Why was the thread "Why is the left so obsessed with sex?" deleted?

Wandering through the aimless pathways of internet virtuality, I stumbled upon a rather curious question. "Is it possible to be a leftist while simultaneously being against gay rights? I consider myself a left-leaning, tolerant heterosexual, but the idea of male homosexuality repulses me," claimed a representative from one online forum community. To be perfectly honest, I didn't even bother reading what anyone else replied, because frankly, it didn't interest me at all...

You might have been misled as well if you thought this specific topic was the actual point. It isn't, because I am interested in a much broader context. What truly fascinates me is that deep, constant connection between leftist politics and sex, which is why I titled this thread "Why are leftists so obsessed with sex?". Regardless of whether one is hetero, homo, some third thing, or who knows what other form, that link between sexuality and leftist ideology is always vividly apparent...

A student of Freud, the Austrian psychiatrist and radical leftist Wilhelm Reich once argued that "sexual prohibitions are tools used by the wealthy and powerful to oppress and subjugate the masses." I don't quite grasp the full weight of his claim, but he was certainly tracing the lines of a sort of sexual Marxism. And if we take a quick peek into history, we see a massive array of examples where sexology and leftist ideologies are intertwined...

If we look in the opposite direction—from politics toward sex—we encounter the exact same phenomenon. We don't even need to dig deep into history or look far into the Western world to be convinced of this. From our own federal government down to the most basic leftist mob, sex is immensely important to everyone, which is clearly visible in how sex education is handled. It's so significant that even a slightly different way of thinking about sex can call the entire leftist political worldview into question, just like in the example of the forum user mentioned at the start...

To paraphrase our Secretary of Education, you can debate almost anything regarding the left, except for sex. Truly, we haven't seen such intense digging into trenches, even when defending anti-fascism. Sex, it seems, has outgrown leftist ideology itself. It no longer seeks refuge within the left; rather, the left seeks refuge in sex as its own ideology. After so many ideological failures, they seem to think they've finally found a sure bet...

And there you have it, I’ve unintentionally answered the question "why is the left so obsessed with sex?" But please, don't let that discourage you from sharing your own perspective. I thank you in advance...

This is how I opened the thread, which was deleted after only a few posts.

The topic I brought up isn't some figment of my imagination, but something that is discussed frequently, everywhere...

Why can't we discuss it here?

Thank you in advance.

Once the moderator decided the whole thing was just because leftists are better in bed, there wasn't much left to argue about...🤷🤣

Amanda Hughes37 said:Once the mod basically decided the whole thing was just because leftists are better in bed, there wasn't much point in even trying to argue anymore.

What a joke of a conclusion.
A mod's job isn't to troll the thread—it's to keep some semblance of "order."
The discussion was actually going somewhere; it could've been a chill, productive debate.
It’s easy to just condemn a thread right out of the gate, troll it, and shut it down—but that's exactly what mods shouldn't be doing. They should let things breathe. If a thread starts veering off the rails, you steer it back.
Besides, in my book, the OP (not talking about anyone specific here, just speaking generally) is the one who needs to watch the direction of their own thread. If they can't handle the steering wheel, they can always call for backup from the mods.
Here? The thread was judged, trolled, and killed before it even had a chance. Honestly, it doesn't seem that rare when a mod decides they aren't feeling the vibe after their morning coffee and logging on.☕.

"W.R. Mysteries of the Organism" is an American docudrama shot back in 1971, directed by Dušan Makavejev, and it really dives deep into the life and theories of the psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich... specifically looking at how communist politics and sexuality intersect. Because it took such a "controversial" look at communist ideology, the film was essentially shoved into a "vault" shortly after its initial release, only seeing any airtime on American television much later in the late 1980s. Outside of the States, though, it actually managed to develop this sort of cult following...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._R._Mysteries_of_the_Organism

How does Civil Action put it?

Spot the difference!

Or something along those lines...

The whole intersection of sex and the Left is such a fascinatingly messy topic... honestly, I don't see why we can't dive into it...

Back in the day, certain leftist theorists viewed traditional morality and marriage as these heavy weights—basically just baggage from a bourgeois, capitalist society—so they figured both those institutions, much like capitalism itself, needed to be completely dismantled and torn down...

