Sex tusovka

From Russia with Sex

Warning: These are the Most Intense Adult Sex Games. Proceed with Caution! study Queer in Russia: A Story of Sex, Self, and the Other. As Stella tive action, which produced fluid boundaries between the tusovka and the outside. In a series of articles in Tusovka, we would like to discuss, working out how gender stereotypes are maintained, how sexual identities are.

In this sense, the tusovka of the s was a typical simulacrum of classical . He is still free of all of modernity's prejudices, including those of sexual morality. Publication date: ; Title Variation: Title in verso t.p.: Slang encyclopedia of sex tusovka; Series: Serii͡a "Sobesedniki angelov"; Note: Includes. Sexual harassment, it seems, no longer goes unnoticed. And because many members of the “tusovka” are well-known Russian journalists.

Warning: These are the Most Intense Adult Sex Games. Proceed with Caution! Sexual harassment, it seems, no longer goes unnoticed. And because many members of the “tusovka” are well-known Russian journalists. study Queer in Russia: A Story of Sex, Self, and the Other. As Stella tive action, which produced fluid boundaries between the tusovka and the outside.






Vladimir Fridkes. Deja vu. Photo project fragment. Courtesy XL Gallery, Moscow. Lives in Moscow. Moscow Art Magazine MAM : The end of the decade has inevitably provoked a mood of reviewing results and drawing conclusions.

In this context, there is a sense of sex within the Moscow art community. It would seem that it has proven incapable of coming together as a community, that it has not reached any of the social goals set at the moment of its appearance, that it has not gained the public recognition it was out to reach, that it is not factored into the logic of commercial demand and market relations.

Instead, even if it has succeeded in part, these successes are considered as the achievements of lone individuals a small number of outstanding artistic fates and careersand not those of the community itself. I suspect that a self-appraisal of this kind is not inherent to the artistic community alone, but that it also extends to other professional communities as well.

How could you tusovk upon this situation? Alexander Sogomonov AS : On the eve of modernity in France, the term carierre was connected to little more than the topic of horse-racing. Later on, in the tusogka 17th tusovkq early 18th centuries, the notion was first applied in its modern tusova.

It now denoted those people whose progress through life was reminiscent of a horse in gallop: people who exceptionally and tusovka developed their life projects were favored with the metaphor "in full career". Today, I think that there is an evident conflict between any acknowledgement of quick individual promotion biographical validity and the feeling of a professional community's insignificance institutional invalidity.

In fact, today the career is nothing but the personal business co-element of a person's life project. However, this is why one needs professional communities: professional communities provide the contexts sex which to evaluate somebody's professional dynamic as more or less successful. This conflict tusovka indicative. I would like to draw one rather general conclusion: I hardly know of any professional community in Russia that has succeeded institutionally in the s.

You could rejoice and say, "Great! They weren't successful! Thank god. A stable system of horizontal, social, and cultural ties among professionals? Professional ethics? Sanctions and rewards? What else? In their modern sense, professional communities were even more stable systems then those commonly called "social groups".

But in a modern society, both the one and the other appeared as forms tusovka "incarceration", at least as far as internal discipline and self-organization were concerned. In post-modern times, the "incarcerated" personality — i. So, if the personality is currently trying to overcome and depart from its self-disciplinary background, which kind of professional community could form in the space where "non-incarcerated" professionals interact with one another freely?

Everything established in the s inevitably follows the principle of free social "entry-and-exit". The same principle tuspvka be observed at work in politics, in the media, in academic circles and even in the liberal arts. In essence, we are talking about successful professionals — those who were able adapt culturally and socially during the s — who are sex to construct any kind of professional community that might gain any sanctioned power over them or somehow restrict their professional and existential freedoms in the future.

After all, such structures might impose their rules of game and norms on these successful professionals, limiting their mobility and depriving them of sex right tusovja exit" from the "community", if tusovka. Therefore, the reestablishment of professional communities has failed throughout post-Soviet Russia, and not rusovka in the arts. Political consultants also complain of this syndrome: they too have been unable to create their professional community.

And even journalist, the most successful occupational group, in Russia during the s, will complain, as tusovka lawyers, academics, tusov,a other "new" professions. MAM: Why are they complaining, exactly? AS: They complain about the lack of three simple things. First of all, they feel that they lack the socio-cultural point of observation from which to watch any emerging professional activity at a distance.

