Alright, it’s time to get RedpiIIed on the sexual revolution. We’ve got a lot to cover, so this is going to be a long post.
Under normal circumstances, this wouldn’t be a controversial thread, after all, the only conclusion to be taken is “the sexual revolution was a mistake.” Unfortunately, the needle of opinion on here has shifted thanks to new posters, and Iebbit shills who want to normalize degeneracy (screencaps will be posted later), and people who LARP as alpha males on the internet. It’s time to shift the needle of opinion back towards morality.
Your daily reminder: There's 0 reason to date a non-virgin.
>>79259128
The sexual revolution was a massive mistake, a big, fat mess. It has been every single time it’s been tried, because contrary to liberal belief, “progressive values” aren’t new.
“Sex positivity” and “women’s emancipation” in Rome ended in disaster, requiring a bachelor tax as an attempt to fix the problem. Men were opting out of marriage, sexual degeneracy was on the rise, and birth rates were, to the best of our knowledge, declining.
In the East, the Mosuo Chinese were a matriarchal society who embraced “walking marriages.” Men would enter the rooms of women at night, and leave before morning. That’s the only time a “couple” would see one another. Children were raised by the male siblings of the Mosuo mothers, and a woman could “end the marriage” by refusing her “husband” entry at any period in time. Despite the Mosuo being high IQ people, with access to natural resources, they stagnated, while their cousins to the northeast flourished.
>>79259199
The Soviet Union tried “sexual liberation,” too. Abortions were granted on demand, divorce was made as easy as leaving your spouse a note. Lenin and Trotsky successfully cultivated a culture of sexual permissiveness which celebrated impulse and demonized commitment. Despite being a “classless” paradise, single mothers struggled. During the initial uptick in single motherhood, the USSR began to take children off from the hands of their single mothers. These State Houses were so crowded, and the living standards so poor, that some children ran away and opted for homelessness on the cold Russian streets. Unsurprisingly, birth rates eventually fell, and the moral fabric of society was tattered; however, there’s a lesson to be learned. Rome never really recovered from “sexual liberation,” it stagnated and crumbled, degeneracy didn’t encroach upon Byzantine lands. The Mosuo currently live in shanty towns, held afloat only by tourism from sex-starved, young, Han Chinese males. The Soviet Union, despite all of its massive faults, did manage to recover, proving that you can close Pandora’s Box. It wasn’t pretty, it took Stalin’s enactment of puritanical measures, the dismissal of “sexual liberation” as bourgeois luxury, and eventually the enactment Bachelor Taxes across the entirety of the USSR & some Warsaw Pact nations. The solution wasn’t pretty, or polite, but that specific aspect of Stalinism saved the USSR from Trotskyite degeneracy.
Look at where we, in the west, are currently. Divorce rates have soared, as have single motherhood and other forms of sexual degeneracy. The virtue of virginity, especially in women, has become an object of ridicule, contempt and (only in the case of women) bitter, veiled envy. The very institution of monogamy itself is currently under siege.
>>79259254
The threat that sexual degeneracy poses today is much larger than in the past. Easy access to birth control and contraception removes most of the “immediately visible” consequences. The West’s economic system, unlike that of the Soviet Union, won’t acutely feel the economic consequences as quickly. Lower birth rates can be “fixed” via mass immigration, etc. In short, the post-modern world has allowed a myriad of band-aid fixes to patch this festering wound with. They all present their own problems, and do nothing to amend other consequences of the sexual revolution. Our birth rates will still decline, we’ll just have a line of MENA migrants waiting to replace us. Marriages will still fail, but with replacements at the ready, it won’t matter. STI’s will run rampant, but we’ve already seen de-stigmatization propaganda (See “Pozzing” and the HIV+ op-eds penned by the gay community), as well as treatments of limited value. One of the major worries pondered by Stephen Coughlin (An accomplished scholar on Islam, who has briefed at the Pentagon, and was dismissed by CAIR-affiliates working in the U.S. Govt.) is that sexual liberation (as well as the corrosion of morality in general) will open up an avenue for the Islamic fifth column to begin mass converting swathes of society.
Now, the modern “sexual revolution,” which made serious ground in the ongoing cultural struggle in the ‘60s, has its roots in the Frankfurt School of thought. It’s one especially dangerous aspect of Cultural Marxism. However, Frankfurt acolytes weren’t the only ones pushing for it. Indeed, Feminism (Specifically Second-wave, in the relevant time period) was a big offender; of course, Feminism of all waves has a large overlap with Marxist and Far-Left thought. There was another, though, neither Marxist, nor Feminist, just a pervert. His name was Alfred C. Kinsey.
>>79259310
Now, some of you may have heard of Kinsey, one of his pieces of work that gets pushed even today, is the “Kinsey Scale,” which asserts that pure heterosexuality and homosexuality are rare occurrences and that sexuality itself is a spectrum, rather than a binary.
Kinsey’s work was the “scientific” side of the Sexual Revolution. Cultural Marxists used their backwards philosophy to justify the destruction of tradition, Feminists used their philosophy to justify rebellion against nature, but Kinsey didn’t dabble in philosophy. Pseudo-science was his specialty.
Now, “pseudo-science” is an oft-repeated buzzword that has become synonymous with “Science I don’t like,” and that’s especially apparent in discussion like these. Statistics and studies on the consequences of sexual promiscuity get dismissed by the left (and even the modern right) as “pseudo-science.” Chemical reactions in the brain, including the release of Oxytocin, all of which helps to facilitate pair bonding in monogamous animals, and suffers from the law of diminishing returns, has yet to be properly disputed; instead, it’s dismissed as “pseudo-science.”
In fact, the moral and reality-based position in this discussion has been written off entirely as “pseudo-science.” Ironically, it’s the opposition, the degenerates, whores and peddlers of filth of rely of pseudo-science.
>>79259367
Kinsey’s research and findings are the foundation that sexual liberation rests on. If those were revealed to be faulty, the entire field, and philosophy would crumble soon after. Kinsey’s research has been debunked, and proven to be flawed in just about every way. The problem, is that by the time his falseness was revealed, “Sexual liberation” was already well underway, and couldn’t be stopped. It can’t hold up to any honest scrutiny, but the ball is in motion, and it would take a very large platform to stop it.
Kinsey asserted, in his works (“Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” [1948] and “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female” [1953]) that:
>85% of men and 48% of women said they’d had premarital sex
>50% of men and 40% of women had been unfaithful in marriage
>71% of women claimed their affair hadn’t hurt their marriage
>69% of men had been with prostitutes
>17% of rural men had experienced sex with animals
>95% of American men had violated sex crime laws
your daily reminder that arranged marriage was a good thing and men fucked up when they accepted the idea of a "dating game" instead of formal courtship with the parents chaperoning.
There's no argument against this except "you're a muslim", "poo in loo", or "muh dick"
>>79259415
Kinsey asserted that these behaviors were normal and “hurt nobody.” Now, Kinsey, obviously, didn’t place any significance on sex, or the chemical reactions triggered from sex. In fact, while we know today about the brain’s chemical state following sex, and the implications of such, Kinsey likened the human orgasm to something as inconsequential as a sneeze.
Not only did Kinsey underestimate the value and significance (biologically and morally) of sex, his interviews and statistics were also deeply flawed. Kinsey’s “research” drew many critics. Prominent British Geoffrey Gorer called it “propaganda masquerading as science,” Allen Wallis, the chairman of the University of Chicago’s committee on statistics dismissed “the entire method of collecting and presenting the statistics which underlie Dr. Kinsey’s conlusions” Wallis went on to note “There are are six major aspects of any statistical research, and Kinsey fails on four.”
Part of the problem, is that Kinsey presented these statistics as if they applied to White, well-adjusted, Middle America. In reality, Kinsey’s reports weren’t taken from reliable subjects. Some of the men (At least 1400) sampled were imprisoned sex offenders. Kinsey admitted to included “several hundred” male prostitutes, and at least 300 sexually abused minors.
To make matters worse, roughly 75% of Kinsey’s adult male subjects volunteered to give their sexual histories. Stanford University psychologist Lewis M. Terman observed that volunteers for sex studies are ~2-4 times more sexually active than non-volunteers.
Kinsey’s work on women was even worse. So few “proper” women were interviewed, that Kinsey redefined “married” to include any woman who had lived with a man for more than a year. A change which added prostitutes to the sample of married women.
