Over Population Discussion

[DansonDelta40]

Sexual Repression: The Root of All Social Control?
“The person afflicted with the emotional plague limps characterologically. The emotional plague is a chronic biopathy of the organism. It made an inroad into human society with the first mass suppression of genital sexuality; it became an endemic disease, which has been tormenting people the world over for thousands of years. According to our knowledge, it is implanted in the child from the first days of life. It is an endemic illness, like schizophrenia or cancer, with one notable difference, i.e., it is essentially manifested in social life.” -Wilhelm Reich

Wilhelm Reich was a radical psychotherapist (and former student of Freud) who, in the 1920s, began to make observations about human sexual repression that we believe have a lot to contribute to the anti-civilization critique. The linchpin of civilization, the defining process that holds it all together, is domestication - the suppression and restructuring of what was once wild and free. In the human animal this translates into the repression and bludgeoning of our natural instincts by outside social forces. Reich believed that human beings formed what he termed “character armor” as a chronic result of the clash between instinctual demands and an outer world, which frustrates those demands. This “character armor” is formed when the ego undergoes a structural change in order to carry out the inhibition of instincts demanded by the modern, civilized world and to be able to cope with the energy stasis which results from this inhibition.

Reich described this change in the human psyche as a hardening, a cementing of civilized repressions that take on a chronically operating, automatic character, as if the affected (repressed) personality has developed a hard shell around itself to deflect and weaken the blows of the outer world as well as the clamoring of unfulfilled inner needs. As a protective psychological formation that has become chronic, Reich felt that this character hardening merited the designation of the psychic mobility of the personality as a whole. The maintenance of this character armor always proceeds according to the pleasure-unpleasure principle and consists of multiple, interrelated layers that serve to ward off the most deeply repressed impulses.

And the most deeply repressed impulse in the civilized world, according to Reich, is the natural human need to give and receive love and to experience orgiastic, libidinal gratification and pleasure. But human sexuality had been repressed and disfigured, claimed Reich, by the compulsory sex morality of the dominant culture.

Reich linked sexual repression to the formation of authoritarian personalities and believed that there are libidinal energies, which are employed in the anchoring of the authoritarian social order, as he explained in his 1933 book The Mass Psychology of Fascism.

Reich believed that it was in this anchoring of the social order in the character structure that we find an explanation for the toleration on the part of the suppressed layers of the population toward the rulership of an upper social class that has the means of power at its disposal, a toleration that often goes so far as to affirm authoritarian suppression at the expense of its own class interests. Reich’s analysis of sexual imagery within Nazi propaganda and Hitler’s hypnotic oratory performances led him to believe that Germans achieved some sort of orgiastic satisfaction from their dedication to the Fuhrer and his weltanschaung of sexual repression. Myron Sharaf, Reich’s biographer, commented that, “This intense libidinal excitation, combined with a sense of moral righteousness, was strikingly similar to the atmosphere at religious revival meetings.”

Reich went on to apply his same critique of the Third Reich to Soviet Russia and the Communist Party, and came to the following conclusions:

o Humankind is biologically sick.
o Politics is the irrational social expression of this sickness.
o The character structure of the masses is formed by socioeconomic processes and it anchors and perpetuates these processes. Humanity's biopathic character structure is the fossilization of the authoritarian process of history. It is the biophysical reproduction of mass suppression.
o The fear of freedom - and the incapacity for freedom - of masses of people is expressed in the biophysical rigidity of the character and the inflexibility of the organism.
o Interest in money and power is a substitute for unfulfilled happiness in love, supported by the biologic rigidity of masses of people.

We want to make it clear at this point that we don’t uncritically embrace all of Reich’s ideas. Like most visionaries, Reich’s life was riddled with contradictions, and even as anarchists, we regard some of his later writings as marginally crackpot. And despite his advocacy of “free love” and non-monogamy, Reich seemed to be pretty sexually repressed himself and maintained throughout his life that homosexuality was a “disorder.” Nonetheless, we feel that Reich stumbled upon a “piece of the puzzle,” and if we accept that even a fraction of what he postulates is feasible, then it revolutionizes our understanding of how both social domestication and authoritarian political rackets work. Human beings as a species have been deeply scarred and traumatized by 10,000 years of colonization, domestication and sexual repression, and no social order that emerges from this collective dysfunctionality/psychosis can offer us anything but more repression. As Reich described it, “The human masses have become apathetic, incapable of discrimination, biopathic and slavish as a result of the suppression of their vital life over thousands of years.”