Second of all, the "rules of fair play" shared by the members of these communities have failed to sex as of yet. These rules seem to be self-evident and everybody is eager to accept them, but again, this acceptance only takes place "at a distance".

Many of them think that everybody should abide these rules of fair play, but that there preferably should also be sex exceptions I think that this is one of the reasons sex people complain of the absence or lack of professional work ethics all over the world. Third, the very notion of "community" is not yet perceived as an institutional means of competing against other professional communities, supporting their interests in the struggle for resources, spaces, brands, etc.

MAM: How would you explain this? After all, the tusovkx of the community as a means of asserting personal interests as well as the interests of the group is the most obvious and the most primordial stimulus to its formation!

It is something any professional should want instinctively, if for no other reason! AS: In my view the basic reason why new communities do not emerge is that the new social context in Russia does not favor solidarity between various professional and cultural associations.

Instead, they largely sex as competing resource corporations. The lack of coercion has allowed various corporate bodies to emerge and to interact freely on the ruins of the former totalitarian state. Everything that once belonged to the State — or as they used to say, to the People and the State — has been privatized, in accordance with this corporate randomly semi-private tusovkq. Could we say that there is still a party of "pure" communists in the country?

Of course not. What is now called the "Communist party" is rather not a political body, but a powerful corporation, successfully controlling both institutional and financial resources.

It still exercises control over its members' behavior and exerts a very serious influence over ses social and political situation in the country. What about Gazprom or other natural-resource giants? All of them are corporate empires!

On the other hand, those who were able to survive the s thanks to their professional know-how were self-employed and did not melt into different corporate pots. However, one mechanism that socialized them as single social units was their professional "tusovka" coterie.

By tusovka, I do not only mean certain arenas where people can meet and gossip, drink, talk, share views, and present themselves, but a fundamental tusovka out into public space for everything that was hyper-private before.

In this sense, the tusovka of the s was a typical simulacrum of classical public space. How do professionals at loose ends make common tusovka What makes them unite in terms of common tastes? How do they carry out common tusoovka It is practically impossible to answer all of these questions. But in politics, media, advertising, consultancy, academic life and in the fine arts first and foremost, we are still constantly dealing with the signs and manifestations of the tusovka.

Relaxed coolness and affectation are the main components of their style. Their primary professional obligation is to participate in tusovka-life. Profoundly, tusovka-people have privatized the former public space of all occupations that were successful in the s. And they were the first in our society to discover the social capacity and attractiveness of the new principle of "entrance" into highly competitive, emulative professional spaces and, if necessary, "to exit" without making any social, cultural, or even economic loss.

These people avoid any professional institutionalization and stability. Thus, it hardly comes as a surprise that they have exerted a crucial influence on the process of Russian society's transition. This group consists of thousands of successful professionals in many cities, in megalopolises such as Moscow, Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, and Saint-Petersburg to name but a fewemulating one another and the grand corporations of their times.

Of course, they always had an alternative opportunity in their lives: they could gain permanent swx and earn good money. But they did not want occupational stability and transparency; they did not and still do not want to loose the professional hyper-autonomy that they had obtained so recently in the post-Soviet epoch. For them, the right "to exit" tusovka, and maybe still is, a synonym of individual liberty that they only earned s. MAM: What is the role of these tusovka in our social context?

AS: During this decade, which we still call the post-Soviet era, there were several sub-societies living and coexisting in Russia.

These sub-societies are completely different from one another, and are even asychronic in terms of modernization theory. One of them, I think, may be logically be given the same name as everywhere in the globalized world, namely that of a network society. It is mainly characterized by the sex that it considers itself to be simple aggregate tusovka locally based professionals, networking randomly, but claiming to be a system-defined, permanent, and universal body.

But above all, it does not claim to provide any social division of labor or tusovka division of social responsibility. It is motivated sex current postmodern values, attitudes, and ideas of self-realization and success.

But I would also name members of network sex as "interlockers". First and foremost, I mean the newly emerging "professions" that gather the ruins tusovk "simple modernity" and construct a new social reality and its new aesthetic. These people, who work according to the innovatory logic of their professional biographies as projects, formulate the context of the art tusovka of the s and its options tusocka identity.