Here’s a quick little crash course for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkwgbQ_VarA

And some background on the Frankfurt School:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4v6CVcHUXY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5gm_u4gOng

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci

James Patel20 said:The topic I brought up isn't just some random invention of mine; it's something people talk about all the time, everywhere.

"Everywhere"? Where exactly? Aside from stumbling upon a single post in the middle of nowhere on the internet and dropping a quote from a Freudian student—who, by your own admission, you don't actually understand—how does that prove your theory holds any water? What's actually new here compared to the five other threads already discussing similar stuff? Based on what specific analysis, study, or logic would you claim the left is more tied to sex than the right? On what grounds? Honestly, feel free to try and change my mind, because so far, this intro post just looks like trolling.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Where exactly is this happening, all the time, everywhere? Aside from stumbling upon a single random post in the vast wilderness of the internet and throwing out a quote from some follower of Freud—who, by your own admission, you don't actually grasp—how does that prove your theory holds any weight? What is truly groundbreaking here compared to the five other threads already debating these exact same points? Based on what specific analysis, or study, or actual data, would you claim the left is more tied to sexuality than the right? On what grounds? Perhaps you can talk some sense into me, because so far, this opening post just feels like someone trolling...

Oh boy, how many links do you really need...

Alright, fine, here is an article that mentions certain names and summarizes the part regarding the connection between leftist leanings and homosexuality.

Left-wing Homosexuality: Emancipation, Sexual Liberation, and Identity Politics

Just take a look at who wrote this piece.

And you might notice that I have actually toned things down quite a bit, expanding the scope to encompass sexuality in general rather than focusing strictly on the homosexual aspect...

James Patel20 said:Geez, you're asking for a lot of links.

Alright, here’s a piece that touches on some of those names and summarizes the part connecting psychoanalysis with homosexuality.

Left-wing Homosexuality: Emancipation, Sexual Liberation, and Identity Politics

Take a look at who actually wrote this.

And notice how I even watered things down a bit—I broadened the connection to sex in general rather than just focusing on the homosexual aspect.

So, you basically cut out the homosexual part because you knew something like that would get scrubbed much faster than if you just softened the edges?

Matthew Anderson said:So, you basically stripped away the homosexual aspect because you figured it would be easier to get something like that scrubbed than if you just tried to tone it down?

That specific text is really just one single instance of the larger pattern.

What I was actually trying to get at with my "chamomile" analogy was how certain people approach the subject when they write about it...

And my point isn't built solely on that one text, but rather on other examples too, like that film by Dušan Makavejev we discussed earlier, which isn't strictly limited to just Left-wing Homosexuality...

I think I laid out my initial thesis clearly enough, and I fully intended to defend it with actual arguments...

The core of the issue is sexuality in a general sense, not just specifically regarding homosexuality...

Ryan Vaughn7 said:So, where exactly is this happening—all the time, everywhere? Aside from stumbling upon a random post in the vast wilderness of the internet and dropping a quote from a Freudian follower—who, by their own admission, you don't actually get... how does that prove your theory holds any water? What’s actually new here compared to the five other threads already out there discussing basically the same thing? Like, what specific analysis, or study, or whatever, shows that the left is more tied to sex than the right? On what basis? Maybe you can talk some sense into me, because right now, looking at this intro post, it just looks like trolling.

And the rest of the topic—does any of that mean anything to you? ☕

It started fast—this rapid equalization of homosexuality with pedophilia and sodomy. Even here on this forum, the political right seems completely obsessed with sex. Specifically, same-sex stuff—they see it everywhere.

Matthew Anderson said:In other words—you stripped out the homosexual element because you figured it’d be scrubbed away much faster than if you just tried to tone it down?

Or maybe—given how delicate he is—he just wanted to dodge any potential confrontation regarding homoeroticism altogether.🤷

I find myself wondering: does this forum actually allow such sweeping generalizations? Is it permissible to lean into stereotypes so heavily that an entire massive demographic is unfairly painted with the same brush?