No comment - just found this an interesting theory.

[gwgmer]

@Soup

Telling people not to have sex isn’t about self-control it’s about oppression, for god’s sake. Just because your religion says it’s wrong doesn’t mean you have the right to push your beliefs onto the whole world.

I’m an atheist (or better said, an apatheist), brother. Let’s try not to jump to conclusions.
By your logic, telling people not to kill people is “oppression” as well. When you’re confronted with something potentially dangerous, telling people not to do it outside of very set circumstances is as far from “oppression” as possible.

@Burbinator

Look at the facts: it’s not working. The pope and many priests or missionaries or whatever have already preached and are still preaching abstinence. It hasn’t been a big success, has it?

You’re damn straight it’s not working, because they’re going about it wrong. Their reasoning is poor - they haven’t been giving people enough reasons as to the why.

@Burbinator

And thanks for ignoring me when I said “It’s not your or anyone else’s place to do so anyway.”
Because it isn’t, as Soup and Danson have pointed out as well.

I ignored you because it’s a rather foolish statement. It only works if I’m dictating - which I’m not. I’m suggesting an alternative which I’d like people to follow. Or did you believe I wanted to institute an unenforceable law?

@Acristoff

But see the thing is, you said so yourself, they’ll (/some) be using condoms, thus reducing infection rate.

We can’t reduce it to zero that’s unrealistic, but we can reduce it and why the hell not?

Think of it like this: let’s pretend that someone likes to go target shooting out in the forest. As any responsible gun owner knows, the forest is not the best place to target shoot, as bullets travel a damn long way, and there’s always the chance that you could hit a hiker you can’t see. A shooting range is better.
Let’s pretend, however, that you tell people that as long as you check behind the brush to make sure there are no people, it’s safe to target shoot. So, now you and all your friends - the entire world’s population, since we’re talking about sex - are shooting into the forest (holy shit this metaphor is appropriate in more ways then one.) Since they’ve settled into a routine of shooting like this, eventually some people are going to forget to check downrange for people - some may even stop checking altogether. Suddenly there’s a huge danger of people getting shot - all because these target shooters didn’t wait until they were at a target range to shoot.
Sex, even with a condom, always presents a danger. Considering that some of you people are willing to destroy economies and take away freedoms to solve this “overpopulation” problem, I’m surprised you’re so hostile to something that would effectively guarantee a drop in pregnancies and curb STDs - as well as increase a person’s self-control wholesale.

@Acristoff

That’s completely (for the lack of a better word) retarded, that’s the perfect age for teenagers to learn social skills when dealing with romantic interest, and that’s something that’s very important. Hell, they’ve done studies that being sexually (and romantically) active at such an age is important since repressing these experiences will only cause problems later on in life.

Dear God, learn2sarcasm. That’s why I said “But seriously” following that comment.

@Soup

Not to mention mentally and emotionally damaging.

Who in the hell ever suggested telling people that their bodies are filthy, or whatnot? You’re jumping to conclusions again. Sex can be a wonderful, pleasurable thing - and because of this, it must be done with the utmost self-control. The same goes for drinking, and any other pleasurable thing.

@SassyRobot

Story of her life.

Good for you. When I was younger, I regularly went 20, 30, even 40 mph over the speed limit - and only stopped because I got a ticket and can’t afford another insurance increase. I never crashed while doing this, however - so I guess, by your logic in providing this example, that we can tell everyone that going that fast is always okay, as long as you don’t get caught by the cops?
You’re a lucky example. Not everyone has had such luck.

