On sex and politics -

  • DDoS is active again.

Penis Drager

My memes are ironic; my depression is chronic
kiwifarms.net
A question that occasionally gets asked is something along the lines of “why does the right want to restrict sex so much?” It’s a fair question at face value, the right does seem to care more than the left about who’s fucking who and how. The obvious answer to this question, of course, is “the same basic reason the left wants wants sexuality to be more open.”
Both restricting and opening sex are active attempts at social engineering. In fact, they’re vital parts of the social engineering strategy of both sides.

First I’ll clarify what I mean by social engineering: It’s any direct attempt to change the behavior of society at large. Simple enough, right? Any anti-drug campaign is social engineering. Any anti-racism campaign is social engineering. That nutrition class you probably had to take in high school? You bet your ass that’s social engineering!
Social engineering does not have to be malicious, despite the negative connotations. It often isn’t. A dysfunctional society is a pain in the ass to govern.
So why sex?

Sex is among the most primal of instincts that we share as the human animal. It is as pleasurable as it is intimate. It is the ultimate form of social validation and just a fun thing to do. It’s pretty much the only thing where regular people can “play pretend,” much as they did when they were a child, and have that be totally acceptable. It’s how we bring life into this world. It’s the ultimate “carrot on a stick” with which those in power can lead a population of people to alter their behavior in matters beyond sex.
So here’s how the left and right tend to differ on the matter (note I’m painting with broad strokes while playing with the loosely defined concept of “left and right.” I’m also talking more about ideals rather than practical results of said ideals so bear that in mind) :

Pleasure to the left:
The left, at least as I’m loosely defining it, typically values freedom to act as one pleases so long as there is no direct harm to others. Caveats abound and this will probably get me the most heat out of anything I said here. But I’m running with it anyway. Libertarians are leftists in this paradigm. The quintessential left wing society would have people doing whatever they want all the time and it would not hurt anyone else or have any negative consequences.
The left uses sexual openness is a means of tapping into the desire for pleasure. If anyone can fuck anyone as simply as they could say “hello,” this would mean people would have a lot of fun. More importantly, though, it would mean a breakdown of social hierarchies, which is a common trait among many leftists. It’s framed as a freedom from sexual inhibitions much the same way leftism as a whole is framed as a freedom from labor, oppression, etc. Sexual leftism wants you to be free to dress how you want, present how you want, act as you want, and have society’s full support in doing so. Sexual pleasure helps them achieve it.

Intimacy to the right:
The right values stability. The same lecture about caveats and whatnot applies here, fuck you. The quintessential right-wing society would have people operating as components of a well oiled machine and they would provide their part to the nation at large while enjoying their time off in a non-intrusive way.
The right uses sexual intimacy as a means of tapping into our desire for social validation. If sex is restricted to monogamous couples, this would generate a greater level of respect for the act of sex. More importantly, though, it would also reinforce social hierarchies, which is a common trait among the right. It’s framed as a freedom from debauchery in the same way the right as a whole is framed as freedom from social collapse, multi-national interests, etc. Sexual rightism wants you to be austere and react against that which disturbs the current order of things. Sexual intimacy helps them achieve that.
 

WeWuzFinns

Armed with the cap of flame and goggles of speed.
kiwifarms.net
I think that social engineering has created a divergence from the sexual tradition.

Conservatism is an instinct that subconsciously understands how behaving like your ancestors behaved is stabile. You wouldn't be here and living well if it wasn't.

Leftism is a reaction away from tradition, because either you feel that tradition made you dispossessed or you have been persuaded to think that tradition is bad despite you being well off.

Ultimately the offspring of more conservative or free sexual strategy will inherit the earth based on the amount of children the strategies produce. Either strategy has to produce more than 2.1 kids on average not to die off. Of course both conservatives and leftist produce kids that can be leftist or rightists, but the attributes that determine political disposition are strongly genetic.
 

