A Marxist Critique of the Sexual Economy

reddit.com/r/Incels/comments/6uoqhs/a_marxist_critique_of_the_sexual_economy/

what the fuck is this

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/kollonta/
bigthink.com/videos/who-you-find-attractive-is-based-on-how-hot-you-are
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Upvote this shit for class conciussness.

Distilled autism.

Reddit, keep that faggotry away from us.

Marriage and child support give special property right to women that cause weird perversions in dating, courtship and society, the end.

Thinking everything can be broken down into markets is pure ideology.

...

single payer child support sounds like a good idea

you wouldn't even necessarily need to go that far, just make whoever has the kid pay and watch how amicable to sharing custody women become suddenly lol.

Holy kek. In time the neckbeard typed the wall of text he could've do something to improve his personally and get laid. Doubt even freely available mental care could help with these levels of insanity.

Sounds like a big "fuck you" to single parents.

How, if you can't pay pawn them off to your ex.

The father is a "single parent" too. Even though we only associate women as being single parents generally.

Yeah fuck this. Usually it's the ex that does everything in her power to take your children from you. This means you can't see you fucking daughter and you have to pay half of you salary for the rest of your life while she's getting fucked by some bobby in england

My suggestion was to make the parent with the child pay only, the parent without the child pays nothing. This gives a MATERIAL incentive to share custody. It wouldn't solve cases where one parent has much more money then the other, but it would where post parents make about the same, which is both families.

If he gets the custody, the mother has to pay child support under current system. The tricky part is getting the custody as a man due sexism.


If the mother wins the custody, and you pay child support, you get visit rights and the likes under normal circumstances.

Till the kid isn't a kid anymore.

How is this relevant? You can fuck bobby in England too.

*which is most families

It still doesn't eliminate the incentive to fight over custody, since it indebts one party to the other. Child support gives you property rights that the bourgeois don't even get, you can go to jail for not paying.
The party that benefits most from this is the state that use child support as a interest bearing slush fund. Having parents going to jail for not paying debts doesn't help children,

That can be an absurd amount of work and easier to just analyze it

Which is inevitable given that only one party can have the kid. Which in turn means more bills.

So it's either putting the party with the kid in a horrible financial position, or having the other party who contributed to the creation of the problem, to pay their share. Or single payer child support … which sounds suboptimal tbqh, since it's an issue created by the involved parties.

When women can't pay and are cannot find work they can rely on the welfare state, just extend this consideration to men. If men can't pay provide welfare for the child.

Not so fast pal. Really I don't want to be that guy but the law always favours the woman when it comes down not only to child custody but visits rights too. If you had some indiscretion or something that is considered nasty and if your judge is a woman you are basically screwed. Only 2 afternoons a month, even if you are basically working only to pay that bitch at this point and you never have time to visit her, plus she lives in another country. Really. Plus you still pay half of your salary

Pathetic.

The sexual free market NEEDS to be reformed. It is obvious.

single payer child support is a whole lot more succinct than whatever this lib shit is

Exactly, lots of bills that which ever party has the child is going to get tired of paying and therefore is going to be far more willing to enter a fair shared custody of the child with the other parent.

Isn't that the case in most civilized countries already?


Well, with normal circumstances I did mean if there wasn't some sexism against men in court affecting the decision, basically the way the system works in theory. In practice, men often get fucked indeed.

Don't think there is any elegant solution for that though. Limiting the rights of the custody winner to move is more draconian than making visits harder. It sucks but the alternatives sound even worse.

Problably yeah, there is such thing in some other country?

...

Not in burgerland, if a father can't pay regardless of circumstances they go into debt and ultimately can wind up in debtors prison.

Pathetic.

The sexual free market NEEDS to be reformed. It is obvious.

hmm

marxists.org/archive/kollonta/

Sounds like a better idea in theory than it is. In practice it's forcing people together who have horrible relationship with each other, when there are great reasons for separation.


Pretty insane, then again, what other country actually has for profit prisons.


Got any proposition beyond forcing people to fuck someone they don't want to fuck?