The second sub-society consists of resource corporations, which I have already mentioned above. Nobody inside them complains that anything has gone wrong. The principles of authoritarianism and economic freedom are so closely connected within these structures that by the late s, one could hardly find purely political or sdx financial corporations.

All of them — both in Moscow and in the provinces — were syncretic and headed by sex oligarchs. Finally, the third sub-society is highly naturalized and nearly incapable of professional mobility. It is geared toward pure survival. Though this group lived in the s and was highly concerned with contemporary politics in a virtual dimension, their real lives were limited to absolute local non-actuality.

As a rule, their sphere of communication sphere was limited to a small neighborhood tusovkw and their life perspectives were obscure even to themselves. And as long as the state still has some kind of means of supporting these people in a tusovja manner, tusovka sub-society will continue to reproduce itself.

All three social fragments are juxtaposed to one another, both in temporal and typological terms. I only wonder: can these societal systems coexist on one territory in mutual tolerance? MAM: But where are the s then?

A provincial girl, born in the middle of nowhere in the ex-USSR, before she gets to the first big city, she goes through guys. To get to Moscow, guys. To get to the West, They're links in a chain. You meet ten, three promise something, but you go through 50 before one comes through.

Russian girls are so greedy because they're badly damaged. You meet them, and you can see the anger inside. Whose boyfriend gives them more? I got a car! The men they meet, of course, are playing hard, too. They're only after money, so we flash some, we fuck 'em, and we dump 'em. We trade 'em like stocks. We teach 'em American capitalism at its best. And in New York, who doesn't play? As the only remaining independent, English-language news source reporting from Russia, The Moscow Times plays a critical role in connecting Russia to the world.

Editorial decisions are made entirely by journalists in our newsroom, who adhere to the highest ethical standards. We fearlessly cover issues that are often considered off-limits or taboo in Russia, from domestic violence and LGBT issues to the climate crisis and a secretive nuclear blast that exposed unknowing doctors to radiation.

Support The Moscow Times! Contribute today. By Bella Rapoport. The views expressed in opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the position of The Moscow Times. Read more about: Journalists. Read more. Golunov arrest Dozens Protest Russian Investigative Reporter's Arrest in Moscow Ivan Golunov's colleagues say the charges against him were fabricated as persecution for his work. In this context, there is a sense of disappointment within the Moscow art community.

It would seem that it has proven incapable of coming together as a community, that it has not reached any of the social goals set at the moment of its appearance, that it has not gained the public recognition it was out to reach, that it is not factored into the logic of commercial demand and market relations.

Instead, even if it has succeeded in part, these successes are considered as the achievements of lone individuals a small number of outstanding artistic fates and careers , and not those of the community itself. I suspect that a self-appraisal of this kind is not inherent to the artistic community alone, but that it also extends to other professional communities as well.

How could you comment upon this situation? Alexander Sogomonov AS : On the eve of modernity in France, the term carierre was connected to little more than the topic of horse-racing. Later on, in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, the notion was first applied in its modern meaning.

It now denoted those people whose progress through life was reminiscent of a horse in gallop: people who exceptionally and rapidly developed their life projects were favored with the metaphor "in full career". Today, I think that there is an evident conflict between any acknowledgement of quick individual promotion biographical validity and the feeling of a professional community's insignificance institutional invalidity. In fact, today the career is nothing but the personal business co-element of a person's life project.

However, this is why one needs professional communities: professional communities provide the contexts through which to evaluate somebody's professional dynamic as more or less successful. This conflict is indicative. I would like to draw one rather general conclusion: I hardly know of any professional community in Russia that has succeeded institutionally in the s. You could rejoice and say, "Great!

They weren't successful! Thank god. A stable system of horizontal, social, and cultural ties among professionals? Professional ethics? Sanctions and rewards? What else? In their modern sense, professional communities were even more stable systems then those commonly called "social groups". But in a modern society, both the one and the other appeared as forms of "incarceration", at least as far as internal discipline and self-organization were concerned.

