Love is a bourgeois lie

This is 100% correct line.

Not egalitarian. It's to ensure the reproduction of the relations of production.

Lmao, what kind of idealist horseshit is this? Fuck off, your retarded personal problems aren't capitalism's fault.

A. FUCKING. MAOIST.

Grow up. No one on this board gives a shit about you not being able to get laid.

Marriages are a control the sexual free market and ensure an egalitarian distribution of sex. One man. One wife.

Learn some fucking theory. "Love" is a product of capitalist RoP.

I love my gf.

How about you read some fucking Marx instead of whatever idealist drivel you subscribe to? Love has absolutely nothing to do with capital, and furthermore the concept of "love" existed in almost every pre-capitalist society in existence.
What the fuck does love have to do with the rate of profit? You're talking out of your ass.

It's hormones/chemicals in your brain mixed with 1st world conditioning. Nothing more.

I love the chemicals in my brain that make my heart flutter around my gf

Marx agrees with me as do Engels, Lenin, Gramsci and Mao.

It has everything to do with capital. Learn2 DiaMat.

Love exists in every society with property. Most Native Americans, indigenous Africans and indigenous Pacific Islanders had zero concept of "love" before colonials imposed it on them.

RoP = relations of production

Animals love too, so are they also victims of the bourgeois?

this is why materialism is the philosophy of the intellectually deprived. all you do is try and fit everything into your profoundly limited understanding that everything must be part of the great material system. not everything needs to be labelled and twisted to fit your flawed philosophy.

t. not a stupid gommie

t. "skeptic community" comment bot

As a recovering Althusserian, I'm still somewhat sympathetic to this view. The family structure has changed a great deal and it ultimately does reproduce capital (to a certain extent anyway). Cultural Revolution is something all communists should strive for anyway.

In Judaism, you never marry for love. Marriages are arranged by a matchmaker, and you're only supposed to fuck for the sake of having kids (I could explain all the esoteric reasons for this, but this thread is autistic enough). See this:
youtube.com/watch?v=SlTDEJFTFZQ

Every man whom I've loved betrayed me and decided out-of-the-blue I was disgusting. I would never, ever give my body to any male unless it's for the purpose of having children. However, instead of complaining, I've chosen to move on. Being in love is a major distraction and I'd rather focus on learning theory, writing, etc.

Reductionist garbage. This is entirely wrong.

You, comrade, are not an Althusserian. For if you were, you'd concede your perceptions of science are entirely influenced by capitalist ideology too. You also contradict yourself here. You can't say "love is a construct" and then try to prove its validity by appealing to natural sciences.

No they don't. They only mate.

Materialism is scientific unlike idealism.

Because it is. Care to show otherwise?

No it's correct and can be proven.

[citation needed]
Explain how then, brainlet.
Explain how property is responsible for the existence of "love".

This user is profoundly non-materialist, you fucking mongoloid.

...

Read Engels' Origins of the Family.

The family only exists to further the existing relations of production. It doesn't come out of people's own free will, because if it did then it would be a universal which it's not. Most cultures didn't believe in love until white European colonizers forced the idea on them.

Not everyone is a kike baby.

Jesus christ you are retarded

What does me having sex have anything to do with my arguments? You're making ad homs.

Also, how do you contest this:

By not cohabiting, you are using up more resources, in capitalist society that means, no love, porky profits,

Polyamory rejects monogamous love.

and wot, its still love.

Are you fucking kididng me? Love is a huge industry for capitalism. How much money is spent on weddings, raising kids, buying a house in a "safe" neighborhood, even dating is all about money?

It's not.

ITT: the benefits of not having an incel containment thread.

How is your sex life though?

Yes but, we used to live in big, tight knit communities, now we are so far alienated that we live alone, in "indigenous societies" this is pretty much unheard of, obviously there are hermits and such, but these are usually also spiritual types, it isn't at all the norm.

Capitalism breaks down communal structures, love is a key competent in these structures and one of the last ones left standing.

Also

If you went out and actually talked to women you would realise that this is basically very few of them. Key tip, the more she looks like porn, the more basic she is generally going to be. There are many exceptions to this. But generally, that is how it is.

uhu yes it is toooo

post proofs
affection and companionship were intrinsic parts of the behaviour of most mammalian and bird species. It is almost universal among apes. Anthropology shows that affectionate long-term relationships are part of all human societies.
Monogamy is certainly tied to property but is not a 'western colonial' export but rather a trait of advanced societies where private property has been established alongside patrilineality.

