Sex on coupons

Why in totalitarian countries the authorities climb to a person in bed and tries to regulate his private life

The comedians on TNT, depicting the bride and groom, were plunged into the anger of deputies with their kiss. Because - men, and thereby "undermine our national and constitutional foundations." This is “not to show others,” said the Duma Mikhail Romanov and Anatoly Elected. And the police department in the Tver district of Moscow opened an administrative case of gay propaganda among minors. "Hello, I'm your aunt!" - It’s not that this is exactly what I want to say now, but it is worth remembering this wonderful movie comedy. Nobody even in 1975, when this film was released, had never occurred to the children to blame the children of her favorite actors Alexander Kalyagin, Armen Dzhigarkhanyan, and Mikhail Kozakov. And there, as in many other films and performances, there were kisses of same -sex artists.

Such a mainstream today. Because “today it is humor, tomorrow it is already propaganda,” deputy Romanov commented on his position. Yeah ... "Today he plays jazz, and tomorrow he will sell his homeland" - when we read about it in books, it seemed that the authors exaggerate, and so people could not talk. But vocabulary returns - along with the way of thoughts and actions.

The director of the Institute of Demography, Migration and Regional Development, Yuri Krupnov, made an initiative to introduce low -performance tax. That is, they did not give birth to a second child - pay.

It is difficult to come up with some new laws all the time, but you can do and just remove something, and insert something into the existing ones. Ask a question: why, for example, in Article 6.21 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation “On the prohibition of propaganda of non -traditional sexual relations among minors”, no one was worried about adults? That is, about unreasonable and careless adults.

What can be done? The ban should be for everyone. And to expand the topic, adding all possible “sexual deviations” to “non -traditional sexual relations”. So it turned out a new bill, the support of which was already announced by the head of the State Duma Committee on Family, Women and Children, Nina Ostanina. The bill has not yet been received by the State Duma, but these proposals at the end of October were discussed by the Public Council under Roskomnadzor.

If such a bill is indeed to appear and will be adopted, we will lose the opportunity to see and discuss a huge number of works of world classical art. But, perhaps, we will not lose access to one of the world's first anti-Netiopia novels-Evgeny Zamyatin, written in 1920. “ We go - one million -year -head body, and in each of us - that humble joy, which, like molecules, atoms, and phagocytes probably live . <...> "We" - from God, and "I" - from the devil. "

There - in a single state - equally dressed and obscured people, who, instead of the number of the number, were given out coupons for sex.

Before issuing them, a person was carefully examined in the laboratories of the sexual bureau, making a “habit of sexual days”. The coupons could only be used in a specially designated “sexual hour”, and at this hour, finally, it was allowed to curtain the windows with curtains - the rest of the time people lived in transparent houses at each other in sight.

The novel is a storehouse for a deputy creativity, since they decided to take up the most relevant topic for Russia - prohibitions and restrictions in the private life of people.

Why is it always, as soon as the country begins to step on the path of the totalitarian system, representatives of non -traditional sexual orientation become enemies? And all sexual relations that are not related to the reproductive function of a person, the authorities want to immediately ban and hide? What is the danger of sex - for them, for us? Why regulate a person’s personal life? Psychologists and philosopher answer these questions.

Dmitry Leontyev,

Doctor of Psychological Sciences, Professor

- The difference has long been described, separating the concepts of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. The authoritarian regime tightly controls the undesirable participation of the population in political activity, but abroad leaves people alone. Totalitarianism cannot leave people unattended at all anywhere and nothing - a big brother claims to regulate all aspects of your life, including personal, private.

Then it turns out that private life does not exist, because it is precisely that people organize at their own discretion: they choose, exercise, and they themselves are responsible for their choice, including for their mistakes and even stupidity, from which no one is free and to which everyone has the right, with the only reservation, that they will not have to pay for others.

If the space is narrowed and the choice of people is controlled, as a result, the utopian model of Moon may arise, where someone is appointed to a person in a wife or husband. The guru chooses a couple for them and connects people - from the best, of course, motives.

