We're all familiar with how social conservatives preach about family values. They go on and on about protecting the family, morality, teaching abstinence in schools, and things like that.

Well, earlier today, I came across a piece in the web-based Russian newspaper PRAVDA On-Line that discusses sexual repression in the former Soviet Union:

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/history/05-11-2009/110310-sex_ussr-0

I love what it says about the approach that the oppressive Soviet government had towards family values:



The Soviet government was concerned with preserving family values, mainly, because it could benefit from it. A family was a minimum unit the government could control, hence the name “social unit.” Everything that happened outside of family life was hard to control, and therefore, was deemed suspicious and undesirable.

Sexual freedom was considered destructive for family values. The government designed various administrative barriers to prevent sex outside of wedlock. People who were not officially married could not share a room in a hotel, or stay overnight in a students’ dorm.

Sexual education in schools was nonexistent as it could lead to debauchery. People were given no information about contraception since it was believed that the lack of knowledge would contribute to abstinence. Interestingly enough, the phenomenal number of abortions performed on Soviet women was completely dismissed.



What's that say about social conservatives in the west who like to push "family values"?  ::)

There's a reason why Republicans focus on the economic side of Communism and not usually the social side of it...




...it's because social conservatism has a lot in common with the authoritarian policies of Communism.

Well the product of child bearing out of wedlock has certainly proven to be a boon to society.  ::)

Now before y'all launch off and tell me that you know people who have had children out of wedlock and the kids turned out well...  STATISTICALLY it is a disaster, with children who are raised in fatherless homes are vastly more likely to end up living a life of crime and poverty, as part of the "cycle of poverty".

It does not happen every time, of course and thankfully. 

But, statistically speaking, a government that promotes in-wedlock fertility is acting in the better interest of the state and its people.

But, statistically speaking, a government that promotes in-wedlock fertility is acting in the better interest of the state and its people.


No argument here, but I would say the same is true of a society that gives equal benefits to same-sex couples as to hetero couples.

These attitudes are exactly the same as the attitudes in the United States during the same time period, so if you are going to condemn the Soviet Government you must needs do the same to the United States goverment.

These attitudes are exactly the same as the attitudes in the United States during the same time period, so if you are going to condemn the Soviet Government you must needs do the same to the United States goverment.


Ditto.  That's exactly what I was thinking.  It's the authoritarian point of view.  The Soviet Union thought the government should control everybody's lives whereas the USA thinks for-profit corporations should control everybody's lives...

::)