Read the writer's bio before sharing your hot take on the article.
"Kristen R. Ghodsee, a professor of Russian and East European studies at the University of Pennsylvania, is the author of numerous books on European Communism and its aftermath, including, most recently, “Red Hangover: Legacies of 20th-Century Communism.”
This is an essay in the series Red Century, about the history and legacy of Communism 100 years after the Russian Revolution."
Thank you. Regardless of whether the article is factually correct, I'm a bit surprised to see the number of reactionary comments (dead or otherwise) in this thread.
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 differences between people is robust. Ask a follow up question: "If X is true, we might also expect Y."
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?
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.
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, compared to the Communist countries. In addition, in the Communist countries, complaining could land you in prison (see the Stasi and their informant network). Unless you wanted to risk your life escaping, the best coping strategy was probably to shut up and have sex to relieve your tension.
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.
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.
"A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works."
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.
I think I am reading different NY Times. They never wrote how communist goverment in Romania banned anticonception, abortions etc... But maybe that makes sex more exiciting :(
And please educate me what women's rights post-communist goverments took away.
> 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).
I think it's plausible. The research in the book The Spirit Level supports the notion that more equal societies have their members less stressed, across the whole social hierarchy. There is also interesting research from Robert Sapolsky about this.
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.
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.
> 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.
Readit News
"Kristen R. Ghodsee, a professor of Russian and East European studies at the University of Pennsylvania, is the author of numerous books on European Communism and its aftermath, including, most recently, “Red Hangover: Legacies of 20th-Century Communism.”
This is an essay in the series Red Century, about the history and legacy of Communism 100 years after the Russian Revolution."
Edit: formatting
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
They are critical and contexualizing when it comes to certain topics. Why not when it comes to "data" driven observations?
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, compared to the Communist countries. In addition, in the Communist countries, complaining could land you in prison (see the Stasi and their informant network). Unless you wanted to risk your life escaping, the best coping strategy was probably to shut up and have sex to relieve your tension.
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.
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.
"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...
It was difficult to get basic hygiene products (tampons, toilet paper).
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.
And please educate me what women's rights post-communist goverments took away.
Deleted Comment
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).
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.
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.
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.