The notion that communism is dedicated to a depressing levelling down, creating the grayest of grays and the dullest of dulls has its source in many partial truths: 1) the material circumstances within which most "communist" countries are born: poor, war-torn countries that cannot afford universal health care AND consumer goods. (For a picture of the wonders of Russia before communism, see Chekhov's "Peasants," or Tolstoy's last, perfectly imperfect novel "The Resurrection.) 2) the invidious comparison with the glittering capitalist achievements (from which we must subtract the actual misery of much of the capitalist world -- say, Haiti -- and of most of the population living under capitalism.) 3) the regretable pathology of some leftists who need to assuage their guilt by passing out the hair shirts. So, yes, everyone takes a pretty dim view of what a socialist future might look like: drab, drab, drab. Especially if it has been drummed into you, every fifteen minutes from birth on, that the highest human happiness is to be achieved through shopping and CHOICE.
But, brainwashing aside, I have never thought that socialism only comes in grays. Nor have I ever thought that it perceives beauty only as superfluous artifice. Nevertheless, I suspect that just as Christianity defined itself in reaction to a decadent Roman culture, literally bathed in blood and vomit, so too, socialism will unavoidably take shape in reaction to a decadent Capitalism (fill in your own details) and probably argue for virtues other than those of unrestrained consumption. And this might look at times like asceticism. And perhaps too the denizens of Empire might have to give up some things in order to make others possible. You can purse your lips and chuckle knowingly, but as a friend once put it "if every man could have an equal share, I would give up everything I have." I would too, and never think of calling it poverty. If you think about it, the only things we can really keep, are the things we share. A beautiful paradox.
As for the accusation that communism is prudish, it's interesting that the right has never thought so and continually raises the specter of "communistic free sex." It would also be useful to remember that socialists have supported women's rights, sex outside of marriage, birth control, ...and that one of the freest sexual researchers in modern times was Wilhelm Reich, a socialist and a psychiatrist. (Yeah, yeah I know he died a fruitcake, but his work on neurotic armoring has become an indissoluble piece of analytic and body work therapies for good reason.)
Joanna