In the early 20th century, Sigmund Freud posited sexual repression causes a plethora of social and mental ills, prompting his advocacy for liberation through sexual freedom. The concept was further developed by other intellectuals, with Wilhelm Reich being an important one who also worked on ideas for sexualizing the clergy to destroy the influence of the Church, which he saw as an "International antisexual organization" and one of the pillars of "Fascism".
With the rise of film came the vehicle to widely appeal to humanity's basest instincts. Porn production began with the advent of film (see "stag films"), but if the films weren't destroyed due to human error (especially with regards to the flammability of celluloid), the police routinely confiscated reels or interrupted performers, and with no official distribution outlet, most of them never saw the light of day.
As America enjoyed post-war prosperity, enter Hugh Hefner, who began pushing lascivious material wholly supported by wealthy Jewish businessmen in the '50s. To further her career ambitions, Marilyn Monroe converted to Judaism and, shortly, she was featured on Playboy's magazine cover. Jews and Protestants were, to some extent, allied during this period and are still today for different reasons.
In the '60s, Hollywood producers put tits into exploitation films (particularly in Holocaust and Nazisploitation films) which opened the floodgates to filmed pornography. Within a couple of years you have hardcore porn all across US cinemas as "freedom" while the Church gradually lost its cultural clout in putting a stop to Judeo-Protestant influence. At the same time, you have the more general sexual liberation movement, largely led by Jewish men (anti-capitalist intellectuals and businessmen alike), certainly inspired by psychoanalysis, but also involving someone like Kinsey (a Protestant) and the Rockefellers (also Protestants). No women were involved here.
Feminist opposition to porn started to develop throughout the '60s and '70s, spearheaded by women like Brownmiller, Dworkin, Steinem, and continuing to this day with Jewish women like Ariel Levy, Gail Dines and many others. The earliest known feminist analysis of pornography posits that it fundamentally degrades and objectifies women, inflicting material and moral harm on both women and society at large. Radical feminists like Dworkin, Jeffreys and MacKinnon echoed this theme in opposition to the sexual revolution and formed the bulwark against it.
As the "war on sex" raged on, postmodernism flourished with men like Foucault, Lacan, Derrida and others. By the '80s, this movement inspired certain women to challenge their views on sexuality, pornography, prostitution and transsexuality that dominated second-wave feminism. They were seen as "conservative," outdated and ultimately contradictory, but most of all, "sex negative", which was a lost cause because pornography had already won the culture war. So they developed a deconstruction of these second-wave feminist ideas that was more compatible with capitalism and male sexual desires expressed through pornography, ushering in third-wave feminism (starting in the late '80s/early '90s). As the ideological inverse of the second wave which actively promoted pornography and sexualization as liberation, the third wave was warmly welcomed by pornographers and other elites.
K.
In a way, third wave feminism can be seen as the final form of feminism. Self-described "male feminists" typically support this wave. Curiously, the Jewish intellectual forerunners were mute when their older radical feminist sisters, aunts and mothers spent decades denouncing pornography. For recent examples other than Soros, consider Noah Berlatsky who writes for Playboy and told Meghan Murphy, a white radical feminist, that she is wrong and stupid to daring to question a naked black tranny in Playboy as the epitome of social progress.
Many young women today are profoundly confused about feminism, which the intellectuals exploit. They are seemingly unaware that contemporary feminism and the feminism of 50 years ago are almost mutually exclusive, despite both having similar goals. As a result, they may at times promote contradictory positions. To some extent, and given the postmodern origins of certain aspects of third-wave ideology, this seems also to be intentional. The more nonsensical, contradictory and confusing, the more revolutionary it is. Everything has to be destroyed, even those things that are already in conflict among themselves.
Freud had the foresight to suppose that maybe, just maybe, sexual repression is necessary for the development of high culture. He noted that free sexual play was permitted among primitive people, and that those people lacked many of the neuroses found in civilized societies. He thought maybe neuroses could be prevented if parents were not so strictly repressive of sexual play between children, then he pondered "Well, maybe the prohibition is necessary for cultural development."
>>1167854
Something doesn't need to be an argument to be a response. Save yourself the embarrassment and accept getting called out for what you are.
By the end of our lives perhaps, we'll see how the thesis plays out. The naive thrill-seekers who thought the WASPs were just being puritan out of hatred and we all needed to be liberated from their oppression will discover in a few generations after radical sexual freedom is implemented that the general culture will decay to a savage level.
The effect will be very gradual, but by the time we are seniors, the damage will be visible. The only options will then be to just abandon the idea of civilization or drastically implement authoritarian controls. Speech will be suppressed. Women will lose many current "rights". Those involved in sex professionally will be put to the new system's justice.
An unusual dynamic of the conflict and unity between "sex positive" and "sex negative" feminism exists where the former defends the right of sluts to be moral vacuums, but rarely, if ever, defend a "stud" or sexually active male with many conquests under the same pretexts. "Sex negative" feminists say men degrade women by turning them into sex objects, so they never condemn a girl for being a slut. For all intents and purposes, the slut fits into "sex negative" feminism's victimhood narrative. The idea they are moral prudes is nonsense. They are against a women being a slut to make men like her, they hate the power the female sex drive might give to men.
