I forget who pointed it out but it's wild how the Russian woman stereotype in America went from a frumpy babushka to a conventionally attractive blonde the instant the iron curtain fell and women started getting trafficked en masse out of the former eastern bloc
anyway without watching the video i assume that they consider all of the progressive things that socialist states did that ended up making sex better for women by reducing the inequality of the patriarchy to be the thing that "ruined" the bedroom
Sex ruined because it isn't all about me anymore
Pinging @SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net
This is unacceptable slander not just against the USSR, but against me. 
Thank you for bringing this to my attention, comrade. I've notified Kirsten Ghodsee, and we are on route to smash up the knees of the clown who uploaded this. 
connumism no ~~food~~ pussy
Capitalism is when pussy
Socialism is when bussy
Communism is when no ussy
Ngl, when I saw the thumbnail, my mind went to “Sox” and was really confused why they would care about American sports.
red sox :kelly:
I would imagine socialist states are the only places that have S
X
Bro, the one thing the left has against the right is at the end of the day, the right are almost proud of being squeamish prudes.
“No sex please, we’re British” sounds like a documentary. (But I’m not endorsing it because I know damn well there’s some shit that didn’t age well.)
the right are only shy about their sexual habits in public on account that children cant consent
Is there any studies like this on Cuba, China, Vietnam or like the DPRK? Wonder if it's still true, probably more so today I'd imagine.
The source of this claim is from Kristen R. Ghodsee's book Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism and Other Arguments for Economic Independence. I haven't gotten around to reading it but from what I heard in interviews she did around the time it was published, she focused on the European socialist states and the USSR. I skimmed through the index and there was only one mention of Cuba, and none about other socialist states. Though the argument she makes is certainly universal to some degree, which is that giving economic independence to women (ie, creating conditions that mean they don't have to stay in a marriage/relationship lest they risk losing housing/healthcare/financial stability, etc) meant that women could be more discriminating in choosing partners they actually connected with, rather than economic factors playing a distorting role in choosing a partner, ultimately leading to happier and more fulfilling relationships.
I have read it but it has been quite a while. She mostly focuses on the DDR, with other data mostly from the Eastern Bloc and USSR. This is a combination of those are the regions she had focused on in her previous work (rather than Cuba, China, Vietnam, etc.) and with Germany in particular, she felt that the data was much more compelling, in that she started researching this after finding studies where the same questions and methodology was being used in both Germanies, there are similar studies that showed a much smaller difference when it was a unified country, and since it is all "culturally similar" being all german, liberals couldn't vaguely hand wave away with pre-existing "cultural differences".
But that is a good summary of the underlying argument. It is that the "social safety nets" to put it in Dem Soc language allows a woman to leave a bad relationship, even to the point of being a single mother, without risk of homelessness or starvation. She even uses a lot of personal anecdotes about solidly middle class/professional class women in the US having to accept power dynamic shifts after deciding that it would make financial sense for her to be a stay-at-home mother and how the fact that she is financially dependent on her husband and has less employment options upon re-entering the workforce after a long time starts skewing the relationship. Even if her husband isn't consciously trying to take advantage of that shift.
And yes, the other part is the ability to be more discriminating with partners, because the reduced need for a male partner for financial security and a second income. She also pulls out a lot of anecdotes of Western men that traveled to the Eastern Bloc complaining that the security and independence of women meant that they weren't as able to get dates and relationships by throwing money around, but had to be interesting and considerate partners.
Nice, that makes sense.
Just based off of the guy's profile pic, I'm assuming he thinks women enjoying sex and being able to say no to guys is actually a bad thing.
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
