New York Times Says Sex was Better for Communists

Via The Daily Bell

Don’t you know that to be a liberated woman, you need to have the sex life of a chimpanzee?

That’s the latest propaganda to come out of the New York Times.

The Soviet Union may have had its pitfalls–you know, like the murder and starvation of tens of millions of people. But women had great sex lives!

A comparative sociological study of East and West Germans conducted after reunification in 1990 found that Eastern women had twice as many orgasms as Western women…

In contrast, postwar West German women had stayed home and enjoyed all the labor-saving devices produced by the roaring capitalist economy. But they had less sex, and less satisfying sex, than women who had to line up for toilet paper.

Tied up in this quest for women’s liberation is the lie that promiscuity equals empowerment. They basically use the sexual crusader male stereotype as a target for equality. Female orgasms are the bedrock of social justice, apparently, and a solid foundation on which other rights can be built.

Some might remember that Eastern bloc women enjoyed many rights and privileges unknown in liberal democracies at the time, including major state investments in their education and training, their full incorporation into the labor force, generous maternity leave allowances and guaranteed free child care.

They were indoctrinated and forced to work. If they produced another little communist, they were given some time off. Sounds like a dream.

The Soviet Union was very good at convincing youth to join their movement. Tell the kids with raging hormones that they are right to follow their base instincts, and you have a supporter. Make it easy for them to shirk responsibility for their decisions by legalizing abortion.

State-run women’s committees sought to re-educate boys to accept girls as full comrades, and they attempted to convince their compatriots that male chauvinism was a remnant of the pre-socialist past.

That is what the author of that article, the New York Times, and the “progressive” left truly admire. The fact that a society was able to forcibly re-educate the barbaric male oppressors.

To the left, equality means dragging everyone down to the same level. They laud the fact that women were forced to labor for the Soviet regime, saying “Communists invested major resources in the education and training of women and in guaranteeing their employment.”

They gloss over the poverty, brutal conditions, and authoritarian state power. Instead, they tout the state as a replacement for husbands and families.

Communist women enjoyed a degree of self-sufficiency that few Western women could have imagined. Eastern bloc women did not need to marry, or have sex, for money. The socialist state met their basic needs…

The missing truth is that sex was all the pleasure anyone in the Soviet Union could extract from life. It was the one thing the government hadn’t taken from them.

Perhaps those living in freer countries did not have to rely on one fleeting animalistic pleasure in order to feel fulfilled. They had the freedom to seek pleasure elsewhere. They could pursue true happiness.

Perhaps when people care about their lives, their future, their children, they don’t need to base their lives around sexual pleasure. Don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with sex, but there is something wrong with making it the central theme of your life. Clearly, it was an escape for women who had nothing else going for them in the Soviet Union.

It is common for people to hold onto whatever pleasure they can squeeze from a horrible situation. It is a psychological defense mechanism to say, “This is what I want! I may not have the freedom to speak my mind or choose my job, but at least I have great orgasms!”

The author concludes that heavy handed government intervention was worth it in order to liberate women.

Those comrades’ insistence on government intervention may seem heavy-handed to our postmodern sensibilities, but sometimes necessary social change — which soon comes to be seen as the natural order of things — needs an emancipation proclamation from above.

We just have to put up with a touch of genocide and a dose of forced labor, and we will be free at last!

Comments

Got The Wrong No Wed, 08/23/2017 - 11:29 Permalink

This is one great enlistment tool. Next, they will claim that if a man becomes a Communist his dick automatically grows 6 inches and when you die you get 7 Communist Nymphomaniacs. 

El Vaquero NidStyles Wed, 08/23/2017 - 13:01 Permalink

Negatory.  Postmodernism is the philosophy that is driving leftist thought, and it is toxic.  It rejects empirical observation when convenient, thinks that humans are blank slates when born, and views language as a self referencing thing where the meaning changes.  You know how lefties have redefined racism so that the "victims" only include those who are oppressed by power structures, thus making it impossible blacks to be racist?  Postmodernism.  Their reality is defined by dialectic/dialog -> consensus -> reality.  No empirical observation necessary.  Their discussions are like super echo chambers on steroids, and their reality is not in line with our reality.  Hence Trump Derangement Syndrome.  

