Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Should pornography be legal?

POST REPLY

Pornography?

Permitted without restrictions
19
22%
Permitted with some restrictions
39
46%
Forbidden with light penalties
9
11%
Strictly forbidden
10
12%
Other
8
9%
 
Total votes : 85
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 19 Nov 2014, 00:22
It is not a form of capitalist consumption and nothing to do with your personal class and relationship to the means of production, but something you do with yourself. Your explanation offers nothing other than "meh, capitalism is responsible" and nothing further, and certainly nothing insightful into human sexuality. Again, I stress it is important to get a wider view on these things and experience and understand things, especially inter-personal relationships, before appointing yourself as some kind of guru on sexual morality. Your point on the second page and your recent comment assumes that I am an active viewer and consumer of pornography, which I am not for various ethical reasons, and thereby assume that all masturbation is as a result of pornography, which it isn't. How is my act capitalist consumption? How is it bourgeois?
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 19 Nov 2014, 00:26
You also claimed to have a Romantic view on sexuality. Capital 'R', I noticed. I don't think you should look any further into some of the greatest poets and exponents of the movement, Shelley and Byron, you might have a coronary.

Quote:
Are you sure? I'm sure they would be all for Aristotle's principle of establishing friendship based on virtue rather than friendship based on pleasure (masturbation, in my perspective, being an indirect pleasure-based relationship with someone else) and utility.


*(This is from the 3rd page)* I am certain that the episode in Don Juan where the protagonist, in this case autobiographically, Byron/Don Juan was caught having sex with a noble's wife by him entering the room, tripping over his shoes and discovering him hiding under his marital bed. Byron WAS a real life Don Juan. Shelley also had sex with his wife to be Mary Wollstonecraft on the grave of her father. Yep, some Aristotlean nonsense from the Romantics. Beethoven never fantasised about the women he saw, not ever. No siree. Turner never had sex willy nilly. Nope. I never put it about a bit to feel slightly human. Not at all.

Masturbation isn't the same as porn addiction anyway. You failed to make that point, and you also failed to make the point that masturbation itself is somehow bourgeois. How are these things linked? You're not clear at all in any of these points. Perhaps if you find a quotation from a letter from Trotsky to somebody else, I might believe you.
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 22 Nov 2014, 14:04
I do like pornography. And i do hate it as a category.

Pornography is an extension of the concept of selling your own body. Just like prostitution.

But, on the other hand, i dont believe people should be prohibited of doing something. We might say that the burgeoise concept of liberty ignores the fact that liberty can only be exercised if you have true conscienciousness. In other words, in capitalism people are liberated not freed. But on the other hand, who am i to decide what other people should do to their body ? Do i trully know the truth enought to decide what other people should do to themselves ?

Thats why i believe in freedom. You should do whatever you want, provided it does not break the social contract and the agreed upon rules.

Usually pornography and other forms of luxury exhaust themselves as they are exercised. But i am really afraid of the social prejudice that pornography and prostitution produces against the actors. I mean, under machism, woman are usually expected to procriate etc. We are on a more developed form of it, where woman are expected to be the owners of their own body. But if a woman sells his body in pornography or prostitution he gets a lower standard against those woman who did not sell. In other words, prostitutes and porn actresses are seen as lower level than other woman. Even porn actors are treated as inferior. This prejudice is what i dont like, and the economical and social standing that might result from it.

Can an ex-porn actress study in a university, abandon pornography and become a sucessfull surgeon ? Would her past as porn actress prevent his competency ? Would a girl who prostituted herself be aftwards loved (trully loved) by someone ? I believe he cold. But i dont believe other men in our society would agree. And i can fail myself and if placed in that exact situation, be unable to do what i believe is true. In other words. I am against everything that goes against love, because i believe love should be the uttermost objective in society. Not that pornography in itself would go against it, but because it can and i dont trust society to be all that forgiving or accepting.

And i dont trully believe that a man or a woman, when provided with true choices (steeming from a true conscienciousness and a good material conditions) would choose to be a prostitute or porn actor. I believe people are naturally inclined to love and a family life.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 23 Apr 2015, 14:24
So is your research also included in the studies on porn addiction that are "hindered by poor experimental designs, limited methodological rigor, and lack of model specification" (http://www.salon.com/2014/02/16/porn_ad ... _no_proof/)?

On the internet, anyone can claim to be an expert on anything. Nobody here can make a value judgement about the scholarship you supposedly receive, what research you do with it, and how this is received, because you haven't substantiated anything in this thread. You've only called it "bourgeois" without substantiation and accused someone of defending masturbation because he supposedly personally does it, a laughable personal attack if there's ever been one. And now that someone is turning that argument against you, you get your panties in your twist, you present your supposed academic credentials, and you call people trolls. It seems more likely to me that you are an elaborate troll.

I will say as a general statement that there is a great market for selling "addiction" to porn or masturbation as a pathology to be managed by therapy or medicine or whatever. The fact that people discuss it on Reddit proves nothing except that... people discuss it on Reddit. But who knows, maybe some of these people truly start believing that they are "diseased", and they'll pay for therapy. So there are obvious financial interests (as well as moral ones for religious groups) in pushing this idea of "porn addiction".
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 19 May 2015, 01:55
I took a class on Feminism this semester, and my professor noted that the rate of female porn consumption and masturbation is almost non-existent. Porn, including male porn (intended for gay-male audiences), is almost entirely consumed by men.

Porn and masturbation is probably a form of Patriarchy, and not entirely bourgeois (although its mass consumption is clearly bourgeois engineered). It promotes male commodification of women - it thingifies women as if they are something to desire and want, collect and have, and not free independently existing beings with human substance that hold up half the sky. It is no wonder why cultures where porn is massively consumed are also the cultures of the 'studs' and the existence of mass prostitution.

I look forward to a modern Louise Michel coming forward and leading society to the final overthrow of patriarchy and thus achieving socialism successfully.


And for anyone who disagrees, it is just simple logic. I am not distancing myself from Marxism with my claims, rather I am discussing a direct relationship between a substructure that establishes the superstructure. The substructure (all the things we do in our daily lives) always goes towards defending and establishing the superstructure (patriarchy or capitalism). The ways in which we work or live (with our consumerist existences) go towards promoting the existence of the capitalist system. The way in which men live their lives whoring around or pretending to whore around very much reflects in the superstructure (how the society as a whole views and treats women). If you people are too short sighted to understand this, it is because you're a bunch of wankers and counterrevolutionary scum who still believe in continental philosophies that lost all legitimacy long ago. Marxism is a social science that looks at history as a constant struggle between groups in society looking for supremacy, and our goals are to change this wretched history with all its dirtiness and filth and revolutionize our societies to the point that no one will ever expropriate or exploit another person ever again. Meanwhile, people are here discussing whether or not they'll be able to wank after the revolution, as if they are wealthy property owners asking whether or not they'll be allowed to keep their property after the revolution... You people completely miss the point...

This is why I've lost hope for the Left while on this forum and on RevLeft, and I regret that crap I said about Conservativatism (I was just angry because the Left is full of a loud majority of people whose minds have been consumed by liberalism, and I hate liberalism with every fiber of my being). I prefer to spend my days reading EP Thompson, Jack London, and others, and remind myself that no individual is free and all are corrupted by the system, and hope that the Left changes in two decades.
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 19 May 2015, 04:37
No 14 wrote:
So is your research also included in the studies on porn addiction that are "hindered by poor experimental designs, limited methodological rigor, and lack of model specification" (http://www.salon.com/2014/02/16/porn_ad ... _no_proof/)?

On the internet, anyone can claim to be an expert on anything. Nobody here can make a value judgement about the scholarship you supposedly receive, what research you do with it, and how this is received, because you haven't substantiated anything in this thread. You've only called it "bourgeois" without substantiation and accused someone of defending masturbation because he supposedly personally does it, a laughable personal attack if there's ever been one. And now that someone is turning that argument against you, you get your panties in your twist, you present your supposed academic credentials, and you call people trolls. It seems more likely to me that you are an elaborate troll.

I will say as a general statement that there is a great market for selling "addiction" to porn or masturbation as a pathology to be managed by therapy or medicine or whatever. The fact that people discuss it on Reddit proves nothing except that... people discuss it on Reddit. But who knows, maybe some of these people truly start believing that they are "diseased", and they'll pay for therapy. So there are obvious financial interests (as well as moral ones for religious groups) in pushing this idea of "porn addiction".


When neuroscience recognizes all cognition as a result of physical processes in the brain, the debate about whether or not there have been studies is pointless. Studies, in the West, are virtually all funded by government grants, and Western governments aren't very quick to recognize that individuals are just physical processes without free will, and no government, right now, is going to fund extensive research into whether or not porn causes addiction - either because it is painfully obvious, or just because it isn't a subject worth investigating.

Will a person become addicted to a drug if we make it so that large quantities of dopamine are released? The answer is yes. And generally, the rule is the stronger the discharge of dopamine, and the more frequent the usage, the more likely it will be the person will become addicted and stay addicted with no chance to escape it. Will too much porn consumption result in a habituated desire for the same quantities of dopamine? The answer is yes. What do we call it when people continually desire dopamine? Addiction...

I watched a Doctor Oz episode a couple of years ago where he specifically discussed the similar relationship between drug and porn addiction. When a smoker sees someone else smoking, areas of the brain immediately light up that would otherwise light up if they were in the process of smoking (in lower quantities of course - kind of a physical memory of your experiences from smoking in the past). When a frequent porn consumer see a photo of a woman in sexy clothing, areas of the brain that light up during orgasms light up (leading to this desire for sex or masturbation). So now, going back to that relationship between substructure and superstructure I pointed out in the last comment, it is easily deducible that men with more frequent porn usage are going to treat women in a more demeaning manner than men without it (men who have gone without don't have as strong of a reaction as those with). Ultimately, men who consume porn will treat women as sexual objects simply because of what they exposed their brains too (physical processes in the brain are the source of all cognition), while men who don't consume it will treat them like humans (thus enabling the destruction of patriarchy).
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5137
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 20 May 2015, 23:22
I think we can do without these social conservative values. No point in legislating morals as a communist.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 23 May 2015, 03:35
This is pure sophism because you could assume as well that actual patriarchy is represented by male monopoly on porn consumption, and not porn itself. It's ridiculous and patriarchal as well to believe that female masturbation is "almost non-existent". Without patriarchy, females might masturbate more and talk more about female masturbation, and consume more porn. Anyway, the only thing that matters in a socialist society is happiness, and there is no reason to believe that pornography is a threat. If people want to make sex tapes, let them do it as long as they don't make money with it.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 23 May 2015, 22:03
Havee3333333 wrote:
I took a class on Feminism this semester, and my professor noted that the rate of female porn consumption and masturbation is almost non-existent. Porn, including male porn (intended for gay-male audiences), is almost entirely consumed by men.

...uh. No. Just, trust me, girls masturbate too.
And what are bodice rippers and smut fanfics if not literary porn? We may be less visual, but we have plenty of fapping material of our own.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYWQAg12Ko0

Quote:
Porn and masturbation is probably a form of Patriarchy, and not entirely bourgeois (although its mass consumption is clearly bourgeois engineered). It promotes male commodification of women - it thingifies women as if they are something to desire and want, collect and have, and not free independently existing beings with human substance that hold up half the sky. It is no wonder why cultures where porn is massively consumed are also the cultures of the 'studs' and the existence of mass prostitution.

I wasn't aware porn was massively consumed in places like Saudi Arabia where temporary weekend marriages are, legit, set up for the purpose of prostitution? And actually, doesn't Malaysia restrict porn consumption? Because it's almost as bad as their neighbors to the north, as far as underage brothels go.

I think there's no denying most porn does objectify women, sure. I'm all for equalizing objectification, if it's to be done. Or better, making porn more like erotica where there are actual characters and it's not just "here's your pizza, let's frag." I do think lumping any and all porn in the same boat is silly, I think repression of non-antisocial attitudes (and note: some porn, like rape-porn, does fall under "antisocial") is generally a bad thing that really damages people psychologically and thus leads to schizophrenic societies. And I think that's what you have today, where everyone hungers for the slightest glimpse of a buttcrack on television and half the ads are selling sex because more and more (aging and increasingly isolated) people are separated from that in real life, where every unfulfilled housewife has to get sexual release through ten billion "romance" (*cough*Fifty Shades*cough*) novels...

Porn, however imperfect, can be an outlet for releasing that repression.

Quote:
The substructure (all the things we do in our daily lives) always goes towards defending and establishing the superstructure (patriarchy or capitalism).

...no. No no no no. Yes, the prevailing common sense props up the existing order. Which is not the same thing as "walking my dog (not even meant as a euphemism, but let's go with that) keeps the bourgeoisie in power." I ate yogurt today. By this logic, I... indulged in bourgeois pleasure-seeking? Or something?

Quote:
The way in which men live their lives whoring around or pretending to whore around very much reflects in the superstructure (how the society as a whole views and treats women).

Yes, these are all humongous problems. And then it's idealistic to attack the symptom, masturbating to fantasies that form around chauvinism, in the form of railing against a bodily function that has existed since the beginning of time. Point out the chauvinistic nature of X lifestyle or Y fetish, combat that. In that case, you're raising awareness about the cause, patriarchal social relations, which is what should be attacked.

Quote:
Meanwhile, people are here discussing whether or not they'll be able to wank after the revolution, as if they are wealthy property owners asking whether or not they'll be allowed to keep their property after the revolution... You people completely miss the point...

...because masturbating is totally the same as private property?
Castration or barbarism!


Quote:
I prefer to spend my days reading EP Thompson, Jack London, and others, and remind myself that no individual is free and all are corrupted by the system, and hope that the Left changes in two decades.

Good luck. For the record, I'm pretty sure Jack London and EP Thompson masturbated too. And not that I agree with it, but London even did his share of "whoring around."

Quote:
I watched a Doctor Oz episode a couple of years ago where he specifically discussed the similar relationship between drug and porn addiction.

Bold for emphasis. Stop right there. Oz is the biggest peddler of crank therapies alive and, if he wasn't such a good brain surgeon, ought to have his medical license revoked.

But as we've established countless times: yes, masturbating to porn releases endorphins, so it can be addictive. And this is harmful for several reasons, namely decreased interest in real social relationships and damaged ability to find "normal" sex interesting. But, eating pizza can do the same thing to your brain. Solving it is about learning to control yourself, not banning pizza because some people eat way too much of the stuff and get fat and constipated.

OP-Bagration wrote:
This is pure sophism because you could assume as well that actual patriarchy is represented by male monopoly on porn consumption, and not porn itself. It's ridiculous and patriarchal as well to believe that female masturbation is "almost non-existent".

We've had our differences, but someone give Bagration a medal. Please? Pretty please?
Last edited by MissStrangelove on 24 May 2015, 00:48, edited 6 times in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5137
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 23 May 2015, 23:52
Bagration is a stalinist. What makes you think he already isn't covered in medals?
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 16
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Mar 2015, 03:50
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 03 Jun 2015, 23:22
Havee3333333 wrote:

When neuroscience recognizes all cognition as a result of physical processes in the brain, the debate about whether or not there have been studies is pointless. Studies, in the West, are virtually all funded by government grants, and Western governments aren't very quick to recognize that individuals are just physical processes without free will, and no government, right now, is going to fund extensive research into whether or not porn causes addiction - either because it is painfully obvious, or just because it isn't a subject worth investigating.

Will a person become addicted to a drug if we make it so that large quantities of dopamine are released? The answer is yes. And generally, the rule is the stronger the discharge of dopamine, and the more frequent the usage, the more likely it will be the person will become addicted and stay addicted with no chance to escape it. Will too much porn consumption result in a habituated desire for the same quantities of dopamine? The answer is yes. What do we call it when people continually desire dopamine? Addiction...

I watched a Doctor Oz episode a couple of years ago where he specifically discussed the similar relationship between drug and porn addiction. When a smoker sees someone else smoking, areas of the brain immediately light up that would otherwise light up if they were in the process of smoking (in lower quantities of course - kind of a physical memory of your experiences from smoking in the past). When a frequent porn consumer see a photo of a woman in sexy clothing, areas of the brain that light up during orgasms light up (leading to this desire for sex or masturbation). So now, going back to that relationship between substructure and superstructure I pointed out in the last comment, it is easily deducible that men with more frequent porn usage are going to treat women in a more demeaning manner than men without it (men who have gone without don't have as strong of a reaction as those with). Ultimately, men who consume porn will treat women as sexual objects simply because of what they exposed their brains too (physical processes in the brain are the source of all cognition), while men who don't consume it will treat them like humans (thus enabling the destruction of patriarchy).

I find your comments interesting, but could you explain how a man's sexual relations with his wife is exempt from your "it will later elicit sexual stimulation, which will cause demeaning mindset of women" argument? Sure, porn is 100% visual, while relations between a husband and wife includes physical, emotional, &t. stimulation, but still, it isn't like a man doesn't visually enjoy his wife's body! But of course this could be less frequent or casual. Do heterosexual marital relations cause less mental stimulation later on account of how explicit they and their context are? Thank you for your thoughts!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 15 Jun 2015, 07:35
I believe the poster you are quoting has left the forum. I'll try to answer you question saying that a human being has agency, while pornography does not. It is strictly a sexual object, something passive which you "devour", consume. Much can be said on the psychological effects and distortions that result from sexual objectification, and more generally, on the fixation on objects as means to pleasure.

Obviously our brains are constantly stimulated and we carry out certain activities for pleasure and other for whatever other satisfaction of needs. The issue with addictions is the usage of an object for the attainment of pleasure, which turns fetishistic, since the person only because realized through the mediation of this object. He/she therefore becomes empoverished.