>>79259552
Kinsey’s entire body of work was supposed to suggest that America needed to move past its puritanical attitudes about sex, realize that sex had no consequences, that sexual deviance was natural and permissible, and change our laws regarding sex.
Kinsey’s research conflicted heavily with other reports on sexuality from that time period. Kinsey suggested 10% of men aged 16-55 were homosexuals. Yet, in one of the most thorough nationwide surveys on male sexual behavior ever conducted, scientists at Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers in Seattle found that men who considered themselves homosexual accounted for only 1% of the population. Similar numbers were put out by Canadian, French, British, Norwegian and Danish universities, as well as many other American ones.
Fun fact: Kinsey’s initial body of work on men was financed by the (((Rockefeller Foundation)))
Despite the many falsehoods, Kinsey’s research was spewed by many seeking to use it for political purposes. The LGBT crowd loved the “1 in 10 figure” because it suggested that gays were too large a minority to be ignored. Feminists loved the “no consequences” attitude towards sex.
Remember to ignore the white-niggers who scream "muh birthrates" while having premarital sex and saying it's "manly" and making fun of male virgins.
Celibacy is preferable to marrying used goods or marrying for either pussy or simply because of birthrates.
>>79259643
Today, we’re dealing with the fallout from Kinsey’s flawed research. Current social attitudes are particularly problematic for young men. There have been efforts to promote a friendlier climate for men in general, and communities formed, aimed at teaching younger men how to “get by” in modern society. The largest two, of course, are horrible alternatives. The MGTOW movement and the PUA community.
Both posit that society is currently geared in favor of females, which is true. They tell younger guys that it’s unfair for women to be promiscuous, only to settle down with some beta provider. On that front, both are correct. From there they veer off into opposing, but equally unpalatable solutions.
PUAs advocate that men just pump and dump. MGTOW, while it often has some overlap with the male whores in the PUA community, advocates swearing off marriage and children entirely, and panders to neckbeards and NEETs.
Both completely fail to address the problems that sexual promiscuity presents, and neither seems capable or willing to do anything to change that.
>>79259683
Despite the growing prevalence of these movements, men who do want a marriage and children are left out in the cold. Men who want to fix the corrosion of their societies are similarly abandoned.
Neither PUAs nor MGTOW will fundamentally address and focus on the real issue at hand, that being “sexual liberation.”
Both need to be denounced, just as sexual liberation itself needs to be denounced. /pol/ should have threads (and if there’s enough interest, I’ll help) aimed at helping men find proper relationships, and redpilling the rest of the board on proper attitudes about sex.
>>79259713
Your daily reminder; the more partners a woman has had the more likely she is to:
>Cheat
>Be divorced (Fun fact: Most divorces are initiated by women. The highest reported reason is ‘dissatisfaction’)
>Report Marital Unhappiness
>Report Depression
And the less likely she is to report:
>Marital stability
>Marital happiness
There is literally no reason to date/marry a girl who is not a virgin. You’re playing with fire and chances are you’ll get burned.
>>79259753
List of non-arguments:
>You’re just a bitter beta virgin autist!
Wow, you sure showed me, alpha LARPer. Having sex in the year 2016 is not an accomplishment. It’s so easy that, were the /r9k/ fucks to drop the defeatism, they could do it. That’s the problem, society is saturated in sex, and we can observe that this hasn’t worked out historically and isn’t working out now.
Furthermore, while those charges don’t apply, it’s a fairly common trope in Western literature especially, that in a time of societal strife, someone outside or on the fringe of society will be able to see what those who are immersed in the culture do not.
So not only are you implying that your entire sense of worth comes from the inflated commodity of bedpost notches, you’re implying that you’re too steeped in a culture of degeneracy to see the quantifiable corrosion of the sexual revolution.
>You can’t close Pandora’s Box
Yes, you can, that’s specifically why I mention the USSR and its reversal of the Trotskyite Sexual Revolution
>Your statistics are flawed/It’s pseudo-science
No, actually, the statistics showing that sexual promiscuity has consequences aren’t flawed, they have healthy sample sizes etc. Conversely, it’s the “scientific” work that sexual liberation relies on that is flawed.
>Who cares? I enjoy casual sex!
Who cares about mass immigration into Europe? I enjoy kebab shops! Hedonism is not a virtue. When something can be shown to be this disastrous to society, partaking in it anyway is indefensible.
>This isn’t politics
Unlike the BBC and bait threads you post in, critiquing a prominent social movement is actually related to politics. Sorry, faggot.
>tl;dr
If you can read Chinese comic books, you can read this.
>Sex is so much better with experienced women! Virgins are like dead fish in bed.
Do you let other men break your shoes in for you? New shoes are uncomfortable.
>>79259713
MGTOW puts a stain on those interested in a real celibate life, while PUA's and the like act like muh dick is what defines masculinity.
Truly, male celibacy is the most forbidden lifestyle in this era.
And the biggest irony is that PUA's love to use evolutionary arguments for why everyone has to be fucking around like an animal, yet the founder of genetics, Mendel, was a CELIBATE MONK.
>>79259830
you can't close pandora's box without destroying or heavily censoring the Internet. To the point where it's literally impossible to find any sexual content (not just porn, but even places like the chans or dating) and better yet there simply isn't any socialization online at all (information only)
>>79259651
Thanks, anon. White Knight Nationalists are fucking cancer in these threads.
Birthrates will naturally rise after sexual degeneracy is overturned.
More importantly, birth rates are meaningless when single motherhood and divorce are so high.
I was reading an article the other day (granted, it's probably taking the highest outlier for an alarmist title), which suggesting that children with father's present can have an IQ 8 points higher than children raised by single mothers.
Furthermore, as we all know, in many cases, being raised by a single mother is statistically worse than being poor or a minority.
Reminder that celibacy was practically a requirement for academic and intellectual professions as recently as the late 1800s
http://www.thebookoflife.org/celibacy-and-work/
There's something to be said that even marrying at all takes away from those who truly want to dedicate their lives to study. And ever since married "academics" became the norm the quality of culture and science has declined.
Not to say that you can't be a married scientist and still be good.
>>79259959
I disagree, anon. Pandora's Box can be closed, Stalin proved that. With regard to censoring the internet, I don't think so.
Would I like to see a "War against Porn?" Absolutely. But the chans and online dating can stay.
Will pornographic content be posted on the chans? Of course, but keeping it there exclusively will limit its ability to impact society at large.
Online dating wouldn't be a problem if we amended social attitudes regarding sex. Whether we like it or not, means and methods of communication are evolving, and online dating is a foray into the future.
Granted, closing Pandora's Box is going to require a certain type of environment. Weimar degeneracy was swept away by an economic collapse and political radicalism, for example.
Should the economy turn south, I think we might be able to push back the clock.
As it stands, we can't currently close Pandora's Box, but we can convince the few guys that will listen to ONLY marry virgins.
>>79259552
>Today, we’re dealing with the fallout from Kinsey’s flawed research. Current social attitudes are particularly problematic for young men. There have been efforts to promote a friendlier climate for men in general, and communities formed, aimed at teaching younger men how to “get by” in modern society. The largest two, of course, are horrible alternatives. The MGTOW movement and the PUA community.
Thank you for this beautiful post, anon. Will be saving a copy once it has reached the post limit or is archived.
I very much appreciate your inclusion of sources of pressure to goad males to promiscuity and the deleterious effects on society promiscuity/lechery has in general (i.e., when perpetrated by both sexes) as compared to the usual MGTOW shit threads whining about female hypergamy.
I think another aspect to look at this issue from could be the rise of "biological" appeals to promiscuity, which demands of man adherence only to the lower parts of his nature by addressing him exclusively as an animal. We are literally treating each other like dogs when we spurn traditional/contemplative norms in favor of "flavor-of-the-month" science/opinion. Examples of the biological appeals to (male) promiscuity include: sperm is cheaper than egg meme - go ahead men, fuck all you want; men can keep emotions out of sex meme - go ahead men, fuck all you want; male animals keep harems - go ahead men, fuck all you want.
Typical divide and conquer tactics. Convince each side (i.e., male and female) of society that their worst behavior is beyond reproach, which will naturally lead them to blame the other side when society comes crumbling down. With such discord, they'll never try to rebuild the house - instead, they'll be preoccupied with their own conflict.
Curious to hear your thoughts on the role of pornography in the sexual revolution. For the purposes of spreading the promiscuity meme in both genders, I can think of no more virulent vector for degeneracy.
>>79260571
I actually see online dating having potential for good , if some sort of matchmaking service were integrated into the school system or even open to parents.