In reply to by NidStyles

stinkypinky OverTheHedge Wed, 08/23/2017 - 18:24 Permalink

I lived in Berlin for a while about 10 years after the wall came down. It was a fascinating time to be there because it was just long enough that the former East side Germans were well integrated into the west and "got it", but not so long that they couldn't look back at it all and remember. Generally speaking this article is correct about the having more sex thing, and particularly with more partners.
The former East side girls were generally looked at as sort of retired prostitutes; In the communist regime you got stuff from the state based on both your perceived need and your contributions to the party, and being married with a child bumped you way, way up on that list. So as soon as a teenage couple felt somewhat serious about things they got married and knocked up so they could get a better apartment, amenities, phone line and some day many years later the coveted car, from the government. Then of course, just like in the good old days, once you had your ball-and-chain firmed up then you chased tail on the side. And I mean EVERYONE did, apparently. It was just the completely normal, expected thing to have your husband and have your lovers. Plenty of free time with nothing else to do, and not enough food to eat, and no fantastic Western entertainment to fill your free time... so why not fuck?
Add on to that the fact that money didn't really get you "stuff" back then: influence with the right people did. Plenty of whoring your ass out for a new toaster from the man who controlled the distribution of toasters. Blowing the butcher so your family got to eat meat every few days instead of the weekly cans of mystery meat. Etcetera.
So - more sex? You bet. But not quite what the author is trying to say, apparently.

In reply to by OverTheHedge

fx edotabin Thu, 08/24/2017 - 05:50 Permalink

It's obvious that the "Daily Bell"  has no idea at all about the life in the former GDR (i.e. east Germany) as well as the former Soviet union. The stereotypes presented here and the utter nonsense argued reads like taken right from a cold war era western propaganda book. I could point out a dozen outright false claims and silly stereotypes, but it's really not worth it.There are a ton of real sources available out there about the real life in the east back then, without the propaganda from either side. Goes to show that access to such information is utterly useless when one doesn't bother about using it. Enough said.

In reply to by edotabin

francis_the_wo… El Vaquero Wed, 08/23/2017 - 15:41 Permalink

"thinks that humans are blank slates when born"Without taking exception to the rest of the generalizations in your post, I do take issue with you assigning blame to the concept of "blank slate".  I'd prefer not to read a nature vs nurture argument here, but the concept of "Tabula Rasa" is generally credited to Aristotle, and it was fundamental to the philosophy of one of the founders of classical liberal thought John Locke.  Locke's writings concluded that if we are all born "blank" then we are all equally "blank" and from that sprung the notion that "all men are created equal".  It was a very powerful idea that helped drive a generation to throw off the shackles of monarchy.  This most certainly was not a bad thing.The Statists have appropriated our language and bastardized a lot of classical liberal philosophy, but let's not blame an idea that has led to an awful lot of good just because a bunch of Statists have misapplied the concept.(For the uninformed, the term "classical liberal" represents just about everything good about this country and Western civilization just as the current term "liberal" represents an awful lot of crap.  The two are not synomous and it's just another example of how these Marxists have stolen our language and points again to why we need to change the narrative).

In reply to by El Vaquero

francis_the_wo… El Vaquero Wed, 08/23/2017 - 20:34 Permalink

"communism depends on us being blank slates. "Would you be so kind as to elaborate on this statement?  I understand twin studies and fully recognize that we are a product of both nature and nurture.  Personally, I think cultural influence is more responsible for the different test scores between ethnic groups in the US, but I absolutely thank my ancestors for passing down some relativly good DNA.What I don't see is why communism requires blank slates.  It seems to me that they are more concerned with equal outcomes, whereas equal opportunity would seem to be more in line with Classic Liberalism and equal rights being a moral imperative which Statists seem to ignore.

