PDA

View Full Version : Sex Policies in East vs. West Germany: How Should We Approach Sex?



IMPress Polly
08-22-2013, 06:16 PM
(I thought about posting this in the History Room, but since my actual inquiry is for the present day, I figured this to be the best place.)

What follows is a pretty interesting (and occasionally pretty cute!) documentary comparing and contrasting the sex-related policies of East Germany and West Germany over the course of the Cold War (which sometimes related to broader issues of gender relations) and their real-world impact on the sex lives of the respective populations. Involved are topics like the impact of the early introduction of East German women to the paid labor force, the early introduction of sex education (and the East and West's different approaches thereto) and reproductive rights in East Germany, policy on public nudity, and the legalization of the sex industry in West Germany. As a forewarning, since the documentary deals primarily with the topic of sexuality, one should note that it includes significant amounts of nudity and sexual content, though it's intended for educational purposes. Anyway, as long as that doesn't offend you, take a view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl_r7rIcds8

Now that I've got your thought processes in gear on this matter, the question I'd like to raise here is that of how we should approach the topic of sex as a society. I mean to ask this question in a very broad and sweeping sense. What do you think is the right approach?

As for me, as a Marxist, a former sex worker, and above all a fellow human being with impulses, I do consider myself basically a sexual liberal, but not a sexual libertarian (i.e. an absolute liberal). My thinking on this subject, though independent, is very similar to the policy prescriptions and cultural directionality exemplified by East Germany in the documentary above.

I believe the state should actively promote happy and healthy relationships, including happy and healthy sexual relationships. The pursuit of happiness is one thing, but we typically need some help to arrive. The state should foster public dialogue on the subject and promote satisfying, reciprocal relationships based on the research at its disposal at a given point. The state should also allow free experimentation with different sexual practices in order that people can discover what works for them. (Reproductive rights (rights to such options as birth control and abortion) fall in the category of women's basic rights in my mind and accordingly, I think, should be made freely available.) Society should be basically open and permissive when it comes to sexual matters and also, for that matter, when it comes to the human body, which people (including yes ordinary people) shouldn't have to feel ashamed of. People should be free to explore and have fun. Sex is a good and natural thing! People shouldn't have to feel ashamed of it as in the olden days!

On the other hand, I object to the commodification of sex and to the objectification of human body. I think the main problem with our modern-day culture here in the West when it comes to sex is that it's made into an individualistic, competitive sport like everything else in a capitalist society. (And you can't possibly compete, by the way. One of the foremost proofs can be seen in the growing number of men who are giving up real-world relationships so they can masturbate to computer images. (http://nymag.com/news/features/70976/)) I feel that this artificially makes sex too much about power and not enough about intimacy. Sex should be about mutual enjoyment. Our current culture elevates the social stature of the orgasm as the epitome of sexual power and thus the epitome of the sexual experience. We need to make sex more cooperative than competitive, I believe, and define it broadly rather than specifically around the orgasm.


There are also those who, for whatever reasons, just simply don't have a particular interest in sex and they should be as free as possible from undo pressure. Society needs to convey that 'no' is a legitimate answer too, particularly for its male population. I don't know if you saw that survey that came out of Australia not too long ago that showed a majority of its youth wished they could have less sex. That should be a legitimate option, not something that gets you stigmatized and perhaps even ostracized.


The bottom line in my mind is this: people's sex lives, should they opt to have sex lives, should be, above all, natural, respectful, and considerate. We need to stop prescribing universal abstinence, universal indulgence, certain body types, and so forth. We need to get rid of these "alpha", "beta", and "omega" categorizations of people based on how many sexual options they're believed to have as much as we can and start thinking of people as equals. I think that's what leads to more fulfilling love lives and sex lives.

Chris
08-22-2013, 06:28 PM
I believe the state should actively promote happy and healthy relationships, including happy and healthy sexual relationships.