I said to extend welfare to the child when either parent cannot pay, I support strengthening the welfare state too.

making either parent pay is liberal

There is literally nothing wrong with a compulsory society wide totalitarian matching system. The sexual free market cannot continue to empower a tiny minority of males and 80% of females. It cannot. It will not. Bourgeois notions of sexual liberation HAVE TO BE abolished.

I said to not make either parent pay.

There needs to be hikkikomori rehab centers like they have in japan.

It pretty tricky to tell when you're joking on the Internet.

Yeah fuck no pal. I'm not a chad but I like my pussy different every day

This is not a joke. Sexual liberation is bullshit you might as well argue for free markets next. If you believe in bourgeois free love you are a reactionary piece of shit.

Stop trying to use Marxism to get laid. It simply won't work

Alright-o. Let's pretend you're serious. What will you do when the state assigns you a 500kg whale?

You don't want parents to be obligated to meet the needs of their children? This some "deliverance" stuff right here.

Most of us have sex, sorry for your loss.

My duty user……my duty….

I'm just trying to use it to dismantle crypto property rights.

Use my tongue to clean the fat rolls of my new wife lest she report me to the People's Bureau of Population Control

i want us to be obligated to meet the needs of the children

The state will not assign me a 500 kg landhwale because I am not a 500kg landhwale. The state will assign me someone that matches me. That is, because I am slightly below average in looks and of average weight and slightly below average height, I wilk be assigned a slightly below average girl of average weight and slightly below average height (who in our barbaric sexual free market system only want to have sex with chad). That is the way it will work, and that is the way it should work.

Thanks for playing.

Where did you get the idea?

So instead of attractiveness it should be purely about physical criteria? So what happens if she has character traits and quirks you absolutely detest?

And you will still be miserable in such an arrangement.

Also, why should we be assigned partners based on superficial traits such as height and weight? What would you do if, in your pathetic dream, get your laudable below-average-but-not-bottom-of-the-barrel wife but she turns out to be a emotionally abusive and insufferable cunt?

Being stuck with an abusive life partner of the opposite sex is better than being an incel. People remaining in ostensibly abusive relationships even in our barbaric sexual free market is a testament to this. Similar to how eating k rations is better than starving. A matching system would in any event attempt to do its best to ensure compatibility as well in any event.

See above.

Oh stop, I've had sex with a few obese women in my life, it's not a big deal, quit being so bourgie.

Surely speaking from experience of trying both, r-right?


It's not really similar. You're still getting food, just not a tasty one. In other scenario, you're not just lonely but constantly bullied. Kinda like eating poisonous food, only that it takes longer to kill you.

What the fuck is the difference from now then faggot?
bigthink.com/videos/who-you-find-attractive-is-based-on-how-hot-you-are

You are incorrect. The overwhelming majority of people are perfect average in looks and perfectly agreeable. The sexual free market is causing 80% of women to only fuck the top 20% of men. The idea that arranged relationships will lead to everyone being stuck with a psychotic abusive landhwale that they hate is not only ahistorical but is refuted by normal distributions of human physical appearance and personality type.

These types do get laid all the time too. We're talking about incels here, who are pretty much unfuckable.

Basic math does guarantee that some of the matches won't be as bad, but a good share of people will get fucked pretty hard, only not in the sexy way.

You have a poor understanding of basic math. The only people who will be fucked in a bad way will be in the absolute minority, and even then it's better than being an incel.

What part of "the sexual free market CANNOT stand" don't you understand?

Almost everyone who didn't get assigned the right partner will get fucked and based on the criteria presented so far, compatibility is almost impossible to ensure, so the "right" couples would mostly determined by chance. The majority would be in some kind of limbo where the partner … exists. And a part of population would be stuck with completely sub-optimal partners, or even worse abusers and incels.

Being with one sounds a lot worse than being one.

The one based on reality and data.

Seems about right although there is a too big emphasis on looks, and the implication that the same personality traits aren't crucial for attractive people either.

You are a joke and your reactionary sexual free market will not stand. Let me present to you a picture your tiny brain can comprehend.

Until you find a way for men to have children, they are simply less valuable biologically. What's the point of politics that deny science?