Take away the word monogamous from the word love and what do you get?

What does it matter?

That's what I'm saying. Abandon capitalism's notions of "love" and you will liberate your mind from capital's trappings. As soon as you fall in love you become capital's pawn even more so than you were before.

Sorry but true equality doesn't mean you can value a "loved" one more than other humans. Communism is about equality. A man in love doesn't act rationally and doesn't treat people equally, therefore love is evil and it furthers the ancap cause.

Oh I'm just curious. Don't wanna talk about it for some reason?

but it isn't you burger :DDDDDD

he's right actually. you are trying to discredit him by insinuating that he's a virgin.

t. nonvirgin

Communism is about creating a classless society.
But by making fun of virgins and boasting of your sexual freedom and proclaiming your love for someone else, you are putting yourself and your gf in a class above everyone else. So you're literally bourgeois scum.

Correct. Love is about possession over one other human being which is outright incompatible with communism.

What if I'm actually just curious? Though talking about a subject without first hand experience will always be less convincing than the opposite case now that you bring it up but that's beside the point.

...

Are you just fishing for (You)'s?

Nice to find that your time is your own to do with as you wish, I must agree. I hope your bitterness fades with time.

You're just like the alt-right.
Switching to ad hominems instead of recognising that you've lost.

Marrying is burgouise but loving someone isn't you fuck, try to clean yourself up and you'll meet some pretty nice girls trust me maoist

Because having sex with the same person, getting to know them and knowing how to satisfy them whenever, same goes for me. I don't want to have to constantly figure out how to satisfy my new partner every few weeks or so.

How are they any different in practice?

This is just self-centeredness.

Combat liberalism.

I am self centered, as any communist from the proletariat should be, as communism is in my direct self interest, regardless of any liberal negative rights theory.

You're going to become a liberal in three years kid.

No, because I have to sell my labor to the market, it would be in my direct self interest to reduce the alienation from my labor. The labor aristocracy is still low on the pyramid, the pyramid needs to come down if the species is to survive, it's in my direct self interest to prevent the apocalypse that is austerity.

Making a case for socialism on self-interest alone is utopian. Grow the fuck up.

Rational egotism woks to plug the holes the leaking dam that is solidarity.

You'll be a liberal the second you get laid, kid.

Historically marriage hasn't been associated with love and love hasn't been associated with marriage. Love is an emotional relationship typically involving a strong desire for intimacy and cohabitation. On the other hand marriage is a legal contract which confers certain benefits to the people involved in terms of linking their property estates and establishing patrilineal lines of inheritance hence its historic role in the maintenance of property rights where is was frequently unrelated to love. Thus those in love with eachother have strong self-interest to get married for simple convenience as well as the role of the state in repressing relationships not mandated by marriage leading those in love to get married while this was in place.
Moreover marriage is not bourgeois there is such a thing as bourgeois marriage but this is not marriage as a whole. Marriage predates the bourgeoisie and certainly its predominance as a class shaping the superstructure of societies.

If you had one man, one wife, to seize everything you ever wanted, in one moment, would you capture it, or let it slip?

Everything is material. So what the point of saying that love it's only hormones/chemicals ? You only said a platonic thuth

Because chemicals/hormones can be proven through science. "Love" as anything more cannot. Your impressions of what "love" is are conditioned by capitalism.

This is such a dumbshit argument. Just because absolutely everything can be amounted to "chemicals in the brain" does not mean that we should think, understand and analyze things in such terms. Ignoring all socioeconomic influences in our thinking in favor of understanding it as "X thing does Y" is incredibly reductionist at best. You can see the results of this flawed thinking in fields such as psychiatry, where the only thing that matters is adding one or two chemicals to the body so that the good people can keep working and nothing else. Sort of seeing the forest for the trees, if you catch my drift.

I've already said capitalist society influences the way you understand those hormones, but at the end of the day it's still hormones.

Alright, so love is just hormones. What exactly is your point here again?

That revolutionaries need to reject "love" in both theory and practice and recognize it as a tool of capitalism.

are you retarded ?

So much essentialism in this thread. There is definitely a capitalist industry to produce "love," romantic relationships and marriage. However this does not mean that love/romance/marriage are essentially bourgeois. You are simply confusing capitalist love/romance with love/romance in general. And I think that people are making fun of OP rightly, because anyone who has really been in love or in successful relationship can probably see this.