In reply to by El Vaquero

Frito El Vaquero Thu, 08/24/2017 - 00:38 Permalink

While I whole heartedly agree with you that Postmodernism is a toxic ideology espoused by people who are ignorant of history at best and utterly malevolent at worst. I'm not sure that I agree with: "Their reality is defined by dialectic/dialog -> consensus -> reality" My understanding of the Postmodernist is that they reject what they define as the Phallogocentric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallogocentrism) construction of society (i.e. Male dominated and based on logos (words have meanings)). Incidentally, logos is also the base of the word "dialog". Consequently, in Postmodernism, they do not believe in dialog. There is only the struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed. This concept of struggle is adapted from Marxism where the working class is substituted with the oppressed and the bourgeoisie is substituted with the oppressor. There can be no dialog between these groups. There may be dialog within the oppressed groups. However, in practice, this generally devolves into the group splintering into more and more oppressed sub-groups where each sub-group tallies their victim points to see who is the most oppressed. Inevitably, you are left with a group of blind crippled midget trans lesbian black women at the end of all of this. You cannot reason with these people, they do not believe in reason. You cannot have a discussion with them, as they do not believe in dialog. This is basically why the far left protesters that are prominent of late have an utterly predictable behavior pattern. They chant meaningless slogans that identify anyone who doesn't agree with them as monsterous (Nazi, Racist, etc), they scream incoherently at any opponent, and they resort to physical violence when faced with an opinion that they disagree with. What to do about this is a tricky question. The initial desire to give them a bloody good thrashing, while it may feel cathartic, is unlikely to be particularly helpful. This sick philosophy, which has been festering in acedemia for the best part of 30 years, must be rooted out. The scariest part of it is that it has pretty much completely engulfed the "Education" studies areas. This means that many many teachers that are being pumped out of these universities are infested with this ideology. The best hope I see is to starve them at the source, ridicule them where ever they show their faces and ensure that the next generation is informed of this nonsense and can spot it. This is a battle that must be won, the consequences of losing are far too great.

In reply to by El Vaquero

Kayman El Vaquero Wed, 08/23/2017 - 12:53 Permalink

I guess if torture- ripping your nipples off with a pair of pliers- is great sex for the New York Times, then have right at it.This dumb-shit nonsense fits right along with the New York Times claim that planting trees won't help eliminate "Global Warming."Only the dumbed down readership of the New York Slime eat this shit up.

In reply to by El Vaquero

TheGardener Got The Wrong No Wed, 08/23/2017 - 14:32 Permalink

Mao bragged about never washing his wiener because all that pussy brushes and cleans him all the time.Tribe folk feel cleansed while abusing schicksen they would never marry.Communists feel elevated by dirty deeds and while pillaging and robbing, the rape part gets thrown in by their masters by offering within the ideology equally sick radical volunteer females that play their part as co- conspirators, fellow female comrades in crime.

In reply to by Got The Wrong No

Colonel Wed, 08/23/2017 - 12:32 Permalink

"The missing truth is that sex was all the pleasure anyone in the Soviet Union could extract from life. It was the one thing the government hadn’t taken from them." Plus its easier to control them when the plebes are ruled by baser instincts, the commies even admitted this...The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
 
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
 

http://rense.com/general32/americ.htm

Memedada Colonel Thu, 08/24/2017 - 04:03 Permalink

And there you have it. The decades of misinformation, indoctrination and manipulation have reached its goal. You now believe that a faith-based conservative (Cleon Skousen) and Mrs. Patricia Nordman “…an ardent and articulate opponent of communism” are the best to describe communism? And that their writings are the declared goals of communism? Find a genuine communist in USA and name him/her – not a corporate tool making caricatures of communism. Disclaimer: I am not a communist but I see the US plebs obsession with communism as ridicules and a sign of the power of the corporate propaganda-machine.The same machine that have convinced the US-plebs that the “left vs. right”-paradigm is defined as “big government” vs. “small government”. Nothing about who owns/control the government – the only relevant question. Quo bono. That is the real difference between right vs. left. But how should you know. You’ve never encountered a real left-wing but only the corporate created version (the version that in the rest of the world would be considered right-wing). 