I'm a strong advocate of arranged (or at least somewhat planned, not forced or involving children) marriages. Hard sell but I really see the very idea of "dating" as animalistic and regression from civilizaiton. Of course this is extremely unrealistic given the current society, unless you're Indian, Muslim , Amish or orthodox Jew.
But really I see the main reason these minorities are beating white birth rates to be because of their marriage practices. The men don't waste any time on pursuing women because marriage is treated like getting a job, just something you have to do. Laugh all you want or call me a loser virgin who just wants everything done for him.
>There's zero reason to date a non-virgin.
But I'm only attracted to women with experience.
Virgin girls are just fucking annoying.
You have to sink pretty low to feel alpha, don't you?
>>79260873
it's not just porn but even the Internet itself, which desensitizes people to endless conversation partners just like porn does with sexual partners. There's something to be said that technology is really behind making all manner of interaction unnatural and overstimulated. The chans and places like it are a major contributor.
>>79259543
Also, this.
Note enough people talk about traditions and ancient solutions to the problems of sexual degeneracy. Early marriage is an essential aspect of a healthy population.
Life shouldn't be so expensive that you have to wait until 25 to reasonably consider marriage and kids. Usury and overpopulation (the latter being a very direct consequence of the sexual revolution) will keep this cycle churning, because living isn't getting any cheaper.
>>79261164
>overpopulation
>consequence of the sexual revolution
not exactly sure what you mean, unless you mean for nonwhites and bastard children. If anything it's the "overpopulation" psyop that convinces people to NOT have families.
There is a "population" issue and it has everything to do with DENSITY and urbanization, not overall population growth (though I guess one could go full primitivist and say modern medicine letting people live too long and lack urgency is a problem but damn if that wouldn't be somewhat hypocritical)
I stopped reading after the bit about the Mosuo and the USSR. You've never read shit about the Mosuo beyond at most a couple of superficial pop-sci level articles, you don't know jack about their marriage practices (protip: they're not as unusual or as outlandish as you've been led to believe; many of them are essentially monogamous) or their society today. Your paragraph about the Soviet Union is so off-point it's laughable. You have absolutely no background in Russian history. You have no idea what kind of culture the attempted Soviet "sexual revolution" was born from or what the attempted transition was like. Basically, you have no clue what you're talking about.
I lied; I skimmed the rest. Among a couple of other errors, 1. Divorce rates are actually falling, they have been for some time, and they're highest among people who get married young to their first loves, lower among those who wait til they're at least 25, 2. the Kinsey Reports aren't the cornerstone of the study of human sexuality the way you seem to think they are. They were the spark that got the flame going, but not integral to it today, and their faults are well-known by everybody who's seriously studied it in a formal setting.
The irony is that I'm pretty sexually conservative, and gung-ho sex positive types DO tend to peddle a lot of pseudoscience. Reasonable arguments can be made for many of your claims. Just not by you, apparently.
>>79260991
You want a woman with experience in child rearing. Look for someone who has done things like tutor kids for years.
I just want to point out that is one of the worst written essays I've ever read. The sheer amount of implications, assertions and conclusions reached without even a slight attempt at attribution or sourcing of any kind is painful to my brain. You make too many leaps without properly explaining the rationale behind and you make too many claims that are simply opinion. It doesn't help that your images don't add anything to your text. If this a thesis you're currently working on, I would suggest a complete overhaul of style and substance before submission, unless it's just the introduction, in which case you need to do a lot of editing. And lastly, pseudoscience is any subject outside the realm of empirical study. It is not a term used to denote the quality of scientific research. For example, religion is pseudoscience, because it's claims can neither be proven or disproven by any scientific methods.
>>79259128
>tfw fucked a few virgins and completely ruined several girls (most of whom were Asian) who fell in love with me but I couldn't reciprocate because I'm a piece of shit
I'm the real degenerate desu. Worst was that I took a central Asian girl's v-card and other there that's super important for marriage. She's probably fucked for life unless she marries a westerner, which is highly unlikely seeing as how she's in Uzbekistan.
>>79261459
Are divorce rates falling simply because marriage rates are falling? Or do the statistics you use take this into account?
>>79261461
Yeah I have some mommy issues I need to work out, but I still enjoy it when they turn into a fiend.
I don't really care where they learned it from.
>>79260873
Thanks for posting that image anon. I was meaning to post the same compilation of graphs, but got carried away.
>I think another aspect to look at this issue from could be the rise of "biological" appeals to promiscuity,
Oh, it absolutely is. I should've delved into Kinseyism more, because that's right where this shit starts.
On a side note, Western Literature used to shame this kind of stuff. Humans were supposed to aspire to be "higher" than humanity, and people who "sunk" into the realm of beasts were reviled.
I'm sympathetic to guys that get sucked into that line of thinking, because from a purely secular perspective, it makes sense in the short term.
However, unfortunately, once you consider long term implications (male pair bonding, the need for a permanent underclass of whores, etc.), it quickly loses its luster.
Studies to indicate that male promiscuity is less damaging than female promiscuity, but that's really not the best line of defense.
More over, I'm typically an advocate of men reasserting their dominance and taking back up the mantle of leadership in society. In short, to fix women, we have to fix men.
>Curious to hear your thoughts on the role of pornography in the sexual revolution.
It certainly helped spearhead the sexual revolution (Playboy was a big offender in its early stages, even before the bunnies went nude). I typically advocate against it, as it is part of the "coalition" of the sexual revolution.
That being said, I don't see it being as big of an issue as the "No Fap No Porn Crowd." I've seen their evidence and I do get it, I'd personally recommend forsaking porn entirely to other people; however, there's a part of me that dislikes the amount of effort that gets spent on porn.
Don't get me wrong, it's bad and serves as a vehicle for sex positivity and permissiveness, and it certainly helped to kill the remnants of Western shame culture, but I feel the effort would be better spent focusing on the real thing.
I'd also like to point out that "blue balls" is complete bullshit as well just designed to scare men into fapping more. Saying that "your balls will swell up with semen and hurt you if you don't orgasm" is like saying "your nose will swell up with mucus and hurt you if you don't give yourself a cold." It's bullshit that honestly demeans the scientific wonder of the human body.
>>79261477
>religion is pseudoscience, because it's claims can neither be proven or disproven by any scientific methods.
Well religion is fundamentally detached from science, friendo.
>>79259128
>having sex with women
There's your problem m9
>>79261317
You're right, by overpopulation I meant increase in population density above healthy/comfortable levels. Technology (in addition to prolonging life) has made it too easy to increase population density (and hence, crowding), and in these sorts of over-dense societies, alpha scarceness becomes less on an issue and you eventually will crescendo to a critical mass of degeneracy.
Accomplish a feat like this in cities we have made responsible for determining cultural norms and slowly your country is thoroughly demoralized.
>>79261459
>Divorce rates are falling
Isn't that because less people are getting married? I believe single parent households are still growing. Also, do you have a source that those who marry their first loves divorce more commonly? Preferably one that corrects for age difference.
>>79261922
That's not to say to not use surrogates. The end.
>>79261881
>Blue balls is complete bullshit.
No it isn't, or maybe you have a different idea of what blue balls is. I've been blue balled before. That shit hurts. It's when you're fucking a girl but then you have to stop for whatever reason and your balls actually do get more sensitive and bluish.
I don't know exactly why it happens, but it did, and does.
>>79261477
Could you give some examples of claims that are poorly explained?
>>79261980
Some guys have raisinette balls. That's all that is. If an easter egg balls guy doesn't fuck he'll never get blue balls. Yeah it'll hurt and prolly gives cancer but too many people actually confuse the two
>>79261980
We call that "getting off at redfern"
>>79261980
Doesn't it also mean not orgasming for a while and having "too much semen" in your balls because of it?
>>79259753
>There is literally no reason to date/marry a girl who is not a virgin
Except for the fact that women who are old enough to fuck but are still virgins are rare as fuck.
According to GSS surveys taken between 2005 and 2015, just under 25% of women between 18-20 report having had no sexual partners. And between 20-25 that drops to less than 5%.
>>79262333
I really doubt that would be the case since your body wouldn't produce anymore once its full, but then again, I don't know. It probably has more to do with blood circulation than anything.
>>79261459
My tangent on the Mosuo was regarding their lack of "cemented" marriage. By Western standards, that's horribly outlandish.
I simplified the USSR bit, but are you actually disputing anything? I don't care what it was born from, I care about the results. The results were easy divorce, abortion on demand, and homeless children. It was catastrophic.