One group degrade the sexual desires, demoralize and take power away from males, the other gives power to any female regardless of how much of a worthless cunt she is. Together they form feminist, who's objective is taking away power from man and give it to women. The confusion comes from the preconceived notion feminism actually tries to treat both sexes equally; it doesn't. It tries to completely undermine one while completely favors the other
It was written over a century ago, but Ernest Belfort Bax was very keen. Feminism is a fraud:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bax/1913/fraud/
>>1167878
It's not a fucking argument. It's a statement that happened to be true. Dense assholes like OP don't respond to argument well and people just give up and point out the obvious.
Is everything bad in the world the result of stupid medical practices in the 19th and early 20th century? Sigmund Freud used cocaine medicinally and look at the stuff he came up with.
>>1167890
And dense asses like you don't even attempt to argue, but outright dismiss anyone with an opposing point of view. Why are you even here? To enforce your own views off others, like in a proper hugbox?
>>1167890
>It's a statement that happened to be true.
Because you said so.
Circular logic goes round and round.
>>1167901
I don't really see what's wrong with medicinal use of cocaine. It's a stimulant amongst others and as such is only a negative when abused.
>>1167902
Only because that's how it's played all the fucking time by everybody here. Every time a controversial subject comes up, all the posters plug their ears and just shout their opinion.
Argument is wasted on here,
>>1167901
95% of what Freud said made lots of sense and is worth reading. People who don't know any Freud at all jump onto the meme bandwagon.
>>1167927
It's not just here though. It happens everywhere and by far seems to be the average person's method of argumentation. If you want to escape it, you'll have to go to forums on niche subjects.
>Argument is wasted on here,
Then why are you here? If you don't like it, either fuck off, or be part of the change and take part in serious discussions.
>>1167927
There's nothing to argue about. I've never read a text by anyone using the phrase "3rd wave feminism" that was historically coherent. Stop taking your sexual frustration out on bogeymen.
>>1167957
>there's nothing to argue about because there's nothing to argue about because I said so shut up go away
6/5
>>1167901
Cocaine isn't some mind destroying hallucinogen or anything. Shouldn't really have the large a role in his views. Besides, he realized coke was wack and ditched it for good early on. Freud being a coke-head is a meme.
Besides we had to start somewhere, and with something as complicated as the human brain it's not surprising he was all over the map. I really don't think many men could have done better in his shoes, and I think that despite being fuzzy on some of the details, he made an insane number of steps in the right direction. Pretty Insightful dude, I think people pick on Freud way too much.
>>1167902
This isn't a hug box, we just like talking about interesting real things, not delusional conspiracies by frustrated virgins.
>>1167965
All I hear is you stamping your feet and yelling "jet fuel can't melt steel beams".
Throwing a wall of delusional conspiracy theory at people clearly makes them irate
>>1167970
>delusional conspiracies by frustrated virgins.
Sure convinced me with those hot opinions, lass.
>>1167986
I am not OP.
>>1167957
What the fuck are you talking about? I despise /pol/fags just as much as the next guy, but you're the incoherent one here. What would you prefer we call the recent resurgence in feminism that went against the anti-porn attitudes of previous feminist waves in favor of a free love type deal? Do you want people to pretend it doesn't exist? It's making more ground every day, slipping into western media, and shaping public opinion.
And get that nonsense about arguments being wasted out of here. Be the change you want to see, two wrongs don't make a right etc.
>>1168015
There's absolutely nothing sensible about classifying the feminist movement in "waves".
I'm not here to argue, I'm here to entertain myself. Sometimes I argue and sometimes I don't.
>>1167946
>be part of change
Serious discussion, believe it or not, takes more than one person willing to partake in it.
I'm sorry, wait, do /his/ posters actually defend post 1990 feminism? Is this a thing?
Do you people believe in the wage gap?
>>1168104
Only hard-left SJWs and the misinformed believe the wage gap.
No one is defending 3rd wavers. They are calling out people who attack it out of spite rather than reasoning.
>>1168149
I can't complain people attacking third wave feminism in spite.
After all, there isn't any logically sound reasoning or evidence on the feminist side either, posters lashing out unconsciously at this even if they lack functional arguing skills is something to be expected.
>>1167820
>>1167837
>>1167857
>>1167872
I'll go ahead and put forward some simple critiques, although I agree with the rest of the thread's posters' sentiments that you sounds like a frustrated virgin.
First, a few questions:
1. I don't know what the Jewishness of these historical figures has to do with anything, please explain that.
2. You're clearly lamenting the fall of the authority of the Church, why is that?
3. In the sentence:
>'Freud had the foresight to suppose sexual repression is necessary for the development of high culture'
How do you define 'high culture' ?
Also, I find your next point to pretty slippery slope, the idea that we will decay to "savage level" by allowing sex hasn't been shown. Many of the most primitive cultures "chain women to the bedpost".
Finally, I think that the "stud shaming" claim is a bit of a straw-man. I don't doubt that some young tumblrinas hold conflicting ideas about sexuality in men vs. women, but for the most part advocates of sex-positivity are even-handed in their application.
>>1168173
(cont'd)
I'd just like to add that, not only does your "history" sound like it was inspired by The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but also your critiques of contemporary feminism are based on your own confirmation bias (or negative confirmation bias) of what feminism is today. We live in a time where outrageous points of view are endlessly re-tweeted by their DISSENTERS. Our social media feeds are constantly stocked full of hate-watch-worthy material that represents the opinions of a few marginal, weak-minded, teenage boys and girls. I encourage you to get out from behind your computer screen and see the world through your own eyes rather than Alex Jones's camera lens.
>>1168173
>1. I don't know what the Jewishness of these historical figures has to do with anything, please explain that.
It is hardly a mystery why Jews, from centuries of shared hostility between them and the Gentile world, act in self-interest against the society which marginalized them to the fringes, and you don't need to read "Culture of Critique" to know this. When the Jews were given legal rights in the 19th Century, the resentment didn't fade suddenly away. Polite society still excluded them either explicitly or implicitly. When some fringes of Jewish intellectuals weren't in their ivory tower universities pondering the state of affairs, others actively agitated against those bastards in the Hamptons who denied them everything.
Enjoy two articles for the collective you:
http://www.markrudd.com/?about-mark-rudd/why-were-there-so-many-jews-in-sds-or-the-ordeal-of-civility.html
http://library.flawlesslogic.com/yid.htm
>2. You're clearly lamenting the fall of the authority of the Church, why is that?
Not at all. The Church's destruction is entirely self-imposed, and the simultaneous rise of fundamentalism along with the revolt against secularism all point to signs of a movement in its death throes. The Cold War has ended, and secular democracy has clearly won the culture war.
>How do you define 'high culture' ?
In plain English, where the elites favor refinement over baser instincts.
>Finally, I think that the "stud shaming" claim is a bit of a straw-man. I don't doubt that some young tumblrinas hold conflicting ideas about sexuality in men vs. women, but for the most part advocates of sex-positivity are even-handed in their application.
Our legal culture still largely favors accounts of women over men when it comes to cases of sexual assault, especially when a man of studly reputation becomes embroiled in an accusation of rape/sexual abuse.
Equality is a zero-sum game.
>>1168347
>It is hardly a mystery why Jews would act in self-interest
Certainly not, but I'm skeptical about a spitefulness that crosses many generations. So your claim is that Jews are acting out of revenge and with no specific ulterior motive? In terms of equality being a zero-sum game, I think in this instance we need to applaud "the Jews" for their excellent gamesmanship in adapting to capitalism and marketing to not only our base instincts, but our sense of refined taste as well.
>Where the elites favor refinement over baser instincts.
I'm concerned about the disappearance of 'acquired tastes' as well, but I think it has more to do with the endless search for novelty and gratification that is inherent in human nature and in capitalism, than a Jewish plot.
>Our legal culture still largely favors accounts of women over men when it comes to cases of sexual assault, especially when a man of studly reputation becomes embroiled in an accusation of rape/sexual abuse.
I'd like to see some statistics on this if possible. Don't think of me as naive but I still have a lot of faith in the courts. It seems to me that quite a few high profile rape cases end when additional evidence to support a potentially false rape claim don't materialize.
>>1167878
>One group degrade the sexual desires, demoralize and take power away from males, the other gives power to any female regardless of how much of a worthless cunt she is. Together they form feminist, who's objective is taking away power from man and give it to women. The confusion comes from the preconceived notion feminism actually tries to treat both sexes equally; it doesn't. It tries to completely undermine one while completely favors the other
They serve to redirect shitposters to the relevant containment boards
>Within a couple of years you have hardcore porn all across US cinemas as "freedom"
Literally never heard of anything that had non- simulated sex that was released in US theaters.
>>1168570
Maybe not at the Bowtie/Regal/Landmark theaters but art theaters have been doing unsimulated for a while now. From Brown Bunny 13 years ago, to Nymphomaniac I+II in 2014 (and plenty more).
>>1167820
I'm confused about what you want us to respond with. Is this just copypasted from somewhere?
>>1168046
So far, only two people are having a serious discussion.
As to OP, he has some fascinating points, and some of it may be historically accurate, but does it all necessarily have to be about da JOOZE?
Reminder that Freud wasn't able to proof any of his theories and that the universality of the Oedipus complex was falsified.
>muh unconscious
>>1170938
>his superego denies the existence of his id
wew
>>1168615
>2016 french film as evidence of US post war sexual jew conspiracy
wow get the fuck off our board you poltard peice of shit
>>1170978
*2013
>>1167820
>Wilhelm Reich
the ufo war lasergun maniac?
>>1167901
Oh look, it's another meme tard that is a stranger to basic psychology
>>1168173
>>1167970
>be a feminist
>claim that you are against traditional gender roles and expectations
>literally first argument against any male "LOL U VIRGIN HAHAHAHAAH!!!"
every time