Why is it any of the state's business? You say the state should foster dialog, did the state foster your OP's thoughts and words? No. How can people's sexual lives be "natural, respectful, and considerate" with government regulation and taxation? Even you advise "We need to stop prescribing" which is what the state does.




not a sexual libertarian (i.e. an absolute liberal)

Where do you come up with these definitions? A libertarian is a classical liberal perhaps but definitely not a modern liberal, in fact, the opposite.

Peter1469
08-22-2013, 06:38 PM
(I thought about posting this in the History Room, but since my actual inquiry is for the present day, I figured this to be the best place.)

What follows is a pretty interesting (and occasionally pretty cute!) documentary comparing and contrasting the sex-related policies of East Germany and West Germany over the course of the Cold War (which sometimes related to broader issues of gender relations) and their real-world impact on the sex lives of the respective populations. Involved are topics like the impact of the early introduction of East German women to the paid labor force, the early introduction of sex education (and the East and West's different approaches thereto) and reproductive rights in East Germany, policy on public nudity, and the legalization of the sex industry in West Germany. As a forewarning, since the documentary deals primarily with the topic of sexuality, one should note that it includes significant amounts of nudity and sexual content, though it's intended for educational purposes. Anyway, as long as that doesn't offend you, take a view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl_r7rIcds8

Now that I've got your thought processes in gear on this matter, the question I'd like to raise here is that of how we should approach the topic of sex as a society. I mean to ask this question in a very broad and sweeping sense. What do you think is the right approach?

As for me, as a Marxist, a former sex worker, and above all a fellow human being with impulses, I do consider myself basically a sexual liberal, but not a sexual libertarian (i.e. an absolute liberal). My thinking on this subject, though independent, is very similar to the policy prescriptions and cultural directionality exemplified by East Germany in the documentary above.

I believe the state should actively promote happy and healthy relationships, including happy and healthy sexual relationships. The pursuit of happiness is one thing, but we typically need some help to arrive. The state should foster public dialogue on the subject and promote satisfying, reciprocal relationships based on the research at its disposal at a given point. The state should also allow free experimentation with different sexual practices in order that people can discover what works for them. (Reproductive rights (rights to such options as birth control and abortion) fall in the category of women's basic rights in my mind and accordingly, I think, should be made freely available.) Society should be basically open and permissive when it comes to sexual matters and also, for that matter, when it comes to the human body, which people (including yes ordinary people) shouldn't have to feel ashamed of. People should be free to explore and have fun. Sex is a good and natural thing! People shouldn't have to feel ashamed of it as in the olden days!

On the other hand, I object to the commodification of sex and to the objectification of human body. I think the main problem with our modern-day culture here in the West when it comes to sex is that it's made into an individualistic, competitive sport like everything else in a capitalist society. (And you can't possibly compete, by the way. One of the foremost proofs can be seen in the growing number of men who are giving up real-world relationships so they can masturbate to computer images. (http://nymag.com/news/features/70976/)) I feel that this artificially makes sex too much about power and not enough about intimacy. Sex should be about mutual enjoyment. Our current culture elevates the social stature of the orgasm as the epitome of sexual power and thus the epitome of the sexual experience. We need to make sex more cooperative than competitive, I believe, and define it broadly rather than specifically around the orgasm.


There are also those who, for whatever reasons, just simply don't have a particular interest in sex and they should be as free as possible from undo pressure. Society needs to convey that 'no' is a legitimate answer too, particularly for its male population. I don't know if you saw that survey that came out of Australia not too long ago that showed a majority of its youth wished they could have less sex. That should be a legitimate option, not something that gets you stigmatized and perhaps even ostracized.


The bottom line in my mind is this: people's sex lives, should they opt to have sex lives, should be, above all, natural, respectful, and considerate. We need to stop prescribing universal abstinence, universal indulgence, certain body types, and so forth. We need to get rid of these "alpha", "beta", and "omega" categorizations of people based on how many sexual options they're believed to have as much as we can and start thinking of people as equals. I think that's what leads to more fulfilling love lives and sex lives.

Sex is vital for a committed relationship. It binds the couple together.