With regard to divorce rates. "Falling" technically. They're still considerably higher than they were pre-1980s. A large part of this is due to falling marriage rates. Coincidentally, both trends occur around the 1980s... Interesting.
> they're highest among people who get married young to their first loves
There's quite a bit of data that actually disputes this, you realize that, right?
>lower among those who wait til they're at least 25
Delayed sexual activity in general bodes better for marriage.
> the Kinsey Reports aren't the cornerstone of the study of human sexuality the way you seem to think they are. They were the spark that got the flame going, but not integral to it today, and their faults are well-known by everybody who's seriously studied it in a formal setting.
I wouldn't consider research that helped overturn cultural attitudes on sexuality to be simply a spark. Are there other, equally flawed, more recent studies on human sexuality? Absolutely. I'd rather focus on the root that changed attitudes, though.
Genuinely curious, what do you define as sexually conservative?
>>79262417
blood circulation and muscle contraction*
>>79261477
Pseudoscience is defined by the OED as:
>a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
Furthermore, I was operating under its colloquial usage.
>>79262405
That's not a reason, just a defeatist position. Marry younger if you have to.
Well I'll be damned. Good job OP.
>>79261587
The former.
Divorce rates among married couples are still the highest they've been in recent history - half of all marriages end in divorce within five years, and nearly almost 70% within ten, and almost 90% within twenty.
i cant imagine anything better than having a son
yet im probably getting a vasectomy
>implying my health will ever stop shitting out on me enough to even find a girl im attracted to who is actually attracted to me
all i do is cook healthy shit and work and stretch and sleep
and yet i lose more and more weight, and every day i am in more pain
meanwhile, the lying drug dealer i grew up with grew up fucking the cutest girls left and right, and still has tons of them as friends even after beating one into amnesia and a hospital, nearly killing her, and after lying about drugs he sold people for years, leading the only cute girl whos paid me any attention in years to end up fucking at least 7 people in a month and being locked up in an insane asylum from going insane from the fake drugs he gave her
and he still has tons of cute girls who like him
and they wont even look at me
i cant fucking take this shit anymore
Bumping for based OP.
Thanks anon. I just don't have the energy to debate these Reddit and Milo fags anymore.
What we need is more generals on classic /pol/ values, that have long ago been debated into the ground before most of these fags showed up. And are now taken for granted assumption and memes.
>>79259415
Let's evaluate these numbers, based on our own, anecdotal, experience.
>>85% of men and 48% of women said they’d had premarital sex
Premarital sex? Yeah, sure. Sex outside of a serious relationship with a woman that meant the world to me? No, never.
Guess I'm part of the 15%
>>50% of men and 40% of women had been unfaithful in marriage
Again, what does marriage even entail nowadays? I never cheated on the two girlfriends that I've had (I'm 32 years old) and I never will.
Guess that makes me part of... well, the other 50%.
>>71% of women claimed their affair hadn’t hurt their marriage
I'm not a woman nor have I ever had an affair. But I know it would destroy my relationship.
Guess I'm part of the other 29%.
>>69% of men had been with prostitutes
Never have, never will. Part of the other 31%.
>>17% of rural men had experienced sex with animals
At least one degeneracy that does not seem to be the norm. I am part of the 83%, and I did grow up in a very rural area of Switzerland.
>>95% of American men had violated sex crime laws
Well, I'm not American, but I would never violate sex crime laws (to be fair here, sex crime laws probably means even fucking jerking off in the USA of the fifties).
TL;DR
these statistics are most probably utter bullshit and pulled out of these "scientists"' asses.
>>79261845
>Don't get me wrong, it's bad and serves as a vehicle for sex positivity and permissiveness, and it certainly helped to kill the remnants of Western shame culture, but I feel the effort would be better spent focusing on the real thing.
Fair enough. I think that porn is responsible for preventing some of the latent self-correction mechanisms built into society and youth. I'd imagine a lot of the sexually conservative people on /pol/ came to see the flaws in the sexual revolution (at least on an intuitive level even if they haven't read the historical precedent for the outcomes like you) by observing adult relationships around them.
Porn in a way subverts the youth attention from forming expectations and priorities that are based in the realities of male/female relationships and instead directs those impressions according to porn-dynamics (or more generally, movie-dynamics, since most rom-coms are pretty much propaganda and "pornographic" depictions of what real relationships are like). By the time the majority of the youth realizes that the porn memes and expectations aren't representative of what they truly desire or what is tenable in society, the damage has been done - to both sexes.
The two main posts making claims against OP both gave fairly lazy and un-sourced rebuttals and then never replied to any counter-arguments. They each only have one post to their ID.
Really makes you think.
>>79262631
I'm sorry man
Hahaha, now Europe can't import all of those fancy British whatever-the-fucks.
Amazing thread, OP, you are doing God's work.
>>79262631
I'm guessing you've already done the due process of throwing him to the government wolves.
>>79261587
They do. It's not the total number of divorces that's falling, it's the percentage of marriages that end in divorce.
>>79261954
See above for your first question. For your second, the rate of single-parent households is still growing so far as I know; that's not mutually exclusive with divorce rates falling, it means that unfortunately many women who have children were never married in the first place. And to be clear, what I said about "first loves" was more a rhetorical flourish than a factual claim (sorta directed at the guy who wrote this post >>79261164) -- having more partners before marriage does increase your later risk for divorce, I'm not trying to dispute that (although there are other factors you have to correct for that not all studies do). The best scenario of all might well be to marry your first love, but to wait until you're in your mid-twenties before doing so. That's certainly my ideal.
>>79259128
Anon, why going back to traditional systems ?
It ended because people were frustrated and didn't see the whole picture, instead of perpetuating this endless cycle of Degeneracy - Traditionalism which lead to big problems, we should do a qualitative leap and try to find a way to ensure that the people know it is pleasant but under certain circumstances (like multiplying the number of partners) it lead to incredibly bad consequences for everyone.
Understanding why we act in certain ways and not another via evolutionist psychology could help us alot.
>>79259128
With over 50% of marriages ending in divorce (and 90% of them initiated by the woman) I really see no point in getting married.
>>79259367
>that scale
Everything is fucking gay except number 0.
>>79261584
don't worry im from middle east and i can assure you not every single girl in central asia or middle east is virgin before marriage.
>>79259367
where does futa with balls fall under this scale
>>79260873
Anon, and take this one. I forgot to fill in the color on the "26+" bar on the bottom left graph, when I made that initially.
>>79263101
>>79262606
Thanks anon.
>>79262631
Sorry to hear that, anon. Is there nothing surgery or medication can do?
>>79262823
I'm honestly less concerned about the Milo fags. We all know about homosexuality, but I tend to let them slide, just because whores are more corrosive.
Reddit shitposters (and this has been, to a degree, an active effort), have actually succeeded in shifting the needle of this board's median opinion on sex, for no good reason at all.
>>79262829
>these statistics are most probably utter bullshit and pulled out of these "scientists"' asses.
Oh, Kinsey's methodology was all sorts of fucked up.
>>79262885
I agree with you on porn, but I don't think the problem is just porn itself. You mentioned RomComs, which is true, but another big issue is the suspension of adolescence.
There's a part of me that's doubtful that porn and fantasized, commercialized notions of gender and sexual relationships would be as dangerous as they are, if the void they were filling was closed sooner.
Maybe I'm just a little too optimistic, but I do wonder what better economic conditions, and earlier marriages might do for us. Granted, that would require killing the College meme entirely.
>>79259128
quality post
>>79259128
Women are completely useless, there is no need to ever have one around.
>>79262438
>My tangent on the Mosuo was regarding their lack of "cemented" marriage. By Western standards, that's horribly outlandish.
It's also not all that unusual, and it doesn't mean that they're particularly "sexually liberated" or promiscuous or whathaveyou. You realize that? Many of the claims about their marriage practices have been inflated by overzealous, often politically motivated anthropologists, and the Mosuo themselves. This is unfortunately pretty common.
>I simplified the USSR bit, but are you actually disputing anything? I don't care what it was born from, I care about the results. The results were easy divorce, abortion on demand, and homeless children.
