Why is the "sexual repression" theory reactionary? Did primitive people have sexual thoughts? — People's Square discussion on Chapter 2 "Contradictory Marriage System" of "The Origin of Family, Private Property and the State"

[红术]

Hong Shu 14:01
Speaking of which, today’s reading club discussed the Great Unity society. I used to think that the Great Unity society was fabricated by Confucian dogs, but I didn’t expect it to be the primitive society.

Wu Nong 14:01
I thought they were talking about the life of the slave-owning class.
But why do Confucian dogs want to portray primitive society as ideal? Aren’t they serving the exploitative and oppressive reactionary class?

Yingjie 14:02
Thinking back to when I discussed the reactionary nature of pornographic ideas with my classmate, he said that primitive people also masturbated, which is a physiological need of humans. Actually, he was defending his pornographic ideas, but my theoretical level was shallow at the time, and I didn’t understand the transformation of sexual relations from primitive communist society to class society. In the end, I could only make him accept the view that the pornographic ideas in capitalist society carry some oppression. He believed that some pornographic thoughts are not class-related, but are human physiological needs. Due to my limited understanding, I didn’t grasp this part well and could only compromise. Now, the family-private state explained in the reading club has given me some understanding.
But why do Confucian dogs want to portray primitive society as ideal? Aren’t they serving the exploitative and oppressive reactionary class?

Hong Shu 14:03
By that time, it was already the late primitive society, and the factors of private ownership had developed. The military aristocrats in the tribe also held power.
This is not praising matriarchal society.
So there is a phrase “Men have their roles, women have their places,” meaning men have careers and jobs, while women have a “home” or “destiny,” returning to be domestic slaves. The factors of private family had already started developing.

Wu Nong 14:06

So there is a phrase “Men have their roles, women have their places,” meaning men have careers and jobs, while women have a “home” or “destiny,” returning to be domestic slaves. The factors of private family had already started developing.
Oh, right, I remember now. So what they ultimately want is an oppressive society, which is the beginning of patriarchy.

Hong Shu 14:06

Thinking back to when I discussed the reactionary nature of pornographic ideas with my classmate, he said that primitive people also masturbated, which is a physiological need of humans. Actually, he was defending his pornographic ideas, but my theoretical level was shallow at the time, and I didn’t understand the transformation of sexual relations from primitive communist society to class society. In the end, I could only make him accept the view that the pornographic ideas in capitalist society carry some oppression. He believed that some pornographic thoughts are not class-related, but are human physiological needs. Due to my limited understanding…

Comrade, can you clearly explain why the existence of “sexual needs” in primitive society is invalid?

Hong Shu 14:08
And actually, he says this to defend masturbation now.

Fenghuo Flame 14:08

Comrade, can you clearly explain why the existence of “sexual needs” in primitive society is invalid?
It’s not that “sexual needs” do not exist, but that gender oppression does not exist.
Spiritual emptiness and low-level tastes do not exist.
Therefore, masturbation does not exist.

Wu Nong 14:09

He said primitive people masturbated, is there any basis or material for this?
Maybe it’s from some “academic research” seen on Douyin defending masturbation.
So, masturbation does not exist.
It turns out that primitive society had no masturbation, and fundamentally, it’s because there was no concept of private property.

Hong Shu 14:11
The term “sexual needs” is very abstract. Saying “sex” as a “need” of humans is actually a bourgeois ideology.
On one hand, it reduces humans to animals, claiming that humans must have sex, and equates this with animals’ physiological instinct of mating.
On the other hand, it uses biological instincts—determined by species genes (mating for reproduction)—to justify behaviors of sexual oppression and exploitation of women by those with social power, beautifying them as innate needs.
The word “need” erases the oppressive nature, making it seem like a biological instinct.
Previously, Fenghuo discussed similar issues in the “Family-Private State” reading club, about the fundamental differences between humans and animals, and many fools who hold onto brothel glasses, applying biological nature to humans.
If the post summarizing the “Family-Private State” theory doesn’t include this aspect (which it should), it will be updated later.

Wu Nong 14:13
I’ll check again after the update.
It confuses lower-level and higher-level movements.

Hong Shu 14:14

Turns out primitive society had no masturbation, and it’s fundamentally because there was no concept of private property.
Actually, looking at everyone’s growth or personal development now, before they come into contact with pornographic ideas and develop ideas of sexual oppression against women, they do not masturbate or satisfy their fantasies through masturbation.
The word “need” erases the oppressive nature, making it seem like a biological instinct.

Erxin Ji 14:15
Yes, I think the needs under private property society are based on inheritance rights.
The purpose of social activities is different.
The bourgeoisie’s needs are to maintain their private property and ensure their lineage is not taken back by society (similar to banks reclaiming accounts?), or to uphold their class status through family alliances.

