Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘sexual revolution’

Pervnado Is The End Of A Sexual Visigoth Holiday

Monday, December 4th, 2017

So why has “Pervnado” struck now? Andrea Peyser and Christine Emba both opine in the New York Post.

It seems odd that the New York Post has a monopoly on this story. NBC isn’t exactly excited to run exclusives on who has gotten bagged. CBS hasn’t covered itself with glory on this one either. Politicians such as Congressman John Conyers and Senator Al Franken, as well aspiring Senator Roy Moore, have all been accused of varying degrees of perverted and degrading sexual behavior. Even a perspective college football coach, Greg Schiano, can’t escape the destructive power of “Pervnado”. Again, why now?

The New York Post has run out two competing female perspectives on the story. Both ladies make some points, but I don’t feel think they’ve dug into this deeply enough. Peyser believes the #MeToo Movement has lost the willingness and ability to discern the difference between stupid, puerile mistakes and malicious male perversion. She posits this theory below.

My fear is that the pendulum will swing so wildly out of control, the fight against genuine sexually based offenses will be delegitimized as much ado about nothing. It makes me wince that comic Louis C.K., who admitted pleasuring himself in front of grossed-out females, is mentioned in the same breath as nonagenarian ex-President George H.W. Bush, accused of grabbing women’s backsides and telling a dirty joke. Wheelchair-bound at age 93 “his arm falls on the lower waist of people with whom he takes pictures,” said his spokesman, Jim McGrath. “To try to put people at ease, the president routinely tells the same joke — and on occasion, he has patted women’s rears in what he intended to be a good-natured manner.’’ He apologized.

Christine Emba, I think gets closer to truth than Mrs. Peyser. She tells us part of the problem is that people are no longer sure what is and is not harassment. That’s what happens when you try to split hair follicles over whether it is rape or, you know, rape-rape. Mrs Emba offers her perspective on it below.

This #MeToo paranoia isn’t all baseless. While some worries should rate only an eye roll, others highlight the precariously gray continuum from annoyance to harassment to assault. But it’s also true that these questions hold something in common. They gesture toward America’s prevailing and problematic sexual ethic — one that is in no small part responsible for getting us into this sexual misconduct mess in the first place. At the bottom of all this confusion sits a fundamental misframing: There’s some baseline amount of sex that we should be getting or at least should be allowed to pursue. Following from that is the assumption that the ability to pursue and satisfy our sexual desires — whether by hitting on that co-worker even if we’re at a professional lunch, or by pursuing a sexual encounter even when reciprocity is unclear — is paramount. At best, our sexual freedom should be circumscribed only by the boundary of consent. Any other obstacle is not to be borne.

When I attempt what I admit is biologically impossible, and try to see how the average human female would look at this, I can see why Christine Emba and any other reasonable woman would be both frightened and pissed off at me if I walked around town thinking I was entitled to “git me some” just for showing up with a functional penis. She, and most women that I’ve ever associated with or dated, place a certain value on their wombs and the privacy of their bodies that pretty much precludes every Tom, Rick or Harry from getting their quota of “notches,” much like Rolls-Royce and Ferrari do not make low-cost economy cars. This disconnect between what men feel is their due and what basic level of respect and dignity that women feel they deserve is a biological and sociological problem every human society has to figure out and solve. But again, even the true and accurate points these two women made have been both true and accurate since Sumerian hunter-gatherers pitched their tents and started alluvial farms along the Tigris-Euphrates Fertile Crescent. Why now, ma’am?

Squaring what I’ll call The Emba Circle has been accomplished different ways under different cultural or religious social hegemonies. It always involves a bunch of frustrated guys with achy blue balls or Rosy Palm Disease. It usually also involves a crowd of offended women who feel their dignity is affronted and their perspective is not valued in some sort of constraining courtship process. Compromises are like that. Nobody gets all the things they desire. Santa doesn’t exist and most of the poor kids aren’t getting a pony for Christmas. Except now, our society has rebelled against the unpleasant externalities of squaring The Emba Circle. We had The Sexual Revolution and deliberately threw our particular solution, however flawed it may have been, into the dumpster.

