After this motherfucking Breeding Season shit, i have a genuine question

Nah the only real project out there of any value is monstergirlisland.com/ its promised to be free, led by a single guy (So none of this failed project bullshit), has a wide range of things it caters to, and already has an incrediblly large patreon backing.

I've dated.
I don't really want to date. I can't be bothered with being responsible for maintaing a relationship. I'd rather be left alone.
I'd still like to have sex, but in all honestly I'd be fine masturbating. I'm also pretty spooked about the number of partners someone has been with - if you're willing to fuck me outside a relationship - how many people have you fucked? I don't like it.
So being on your own is ok. More people need to get over relationships. Focus on class struggle.

I haven't really actually dated anyone ever because I can't be bothered to go outside, also I don't drink so I don't go to bars. I do drugs on occasion though when I can get my hands on some, mostly weed.

Only relationships I'd really be interested in would be friends with benefits or is it comrades with benefits in this case? since it doesn't require attachment of any kinds and is just about being friends with the added spice of occasional casual sex.

In 1984 the party indoctrinates youths to channel their sexuality and aggression into party zeal and warmongering.
The explanation given is that these impulses are so primal that they cannot be otherwise suppressed so they must be channeled instead.

In their societies material conditions are strictly controlled and worsen steadily, but the party is only interested in power, that which divides them from the rest.It doesn't matter if the difference between the richest and the rest is being able to eat a meat ration every day, what matters is the class definition.
It doesn't matter if EVERYONE hungers as long as there exists an increasingly wide gap between the rulers and the ruled.

In our society material conditions steadily improve with technology but the same principle applies.
We are speeding towards hedonistic apathy instead of authoritarian repression, but the powerful are only interested in power,the dividing gap between the controllers and the controlled.
It doesn't matter if EVERYONE has their needs satisfied as long as there exists an increasingly wide gap between the rulers and the ruled.

In my opinion as technology alleviates the material conditions of population , this gp will be more ideological and bureaucratic, with the elites enjoying the least indoctrination/wider perspective and greater administrative power, instead of violent enforcement of labor.A different kind of hell.

...

YOU NEED TO GO BACK

Considering most people get their porn for free this has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism has more to do with how porn is made in abusive conditions by people that feel forced into it by their need to survive.

It's not actually all that much different from other products people can get easily addicted to like sugar. Some companies caught on to the idea that we become attracted/dependent to things that aren't easily accessible in the wild, like 24/7 pussy and make a killing off of it. I like to think that the way we evolved, we probably weren't ready to deal with thousands of different sources for sexual stimulation and literally millions of different women to choose from at any given moment. Even back then, you at least paid for sex or show up to a titty show in person – people don't have to live with that shame, or pressure, or even the monetary cost anymore and can do it all anonymously.

The porn industry is a multibillion dollar industry. And the free porn sites get more visitors than Netflix and YouTube. They're making a killing in advertisement, premium services, webcams, etc. it's lucrative.

*not more than YouTube.

I looked it up. "Porn Sites Get More Visitors Each Month Than Netflix, Amazon And Twitter Combined". I'm not sure about YouTube.

But wouldn't being friends be an attachment? Obviously not romantic in nature, but I assume you'd care about them somewhat.

I'll be honest here, I've had 4 gfs, a few FwBs, and a lot of sex with women and 4 guys that I barely knew and just picked up at parties or shows or online. I prefer the gf, because there's an intensity there I didn't have with the other sex. It's really hard to describe, but I feel a burning lust for my gf where I want to fuck her hard and wild and stare into her eyes when she cums where as the others I enjoy when they cum but I'm honestly fine just fucking them in the backseat for 15 minutes.

Wake Me Up!

I'm not seeing the connection between Capitalism and loneliness here. There's an unfounded leap in logic.

My SO and I enjoy porn together even, but we're not lonely. Admittedly we could very well be those outside the margins, but it's hard to call most of the porn industry capitalist when a large portion of it is free for the consumer aside from internet connections and ad revenue.

When I first discovered porn I didn't watch it to simulate the experience of a girlfriend or because I was lonely. I did it because I felt the urge to empty my balls. It's why I still do it. I have no emotional connection to porn. It's something you do to dump out sperm and do something else.

Those with porn addictions, I would guess, are also a minority group.

A mans worth, nowadays, is decided by how much wealth he has and how much material property he owns. If you don't have lots of money, a car, a house, a high paying job etc. you are worthless and no woman wants you.

