Narrator: Imagine a world where men complained that money was useless for attracting women. A world where a doctor’s salary held no special allure, and men, to find a partner, had to be… interesting. This is not a fantasy, but a real sentiment expressed by East German men after the fall of the Berlin Wall, looking back on a time when women’s economic independence fundamentally changed the dynamics of romance. This startling reversal of power dynamics lies at the heart of Kristen R. Ghodsee’s provocative book, Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism: And Other Arguments for Economic Independence. Ghodsee argues that the invisible hand of the free market reaches deep into our personal lives, shaping everything from our careers to our relationships, and that by examining the flawed but instructive history of state socialism, we can find powerful arguments for a more equitable future.

Narrator: The book posits that unregulated capitalism systematically fosters women's economic dependence on men, creating power imbalances that permeate every aspect of life. Ghodsee illustrates this through the story of her friend, Lisa. Lisa, a stylish and capable woman, left her human resources job to become a stay-at-home mother, a decision her husband, Bill, encouraged. For years, she presented this as her choice, a welcome break from corporate life.

The reality, however, was revealed years later when the author overheard a tense phone call. Lisa was pleading with Bill for money, her voice tight with frustration as he controlled her access to funds. Later, after the author paid for their dinner, Lisa made a shocking and heartbreaking offer: "I'll fuck him tonight and pay you back tomorrow." This raw moment exposed the truth behind the facade of choice. Lisa’s lack of independent income had stripped her of her autonomy, reducing her to a position of servitude where even her most intimate self was transactional. Ghodsee uses this powerful anecdote to argue that without financial independence, true freedom of choice is an illusion. The story of Lisa is a microcosm of a larger systemic issue where the undervaluing of women's labor and the privatization of caregiving create profound and personal vulnerabilities.

Narrator: Capitalism, the book argues, penalizes women for their reproductive capabilities through a phenomenon known as "statistical discrimination." Employers, anticipating that women are more likely to take time off for childbirth and childcare, preemptively offer them lower pay and fewer opportunities, regardless of their individual intentions or qualifications. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy: because women are paid less, it often makes more financial sense for them to leave the workforce to care for children, reinforcing the very stereotype that held them back.

Ghodsee recounts the story of her friend Jake, a tech manager in the 1990s. Initially a believer in pure meritocracy, Jake was persuaded to hire a highly qualified woman for a key role. She excelled, but after a few years, she became pregnant. Jake went to bat for her, securing a generous paid maternity leave. Yet, upon her return, the woman struggled to balance the high demands of her job with the lack of affordable, high-quality childcare. Eventually, she quit. Jake’s reaction was not to critique the system that failed her, but to declare in frustration, "I’m never hiring a woman again." His experience, Ghodsee shows, is a perfect example of how the lack of collective support for child-rearing—like universal childcare and robust parental leave—forces an individual problem out of a systemic failure, ultimately punishing women and reinforcing discrimination in the workplace.

Narrator: While celebrating women who break the glass ceiling is important, the book cautions that "pantsuits are not enough." Placing a few women in leadership positions does not dismantle the underlying patriarchal structures that prevent widespread equality. Ghodsee argues that a focus on elite success can obscure the struggles of working-class women and that systemic change requires more than just inspirational role models.

She recalls her own experience in a high school Model United Nations club in the 1980s. The most coveted roles were representing the powerful Western nations on the Security Council. However, the boys in the club deemed it implausible for a girl to represent the United States or the United Kingdom. It was simply not believable. In a strategic move, Ghodsee became an expert on the Eastern Bloc, realizing that the Soviet Union, for all its faults, had a history of placing women in high-profile diplomatic roles. This early lesson revealed a crack in the Cold War narrative: the supposed superiority of Western democracies in gender equality was not so clear-cut. The experience demonstrates how deeply ingrained cultural biases about leadership and gender are, and why systemic interventions, such as the political and corporate quotas successfully used in Scandinavian countries, are necessary to force a change that culture alone is too slow to make.

Narrator: The book’s most provocative claim is that our economic system dictates the quality of our sex lives. Ghodsee examines how capitalism commodifies human relationships, turning intimacy into a transaction. In a market-driven society, where women are often economically disadvantaged, relationships can become a "sexual marketplace." Men with resources hold more power, and women may consciously or unconsciously trade affection and intimacy for security.

This is contrasted sharply with evidence from former state socialist countries. A study of East and West Germany before reunification found that East German women, who benefited from guaranteed employment, free childcare, and robust social support, reported having twice as many orgasms as West German women. Their economic independence meant they did not need a man for survival; they could choose partners based on attraction and mutual affection, not financial calculation. When these findings were published, West German media launched what Ghodsee calls "The Great Orgasm War," furiously trying to debunk the idea that life could have been better in any way under communism. This fierce reaction, the book argues, reveals a deep-seated anxiety about the link between economic systems and our most private experiences. When women are not economically dependent, the power dynamics in the bedroom shift, leading to more authentic and mutually satisfying relationships.

Narrator: In its final argument, the book serves as a powerful call to political action, challenging the apathy that stems from believing the current world order is permanent. Ghodsee uses the sudden and unexpected fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989—an event she witnessed as a young adult who believed the Cold War was a forever-war—as a potent reminder that "everything was forever until it was no more." The most entrenched systems can, and do, collapse.

This potential for change is precisely why citizenship is so crucial. The book highlights the #Repealthe19th controversy before the 2016 U.S. election, where some conservatives, seeing polls that showed women overwhelmingly favoring the Democratic candidate, openly wished to revoke women's right to vote. This, Ghodsee asserts, is a backhanded acknowledgment of women's immense political power. The book argues that for younger generations, who are increasingly disillusioned with capitalism and open to socialist ideas, exercising this power is essential. By voting, organizing, and demanding policies that create a robust social safety net—universal healthcare, subsidized childcare, affordable education—citizens can reclaim government from the interests of the wealthy. This collective action is the key to building a society where personal freedom is not a luxury for the few, but a right for all.

Narrator: The single most important takeaway from Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism is that economic independence is the absolute foundation of women's liberation. Kristen R. Ghodsee masterfully argues that without a level economic playing field, discussions of choice, power, and freedom—in the boardroom or the bedroom—remain hollow. The book is not an apology for the authoritarianism of 20th-century state socialism, but a clear-eyed excavation of its policies to find tools for building a better, more equitable future.

Ultimately, the book challenges us to look at our own lives and ask a difficult question: In what subtle ways has the logic of the market—of competition, transaction, and scarcity—shaped our own relationships and our sense of self-worth? By daring to imagine a world where everyone's basic needs are met, we might just free ourselves to build connections based not on what we have, but on who we are.