Having essentially chosen the Hugh Hefner ethos over an old, boring set of written and unwritten rules for determining who gets sexual access to whom, we now have the type of problems Andrea Peyser decribed in her piece about “Pervnado.” People aren’t very sure they even know what harassment is versus someone just having a predilection to be a socially awkward jerk or a bore. Let’s call it The Peyser Uncertainty Theory. The old rules have been destroyed and nirvana did not set in. What’s worse is that a lot of butt hurt people have no clue how to properly seek redress or even whether they really should. You don’t get due process when their isn’t a replicable, accepted and well-understood process anymore. When in doubt, you channel George Patton and attack. When enough people have had enough and attack simultaneously you get “Pervnado” and it feels like society has struck a really bad resonance frequency that may well cause a bridge or two to collapse.

So I think I’ve established what happened, and have offered a plausible theory as to why. But I haven’t yet put a bow-tie on an answer for the question why now? I can get close, but not completely close the sale. There just seemed to be a lot more cultural capital and more of everything. Now that stuff, whatever it may be, is running out.

Grievances hurt more when the cold wind blows and you feel a wee bit threadbare. When people don’t feel they are receiving justice, nothing seems like an accident and anyone you can get your hands on just flat-out has it coming to them. And that is just what will keep on happening until a new set of rules and ethics gets defined. The beatings will continue until a new law is conceived. Pervnado is the reaction against sexual anarchy and will rage on until order is restored.

Examining The Carnage Of The Sexual Revolution

Wednesday, November 22nd, 2017

Most stories about civilization decline begin with the phrase, “We were told,” as in, “We were told that the famine was the fault of the kings, and that the new regime would ensure that there was always plenty,” and then launch into a description of how human wishful thinking did not match reality much at all, leading to horrors. This is why all revolutions fail.

Revolutions, after all, are based on human conjecture about what might be true, and since we like the thought of that, what should be true, but they rely on the “excluded middles” — the points between extremes — filled out by all the other details that are not part of the explanation. Secondary effects, implications and unintended consequences spring up like demons.

As with all ideas, we ask ourselves whether the argument is for an actual purpose, or simply a pretext or rationalization designed to explain how people want to feel about life, instead of what they see as its actual parameters. Since most people seem discontented, and can reliably be counted on to blame others for their own failings, it looks more like justification than purposeful action.

The sexual revolution fits this pattern as well despite being a cultural change brought about by a loose coalition of Leftist believers instead of purely a State action. We were told that we could keep living as we had, but that this way, people would not face the consequences for relatively “innocent” behavior. Instead we got the utter destruction of the family.

While many blame the Pill, the broader move toward the sexual revolution was present even a century before when women’s rights advocates demanded the ability to have sex outside of marriage, and Bohemians back into the 1600s endorsed polyamory and extra-marital sex. With the 1940s, it became a possibility since women had jobs and were living alone in big anonymous cities.

As with all things Leftist, the goal of sexual liberation was to avoid having the individual lose rank for bad behavior, or otherwise be less included because of the consequences of her or his actions. But fifty plus years later, we can see that whatever intentions, desires, or fantasies were behind the sexual revolution, it ended in horrors.

First, the family has been replaced by the single mother, in emulation of third world patterns:

Since 1970, out-of-wedlock birth rates have soared. In 1965, 24 percent of black infants and 3.1 percent of white infants were born to single mothers. By 1990 the rates had risen to 64 percent for black infants, 18 percent for whites. Every year about one million more children are born into fatherless families.

In fact, this emulation has led to a decline in first world breeding habits, which not surprisingly will have dysgenic effect:

Over the same period the white out-of-wedlock birth ratio experienced yet faster growth- albeit from a lower-level-more then quintupling, from 3.1 percent to 18 percent.

Not surprising, many of these babies are unwanted, which led to a massive surge in abortions until checked by Republican laws making access more difficult:

In 2011, the U.S. abortion rate was 16.9 abortions per every 1,000 women aged 15 to 44, the lowest it’s been since abortion was legalized in 1973.

Between 2008 and 2010, 44 laws related to abortion were implemented in 18 states, according to the report. Most did not likely have an effect on the abortion rate, the study authors say, but a few may have. For example, a new law in Missouri that requires a woman to attend an in-person counseling session 24 hours before an abortion may have attributed to the state’s 17% decline.

