long-term benefits of sexual morality in a culture

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
It seems to me that the early beginning of "sexual freedom" was around WW II when many women had to take over men's jobs at home while men were off fighting in a war. Of course, there were also serious rumblings about it in the 20s "flapper" era but it didn't take off big time then among the majority, just the elite.

So it sort of started in the 20s to build up steam in the 40s, and then burst out all over in the 60s.

When I was growing up there was a sort of conflict: many girls were still concerned about being virgins when they married, but I think about half or more were totally unconcerned about it, thinking it was very "old fashioned" and irrelevant. But definitely, many of my social crowd were very conflicted about it. Many girls "went with the times" but never were able to get over feeling guilty or a bit "dirty" because of this new "freedom".

In the late 50s - early 60s, there was a quite a bit of soft porn type literature about "sexual self-discovery" that was predicated on being "modern" and not bound by the "silly strictures of social norms".

I think I wrote somewhere about re-watching all the old "Perry Mason" TV series and how, about season 4, something changed and there was a definite move to depict women as sluts-criminals when before, that would have been unthinkable. I was paying close attention to the writers, producers, directors, etc and noticed the appearance of Jewish names in those positions at the same time that the depiction of women changed completely.
 

Pierre

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Laura said:
there was a definite move to depict women as sluts-criminals when before, that would have been unthinkable. I was paying close attention to the writers, producers, directors, etc and noticed the appearance of Jewish names in those positions at the same time that the depiction of women changed completely.
Coincidentally or not, you find similar names at the top of the pornographic industry.

The positive correlation between sexual restrain and blooming civilizations has been on my mind for a while. I alluded to this topic in "Mummy, why is Daddy wearing a dress? Daddy, why does Mummy have a moustache?"

Here is a tentative explanation of how sexual restrain leads to civilization development.

Sexual restrain is necessary in order to attain:
1/ monogamy (embodied by heterosexual weddings producing children with a biological mother and a biological father)
2/ lasting unions where children are raised by both their biological mother and father.

From this perspective, sexual restrain is indeed the cornerstone of the traditional family, but it is not the only factor leading to lasting couples. An obvious economic change happened around the 1940's

Laura said:
It seems to me that the early beginning of "sexual freedom" was around WW II when many women had to take over men's jobs at home while men were off fighting in a war
Until then a minority of women were working. It means that the main social function for most women was to raise kids (a fundamental but depreciated role nowadays), and divorce was very uncommon because of social and financial pressure.

Women accessing workforce in masse coupled to the (deliberate) deindustrializing of the West led to rising unemployment rates, which left a growing number of fathers jobless, and thus unable to fullfill the foundational/symbolic function of "breadwinner" in the family.

There was also the rise of the individualistic, hedonistic ideology that made family less appealing. Indeed, creating a family is a form of sacrifice where the parents choose to put the well-being of their children before their own for decades.

On top of that the legal framework discouraged lasting family (no fault divorce, greater financial incentives for single parents)

Those changes (sexual revolution, changes in work, individualistic/hedonistic ideology, law) destroyed the traditional family. Now single parents family is the norm, with a number of population groups exhibiting a percentage of single parents higher than the percentage of married couple.

These changes are best illustrated in US black family where in 2015, 77% of Black babies were born to unmarried mothers. Black Americans are also the group exhibiting the highest rates of crime, unemployment, illiteracy, drug use.

The link between absence of the traditional family and failure of the children is not a mere correlation. It is now proved that the absence of a traditional family causes the above listed failures.

Actually, absence of family is the most determining failure cause, it is even more important than poverty or race (unlike what leftist ideologies claimed for decades).

"It is not money," Wilson documented, "but the family that is the foundation of public life. As it has become weaker, every structure built upon that foundation has become weaker." He pointed to the library that social science had been building for decades, filled with books and studies about the correlations between crumbling family structure and various adverse results. Kinship composition, as Wilson's work among others demonstrated, had become more important to positive outcomes than race, income, or one's station at birth.
The most symptomatic proof of civilization decay might be found today in identity politics where merit, cooperation, general interest (some of the most fundamental drivers of civilization development) are sacrificed on the altar of "equality", division and minority demands.