I don't have the time or space here to give anything other than a simple overview myself, but several points. One, the sexual revolution in Russia was a legal rather than cultural affair, which men and not women were almost entirely responsible for (part of their motivation was genuinely ideological, part was selfish: Party members liked to sleep around.) The Soviets dumped all of the freedoms we have today on a deeply conservative, uneducated, religious society and demanded that it adapt, without according any protections to women. Of course it was a disaster. The rates of homelessness also have a hell of a lot to do with the nonsexual aspects of their social policy i.e. encouraging women to work even in periods of economic downturn resulting in high levels of unemployment, promising that children would be cared for communally but not enforcing that in any way, and there were also a couple of civil wars and famines during that time. Soviet society was in general extremely exploitative of women. The Soviet attempt at sexual liberation was one form of that. The post-Stalin attempt at reforming the family was another. Several wildly popular novels (among women) were written about how hellish marriage was for women in the postwar period.
>>79262829
If you read OP's post right after that one, you'd know that this is exactly the point he's trying to make. Sample populations were clearly skewed.
>>79262900
MGTOWs btfo by OP. So much easier for them to rebel against the possibility that their own behavior/actions are not part of the problem. Also, checked.
>>79261459
>they're highest among people who get married young to their first loves, lower among those who wait til they're at least 25
>>79263178
>what I said about "first loves" was more a rhetorical flourish than a factual claim
I appreciate what you meant by the flourish, but would argue that this doesn't serve to disprove the fitness of early marriage, but instead should serve as proof that marriage itself is no safeguard against the subversive pressures on sexual normalcy. While these young couples are growing up and growing together, they're bombarded by entreaties to ride the waves of sexual promiscuity, to trade up, to never settle, etc.
I'm not saying early marriage is the be-all-end-all that will fix the whole system, but once these confounding pressures/forces are quelled, it's a good way to keep the system stable.
>>79262823
>I just don't have the energy to debate these Reddit and Milo fags anymore.
Same. It's so discouraging to see people unsophisticated in philosophical discourse arguing conservative principles on meme-levels (i.e., based on dogmatic thinking rather than conviction born of inquiry). And usually arguing against summer kids or redditors is aligning with these meme-arguers. Eventually, the thoughtful posts get left by the wayside (or lumped in with the meme-level arguments) and only the provocateurs get the attention of those who need the thoughtful posts.
>>79263690
>Anon, and take this one. I forgot to fill in the color on the "26+" bar on the bottom left graph, when I made that initially.
Thank you! I didn't realize you made this - much appreciated!
>I do wonder what better economic conditions, and earlier marriages might do for us.
see my above thoughts on the subversive factors being present in early marriages as well. I think what I'm seeing is that this is a war that needs to be waged on all fronts really.
>Granted, that would require killing the College meme entirely.
A very important front of this war. Free college would cement this meme in our psyche beyond repair. It would be expected and the norm for ALL people to engage in reckless unsupervised promiscuity, whereas previously it was only those who could afford college and jump through the academic hoops. It would start taking on the form of just another rite of passage to the point that there maybe some generations which have no subsets of people untouched by this degenerate rite.
>>79264201
Or you know, College actually being used for academic purposes. Like learning advanced topics that smaller primary schools lack the resources to teach.
I understand OP is against sexual promiscuity but why is he only blaming women? Men being sluts is just as bad if not worse.
>>79264370
Right, I was talking more about the "have fun and 'discover yourself' in college" meme. I think there are other arguments against free college, and college is certainly not without merits. Just the promiscuity culture that is becoming woven into the expectation/institution of college is disturbing and is worthy of replacement with the more utility oriented view you describe.
>>79262438
cont'd
Basically, your paragraph on the Mosuo vacillates between "wrong" and "not even wrong" and your paragraph on the Soviet Union is so stripped of context that it's worthless, although I'm sure it'll win you huge points with the crowd on here.
> they're highest among people who get married young to their first loves
>There's quite a bit of data that actually disputes this, you realize that, right?
I admitted above that the "first loves" bit was a rhetorical flourish without data behind it. I was feeling snarky. Writing it was a mistake, yeah; I should have known people would jump on it.
Getting married young is often a mistake. If you fall in love young and wait til you're a responsible age to marry, then so much the better.
>I wouldn't consider research that helped overturn cultural attitudes on sexuality to be simply a spark. Are there other, equally flawed, more recent studies on human sexuality?
There's been a huge amount of research on human sexuality done in the past half-century, not all of which, by the way, supports the "yay! sexual liberation!" agenda you're so bothered by. You're focusing on a series of notorious but basically obsolete studies from 40s and 50s and ignoring every development since. It'd be like criticizing the claims of today's psychologists because Freud was a quack -- there might be legitimate reasons to criticize the field but if you focus on Freud and Jung and so on your criticisms are simply irrelevant.
>Genuinely curious, what do you define as sexually conservative?
I'm not going to get into my personal life or history, but I think that marriage is generally a good idea, both for most people and for society. Sex and love are inseparable and consequently I think casual promiscuity is a bad choice for many people although I wouldn't be so arrogant as to claim that as a universal.
>>79259128
>There's 0 reason to date a non-virgin.
Or I could date someone with a normal number of past sexual partners who doesn't have sexual hangups and emotional maladjustment problems.
Take your (you) and leave >>>/r9k/
>>79259128
>>79264734
Women are the ones who can say yes or no.
>>79259830
>Yes, you can, that’s specifically why I mention the USSR and its reversal of the Trotskyite Sexual Revolution
The reason that's a poor comparison is because there is literally no mechanism in place in America to imbue the country with the absolutism of Stalin's USSR. You need an overwhelming political power to reverse a cultural force like sexual revolution. That it's POSSIBLE to turn back the clock on sexual revolution doesn't mean it's remotely viable.
>>79264734
/pol/ would be taken a lot more seriously if we retained the traditionalism without being bitter about women. If anything, men are more at fault because it is their duty to uphold cultural standards.
>>79259128
Sorry OP but I do not have time but I am interested... summary please?
>>79264980
Men ARE at fault, yes. Male sexual promiscuity isn't a bad thing (every successful society has its brothels, they serve a necessary purpose) but that doesn't mean men aren't responsible for ensuring female chastity.
Feminism and its fruits can only be enabled by men.
>>79259128
Thank you OP. We're still poisoned and enemies laugh at us for it.
>>79264904
Right so that's called blame shifting. Any time you relegate that responsibility to women you're basically saying
>well you can't blame us men because it's our nature and we can't help it
>>79265060
So hypothetically, you'd be OK with a society where women don't fuck around anyone EXCEPT for government regulated male brothels?
>>79265060
>>79265177
I'm virgin, how is this my fault.
>>79265219
We're not talking about that. We're discussing negative effects on society as a whole. You being a virgin has zero relevance to this discussion.
Also because your standards are too high. If you want to lose your virginity for the sake of it, do what every other normalfag does and date some 5/10 for a while until she lets you fuck her.
>>79265177
No, female chastity is important. Social norms are really better for this than government (again, in America there's no mechanism by which government could do this sort of thing) and as such any family that respects itself should safeguard the chastity of its daughters.
Naturally, not all will be successful, and these daughters become whores, either in the professional sense or just general sluttiness. These women should not be respected by society or encouraged, but recognized as important.
>>79265219
You are not "men" you are one dude.
>>79265335
>No, female chastity is important
Why?
OP why was Orwell afraid of them suppressing sexuality? That part of the book never made sense to me
>>79265369
Read the goddamn thread
>>79262900
I realize how frustrating it can be to spend 15 mins on a reply and then have the person duck out of the thread and never respond -- that happens to me all the time -- but it's equally frustrating when people pump their fists and declare victory when it takes you more than 15 mins to reply yourself.
>>79264124
>I appreciate what you meant by the flourish, but would argue that this doesn't serve to disprove the fitness of early marriage,
>[it's the fault of societal pressures on "sexual normalcy"]
And I'd respond that that's a hell of a claim that you need to back up if you want anybody to take it as anything more than conjecture. It could be that the pre-25 divorce rate would be much lower without
>entreaties to ride the waves of sexual promiscuity
or it could be that most young people haven't fully matured yet, don't always know what they're looking for, haven't had much life experience, haven't had much relationship experience, don't have stable careers and often have to move around a lot, and so on. I know which one seems more reasonable to me but you can believe what you like.
>>79265503
arokh midai likroh
>>79264092
>It's also not all that unusual
Conversely, it's not unusual for a Mosuo woman to have a string of monogamous relationships. Now, you might not classify that as "sexual liberation," but by proper standards (Marriage for life) it is.
The mosuo promiscuity myth is a meme intended to drive up tourism, I agree; however, it's not absent from Mosuo culture, and it's, to the best of my knowledge, not a taboo for them.