Until the 1960s, abortion — the disposal of unwanted children who were mostly produced by casual sex — was relatively unknown in America, where now it is a commonplace event.

At the same time, while teen pregnancy has slowed of late, it has risen massively since the 1940s, resulting in its creation as a fixture of our social landscape:

Fewer babies were born to teenagers in 2010 than in any year since 1946.

How does this shatter the family? In addition to the replacement of the family with the single-parent home, those who have more sex are the least likely to form lifelong bonds, meaning that they may reproduce, but will then end up alone and possibly with their children in one-parent homes or the dreaded parent plus significant other unstable relationship which seems to often end in molestation or violence:

‘The highest five-year divorce rates of all are associated with marrying in the 2000s and having 10 or more premarital sex partners: 33 percent,’ he wrote in the report.

And women who were virgins on their wedding night were the least likely to get divorced, according to the study.

It is not surprising, then, that fewer people are getting married and are doing so later in life:

According to census data cited in the report, barely half of adults ages 18 and older are married — 51% in 2010, compared with 72% in 1960. This decline is especially notable for young adults: 20% of 18- to 29-year-olds were married in 2010, compared with 59% in 1960.

…In 2011, the median age at first marriage is an estimated 28.7 for men and 26.5 for women. That means half of men don’t marry until at least about age 29, and half of women don’t marry until at least about age 27. In 1960, the median age at first marriage for both men and women was in the early 20s.

…Although 39% of Americans say they agree that marriage is becoming obsolete, most people who have never married say they would like to marry someday (including many who agree that marriage is becoming obsolete).

This is why divorce rates are falling:

The divorce surge is over. (Or most people believe it is: this paper offers an alternate take.) In truth, the rise in divorce has been over for 20 years. Divorce rates peaked in the early 1980s when Ronald Reagan was president and the Internet was only a mite in the eye of wierdos hanging out in California garages.

…The younger generation, whether they know divorce is declining or not, believes that marriage is on the rocks. From their vantage point, they’re right. While fewer American adults have been divorcing over the past decades, a growing number of people in their own cohort have grown up apart from one parent, almost always their fathers.

…How can divorce be declining but at the same time more children growing up with single parents? Because—and this is the story that Miller underplays—so many parents never marry in the first place. A little history is in order here: When divorce rates skyrocketed in the 1970s, American were not simply suddenly looking at their spouses and deciding en masse that they couldn’t take it anymore. They were reacting to a changing understanding about what marriage meant. Instead of an arrangement largely centered around providing for and rearing the next generation, it was becoming an adult-centric union based on love and shared happiness, which as an upper middle class grew in size, became closely linked to granite countered kitchens, European and spa vacations, and weddings with 200 guests.

…If marriage and childbearing were no longer tightly linked but rather discreet—even unrelated—life events, and if they were not earning enough to enjoy the middle class status objects enjoyed by their more educated peers, then why marry at all? Why not just have kids without getting married?

This fits with the data about children being born out of wedlock. The Left replaced the family with the individual, part of a process called “atomization” which separates society into individual and State, and so now people simply reproduce, then abandon those children to day care, public schools, and jobs, and only wonder about whether this was a good idea when they get dropped off at nursing homes and abandoned.

As it becomes clear that the new Leftist method leads to misery, people are waiting out the casual sex carousel and finding family-oriented partners with whom to reproduce, but this does not offer the bond of affection and trust that the family did back when we had those.

The carnage of the sexual revolution is just beginning to reveal itself. The “Greatest Generation” experienced the first of it, the Baby Boomers lived it, and Generation X reacted to it, with the lockstep ideologues indoctrinated at public schools from the millennials embracing it as long as it was “safe sex,” but Generation Z finds itself looking back over the carnage and wanting away. It will take another few generations for us to see secondary effects such as lower transfer of social capital, greater neurosis, inability to attach, alienation, and other effects on kids who lack the benefits of a stable, family-oriented home situation.

Perhaps the sexual revolution will then be known as just another revolution: a fantasy, applied with violence, that destroyed its host and left behind a wandering, cultureless, and isolated herd of individuals who could not recall a life before everything became grey and meaningless.

Did Technology Destroy Society, Or Leftist Social Changes?