Anti -utopia is a forced, forced “causing good” indispensable for this.

If we look at the history of mankind - the tendency to grow freedom of choice is quite obvious, and the restrictions on this freedom are, roughly speaking, the movement along the oncoming lane in relation to the general path of the evolution of mankind. With the course of history, the possibilities of choosing have grown and continue to grow. Let us recall that in most of the now economically developed countries, only a couple of centuries ago, even a profession has been chosen by few, and now people choose in which part of the world they are choosing (while with restrictions) their appearance, even choose the floor.

In a relatively recent world study on what factors affect the feeling of happiness and satisfaction with life, it turned out that about 30% of the scatter of evaluations of well -being was explained by differences in the feeling of freedom of choice. This is a very large share and she says that in those countries where people have more choice, well -being, more tangible, and the well -being of all.

In our country, the state strives, on the contrary, to the maximum control of people's personal lives now. They are trying to convince us that freedom of choice is associated with permissiveness.

It has long been proven that just freedom of choice is related to personal responsibility, and claims to control everything are exempted from it. People become pawns that walk only according to the given rules. This, perhaps, in a sense, the ideal for those who want to make decisions for everyone, but in clinical psychology, the need to control everything is included in a series of clinical disorders, for example, obsessive neurosis. It is impossible to control everything, this is self -deception.

Let me remind you that one of the criteria for wisdom and at the same time mental health is a clear distinction between what you can influence and what not.

It is clear that the illusion of control helps to reduce the alarm, but psychology knows that it is not for long - it is impossible to supplant the alarm, it will return anyway. And healthy people accept anxiety of uncertainty and recognize the inability to anticipate the future and control everything. This does not prevent them from living happily, making a healthy choice and safely build their lives.

And those who cannot make the lack of the possibility of control become customers either psychotherapists, or, in the worst case, psychiatrists.

Of course, any analogy between individual psychology and the psychology of mass consciousness, society, large groups of people are relative, but sometimes it can help some things understand ...

Sergey Vorono

Candidate of Philosophy

- To begin with, we will agree on how to understand "totalitarianism." Wikipedia accessible to everyone: totalitarianism (from lat. Totalis “all, whole, complete” ← Totalitas “integrity, completeness”) is a political regime that implies the absolute (total) state control over all aspects of public and private life. Not everyone understands that totalitarianism is not only Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet. Why? Because it is not always clear - but what's wrong with that? Let's try to answer the points.

There is always a choice between a common idea, goal, rule, ideal, order - and private, your own, intimate, personal life. 2500 years everything developed: God, the state, society, the law, the community, the clan were understood as something primary, the most important. As what generates the rights, circumstances, rules of life of every person. So it was until 1945. When it became clear to everyone that it is impossible to kill an individual for the “happiness” of other people - human life is sacred and important. She is at the beginning of everything. “Helsinki Agreements” on “Human Rights” appeared.

Most European countries agreed with such an understanding of new tasks: to organize life so that the rights of any person are respected so that totalitarianism becomes impossible. But this did not happen in the USSR and in the countries of the "socialist community."

Today it is clear that “Soviet totalitarianism” was stronger than many others. Clotical and indifferent to the lives of individuals. So everyone is used to the fact that the “state” is more important than me, it, it ... this straightforward thought moved to Russia.

In the USSR, only “dissenters”, “dissidents” could think “differently”. There were few of them, and the KGB effectively solved this small problem in psychiatric medical workers and places to re -educate stubborn. Who "thinks differently"? How is it - “think differently”?

There is one place in the joint life of people that bothers everyone very much: inequality. Inequality can be treated differently. Only in the end will have to answer: inequality - is unfair or vice versa? According to my observations, most people still believe that "inequality is unfair." True, until the matter is affected by the person himself, his circumstances of life, his rights, thoughts, salaries - many details of his everyday life.