In reply to by Colonel

Memedada ZIRPY Thu, 08/24/2017 - 07:31 Permalink

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Tabel - Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
I agree. That’s why I am a socialist libertarian. I’m against all forms of hierarchical and illegitimate power – doesn’t matter if that power is a state or a big corporation. My argument against the version of left-right paradigm fed the US population is that it doesn’t account for left-wing libertarianism (the original libertarianism – and the libertarianism dominant all over the world. It is only in US – and to some extend UK – that the term have been stolen by the corporate propagandists). Big government is not equal left-wing. A theocracy is considered right-wing and can be a big and all intrusive government. A government owned by capitalists (as in US) is a fascist government and can (as in US) be big (but focused on Empire/police/military/alphabet soup activities). I hope more US-based ZH’ers would wake up to the fact that being indoctrinated is not a conscious thing – it is something that happens over a lifetime. US have been a fascist society for generations and that is the reason you haven’t been exposed to any real/genuine left-wing arguments. Where should you get them? From the corporate controlled MSM-media? The political controlled (i.e. controlled by the owners of US) public schools? The privately owned think tanks/propaganda institutions? If you ask an US-based American to define capitalism you’ll get a lot about “free markets” (not defining capitalism – you can have free market socialism), “individualism” (again, not defining of capitalism – individualism is a component of left-wing anarchism and have been so for more than 150 years) and “small government” (not defining of capitalism – see above). The only relevant aspect that differ capitalism from socialism and communism is ownership. Who owns the means of production? Capitalism = the private ownership of the means of production (land, capital, resources etc.) Socialism and communism = the public, common and/or social ownership of the means of production. In US everything is privately owned (and the owners are not going to embrace socialism or communism for obvious reasons). The reason why left-wing anarchists fight the communists as hard as they fight the fascists is that the communists believe you can take control of the capitalist state and use it to form a socialist society. You’re correct in the fact that power corrupts and that is why that strategy is not going to work…

In reply to by ZIRPY

Memedada Colonel Thu, 08/24/2017 - 07:14 Permalink

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Tabel - Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
You wrote nothing substantial – you’re a well-indoctrinated tool of your corporate masters. Your posts is an example of how the US plebs have been conditioned not to “debate” but just throw verbal abuses towards the one of the two controlled sides of your fascist society. The problem – for you – is all of us not from US (and not belonging to either of your corporate political parties/fractions) don’t care about your insults. We pity you and the future that awaits you and your country. The only thing we can hope for is that the ongoing fall of the US Empire doesn’t drag to many other countries with it – and that the Empire won’t go down swinging (with nuclear weapons and shit)…

In reply to by Colonel

nmewn Wed, 08/23/2017 - 12:38 Permalink

Because an East German commie chick would NEVER lie about their sex lives, let's have the Alinskyite NYT's formulate an entire article around it...LMAO!!!

TheGardener nmewn Wed, 08/23/2017 - 13:44 Permalink

Promising " free love" is one of the oldest tricks in the book of leftist revolutionaries.  And it worked very well in East Germany in combination with cheap beer to keep the populace happy and now that leftist radicals are about or have taken over , the NYT chimes in on the trend.To this day Russian / Eastern girls have a lot more sex appeal . Even if slightly ugly due to mongol rape they try to show their best side ofpretty at all times, even at night working as never to be seen janitors exept by the security guard. And maybe the reasonably well off husbandthat picks her up occasionally even though they tend to have biggish cars for their own use anyway. Just earning some pocket money for leisurely consumption I suppose.Go East young men, never mind the communist murderous purge on those populations but hardship tought them to retainhuman and erotic qualities . 

In reply to by nmewn