Thursday, November 16th, 2017

Frequently people argue that our society was just chugging along fine until technology came along and destroyed us. This proves to be a clever way of letting us off the hook for our bad decisions, and joins bias against the Rich,™ anti-Semitism and blaming climate change as a variety of scapegoating.

Scapegoating technology is convenient because it guarantees that nothing will ever be done. We benefit greatly from technology, so asking us to drop it all and move to mud huts is something few want to do, not to mention the geopolitical reality that any society which does so will be invaded and conquered by those who did not drop their tech.

If we are honest, we will place the blame where it belongs, which is in the thread of individualism running from The Renaissance™ through The Enlightenment™ and finally getting voice with the French Revolution, in parallel to the events in ancient Athens that ushered that formerly-promising civilization into the dustbin of history.

We can see this rationalization present in a discussion of the sexual revolution and the negative impact it has had:

My own research points to a more straightforward and primal explanation for the slowed pace toward marriage: For American men, sex has become rather cheap. As compared to the past, many women today expect little in return for sex, in terms of time, attention, commitment or fidelity. Men, in turn, do not feel compelled to supply these goods as they once did. It is the new sexual norm for Americans, men and women alike, of every age.

This transformation was driven in part by birth control. Its widespread adoption by women in recent decades not only boosted their educational and economic fortunes but also reduced their dependence on men. As the risk of pregnancy radically declined, sex shed many of the social and personal costs that once encouraged women to wait.

These forces have been at work for more than a half-century, since the birth-control pill was invented in 1960, but it seems that our norms and narratives about sexual relationships have finally caught up with the technology. Data collected in 2014 for the “Relationships in America” project—a national survey of over 15,000 adults, ages 18 to 60, that I oversaw for the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture—asked respondents when they first had sex in their current or most recent relationship. After six months of dating? After two? The most common experience—reported by 32% of men under 40—was having sex with their current partner before the relationship had begun. This is sooner than most women we interviewed would prefer.

It is always easier to blame something external like the birth control pill, but the grim fact is that sexual liberation had already been increasing for over a century thanks to earlier forms of condoms, diaphragms and other more complicated but still reasonably effective means of birth control, and that this was part of a larger movement of female liberation from traditional roles that included the ability to vote, own property, and most importantly, to have jobs.

A woman with a job is no longer dependent on moving from the house of her parents to that of her spouse. She can get herself an apartment in the city, where she is anonymous, and behave however she wants, knowing that it will not be remembered when it comes time to get a spouse. She can lie about her sexual past, and then have the best of both worlds: she can have her fun and get married later, a sort of sexual Pascal’s Wager.

The so-called “good news” that divorces are declining conceals the fact that the main reason for this is that fewer people are getting married. Courts favor the woman, and so for a man, there is nothing but risk. He knows instinctively that women who have more sex are less likely to form lasting bonds, and she can easily get a job and move out, so he will be left paying alimony and child support while she goes on to have more sexual liaisons. For a man, the only winning strategy is not to play, unless he is fortunate enough to find a traditional woman.

Her job quickly becomes the most important thing in her life because it is a lifeline which has replaced her parents and any future family she might start. With the job, she has money, so she can have an apartment and live on her own, a bold and independent woman! Interestingly, the world wars contributed the most to this mentality, because for the first time many women were working.

The job appeals to the narrative of personal power that modern people adore. In an age of individualism, nothing is more important than making choices that reflect your personality and interests. For women, this makes them more powerful than men, because they control access to reproduction, and therefore, have men dependent on them. This is why they keep these jobs even after marriage, despite having to shove the kids into daycare and then school days crammed with make-work.

But like the other Leftist social changes, it takes decades for the effects to shake out, but now we see that women having jobs results in mental instability for their children, a cost passed on to society that lessens the chance of that child, in turn, having a family:

Ms. Komisar’s interest in early childhood development grew out of her three decades’ experience treating families, first as a clinical social worker and later as an analyst. “What I was seeing was an increase in children being diagnosed with ADHD and an increase in aggression in children, particularly in little boys, and an increase in depression in little girls.” More youngsters were also being diagnosed with “social disorders” whose symptoms resembled those of autism—“having difficulty relating to other children, having difficulty with empathy.”

As Ms. Komisar “started to put the pieces together,” she found that “the absence of mothers in children’s lives on a daily basis was what I saw to be one of the triggers for these mental disorders.” She began to devour the scientific literature and found that it reinforced her intuition.