I think the mature thing to do here is to examine how capitalism has shaped our concepts and practices of love, not to be autistic and reduce a whole dimension of human life and concern to being purely a product of capital.

wtf does this mean

...

read a book

t.jordan Peterson

t.brave new world.
(implying capitalism isn't already atomizing individuals and reducing sex to a commodity.)

To be honest, being in love is - for me anyway - a huge waste of time, because my mind gets so fixated on the other person that I lose sight of potential things I could be doing instead.

Like I said, in Judaism no one really marries or has children for love, but for eugenicist and messianic reasons (I don't want to share the esoteric details of it all with a group of people as disgusting as Holla Forums, but just to give you a hint, a lot of it has to do with our understanding of reincarnation and what Jewish souls need to accomplish in order to bring the messianic era).

Call me a Judeo-chauvinist, but I personally think the Hasidic approach to family and reproduction is a much better model for radical leftists to follow. Our organizations/parties can have matchmakers who can hook up compatible comrades (i.e. take an ivory tower post-Althusserian academic and hook her up with a hardcore IWW organizer, match up an armchair leftcomm with a very active ML). Having kids should be primarily for creating the next generation of revolutionaries, which is why we need to set up our own educational institutions. Seems like a much better approach than "mfw no gf waaaa".

Engels literally argues in pic related that bourgeoisie relationships based on forced monogamy and property rights would lead to prostitution and immoral behavior and it would only be the proletariat that would be able to succeed in being free from such restraints. Theirs instead would be a guaranteed voluntary monogamous sex-love relationship as the lack of inheritance would cause monogamy to come naturally due to relationships being based entirely on sex-love.

Who said anything about sex as a commodity?

Elsewhere Engels said he hated the family unit.

does this mean i can get a hot shia hezbollah gf?

Depends how much you work for the cause now.

I think matchmaking isn't an entirely bad idea. Everyone going out on a quest to find their One True Love is idealist bourgeois garbage.

At the same time having children solely for the purposes of the Revolution seems rather joyless and I would venture that either A) having children would disabuse you of this notion or B) your children would hate you and rebel against being instrumentalized like that.

Also you know souls and reincarnation don't exist right? Communism is the only true religion.

Son WTF are you talking about. I am in love. Are you going to sit there and tell me I am not, that I am just imaging it to fullfill porky's desires? LMAO

I don't have kids nor a family

Sure, free speech also serves their purposes as well, yet we hijack it to spread leftist messages. Similiarily, being pro gun is something the rightists love, yet as leftists we hijack gun rights to keep possibility of revolution alive.
And I'd argue reproduction of leftists in the 1st world serves the 3rd world, as it creates more future leftists to oppose imperialism from within the belly of the beast

Honestly I'm done here, I'm not gonna keep arguing, but you maoists are fucking batshit insane.

He argued against the bourgeoisie and capitalist conception of the family unit, not the family or monogamous relationships themselves. To Engels it was capitalism that ruined monogamy and birthed a perversion of the family, not that monogamy or families were wrong or by themselves a result of capitalism.

Protip: if she takes her religion seriously, she isn't going to want to marry a non-believing white bloke from Holla Forums.

If you're going to lead the revolution, you need to set a strong example for others. Why not dedicate your entire life to revolution? Would you rather raise your children "neutral" and have their minds be taken over by capitalist institutions instead? There is no neutrality in any form of social organization.

...

Do Daily Mail readers actually believe this?

Threads like this is why I'm no longer a leftist lmao

true fact: the khmer rouge did exactly what you're proposing jew.

She sounds like a crazy cultist, no wonder regular people don't want anything to do with gommunism

If you're at the point where you have to reject the physical world as we sense it to deny the reality that our brains are machines you might as well just fucking kill yourself man

b-but, love is just oxytocin being released by cells and acting upon other cells in the nucleus accumbens, activating G-coupled protein receptors and initiating neurological activity beyond the understanding of most neuroscientists, therefore its not real and just a chemical

I would rather not have children myself and instead corrupt the minds of other's children.

The thing is that no parent can have complete control over how their kids turn out. Yes, their minds will most likely be taken over by capitalist institutions. It is inevitable. Are you gonna tell your kids to NOT want the latest capitalist toy/gizmo hyped by whatever media they'll be glued into? They will want it, and you will give in and buy it for them.