Penis Drager

My memes are ironic; my depression is chronic
kiwifarms.net
Conservatism is an instinct that subconsciously understands how behaving like your ancestors behaved is stabile. You wouldn't be here and living well if it wasn't.
Okay, I'm seeing double at this point but I'll try to address this before passing out:
We have two "cousins" in our evolutionary tree that exhibit opposite traits:
The bonobos are a matriarchal society and sex is very common among them. They fuck like it's a greeting and polyamory among females is commonplace.
The chimpanzees are patriarchal and have a "harem-like" sexual attitude. Only the alphas get to breed with high value females while the rest are left with table scraps.

Neither of these are ideal for a human society, obviously. But they are indicative of where we spawned from. "One woman; one man" is distinctly human in our evolutionary tree.
 

Willie Thrills

Michael Bay should be in charge of Marvel movies
kiwifarms.net
I'm basically a walking incarnation of extreme politics, and my opinion is that women have a natural inclination towards eugenics. Infact I would say that Europeans, and the Japanese, with some smaller populations such as the Polynesians or Maori, some Middle Easterners and some Native Americans, all have such a gulf between them and dysgenic populations because of the historic choices women had. White European women were far more likely to choose taller, more intelligent and paler men to father children.

Europeans are the most obvious example since it's so obvious, there are entire countries where the majority of people now hold purely aesthetic mutations - larger chests and breast-widths, paler skin, eye colour and hair colour.

This implies that many dysgenic populations, particularly black Africans and a large portion of Asia, rather than allowing women to choose their partners, simply beat them and raped them for thousands of years, stunting their growth and destroying any aesthetic mutations.

The reason I am sure of this is because of the strength disparity - the "Hercules Gene" which is a documented fact and is found primarily in Northern Europe. This gene would only be a strongly attractive gene among men, since women rarely develop muscle to this extent and even then, can only produce a certain amount of children. The result of this is almost all of the worlds strongmen are from countries on the coasts of Northern Europe. Women are likely to become mothers regardless of their genes, but men have a large competition between them and genetic differences are more visible among men.

There are so many distinct examples of this in Europe that entire national characteristics are based around parallel, but different, genetic mutations which likely spread through the men. And the fact that they are almost entirely aesthetic implies that women were actively choosing to fuck men with these characteristics. In Ireland and the Scottish Highlands, this is dark orange/red hair and green eyes, whereas in the Netherlands, Germany and Scandinavia, this is blonde hair and blue eyes. In the former Byzantine states, it is a soft black hair with green eyes.

In the prehistoric population of Neolithic Britain, the native Britons were similar - even developing a rarer, unrelated blue eye colour which is significantly darker than the pale-blue eyes found in mainland Europe.

The lack of localised diversity across much of the world implies that sex was dysgenic - rather than improved chances of mating based off of intelligence, strength and aesthetic characteristics, it was simply down to violent opportunism.
 

WeWuzFinns

Armed with the cap of flame and goggles of speed.
kiwifarms.net
Okay, I'm seeing double at this point but I'll try to address this before passing out:
We have two "cousins" in our evolutionary tree that exhibit opposite traits:
The bonobos are a matriarchal society and sex is very common among them. They fuck like it's a greeting and polyamory among females is commonplace.
The chimpanzees are patriarchal and have a "harem-like" sexual attitude. Only the alphas get to breed with high value females while the rest are left with table scraps.

Neither of these are ideal for a human society, obviously. But they are indicative of where we spawned from. "One woman; one man" is distinctly human in our evolutionary tree.
The harem-like behavior is actually adaptive among Mormons and Muslims. It is so efficient that Mormons have enough kids so that their numbers are increasing, unlike most other groups. Mormons even have high average IQs rivalling the Ashkenazi Jew average. And unlike other whites, the smartest Mormons tend to have the most kids. Even African Americans could be considered to have harem-like behavior as the alpha thugs have several baby mommas.

I think humans are unique is such a sense that we can have multiple different strategies that work.
 