@SassyRobot

Now, I hate to imagine how screwed up I would be if when I was a curious 12 year old (yes yes, judge all you like, I didn’t lose my virginity til I was 15 and had been with my partner for three years at this point), I hadn’t known the risks of getting “involved”, I would have persued the relationship anyway. I would have eventually (perhaps sooner, even) experienced the physical aspect of the relationship (without the physical or emotional maturity), had I not been aware of the consequences.

I would hate to imagine how terrible that would have been as well - which is exactly why I’m advocating what I’m advocating. Do you think I don’t want to tell children about how dangerous this stuff is? How else do you think I plan to try to convince people to abstain in the first place?
It’s not the education I’m against. It’s the telling people that condoms or other forms of protection constitute “safe sex.” They don’t, just like checking the forest doesn’t mean that it’s safe to target shoot into it. Considering that both could have such drastic consequences, better to not do it even once.

@DansonDelta

Yep, it can even result in pedophilia - being attracted to minors because you hadn’t got a chance to score in highschool.

I’m pretty sure pedophilia is more of a mental disease and less of what you’re saying - unless you’re joking.

[Soup]

@gwgmer

Good for you. When I was younger, I regularly went 20, 30, even 40 mph over the speed limit - and only stopped because I got a ticket and can’t afford another insurance increase. I never crashed while doing this, however - so I guess, by your logic in providing this example, that we can tell everyone that going that fast is always okay, as long as you don’t get caught by the cops?
You’re a lucky example. Not everyone has had such luck.

The difference is that you were controlling a hunk of metal at extremely dangerous speeds that could maim or kill many people, including yourself. Also, the chance of you crashing depends on your driving skill and reaction time, as well as many other factors. When it comes to condoms it basically just down to the condom, unless you do something stupid and use vaseline as lube.

It’s an utterly ridiculous comparison.

Also, like I said before, you are a virgin and therefore have no idea how people act sexually. Yes, you made your vapid point about statistics but that was about one gender in one specific age and group of people in one specific country, and is therefore representative of only that group.

Teaching abstinence is mentally and emotionally damaging. It’s repression, which is bad in itself, but it also leads those to give negative connotations to sex: after all, why would you abstain from it if it was a good thing?

EDIT: Condoms and the pill are pretty damn safe. You’d think that with your apparent love of statistics you would know that.

You know, with your logic you should abstain from eating. Who knows, it might have been infected by a dangerous virus. Sure, it’s not likely that it will be, but why take the risk?

You are a perfect example of a damage caused by repression. I mean, hell, you compared sex outside of marriage with murder.

[Cup_o_Joe]

@Burbinator

Explains why so many priests are pedos.

I highly doubt you can confirm that stereotype. Do you know even one priest? One? I know 30 priests personally and ALL of them are there to serve mass and the sacraments. They don’t think about themselves and any priest that thinks about himself should be reviewed by his bishop. The priesthood like Paul said to the Bishop Timothy is supposed to be selfless, Christlike.

Which is why I’m planning to go to seminary after getting a career to pay for school. I want to serve Christ and his Church.

[danielsangeo]

Cup o Joe: So, you deny that there are pedophile priests (who also serve mass and the sacraments) out there because the ones you know don’t do that?

Also, you cut off the “retard” smiley. Burbinator was obviously making a joke.

[Master_Chef]

There are as many pedophile priests as there are in any other profession.

[danielsangeo]

@Master Chef

There are as many pedophile priests as there are in any other profession.

Yes. However, the Church virtually stands alone in protecting their people from prosecution. “We’ll just shift them to another area.” Excuse me? They should be fired (excommunicated?) and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It’s what would happen in other professions.

[JohnKiller118]

@Cup o Joe

I highly doubt you can confirm that stereotype. Do you know even one priest? One? I know 30 priests personally and ALL of them are there to serve mass and the sacraments. They don’t think about themselves and any priest that thinks about himself should be reviewed by his bishop. The priesthood like Paul said to the Bishop Timothy is supposed to be selfless, Christlike.

Which is why I’m planning to go to seminary after getting a career to pay for school. I want to serve Christ and his Church.

You realized that it was a joke question, right?

You just got TROLLED!