Hong Shu 14:15
In primitive society, there was no class division, no private property, no male oppression of women, no selfishness. Everyone was in a clan family of brothers and sisters.
So, there was no “sexual need.” Primitive people wouldn’t treat sex as something to satisfy physiological needs like drinking water.

Yingjie 14:16
The difference between primitive people and those in class society in terms of sexual relations is that there was no sexual oppression.
I remember thinking that primitive people could have sex directly without fantasizing, but I didn’t realize the fundamental difference was whether there was sexual oppression.

Hong Shu 14:16
Only the exploiting classes—slave owners, feudal landlords, capitalists—would most agree with the “sexual need” viewpoint because their lives are filled with extravagance and lust.
They see sexual relations as simple as drinking water.
But in every ruling class society, the dominant ideology is that of the ruling class.
Today’s imperialist society is extremely decadent and morally corrupt, so ideas like “sexual needs” and “sexual repression” can flourish.

Hong Shu 14:23

The difference between primitive people and those in class society in terms of sexual relations is that there was no sexual oppression. I used to think primitive people could have sex directly without fantasizing, but I didn’t realize the fundamental difference was whether there was sexual oppression.
No, “sexual needs” do exist, but gender oppression does not.
There is no spiritual emptiness or low-level tastes.
Therefore, masturbation does not exist.

Wu Nong 14:28

The idea that primitive people masturbated—do you have any basis or material for that?
Maybe it’s from some “academic research” seen on Douyin defending masturbation.
So, masturbation does not exist.
It turns out that primitive society had no masturbation because there was no concept of private property.

Erxin Ji 14:32
It’s the degenerated tribal chieftain at the end of matriarchal society.

[迎接]

I think the replies and the content being replied to should be distinguished in the text below, otherwise it might look quite messy to others.

[红术]

Indeed, the early morning was mainly rushed because it was too late, but I will see if there is a way to distinguish it later.

[青松]

Can be replied with “>”

For example

[前进Advance]

I feel it’s better to just summarize and send it out

[红术]

I have finished it

[伍农]

I summarized using AI:

Class Analysis Summary: Critique of “Great Unity Society” and “Sexual Needs” from a Class Perspective

1. Revelation of the Reactionary Nature of Confucian “Great Unity Society”

1. “Great Unity” as a Class Attribute: A Hotbed of Patriarchy at the End of Primitive Society. The so-called “Great Unity Society” praised by Confucian scholars is by no means a primitive communism without exploitation or oppression. It is essentially a historical stage of disintegration of primitive communes, with the emergence of private ownership and class oppression. As defenders of the exploiting class, Confucian scholars’ ideal is merely to romanticize the origins of private property, the rise of patriarchy, and the beginning of human exploitation.
2. Reactionary Slogan: “Men Have Their Place, Women Have Their Home.” This slogan is irrefutable evidence of class analysis. It blatantly exposes the tragic fate of women being marginalized from social production, becoming private household slaves (“home”). This is a manifestation of patriarchal oppression coexisting with private ownership. The Confucian scholars long for a society where they, as the ruling exploiting class, can maintain their privilege to oppress others.

2. Class Cleansing of the Bourgeois “Sexual Needs” Theory

1. “Sexual Needs” Revisionist Essence: Vulgar Materialism and Biological Determinism. Reducing “sex” to a physiological need like “drinking water” is a typical bourgeois vulgar materialism. This theory attempts to explain higher social movements (human sociality) through lower biological drives, with reactionary aims:
   • Negate human sociality: Reduce humans to animals driven solely by instincts, thereby denying human subjective initiative and the possibility of transforming society through class struggle.
   • Cover up class oppression: Use the universal concept of “physiological needs” to defend the pornographic ideas, sexual oppression, and debauchery of the bourgeoisie and exploiting classes under private ownership, thoroughly erasing the oppressive nature and class character of sexual relations in class society.
2. Sexual Relations in Primitive Communism: No Oppression, No Alienation.
   • No basis for “fantasy” or “masturbation”: Primitive communist society had no classes, no private ownership concepts, and no systematic male oppression of women, so there was no pornographic ideology or fantasizing caused by class alienation and spiritual emptiness in private ownership societies.
   • Critique of “Prostitute Glasses”: The barbaric idea that “sex can happen directly without fantasy” is a view shaped by the most rotten “prostitute glasses” of private ownership society. Such “reckless promiscuity” is precisely the ugly deeds exploited by the exploiting class to maintain their class dominance in patriarchal society, reflecting their luxurious and decadent lifestyle, and has nothing to do with the life of the masses in a classless society.