Willie Thrills

Michael Bay should be in charge of Marvel movies
kiwifarms.net
The harem-like behavior is actually adaptive among Mormons and Muslims. It is so efficient that Mormons have enough kids so that their numbers are increasing, unlike most other groups. Mormons even have high average IQs rivalling the Ashkenazi Jew average. And unlike other whites, the smartest Mormons tend to have the most kids. Even African Americans could be considered to have harem-like behavior as the alpha thugs have several baby mommas.

I think humans are unique is such a sense that we can have multiple different strategies that work.
Every group has a subset that exceeds that of the Ashkenazi Jew though.

Ashkenazim are a socially defined group and Jews overrall have an average IQ lower than that of Europeans.

Infact a full standard deviation lower, white Americans and Western Europeans have an average IQ of around 105-110, while Jews have an average of 95. Excluding people based off of a minor genetic difference, you'll find certain groups which exceed this even further - for example, an excessively high proportion of inventions in the world come from a narrow band of towns to the West of Glasgow, where the Clyde opens into the ocean.


Seriously, the area around Glasgow - includes James Watt and Alexander Fleming. These are probably two of the most important men in human history, full-stop.

If you were so inclined you could include John Logie Baird who invented the television, who was from another town - which is visible from Greenock. It's three miles by boat.

Infact you'd find that it would be, if the world bothered to check, the "Urban Belt" of Scotland which has the most intelligent people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Haim Arlosoroff

Archpolitician June Lapercal
kiwifarms.net
A question that occasionally gets asked is something along the lines of “why does the right want to restrict sex so much?” It’s a fair question at face value, the right does seem to care more than the left about who’s fucking who and how. The obvious answer to this question, of course, is “the same basic reason the left wants wants sexuality to be more open.”
Both restricting and opening sex are active attempts at social engineering. In fact, they’re vital parts of the social engineering strategy of both sides.
When the couple reconnected last June, Justin was more than a year into a self-imposed tenure of celibacy. He had what he calls “a legitimate problem with sex.” It was his remaining vice, an addiction that had long since ceased to provide him any pleasure. Not having sex, he decided, was a way for him to feel closer to God.

"I can't believe I'm saying this — don't have sex. I'm single right now and I've chosen to be single because I don't have the time to get to know anybody," she said while visiting England to help promote MAC's Viva Glam campaign, which supports global HIV and AIDS projects. "So it's OK not to have sex, it's OK to get to know people. I'm celibate, celibacy's fine."

Why are celebrities turning away from sex? Because High Time Preference Behavior is objectively inferior to Low Time Preference Behavior, wanting empty gratification today without any feeling of achievement or 'earning it' leads to addictive behavior.
Time Preferences
When the right are acting correctly in larger society they should never be coercive but live as an example to others clearly showing how their wisdom is true and the Left's need for corner-cutting ruins them. However in every society there is a problem. The left convince the right to subsidize them. Is it not fair for the rich to pay to ensure certain minimums in society? Well, yes but also no. Because bad choices shouldn't be equated in outcome to good choices. So the Right begin to moralize at the left only after the subsidy is paid. This is the downfall of every civilization.

The right become uncool, and hard work is for fools. The left become the optimal work/reward smarty-pants, and their labors become the glamorous careers. The roles change, the accents change, this rule does not change. Every civilization died to this Mass Culture drowning the work that made food, precious metals, clothes, and shelter. Technology advancing may hide the rot, but hoping technology advances faster than the rotting led only ever downward in the histories. The safest paths always do.