Everyone is already used to living not in the barracks, getting up without a team, not to be built on “morning gymnastics”, not to go to meetings ... However, if there is an opportunity to speak about someone else's life, “general rules and norms” immediately appear. Another - should be the same as me! Because "inequality is unfair." So there are a variety of social and even sexual deviations! Deviation? Deviations from "normal" behavior ... equality - as if justifying my right to peep for others. Interested in the details of their private life. And to judge others for the fact that they live incorrectly, do not eat money incorrectly, they spend money incorrectly, they bring up children incorrectly, they love incorrectly, they look at the wrong films, they sing the songs - that they are not the same ... it’s clear that “right” is the way I “do” me!

But a person not only “thinks”. He still lives. Loves, works. Believes. Hopes. Waiting. Wants. Maybe. Must. This is “I want”, “I can”, “I” should not be common. Everyone - himself! At first he “wants”, and only then it unites. Agrees. Organized. Becomes a member of the community, society, "together."

What does it mean to "agree"? “Soviet people” are accustomed to “agreeing” - this means “giving the correct answer” to the question “yes or no?”. There is always a “correct answer” in a task book at the end of the textbook.

Anyone who once tried to “be an entrepreneur” understands that “consent”, “agreement” is an agreement. And as any contract contains many points, details, clarifications. About the “subject”, “obligations,“ time ”,“ conditions ”,“ responsibility ”,“ rights ”,“ force majeure ”, etc. We have not yet mentioned feelings: fear, excitement, courage, hope, despondency ...-that at first (before signing the contract) is overcome by each of the parties. In other words, the “agreement” is not only “brains”, but also “heart”, “stomach” and “heels” (heart - in heels!).

How to make the “heart-in-fifth” be for everyone? After all, if everything is the same, then it is easier to manage them. Only one team needs. Only one threat. Only one lie. And, of course, one truth! The simplest is to scare. Help get angry. Show who to hate. To whom - envy. The easier “feeling”, the easier “thought” is, the more convenient to hate, envy, suspect, get angry.

A thoughtless, instinctive “yes” is better, easier, as if safer than to understand the “contract”. Yes - more lazy.

Only the "perverts" still remain! Stubborn disagree. At this time, it is worth showing a finger on the “perverts”. The simplest and most vulnerable is what everyone does: sex. So, you need to look for "sexual perversions." To maintain the spirit of unity, equality and justice: it is time for everyone to hate lesbians, homosexuals, voyeurists, exhibitionists, fetishists and so on.

Everything is simple: the more “deviations” from the “norm” in the list of, what I do “I”, the more that “ours” is “unity”. And all the more powerful “power” indicating the “victims”.

Alexander Asmolov

Head of the Department of Personality Psychology of Moscow State University, academician of the Russian Academy of Education

- When the state looks into the privacy zone, of course, I immediately recall “we” with coupons and a special hour for love. And the whole phenomenology of the hypocrisy, dating back to more long times, is the “Decameron” Bokkaccio, the “golden donkey” of Apuley. Recently, I told lectures that it is the topic of sexuality that acts as a marker of the dynamics of free choice in the history of culture: whether it is on the path of growth of diversity, support for individuality, value and dignity of personality, or begins to use archaic practices of unification, depersonalization and extermination of diversity.

There are different anthropological optics in sexology, with the help of which you can analyze different cultural practices of the design of reality. Sexual relations, I repeat, is a marker of freedom of choice in the history of civilizations. We remember different forms of “witch hunt”, the story of Mary Magdalene, which they were ready to score with stones. In the most ancient cultures, the freedom of sexuality was regulated in one way or another. Tsar Babylon Hammurabi (1792-1750 BC), uniting Mesopotamia, introduced a code in it, where he devoted a quarter of 282 articles of his famous laws to family legislation. There, for example, it was said that treason is equivalent to treason! And the Hittites, the Indo -European people of the Bronze Age, who lived in Asia Minor - harshly condemned homosexual relations.