Women are mostly conditioned to be attractive so they can land a rich man. So how can they increase their attractiveness? By buying lots of products that help with that. Make-up, skin lotions, concealers, nail polishes and so on. Plus the right fashion. If they don't do all this, they're considered worthless.

Capitalism brainwashes both genders this way to futher itself in monetary ways. But in this time of economic downfall, men and women aren't able to spend the money on these things , thus decreasing the chances to find a partner in the first place.

I never got the monster girl thing. It's literally furries for people who get triggered by the word.

And this is evidenced by what? Any relationship I have is in no way affected by any of this assumption stated as fact. Every person I know considers my value to be what my word is worth and my work ethic. Not my "wealth", but my willingness to lend a hand when needed and whether you can depend on me when I say I'll be there.

My girlfriend of six going on seven years (fuck getting married, better legal benefits without it) has been with me through unemployment and financial gain. Thick and thin.

Capitalism in the manner you're claiming it to be is a boogeyman. Nevermind the fact that in my poorest economic standing in a capitalism society I've still managed to eat every day, have clean clothes, and bathe regularly. Real fuckin' scary.

Mind I meant to say "social" benefits without marriage. E.g., girlfriend gets to keep her insurance, I get to keep mine, and other government aid if necessary which it is not at the moment.

Women are nature's Jews

Seems we're both getting banned from leftypol today comrade

We are bombarded by commercials,advertisements, tv programs etc.everyday telling us what to wear, how to act, what to look like, and what to buy if the opposite sex wants anything to do with you. It's what capitalists tell the populace to fill their pockets with gold. It's in the nature of capitalism to manipulate for the sake of profit.

Your situation may not be as dramatic as this but even you are, undoubtetly, affected by it in some way.

Well, as long as you're not a mindless slug you can shrug it off and form your own perception by stepping outside and realizing that no one fucking acts just like life is a Wal-Green's commercial.

It only takes one social outing to see that not everyone is conforming to these social "norms" as portrayed by the media. In fact very few do and they seem like total tools.

The only things I can think of that I need to buy so that the opposite sex will be interested in me is shampoo, conditioner, and deodorant. Maybe a toothbrush and toothpaste because y'know. Good hygiene is sexy. Go down on a pussy that's been unwashed and sweaty for a month, come back, and tell me about how you really stuck it to the man.

We're "bombarded" by these media pleas because we're becoming more resistant to their effect. I'll agree that these tactics might have worked in times past, but the "mindless masses" are not so mindless anymore as people might think.

I'm not denying that I'm probably affected in some small ways by capitalism, but it isn't making me or others that I know lonely. It's their own attitude and perception that does that to them.

I have a buddy in a similar social and economic upraising as me. He's quite lonely and wants a female companion. It is his belief that women are not interested in him because he does not have money to cater to their every need.

The truth of it is he just does not have confidence or conversational skills to grasp attention.

I didn't win my girlfriend over through brand name clothes, a new car, or any of that shit. I wore generic clothing, didn't have a license until twenty-four, mid-back hair, etc. Completely counter-culture. But, I had a bit of confidence, was able to hold up a conversation, and had similar interests in scientific topics.

My entire experience and those of the people around me (as gathered by meaningful conversations with these working class folks) speaks against this. We could have a communist or socialist government where we constantly exploited for the gain of a small percentage or we could have a capitalism government where we're exploited for profit, but at the end of the day we really just bought some Reese's Pieces we didn't REALLY need.

Its ok, anarcho-comms bitching about "muh womyn exploitation"

It's just idpol nonsense

B A S E D

Monster girls really are different from furries, but the nuances of these different kinks are meaningless for people that don't have them. I wouldn't put myself above a furries or even ponyfags for liking monster girls. Everyone has their preferences.

If that's the way it is, then why are there so many lonely people out there? It's quite an epidemic at this point. And please don't say they ALL lack "confidence" or some other generic normie tripe.

Don't mind me, I'm just nitpicking and shitposting

The break down of the nuclear family. Which is still ongoing.

Back in the day in the west, and still in much of the rest of the world, men and women were stuck with one another by cultural obligation. Either your family would find a wife for you, or you'd get one yourself. This was all rather stultifying and patriarchal, so once people became able to break away from it and fuck around(birth control), they did.

