Both: What do you think causes people to develop sexual paraphilias?

submitted by worried19 from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

I found that all "trans people" outside the West weren't trans people at all, but homosexuals.

Just to be clear, you know that with very rare exceptions, they were/are all male homosexuals too.

Mexicans & Russian are have only class in common, which is why their cultures are more similar to one another than they are to the US or Europe, respectively.

I don't know what you mean when you say these countries "have only class in common." Can you explain?

Russia was a country of illiterate peasants during WW1, which is why their revolution was so successful. The Soviet Union was a working-class dictatorship. The marketisation of Russia is fairly recent (about 30 years ago). It's these working-class roots that show through in their culture.

The fact that a huge swathe of the population of Russia consisted of illiterate peasants doesn't mean Russia was entirely made up of such at the time of the revolution or before. Russia was a monarchy with a very wealthy and longstanding aristocracy & upper class as well as a mercantile class. The tsar was the richest man in the world. Lots of people in Russia were literate and learned. Many were well-educated and highly accomplished.

Changes in class dynamics in Russia began occurring due to government reforms instituted in the 19th century, particularly when serfdom was abolished in 1861. But there was quite a wealthy, educated, highly sophisticated upper crust in Russia for centuries. Read or watch some Tolstoy, or some material about him. The movie about his last days is good, and I enjoyed the version of Anna Karenina with Kiera Knightley. There's also Pasternak's Dr Zhivago.

The people behind the revolutions that finally resulted in the Bolsehvik revolution in October 1917 were educated middle-class Russians. Like this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Kerensky

There are 6 dimensions of culture. Each dimension has a scale with two opposing poles. Generally, Western/middle-class cultures conform to one side of all the poles vs. working-class cultures that generally conform to the other side of the poles.

Says who? Sounds like simplistic, sophomoric bollocks to me. Also, what does it have to do with what we are discussing?

BTW, I hope you know that the terms "working class" and "peasant class" were/are not synonymous.

[–]SnowAssMan 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Wow, is that all you ever do is dwell on exceptions? The working-class population of Russia in 1917 was over 80% of the population! But you're here to inform me that they haven't got a working-class culture, because (drumroll) the monarchy weren't working-class!?? Absolutely redonkulous!

And yes, peasant-class & working-class are synonymous in this case. There are only two classes, culturally: the working-classes & the middle/upper-classes. Russia didn't just assassinate the Tsar, it went out of its way to torture to death &/or work to death the bourgeoisie, further explaining why their culture is so working-class today.

And no, watching the movie Nicholas and Alexandra is not going to give me great insight into the Russian population's class or culture.

Says who? Sounds like simplistic, sophomoric bollocks to me. Also, what does it have to do with what we are discussing?

Any & every trend or pattern sounds like rubbish to you, because as long as 100% of something isn't occurring 100% of the time to a degree of 100%, it supposedly doesn't exist. The reason class is relevant, is for the sae reason that sex is: both are determinants of the presence of paraphilia.

Just to be clear, you know that with very rare exceptions, they were/are all male homosexuals too.

You mean that they are male? Yes.

I don't know what you mean when you say these countries "have only class in common." Can you explain?

Mexico & Russia are on different continents, have different languages, different ethnicities etc. etc. they haven't got anything in common except the class of their populations, which explains the similarities in their cultures (referring to Hofstede's 6 dimensions, not superficial stuff like food & clothing)

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You didn't originally say that

The working-class population of Russia in 1917 was over 80% of the population!

On the contrary, you said

Russia was a country of illiterate peasants during WW1, which is why their revolution was so successful.

Those are two entirely different claims.

I pointed out Russia at the time of WW1 was a monarchy & oligarchy with an aristocracy & mercantile class, and that the revolutionaries who overthrew the government in the early 20th century were literate & highly educated, middle class persons like Kerensky. Whereas you claimed that the whole country at the time were illiterate peasants.

You said earlier that

Mexicans & Russian are have only class in common, which is why their cultures are more similar to one another than they are to the US or Europe, respectively.

I asked what you meant by "have only class in common." I asked you to explain. Which you still haven't. And now you come back with this:

Mexico & Russia are on different continents, have different languages, different ethnicities etc. etc. they haven't got anything in common except the class of their populations, which explains the similarities in their cultures

To which I again say: huh and WTF?

And yes, peasant-class & working-class are synonymous in this case. There are only two classes, culturally: the working-classes & the middle/upper-classes. Russia didn't just assassinate the Tsar, it went out of its way to torture to death &/or work to death the bourgeoisie, further explaining why their culture is so working-class today.

No, in practical & theoretical terms, the peasant class is different to the working class. One was/is agrarian, the other industrial.

I don't understand the claims you are making about the "bourgeoisie" in the Soviet system.

Your bombastic writing style makes figuring out your points unduly difficult.

[–]SnowAssMan 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There is no contradiction between:

The working-class population of Russia in 1917 was over 80% of the population

&

Russia was a country of illiterate peasants during WW1, which is why their revolution was so successful

From a Marxist perspective there are only two classes: the proletariat & the bourgeoisie. They go by different names in different time periods. From the start of Chapter 1 of the Communist Manifesto:

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."

I don't understand the claims you are making about the "bourgeoisie" in the Soviet system.

The intelligentsia of Russia were deported, forced to work in gulags & executed. In the Soviets' own words, they were "exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class". So their proletarian population only grew larger from the over 80% that it was before the revolution. This is Russia's class heritage & the effects can still be measured in modern Russian culture.

Mexico is a third world country (underdeveloped/developing country), so they too are largely working-class. That's why Mexico & Russia score similarly on the 6 dimensions scale of culture, but differently compared to the US & Western Europe, who occupy the opposite end of the spectrum in most cases.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not really, working class and peasants weren't synonyms. Peasnats had much less rights and there were two types of peasants, one was basically slaves, as they were not able to marry or move without permission of the landlord they were working for. Other part of peasants were more close to working class, and mostly were living in cities, but they still were lacking a lot of rights. I believe there only around 3-5% of working class and 80-85% of peasants during that time and rest were aristocracy, military or merchants.

For some reason those peasants in villages who had absolutely no rights are not called slaves, even thought they basically were them.

Later it started slowly to change and peasants were given their own pieces of land, which still was owned by landlord, but at least they had almost all they grown there for themselves now.

which is why their revolution was so successful.

That is not so much true as well, because revolution was aimed for bad workers.

In villages peasants who were good working and were able to have good harvests were called Kulak's, and they were attacked by people who were making revolution. In most cases those who came to rule were peasants who were not able to work properly. Later Kulak's were called any peasant who was not giving their last grain to new governemnt.

Later new wave of good working peasants appeared, but during Stalin they were destroyed completely and often put in prison or murdered. So only bad working peasants left who were working "because it needed" and not because they liked to work or know how to work. That led to huge drops in harvesting, as most people who knew what to do were in prison or murdered.

[–]SnowAssMan 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

culturally they are the same