All this is analyzed in detail in their work “Anthropology and Ethnology” by the famous anthropologists Valery Tishkov, Olga Artemova, Marina Butovskaya, Maria Tendryakova and other researchers. They write, in particular, that it is impossible to find society in antiquity, where the sphere of sexual behavior would not be regulated with one degree of rigidity. In the marriage laws of some historical civilizations, the wives were forbidden to hate husbands in legisly. It was said, I quote: "If this nevertheless happens, then the wife should be betrayed by the river."

In the history of medieval Russian culture, a book regulating the norms of sexual behavior and family relations appeared in the 16th century. Everyone must be remembered that it was called "Domostroy." And in the countries of Islam, people lived and still live somewhere according to the laws of Sharia. The Taliban who came to power in Afghanistan brutally regulate any women's rights, with rage they cover female images on the windows.

Everything that I have listed is associated with various kinds of phobias. And it is important to understand that ethnophobia, homophobia, xenophobia, misoginia (hatred of women) and genocide are related phenomena. Behind them is all the same destruction of any variety, any otherness.

Why do our examples of antiquity today become relevant? What kind of obscurantism, to judge the comedians who kissed each other in the stage on TNT? And what message does society receive when homosexuality is regarded as a vice and form of hard deviant behavior? A veto is applied to homosexuality, without understanding its deep, evolutionary and historical roots. I often hear how completely groundless and absurd homosexuality is associated with pedophilia. Perhaps someone does this intentionally, because the idea that children are in danger causes the legitimate indignation of society.

I emphasize: there are no just sexual relations, but there are sexual social relations that have their own genealogy in the most difficult process of the evolution of nature and society. Only given the evolutionary roots of social sexual relations, can one or other legal norms of public life be constructed. For deprivation of freedom of choice, one or another form of rape and theft of human dignity is always worth it. Violence against those who are not able to answer, who is powerless, is the top of disconnection. With such division and pedophilia is associated. And it should not categorically mix with homosexuality.

Many of the private order are now ostracked. Among them is the movement of Childfri. Yes, it may not like that there are people who do not want to have their own children. But this does not cancel their right to an individual choice. As soon as the culture is packed by freedom of choice and decides for a person by what social and legal norms he will live, the laws of antiquity, which I have already mentioned, come into force.

Behind all the similar “norm -making actions”, as the idea of ​​“tax on low -familiarity” or childlessness, the transformation of a person into a thing, into a faceless slave, into a screw is emerging.

Когда я вглядываюсь в нормотворческие оргии блюстителей нравственности, то вспоминаю давно описанный психоаналитиками «эффект проекции»: за подобными запретами на личностный выбор в сфере интимной жизни проступают укутанные паранджой бессознательного собственные сластолюбивые либидозные мотивы и сексуальные переверзии. Напомню, что история культуры знает немало «декамероновских» примеров, иллюстрирующих, что проповедники ханжеской морали в своем прошлом, а нередко и в настоящем, являются носителями весьма изощренных форм фривольного поведения.

Необходимо со всей отчетливостью осознать, что если мы вводим систему регламентации в частной жизни, то мы вступаем на путь, на котором «Талибан» ( организация запрещена в РФ ) — это наше с вами будущее. Если мы выбираем этот путь, то мы в самом буквальном смысле перестаем быть цивилизованной страной и превращаемся в страну варваров.

Как только тоталитарное государство начинает заниматься практиками убийства достоинства личности, оно перерождается в фанатичное общество госсадизма. Вспомним трагичный пример со швабрами в саратовской колонии.

Существует глубокая социальная связь между ханжеским запретом на поцелуи комиков на экранах телевизора и сексуальным насилием в Саратове.

Любая фундаменталистская культура выступает как борец против свободы выбора человеком своего пути, в том числе пути в сферах интимной жизни и любви.

Ритуальные пляски некоторых наших парламентариев вокруг поцелуев комиков и предание ими огню свободы интимной жизни со всей наглядностью демонстрирует, что на наших глазах эпоха Возрождения конца 80-х годов превращается в эпоху Вырождения.