of sexual tension. We can't talk about it publicly, comfortably anyway due to social pressures, but its always shoved in our faces. Women in bikinis, men with chiseled abs running together half naked on a beach or whatever.

We just get constantly bombarded by sexuality, we can't talk about it and since people are so accustomed to it when they suddenly see two men running on the beach together its a shock, it's different than what they've been bombarded with for the last 40 years. Its only viewed through the lens of homosexuality being different, because its so different than what the media has been feeding us.

When media shows two women kissing, suddenly people realize that its sexual. Sexuality was always being forced on us, the representation just changed a bit and that made it more obvious but people don't seem to make the connection that it was always there

The underlying issue here isn't that sexuality is being forced upon us, because if you think about what you just said regarding the media aspect of culture (underlined, and yes I agree), what is actually being forced upon us is an image of sexuality. Specifically a particular visual curation of sexual activity. But that is not sexuality itself. You would agree with me too I presume, that when we see actors 'living life' in Hollywood films or TV shows that this too is just an image of a life being lived, and not representative of the real thing?

I think people who get worked up about the heteronormative aspect, are actually mistaking one thing for another. It's not what it represents that offends them, but what it doesn't. Everyone, deep down, knows that what we see on TV and screens is a perversion of real life. Curated a certain way, to manipulate behaviour. That is what is so repulsive, regardless of whether it be sexual in nature or not.

You could write a thesis on the damage image of sexual activity has done, and not even pornography. I'm talking shows like 'Sex in the city' or 'Friends', to name but two. It has completely warped the psychology of people, by substituting in for real life.. and people come to emulate the images instead of acting real.

I can not honestly remember, not that I watch much TV or film, when I last saw a truly feminine woman and a truly masculine man, expressing sexual activity. It's always some debauched arrangement, a fling, or what have you.

 

[Deleted member 587584]

We can't talk about it publicly, comfortably anyway due to social pressures

You literally are talking about it publicly right now. If you mean irl then I still don't know what you're talking about cos I have overheard and been involved in many many discussions out in the wild about how sexuality rules advertising, sells brands and twists peoples perspective. If YOU feel uncomfortable it is because you are creating these "societal pressures" in your own mind because the world doesn't fuckin care anymore bro. Unless you're a Mormon

 

[someguyontheinternet]

The underlying issue here isn't that sexuality is being forced upon us, because if you think about what you just said regarding the media aspect of culture (underlined, and yes I agree), what is actually being forced upon us is an image of sexuality. Specifically a particular visual curation of sexual activity. But that is not sexuality itself. You would agree with me too I presume, that when we see actors 'living life' in Hollywood films or TV shows that this too is just an image of a life being lived, and not representative of the real thing?

I think people who get worked up about the heteronormative aspect, are actually mistaking one thing for another. It's not what it represents that offends them, but what it doesn't. Everyone, deep down, knows that what we see on TV and screens is a perversion of real life. Curated a certain way, to manipulate behaviour. That is what is so repulsive, regardless of whether it be sexual in nature or not.

You could write a thesis on the damage image of sexual activity has done, and not even pornography. I'm talking shows like 'Sex in the city' or 'Friends', to name but two. It has completely warped the psychology of people, by substituting in for real life.. and people come to emulate the images instead of acting real.

I can not honestly remember, not that I watch much TV or film, when I last saw a truly feminine woman and a truly masculine man, expressing sexual activity. It's always some debauched arrangement, a fling, or what have you.

I don't know that people truly understand how different media is from the reality of the time it was created. I understand your sentiment though.

Maybe we are actually agreeing here but in different ways. The way media portrays relationships and sex is harmful because it can put those unrealistic expectations in peoples' heads. People are attracted to media that drives emotional response to greater degrees, so everything is exaggerated just to get more eyes watching. I don't think that media should always portray things in a realistic light but we should be aware of the reality.