And this frantic rise of identity politics is directly due to the destruction of family as emphasized by Eberstadt:
"Our macro-politics have become a mania about identity because our micropolitics are no longer familial."
 
Last edited:

Anthony

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I think I wrote somewhere about re-watching all the old "Perry Mason" TV series and how, about season 4, something changed and there was a definite move to depict women as sluts-criminals when before, that would have been unthinkable. I was paying close attention to the writers, producers, directors, etc and noticed the appearance of Jewish names in those positions at the same time that the depiction of women changed completely.
Gilad Atzmon writes about this in his latest book, taking the TV show All in the Family as a case study, showing how it was used to push identity politics and political correctness into people's heads while they were "having beer or popcorn on your sofa laughing your head off in front of your TV screen." The producer of that show also happens to be Jewish.

Bunkers and Meatheads

The crucial lesson here is that cultural manipulation is a sophisticated project that settles in, undetected, under your skin. It is designed to transform your reality, your language, your values, and all this while you are unwittingly having beer or popcorn on your sofa laughing your head off in front of your TV screen.
 

ersio

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
Perhaps, but I find it difficult to accept it as a primary cause. Mary Eberstadt’s recent research into mass killings, the substantial rise in mental health issues including depression, and the explosion of identity politics is a “primal scream” due to the loss of identity that was once provided by growing up in a long-term, immediate family with siblings and a sizable group of cousins, aunts and uncles, all of which provided identity—essential for well-being. Eberstadt shows and documents from various studies that this decimation of the family was a direct consequence of the sexual revolution at the end of the 20th century.[11]
- Wow.

Thanks for sharing. What an incredible article. It really hit home how individuals do make up a society (should be obvious but isn't always to me) and should be taking more responsibility for invidiual actions as it all does add up.

It's also amazing how it's got to the point where people are more interested in saving the planet through tearing down our exisiting structures than renewing tried and tested 'old fashioned' values. A good one for social media sharing I think.
 

lainey

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
What a read! I was amazed, but not surprised by what Durston mapped out for us in the article. It makes perfect sense!

By what he was saying, it takes 3 generations for the decline to have full effect, and Unwin's generation is 33 years, so that's 99 years. Counting from the late 60's that takes us to almost the 2060's which really isn't that far away. I dread to think what we will have descended to by then if the difference I've seen in the world over my short 36 years on this planet is anything to go by.

:-(
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
What a read! I was amazed, but not surprised by what Durston mapped out for us in the article. It makes perfect sense!

By what he was saying, it takes 3 generations for the decline to have full effect, and Unwin's generation is 33 years, so that's 99 years. Counting from the late 60's that takes us to almost the 2060's which really isn't that far away. I dread to think what we will have descended to by then if the difference I've seen in the world over my short 36 years on this planet is anything to go by.

:-(
On the other hand, if we count from the first stirrings of this change in our culture, from the 1920s, we may be in the middle of it.
 

Adaryn

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I stumbled upon this article today. According to a study published recently, what researchers call "EPP" (extra-pair paternity, or women cheating on their husband and having children with other men) correlates in the past with low social-economical status in urban, densely populated areas.

DNA data offers scientific look at 500 years of extramarital sex in Western Europe

"These days it's easy to resolve questions about paternity with over-the-counter test kits. Now, researchers have put DNA evidence together with long-term genealogical data to explore similar questions of biological fatherhood on a broad scale among people living in parts of Western Europe over the last 500 years.

The findings reported in Current Biology on November 14 yielded some surprises. While the number of so-called extra-pair paternity (EPP) events overall was (not surprisingly) fairly low, their frequency varied considerably among people depending on their circumstances. Specifically, evidence of EPP events turned up much more often in people of lower socioeconomic status who lived in densely populated cities in the 19th century.

"Of course, extra-pair paternity, especially due to adultery, is a popular topic in gossip, jokes, TV series, and literature," said Maarten Larmuseau of KU Leuven and Histories, Belgium. "But scientific knowledge on this phenomenon is still highly limited, especially regarding the past.

"Our research shows that the chance of having extra-pair paternity events in your family history really depends on the social circumstances of your ancestors. If they lived in cities and were of the lower socioeconomic classes, the chances that there were EPP events in your family history are much higher than if they were farmers."