But I also think that prostitution should be legal and safe.

countryboy
08-22-2013, 08:12 PM
Why is it any of the state's business? You say the state should foster dialog, did the state foster your OP's thoughts and words? No. How can people's sexual lives be "natural, respectful, and considerate" with government regulation and taxation? Even you advise "We need to stop prescribing" which is what the state does.





Where do you come up with these definitions? A libertarian is a classical liberal perhaps but definitely not a modern liberal, in fact, the opposite.

I'm corn-fused, don't libs want the state out of the bedroom?

A lib promoting East German values, how very.....typical. :rolleyes:

Chris
08-22-2013, 08:39 PM
I'm corn-fused, don't libs want the state out of the bedroom?

A lib promoting East German values, how very.....typical. :rolleyes:



Only if non-intervention serves their self-interest regarding sex. Contradictorily, they want government promoting their self-interests regarding sex.

(This is true of many other issues as well.)

IMPress Polly
08-24-2013, 12:50 PM
countryboy wrote:
A lib promoting East German values, how very.....typical. :rolleyes:

I doubt it's "typical" for your average liberal, who is probably ideologically more or less centrist, to defend anything about East Germany, but when it comes to yours truly...yeah, what could one expect? :wink:


I'm corn-fused, don't libs want the state out of the bedroom?

Not everyone is the same, countryboy. Indeed there are lots of self-described liberals who use expressions like that. I'm not one of them though. Although I get the spirit of it, it's a bit too sweeping a statement for me to embrace.


Chris wrote:
Why is it any of the state's business? You say the state should foster dialog, did the state foster your OP's thoughts and words? No. How can people's sexual lives be "natural, respectful, and considerate" with government regulation and taxation? Even you advise "We need to stop prescribing" which is what the state does.

I referred, of course, to the provision of sex education, both for the youth and for adults. I listed some of the things I think society should encourage and discourage respectively. As for the broader culture, yeah I think product labels and advertising and so forth should be nice and boring and focused on facts rather than emotional manipulation to whatever extent they must exist. It actually used to be that way, incidentally, even here in this country. Then, however, we discovered psychology and placed it in the service of commerce. (http://vimeo.com/61857758) (The linked documentary is about a decade old now, but still an excellent account of the historical record on this.)


Where do you come up with these definitions? A libertarian is a classical liberal perhaps but definitely not a modern liberal, in fact, the opposite.

My definitions simply reflect the historical and international view. I know that, in this country, people typically use the term liberal as a substitute for leftist or progressive and conservative as a substitute for rightist, but actually, in a world-historic sense, these terms aren't all that strictly connected to the left-right dynamic. Consider, for example, Mao Zedong. I don't think anyone would dispute the notion that Mao was a radical leftist, yet he strongly and explicitly opposed liberalism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_03.htm). How does that add up, you ask? It adds up because Mao was defining "liberalism" in its world-historic sense, as referring to permissiveness and individualism. Mao saw a culture of permissiveness as inconsistent with the building of a disciplined revolutionary party capable of collectivizing life in general. And, as to conservatism, witness that there were atheists and socialists like Martin Heidegger amongst the ranks of the German Nazis, whom I think we would all describe as extremely conservative. How is that possible, you ask? After all, don't modern-day American libertarians describe themselves as conservatives? Indeed. But, in a world-historic sense, conservatism refers to favoring traditional values, which typically means more authoritarian values because older societies tended to be stricter. (Basically conservatism is alignment with religious institutions, which may be left wing or right wing more broadly.) If you look at Canada and Europe and many other parts of the world, you'll see that indeed many or all of these groups have their own separate parties. For example, in Britain they have politically relevant, separate parties for conservatives, liberals, and labor. What rationale is behind that, you ask? Well Britain's Conservatives define themselves with that term because they've traditionally defined themselves mainly by their cultural values. Same with the nation's Liberal Democrats. In contrast, the Labour Party, as its title implies, defines itself by its economic views. There is a similar situation in Canada and an even clearer ideological separation in France, for instance. It's only harder for us to mentally separate liberalism and conservatism from left wing and right wing economic views in this country because we have such a rigid two-party system. It's not so hard to do in many other countries.

Allow me to sum up how I define things:

Left Wing - Egalitarian. The more egalitarian you are, the more left wing you are. This applies to both one's economic and cultural values. Corresponds to proletarian status, especially when it comes to economics.

Right Wing - Anti-Egalitarian. The more pro-privilege or pro-stratification you are, the more right wing you are. This applies to both one's economic and cultural values. Corresponds to bourgeois status, especially when it comes to economics.

Liberal - Permissive/individualist. Corresponds to youth and the intellectual community.

Conservative - Traditionalist. Corresponds to religious institutions.

Libertarianism - Liberalism taken to its logical extreme.

Fascism - Conservatism taken to its logical extreme.

Communitarianism - Communism lite. Mild collectivism. Corresponds to community groups.

Progressivism - Common alternate term for left wing.

That's how I define political terms. I think you'll find that these definitions work.


EDIT:

Thanks to Peter for providing the only actual response to my inquiry in the OP.

Mister D
08-24-2013, 01:02 PM
I'm anti-egalitarian. Liberals (all of you from left to "right") are egalitarians. Yes, you may differ on what exactly it means and how it is achieved but you all embrace some form of it.

IMPress Polly
08-24-2013, 01:07 PM
I disagree, Mister D. In my opinion, there are a lot of areas wherein individualism runs opposed to egalitarian principles, economics in general not being the least of them. It's for that reason that I wouldn't go as far as to count myself a libertarian. (Again, see my above definitions of these terms.)

Mister D
08-24-2013, 01:20 PM
I disagree, Mister D. In my opinion, there are a lot of areas wherein individualism runs opposed to egalitarian principles, economics in general not being the least of them. It's for that reason that I wouldn't go as far as to count myself a libertarian. (Again, see my above definitions of these terms.)

We can certainly disagree. I just think libertarian and American conservatives would feel misrepresented. They would be right, IMO. I agree that equality has a relentless logic to it but it's wrong to suggest that the aforementioned do not believe in it.

Chris
08-24-2013, 01:39 PM
Why is it any of the state's business? You say the state should foster dialog, did the state foster your OP's thoughts and words? No. How can people's sexual lives be "natural, respectful, and considerate" with government regulation and taxation? Even you advise "We need to stop prescribing" which is what the state does.


I referred, of course, to the provision of sex education, both for the youth and for adults. I listed some of the things I think society should encourage and discourage respectively. As for the broader culture, yeah I think product labels and advertising and so forth should be nice and boring and focused on facts rather than emotional manipulation to whatever extent they must exist. It actually used to be that way, incidentally, even here in this country. Then, however, we discovered psychology and placed it in the service of commerce. (The linked documentary is about a decade old now, but still an excellent account of the historical record on this.)

Commerce is society, polly, leave it there, in the hands of society, not government. Let society decide what it should encourage and discourage.


You say only peter addressed your inquiry:


What do you think is the right approach?

The following addresses it head on:


Why is it any of the state's business? You say the state should foster dialog, did the state foster your OP's thoughts and words? No. How can people's sexual lives be "natural, respectful, and considerate" with government regulation and taxation? Even you advise "We need to stop prescribing" which is what the state does.

Chris
08-24-2013, 01:43 PM
not a sexual libertarian (i.e. an absolute liberal)


Where do you come up with these definitions? A libertarian is a classical liberal perhaps but definitely not a modern liberal, in fact, the opposite.


My definitions simply reflect the historical and international view.... Libertarianism - Liberalism taken to its logical extreme....

All you did was repeat yourself.

Yes, I realize definitions vary country to country, culture to culture, but you're here in this country and culture and in order to communicate need to speak the language.

I'm not against inventing terms or reinventing meanings, but you need to define what you mean and probably cite your sources.

And I only asked where you came up with one term and it's definition.

IMPress Polly
08-25-2013, 06:48 AM
Chris wrote:
You say only peter addressed your inquiry:


What do you think is the right approach?

