blazintommyd · @blazintommyd
16th Aug 2014 from TwitLonger
Sex & Progressive Communism - excerpt from my writing/blog
"People are not automatons. People like sex. We get horny at least once everyday and want to experience the erotic aspects of life, have orgasms without having to enter into indentured servitude in order to experience that and share. That is the truth of human reality and human reality needs to be tolerated. Are you seriously trying to tell me that women don’t feel and want the same thing? Shame if they do is justified or else surely they must be a whore? We have to pay to cum or else cum alone?
Please note, Betty Millard’s essay does not address sexual freedom, not directly anyway. She is still operating inside the Heterosexual, breeding-centric, paradigm, even though it was later revealed that she was a Lesbian. Was this omission in favor of breeding centric Heterosexual marriage or a “marketing ploy”? A means to appeal to male politicians? Who also happen to be upscale men with disposable income.
Do the Feminists of today denounce Betty Millard? Adhere to the idea that sexual freedom must be surgically removed from any Feminist advocacy the same as was communism? In short, exploit the omission?
Moreover, if it has taken you 165 years and you still haven’t secured all of the demands you made in 1848, which appear to be essentially the same as those you continue to demand now, through the vehicle of the Democratic faction of the single party monolith, are you at least willing to consider that this slow success is attributable to the fact that sexual freedom isn’t even alluded to in Millard’s discussion? And is a discussion that has to be had?
So if Hefner set out to publish “a magazine for Homosexual Men” would this be more acceptable? I doubt it would have had as much success in that period of time
If Feminist complaints, as depicted in this documentary, are true, circa late 1960s, early 1970s, not only am I hearing similar complaints in 2013, but these very same complaints could be wielded against the writings of Karl Marx, circa 1848 and to some degree even Betty Millard.
Which calls into question whether such complaints are genuine or just another facet of the spin and conform politics of Liberal Democracy.
And to be sure, there are innovations: the rape culture, shaming, government and private sector funding of abortion; but as I see these things they all concern unequal sexual freedom - e.g., as long as a man has money he can buy whatever kind of sex he may desire and shall be accommodated by the sort of women Millard refers to, wanting money - i.e., “security”; but a man doesn’t want his wife or “girl friend” to have a similar freedom, if she does she’s a whore, a bad woman. For shame. All of which indicate the idea of male ownership of women or at the very least, the economic power of men to rent or lease human property - viz., “many otherwise progressive men cling to their vested interest in male superiority”.
But 65 to 100 yrs of the same policy, with such obvious aspect suppressed, doesn’t seem very progressive to me. In fact in terms of spin and forced conformity, quite Conservative.
Moreover, the breeding centric Heteropatriarchy of Marx, echoed by Millard, is not the reason I’m a communist, a Marxist, Socialist or whatever opponents wish to call it, or if such opponents even recognize, it as such, when the principles and foundation are presented, without the Marxist, Communist or Socialist tag. Which may explain why these opponents are metaphorically shooting blindfolded in an empty room. Haha I know you;re in here, bang bang, bang bang.
Key words: “economically and socially impossible”.