You must log in or register to comment.

huh wrote (edited )

I didn't see where they said homosexuality was bourgeois (I skimmed the essay) except maybe "bourgeois queer culture," which I understood to be about pinkwashing or upper class queer people. It was mainly stating over and over that polyamory was "decadent" and a distraction (without really backing that claim).

Do tankies have to write like party propagandist cosplayers LARPers all the time?? "Bourgeois" this, "bourgeois" that, "you must devote all of yourself to the revolution and the party," and quoting Marx/Engels/Lenin for half the text.


Quicksilver wrote (edited )

I'm not saying they are the same...but I get the same vibe from this whole "the actions of love and sex must be for the promotion of the revolution and the community", as I do from " the actions of love and sex must be used for the promotion of tradition and community (white race)".

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, as I'm not versed in Marxist theory (or much theory in general), but the whole thing that your sex life should be dedicated to the strength of the community and whatever the community wants seems...wrong.

Also, by this logic of this piece, is masturbating a bourgeois activity?


ziq wrote

Yes. Everything unholy and individualistic is.


metocin OP wrote (edited )

Your vibes are right, theyre the same damn thing. Both groups are reactionary as fuck.


ShadesPath wrote

Hey, organized orthodox Christianity called, they want their purity culture propaganda back.


metocin OP wrote

My bad, I read this a few weeks ago. Really contrasted with Tallbear's writings about polyamory being a form of decolonizing.

But yeah, just the writing style itself is embarrassing. To think that these people think they speak for the working class is hilarious honestly. Hopelessly out of touch.