I get where you're coming from regarding the USSR. However, I disagree that it was entirely a legal affair. I'm not disputing that it was mainly male driven in the USSR, but there was, within the party a cultural drive for it. Perhaps I'm overestimating the effect of earlier card-carrying party members, but you yourself cede that party members liked to sleep around.
My biggest frame of reference for sexuality in the USSR (culturally, and going beyond the established legislative differences between Lenin & Stalin) are best summarized here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1926/07/the-russian-effort-to-abolish-marriage/306295/
It's an article, sure; however, it does, in my view, provide some decent context on the cultural aspect. It does, for the most part, correlate with your post, citing the exploitation of Russian women.
>>79264201
Molyneux made a video called "The Truth about Sex." He works, roughly, off from the same data that I've compiled form /pol/ threads, but he veers off into the effects of single motherhood on things like property crime and child molestation. I'd recommend it if you're interested in gathering more data.
Personally, though, I'm split on Free College. I get why some feel it's necessary in theory, but I'd like to see college reformed (something Western education is in dire need of) entirely before going through with it. Otherwise we get what you detailed, and have to pay for things like Women's studies degrees, rather than STEM fields.
1/2
>>79265510
I agree, younger marriage would need to accompany younger adult responsibility. Compulsory schooling has effectively increased the age of maturity further and further and there is no longer a clear rite of passage that makes one an adult. So yeah , today 25 is probably the best age, but that's only due to a century of infantilization.
>>79265369
The biological explanation here is that the egg is the limiting reagent of reproduction. There is enough sperm in any single male's testes to produce an infinity of children, but woman's eggs are a scarce resource. From a perspective of sheer fitness, it is dysgenic to encourage women to give up their eggs to any but the most viable selection of men - this is essentially where traditional courtship comes from, by the way.
Yes, birth control exists, which would seem to invalidate the issue of resource scarcity, but then we get into psychology. We did not evolve alongside condoms and the pill. Vaginal sex meant you were at risk for making a child, and for a man, that means any other man touching his woman is a risk for him to be cuckolded - in the most literal sense, in raising a child that does not belong to him. This threat has not dissipated with modern innovations.
>>79265544
So at least look at this chart: >>79260873
>>79265316
>You being a virgin has zero relevance to this discussion
OP said the ones who are outside this sexual liberation can see it for what it is.
Women are the ones who have the last word when it comes to sex.
>>79265649
>biology
>reasoning
>evo psychology
Kill yourself.
>>79265692
And the same trends can be found for men. Next.
>>79265740
Again, that's blame shifting. Nobody is telling you to be the begger when it comes to sex. I myself have rejected women who wanted to fuck me. That makes me the chooser. You can do the same.
>>79259128
Thank you for restoring my faith in /pol/, OP
Just a week after my faith in Britain was restored
>>79265784
>that's blame shifting
No, it's called discussing, blame shifting is just another word isued to silence the issue.
>>79265784
so this is australian shitposting
>>79259683
What about MRAs OP? They are commonly mistaken with mgtow, but they are different, since they try to restore the balance.
>>79259128
I am only in here because I would like to have sex but my gf is 6000 miles away in china and we won't meet again for another year. Any ladies wanna have a go?
>>79264201
>>79264370
2/2
Maybe I'm just nostalgic, but the origins of Universities in the Church, seem like a good starting point.
Granted, I doubt we'd ever get the public to go for the Church itself picking up education again, but it serves as a good reference, in my mind at least, of what proper universities should look like. Without all the fluff, meme degrees and degeneracy.
>>79264734
See:
>>79261845
>"More over, I'm typically an advocate of men reasserting their dominance and taking back up the mantle of leadership in society. In short, to fix women, we have to fix men."
>>79264915
I touched on this earlier in the thread. Stalin enjoyed the luxury of absolute political power. To turn back the clock now would require an economic downturn.
>>79264866
Nice flag, nice argument. Obviously virgins have sexual hangups. Obviously your post disputes all of the data done on the disastrous effects of sexual promiscuity.
>>79265784
male promiscuity was addressed as equally degenerate right here:
>>79260873
>>79265923
Do you think there's value in somehow limiting high academia to celibates only? At least in fields like philosophy and mathematics, not career-focused fields like engineering.
That's perhaps the best way to weed out meme degree idiots
>>79265855
But I'm right. You can't use biological theory as a direct argument for every single thing that might happen in a society. You can REFER to it but it's very rarely proof on its own.
Retard.
>>79265854
No, it's blame shifting. Anyone can be the chooser at any time they want. You have no less of a choice than some fat ugly landwhale girl does. The fact that there are some guys desperate enough to fuck that landwhale does not raise her inherent value
>>79265925
Thanks, friend.
>>79266006
Yes I can, humans are animals.
>>79266006
please note that this purplefag
>>79266044
is NOT the same as this one:
>>79260873
he's just an obnoxious PUA kiddie who came in late in the thread
>>79265784
>And the same trends can be found for men. Next.
Oh, that was your point? Yup.
But it doesn't nullify female promiscuity, it's still bad.
>>79266044
if that's true, why do shampoo bottles say "Not tested on Animals"
>>79266044
>Yes I can
Yes, you can, but no-one with a brain would. Not even diehard evolutionary psychologists with actual degrees would agree with you.
The only ones who would agree with you are PUAs.
>>79266125
Yeah sorry, I have a tendency to speedread.
>>79266129
Yeah but in these threads, and especially /pol/, only focus on the female promiscuity side of things.
>>79266159
kek
Woah. Shutting this down right now.
The extreme negativity, mysogany, hate, and pure idiocy a lot of you "men" post here daily truly makes me cringe Irl.
The reality here is: Some guy found a woman he loves and wanted to marry. Did it in an unconventional venue, and was a success. Good for him! Don't be such a negative nancy for the sake of beig a dick...
The insane amount of comments degrading women also has to stop. I'll begin mass banning for those comments when I see them. So knock it off.
These women has more life experience than the vast majority of /pol/, with the average age being around 17, and knows her relationship better than anyone here. Who the fuck are you to tear her down? Get a life. Truly.
>>79266125
I'm a PUA? What?
>>79266159
I had a giggle.
>>79266199
You didn't actually argue with any of my points, you just called them invalid because they come from biology. At the risk of sounding like molyneux, not an argument.
>>79265369
see
>>79259367
>release of Oxytocin, all of which helps to facilitate pair bonding in monogamous animals, and suffers from the law of diminishing returns, has yet to be properly disputed
and
>>79265503
>>79265510
>that's a hell of a claim
> it could be that most young people haven't fully matured yet, don't always know what they're looking for, haven't had much life experience, haven't had much relationship experience
>implying these things aren't obstacles to a stable marriage because of the aforementioned societal pressures toward degeneracy
I think you're missing the "arranged" part of the original post >>79259543 I replied to. All of these other explanatory factors are the result of a bad match. Early marriage works best when reality-based parents (i.e., tradition-preservers) make educated evaluations in the matchmaking process to ensure that the marriage will not dissolve due to trivial differences in personality that make relationships born out of the experimental cauldron of the "dating pool" so fragile and sensitive to factors like the sexual degeneracy and the explanatory factors you prefer (too young, diverging interests, etc.).
Why is relationship experience essential to a stable marriage? Are you suggesting that marriage only works when the participants have had extensive (romantic) relationship experience? I doubt this has been a necessary factor throughout the history of marriage. Similar argument applies to
>haven't fully matured yet
>don't know what they're looking for
>not much life experience
I get the point about stable careers and more mundane concerns. That's a trapping of the modern world that definitely complicates things.
>>79265614
>Molyneux made a video called "The Truth about Sex."
Will check this out, thanks!
>>79266199
Isn't MGTOW a de facto chastity movement though?
And I guess it's natural seeing how we have a male majority.
>>79266212
lame bait
Virgin males are desperate to find fault with most women because it excuses their virginity and gives them a reason not to try.
A modern version of sour grapes.
>>79266344
That's true but they're right in certain aspects.
>>79266289
Because I don't need to counter-argue what isn't an argument in the first place. You're basically saying
>hurr durr humans are animals so let's treat them as such
Which is bullshit and impractical.
>>79266456
>>79266344
why is male virginity seen as inherently bad? And not just bad, but THE WORST POSSIBLE THING A MAN COULD BE in the eyes of so many people. Becuase somehow sex validates a man's entire existence, and a dude who's fucked a prostitute is somehow inherently better than a virgin.