[gwgmer]

@Soup

The difference is that you were controlling a hunk of metal at extremely dangerous speeds that could maim or kill many people, including yourself. Also, the chance of you crashing depends on your driving skill and reaction time, as well as many other factors. When it comes to condoms it basically just down to the condom, unless you do something stupid and use vaseline as lube.

It’s an utterly ridiculous comparison.

You’re taking my comparison in a completely different direction. Sassy was using a personal example as if to prove that it is true in all situations. I did the same in order to show how ridiculous what she was doing is.
Your criticism of this is akin to me using the phrase “comparing apples to oranges” and you finding fault because we’re not talking about fruit.

@Soup

Also, like I said before, you are a virgin and therefore have no idea how people act sexually. Yes, you made your vapid point about statistics but that was about one gender in one specific age and group of people in one specific country, and is therefore representative of only that group.

What kind of statistics do you want? My point here is that people are inconsistent and irresponsible, and because of this are better off abstaining from this until it can be done in the safest environment possible. Do I really need to prove that most people are irresponsible? Do I really need to prove that people, when told that they can have a good thing, will do it indiscreetly and irresponsibly? Do I really need to prove that people can, and will, fail to use protection against consequences?

@Soup

Teaching abstinence is mentally and emotionally damaging. It’s repression, which is bad in itself, but it also leads those to give negative connotations to sex: after all, why would you abstain from it if it was a good thing?

Repression is bad, really? So every single urge you get, you do it, because God forbid you should control yourself?
“Hey, that guy just cut me off. I’ll shoot him.”
“Hey, that girl’s pretty hot. I’ll rape her.”
Obviously you don’t do these things. Very few people in their right mind do, because they come with consequences - and people know that, for the most part, they’ll have to face those consequences.
Why should sex, which has some pretty damn high consequences, be any different?
As for a negative connotation, I don’t think saying that something is so important that one must be very, very careful regarding one’s participation in it gives it a negative consequences. For example: money is a good thing, but I doubt you spend it left and right on every nice little thing you see. You save it for the things that are important, because you know that it has to be used wisely.

@Soup

EDIT: Condoms and the pill are pretty damn safe. You’d think that with your apparent love of statistics you would know that.

If used every time. You don’t seem to understand that you can rarely count on people to use them every time. If you thought this, you wouldn’t find my claim that people can abstain so shocking, as it’s the same principle.

@Soup

You know, with your logic you should abstain from eating. Who knows, it might have been infected by a dangerous virus. Sure, it’s not likely that it will be, but why take the risk?

All right, let’s take this comparison a bit farther. Let’s pretend that we’ve got a batch of tomatoes that we know are infested with E. Coli. We know that if we eat them without protecting ourselves, we will get very sick - however, if we use some kind of special pill before eating them, we’ll be okay, as long as we take said pill each time.
Now, are you REALLY going to start eating those tomatoes left and right? Or are you going to decide that maybe you’d rather not chance that the special medicine fail, or that you forget to take it, so you decide to stay off tomatoes for a while until you know it’s safe to eat them?

@Soup

You are a perfect example of a damage caused by repression. I mean, hell, you compared sex outside of marriage with murder.

And you compared sex to EATING. A biological NECESSITY. Obviously sex isn’t necessary for your own life, but that wasn’t the point you were trying to make. I understand this. You should try to understand the points I’M making as well for what they’re worth.

A side note, though: I was comparing ALL irresponsible sex to murder. The only way I can find people having sex responsibly is inside of marriage - a situation in which, ideally, they’d be monogamous, so there wouldn’t be a chance of spreading STDs. Also ideally, they’d be a lot more motivated to prevent unwanted pregnancies: it’d be a hell of a lot harder for a married man to skip town after impregnating his wife than for a guy to do the same after impregnating his girlfriend. Overall, and I say for the third time, ideally, a married couple would be a hell of a lot more responsible than their unmarried counterparts…and this ideal is something we’d have to work for along with abstinence.

[DansonDelta40]

There are as many pedophile priests as there are in any other profession.
Yes. However, the Church virtually stands alone in protecting their people from prosecution. “We’ll just shift them to another area.” Excuse me? They should be fired (excommunicated?) and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It’s what would happen in other professions.