Nowadays, nobody is stuck with anybody else, and people are able to choose their own partners based on their desirability. Given that certain people are more desirable than others given subjective/cultural reasons as well as objective reasons leads to them essentially having a higher market value. Conversely, those that aren't desirable have little to no value. So Boring Joe and Homely Jane that would've been previously married and thus not alone are today single and are unwilling to settle for one another, thinking that they can get a better deal. that is, until they get older and eventually take the hint and get together sometime in their thirties. Unless they have little to no value at all, in which case they fall through the cracks become bitter spinsters or incels.

There is a "government" depending on how you define the term. There would not be a state.

And what kind of subjective/objective reasons are these? And what makes one "desirable" nowadays?

Ban feminist idpol b.s. and this would be fixed in 2 generations max

...

It is sad but it could be foreseen that the constant bitching about muh idpol boogeyman would eventually end up being used by the same retards that had tried to infiltrate before as "social conservative" leftists.

kill yourself.

Pat Robertson, when did you learn to use a computer?

...

The nuclear family has only ever existed in the 20th and, to a lesser extent, the 21st century. The family as we know it has been in flux since capitalism became dominant. Even before capitalism it was ever changing.

...

eh, doesn't sound like hell to me

Nope. Coherent family structures have existed for several centuries, arguably for millennia. Strict, monogamous marriage laws have existed for at least the last 500 years in Catholic and Protestant Europe.

lolwut, its current year fam. sure, money helps to get some desperate third world chink but at least in the western world its all about a mans perceived "value". I.e it almost doesnt matter what you're doing as long as you're "doing something" that resonates with normalfags and are passionate about it.

You're fucking retarded. The NUCLEAR family has only existed since the 20th century and the family has been going through change throughout history.

I'm defining the nuclear family as a two parent male/female household where they raise their own offspring. How are you defining it?

The same, but the cohabitant family was larger before the 20th century. The nuclear family as we know it wasn't dominant until the 20th century.

You mean that some relatives lived with individual families? How does that invalidate the nuclear family model? Does it stop being a nuclear family if your mother-in-law moves in?

3edgy

It's been historically the norm for 3 generations to live under a single roof often with non direct relatives (cousins, aunts, uncles, etc), no that's not nuclear family. The nuclear family, "american dream" ideal is that 1 mother and 1 father raise 2.5 kids, and when those kids hit 18 they leave the house, find a job/education, then start their own family to start the process over again. I'd hardly call families of 12 people packed into a 1 bedroom apartment (like mexicans) where the entire family raises everyone else a "nuclear family". So no, the nuclear family has not been what humans have lived in for millennia.

If anything the death of the "traditional" nuclear family is due to a failing economy. I can't leave the home and have children at 23 anymore because I'm already riddled with debt and have poor prospects for a job, and so are a majority of people in my generation.

Who doesn't use ad blockers these days? Pfft…. are you saying porn wouldnt exist without capitalism? Lol you sound like you are arguing for capitalism not against i t.

KEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEK!

Also, Kickstarter is shit cause it doesn't let me give it money. "You live in Greece, you're not allowed to internet shopping! Bay Debt!"

On subject now,

Capitalism has made sex a comodity.
Here. Watch this.
dailymotion.com/video/x222wl0_do-communists-have-better-sex_shortfilms

As crisis depens and people prefer safety more and more and capitalism projects false ideals, internet porn thrives.
Why bother going out and spending money you don't have to fail anyway?

BUT! It's that same internet that lowers the profits of porn industry. It's not obvius yet, as older people will still pay for it, but the golden days of the 00s are over.

Now, on the games subject, as our brains are already filled with "normal" women (and men I guess), we move to the next level of "experience". And this is why 3D and hentai are on the rise. or am talking BS cause I'm not a scientist and not enough research has been done

This nigga gets it.
I was taken care of, more by my grandparents than my parents, when I was a child. Now, I cannot "leave the house", cause I don't have a stable enough job and not getting enough to make moving on my own viable.

However, I do wish to leave and live on my own. And this is creating even worse psychology. To everyone in my generation. People on their late 20s early 30s that don't have "normal lives" like everyone else and so on.

Porn, as a comodity, never existed before capitalism. And was banned in every attempt at socialism.

Porn as an industry has always been gigantic, the Internet took so much from the established industry gains that they've since moved over entirely to exploiting the Internet to regain income lost to porn sites.

Nothing we see is anywhere near as disconcerting as the Japanese service industry that's able to replicate every aspect of the "girlfriend" experience.

You must not understand thing one about history.

user covers this aspect but let me expound:

In the dawn of civilization we had Hunter Gatherer society which functioned in a far more Commune sense than what we expect.