Way to expose your disgusting reactionary mindset. Go back to reddit, this is an actual leftist board.

Hence reality and science matter, sorry.

Leftists do not use "science" to justify social Darwinism and supposed "biological hierarchies". Leftists use science to build more fair and equitable societies. Did you get lost here on your way to Holla Forums? Go back there. Don't bother replying to my post I'm not even going to read.

DON'T REPLY to any thread that seems to have r9k tier shit. Sage and report please. This is not political discussion and doesn't belong here.

This is the first step in their ceaseless attempts to have us support this idiocy. It's one of those things where if you even give it enough legitimacy to try and argue logically you lose by default. Don't waste your time on these r9k cretins

but its true, one man can have 30 children in 9 months while women get lucky with 2.

You have to understand that this imbalance of men not having relationships is due to capitalism. Having state sponsored girlfriends sounds fun, but youre literally enslaving people telling them to love who you tell them too. If we abolish capital, social relations will be completely reformed and alienation due to capitalism will be destroyed. This will fix the problem in itself. Not to mention this ideal of comparing everything in some way to a market is fucking retarded. You havnet explained yet how people seeking relationships are a market and if they are, will permeat through the abolishment of markets.

...

Women being able to get pregnant and men not, isn't social darwinism but a simple fact. Certain traits make you more valuable for certain tasks. If the task at hand requires eyes, a blind person is not able to do it, and no amount of politics will change that.

Taking away right of self determination and basically enslaving people is fair?

Kinda redundant. If you'd did some reading, the thread would've been shorter.


Procrastination is a bitch, man.

another point i forgot to add; its not comparable to an oppressive market since when it is sold, it is off the table. You can be a part of it too since the system isnt set up so the Chads lock you out of scoring.

Debt, property and the integration of them is pretty relevant to a discussion of capitalism.

"go back to Holla Forums I refuse to socialise with you for having a different opinion".

So much for your "fair" and "equitable" society…eh pal?
You guy's psychologically cannot practice what you preach yet you never seem to become aware of this.

these threads always make me extremely horny

Dude just go outside holy shit.

I don't know if 80 % of women are going after 20 % of men but there certainly more poor male proles than there is male petite bourgeois, and middle class or wealthy males are more desirable then poor males.

Each day we stray further from the revolution.

Doesn't make any sense at all unless you don't think of women as people, and even then it only barely hangs together.

Even so, everything you said is bullshit. How is not having a fetish for obese people bourgeois?

Just turn off the light, it all feels the same that way, quit being such a spooked prude and take one for our obese comrades.

I agree with you completely. The state should not exist. Taxation is theft. Preach on brother.

Holy shit someone call Chapo

Why is sex framed like this? We don't want to force women to have sex. Sex is a need (and it is proven it is very much a biological need that when unfulfilled shortens life and causes all sorts of illness) that they are witholding and selfishly keeping for themselves and Chad, causing societal disruption. It is -women- who are wrong.

We don't say "why do we have to steal from the rich to give to the poor", because that would imply the bourgeoisie has a legitimate claim to their wealth. No, it is the proletariat who claims the MoP for themselves, because it is their inherent right.

That's not what the shit in OP or in some of the posts said.

You don't need anyone else to give you a hand to solve it.

Because people who don't get laid, tend to be the types who don't have any friends either, which actually causes all that. Not sticking your dick into a pussy. Though it leads to the same problem, forcing people to be friends with people they dislike instead of teaching the disliked people how to be less horrible sounds pretty insane.

So if your dad wants his dick sucked and you don't do it, you're withholding and selfishly keeping your mouth for yourself? According to your own logic you're in the wrong then.

And forcing people to serve few unlikable individuals wouldn't?

Wealth is something they extracted from society, and took a much bigger share for themselves, leaving lesser for the rest. Like baking a motherfucking pie together with couple people and having one guy eating it all.Their body is something people are born with and isn't owed to anyone.

State issued gf when?

Can't believe nobody has pointed this out yet, but this SocDem is clearly the moany fuck who wrote the reddit post.

There's already a thread about this stop reposting this trash: