Unable to load image

"Free" "Love"

If you liked "Communism has failed every time it has been tried", you'll love "Free love has failed every time it has been tried"! Not only can you act smugly superior to leftists, you'll also finally have an excuse to hate hippies and "degenerates"! Interested? Read on for more information!

"Every time"? you may ask. "Isn't that just a hippy thing?" WRONG! Ever since the """enlightenment""", and to this very day (polycules) variations of this same idea have been proposed:

  1. Everyone has s*x with each other
  2. Everyone raises all of the children

Do the math, and it is seemingly objectively a good idea:

  • Everybody loves s*x, so more sexual partners means more s*x :marseydepressed: => :marseycoomer:
  • Get bored of one partner? No big deal, just switch to another partner :doomergirl: => :abusivewife:
  • The group as a whole disciplines the children so there isn't a monopoly - aka, no more child abuse :marseybattered: => :marseywhirlyhat:
  • The group pools thier money on the children (c*mmunism ๐Ÿคฎ) so they all get equal opportunities :marseypoor: => :platyrich:

It is also (in some circumstances) philosophically a good idea :marseypipe: . After all, aren't the notions of "property" and "ownership" something that are corrupting humanity from its formerly perfect state? Some philosophers sure thought so, including greats such as Rousseau and (probably) Marx :karlmarxey: . Besides that, many have that general, vauge intuition that the world is getting worse as a result of greed and it's ilk. And what greater manifestation of property is there than the property of family? The woman I have married is MY wife, my wife calls me HER husband, the children are MY children, and they call me THIER father. Whose right is it to say that a human being is owned in this way??? r/aboringdystopia r/latestagecapitalism

Well, God would. The Bible is pretty clear that s*x should only happen within the bounds of marriage, what I just described ain't a marriage ( :marseyakshually: "what about when a man took multiple wives" :marseyakshually: that's a different thing because there was only one man, so it still marginally made sense. Of course, if you read the Bible there are plenty examples of this being an absolute pain in the butt for everyone involved. I mean think about it, all of the women have the hots for one man. Imagine the catfights!) So every time this has been proposed, the Christcucks all get together and say :fatpriest: "this is degeneracy stop having fun!" :soyjakmaga: Yeah, whatever, grandpa. I'll just be banging more hoes than you've laid eyes upon :chad:

THE SADDEST WORDS IN TOUNGE AND PEN, ARE "THE CHRIST CUCKS WERE RIGHT AGAIN"

A few problems always end up happening:

  • It turns out that people don't like sharing their sexual partners, and, if they do, they are fricking cucks. :marseycuck: Beyond s*x, it seems that the sort of intimate love that occurs in a monogamous relationship can't be scaled up to multiple people. It also turns out that these illogical apes still have emotions and desire intimate love.
  • STDs, obviously. :marseyvirus:
  • Mothers and their children have a very intense bond, that also can't be scaled up very well. This is mostly because how few children we have. A single child takes nine months to gestate fully. Other animals, on the other hand don't really give a shit about their young because of how many they have at once (see: pigs).
  • Studies have shown that children do best when they have a mother and a father. This makes evolutionary sense, children have had a mother and a father since we were frogs.
  • Without someone constantly invested specifically in their development, children end up getting neglected. For an example, look at any orphanage ever.
  • etc

What you should take away from this """essay""":

  • Never join a free love commune, because it's either a ponzi scheme or it will collapse in about a year
  • Radical new ideas about human society based on SCIENCE, FACTS, and LOGIC might be really fricking bad so maybe be careful idk tho
  • It's possible to write """political""" posts that actually have a clear argument and point without being hyperfocused on current events.
  • If you are a female, you should be wearing a burka at all times. If you are a male, you should be fully nude.
5
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why would I ever need an excuse to hate hippies? That's just like the default setting.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Never join a free love commune, because it's either a ponzi scheme or it will collapse in about a year

Join a free love commune and just get out after 363 days.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

unfortunately you have to take the STDs and shattered ego with you

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

shattered ego

You wanna tell us something bro? It's ok, rdrama is a safe space.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

my ego is shattered, but thats just from the LSD

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

the maoist international movement upholds celibacy as the most advanced sexuality under capitalism but if that is not feasible, monogamy makes the most economic sense

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:marseyconfused: where do baby maoists come from :marseyconfused:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Given this analysis, the only way under capitalism for women to avoid being oppressed in their sexual relationships and for men to avoid oppressing women is to be asexual. However, there is little structural support within capitalism for an asexual lifestyle. To demand it of comrades would be unproductive, and would likely make hypocrites out of us. Non-members would probably have a harder time with asexuality, as they would not even have the structure of the party to support them

The party advocates monogamy as the next best thing to asexuality, given the conditions under which romantic relationships take place in our society. By monogamy, MIM means forever monogamy: once you enter into a sexual relationship, you should expect to stay in it forever. Of course, MIM does not advocate keeping monogamous couples together if the relationship is destructively abusive. And this is not to say that MIM is against dating. But once a relationship has been established, it ought to be permanent

https://prisoncensorship.info/archive/books/mt/mt2-ebook.pdf

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What this tells us is that communists are fricking r-slurred

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

calling it names won't help

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That's great and all, but I asked for my burger without cheese.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:marseylongpost: :marseylongpost: :marseylongpost:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Sentient

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Imagine the catfights!

Oh I will

:#marseycoomer:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The problem is that while men would free love everyone (maybe gay male communes would work? idk) women tend to only be sexually open with men that can impress them. So rather than free love for the whole group, it would turn into free love only for the men who are relatively socially competent and the rest would go without. The whole point of encouraging or enforcing monogamy in society is that it ensures you don't have a big group of angry, single men who feel that they have nothing to lose and are looking to take out their frustration on those in power.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You were put down, in the future please refrain from discussing subjects you have no education in.

Snapshots:

r/aboringdystopia:

r/latestagecapitalism:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

sentient unfortunately ๐Ÿ˜”

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.