Then came agrarian civilization that flipped the tables, created kings, necessitated slavery, and caused a reproductive disparity of on average only 40% of males reproducing with 80% of females reproducing, and these are generous figures as at times the male ratios were closer to 20%.

Eventually for society to function a man had to accept to have only one public wife, but this was until recently the exception rather than the rule, and wealthy men regardless maintained harems and mistresses.

And of course we have SERFDOM.

Similar in many respects to slavery, throughout the middle ages people were traded like chattel.

There was a church to establish marriage at some point following the end of the Iron Age, but the fact is men remained disposable and women often had to replace them or accept new husbands; if they weren't outright enslaved.

Not to mention the rate of mortality made all this utterly meaningless.

tl'dr

Human behaviour is adaptive and based around technology, nuclear family isn't coming back because children are prohibitively expensive and the fact remains 80% of women are chasing the top 20% of men, and on average an income of 60k or more per year is what it takes to make the average man viable as a mate without some advantage.

Then that's a point where we will have to disagree. I define a nuclear family to be a situation with strict sexual morality involving a monogamous male/female pair who are primarily involved in taking responsibility for their children. It's true that in years past, people were closer to their relatives in having to live with them, but that doesn't really make the core family, the "nuclear" family invalid as a term in centuries past.

I've heard those statistics, but only in reference to human history overall. Can you prove that they are related specifically to feudalism?

Not all societies followed your harem model. In areas with enforced sexual monogamy, like Catholic and Protestant Europe, even monarchs had to comply with certain norms. Individuals like Henry VIII were the exception, not the rule.

You're self-selecting by individuals who use OkCupid with that last piece of information. Plenty of people have children despite not having a stable financial situation.

Difference between em is pretty simple tbh
Furries are more animal than human
Monster Girls are more human than animal

But the term 'nuclear family' is FROM the 20th century. The changing material conditions at that time led to a growing middle class, which led to the nuclear family coming about, thus needing to be defined seperatly from a traditional family in the first place.

A) your definition is Engel's Patriarch.
B)
So, my grandparents taking care of me while parents working, was not nuclear family?
C)
Again, Grandparents????

Monogamy was created EXACTLY for kings to have their power sorted out. "He is MY son and this is why he takes the power". Again, Engels.

There is this middle ground, where you have money, but not enough. If you have enough or no money it's easier to have children. But when you're in the "first world" and cannot comply to what is expected, you live alone.

Actually, the problem is, furries "identify" as … furries. They, mostly, not only fap to, but also dress and idnetify as "furries".

Monster girls are just fap material.
You can even see it as "accepting the other with all their flaws and differences".

Hang on there buddy, who is this you're talking about who is making the distinction between the nuclear and traditional family? From what I understand, the term "nuclear family" came into popularity in reaction to different sexual norms, such as gay marriage. To individuals making that argument, they would certainly conflate both traditional and nuclear family.

Being as your parents provided for you while you were being taken care of, I don't see why this wouldn't fit in my definition of nuclear family.

I can agree with the notion that strict sexual morality, and monogamy in particular came about because of the need to figure out inheritance of private property.

Sure, and this is part of the origin of the "anuddah shoah" meme. White people are more likely than other groups to be in that bracket.

WELL!!! My grand parents also provided for the family, though pension and agricultural work and so on… so…. Is it?

The world isn't 'Murica.

From Wikipedia

So? How does that nullify the nuclear family thing?

It's true in many cases in Europe as well.

In my post, I said popularity. We're talking about its use in a reactionary context, yes?

But not exhaustively so.

...

This is why you're all losers except Freudposter tbh

If the parents are not the main providers… WHAT NUKE FAMILY???

The nuke family is a western european/ 'Murican concept. "Tradition" is a spook.

Ye, sure… the north that has become a copy of 'Murica after WW2 because Cold War and capitalism working.

In the end… IT'S ALL ABOUT SOCIOECONOMICS!

Only by fascists. Porn is not evil, just don't over use it.

You've internalized capitalistic degeneracy.

By what is this "value" decided? What is this "something" that you have to do?

Also, answer

Porn as a comodity, IS evil.

I love that game, comrade. It's free as well.

Could that have something to do with means of mass recording and reproduction that were incidentally created after the onset of capitalism, perhaps?

Your spook-filled language aside, the "commodity" part is the problem here.

"Capitalism exploits X, so let's ban X" is nothing but distractionary bullshit.

...

I'm ancient like him, but imagine a nazbol version of him

I'd be in favour of eradication of all feminists through genocide

and who are you to define what a nuclear family is

With muh dick