Lenin on sex

Post Reply New Topic

Anybody who believes that a dead body, which is a piece of meat, will stay in sexually usable shape after a year must be rather gullible.

To get down to the mechanics of an erection, it is maintained by the hydrostatic pressure of blood which is caused by the tension of the circulatory system. No heartbeat, no blood pressure, no erection.

Bah. That's it. Back on topic, or to the Adult Forum you go.

As I see it, an isolated comment off-topic (but connecting to the topic) is one thing, whereas a multi-post shift into the subject of another sub-forum is another.

Although I am nothing but a gloomy ascetic, the so-called ‘new sexual life’ of the youth – and sometimes of the old – often seems to me to be purely bourgeois, an extension of bourgeois brothels. That has nothing whatever in common with freedom of love as we communists understand it. You must be aware of the famous theory that in communist society the satisfaction of sexual desires, of love, will be as simple and unimportant as drinking a glass of water. This glass of water theory has made our young people mad, quite mad. It has proved fatal to many young boys and girls. Its adherents maintain that it is Marxist. But thanks for such Marxism which directly and immediately attributes all phenomena and changes in the ideological superstructure of society to its economic basis! Matters aren’t quite as simple as that. A certain Frederick Engels pointed that out a long time ago with regard to historical materialism.

“I think this glass of water theory is completely un-Marxist, and, moreover, anti-social. In sexual life there is not only simple nature to be considered, but also cultural characteristics, whether they are of a high or low order. In his Origin of the Family Engels showed how significant is the development and refinement of the general sex urge into individual sex love. The relations of the sexes to each other are not simply an expression of the play of forces between the economics of society and a physical need, isolated in thought, by study, from the physiological aspect. It is rationalism, and not Marxism, to want to trace changes in these relations directly, and dissociated from their connections with ideology as a whole, to the economic foundations of society. Of course, thirst must be satisfied. But will the normal person in normal circumstances lie down in the gutter and drink out of a puddle, or out of a glass with a rim greasy from many lips? But the social aspect is most important of all. Drinking water is, of course, an individual affair. But in love two lives are concerned, and a third, a new life, arises, it is that which gives it its social interest, which gives rise to a duty towards the community.

“As a communist I have not the least sympathy for the glass of water theory, although it bears the fine title ‘satisfaction of love’. In any case, this liberation of love is neither new, nor communist. You will remember that about the middle of the last century it was preached as the ‘emancipation of the heart’ in romantic literature. In bourgeois practice it became the emancipation of the flesh. At that time the preaching was more talented than it is today, and as for the practice, I cannot judge. I don’t mean to preach asceticism by my criticism. Not in the least. Communism will not bring asceticism, but joy of life, power of life, and a satisfied love life will help to do that. But in my opinion the present widespread hypertrophy in sexual matters does not give joy and force to life, but takes it away. In the age of revolution that is bad, very bad.


>> Zetkin on Lenin <<

Lenin opposed this tendency, and sought “self-control and self-discipline” even in affairs of love, warning that “dissoluteness in sexual life is bourgeois [and] a phenomenon of decay” and that this should not be imitated. He asked how this “glass-of-water theory” was any different from bourgeois decadent thought.

Lenin, in particular, pointed out that the “glass-of-water theory” completely ignored the social aspect of love. Certainly the drinking of a cup of water is merely an individual thing. But love, although seen as something “private,” in fact has another aspect. Love is first of all a relationship and connection between two people. Therefore, it is already a social relation. Moreover, through the connection of two people, a “third new life” can be born. Seen from the perspective of humanity, the birth of a child through the relationship between a man and a woman is of decisive social importance.

>> Lenin's Own Words <<

still waiting for context.

Considering Lenin was a liar and a bully with some serious paranoia and power issues, considering the prevailing attitudes within Marxist/Leninist thinking towards family and women... well I would disregard pretty much 99% of what he said anyway regardless of context.

peace j

The initial quote was rather clear in meaning. Some sentences are too brief, or badly written to represent their points clearly, but Lenin's wasn't.
Regardless of the other nuances, he was advocating casualness of sex. That central point is what I was addressing.

Here is the context: Lenin did not advocate that position. He did discuss it, but rejected it.





Amazing what you can find on a search engine with just a few key strokes, and how history can be mis-characterized by some people.

You need to change the poll. The question should be "Did Lenin say what Ragtime thought he did?" and the only option should be "no."

Considering Lenin was a liar and a bully with some serious paranoia and power issues, considering the prevailing attitudes within Marxist/Leninist thinking towards family and women... well I would disregard pretty much 99% of what he said anyway regardless of context.

peace j

I think you mean "Lenin was a badass with a cool goatee"