https://lemmygrad.ml/post/574021 IX. Sexual selection must be along the lines of class, revolutionary-proletarian expediency. Elements of flirtation, courtship, coquetry, and other methods of specifically sexual conquest must not be introduced into love relationships.

Sexuality is seen by the class as a social function and not as a narrowly personal one, and therefore it is social, class virtues, and not specific physiological-sex lures, which are in the vast majority either a relic of our pre-cultural condition or developed as a result of the rotten effects of exploitative living conditions, that should attract and win in love life. The sex drive itself is biologically strong enough that there is no need to excite it with additional special methods.

Since the revolutionary class, which saves all of mankind from destruction, has exclusively eugenic tasks in its sexual life, that is, the task of the revolutionary-communist recovery of mankind through progeny, obviously it is not those traits of class-less “beauty,” “femininity,” and grossly “muscular” and “mustached” masculinity, which have little place and are of little use under the conditions of industrialized, intellectualized, socialized humanity, that should reveal themselves as the strongest sexual stimuli.

The modern human fighter must be distinguished by a subtle and precise intellectual apparatus, a great deal of social flexibility and sensitivity, class courage and firmness, whether male or female. The powerless, fragile “femininity,” which is the product of thousands of years of servitude to women and at the same time the only supplier of material for coquetry and flirtation; Just as the “mustachioed,” “muscular-boned” masculinity, more necessary for a professional loader or a knight of the pre-armed period than for the dodgy and technically educated modern revolutionary,-all these traits, of course, correspond minimally to the needs of revolution and revolutionary sexual selection. The notion of beauty and health is now being radically reconsidered by the fighting class in terms of class expediency, and the class-futile so-called “beauty” and the so-called “strength” of the exploitative period of human history will inevitably be pulverized by bodily combinations of the best revolutionary device, the most productive revolutionary expediency.

It is not without reason that the ideals of beauty and power differ deeply in various social strata, and that the aesthetics of the bourgeoisie, the aesthetics of the bourgeois intelligentsia, are far from appealing to the proletariat. But the proletariat does not yet have its own aesthetics; it is in the process of its victorious class struggle, and, therefore, it would be a terrible mistake on its way to forming the methods of new class sex selection to use the old, putrefied methods of sex enticement, as far as their class validity is concerned. What will the offspring be like in class terms, created by parents whose main virtues, which were the main sexual stimulants, were: the powerless and coquettishly lively femininity of the mother and the “broad-shouldered muscularity” of the father? Revolution, of course, is not against broad shoulders, but it is not by them that it ultimately wins, and it is not on them that revolutionary sexual selection should be built at its core. The powerless fragility of women is of no use to it at all: economically and politically, that is, physiologically, the woman of the modern proletariat must approach, and is increasingly approaching, the man. It is necessary to achieve that harmonious combination of physical health and class creative values which is most expedient from the point of view of the interests of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. The embodiment of this combination will be the ideal of proletarian sexual selection.

The basic class-values should be the basic sex-bait, and only on them will the sex-union be built in the future. It is not without reason that not only the concept of beauty, but also the concept of the physiological norm, is currently the subject of such passionate scientific discussion.

This is what I got from some light googling:

“A. B. Zalkind attached great importance to the sexual question in issues of the hygiene of party work. He believed that modern man in everyday life suffers from sexual fetishism, which should be overcome with the help of science and that sex should be returned to the right track: “It is necessary that the collective is more attracted to itself than to a love partner.” It was in this way that The Twelve Sexual Commandments of the Revolutionary Proletariat were born. The general meaning of these sexual commandments was to ensure that the energy of the proletariat, as an integral class, was not wasted on sexual relations that are useless for its historical mission.”

The full version explains it more in-depth. I posted a DeepL translation here: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/574021

Here is also a article about the writer, also translated with DeepL: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/574022

And a English article on Soviet Union’s 1920s sexual revolution and eventual pull back, turning more to Zalkind’s position: https://www.rbth.com/history/328265-russian-sexual-revolution