This is a very recent phenomenon. If it was female virginity being shamed you'd be singing a different tune
>>79266456
I'm not sure why you would treat an animal like something other than an animal. Humans are extremely complex animals, but ultimately some practices are healthy for us and some are not. Anyway, I was only using biology as an explanation for behavior, which seems entirely valid when dealing with organisms. OP already dealt with society at large.
>>79264838
I think you mistook the part about the Mosuo. I clarified it in a later post, so if there's anything that I got wrong, and I'm open to that, point it out there. Same with the bit about the USSR.
>Getting married young is often a mistake. If you fall in love young and wait til you're a responsible age to marry, then so much the better.
I agree.
>On Kinsey and developments since then
I get that Kinsey's work has been disputed, and acknowledged that, but it did (and still, to a degree does) serve as the foundation for "sexology."
My biggest gripe with Kinsey is the role of his data in the 1960s Cultural revolution. Has there been data since then? Absolutely. Has it done the damage that Kinsey's data did? I'd argue no.
Regarding your analogy to criticisms of Freud & Jung and psychology as a whole, I don't see it that way.
Consider the post was about the prevalence and acceptance of pornography in society. Kinsey would come up, as would Hugh Hefner. Are there more recent individuals who defend porn with slanted stats? Is Playboy even considered "pornographic" anymore? Not really.
That being said, if the post itself is about the cultural tide turning, Kinsey and Hefner are far more relevant than modern "Sexologists," "Sex Therapists," and porn producers.
Now, I do feel that Kinsey serves as a foundation for his predecessors, but I'm more concerned about Kinsey's role in a cultural revolution, than I am about his relevance today.
There's been more recent data posted and referenced, that points to the harm that promiscuity causes, and that's where I'm planting my flag. If some anon wants to come in with data that disputes that, from modern "sexologists," they're free to.
>>79265923
>the origins of Universities in the Church, seem like a good starting point.
Definitely. Religious education needs a comeback. Aside from its obvious function of providing an outlet for the brightest minds to pursue the most subtle discipline philosophy and theology, it provides a firm cultural bedrock among the intellectuals in a country that is very conducive to progress and productivity (as opposed to the stagnation and frivolity the intellectual class of this country faces in the realm of politics and cultural philosophy).
>>79266005
>Do you think there's value in somehow limiting high academia to celibates only? At least in fields like philosophy and mathematics, not career-focused fields like engineering.
Definitely. See pic related of >>79264201
Philosophers who chase women or are married often start getting blue pilled by infatuation and start to act out in ways to dilute their field so that it is palatable to the female sensibility.
>>79266125
Confused by this post. Hope I'm not the PUA.
Furthest thing from it.
>>79266311
>Isn't MGTOW a de facto chastity movement though?
Nope, many if not most MGTOWs believe that relationships with women should be kept short and sexual. Basically fear of commitment and the institutional male prejudice in said commitments is the main guiding emotion of MGTOWs as they manifest on /pol/ at least.
>>79259128
>>79259199
>>79259254
>>79259310
>>79259367
>>79259415
>>79259552
>>79259643
>>79259683
>>79259713
>>79259753
>>79259830
>Consenting adults can't have sex with consenting adults!
LMAO.
You retards are the same with OWS fags. Only difference is the fact that they want economic welfare while you want social welfare.
>>79259128
>Your daily reminder: There's 0 reason to date a non-virgin.
opinion discarded. seek medical attention, degenerate.
Most marriages that end do so because of the couple drifting apart because of arguments generally stemming from financial issues.
>>79266636
Right so let me explain something to you.
It would be fan-fucking-tastic if we could all just say
>men love sleeping around and it's good for them and society as a whole
>women should not sleep around because their chastity is good for them and society as a whole
But the data has already proven that the top one is not true. Males sleeping around leads to increased divorce rates.
Hmm?
>>79266795
>non-virgin detected.
It's not your fault.
>>79266796
>financial issues
>>79266730
Huh. That sounds stupid, I thought it was more about not getting involved with women at all. That makes more sense to me and most likely what I'll end up doing.
>>79266803
Men are sexually driven beings. Historically sexless young men have an outlet for the sensations that accompany their desires in war or some other martial context, but that's no longer true in the modern world. I suspect the reason male promiscuity nowadays leads to higher divorce rates is the existence of the social option to, for lack of a better word, live in sin.
That said it's not impossible that any male promiscuity could be damaging to a society, I just think it's much more inevitable than female promiscuity - and not nearly as bad, in any case.
>>79266633
I know, it's literally worse than being a criminal.
>>79263101
Don't you mean G-d's work?
>>79266730
>Philosophers who chase women or are married often start getting blue pilled by infatuation and start to act out in ways to dilute their field so that it is palatable to the female sensibility.
This is actually what I believe is the origin of the "gay people r smarter" meme that fag activists love to throw around.
Being a fag doesn't make a man more intelligent, it's just that there's always been men not interested in women, and ones that lack this are more likely to succeed intellectually. Faggotry is just another temptation that this group may fall victim to.
>>79265614
Serial monogamy isn't at all uncommon worldwide, or historically, nor is promiscuity always taboo (though there's no societies that are exclusively promiscuous). If you're going to cite the Mosuo as an example because some of them practice serial monogamy then you need to put that in context -- it might be the single most common form of relationship there is, cross-culturally (polygyny is more common but usually practiced by a small minority in the societies that do feature it.) Of the societies that practice serial monogamy, some are successes, some are failures (not that Mosuo society is anything like as disastrous as you initially claimed).
As to the Soviets, I don't agree that an ideological drive is the same thing as a cultural drive, at all. Our sexual revolution happened gradually; there was a slow shift in people's attitudes towards sex over several decades. Russian society was, at that point, deeply religious, homophobic, misogynistic, and socially conservative (and except for the religiosity it largely remains those things today) and yet there was legal protection for promiscuity and homosexuality, theoretical equal rights for women, and religion was suppressed. Those laws were enacted (with little support) in an impoverished, rural, backwards country that was literally in the middle of a civil war, the devastation of which rivaled that of every war we've ever had, directly following the then-most devastating war in history, amidst widespread famine, while the country was adjusting to a new economic system. Comparing the cultural shift that took place circa the 1960s in our society to the USSR in 1920 is beyond apples and oranges -- like comparing a gentle massage to electroshock treatment -- and it's no surprise that attempted drastic changes in social policy were failures. Frankly, it's a miracle that their social structure survived at all.
>>79267047
I still find it annoying for people to be proud of their virginity as if it makes them superior, but it sure as hell shouldn't make one a pariah. It should just be completely disregarded. Being married or not is a status that matters, but being a virgin (As if premarital sex is somehow better) isn't.
>>79267049
I don't believe in censoring God's "name", it reminds me too much of Judaism and I'm certain that that's the reason people do it. Jesus knows I love him
>>79267061
The idea that highly intelligent men think themselves out of heterosexuality is hilarious to me.
>>79267268
"Heterosexuality" is a bullshit term invented in the 20th century to make fornication and various other previously forbidden sex acts the norm for straight people .
Before that it was either reproductive sex or sodomy. not to say that couples never had sex for pleasure, but it was completely off-limits in decent discussion or media.
I believe the REAL deeper agenda behind the gay agenda is to corrupt STRAIGHT people into accepting hedonistic and unnatural sex as the norm. Not necessarily to make them gay.
>>79265502
I've actually not put terribly much thought into that. Thankfully Orwell wrote quite a bit outside of it, so I might be able to find something.
Granted, while Orwell was right about a number of things, I think he's a tad overrated in sociopolitical discussions.
I don't want to nitpick over stuff, but the most blatant "Orwell is wrong" example I can think of from the top of my head would be the fact that he completely misread "Gulliver's Travels" and wrote a literary criticism working off from a flawed premise (I believe he suggested that Swift thought the Houyhnhnms were Swift's "ideal society").
>>79265900
I get their complaints and sympathize with them a bit, but I disagree with their end goals.
They see feminism as the pendulum having swung too far in the favor of women, and seek to promote true egalitarianism. Now, that ranges from "fair" divorce laws, to changing cultural attitudes to be less demanding of men.
I don't really want egalitarianism, I want traditionalism. I'd rather see men be men, and women be women. On divorce, I'd like no-fault divorce repealed entirely.
In short: I agree with their complaints, not their solutions. I've no real ill will towards them, though, like I do MGTOW and PUAs.
>>79266005
Not anymore. Unfortunately, Academia has changed into a vehicle that (to a certain degree) allows class mobility.