Like with drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc, this is an issue that needs to be taken into account, though that doesn't mean banning it or anything like that. As Marxists, which strives for the most complete, concrete knowledge (enveloping the whole social process), we'd be pretty disingenuous to simply discard this because of abstract "feedom".

I agree with AldoBrasil in that we need to look at the production of porn, as well as the effects. Would we allow the objectification of women for a profit motive?
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 16
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Mar 2015, 03:50
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 17 Jun 2015, 02:00
praxicoide wrote:
I believe the poster you are quoting has left the forum. I'll try to answer you question saying that a human being has agency, while pornography does not. It is strictly a sexual object, something passive which you "devour", consume. Much can be said on the psychological effects and distortions that result from sexual objectification, and more generally, on the fixation on objects as means to pleasure.

Obviously our brains are constantly stimulated and we carry out certain activities for pleasure and other for whatever other satisfaction of needs. The issue with addictions is the usage of an object for the attainment of pleasure, which turns fetishistic, since the person only because realized through the mediation of this object. He/she therefore becomes empoverished.

Like with drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc, this is an issue that needs to be taken into account, though that doesn't mean banning it or anything like that. As Marxists, which strives for the most complete, concrete knowledge (enveloping the whole social process), we'd be pretty disingenuous to simply discard this because of abstract "feedom".

I agree with AldoBrasil in that we need to look at the production of porn, as well as the effects. Would we allow the objectification of women for a profit motive?

Thank you for your response! Unfortunately I don't have time (or energy, for that matter :s ) to reply now, but I will try to do so by the end of this month. Thank you again for your thoughts and time!
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 01 Jul 2015, 11:17
Permit without restrictions (except for underage/nonconsensual material).

No point going all 18th Amendment and creating vast empires fought over by porn Capones.

Best to assume that when/if society changes for the better, the need for porn (as we know it under capitalism, anyhow) will largely dissipate.

Erotica will always be with us. Porn, not so much.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 33
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Nov 2015, 22:40
Ideology: Maoist
Pioneer
Post 17 Nov 2015, 23:03
Pornography in Capitalism is very bad for society. Pornography would still probably exist post-capitalism but it wouldn't be like it is now. I voted for restrictions. We should be wary of pornography and outright outlaw child-pornography.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 28 Nov 2015, 00:34
Erotic art and pulp-content will always exist, as it always has. Reproduction is a very important psychological value for humans, it is essential to the form of our biology. But our views on what is acceptably erotic is totally cultural and temporal. Go back just a century and we would see what we call pedophilia abounding.

This is not some apologism for pedophiles either, but rather a refusal to turn our current erotic moral into law. Law that will be pushed onto future generations.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 11
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Jan 2016, 00:46
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 20 Jan 2016, 11:50
Here is the beauty of being a Stalinist. I am not bound by petty bourgeois cosmopolitanism and ideas of individual liberty - these are capitalist and democratic ideas.

So of course it should be illegal! Or it should be heavily punished and regulated. As a Stalininst, I am not a degenerate like Trotskyists. Pornography is exploitative, and not only does it exploit men's biological inclinations, but it makes a base mockery of the female of our species. All for $$$.

It deserves to be smashed.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 982
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 08 Feb 2016, 00:04
How come that in a case like this no one is asking oneself how Hoxha or Stalin or some other dictator would treat the subject? How come everyone is pro-porn whereas the aforementioned would probably be against it?
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 08 Feb 2016, 03:59
EdvardK wrote:
How come that in a case like this no one is asking oneself how Hoxha or Stalin or some other dictator would treat the subject? How come everyone is pro-porn whereas the aforementioned would probably be against it?

Because, when it comes right down to it, very few of us really are fanatical Stalinists at heart. Almost all of us would much rather live in a country that has socially liberal values in addition to socialist economic policies.

Me, I'd take Tito over Hoxha or Honecker any day.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Soviet cogitations: 675
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 08 Feb 2016, 06:47
Comrade Gulper wrote:
Me, I'd take Tito over Hoxha or Honecker any day.
Ironically the East German revisionists had the most "positive" attitude towards sexual issues in Eastern Europe, so that's a silly statement.

Nor is it surprising that the GDR had a leading position in this field since it was one of the most urbanized countries.

But yeah pornography should be illegal, as it was in the GDR (and Yugoslavia, and Albania.) The people punished should be those who direct pornographic materials and distribute them.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.