>“In his lectures to young communists in Germany during the rise of Hitler and the Nazis, psychologist Wilhelm Reich theorized that the suppression of sexuality was essential to an authoritarian government. Without the imposition of antisexual morality, he believed, people would be free from shame and would trust their own sense of right and wrong… Perhaps if we were raised without shame and guilt about our desires, we might be freer people in more ways than simply the sexual.”
>When the infant physical affectional variable was combined with permitted pre-marital sexuality my prediction of peaceful or violent cultures rose to 100% of the 49 cultures where this information was available. Further, these cultures were matrilineal where 78% of the nine cultures that also had information on extramarital sexuality also permitted extramarital sexuality.
>The ultimate human spiritual-sexual state, however, can only be realized when the human female (whose brain is uniquely designed for the spiritual-sexual state) is completely free to express her sexual love according to her own terms which means multiple sexual relationships without fear of male reproach, control or violence. For this to occur the developing brain of the infant/child must be encoded and programmed with pleasure (affectional bonding) for the neural circuits to develop to make possible the spiritual-sexual state later in life. Unfortunately, just the opposite is happening in most human cultures of today where infant/day care centers, e.g., provide little or no affectional bonding with anyone.
http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html
People should feel shame & guilt about wanting to engage in behaviors that spread disease, ruin their sexual organs, and reduce their capacity for pair-bonding
>>391639
>the suppression of sexuality was essential to an authoritarian government.
For fuck's sake, the suppression of many things is essential to building a society of humans. That's how this shit works.
>>391693
But governments lead to shit like Nazi Germany, the USSR, the british kingdom (colonialism, genocides), etc.
>>391689
You're telling me that hundreds of repeated in-and-out poundings have no effect on a malleable organ?
>>391701
And anarchism leads to shit like roving gangs taking your shit. And liberalism leads to shit like your daughter getting gangbanged by 20 dudes because sex work is socially & legally acceptable.
>>391639
Because as demonstrated in WR: Mysteries of the Organism, bolsheviks will take sexual and political advantage of you and murder you.
>>391703
>your daughter getting gangbanged by 20 dudes because sex work is socially & legally acceptable.
>bad
yep, this one is from /r9k/
>>391701
go live in a bonobo colony you kek
>>391703
Are you insinuating that a women that has a lot of sex with a single man won't ruin her organs? if you say she will, then what will you do? get yourself a younger female?
and in response to your anarchism, anarchism doesn't lead to millions of deaths or the invention (and use) of nuclear bombs.
i won't argue for perfection, but governments are horrible
>>391706
did bolsheviks promote sexual openness?
i remember they had ways of killing off homosexuals.
>>391703
Actually, pretty much, yeah.
Vaginal tightness or looseness is regulated by the muscles of the pelvic floor.
If anything, you'd be giving that shit a good workout.
>>391714
>Are you insinuating that a women that has a lot of sex with a single man won't ruin her organs?
No, not in such a short time that casual sex ruins organs.
>and in response to your anarchism, anarchism doesn't lead to millions of deaths or the invention (and use) of nuclear bombs.
Anarchism also doesn't lead to the many technological comforts we have, nor does it prevent things like I described from happening.
>>391723
People in committed relationships have more sex than people who just have one night stands.
Think about it, if all of the organs are already there under one roof, it's a lot more convenient than going to a bar somewhere.
>>391703
>You're telling me that hundreds of repeated in-and-out poundings have no effect on a malleable organ?
The way you say that, you make it sound like the organ hadn't evolved for exactly that kind of thing to happen to it. Like, as if that wasn't its only purpose, besides, and prepare your mind to get blown, something substantially larger getting pushed through it from the other side.
Saying that sex ruins your sex organs is like saying that walking ruins your legs, which, come to think of it, probably is the paradigm under which you operate, hence your lack of female attention, hence your resentment, hence your post.
>>391714
>did bolsheviks promote sexual openness?
>i remember they had ways of killing off homosexuals.
Kollontai, Red Love
>>391706
>Makavejev alluded to his frustration that idealistic communism had become corrupted in practice in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union because it had abandoned free love and open sexuality as a way of freeing economic and political oppression. These ideas are central to this film as the Soviet ice skater can not cope with his huge and healthy sexual hunger and converts that energy into a murderous rage.