I can understand the desire for celibate philosophers, although I'm personally split on it. Beyond philosophy I just don't see anything that's not "Career focused," at least regarding non-meme degrees. Even Mathematics has trended that way.
It would be effective at weeding out meme degree idiots, though, every day I lean more towards wanting to nationalize major state universities, and make them purely career focused. It won't happen, because the "nationalize college" crowd are overwhelmingly meme degree people, but it would, in my mind, be the ideal solution.
>>79267421
In the same way that modern food production is a corruptive influence by inserting way more sugar than is naturally occurring in all of its products (thereby completely changing how we perceive taste and the things we crave) I'd argue that sexual liberation has the same effect. Conditioned as we are to see sex as a ubiquity, our cultural expectations of it are at odds with our biological responses to it.
>>79266795
>advocating degeneracy
>Calling others degenerate
Enjoy your used goods.
>>79266788
nice dubs, but I hate to tell you. Social warfare, at least culturally is long overdue.
>>79267539
I was trying to rebut your statement that you believed it impossible that "intelligent men think themselves out of heterosexuality"
It's not about heterosexuality, it's about resisting the carnal entirely. Doesn't matter what the lust may be, there's countless examples of people who were celiabte.
>>79267758
I'm not disagreeing with you. It was just a funny idea to me.
>>79267799
There was an interesting discussion about trannies on /r9k/ last night.
One of the things I learned is there's two groups of them. One group are entirely fetishistic / porn addicted and their whole obsession is about submissive pleasures and essentially fucking themselves or attracting male attention. These are the ones who go on hormones but prefer keeping their dick.
But there's also a large group of trannies who are completely NON-sexual, they have little to no sex drive at all and their illness is a completely psychological delusion / alter persona. Basically it's related to autism or schizoid personality, and inability to have theory of mind. They must become something to understand it. This describes the trannies who tend to get sex changes at older ages and go through with the whole operation (like the Wachowskis )
>>79268069
The first one was described by a (now castigated, rejected) psychologist as "autogynophilia" I believe - and historically would just be dudes crossdressing, and at the extremes people like Elegabalus of Rome. People we call gay today, the vaguely feminine ones, are probably somewhere on that same spectrum.
The latter are truly batshit.
>>79259199
How big of a loser do you have to be to try and raid /pol/?
>>79268267
Not to mention that /pol/ is always being raided
>>79268267
>How big of a loser do you have to be to try and raid /pol/?
All you have to be is a SJW.
Anyway good thread. Sadly this is just confirming what most of us already know: Women who have multiple partners at some point in their life are used goods. They cannot stay committed because most of their life they have been hopping from dick to dick.
Yet if you try to tell leftists these truths they just call you a loser, a bigot, or god forbid a virgin. They are actively ignoring reality in order to subvert the west in order to push forward the notion that promiscuity = freedom. However in truth promiscuity = slavery. A slave to whom you might ask? A slave to primordial biological urges.
>>79268828
Problem is, they don't really care about society as a whole, they just want freedom for the sake of it, even if it means civilization will end in 100 years because of it.
They want this freedom with no consequences, it is a wishful ideology.
You can only pity the ones who can't see past their own nose, just like Hitler said.
>TFW 20 years old and you have never experienced intimacy and passionate love with a gf.
>TFW handholdless kissless virgin.
>>79266633
Because then you got the moral high ground while the whore will be still a whore.
They cant blame men then. Have to blame them self.
Women are to retardet and simpel mindet to understand that they should not spread there legs.
To hard to understand it and try its easiere to blame some one else.
Thats what lesser creatures do. That what women always where and are.
Since aeons they depicted as lesser beings. And thats only rigth to do.
>>79268828
Turning back to animals. Rule of the strongest.
Leftys are the true animals.
/pol is order
>>79268828
The whole point of civilization is to civilize
To tame men from being savages.
The chastity and commitement of women is key to this process.
without that men either refuse to work (mgtow) or they revert to the savage.
The horror show that is the black community in the US is the direct result of black marriage and black family taking a fucking nosedive starting in the 1960's (gee what happened at this time i wonder)
>>79259830
>Yes, you can, that’s specifically why I mention the USSR and its reversal of the Trotskyite Sexual Revolution.
I agree with almost every you've said OP, but using the Soviet Union as an example of "closing Pandora's Box" doesn't really apply to modern Liberal Democratic societies. The USSR was an authoritarian dictatorship. As such Stalin could quite easily declare a tax on bachelors and it would come into law without debate or discussion. Can you imagine such a thing happening in our two party system in which both parties would rather focus on short term power and profit than the well being of their nation? Also, you forgot to mention that Khrushchev reversed Stalin's ban on abortion after he seized power, thereby reversing a great deal of Stalin's conservatism.
>>79260571
>but we can convince the few guys that will listen to ONLY marry virgins
But how does one determine who is and is not a virgin? Women are extremely deceptive, especially in this day and age. Just look at the amount of money and time the average woman spends on makeup, and the percentage of women who have admitted to having affairs. Some women even have operations to sow up their hymen.
I'm seeing a lot of American flags in this thread. Have any of you thought of moving to an Eastern European country, or to Russia? These countries are still majority Christian and are the most traditional and conservative nations in the West at the moment. Women there have yet to be infected by feminism too. These nations aren't perfect (just look at Russia's HIV and abortion rates) but they're a damn sight better than the US.
>>79272593
> Russia
> majority Christian
> the most traditional
> conservative
> yet to be infected by feminism
Australia shitposting again, lol. Most people here, regardless of their gender, have 5+ partners by the time they graduate.
Seeing these threads never fails to send me into an existential crisis. When I was young and didn't understand women I wanted a virgin I could marry and one day have a family with. Now that I'm mature and have learned women, all of them have already either become sluts or fell for the pantsuit career woman meme. The ride doesn't stop, and its headed right for a cliff.
>>79274002
iktf
Good thread OP
should be screen capped for archival purposes
autism
>>79264866
Virgin shaming? Really kangaroo fucker? So now women who don't have sex until marriage are somehow broken?
Is this the daily designated turbovirgin general?
>>79260991
>I'm only attracted to women with experience.
This is part of the problem, you care more about cummies than your future family.
>>79277428
yeah apparently the default state of a woman is "boring", because being married automatically stops any sort of learning and experience gaining
that's the sort of shit our culture teaches us
>>79270159
Tfw I was younger I took 2 girls vcards in aus while studying there. Now I have nothing and no one. I'm sorry davo.
>>79259128
Who /kissless virgin/ here
>>79266633
>>79267047
Women hate us male virgins. It's an instant turn off. I've accepted I'll die a virgin, probably by my own hand.
>>79282432
I do hope you're kidding.
Getting laid is one of the easiest things in the world if you have some fucking balls and leave the house on a regular basis.
Informative, thank you OP.
I wasn't aware about the reversal by Stalin, is it the one and only example in History ? That even one precedent exist is a case for hope, though.
What's your take on the artificial womb and its potential impact on society ?
Do you think the rise of womanless societies likely ?
I personally think it is inevitable due to pic related.
I'd like your thoughts on gynoids ( artificial women/sexbots, androids with a female form and personality ) too.
>>79282866
No I'm not kidding, Fuck off normie. Try being ugly with no experience at 26 and unable to have conversations with people or look women in the eye, and nearly fainting from anxiety.
>>79283818
I'm not a "normie", unless that now means being synonymous with not being an omega-tier manlet.
You are afraid, and you will continue to be afraid as long as you continue to lock yourself away.
Get busy living, or get busy dying, but don't wallow in your own self-pity or complain about a problem you can fix.
>>79284057
I'll stick to self-hatred thanks. I'm not afraid, more apathetic.
>>79284403
If you're not afraid, then why is it that you can't have conversations or look people in the eye?
You're probably not apathetic. You're just using that as an excuse to hide your failings, just like the dumbasses I used to go to school with a decade ago who would say "I don't need to do well in school, I have ADD!"
>>79284933
I meant not afraid of an heroing. I am apathetic. I don't care about anything in the world any more, can't get pleasure from anything.
>>79286191
If that was actually the case you'd be on your way to dying from dehydration as you wouldn't even care about your physical needs. I assume that is not the case so I'll say this: that too will pass. If you at least make an effort to do something beyond vegetating in your own malaise it will slowly start getting better. It's going to take time and you will probably be the last person to notice it taking effect but it's either that or the eventual suicide which you might as well get on with.
>>79259128
Go die