When we replace the family with the workplace, children suffer from neglect and an enduring sense of being unwanted. This in turn makes them more likely to carry their mental instability into society and pass it on to any children that they may have.

We could try to blame this on technology, but like many things, it is a symptom or an enabler, but not the cause. As individualism has risen, the individual has become more important than the evident mathematics or nature, called “natural law,” or social and cultural values. At the same time, cities and social mobility have made people more anonymous, with their bad acts forgotten.

This creates a “tragedy of the commons” where people rush to exploit what society offers, knowing that there are no consequences to them personally. From this comes the condition that, as the saying goes, we cannot have nice things. With the rise of individualism worldwide, this can be seen in non-Western societies:

In China, where there are some 16 million shared bikes on the street and MoBike alone now has over a million, the authorities have been forced to clear up ziggurats of discarded bikes. Residents of Hangzhou became so irritated by bikes lazily dumped by riders, and reportedly sabotaged by angry cab drivers, that the authorities were forced to round up 23,000 bikes and dump them in 16 corrals around the city.

“There’s no sense of decency any more,” one Beijing resident recently told the New York Times after finding a bike ditched in a bush outside his home. “We treat each other like enemies.”

We either have social order, or we have equality, which guarantees individualism by separating the individual from the consequences of his actions against the larger social, natural and cultural order. Technology simply accelerates the power of the individual and the anonymity, allowing this to spread any further.

If we want civilization back, and now that globalism has failed and with it cast doubt on Leftism and democracy, we will find the necessity of unraveling individualism and replacing it with a sense of obligation to nature, social order, culture and heritage. We have seen the other possible direction, and it leads to horrors and misery.

Princess

Friday, July 19th, 2013

your_little_princessI ask all young men to indulge in a thought experiment.

Assume for the sake of argument that your life goes really well. You find a career you totally enjoy, meet a woman who floors you and isn’t a passive aggressive parasite like most people, get a killer house in a perfect subdivision, and find a way to practice your hobby in such a way that makes you world-renowned. You’re set, and living the good life.

I know you have doubts about this happening, but everyone does, especially those that it happens to. So you know it’s possible and despite your negativity, which is really your way of defending your lifestyle against the possibility of something that resembles (yuk, spit) “growing up,” you have to admit this could happen.

Say it’s ten or fifteen years in the future.

Somewhere in there, you and the little lady got busy, and had two perfect children. A girl and a boy, both beautiful and intelligent. You love your kids more than anything, and you never thought you’d say this, but you’d rather see your X-Box, record collection, and stash of rare baseball cards go up in smoke than see something bad happen to either one. Even a little something.

Let’s say your daughter is eleven. She is 1.5 years away from menstruation, if she’s an average girl. She is 5.3 years away from her first sexual experience, on average. But that’s not to say it won’t happen sooner. You’ve got a full life, and sometimes the months and years zoom by. Are you ready to even think about this?

The real question upon you is not whether you can ignore it or not. It’s what steps you’re going to take to make it work out for the best. And that requires another question, and this one is a real doozy:

What type of sexual experience do you want your daughter to have?

And as a corollary, what kind of life experience do you want her to have? And what about your son?

People — especially drunk people at college parties — like to pitch to you the idea that all lifestyles are different and there’s no real order to them. It’s just whatever you want. In the adult world, however, the rankings are clearer. Everybody wants to be somebody. Who is that? The divorced career woman? The sexy swinging single? Or what everyone seems to work for, which is the nuclear family with stability and love?

Everything fits into a new context when it’s your kid. When do you want her to have her first anal gangbang? Your princess, penetrated by many penises. What about her first bukkake? Her first one-night sexual encounter with some guy whose name she forgets by morning? Her first anonymous blowjob at a blindfold party? What about her first three-way, and double penetration?

Your little princess. What kind of future do you want for her?

You can hide beyond, “Whatever she chooses, they’re all equal,” for only so long. At some point you realize there’s a number line between the drunk cocktail waitress aging without grace and taking home whatever man she can grab, and the nuclear family with a loving husband and stability and kindness.

