epaminondas146871 wrote:I suppose that my judgments on the topic are skewed by the fact that I'm a 16 year old, but for what it's worth, I think that the increased sexualization of today's youth is not a bad thing. People are learning how to be comfortable with themselves and how to enjoy physical pleasures at a younger age. That's not mutually exclusive with romance and true love, in fact, sexual and romantic relations probably can and should develop hand in hand. Physical intimacy is a good thing. And casual sexual relations aren't problematic either, even if you think it's overrated plenty of people (including myself) would disagree.
I think promoting sexual development without psychological and emotional maturity is silly, and I think that's what's really what's more troublesome.
Let's be real here - that human beings start having sexual desires before the age of 16 is completely natural. I started noticing girls at 14. Girls start undergoing puberty at 12, on average, unless I'm mistaken. Thing is, in many traditional societies, young men were considered men
from a much earlier age, and young women were considered women
much younger than that. Cao Cao had his own military command in Luoyang when he was 20. Guo Jia was already supporting himself and travelling around the country at 19. Liu Bei studied in government from the age of 14.
What is not
natural is the social expectation that you should be expected to wait twice that long to get married and start a family. The idea is that if you can't support yourself financially, you shouldn't be expected to have a child. Which is fine in and of itself; being responsible is good - but the society systematically removing capabilities from high school graduates to get a job and support themselves (if they want) makes things far more difficult.
In order to keep people disconnected
from purely 'personal' concerns, the better to be 'available' for your employer at any time and for any reason. So we've disconnected
sex - which is now used as a distraction and a consumer commodity - from procreation, from marriage and from long-term relationships, which are not economical
and not useful
to the business world.
Allow me to indulge my inner undergrad Marxist for a moment.
The owners of capital want to encourage the former. Sex, untutored and unrestrained, is good for business
. It fuels psychological and economic insecurity, and inculcates a basic desire for consumption. More people wanting sex means more people consuming
otherwise-useless durables: cosmetics, personal grooming and care items, sexual status markers (clothes, cars, apartments, furniture), alcohol, drugs, sex toys, prophylactics, birth control, magazines with tips for 'better' sex, and so on. More people feeling lonely and horny, being unsatisfied with their bodies, being unsatisfied with how much or how good sex they get, makes the rich richer
and makes the poor poorer
But capitalist society likes its sex 'safe'. 'Safe' means 'unattached'. Plebs who get attached - to a husband, to a wife, to a kid - are bad for business
. Capitalists want their cogs cheap, reliable and replaceable; they don't want their consciences burdened by little people who might lower productivity. Secretly they probably have a hankering for the late 1800's before labour laws prohibited them from sending children to work in the factories for peanuts, but admitting that these days is somewhat gauche
. So what do they do? They create an ideology
which tells people: go ahead and have sex (that is, consume away
), but whatever you do, don't get pregnant
! Pregnancy is scary
. It's costly
; it's a burden
. It makes you unemployable
. And the really genius part? They get women to promote this ideology to each other and they get their critics to co-opt it as 'progressive', by telling them that it's empowering
to have sex and not get pregnant. In other words, you're the perfect producing, consuming, non-reproducing worker ant
- you go, girl!
But that whole ideology is one Big Fat Hairy Ruling-Class Lie. Biology will be served
. Sex just isn't 'safe'. It's dirty, it's fun, it's creative and it's gloriously messy. And let's be honest; what you really want
when you want sex is some kind of connexion
. Nobody likes being lonely, and even people who have casual sex like to be seen and thought of as 'f**kable' - there's a natural desire there, a psychological imperative to be wanted by another person. And most people do
like kids, and it's natural for a man or a woman to want some of his or her own.
I don't think casual sex is 'overrated'. I think it's being deliberately propagated by the ruling class and its propagandists, exactly for that purpose. Lowering barriers to sex-as-consumer-product, while raising the financial barriers to the physical means of (re)production for the vast majority of people, is a deliberate means of keeping the working class docile, mobile, insecure, complacent and exploitable. Look up the data for the American family. Out-of-wedlock births
, single-parent and divorced homes, abortion
, propagation of contraception - these are all focussed squarely
on the working class. On urban and rural wage-workers. On minorities.
I have a radical communist solution in mind for this. It is time for us to declare a truce in the gender war, which is actually an ideological extension of the class war. It is time for a radical experiment in intentional small-scale communal living
. One man and one woman, completely unrelated to each other, pool all their financial resources together for common use. They unreservedly give each other sex, but as a rule don't have sex outside the commune. (Remember, casual sex is a tool of the capitalist oppressor!) And the best part? They don't have the pressure to consume endlessly in pursuit of sexual satisfaction! They completely opt out of using contraceptives and birth control, of elaborate mating games requiring expenditures on alcohol and expensive clothes, cars and cosmetics. The very structure of the commune starves the capitalist beast!
I need a short, snappy name for this communal setup, though. Anyone have any ideas?