Major Liberal Site Says Women Had BETTER SEX Under Socialism – No, This Isn’t Satire

Sure there was rampant poverty and bread lines, but at least the orgasms were great.

So says the New York Times — what used to be a newspaper back in the day.

The Media (D)’s gentle push towards socialism is a full-on shove with this article.

The New York Times isn’t going to go lightly in the Trump Era, no. They’re going to hit below the belt and appeal not to your better nature in the realm of ideas, but to the one-trick pony of marketing — Sex.

Sex sells, and maybe it will sell socialism, too.

With the scintillating sub headline, ‘Yes, there was repression behind the Iron Curtain. But it wasn’t sexual‘, the Times gives all the juicy bits.

Vote Socialist and let your freak flag fly, comrade!

When Americans think of Communism in Eastern Europe, they imagine travel restrictions, bleak landscapes of gray concrete, miserable men and women languishing in long lines to shop in empty markets and security services snooping on the private lives of citizens. While much of this was true, our collective stereotype of Communist life does not tell the whole story.

Oh, do tell, New York Times!

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. Researchers marveled at this disparity in reported sexual satisfaction, especially since East German women suffered from the notorious double burden of formal employment and housework. 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.

And we all remember how hot those East German women were under Communism.

ADN-ZB Thieme 9-8-81 Bez. Gera-32. DDR-Meisterschaft der Leichtathletik: Das Frauenquartett mit Ines Gaipel, Bärbel Wöckel, Ingrid Auerswald und Marlies Göhr (vlnr) vom SC Motor Jena siegte im 4x-100-Meter-Staffel-Lauf der Frauen in 42,35 Sekunden.

Oh, baby.

The New York Times is reporting this in their ‘Red Century‘ section where they ‘explore the history and legacy of Communism‘.

Why anyone cares other than to tear these articles apart is beyond me.

It just goes to show you that the New York Times isn’t even hiding the fact that it’s the literally become the American version of Pravda.

The article rests largely on personal accounts of those who found having the government make decisions for them made life simpler in some ways.

Sure.

If you want to hand over your rights, freedoms, hopes, and dreams to the State.

Here’s one example:

Ms. Durcheva was a single mother for many years, but she insisted that her life before 1989 was more gratifying than the stressful existence of her daughter, who was born in the late 1970s.

All she does is work and work,” Ms. Durcheva told me in 2013, “and when she comes home at night she is too tired to be with her husband. But it doesn’t matter, because he is tired, too. They sit together in front of the television like zombies. When I was her age, we had much more fun.”

Yeah, that’s rough.

It’s the existence that many driven hard-working people live.

It was so much easier when the government job that you had was held while you went on maternity leave, then you could hand over your kids to be raised by the state.

Like this young woman that is being pressured by her mother to start a family.

“She doesn’t understand how much harder it is now — it was so easy for women before the Wall fell,” she told me, referring to the dismantling of the Berlin Wall in 1989. “They had kindergartens and crèches, and they could take maternity leave and have their jobs held for them. I work contract to contract, and don’t have time to get pregnant.”

The article continues on flaunting the ‘progressive’ benefits of socialism for women — women were given suffrage behind the Iron Curtain before in the U.S., women were ‘mobilized’ in the work force and thereby financially ‘untethered’ from men, divorce law was ‘liberalized’, and, of course, ‘reproductive rights’ were guaranteed.

So, a woman behind the Iron Curtain could work her government job, divorce her husband because she didn’t ‘need’ him financially, find herself a new lover (or several) and if she got pregnant, she could off the baby.

Sounds like a utopia, no?

Well, it wasn’t all fun and games.

Remember, there were still lines for toilet paper.

And then there’s this:

Although gender wage disparities and labor segregation persisted, and although the Communists never fully reformed domestic patriarchy, 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 and countries such as Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and East Germany committed extra resources to support single mothers, divorcées and widows.
Source: New York Times

So, it was a whole country dependant on the state to ‘meet their basic needs’.

Does the writer here not understand that this is what some feminists rail on stay-at-home wives/mothers for doing?

Basically, this article is treating the Socialist state as though it’s meeting the needs as provider that a husband used to do.

This isn’t the real picture of Socialism.

The real picture is what’s now happening in Venezuela.

Women are forced to sell their bodies to make ends meet.

People are literally starving to death in Venezuela.

It’s so bad that it is believed that zoo animals are being stolen and slaughtered for food.

If you’re living like that, is the quality of your sex life really that important?

Or is this just the New York Times salaciously pushing an agenda?

Let us know what you think in the comments.

Share if you think that this NY Times article is B.S.

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.