I agree that the way relationships, sex, and sexuality are portrayed can be harmful and more normal loving relationships should be in media rather than focusing on the emotional drama.

From my perspective I think normalizing all sorts of loving, caring, and supporting relationships in media, whether they're heterosexual or homosexual, would be more beneficial than using sex and shock to sell. But the profits must flow...

 

[someguyontheinternet]

You literally are talking about it publicly right now. If you mean irl then I still don't know what you're talking about cos I have overheard and been involved in many many discussions out in the wild about how sexuality rules advertising, sells brands and twists peoples perspective. If YOU feel uncomfortable it is because you are creating these "societal pressures" in your own mind because the world doesn't fuckin care anymore bro. Unless you're a Mormon

Try talking about it with 100 random people on the street. Keep track of their reactions and let me know how it goes

 

[Deleted member 587584]

Try talking about it with 100 random people on the street. Keep track of their reactions and let me know how it goes

I've spoken about this with well more than 100 random people in my life because I go out, I talk to people, real people, and I discuss things. And I don't think a single one has ever so much as gotten the slightest bit uncomfortable or angry or ever tried to silence me.

Like I said in the other thread. Fighting ghosts. Put your energy into something real for once and you might not feel so impotent

 

[someguyontheinternet]

I've spoken about this with well more than 100 random people in my life because I go out, I talk to people, real people, and I discuss things. And I don't think a single one has ever so much as gotten the slightest bit uncomfortable or angry or ever tried to silence me.

Like I said in the other thread. Fighting ghosts. Put your energy into something real for once and you might not feel so impotent

You're right, I do absolutely nothing with my life and I should be ashamed. I do absolutely nothing to help society and I have absolutely no useful knowledge to help improve lives of people around the world

I've actually spoken to 200,000,000 random people and they told me not to listen to you. Those may have been the voices again though so

 

[Deleted member 587584]

You're right, I do absolutely nothing with my life and I should be ashamed. I do absolutely nothing to help society and I have absolutely no useful knowledge to help improve lives of people around the world

I've actually spoken to 200,000,000 random people and they told me not to listen to you. Those may have been the voices again though so

See the fact you think 100 People is a high enough number that saying 200,000,000 will highlight it as hyperbole tells me that while you're trying to be sarcastic with the first half it's probably closer to the truth than you care to admit

 

[someguyontheinternet]

See the fact you think 100 People is a high enough number that saying 200,000,000 will highlight it as hyperbole tells me that while you're trying to be sarcastic with the first half it's probably closer to the truth than you care to admit

Nah I just doubt you've actually discussed what I was talking about with people considering you didn't understand what I was referring to in the first place

You literally are talking about it publicly right now

Not only is this not public, that's beside the point, but we are discussing the metatopic not asking random people about their sex lives or what they're interested in sexually

 

[fairnymph]

It’s pretty public, except for being at least semi anonymous. Still, not private.

 

[Deleted member 587584]

Nah I just doubt you've actually discussed what I was talking about with people considering you didn't understand what I was referring to in the first place


Not only is this not public, that's beside the point, but we are discussing the metatopic not asking random people about their sex lives or what they're interested in sexually

You ain't talking about rocket surgery mate it's easy enough to understand

Unlike the neoliberals i don't feel the need to introduce myself by announcing my sexuality and asking yours

As usual you're intentionally misinterpreting what's in front of you to suit an agenda you don't really comprehend

 

[nepalnt21]

nothing about supressing homosexuality

"cultural priority" was the part... what does it look like making it a cultural priority?

we're already fucking, heterosexuals are already reproducing at (some might say) TOO FAST a rate for what our societies are... why "cultural priority"?

 

[Deleted member 210577]

"cultural priority" was the part... what does it look like making it a cultural priority?

we're already fucking, heterosexuals are already reproducing at (some might say) TOO FAST a rate for what our societies are... why "cultural priority"?

