He believes in marriage

You aren't a serious leftist unless you entirely subsist off of soil based paste and pellets

Carnists should unironically be shot.

Unironically this.

Stirnerfags are ruining everything per usual I see.

...

...

Vulgar Marxists are spooked liberals.
👻👻👻

Communist family structure with horizontal democratic decision-making is the only acceptable family, tbh.

Read Harriet Fraad.

Right, because sexual mores of Feudalism and Capitalism are so similar, not to mention the literally institutionalized boy fucking of slave societies like ancient Greece and Rome, yes, all noble traditions built into the genetic codes of "muh human nature"

I have no problem with monogamous relationships under communism, but marriage should be abolished.

It's clear to me that once you strip away all of the spooks (e.g Muh sacred vows etc.) all you're left with is forming a legal contract to divide up property in certain ways, or gain other kinds of preferential economic rights in relation to the other spouse, should things go south.

Pre-capitalist/feudal societies had marriage. Only totalitarian anarchists want to abolish it. Fortunately they will be eradicated following the revolution so they won't pose a threat to social stability.

marriage (the legal institution) should be abolished right now.
The religious/romantic bonds are not my problem.

...

Fuck feudal societies.
Jacobins gave the aristocrats what they deserved.
Bolsheviks gave the peasants what they deserved.

If this triggers you, you might be a traditionalist.

Fleshfag genocide when?

...

Cryptofascists get the wall

Soon hopefully rbh

...

Good one

This. Under Capitalism the institution of marriage becomes a legal bond of assets, debts, and properties. This is nothing like what marriage meant in the past, but what marriage meant in the past is vastly different from the abstract idea of marriage "traditionalists" want to supposedly defend. If we look at most times in human history, on most parts of the globe, we will find forms of monogamy, and monogamous partners deciding to take part in rituals to symbolize the bond of their love, but that isn't the same as the sort of subordinate, hierarchal, patriarchal type of marriage that trads are talking about, and you even find these kinds of horizontal unions/partnerships in some Feudalism tbh

I married at 21 and I can say with absolute certainty it was the best descion of my life. People should marry young, if you develop together you will most likely stay together. I think the problem with marriage nowadays is that both are old enough and have established thier own personality, so there won't ever be those memories of spending your golden years together cementing your relationship

But I should also say I don't live in the West so cultural practices here are obviously different

Do you lack basic reading comprehension?

I think you may be unable to express yourself in english.

Nice, glad for you user.

spooky

He's saying there is no such thing as "traditional marriage" as you understand it, so he wouldn't care, nor would most Leftists care, if ""totalitarian anarchists"" wanted to abolish the institution of marriage because it's literally just a spook. I'm honestly asking if you're capable of reading, or are you illiterate nigga.

ok
W E W

Yeah it's not for fascist Sovietboos either

This. I prefer monogamy but trying to push your own sexual and romantic preferences on other people is indicative of some deep repression and you should read some psychoanalysis if imagining different types of relationships make you actually angry.

But yeah outside of religious ritual marriage is a bullshit legal contract and just makes a big fucking mess when people dont want to live with the same person forever, which is reasonable and theres no reason it needs to be some big disaster

Now this is a thread I can get behind

That isn't necessary to think that marriage is a bad idea that should be done away with.

Which is very common. Humans aren't usually monogamous in the strict sense. We tend to form long-term pair bonds but not for life.

These are my favorite threads because it's a bunch of people who have had sex less than 5 times if at all, politicizing sex way the fuck out of proportion, and getting in debates about marriages they never want to be in, in the first place.

disgusting

Worry about more important things in your life than the dildos.

Stop watching porn. Guys get the weirdest ideas about dildos and sex in genera from that stuff.

The idea anyone can take a fucking 12 inch dildo in the first place without being in excruciating pain is my favorite part of that

Like there are people here who think thats just normality.

If he can believe that a 6 inch dildo is a 12 inch dildo, then maybe he can believe a 3 inch dick is a 6 inch dick.

Hey! I've had sex at least a few more times then five, and I definitely want to get into a long term monogamous relationship one day and have a nontraditional marriage!!

I'm sorry for your loss

How about who fucking cares

My body, my choice :^)

...

This tbh

Bullshit, fist-fucking is.

My other favorite part is "losing sensitvity" because you're acting like that's a bad thing. Besides it being none of ya dam business, shit is incredibly painful and you have to get use to that. So yeah, most people would rather not be in pain and have a good time.

Do you think like, something going in and out of your body is just pleasant right off the bat? That everything should just be what people are uncomfortable doing, for them personally? Wtf are you smoking

You doth protest too much.

There might be good, utilitarian materialist reasons to prefer certain sexual/relationship practices (ones the lead to happier, better adjusted children etc.). These issues should be researched more before anyone can render clear judgements.

A lot of men like it if it's a little painful for the woman.

i worry about all kinds of things, one of them is dildo-induced erogenous zone desensitization in the human population

That's creepy af honestly.