Pleasure to the left:
The left, at least as I’m loosely defining it, typically values freedom to act as one pleases so long as there is no direct harm to others. Caveats abound and this will probably get me the most heat out of anything I said here. But I’m running with it anyway. Libertarians are leftists in this paradigm. The quintessential left wing society would have people doing whatever they want all the time and it would not hurt anyone else or have any negative consequences.
The left uses sexual openness is a means of tapping into the desire for pleasure. If anyone can fuck anyone as simply as they could say “hello,” this would mean people would have a lot of fun. More importantly, though, it would mean a breakdown of social hierarchies, which is a common trait among many leftists. It’s framed as a freedom from sexual inhibitions much the same way leftism as a whole is framed as a freedom from labor, oppression, etc. Sexual leftism wants you to be free to dress how you want, present how you want, act as you want, and have society’s full support in doing so. Sexual pleasure helps them achieve it.

Intimacy to the right:
The right values stability. The same lecture about caveats and whatnot applies here, fuck you. The quintessential right-wing society would have people operating as components of a well oiled machine and they would provide their part to the nation at large while enjoying their time off in a non-intrusive way.
The right uses sexual intimacy as a means of tapping into our desire for social validation. If sex is restricted to monogamous couples, this would generate a greater level of respect for the act of sex. More importantly, though, it would also reinforce social hierarchies, which is a common trait among the right. It’s framed as a freedom from debauchery in the same way the right as a whole is framed as freedom from social collapse, multi-national interests, etc. Sexual rightism wants you to be austere and react against that which disturbs the current order of things. Sexual intimacy helps them achieve that.
Exactly so, whereas tying reward to hard work disciplines the mind and focuses you, allowing you to achieve long tiring feats rather than couch potato lifestyles. Sex is just one of the addicting behaviors that the Right puts in a healthy minimal state (abstractly so, practically less than optimally) where the Left drinks and smokes and fucks and bloats and suffers and sickens and self-wounds and suicides. They'll never see that their inability to say no to sex, drugs, and loud music and their impulsivity they call 'living fearless' is hardly heroic. Its selfish, literally. They dream they are the Gods of Pleasure and Fun, and then the bill comes due. Libertarians are the Evening before the Twilight, they'll claim they are the very opposite of Liberalism and Leftism. Remember this: The Libertine demands forgiveness for what the Libertarian demands permission. They are the same creature, the libertarian is simply smarter and higher-functioning.

The worst part about American culture today is the endless fixation on both the Left and the Right that the Right are in charge. Beware the person who believes this. They are in a cult of Mass Media, and they cannot see it. The Right and the Left, mind. The right preaches their ordering of society where? Schools? TV? Movies? on Billboards? (some places, yes actually) in the Newspapers? Hardly anywhere, whereas the "counterculture" signals everywhere that the Right are dumbly picking their noses and craftily out to get you simultaneously. The Right want the substitute prize of being seen in control, the fools. The Left want to be the rebels, bringing down a tyranny their poor behavior constructs. Iphones made Apple billions not by theft or cheat, and they didn't make it all from the Far-Right now did they? Billionaire and Whores vote the same way, for the same reason.

Conservatism is an instinct that subconsciously understands how behaving like your ancestors behaved is stable. You wouldn't be here and living well if it wasn't.

Leftism is a reaction away from tradition, because either you feel that tradition made you dispossessed or you have been persuaded to think that tradition is bad despite you being well off.
Things change, sometimes its smart to change with them. The world's always turning.
IMG_6465.JPG
 
Last edited:

Kujo Jotaro

Every Man Dies
kiwifarms.net
The right uses sexual intimacy as a means of tapping into our desire for social validation
Both sides do this, try telling someone you're not cool with gay marriage. Chances are you're going to get frozen out of whatever social groups you had in common with them. Even people who are on the right will conform to this behavior.

Most right wing people I know are complete hypocrites, they'll proclaim the virtue of a hard days work and yet are some of the laziest people at work. They'll proclaim the virtue of self restraint, yet they have layers of fat a whale would be ashamed of. The analogies could go on....(I'm not saying people should be perfect but at least make an effort)

I despise the left's hedonistic attitude, but at least they're honest with themselves. Taken to its logical conclusion american leftism would lead to absolute debauchery on a societal level. Most if not all drugs legal, brothels on every street corner, casinos on every block, just about anything and everything to get that dopamine hit. The "progress" train is already testing pedophilia as its next major push, if they'll even think about touching that topic there is not end to what they'll push for.
 