Didn’t you know priesthood is about fucking little boys?

[Soup]

@gwgmer

You’re taking my comparison in a completely different direction. Sassy was using a personal example as if to prove that it is true in all situations. I did the same in order to show how ridiculous what she was doing is.
Your criticism of this is akin to me using the phrase “comparing apples to oranges” and you finding fault because we’re not talking about fruit.

No it isn’t. As I explained, there are many factors involved when driving like a twat. There are not many factors when having sex.

@gwgmer

What kind of statistics do you want? My point here is that people are inconsistent and irresponsible, and because of this are better off abstaining from this until it can be done in the safest environment possible. Do I really need to prove that most people are irresponsible? Do I really need to prove that people, when told that they can have a good thing, will do it indiscreetly and irresponsibly? Do I really need to prove that people can, and will, fail to use protection against consequences?

I want statistics that prove your point, obviously. At the moment it’s just your warped opinion that everyone’s a nympho.

How is marriage the safest environment possible? Why is it any different to a normal relationship?

Also, it’s pretty easy to prove that people don’t do good things indiscreetly and irresponsibly. Let’s take food again. Snacks are things people find delicious, they are an enjoyable treat and they’re easy to get. Much like sex (assuming you have a partner). Yet you don’t find people looting sweet shops? I’m sure you’ll mention the rate of obesity but it isn’t nearly high enough to prove your point.

@gwgmer

Repression is bad, really? So every single urge you get, you do it, because God forbid you should control yourself?
“Hey, that guy just cut me off. I’ll shoot him.”
“Hey, that girl’s pretty hot. I’ll rape her.”
Obviously you don’t do these things. Very few people in their right mind do, because they come with consequences - and people know that, for the most part, they’ll have to face those consequences.
Why should sex, which has some pretty damn high consequences, be any different?

I’m obviously as maladjusted as you.

If an urge is negative, say the urge to lash out at someone that’s giving you abuse or arguing like a moron, I know the outcome will be negative and unpleasant, therefore I repress that urge.

Having sex does not have pretty damn high consequences and is an extremely pleasant act that has no damaging effects, unless one of you gets things wrong.

@gwgmer

As for a negative connotation, I don’t think saying that something is so important that one must be very, very careful regarding one’s participation in it gives it a negative consequences. For example: money is a good thing, but I doubt you spend it left and right on every nice little thing you see. You save it for the things that are important, because you know that it has to be used wisely.

It’s negative reinforcement. You’re saying “Sex is very, very important, you must be extremely careful and never, ever, ever have sex outside of marriage!” This is essentially saying sex is dangerous.

Pretty damn negative.

Also, you can’t run out of sex, so your money thing doesn’t really work as a comparison.

@gwgmer

If used every time. You don’t seem to understand that you can rarely count on people to use them every time. If you thought this, you wouldn’t find my claim that people can abstain so shocking, as it’s the same principle.

I don’t really think you understand the pill. People don’t go on the pill unless they take it properly.

@gwgmer

All right, let’s take this comparison a bit farther. Let’s pretend that we’ve got a batch of tomatoes that we know are infested with E. Coli. We know that if we eat them without protecting ourselves, we will get very sick - however, if we use some kind of special pill before eating them, we’ll be okay, as long as we take said pill each time.
Now, are you REALLY going to start eating those tomatoes left and right? Or are you going to decide that maybe you’d rather not chance that the special medicine fail, or that you forget to take it, so you decide to stay off tomatoes for a while until you know it’s safe to eat them?

No, that’s not taking the comparison further. You’re essentially saying that sex is bad no matter what in this comparison, therefore we must protect ourselves from its evil.

@gwgmer

And you compared sex to EATING. A biological NECESSITY. Obviously sex isn’t necessary for your own life, but that wasn’t the point you were trying to make. I understand this. You should try to understand the points I’M making as well for what they’re worth.

Eating is an enjoyable thing, as is sex, driving like a retard is dangerous and irresponsible. I think mine was a fair comparison.

