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

31–40 of 52 posts

Re: Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism

#31

Post by minimuffins »

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…

"I didn't read the article or look up the author but I hate communism so here's some reactionary spite dressed up as scientific concern."

Re: Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism

#32

Post by ue_ »

emersonrsantos wrote: post #26

Why do we have more socialists in other countries than in (former) socialist states?

I'd wager a variety of factors, including post-collapse suppression of Communist ideas, the legacy of the Soviet Union which is regarded poorly in many eastern European countries, and disillusionment with Marxism-Leninism, or at least, Soviet-style state capitalism.

In countries in which there has been no "Socialist" past, many people see Socialism as a realistic option given modern Communist philosophers. That is to say, this is because aside from McCarthyist red scare legacy, there is less stigma.

Re: Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism

#33

Post by rgejman »

minimuffins wrote: post #31
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…

"I didn't read the article or look up the author but I hate communism so here's some reactionary spite dressed up as scientific concern."

I have no problem with communism per se and I'm not a reactionary. I'm not sure why you would allege that. I frequently point out problems with scientific topics posted on HN.

Re: Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism

#34

Post by vidarh »

jankotek wrote: post #24

Bullshit. I was born in communist Czechoslovakia. It is like celebrating North Korea, because their army has 30% women. Sex was one of a few available entertainment options. It was difficult to get basic hygiene products (tampons, toilet paper).

They're not "celebrating" it, unless you seriously think the NY Times have suddenly decided communism on any shape or form is great. They are just not pretending that no joy was possible, or that there were no positive aspects at all, and not insisting on ignoring the few positive aspects.

E.g. it is a matter of fact that a lot of legislation relating to women's rights have been rolled back in many of these countries for example.

And your statement that sex was one of very few available entertainment options would make sense as an explanation if we can see this same outcome in e.g. third world countries compared to developed countries.

It would be interesting to see if that is the case. Maybe you're right that it is simply due to lack of alternative entertainment.

> It was difficult to get basic hygiene products (tampons, toilet paper).

And nobody is saying otherwise - this is entirely irrelevant to the article.

Re: Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism

#35

Post by vidarh »

rgejman wrote: post #30
vidarh wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

My point is that they should not need to treat it with the care of a scientific journal, and that commissioning an academic known to write on the subject already means NY Times is exceeding the standards of most newspapers in this respect.

Re: Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism

#36

Post by js8 »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #17

According to http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa... In the US rural teens have more sex than urban teens. One of the theories of why this happens is boredom. Rural teens just don't have as many activities to fill their day as do urban teens. I wonder if something like that can explain at least part of this finding. The West during this time underwent massive technological and social change, c…

I think that's an interesting idea, I think it's also documented that people have more sex during power outages.

I can attest that life under socialism was perhaps a bit more boring, certainly there was less distractions (in the form of media, computers, games). However, I am not sure that the dictatorial nature of these regimes affected large enough portion of the population - most people were probably happier with having job security and general stability. I even heard stories from people that they could actually complain more in the job, because they didn't risk they would be fired. Not to mention the general laid back attitude to work that many people had.

However, your hypothesis somehow misses the "more pleasurable" part; it considers sex as something that is done when times are rough, and not as something that is also fun in itself.

Re: Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism

#37

Post by jwilk »

ue_ wrote: post #29
lucozade wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

LeoNatan25 said Bulgaria "was ally to communist states", so it's clear he doesn't consider "communist state" an oxymoron

I'd like to know more about the alleged difference between Bulgaria and the unnamed allies.

Re: Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism

#38

Post by lucozade »

notfromhere wrote: post #12

tl;dr women, when not having to depend on a man for income and have an equivalent divide of household duties, tend to not be as stressed and have better sex

Not exactly. The only facts here refer to a study post-Reunification that said that East German women had twice the orgasms of West Germans.

The rest is a couple of anecdotes that seem to fall suspiciously in the "it was better in my day" and "my mother wants grandchildren" camps. Neither of which are particular to ex-socialist countries. Plus some supposition that doesn't appear to have any grounds within the article.

I mean, that tl;dr might well be true (of life rather than the article). I would be interested in seeing the detail of the original study though. Depending on precisely when they counted said orgasms, my own anecdata of early post-Wall relations may have a quite different explanation.

Re: Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism

#39

Post by ue_ »

jwilk wrote: post #37
ue_ wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

LeoNatan25 said Bulgaria "was ally to communist states", so it's clear he doesn't consider "communist state" an oxymoron I'd like to know more about the alleged difference between Bulgaria and the unnamed allies.

Interesting, I missed that part. In this case I would say he is incorrect, then. Having a Communist party in power does not make a Communist society.

Re: Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism

#40

Post by js8 »

jankotek wrote: post #24

Bullshit. I was born in communist Czechoslovakia. It is like celebrating North Korea, because their army has 30% women. Sex was one of a few available entertainment options. It was difficult to get basic hygiene products (tampons, toilet paper).

> Sex was one of a few available entertainment options.

I honestly wonder, what's so much better about today's entertainment that people prefer it to sex?

I was also born in communist Czechoslovakia. Yes, it was dull, although I was too young to speak for sex. From what I heard, it was a weird mix of conservative and liberal morality.

I personally think that people were simply more content with relationships they had. Today, people are dazzled by the paradox of choice, because their life heavily depends on good choice of the partner (as I already remark elsewhere in this discussion).

Post reply on HN