Willie Thrills

Michael Bay should be in charge of Marvel movies
kiwifarms.net
Seriously, the area around Glasgow - includes James Watt and Alexander Fleming. These are probably two of the most important men in human history, full-stop.

If you were so inclined you could include John Logie Baird who invented the television, who was from another town - which is visible from Greenock. It's three miles by boat.

Infact you'd find that it would be, if the world bothered to check, the "Urban Belt" of Scotland which has the most intelligent people.
Expanding on it - if you highlighted the area between the Firths of Clyde and Forth - technically both are Fjords and coincidentally, both only became habitable at ALL around 10,000BC, yet we have permanent multi-story stone buildings and carved caverns dating to 3700BC. By habitable I don't mean a little bit cold - the entire area was under a gigantic block of ice.

There is genuinely stone building works which have been built before much of Northern Europe was even visible under the ice.

I don't believe this is a coincidence - infact, at the time when this was important, whereas most other populations would have had intense competition from other humans, the recently melted climates of Europe may have given an isolated land of plenty which allowed for this sort of evolution to take place.

Which unfortunately implies that once the population reaches a critical mass, "aggressive sexual conduct" supercedes the traditional eugenic method, and it becomes a free-for-all of rape like it is in Africa. This free-for-all rapefest is also why some African countries have an HIV rate of 20% - nobody sane would willingly fuck a man who obviously has full-blown AIDS and is literally sloughing off skin like a Fallout ghoul, but it's Africa.

This perspective gives a gloomy perspective on the future, unfortunately. Whereas it is horrifying both in its practice and its result, it represents a genuine threat to all of our futures. Rampant dysgenia only spreads because of how quickly it spreads - and how quickly this compounds.


Even African Americans could be considered to have harem-like behavior as the alpha thugs have several baby mommas.
If you observe the age of these baby mommas, a much more disturbing pattern becomes clear. Not only do they have many children, they have children much younger. And I believe that the proposed decelerations in the future are some mighty wishful fucking thinking.

The average population growth of African countries is around 4% per year. This doesn't sound like much - except it has a population of around a billion, currently. The DR Congo had a population of around 10,000,000 in 1950.

In the UK, this was 50,000,000. This has remained roughly stable, with almost all population growth being foreign-influenced since 1950. Infact, there are fewer white Brits under the age of 30 now than there was when the Queen was coronated.

The population of the DR Congo is now 105,000,000. Over a hundred fucking million. A ten-fold increase in seventy years. It is not slowing down. Half of its population is under the age of 15. In fifteen years, if they all maintain the current fucking average birthrate of SIX PER WOMAN, this could easily reach 300,000,000 by 2050.

In thirty years, a shithole African country where you're more likely to find a cannibal than a doctor, will overtake the USA by population.


Just look at the "Doubling time" on these.

This is the reason for my extreme beliefs.
 

Zero Day Defense

"Now come, Samurai. Put on a good show."
kiwifarms.net
I think you're accepting a false premise when agreeing with the idea that the right wants to "restrict sex". Alternatively, that premise isn't stated at large to begin with.

Think-- how would they even manage to do such a thing? After all, you literally cannot legislate what happens in a bedroom unless what happens is rape and it's reported. Nobody on the right is fighting for legal restrictions on contraceptives-- not even the Catholics, who are opposed to it on religious grounds.

I've seen this in the vicinity of abortion discussions, and I would say that I have to highlight this as well... but abortion and sex are different beasts, their only relation being that the latter leads to a situation where the former can be pursued as an option. So this can't be what they mean, either.

Stretching my brain some, not allowing gay marriage isn't a restriction of sex, because you can legally have sex outside of marriage (not to mention that the state's recognition of a gay couple for taxing purposes is irrelevant to the actual relationship status of said gay couple).