If you want them to be revolutionaries, then you have to set an example, and they will either choose to emulate you or not. I think if you're going to take the responsibility to bring children into the world then you have to at least respect them enough to give them that choice. Not that anyone really takes such responsibility which is why there are so damn many of them.

No shit, but just because there's a possibility the kids won't go for it, does that mean you shouldn't even make an attempt to begin with?

No issue there. I'm speaking to comrades who do want children, not ones who don't.

Okay.

It's still real though, it still happens, but it's caused by chemicals.

Love is used for an endorphin that's used for assertative mating, you fool.

Are you saying because love is meditated by a middleman factor (i.e. chemicals) that the phenomena love doesn't exist? Not even middle schools make arguments that's stupid. Here, let's follow this logic: humans value food. Humans economically use money to value food. Since money is a human construction value for food can not economically exist. See how retarded that is?

yea no I agree, was just shitposting. Everything we experience is just chemicals. The fucking table your computer is sitting on is just chemicals. Its the perfect cop out for quasi-intellectuals.
The reality is those "chemicals" create our consciousness and massively impact how we see our world. They apply a contotation to things, this is the marriage of psychology and neurophysiology. Most have little understanding of this and reduce it to simply platitudes like "it's just chemicals"

Would you marry a gentile?

There's a near certainty they won't go for it if you push it on them. Parenting is a dialectical process, not a one way street, and kids don't exist to serve your purposes.

There is a parallel here as well with the vanguard and working class.

Not even middle schoolers make arguments that stupid.*

...

Those chemicals are just atoms bro, there's no such thing as chemicals.

So isn’t this just a why live type of thread?

okay, that was my mistake
but capitalism is already making sex into the attachment free activity you propose

See

I was just shitposting. I also posted this:

I also happen to know a lot about neurobiology. As I mentioned in my other post, and I hear the ALL THE FUCKING TIME, people claiming things are "just chemicals", which is the most useless fucking statement in existence because EVERYTHING that is matter is chemicals. It's retardation on a level previously thought impossible

Still, you should try to teach your children your values to the best of your ability. If they leave the fold, they leave the fold, you can only reward yourself knowing you did your best. You are their primary example after all.

I'm guessing you're one of those people who thinks bringing up children in a religion amounts to child abuse, eh? Implying secularism isn't just western Christianity with G*d and Jeebus taken out.

I certainly wouldn't marry you.

And those atoms are just 99.99999% empty space, a tiny nucleus with 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧electrons🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 floating around it.
How are we even real?

lolwut

Living your values is noble, and I commend you for it, but don't expect less zealous people to follow your lead. I rather be able to decide whom I love and when, even if it doesn't make sense.

wow, so much for those universalist traditions.

that is actually true

There's more to existence than particles. Go read the /fringe/ recommended reading list.

You're making it all about yourself. I'm going to teach them MY values, and then when they rebel against me I can feel self-satisfied in having done my "best." Can't you see this is the same pattern repeated endlessly in capitalist families? Children are always a chance at something new, they are in a way inherently revolutionary. It is society and especially parents which stamp it out of them.

I think quite the opposite, that secularism is undesirable precisely because we need Christianity with G*d and Jesus taken out (i.e. Marxism).

...

brainlet here, can you explain further for me

Ah yes the 'convince me leftypol is pure evil' thread

Another thing, you're probably aware how Althusser was a devout Catholic until he met his wife, a female Resistance fighter, only then did he join the FCP, don't you find that poetic? What if love is one of the ways the Eternal intervenes in human history.

Coping mechanisms general? I unironically believe that sex feels nice, but it's the best human interaction has to offer, and isn't worth the unfreedom that is social relationships.

So you choose to return the favor and decide all men are evil and you want nothing to do with them? You are just as bad as the men your calling out.

I have chosen to believe this as it makes me feel better, about not having a girlfriend

...

...

Both of you need to understand why many women have such an aversion to men in the first place.

We break our backs to serve men in this system. We're under constant pressure to be "good enough" for men. Why should I - or any leftist woman for that matter - do such a thing when we could instead be improving ourselves? Why spend all the time looking pretty, cooking our boyfriends dinner, etc. when we could be studying theory, organizing a picket line, and so on? And if he dumps us, then it was all for nothing. We waste so much time trying to please men when we could be creating our own autonomy.