But of course, you don’t get that outcome by sleeping around. In fact, you’re mostly likely to get it by being the 31% of American women who have only one sex partner in their lives. When you haven’t experienced others, you hold nothing over your husband or wife. You give it all to them. There is trust and love uninterrupted by fear and cynicism.

The scary thing is that we all know this underneath our cynical outer selves. Inwardly, we long for the fairy tale. The two people without cynicism who meet each other, fall in love, and have a life-long love affair based on selflessness. The happy family, united in belief in each other and uncritical adoration. The people who escape the negative experiences that some thing make them seem worldly and edgy.

You know what you want for your little princess. You’re afraid to say it because it will break a social taboo. But no, all choices are not equal. And you know what you wouldn’t want her to experience, which in turn implies what you hope will happen to her.

Now look at the women around you. Each one of them is someone’s princess. Unless you’re a sociopath, you don’t want bad things to happen to them either. Does this change how you view women, and perhaps, yourself?

Destroying gently

Saturday, April 13th, 2013

gentle_destroyersMost people fear destruction because it involves that roll of the dice called combat. When you step into that ring, you can lose. The other guy can be better or stronger. Or fate can deal a blow.

Somewhere between stupid and intelligent is a zone reserved for people who are clever. They are not intelligent enough to be creative and constructive, but they are smart enough to be manipulative. They specialized in using the goodwill of others to deceive them.

Their greatest deception is pacifism. There are no real pacifists. If someone truly wanted to avoid conflict, they would simply detach. If they want to achieve their ends without the possibility of losing, they become pacifists. That means they work through passive means.

Such people specialize in gentle destruction. Their goal is destruction; they choose soft, gentle, passive, non-threatening means to do it. This means they attack from the details, and don’t go for the main point. Again, they are smart enough to be manipulative but not creative.

Of all their weapons, the most powerful is separation. They separate the multiple results of an act from each other. They separate an act from its consequences. They insist on dividing up time, so we don’t see how things actually work out, only the intermediate step where things aren’t so bad after all.

When sexual liberation came about, it was offered to us through separation. We can remove sex from its role in love and the family, they said. It will bring pleasure to many. There are no consequences; people will be the same, everything will be fine.

And five years later they were declaring victory, trotting out studies that showed things were improved, claiming that “science” proved the legitimacy of their viewpoint, etc. All were lies and remain lies.

The separation of sex from family destroyed the family, and left generations of shell-shocked zombies who believe in their inarticulate hearts that their divorced parents never loved them, and that their existence was purposeless.

Sexual liberation made men and women antagonists, ensured that almost all relationships fail, and encouraged people to hook up at random and then settle for lower options. It has produced a non-stop flow of collateral damage, none of which has been acknowledged by its creators.

Recent research puts another nail in the coffin of sexual liberation. It turns out that being on the Pill does create changes in how women think. Specifically, they stop wanting masculine men, and start looking for more feminine ones. Hormones are powerful stuff as it turns out.

By accepting sexual liberation, and birth control, we did more than just be gentle to our own impulses. We wired ourselves for self-destruction. Perhaps that was the intent of the enemy all along which so hated the family it wanted to use our desire for sexual pleasure to ruin it.

More likely it reflects one of life’s greatest ironies, which is what happens to the pacifist. Unable to act from fear of reprisal, the pacifist becomes an embittered and negative person, sniping after the fact and attempting to sabotage what he could not intervene to stop. The life of a pacifist is entirely after-the-fact regrets.

If we learn a lesson from birth control pills, other than that they’re a good way to make your daughter whore herself for emasculated idiots and finally end up with one that she can later divorce, it’s that those who destroy gently are not gentle. They are parasites and predators both, and their mission is to destroy.

The sexual revolution has died

Monday, April 16th, 2012

Where morality tries to construe life as a series of binary yes-no decisions, in fact life more resembles a spectral decision tree. Beyond a minimum, each decision is a matter of picking things that are better over things that are less better.

This is the nature of a relativistic universe. With only one option, you accept it. When someone better appears, or you can imagine it, that second option makes the first look worse. When you have a dozen options, and better/worse becomes a question of several factors and not just one, complexity results.

Take for example the age-old American practice of buying a car. There is no single determiner of what you should do. There are important factors: efficiency, roominess, frequency of repair, whether you trust the manufacturer. Any one of these vectors can become the basis for your decision.