It appears that what's being lambasted by the left is the right's desire to not subsidize forms of sex it finds objectionable-- they have no interest in, say making abortion or birth control more accessible (as to attenuate the long-term consequences of sex). Here, they're not restricting sex (there's no way to actually do such a thing), but obviously sex cannot be pursued worry-free without such subsidies. Given this, you do get it right when you say that they want to engage in social engineering.

Likewise, the actual goal of the left isn't so much to "open sex" in opposition to a supposed drive by the right to "restrict sex", but rather to make sex something that can be done with less worry of long term consequences (e.g. pregnancy, childbirth, child rearing).

Things change, sometimes its smart to change with them.
I don't mean to direct this at you per se, but this is a statement I hear a lot, and in most of its applications it's downright lazy. "Things change" is a banal statement indicating disinterest in why "things" are changing, which "things" are changing, and how said "things" are changing.
 

Old Sun World

kiwifarms.net
The right wants to control sex because without control there is chaos and a society cannot function when there is no order/control. The left wants complete freedom without restrictions which is chaos that's why you see the goal post move each year, first it was the gay rights and the right lost the battle, now we are in the middle of the next battle which is the sexualization of minors and the normalization of pedophilia.

Both right and left are just puppets who conform to whatever is handed down from on high. Society is controlled by powerful interest groups that are leading all of us towards a certain goal which is too complicated for a fruit website like this, but what you need to know is that no matter whether someone is left or right, both will suffer in the end because the agenda is non human in nature and in fact is anti human.

Sex is just a tool used by the elites to control young people, that's why you see sexual degeneracy everywhere nowadays. All mainstream media and entertainment celebrate and promote sexual degeneracy, that's called normalization and its not a coincidence that they are all doing it at the same time. Culture is not random, there is a very deliberate force behind all that is happening.
 

Mothra88

kiwifarms.net
The idea that it's only the right that wants to restrict sex is pretty outdated. Twitter completely destroyed that pardigm and now you have a bunch of infantalized busy bodies shrieking that any display of sexuality apart from rainbow flags is horrible sin in their feminazi woke religion. The fact that the leftists that came from before are too cowardly or stupid to tell these people to shut up has alwasy been extremely disappointing and alienating. "Liberalism" is pretty much a dead concept thanks to that.
 

ToroidalBoat

Token Hispanic Friend
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
The modern world seems to be pushing people to be asexual, like machines. So many natural behaviors - sexual or not - are deemed "creepy" or "inappropriate". Maybe it's because the powers that shouldn't be want people to be miserable mechanistic drones in a cybernetic hive of consumerism? Maybe it's just because the modern world is mechanistic, so people have to be mechanistic to adapt to it?
 
Last edited:

Zero Day Defense

"Now come, Samurai. Put on a good show."
kiwifarms.net
The modern world seems to be pushing people to be asexual, like machines. So many natural behaviors - sexual or not - are deemed "creepy" or "inappropriate".
Far from it, the modern world isn't pushing people to be asexual by labeling natural behavior "creepy" and "inappropriate".

Rather, we've given too much voice and credence to the terms as they're employed by women who feel the need to imbue their personal displeasure with more objective weight. It can't be that they don't appreciate the advances made towards them by a man, regardless of how poorly they're made, but rather, the man is "creepy"-- a word that isn't practically used to speak about risk of harm or even the apprehension thereof, and should by itself be meaningless, and yet means everything.
 

Mexican_Wizard_711

kiwifarms.net
The modern world seems to be pushing people to be asexual, like machines. So many natural behaviors - sexual or not - are deemed "creepy" or "inappropriate". Maybe it's because the powers that shouldn't be want people to be miserable mechanistic drones in a cybernetic hive of consumerism? Maybe it's just because the modern world is mechanistic, so people have to be mechanistic to adapt to it?
The thing is that humans are still animals and biological, unless in the future we have somehow achieve technological singularity and shed out organic forms for robotic ones. We still have needs that have to get filled.
 
Top