The argument here is that sexual repression is what lead to the Bolsheviks becoming tyrannical in some way, which pretty much falls inline with sexual openness being necessary. Thanks for the suggestion though.
>>391639
Eh, Wilhelm Reich is pretty much freudo-marxism gone full retard, later in life he basically developed the Super Adventure Club religion, I mean he didn't exactly say that fucking kids would make you immortal, but he came pretty close.
For an account of sexual repression that doesn't oversimplify matters or try to tell you how to live your life, I'd recommend Marcuse's Eros and Civilization.
>>391703
>malleable organ
B-because that's totally how vaginas work, r-right guys?
THE one on your dick is worth two you kicked to the bush.
>>391639
Read Libido Dominandi by E Michael Jones
Also try looking around faggot. Sexually degenerate people are morally week and lustfully addicted, they can't resist tyranny. The mass media doesn't shove smut down your throat because they want you to be free
>Wilhelm Reich
Festive_christmas_garbage_guy.png
>>392127
Why should I read that book?
Do you think polyamory should endorse porn and all that degenerate shit rampant in our society? do you think I want to see some skinny fuccbois getting pumped openly in the morning in some alley openly? I'd like to discuss that such practices are a result of a monogamist, sexually repressed culture.
reich was cool and all but the theoretical basis for his work was straight up psychoanalysis. Are there any attempts to rectify his work with more recent scholarship?
>>392134
>sexual degeneracy happens because people aren't sexually degenerate enough yet
Ok, man bun retard faggot
How about we have a society that promotes monogamous family formation, upbringing of healthy children and higher virtues
>>391639
>The ultimate human spiritual-sexual state, however, can only be realized when the human female (whose brain is uniquely designed for the spiritual-sexual state) is completely free to express her sexual love according to her own terms which means multiple sexual relationships without fear
wat
Also those cultures may be peaceful, but the thing about most peaceful cultures is they can get BTFO pretty easily by warrior cultures. And I'd rather live in the culture doing the fucking than the culture getting fucked.
Also while I certainly think we could be a bit more relaxed on sex I also believe that giving into hedonistic desires like this weakens an individual and when it is prevalent in a society it weakens the society in the same ways.
The only forms of polyamory I find acceptable are Islamic harems and the like. Not this modern version where a couple just sleeps with whoever.
>>392150
yeah, and with it, bring pornography, whoring, homosexuality, and all sorts of other isms and mental illnesses, right?
>>392158
>act mentally ill to make mental illness go away
This is what you actually believe
>>392176
>being polyamorous is the same as injecting shit in your blood stream while going crazy on a young man's ass or eating shit
>>392181
I'm going to have to insist that you elaborate, I'm finding it quite difficult to follow that logic. Please forgive me.
>>392197
Sexual freedom does not equate to what I greentexted in that post.
go back to adv
>supression of sexuality
>nazism
>what is lebensbraum
>what is shagging instituations for soldiers
>what is planning to repopulate vast territories with germans
despite himmler being a frustrated and insecure cunt, he had the right idea what his men needed
go away
>>391639
because im asexual
Right so should we make sure pedophiles can practice their sexuality freely without shame? What about gore-sadists, or Japanese people?
>>392331
>argue for polyamory
>somehow this means i'm also advocating for pedos and japs
what in the flying fuck?
>>391639
The reason our society has the sexual morals it does is because sexuality doesn't actually work the way Hollywood, porn movies, and advertising have trained you to think it does. The system of sexual moral or society has [spoiler]or used have at any rate fer fucks sake[/spoiler] was created organically over thousands of year actual men and women as the arrangement between the sexes that worked out best. Not perfectly mind you both sides had to make sacrifices in regaurds to certain momentary desire but in comparison to all the alternatives one man one women was what most people chose and what most people still choose.
>>392468
>Perhaps if we were raised without shame and guilt about our desires, we might be freer people in more ways than simply the sexual.
You can't pick and choose which desires this applies to.
>>392480
Okay.
But if people were raised without any repression towards desires of any sort, this shit wouldn't happen. Though the transitioning would be pretty painful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Unwin
>In Sex and Culture (1934), Unwin studied 80 primitive tribes and 6 known civilizations through 5,000 years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe.[1] "Sex and Culture is a work of the highest importance," Aldous Huxley wrote:
Unwin's conclusions, which are based upon an enormous wealth of carefully sifted evidence, may be summed up as follows. All human societies are in one or another of four cultural conditions: zoistic, manistic, deistic, rationalistic. Of these societies the zoistic displays the least amount of mental and social energy, the rationalistic the most. Investigation shows that the societies exhibiting the least amount of energy are those where pre-nuptial continence is not imposed and where the opportunities for sexual indulgence after marriage are greatest. The cultural condition of a society rises in exact proportion as it imposes pre-nuptial and post-nuptial restraints upon sexual opportunity.[2]
>According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The process, says the author, is irreversible:
The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs.[3]
Now into the helicopter, you fucking commie.
>>392510
That really doesn't contradict anything what I'm saying at all. Sexual freedom leads to the collapse of governments - this is a good thing.
So you're authoritarian? that's fine (well not really), but that's a discussion for another thread and another time.
Wasn't the Manson family polyamorous?
How did that work out?
>>392517
>the collapse of governments is a good thing
Only if they are communists.
>>392523
Well, certainly, I would like to believe that some form of synarchism would be agreeable to me, but I don't even know of such system that could ever exist (i don't even know if synarchy is the correct word here). All government that has ever been, and most likely will, will be a conglomerate of bullies, plunderers and murderers. Well dressed mobsters, basically.
>>392510
>A study from 1934
And not understanding sexual dimorphism
>>392477
>in comparison to all the alternatives one man one women was what most people chose and what most people still choose.
I suspect most men would have been polygynous if they'd had the wealth and power. Historically, the vast majority of societies allowed polygamy, although it was usually restricted to a wealthy elite.
https://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/060807.pdf
>>392518
>married couples never collaborated to kill anyone
>>392517
>Sexual freedom leads to the collapse of governments this is a good thing.
Yeah, remember all those great, successful stateless society?
Like...
>>392517
>Sexual freedom leads to the collapse of governments - this is a good thing.
Dumbest shit I've heard all day. Promiscuity doesn't send out magic waves that cause government power to crumble, not that it would be a good thing if it did.
>>391639
Dude would you really feel ok after being legally c.ucked atleast for now most people have the decency to see it as wrong .
>>392637
You can really only call it that as long as you maintain the notion of monogamy. Is the customer of a prostitute getting keked because she fucks other people? No, that doesn't even make sense. Same thing with polygamous or polyamorous relationships.
>>392662
The difference between a prostitute and someone who you have a relationship is that prostitutes are a service while your gf would be your loved who sort of promises to be yours till you guys break up or something
>>393203
>who sort of promises to be yours till you guys break up or something
Non-monogamous relationships would obviously involve a different sort of promise to begin with, wouldn't they? One that doesn't make the relationship dependend on the same kind of sexual or emotional exclusivity, to be precise. Such exclusivity, however, is what gives the concepts of cheating and kekoldry their meaning, so they wouldn't apply under the same conditions.
>>392484
>But if people were raised without any repression towards desires of any sort, this shit wouldn't happen.
That's a real neat baseless assertion you have there.
The only reason you're advocating for "free love" is that you're a pedophile who doesn't want to suffer the legal and social ramifications of preying on innocent children. Kill yourself, scum.
>>393216
Ofcourse that is so but then monogamous relationships are the norm while non-monogamous relationships are the exception and thats probably why they are seen as weird but how would you say a family would look like if non-monogamous relationships became the norm?
>>392510
So Egyptians had less cultural achievements than ancient Jews?
Weren't you buttraped here a few weeks back? Why did you started this thread again? Are you a masochist, OP?
Wilhelm Reich is considered a charlatan even by psychoanalysts. When even fucking psychoanalysts think you are a charlatan, you know you suck.
The study you always cite here is crap. It doesn't take into account endogeneity, it likely had a fuckload of data dredging and selective samples. It is advocacy badly disguised as a study. Anyone with a half decent training in statistics can see that.
Your theories are crap and there are no casual mechanisms.
And if you look at reality: American Ghettos are places of sexual freedom. Women have a lot of partners. Men have a lot of partners. And they are not the peaceful heaven.
>polyamory
A sucker's game unless you are a 10/10 male who regularly turns down women.
>>393216
i dont know who in their right mind would not care about someone else fucking the person they love
>>393336
That guy is just absurdly beta. He would have ended up keked behind his back if he didn't accept the deal. Hell, he was probably already a kek since a few weeks into the relationship.
>>393348
Typical mind fallacy.
>>393296
>how would you say a family would look like if non-monogamous relationships became the norm
I have no idea, and I honestly don't care much, because that's not my problem, man. Making the family unit larger would probably be a positive thing from the standpoint of social stability and individual sense of belonging, so it might work to remedy the isolation many find themselves in.
>>393373
the correct term is mind projection fallacy you c*ck
What makes you think letting yourself be c*cked is better than the overwhelming majority of all human societies that chose the path of monogamous relationships from the beginning of written history until now.
>>393398
I do not think it's better, but if someone likes it, why would I judge? Also, I have already pointed out why the term kek does not apply, are you being stupid on purpose?
>>393398
>overwhelming majority of all human societies that chose the path of monogamous relationships from the beginning of written history until now.
wut? The rich have always been polygamous in non-Christian societies.
>>393433
>The anthropological record indicates that approximately 85 per cent of human societies have permitted
men to have more than one wife (polygynous marriage), and both empirical and
evolutionary considerations suggest that large absolute differences in wealth should favour more polygynous
marriages
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/367/1589/657.full.pdf
And yet the dominate cultures on earth that have created the greatest age of human culture, science and achievements are all monogamous.
If folygamy is so great why does it get keked itself
>>393472
I was refuting the notion that "the majority of human societies chose monogamous relationships", which is blatantly untrue. Polygamy was historically the norm.
That article does raise a point in favor of monogamy, which is that it reduces the number of unmarried men and that creates more social stability, brings out competitiveness and reduces crime rates.
>>393520
>That article does raise a point in favor of monogamy, which is that it reduces the number of unmarried men and that creates more social stability, brings out competitiveness and reduces crime rates.
But nevermind that, let's have polyamory because
>muh pussy
>muh dick
>>393584
I am not OP. I was just refuting a flat out wrong statement that I found when browsing a thread that was already lacking in any arguments at all other than memes and wiki articles about "research" made in the 30s.
>>391639
>people aren't polyamorous because shame
Top kek nigger, I'm not polyamorous because I'm possessive as all fucks, and I'm more than willing to renounce fucking other women if it means the one I love will behave the same way towards me.
Fuck you and your sluts, just let me chill with my gf, every other woman and man can die for all I care.
>>393584
If polyamory applies to both men and women, as it is supposed to, the problem of too many single men would not arise.
>>393648
thats implying all men are equal in value.
the 20/80 that MRA cry about could actually become a reality.
>>393648
Nope, because it doesn't de facto equally apply to men and women simply due to how nature works.
>>393648
from the article>>393472
When competition for mates is fierce, lessattractive
low-status men risk being shut-out entirely
from mating. Since the fitness difference between
having one long-term mate and zero mates is—on
average—large, low-status males should often pursue
risky, high-stakes, strategies that provide some
chance of avoiding fitness oblivion [15]. This means
that cues that indicate intensive intra-sexual selection
should spark competitive motivations, steep temporal
discounting and risk proneness. Low intra-sexual
competition means that nearly all males can find at
least one mate, and status gains do not lead to
steep increases in reproductive success. Here, pursuing
safe, long-term strategies like pair-bonding is
favoured—that is, men will be more risk-averse and
more patient. All fathers must decide whether to
invest in their offspring or in seeking additional
mates. This decision should depend on paternity certainty,
and on the marginal payoffs to investing in
offspring versus additional matings. When the rich
high-status men cannot easily gain additional mates,
they should invest more in offspring (see electronic
supplementary material).
to summarise, in a polygamous society only the fittest males would get to reproduce with the females causing the less fit males to seek drastic measures to compensate such as rape, killing ect.