Pain and pleasure are intertwined

I know but the idea of a guy getting off to causing pain is creepy. Sadism is the opposite of communism imho.

losing sensitivity is bad because then the Thot-Sex Olympics arms race ensues and you have wgfd and chick's who post dick requirements in their tindr bios. its one dimension of the larger sexual crisis that free market capitalism and post-modern conceptions of sex are causing.

Sadism is fundamentally right wing, Nazbol said something intelligent. The fifth seal has been broken

...

cool digits, gud post

...

I get anemic when I'm menstruating

Very cute user
Happy for you

You're never going to have sex and you don't even know why. Good irony tbh.

...

why do you pretend to be left user?

nice one user, chuckled

...

I'm vegetarian…. I've tried going vegan but I work shiftwork and find it very difficult to eat vegan properly. D-do I get a pass?

Leftist Hypocrisy, everyone

...

...

So much for the "tolerant" left

Nice, now I know you've only had sex 6 times.

SOON

Not an excuse. The iron deficient vegan meme is a scientifically confirmed myth. You have no excuse for your sociopathy. Buy a Lucky Iron fish if you're seriously so concerned.

Not an argument, corpsemuncher.

At least you're trying, but come on, you know you are making excuses. Shift work isn't reason for still eating hen periods and pus, fam. I believe you can do it. It make you feel so much better about yourself. Vegetarianism is better than nothing, but you gotta get full woke.

Why do so many leftist feel the need to attack shit like this. I want to get married and raise my own kids, why the fuck would anyone have a problem with that.

You are just as bad as people who think there is something wrong with those who don't choose the nuclear family route. Stop pretending their is some right path these are subjective life choices that we can make for ourselves.

Because like many extremist movements it's populated by clever-silly types and maladjusted, embittered weirdos.

I really don't know how any sane person can look at the dismal performance of orphanages, foundling hospitals and other impersonal institutions that have historically looked after vulnerable children and gone "Gee whiz, imagine if these places were in charge of everyone's kids!"

Actually I can, given that there's probably only a handful of regular posters that even have children

Steroids aren't vegan

THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON IDEOLOGY

Errrrrr

If the traditions you hold so highly predate capitalism, then they must be responsible, at least in part, for the material conditions which allowed capitalism to thrive. You idiot, you fucking moron.

Natbols are unironically the worst type of """"leftists"""".

If the statistics are anything to go by single mothers are marginally better at raising children than wolves in the wilderness

That's a product of the bourgeois family, though.

Pre-capitalist kin networks do a better job of looking after children once the father dies.

Except you're never going to have those networks in societies as urbanised and populated as modern ones even if you magically remove capitalism.

"Pre-capitalist kin networks" work because almost all the aforementioned kin live within a few kilometres of each other, not scattered across the country (or globe) and only interact in person once every few years

Name a good reason for not hurting animals that is not just moralism

I'll probably agree with you if you do, but acknowledge my own hypocrisy in being complicit in the meat industry. I actually wouldn't mind eating vegan generic tasteless nutrition gel but only when it becomes more prolific and worthwhile.

EY. YOU EVA WATCHED GOODFELLAS? I THINK YOU OTTA WATCH GOODFELLAS, OR ME AND MY EXTENDED FAMILY GONNA PAY YA A VISIT.

What is material subsistence
What is reproductive ableism
What is inheritance of private property

That being said, I would never discourage someone from having kids if they are genuine about it, and especially so if they are leftists

Pretty much all of those institutions were developed by the state, in tandem with imperialist ambitions and patriarchal values. They are woefully incapable of providing the organizational flexibility and locality necessary to facilitate such actions, especially so under a capitalist system. Stories of just a few female carers being in charge of dozens more than they can handle, being underpaid with low quality equipment, having little power to manage the actual institution itself over the men that own the organization, too much conflicting interests to be conducive to raising children. More recently if you just consider the common problem with foster care, it simply becomes profitable for some people operating it and they manage to absolutely abuse kids. I reckon it's not impossible to create organizations which could raise kids well, but in contemporary society its especially difficult.

how do i get good at sex

We already have an "organization" that can do that. It is called the (extended) "family".

Yes well the children who currently end up in adoption wards or bouncing around foster care are presumably the ones who do not have some other family that could just take them.

That being said I don't think that one is sufficient, at least not for the sort of definition of child care that I'm considering which is somewhat impersonal. As far as I'm concerned this is also the correct approach to abortion, facilitate ways for the pregnant person to get matched up with potential adopters which will ensure that the material conditions are provided for.

...

Not even necessarily socialism, I just mean more generally there's no reason to think it can't be done

If you just consider a context that isn't directly mediated by patriarchal state relations you will see people can raise kids for others fairly simply. Day care centers in suburban neighborhoods manage to do this, little amounts of coerced regulation and mostly informal agreements between individuals on a horizontal plane, simple and flexible enough to be effective without perpetuating abuse.
Of course this is just a temporary example of child care and not the more permanent say, adoption, but my point is that in the correct context and influence of institutions it is entirely reasonable to raise kids well impersonally

What is you are a fucking retard?