Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 52 posts

Re: Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism

#21

Post by vidarh »

rgejman wrote: post #20

I really wish the NYTimes didn't publish crap like this: "here's a marginally significant observation about two groups of people and here's a bunch of anecdotes that purport to explain the difference." It's a just-so story wrapped in a veneer of history. At least deal with the subject critically, discuss whether the observation is significant or whether the method (anecdotes, in this case) being used to explain the d…

They're a newspaper, not a scientific journal. They commissioned a piece from an academic working with the subject. That's already a step above most newspapers who'd just have a journalist write something themselves.

Re: Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism

#22

Post by alva »

pookiemonster wrote: post #8
pavlov wrote: post #5

The basis for the headline: 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.

[deleted]

Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction..

"A fifth of male fish in UK rivers now ‘trans-gender’ due to chemicals in human waste"

https://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_591899_en.h...

Re: Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism

#28

Post by vidarh »

DavidHm wrote: post #19
LeoNatan25 wrote: post #11

Bulgaria was never a communist state, and categorizing it as such is a gross misrepresentation. It was ally to communist states, yes, but the socialism in Bulgaria was far communism.

Why do you think that? As far as I know, it was ruled for 40+ years by the self called communist party, and the means of production were owned by the state. They might not have been part of the USSR, but they were pretty communist as far as I can see.

> and the means of production were owned by the state.

So it was not communist, as there was a state. And it was not communist because there were class differences (unless we are to believe that the party elite did not live differently to the rest).

But that did not distinguish them from the rest of Eastern Europe or the Soviet Union - none of these countries described themselves as communist, but as socialist, for a reason: They all used the lure of a future communist society as a carrot to get people to accept the many sticks being applied.

So he's half right, but for the wrong reasons.

EDIT: In any case, whether or not one agree on the above definition of communism, Bulgaria certainly was not different enough to the rest to set it apart. Either Bulgaria was communist too or none of them were.

Re: Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism

#29

Post by ue_ »

lucozade wrote: post #18
LeoNatan25 wrote: post #11

Bulgaria was never a communist state, and categorizing it as such is a gross misrepresentation. It was ally to communist states, yes, but the socialism in Bulgaria was far communism.

Sorry, are you saying that the People's Republic of Bulgaria was not run by Bulgarian Communist Party? Or are you saying that there wasn't a People's Republic of Bulgaria or that the Bulgarian Communist Party wasn't communist? Or something else?

GP is probably noting that Communism is a classless, stateless, moneyless society in which the Law of Value has been abolished; "Communist state" is an oxymoron.

Re: Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism

#30

Post by rgejman »

vidarh wrote: post #21
rgejman wrote: post #20

I really wish the NYTimes didn't publish crap like this: "here's a marginally significant observation about two groups of people and here's a bunch of anecdotes that purport to explain the difference." It's a just-so story wrapped in a veneer of history. At least deal with the subject critically, discuss whether the observation is significant or whether the method (anecdotes, in this case) being used to explain the d…

They're a newspaper, not a scientific journal. They commissioned a piece from an academic working with the subject. That's already a step above most newspapers who'd just have a journalist write something themselves.

What's your point? Newspapers shouldn't treat the subjects they cover critically? They shouldn't contextualize statements to help readers distinguish truth from fiction?

They are critical and contexualizing when it comes to certain topics. Why not when it comes to "data" driven observations?

Post reply on HN