Yeah but you've outlined the issue in your question, and as I said to someone else already it's not the fact we're not fucking, or not fucking enough - we'll always be fucking - the actual issue that any yahoo can knock up another yahoo and produce a little water headed critter. Pumping out children is not the issue, raising them to their fullest potential is.

Our culture, literally in the UK too, does not give a shit about children once they're out of the womb. They are still just a taxable unit and potential menace to the game of society. Hence why our nations have been filled with cheap immigrant labour. Our culture has never, not once in its entire history, placed the value of both men and women, together, as a loving, productive, transcendental unit, and from the time that they come of age. It has only ever been concerned with either some religious nonsense, or perpetuating an economic model as today.

Like I said about the sexual revolution earlier, we never actually had one. We've never actually made men, women, the family, a cultural priority, in all its various aspects. It has always been self-serving on behalf of the power structures, and not for the best interests of the individuals and certainly not for the future children.

So when I say making it a cultural priority, it probably would look a bit different from what you have in mind, what our culture as it stands would offer to us.

 

[Deleted member 210577]

I don't know that people truly understand how different media is from the reality of the time it was created. I understand your sentiment though.

Maybe we are actually agreeing here but in different ways. The way media portrays relationships and sex is harmful because it can put those unrealistic expectations in peoples' heads. People are attracted to media that drives emotional response to greater degrees, so everything is exaggerated just to get more eyes watching. I don't think that media should always portray things in a realistic light but we should be aware of the reality.

I agree that the way relationships, sex, and sexuality are portrayed can be harmful and more normal loving relationships should be in media rather than focusing on the emotional drama.

From my perspective I think normalizing all sorts of loving, caring, and supporting relationships in media, whether they're heterosexual or homosexual, would be more beneficial than using sex and shock to sell. But the profits must flow...

I think we are agreeing in different ways, and the only point in there I disagree with would be the bit about promoting homosexuality. And before anyone jumps on me, let me preface this by stating clearly my position is not one of hatred, disgust, or whatever. One of my [late] close friends was homosexual, it was never a factor in our friendship. But I do think it is a mistake to promote it; the clearer example is the trans stuff of late, for much the same reason.

I think in both cases there is something there that we don't yet fully understand, at a psychological level, as I've gone into elsewhere on the forum before, but it also parallels what we've just said already about heterosexual activity being portrayed that is not a reflection of real sexuality. I don't think we should be promoting an image of sexuality, in its various forms, when we don't really understand sexuality that clearly to begin with. Again as we've just said, the portrayals of heterosexuality are conditioning people a certain way which causes major issues. We're jumping too far ahead of ourselves and potentially setting ourselves up for more problems down the road, is the concern I have - the trans stuff is way more clear cut, the damage that is doing to young people is undeniable in my opinion.

As I said to neplant, our culture is self-serving and not interested in the truth of things, not concerned with how all people can be the healthiest, full expressed they can be as human beings.

 

[someguyontheinternet]

You ain't talking about rocket surgery mate it's easy enough to understand

Unlike the neoliberals i don't feel the need to introduce myself by announcing my sexuality and asking yours

As usual you're intentionally misinterpreting what's in front of you to suit an agenda you don't really comprehend

You're just proving my point lmao

"I don't talk about sex like you libtards"

 

[Deleted member 587584]

You're just proving my point lmao

"I don't talk about sex like you libtards"

Where did I say I don't talk about sex? You've just nailed the misrepresentation of what I said again and made yourself look a fool. I said I don't say hello by announcing my sexuality AFTER telling you I've had more than 100 conversation on the subject tangential to sex??

Are you OK? Like genuinely I am getting concerned for your psychological well-being because you form sentences well enough that I know you're not one of these 70 IQ unfortunates that just dribble all day so you actually must be misunderstanding people on purpose which suggests some kind of psychological issue.... I wish you well but I don't argue with the mentally ill cos its not fair so I'll leave you be now