The following addresses it head on:





Why is it any of the state's business? You say the state should foster dialog, did the state foster your OP's thoughts and words? No. How can people's sexual lives be "natural, respectful, and considerate" with government regulation and taxation? Even you advise "We need to stop prescribing" which is what the state does.


No actually that's called turning the question back on me, demanding that I explain myself further (which I did). You have yet to articulate a definite position on this inquiry:

"...the question I'd like to raise here is that of how we should approach the topic of sex as a society. I mean to ask this question in a very broad and sweeping sense. What do you think is the right approach?"

I could possibly infer from your statement that you favor a completely laissez-fare position, but wouldn't want to leap to conclusions. The fact that I'd have to infer your position though goes to show that you did NOT address the question "head on".


All you did was repeat yourself.

Yes, I realize definitions vary country to country, culture to culture, but you're here in this country and culture and in order to communicate need to speak the language.

On the contrary, it's Americans who need to learn to speak the language of the world. I'm going for a general definition of the terms, not a localized definition that makes no sense of the rest of the world. Politics are global. The definitions I provided make the most sense of the world, I find. That's why I use them.


I'm not against inventing terms or reinventing meanings, but you need to define what you mean and probably cite your sources.

And I only asked where you came up with one term and it's definition.

These claims are downright Orwellian considering that I actually listed a number of my definitions and provided a paragraph of explanation with easily-researched examples that included a link to the one I figured more obscure. You seem to be demanding that I do exactly what I've already done, in other words. I could probably go more in-depth, but frankly don't feel up for writing you an essay in reply to every question you ask, especially considering that you'll probably just give me a few sentences casually denying everything I say in response. It's not always worth the price in terms of my time and energy to go as in-depth as possible.

Chris
08-25-2013, 07:43 AM
No actually that's called turning the question back on me, demanding that I explain myself further (which I did). You have yet to articulate a definite position on this inquiry:

"...the question I'd like to raise here is that of how we should approach the topic of sex as a society. I mean to ask this question in a very broad and sweeping sense. What do you think is the right approach?"

I could possibly infer from your statement that you favor a completely laissez-fare position, but wouldn't want to leap to conclusions. The fact that I'd have to infer your position though goes to show that you did NOT address the question "head on".



On the contrary, it's Americans who need to learn to speak the language of the world. I'm going for a general definition of the terms, not a localized definition that makes no sense of the rest of the world. Politics are global. The definitions I provided make the most sense of the world, I find. That's why I use them.



These claims are downright Orwellian considering that I actually listed a number of my definitions and provided a paragraph of explanation with easily-researched examples that included a link to the one I figured more obscure. You seem to be demanding that I do exactly what I've already done, in other words. I could probably go more in-depth, but frankly don't feel up for writing you an essay in reply to every question you ask, especially considering that you'll probably just give me a few sentences casually denying everything I say in response. It's not always worth the price in terms of my time and energy to go as in-depth as possible.



Lordy, my point in addressing your question was OK I can go along with most of what you advocated provided you leave it to society to decide. It's you sidestepping.




On the contrary, it's Americans who need to learn to speak the language of the world.

I said "realize definitions vary country to country, culture to culture". The problem here is you are not in any way shape of form defining your terms. All you're doing is expressing opinion.


I'm going for a general definition of the terms, not a localized definition that makes no sense of the rest of the world.

Your terms are the most local possible, they are personal, no one else shares them.


The definitions I provided make the most sense of the world, I find.

You have given no definitions. Asked to explain "Libertarianism - Liberalism taken to its logical extreme" all you've done is talk about global vs local meanings, which are nothing more than personal, and you expanded to give a personal categorization of politics.

You have yet to explain what you, personally, even mean by "Libertarianism - Liberalism taken to its logical extreme".


These claims are downright Orwellian

To ask you to explain your terms and provide sources? Orwellian? LOL.

So, what, you want me to expose your unacknowledged use of Marx on the Civil War again?


Again, what do you mean by "Libertarianism - Liberalism taken to its logical extreme"? Provide some sources.