Also, I'm not OP so I agree with this:

...

This is literally the exact argument I've heard from MGTOW men (except the only theory they study is libertarian). It comes from bitterness, since obviously 50% of the human race isn't all the same. It isn't based on nothing, since yes oppressive and restrictive gender roles do exist. Many men also feel they are under pressure to be "good enough" for women believe it or not. The question is whether there is space for love even as capitalism oppresses us and artificial gender relations are breaking down, and I think the answer is yes. We should be working on ourselves autonomously, but love is when you don't see the difference between helping the other and yourself, when that difference becomes meaningless.

I don't see why you're getting so defensive.

The difference is, when men go out of their way to please women it almost always entails taking on an *active* role (i.e. working your ass off to make money, studying enough so you can impress women with your intelligence, being strong enough so you can defend your wife) whereas with women it always entails passivity and taking on the role of weakness (i.e. making ourselves look pretty, staying confined to the home). There is no benefit in these things outside of pleasing men; it's not like putting tons of makeup (most of which is filled with toxins FYI; I used to work in cosmetics) on our faces enables us to grow intellectually.

I don't study theory, go to protests, fuck shit up on May Day, etc. in order to find a boyfriend, and neither do most other women on the far-left who are "woke" enough to see through all the bullshit patriarchal capitalism has thrown on us (notice how if a man said the same thing - "I don't go to protests to find a gf" - his motives would never be challenged).

But humour me. What would you say to a leftist woman who has been hurt by leftist men again and again and who feels there's no point to her finding love ever again?

What the fuck does that matter either way? A bad argument is a bad argument regardless of who's making it.

That's what you get for associating with heathen who believe sex should be casual and not bound under the sanctification of marriage. Repent and become a Christian.

I'm a religious Jew…

So you already knew what you were getting into by dating heathen men and you still did it? Smh tbh famalam

...

This was years before I became religious though.

Ah I see. Well that really can't be helped then. Let the past stay in the past and earnestly seek the Lord's direction. Perhaps he wishes for you to remain celibate, who knows. I will pray for you.

Wow. This is the worst thread I've ever seen here. This was a terrible experience. I'm in awe at this thread and it's complete lack of "meaningful" discussion. It's like this entire thread was three schizophrenics in an improvement play. Bravo.

Love is ok, marriage is not.

Jeebus was notle happy merchant meem.

I'm defensive because this is just how I communicate.

You think men want to do that shit? Working their ass off for money, studying things they would not otherwise study to impress women? I for one refuse to work harder than I otherwise would or waste my time with things I find uninteresting simply to please women. The irony is that you stereotype men as active, whereas many men want to be passive and play video games or post on forums. This is a surefire way to not get a gf. The deadlock we are facing now is that men are perpetual adolescents, whereas women are mature beyond their years and taking on the responsibilities traditionally associated with men but now abandoned by them. Women want a man who is even more active and mature than they are, which is becoming increasingly difficult, because even if men were capable of this they lack the desire cause they sense that its just not worth it.

I don't think you're necessarily wrong in your approach of going your own way. I just think that it doesn't make sense to blame this on men, many of whom also are going their own way for different reasons. It is just contradictions and impossibilities of gender relations playing themselves out.

Also what kind of leftist guy demands you wear makeup? Most of the time makeup looks really fake and I personally prefer if women look like real women and not dolls.

Get this left liberal bullshit out of here.

Pretty par for the course for this board whenever this topic comes up. It's honestly impressive how utterly incapable either side is of discussing it without devolving into complete retardation.

...

NEETs are not something unique to men. There are many women - Third-Wave "feminists" included - who also wish to remain passive (why do you think so many white women convert to Islam for the sole purpose of being a halal tradwife and finding a nice brown prince to pamper them?).

This is why I question to what extent women in postmodernity have become "mature beyond their years". Third-Wave "feminism" is very much going off on this very notion: women need to remain docile, not fight, not be proactive, not go out and grab what they desire, but to sit on their asses and use emotional blackmail on men. That "IT'S NOT MY JOB TO EDUCATE YOU!" rallying call is a perfect indicator of what I mean. These Judith Butler wannabes mean nothing to me.

I don't want a man. A boyfriend for me would be a major distraction from learning theory, getting involved in leftist events, and such. Why should I spend all my time thinking about a man who will probably dump me in no time at all when I could be pondering all the little riddles in Marx and Gramsci?