Evolutionarily speaking, it's clear that remaining faithful to one's partner isn't always the most advantageous strategy. Males may benefit from straying by siring extra offspring; females may benefit by mating with superior males. But in human societies over time, how often has EPP really happened?

In the new study, Larmuseau's team took the first broad look at this question to find that social context really matters. Their study covered a time period of several centuries during which there were dramatic changes in the human social environment, including the rapid urbanization that accompanied the Industrial Revolution in 19th century Western Europe. To estimate historical EPP rates among married couples, they identified 513 pairs of contemporary adult males living in Belgium and the Netherlands who, based on genealogical evidence, shared a common paternal ancestor and therefore—barring an EPP event—should have carried the same Y chromosome.

The evidence showed no significant difference in EPP rates between countries despite key religious differences, they report. But they varied widely with socioeconomic status and population density. The EPP rate was much lower among farmers and more well-to-do craftsmen and merchants (about 1%) than among lower class laborers and weavers (about 4%).

EPP rates also rose with population density. Putting the two together, the researchers report that the estimated EPP rates for the families varied by more than one order of magnitude, from about 0.5% among the middle to high classes and farmers living in the most sparsely populated towns to almost 6% for the low socioeconomic classes living in the most densely populated cities.


The researchers say the findings support evolutionary theories suggesting that individual incentives and opportunities for seeking or preventing extra-pair mating should depend on the social context. They also debunk the notion that EPP rates in Western society are generally high, they say, noting that the evidence puts average rates at around 1%.

Larmuseau says an interdisciplinary perspective will be important to understanding why certain factors like population density and socio-economic status have had such a strong influence on the EPP rate. "This is highly relevant because the causes of historical EPP events are hidden and diverse," he said."

One possible explanation as to why EPP rates were low among the wealthy: women of a higher social and economical status had much more to lose by being unfaithful than women who were already at the bottom of the social ladder and who lived in overpopulated urban areas where, besides, the chances of being assaulted and suffering sexual violence were much higher. Women in rural areas (farmers, etc) also probably better think twice before engaging in extra-marital affairs, as living in tight-knit communities where everybody knew each other and kept each other in check put a woman at risk of being cast out / shun by the community if she were "found out".

The study can be found here (paid access).
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
One possible explanation as to why EPP rates were low among the wealthy: women of a higher social and economical status had much more to lose by being unfaithful than women who were already at the bottom of the social ladder and who lived in overpopulated urban areas where, besides, the chances of being assaulted and suffering sexual violence were much higher. Women in rural areas (farmers, etc) also probably better think twice before engaging in extra-marital affairs, as living in tight-knit communities where everybody knew each other and kept each other in check put a woman at risk of being cast out / shun by the community if she were "found out".
It's interesting that the only explanations they could come to are based on the blank slate and society's-imposed norms, with no regard to the influence of people's innate sense of morality and how they choose to live their lives accordingly.
 

Adaryn

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
It's interesting that the only explanations they could come to are based on the blank slate and society's-imposed norms, with no regard to the influence of people's innate sense of morality and how they choose to live their lives accordingly.
That bit you quoted is actually my own comment ;-) which, I admit, may be biased by my rather grim view of marriage in general.
 

Ursus Minor

Jedi Master
I have been missing a middle ground in this interesting discussion. ;-)

Can (Western) society only move between the extremes of 19th century-style chastity and its seemingly glorious and happy families and the current hedonistic ways of irresponsibility, porn culture?

At the end of the day 4-D STS will slurp up the pain of those suffering from decreed chastity and those getting lost in promiscuity. Living in dysfunctional families is as painful today as it must have been a 100 years ago.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I've been thinking about this a bit and one thought I had was that a sexually moralistic culture doesn't leave much room for psychopaths to operate. So, without psychopathic destruction of systems and organizations, or propagation of self-destructive ideologies, things can get on with the business of doing and creating stuff.

I also think that it is one thing to be strict about standards, and another to be overbearing about them and extremely punitive. That certainly can't benefit any society.
 

Julius

Jedi
Not surprising. Sexual energy should operate in the sex organs in a specific way in a specific context. In a sexually 'liberated' society sexual energy starts taking other paths and expressions, usurping (quoting gurdjieff) other natural brain functions. Sexual energy is equated with vitality and in a sexually usurping society vitality is mostly drained in the pursuit of dead ends and less energy is left for natural creative acts that will strengthen cultural traits.
 