By having a monogamous society you ensure almost all males get one long term female partner.
Since males know they have a partner to breed with they can invest time and energies on the children produced and society itself.
Polygamy is literally just for degenerate hedonist who dont seek to further civilisation.
>>393648
It might reduce crime rates just as well, but I wouldn't be sure about bringing out competitiveness.
If the responsibility of producing money is shared by three adults, then each individual will have less pressure to work harder.
Also, since it becomes easier to have a relationship with a woman, you might feel less pressed to be the best man you can be.
>>393658
>>393678
>>393685
You faggots forget one thing: polyamory would enable alpha males to establish a shared harem of 10/10s, leaving lower level sluts completely chadless. Now even if there are more sluts fucking the alphas than there are chadless sluts, I'd figure this would still leave us with at least 1 lower tier woman for 5 lower tier men, and these women won't be too picky given that betas are pretty much exchangeable with each other. So in my vision of a polyamourous society, even the lowliest robot would end up with at least 1/5 of a gf. Which is substantially more than they have now.
>>393777
>So in my vision of a polyamourous society
and literally what authority are you on the matter?
"robots" now are an extreme fringe group who have no impact on society
id rather have that then constant inter-household conflict and higher competition for even shit females
nice fake statistics too
>>393807
extreme fringe as in unacknowledged and scarce in numbers
>>393807
>"robots" now are an extreme fringe group who have no impact on society
I use it as a general term for men who can't get laid, as it was suggested that they would suffer from a further decrease in monogamy.
>>393777
The issue is uglies would rather stay unfucked than fuck robots.
>why aren't you a cu.ck yet?
>>393777
Robots are an unpleasant and downright worthless kind. I am certain that if 80% of the male population suffered a sudden heart attack today and monogamy was still culturally enforced, more women would rather go lesbian or embrace loneliness than date a robot.
>>393858
what an image
>>393870
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7qTPUj7wVc
>>393648
How retarded do you even have to be to not know that females are more choosy (as a consequence of higher investment in procreation) AND the present western culture purports that if one has a vagina, one is special and deserves the best of what life has to offer even if you don't sell your labor/knowledge to produce value in society.
Polyamory is literally a meme.
>>391753
Not a great analogy. We're built to walk and run, but it does wear down our joints pretty quickly if we aren't careful, even before we hit extreme sports or marathon running.
That aside, you've gotta be pounding some hearty dongs into a girl to wreck her. Like, inhumanly big. So unless you're surrounded by women who love literal horse dick, I wouldn't worry too much about worn out vaginas.
For the majority of history in the majority of regions, monogamy & sexual restraint has been promoted. Throughout this time, sexual deviancy was rare, mainly confined to bourgeois like Marquis de Sade.
Today, western society is extremely sexually open. And today, eople are more sexually open & sexually deviant than ever. Every other person has some kind of twisted fetish.
Yet your argument is that repression causes sexual deviancy? When the world around you proves the exact opposite?
>>396556
>For the majority of history in the majority of regions, monogamy & sexual restraint has been promoted.
For the majority of history in the majority of regions, those who promote culture have attempted to use it to control the ungovernable producers of social surplus.
Fuck off with this ad populum patrician
>>393633
this desu
whether people want to be keks or not be keks. whether men want a harem or women want a sausage feast is nothing to me
give me a pure qt3.14 waifu that will love me the same I love her and you can all fuck each other as much as you want
>>391639
>oh gee, I wonder what this wonderful man's ethnic background could be
>>397970
I also laughed my ass off when I found out he was Jewish.
But let's be real, this is pure ad-hom and should not refute the man's position. I won't say that he just happened to be Jewish, rather it was because he was a Jew that became gained interested in psychoanalysis. That doesn't mean that he is inherently wrong though.
>>397978
After reading the first sentence of the OP my first thought was "yep, obvious jew".
And of course he gained interest in psychoanalysis because he was jewish, what better way to subvert the foundations of the European Christian societies he so despised?
bamp