To be clear, I don't know anything about the supposed sexual obsessions of the left, nor how that would even relate to Left-wing Homosexuality. However, I am aware there is quite a bit of literature out there regarding conservatives and lower IQ levels.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...eft-right.html
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/20...right-wing-st/
http://www.ibtimes.com/people-low-iq...w-study-401470
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...le-racist.html

Still, simply citing these psychological perspectives could be seen as offensive to many. If topics like these are allowed, I fail to see how the moderators are expected to distinguish between legitimate scientific inquiry and a blatant attempt to insult those with different worldviews...

James Patel20 said:What I was trying to get at is how people describe chamomile, compared to my own take on it.

Like Sophia Thomas7 said, you tried to dress that up pretty nicely. It wouldn't have worked.

William Bennett53

Threads like this have already been posted on the forum before, and they haven't been deleted or locked down yet...

The supposed "intellectual" leftists versus the "ignorant" right-wingers... it’s an old debate, isn't it? I find myself sitting here thinking about how we constantly categorize people based on these rigid ideological lines, as if intelligence were somehow tethered to one side of the political spectrum or the other... It feels like we've built this entire social structure around the idea that certain viewpoints are inherently more sophisticated, while others are just reactionary noise, though when you really start peeling back the layers of those arguments, the distinction starts to blur in such a strange way... We see it everywhere in American discourse, this constant posturing where everyone assumes they hold the high ground of reason, while the opposition is just stumbling through some sort of primitive confusion... But then again, if you look at the actual substance behind the rhetoric, you realize that both sides are often just performing for their own echo chambers, chasing after different versions of truth that feel equally valid to them in the moment... It makes me wonder if true intellect actually exists outside of these tribal loyalties, or if we're all just trapped in these cycles of self-justification that prevent us from ever truly seeing the other side for what it actually is... maybe the gap between the "smart" and the "stupid" isn't about IQ at all, but rather about which set of illusions we choose to believe in...
I’ve been sitting here for a while just turning this over in my mind, wondering why there seems to be such a pervasive, almost reflexive assumption that those on the right are somehow lacking in intellect, while everyone leaning left feels this quiet, unshakable certainty that they possess some higher level of cognitive clarity... It’s a strange phenomenon to observe, really, because when you look closely at the motivations behind these polarized views, you start to see how much of it isn't actually about raw intelligence at all, but rather about the different ways we process information and the specific frameworks we use to make sense of a world that feels increasingly chaotic... I find myself questioning if we aren't all just trapped in our own little bubbles of perceived superiority, where we mistake our own familiarity with certain ideas for an objective truth, while dismissing anyone who operates under a different set of values as being fundamentally incapable of understanding the complexities of modern life... It makes me wonder if the divide is less about brainpower and more about a deep-seated psychological need to feel like we have the moral high ground, which then manifests as this condescension toward anyone who doesn't share our exact worldview...

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Like Sophia Thomas7 said, you’ve done a pretty good job masking it, but it still wouldn't fly...

Yeah, I guess I was being a bit slow there, handing you that exact link on a silver platter...

It's from a highly respected gay author. ☕

James Patel20 said:Yeah, I guess I was being a bit slow by handing you that exact link on a silver platter. ☕

I’ve got a perfect comeback ready to go, but I really shouldn't use it.

Looking at those two threads you pulled, the first one is total garbage—if it were posted today, it would've been deleted instantly. As for the second, you'll notice the starting premise is actually pretty different from yours.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:I've got a killer comeback ready to go, but I really shouldn't say it.

Looking at those two threads you pulled, the first one is absolute garbage—if someone tried opening a thread like that today, it would be deleted instantly... and the second one, if you look closely, approaches the whole thing from a completely different angle than yours does.

I know exactly what line you're thinking of. 🙂

But honestly, you just keep ignoring the links provided here.

If Makavejev was already dissecting this exact subject back when he was working in the old Eastern Bloc, then it really makes you wonder how far we've fallen lately...

It’s actually kind of funny seeing how the right wing is the one throwing fits over SO instead of the left

Do I really need to provide more arguments?

Or maybe just a bunch of links covering every single political topic on this forum?

I have to admit, I’m starting to lose my motivation when I find myself having to defend the very things the left actually prides itself on...