You’re Doing It All Wrong
If you are only attracted to able, ‘mentally well’, cis, normatively beautiful people, from class privileged backgrounds, then you are upholding violent norms.
Attention, husbands, wives, lovers, seekers of amour, and the partnered of the world. Student activist and avowed “feminist killjoy” Josefin Hedlund wishes to correct your desires in a totally non-dogmatic, non-presumptuous way:
This myth [of love, marriage and monogamy] still has a powerful hold in today’s Western neoliberal societies. Its most important message is that love is magical and apolitical. However, at a closer look, it is obvious that love actually works to uphold hetero- and cis-normative, patriarchal, capitalist, and hierarchical structures in society.
Better stow your luggage and strap yourselves in. The ride may be bumpy.
Test yourself: write down the gender, race, class, social, political, educational, and geographical background of everyone you have been attracted to. Do you see a pattern?
Maleness aside, can’t say I do. In fact, I doubt I could recall everyone who’s ever caught my eye. And it occurs to me that if even momentary attraction requires a thorough preemptive vetting of each person’s geographic and educational background, and knowledge of their bank balance and socio-political views, then something’s gone horribly wrong. I should think few of us have time to maintain what sounds like a hugely impractical academic sorting fetish.
If you are only attracted to able, ‘mentally well’, successful (by society’s standards), cisgender, normatively beautiful, slim people, from class privileged backgrounds… you cannot just declare that who you are attracted to is a personal preference.
I feel there ought to have been some kind of explanation here, to pad out the assertion. I’m still waiting for some elaboration on that “upholding violent norms” thing. And it’s not entirely clear to me how my own lifelong coupling, with a chap, is “upholding hetero- and cis-normative, patriarchal, capitalist, and hierarchical structures in society.” Perhaps we’re supposed to enjoy the air of mystery. Still, there’s lots of boilerplate and rote regurgitation:
Instead, we should actively resist these norms by challenging who and what we find un-attractive and un-interesting. This can be done through art, culture, porn, but also of course through changing who we interact with and who our communities are made up of.
Ah. Apparently, we should be cultivating politically correct romantic and erotic attractions to unappealing people – say, overweight bores with borderline personalities. Because, says Ms Hedlund, love and sex are unequally “distributed,” with an unfair amount of both going to people who are deemed lovable and attractive by the people loving them, and not insufferable sociopaths with horrific disfigurements. Or, one suspects, self-styled “feminist killjoys.” And this is because of capitalism. It’s “obvious,” you see. And so we’re told,
Rejecting standard notions of love… goes hand in hand with rejecting capitalism.
Though I’m not convinced that staring intently at chubby amputee porn is going to do much for me, or will recalibrate my preferences, so hopelessly entrenched are my capitalistic, neoliberal tendencies. Readers are of course invited to try it anyway and report back on how it goes. I promise we won’t judge.
Via Tom Owolade.
Yes! Soul crushing communism sex! Is this so much to ask? Finally, a defender emerges.
Actually, the experience of Rohini Sethi does conjur up memories of the Cultural Revolution, self-criticism etc. (without being anything like as bad).
Returning to the original theme of the thread, I was moved to relect on the two great loves of my life (I’m a white, conservative Australian male).
The first was a part-aboriginal nurse whose parents were ardent communists (to be fair, after her mother acknowledged Stalin’s crimes, she became and anarchist). She was a Greenpeace stickered lefty.
The second (who I hope to grow old with) is a Beijing-born girl. In 1971 her father (a General in the PLA) was thrown in prison and she was sent to the country to be re-educated by the peasants. She’s even more conservative than me, though oddly still seems to think Mao was a good guy (all those years singing “Long Live Chairman Mao!” I guess).
I won’t deny that these (and other relationships) might have started with an admiration for a potential partner’s arse, but I have come to the conclusion that what makes relationships work is a shared set of values (not necessarily political values, more a sense of right and wrong) and mutual respect.
Finally, the reason that likes tend to end up with likes is not predjudice, it’s opportunity – you tend to socialise with people that live near to you, work in similar industries (or the same organisations) or have similar interests/hobbies.
How will socialist societies persist if they reject heteronormative conventions? Where is the next generation supposed to come from?
How will socialist societies persist if they reject heteronormative conventions? Where is the next generation supposed to come from?
Judging from the track record, they’ll continue to come from the previous generation . . .
Close all non-science Uni courses–Purge all staff and students of leftist agitators and leftists in general. From the schools as well for that matter.
Make sure that Generation Snowflake are legally blackballed from any job where they might have any power or influence anywhere whatsoever.
Only in that manner can the danger of well-off, middle/upper class cultural Marxist scum be destroyed.
Ms. Hedlund is missing the obvious here. There are places where large numbers of fiscally-irresponsible, anti-social, drug-addled, mentally-dysfunctional, sex-starved individuals can be found. They’re called prisons. I’m sure she’d find plenty of guys there who’d be happy to check her privilege good and hard when they get out.
Where is the next generation supposed to come from ?
Mandatory breeding centers, sort of like the Lebensborn program, but with 85% more compulsion.
There are places where large numbers of fiscally-irresponsible, anti-social, drug-addled, mentally-dysfunctional, sex-starved individuals can be found. They’re called prisons.
Oh, prisons, for a moment I thought you meant seats of government.
I strongly suspect that people who write or think like Hedlund have never experienced one of those “struck by lightning” moments, when all rational considerations go out the window.
Should I google ‘chubby amputee porn’? I’d almost be disappointed if some didn’t exist.
Mrs Pinkeen’s Law of Sex: if you can imagine it, someone is doing it.
Or more generally, Rule 34: If it exists, there’s porn of it.