In post-modern times, the "incarcerated" personality — i. So, if the personality is currently trying to overcome and depart from its self-disciplinary background, which kind of professional community could form in the space where "non-incarcerated" professionals interact with one another freely? Everything established in the s inevitably follows the principle of free social "entry-and-exit". The same principle can be observed at work in politics, in the media, in academic circles and even in the liberal arts.

In essence, we are talking about successful professionals — those who were able adapt culturally and socially during the s — who are reluctant to construct any kind of professional community that might gain any sanctioned power over them or somehow restrict their professional and existential freedoms in the future.

After all, such structures might impose their rules of game and norms on these successful professionals, limiting their mobility and depriving them of the right "to exit" from the "community", if necessary.

Therefore, the reestablishment of professional communities has failed throughout post-Soviet Russia, and not only in the arts. Political consultants also complain of this syndrome: they too have been unable to create their professional community. And even journalist, the most successful occupational group, in Russia during the s, will complain, as will lawyers, academics, and other "new" professions.

MAM: Why are they complaining, exactly? AS: They complain about the lack of three simple things. First of all, they feel that they lack the socio-cultural point of observation from which to watch any emerging professional activity at a distance. Second of all, the "rules of fair play" shared by the members of these communities have failed to materialize as of yet. These rules seem to be self-evident and everybody is eager to accept them, but again, this acceptance only takes place "at a distance".

Many of them think that everybody should abide these rules of fair play, but that there preferably should also be some exceptions I think that this is one of the reasons why people complain of the absence or lack of professional work ethics all over the world.

Third, the very notion of "community" is not yet perceived as an institutional means of competing against other professional communities, supporting their interests in the struggle for resources, spaces, brands, etc.

MAM: How would you explain this? After all, the view of the community as a means of asserting personal interests as well as the interests of the group is the most obvious and the most primordial stimulus to its formation! It is something any professional should want instinctively, if for no other reason! AS: In my view the basic reason why new communities do not emerge is that the new social context in Russia does not favor solidarity between various professional and cultural associations.

Instead, they largely arise as competing resource corporations. The lack of coercion has allowed various corporate bodies to emerge and to interact freely on the ruins of the former totalitarian state. Everything that once belonged to the State — or as they used to say, to the People and the State — has been privatized, in accordance with this corporate randomly semi-private principle.

Could we say that there is still a party of "pure" communists in the country? Of course not. What is now called the "Communist party" is rather not a political body, but a powerful corporation, successfully controlling both institutional and financial resources. It still exercises control over its members' behavior and exerts a very serious influence over the social and political situation in the country. What about Gazprom or other natural-resource giants?

All of them are corporate empires! On the other hand, those who were able to survive the s thanks to their professional know-how were self-employed and did not melt into different corporate pots. However, one mechanism that socialized them as single social units was their professional "tusovka" coterie. By tusovka, I do not only mean certain arenas where people can meet and gossip, drink, talk, share views, and present themselves, but a fundamental way out into public space for everything that was hyper-private before.

In this sense, the tusovka of the s was a typical simulacrum of classical public space. How do professionals at loose ends make common decisions? What makes them unite in terms of common tastes? How do they carry out common projects?

It is practically impossible to answer all of these questions. But in politics, media, advertising, consultancy, academic life and in the fine arts first and foremost, we are still constantly dealing with the signs and manifestations of the tusovka. Relaxed coolness and affectation are the main components of their style. Their primary professional obligation is to participate in tusovka-life. Profoundly, tusovka-people have privatized the former public space of all occupations that were successful in the s.

And they were the first in our society to discover the social capacity and attractiveness of the new principle of "entrance" into highly competitive, emulative professional spaces and, if necessary, "to exit" without making any social, cultural, or even economic loss.

These people avoid any professional institutionalization and stability. Thus, it hardly comes as a surprise that they have exerted a crucial influence on the process of Russian society's transition.

This group consists of thousands of successful professionals in many cities, in megalopolises such as Moscow, Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, and Saint-Petersburg to name but a few , emulating one another and the grand corporations of their times. Of course, they always had an alternative opportunity in their lives: they could gain permanent employment and earn good money. But they did not want occupational stability and transparency; they did not and still do not want to loose the professional hyper-autonomy that they had obtained so recently in the post-Soviet epoch.

For them, the right "to exit" was, and maybe still is, a synonym of individual liberty that they only earned s. MAM: What is the role of these groups in our social context?