Men were the ones fucking with me, and their behaviors are primarily influenced by patriarchal social structures. "Don't hold anyone to personal responsibility, just blame capitalism" doesn't work to ease these kinds of situations.

For the record, I don't care what other leftist women do.

You have no clue as to how far women will go to please men whether men specifically ask for it or not.

What about everywhere else?

Some people prefer such an arrangement. Who are you to tell people not to be happy?

What result are prostitution, pedophilia and eventually child abuse.

That is exactly what I was thinking! Thank you based user.

Enjoy getting bred by a Jewish MLM I guess.

I'd call up a shadchan, but if leftist men are this bad when it comes to women I don't even want to know what frum guys are like.

I have no idea what you're saying, I assumed you were down with Hasidic reproduction and would attempt to reproduce jewish primitivists at some point with a jewish leftist.

I'd be down for it, but – it's not going to happen.

OP is a complete idiot

Romantic love is stupid. Sexuality is stupid. I long for the day when human beings are grown in labs and no engages in either of these stupid practices.

Aside from marriage being a construct to pass inherited wealth to biological children, I don't see this as wholly fundamental to the overthrow of capitalism though. I do think all sexual activity, even for procreation, leads to inevitable bad consequences, and that continuing the so-called sexual revolution (more like sexual hyper-liberalism) is just asking for class society to re-emerge in some other form, probably along lines of so-called "merit" (which will just be rehashed eugenics and a world where everyone lies, cheats and games the system and the slimiest rise to the top, that's how these things usually work out).

Why? I'm not propositioning you as I'm neither jewish or a MLM, just curious why you wouldn't live your values in this case.

so many retards in this thread immediately tying sex to love

purest form of love is platonic
(but also still a lie probably.)

Fuck off and be alone if you want just dont try and con us into sharing your misery. Fucking snake.

I mean, I doubt I'd find anyone who fits that bill (nearly every Jewish leftist dude I've known has been a self-flagellating fuck), so I live my values alone.

It never ceases to amuse me how sexualists are so defensive about their habits and can't stand the idea of people rejecting sexualism. I would think the prevalence of rape, abuse, and so on would be a better argument for cutting off every man's testes and ripping out every woman's ovaries than anything else. No sex, none of these problems.

reads like a post from someone who wants to be in love or someone who has loved and lost rather than someone presently in love

t. freud

Why do you care if he's self-flagellating, isn't his only purpose to pump you full of baby batter?

There's only so much you can take though.

Wew
news.ubc.ca/2012/01/23/monogamy-reduces-major-social-problems-of-polygamist-cultures/

Think about what you wrote and why it is problematic user. Take your time.

SAGE this thread you stupid idiots

Holla Forums was right again

Platonic love is Patrician fam

No it is to ensure that there are not a whole lot of unhappy young men which then leads to an unstable society in which those young men are no longer willing to participate and are actively seeking to overthrow. Can you point at any human civilization at any point in history that didn't enforce some form of a pair bond between men and women?

I do not think romantic love exists and is a bourgeois lie. But I do believe platonic love exists, it does not require transactions and is much less conditional.

Jesus fucking Christ get over yourself. Historically states didn't give a fig about grown mens' feefees unless they were noble enough to get special privileges. The idea of perfect monogamy is just a myth sold by reactionaries to recruit weak men with sexualism.

Reactionaries base their ideology on sexualism. The people who corrupted the left use sexualism to undermine resistance, so that the left is more interested in fucking orgies than actual meaningful resistance to capitalism. Sexualism is a god damned disease.

Monogamous institutions make sure that men give quality time to their wives and not treat them like sex slaves. It also ensures that women aren't discarded so easily when they grow old.

This is a problem that takes care of itself. Love and the traditional monogamous relationship are quickly becoming an intolerable liability for the 21st century worker. The family is no longer the most efficient way to create productivity gains.
Capitalism is moving towards a more contractual and investment-based form of child rearing. If you thought marriage was already this then considered it an evolution into something leaner, meaner, and less human.

Wow, OP, you really are an enormous, cum-guzzling faggot.

...

Bump-lock it

At the least this thread was entertaining

Ah, you did bumplock. Thanks.

Aye, it was only unlocked to show how big a faggot OP is.

Nope.

They're an existent, materially verifiable neurobiological state.

That's your problem, not its', and that's not love.

Read Engels

not all me men liked their woman caked on in makeup,