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 →

[–]SnowAssMan 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 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)

[–][deleted]  (4 children)

[deleted]

    [–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

    What? I recommended works by and about Leo Tolstoy for insight on the topic of class relations in Russia in the 19th century. Including a very intelligent, interesting movie version of Anna Kareninina that starred Keira Knightley. I didn't recommend any old Keira Knightley movie, I recommended Anna Karenina, a film version of one of the greatest novels ever - and one that sheds considerable light onto historical events in Russia in the 19th century that led to the revolutions of the WW1 era. Two of the major subplots of the novel, which this particular movie version highlights, are about class relations, rural serfdom and government-led reforms including land reform and the elimination of serfdom and the disruptions & unintended consequences those entailed.

    You seem to be insinuating that novels & other works of fiction and filmed versions of novels/stories featuring movie stars can't shed any light on historical, political & cultural events, and that novels/stories about past eras and other cultures to our own are useless. I disagree. I think fiction is often a great illuminator. Hence why Shakespeare, Cervantes, Jane Austen, Victor Hugo, Thomas Hardy, Dickens, Tolstoy and many other fiction writers of the past still have much to say to us today.

    Also, the diss against Kiera Knightley comes off as sexist, misogynistic & elitist to me. She's an intelligent actress who has put in impressive performances in a wide variety of films. Her appearance in a movie version of an exceptional novel by Leo Tolstoy doesn't in any way diminish Tolstoy's work or its resonance.

    [–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    Those were written from the view of intelligence, who tried to side with poor people. So it is "view of rich on how poor are living". Leo Tolstoy was rich aristocrate, but he was talking a lot with poor rightless people - so he know a lot, but not firsthand and never experienced how it to born and live as a low class. Actually I don't remember any big low class people writers in classic russian literature, but I may forgot some, as I had literature classes decade ago. However, late ukrainian literature is often was written by low class, self-educated people (who became higher class and that's why they were able to publish - so still very rare case among low class people) or very poor aristocracy who lost everything - still most writers were from poor aristocracy, but were many from rightless class (basically slaves, but it was not called "slavery", even thought they had same no rights as slaves) - but they were mostly writting about the lowest of classes. During that time bigger part of Ukraine was under Russian Empire control, so society was very similar here, with only difference of extra pressure based on nationality. Would be really cool if there were more low class writters from those times, thought - to see everything from their perspective.

    [–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Yes, Leo Tolstoy was a rich aristocrat - one who tried to get a sense of what life was like for poorer and less fortunate people than he. But my objection was to the claim that in Russia at the time of the revolutions of/circa 1917 the whole country consisted of illiterate peasants.

    As your comment shows, in any country and era, there's usually a huge gap between those who have he ability to publish their writings and those who are able to write & read. I object to the idea that being of peasant or working class = being illiterate and without the ability or inclination to write.

    [–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    It was actually the truth, thought. A huge percent of population was illiterate (some were able to read few words here and there). It was one of main focuses of Lenin - to teach peasants to write and read. This started before Lenin, thought - during Stolypin Reforms in 1906-1913 years. Before 1890s almost all peasants were illiterate, but percentage was lowering during 1900s and with Stolypin Reforms up to fifth of peasants received at least some basic education - but mostly because now peasants received their own land that was belonging to them and not to landlord (or later Kolgosp), so they had much more free time now. It was mostly self-education - as a lot of peasants were hungry for knowledge. This also increased amount of harvests by 20%.

    That was one of goals of Stolypin Reform - to give good working or already a bit rich peasants more power and make them first of a kind of "middle class", so they will start supporting Empire like aristocracy, as aristocracy was not able anymore to hold all people with military, and they needed more support. So they decided to make some peasants to a richer class with more education (and land problem was huge issue as peasants were already starting to revolt around 1902-1904, and revolted in 1905, - plus economics of Empire was dying because 90% of resources belonged to aristocracy and they were doing nothing with it). Around quarter of all peasants benefited from this greatly, around half of peasants benefited from this at all, and last quarter either changed nothing or became even poorer, as they were not able to buy-out their land from landlord even with help of Peasant Bank, so they either went in big debts or moved to parts of Russian Empire with cheap land (like asian part and Syberia).

    Basically all this was sponsored and paid from the personal pockets of Tsar, some merchants and some rich aristocracy - part wanted to not lose power due to revolution, part were siding with peasants and wanted to help them.

    This not fixed the land issue, because many "between middle and poor" peasants were just selling their land to more rich peasants or to landlords and going away into cities without a land, or moving to Ural. This was one of big reasons of the revolution - 25% of peasants were not pleased by this reform, 50% were slightly displeased and 25% were happy with it. Poorer and bad working peasants were angry on better working or luckier peasants and were starting to speak against them. However, revolution was started by rich military and middle class city workers, not by peasants. It made huge damage to peasants as well, as most documents were destroyed and land was re-distributed with so-called "uravnilovka" (slur-sounding version of "forced equalization") where peasants were given same amount of land regardless of how they were working and if they were just alcoholics or had a lot of land previously, just "how many kids or family members you have" and X amount of land per person. That made population even more unhappy than it was with monarchy, that's when Bolsheviks appeared with October Revolution (which wasn't really revolution, as it was done by small amount of people, mostly cityfolks and immigrants from "sealed train", and was not widely supported by peasants, like it was in 1905, when peasants themselves with pitchforks were fighting against military).

    The fact that middle class peasants were created to support Empire - it was one of reasons why Bolsheviks were afraid of those peasants and middle class, they thougth they will support Empire and will not be willing to share their land with government and Kolgosps.

    A lot of more wealthy or literate peasants were imprisoned or murdered during revolution, there are memes about "Lenin reducing illiteracy".

    Like this from early 90s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX_S1DXHW4Y

    They are saying there "Lenin wrote a letter to a poor crowd" and then "What? No one can read it?" and peasants "Nah, we are all illiterate", and then they started sho1oting and caption appears "Painting: Bolsheviks reducing illiteracy".

    I may be incorrect in some details, as I am telling from memory (and my last history classes were in university 13-14 years ago, as I was studying on engineering and IT speciality, so we had history only two years, not all six years), but should be close to how it was.

    And why am I writing all this, lol? It is clearly huge off-topic in this conversation and in subsaidit in general. So I should just stop :D