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
One possible explanation as to why EPP rates were low among the wealthy: women of a higher social and economical status had much more to lose by being unfaithful than women who were already at the bottom of the social ladder and who lived in overpopulated urban areas where, besides, the chances of being assaulted and suffering sexual violence were much higher. Women in rural areas (farmers, etc) also probably better think twice before engaging in extra-marital affairs, as living in tight-knit communities where everybody knew each other and kept each other in check put a woman at risk of being cast out / shun by the community if she were "found out".
That makes sense to me. There's a hypergamous side to female sexuality as well (just like how there's a polygamous side to male sexuality), and when they cheat or switch partners it's usually with a higher status male, of which there are a lot more in urban areas if the woman is herself of low social status. There tends to be less inequality in more rural areas.

I've been thinking about this a bit and one thought I had was that a sexually moralistic culture doesn't leave much room for psychopaths to operate. So, without psychopathic destruction of systems and organizations, or propagation of self-destructive ideologies, things can get on with the business of doing and creating stuff.

I also think that it is one thing to be strict about standards, and another to be overbearing about them and extremely punitive. That certainly can't benefit any society.
Or at least it drives a lot of that kind of activity underground. There are places in the world where chastity is still prized, such as Saudi Arabia, which has outlawed homosexuality but all the same still has a functioning gay culture.

Not surprising. Sexual energy should operate in the sex organs in a specific way in a specific context. In a sexually 'liberated' society sexual energy starts taking other paths and expressions, usurping (quoting gurdjieff) other natural brain functions. Sexual energy is equated with vitality and in a sexually usurping society vitality is mostly drained in the pursuit of dead ends and less energy is left for natural creative acts that will strengthen cultural traits.
It's really unfortunate our prefrontal cortex matures ten years after our sexuality does. I wonder if this is why arranged marriages or at least more parental participation in choosing partners was more popular in traditional societies.
 

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
One of my favorite youtubers named The Distributist wrote a four-part video series entitled "The Lies of the Sexual Revolution."

In part 1 he criticizes Contrapoints and hedonism in general, as well as progressivism's ambivalence toward the pickup artist community, which in spite of ticking all the boxes for consent are pooh-poohed for being braggadocios and emotionally unconnected (even though such emotinally dead no-strings-attached sex is deemed totally fine in other contexts).

In part 2 he fleshes out the general thesis of the sexual revolution (the importance of consent as the sole arbiter of whether sex should be prohibited or not), and how breaking down traditional standards has effective caused every aspect and standard of a sexual interaction to be renegociated in every instance, causing sex to take on a transactional and comodified nature which takes after the liberalization of markets and global capital. In terms of game theory he elaborates on how this causes men and women to have mismatched incentives at different periods in their lives, which lead to a no-win scenario where no stable family can result without some degree of unfulfillment in both parties.

In part 3 he discusses how sex education attempts to reach children of younger and younger ages, and how it can exert a corrupting influence on the proper development of people sexually and emotionally. He ties this in with the increased infantalization of sex in itself in the culture at large: casting it as this thing that should be consequence-free and not requiring any sense of mutual responsibility between partners. It’s quite interesting how he ties this in with both pedophilia and authoritarianism, as the former encounter greater opportunities to groom and use children while the latter take it upon themselves more to police sexuality between consenting adults for any momentary or transitional violations of consent (think article 9 in the US).

Part 4 recaps the game theory aspect and how monogamous marriage was the social institution that forced men and women to cooperate in the sexual marketplace so both received an optimal outcome. In opposition to this the advances in contraception, pornography, and sexual liberty, and divorce favoritism to women are construed as giving either sex the option to “not cooperate” to receive marginal advantages at this stage or that. The net result of this, The Distributist argues, is that both men and women culturally slide over to the “not cooperate” side of the equation, which results in both parties receiving a suboptimal outcome where no stable family is formed and instead there are strings of unsatisfactory relationships, fatherless children, and both sexes feel used by the other (if they engage in relationships at all).

(all 4 parts are below. Content warning: he does say the F word a couple of times.)
 
Top Bottom