I’m trying to understand your points, but they aren’t exactly logical.

@gwgmer

A side note, though: I was comparing ALL irresponsible sex to murder. The only way I can find people having sex responsibly is inside of marriage - a situation in which, ideally, they’d be monogamous, so there wouldn’t be a chance of spreading STDs. Also ideally, they’d be a lot more motivated to prevent unwanted pregnancies: it’d be a hell of a lot harder for a married man to skip town after impregnating his wife than for a guy to do the same after impregnating his girlfriend. Overall, and I say for the third time, ideally, a married couple would be a hell of a lot more responsible than their unmarried counterparts…and this ideal is something we’d have to work for along with abstinence.

As I’ve already said, there isn’t a difference between a married couple and normal couple. It’s hard not to think of you as religious since all of your points come down to marriage in the end.

I’ll say it once more.

A virgin can’t know anything about sexual psychology.

[bur]

I agree with you on everything, Soup, but not on the virginity thing.
It depends on your experiences, really. I’m still a virgin (though not by choice), but from my experiences and knowledge I’ve gained over the years I think I have a pretty good idea of sexual psychology.

gwgmer, you’re basing your entire point on the assumption that people will invariably be irresponsible when it comes to sex.
You obviously have no insight in how sexual relations work. The pill is something you take periodically, without fail (although forgetting it does happen, sometimes).
Using a condom is something that is easily made part of foreplay or some other part of sexual habits.

And either way, surely, even if people were to be utterly irresponsible, chances of people not using a condom when necessary would certainly be higher when they’re not easily available?

[DansonDelta40]

Being a virgin means having only the theoretical data available. When I was “de-virginized” I learned pretty quickly that a lot I thought I “knew” about sex was utter rubbish. And that reality was much more awesome

[Soup]

Exactly Danson.

Also, an extremely good last point, Burbinator. You might also say that if people are as irresponsible as he says, people just wouldn’t use condoms, or care about whatever he thinks about abstinence.

[bur]

Still depends on your experiences though. I have some sexual experience, only just coming short of actual sex. Which is unfortunate :retard:

And thanks Soup :awesome:

[JohnKiller118]

@DansonDelta40

Being a virgin means having only the theoretical data available. When I was “de-virginized” I learned pretty quickly that a lot I thought I “knew” about sex was utter rubbish. And that reality was much more awesome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abz9JPfH3TA&feature=related

[Pettifogg]

I think the problem gwgamer has is he’s taking the black and white stance of either “Never have sex! Wearing condoms will not help at all and probably make you more likely to get pregnant and get STDs!” or “As long as you wear a condom you can have as much sex as you like and there’s absolutely no chance of anything ever going wrong! Also, we’re going to hand them out without telling you how to use them properly!”

Surely it makes sense teach that if you are going to have sex then do wear a condom, but also make people aware that they’re not 100% foolproof, and teach proper usage?

[danielsangeo]

@SassyRobot

What a patronising twat.

All that “you were lucky” shit.

I wasn’t fucking lucky, I was educated.
I used condoms each time and took the pill every day.

I wasn’t lucky, douche.

No. You were lucky.

Just like all those lucky people that cross the road without getting hit by a car because they look both ways and cross only on the green and in a crosswalk. Or like all those lucky people that aren’t injured during a lightning storm because they aren’t standing under a tree. Or all those lucky people that don’t get food poisoning by properly preparing and cooking their food. :rolleyes:

There are MANY dangerous things you can do out there and, if you’re going to shield yourself from ever doing them because there’s a possibility that you “might be harmed”, then you might as well lock yourself in a padded cell so NOTHING EVER HAPPENS TO YOU.

Hell, eating a bowl of cereal can be dangerous. What if you choke on your Lucky Charms?

[Bolteh]

I was massively disappointed after my first time :< All those movies, all those stories… ALL FILTHY LIES

And after many times, they’re still lies, though the virginity-loss-disaster hasn’t happened since.

[Soup]

@danielsangeo

Hell, eating a bowl of cereal can be dangerous. What if you choke on your Lucky Charms?

It’s the leprechaun’s revenge, y’know.