When we look at the sexual revolution, we’re going to have a yes-no binary decision thrust at us. The basis of that decision is morality, which is extended to guilt on the basis of “equal treatment” and equal validity. Either you are with the program that makes people happy, or you should feel guilty.

What’s killing the sexual revolution is that life is (as mentioned above) not a question of binaries. It’s about a spectrum. When people see that on that spectrum an option exists which they find more palatable than the sexual revolution, they reach for it.

In modern life, we are used to many decisions made on the basis of perceived quality. Buy the network card that uses the Atheros chipset, not the Broadcomm one. Buy a Mercedes, not a Hyundai. Buy the organic mangoes, instead of the ordinary humdrum chemicular ones, and get the smaller and denser mangoes in that group.

For people who intend to have full lives, the choice of lifestyle is similar. Dating is OK; marriage is better, once you’re out of college. If you’re going to marry, what’s the way you get the best quality marriage?

Couples who cohabit before marriage (and especially before an engagement or an otherwise clear commitment) tend to be less satisfied with their marriages — and more likely to divorce — than couples who do not. These negative outcomes are called the cohabitation effect.

Researchers originally attributed the cohabitation effect to selection, or the idea that cohabitors were less conventional about marriage and thus more open to divorce. As cohabitation has become a norm, however, studies have shown that the effect is not entirely explained by individual characteristics like religion, education or politics. Research suggests that at least some of the risks may lie in cohabitation itself. – “The Downside of Cohabiting Before Marriage,” by Meg Jay, The New York Times, April 14 2012

One answer here is traditional roles. Men court women; they do not “date.” When they find one they like, they ask for exclusivity. What follows are social engagements scripted to reveal the couple’s aptitude for one another. Eventually, there’s a formal request to a paternal figure for approval.

When the marriage is consummated, each partner is given an exclusive and complementary role. Women rule the house; men rule the workplace. In exchange for her harder job with longer hours, the woman is given more flexibility of time and less oversight. Trust is essential.

The rules of traditional marriage were not made-up arbitrary voodoo that we pulled out of thin air. They are designed to build the trust that can allow two people to rely on each other. They don’t always work, but then again, nothing always works.

They work better, however, than the sexual revolution and its try-before-buy low commitment ambiguous relationships. What has killed the sexual revolution is the small but increasing faction of Americans and Europeans who are choosing tradition over modernity because tradition simply works better.

Feminism promised to liberate women and make a better society. It demanded two things: first, equality for women; second, sexual liberation so that women did not have to feel “constrained” by social roles that emphasized chastity.

The first, equality of women, gave them new rights but also made them equal interchangeable parts on the production line. Without a sacred role, they are unable to achieve more than moderate approval through work, but at the expense of having a family which they also have time to appreciate.

The second, sexual liberation, reduces women to sexual objects. They are then traded around, and those foolish enough to rack up the miles and lose value become the embittered perpetual singletons with checkered histories and emotional baggage by the mile.

A new group is rising. This group has stopped trying to play the binary shell game of “equal/un-equal.” They have chosen inequality that has in its stead complementary roles, where women and men are not parts in a machine that consumes them. – “Feminism is Doomed,” by Brett Stevens, In Mala Fide, April 11 2012

Feminism (a sub-set of liberalism) is a moral dogma. It is external to the individual and formed of a standard of behavior encoded in yes-no decisions. It is based on guilt for the inherent inequality of life itself.

It won the battle in that when presented with guilt questions, especially in a public setting, people tend to go with the “safe” option. Of course everyone is equal; let everyone do whatever they want, and they’ll be happy, and we won’t have riots or violent revolutions.

But when that focus is removed, and people are instead forced to consider the question of what will make them happy in the long-term, the guilt loses its value. It takes a few generations, but people stop caring about the moral answer.

What they care about, as always, is a better quality of life. A better quality of belief system, perhaps one that does not require the overhead of an external ideology of feminism. A mode of behaving in which our innocent young boys and girls have an equally innocent and delightful future awaiting them.

The sexual revolution has died. This awareness hasn’t yet fully impacted the mainstream, but it’s coming. Like all waves, it starts with a drop. When it hits, many of the people who are currently in positions of authority will find themselves removed. Such is the nature of change.

Sexual liberation enslaves

Tuesday, October 18th, 2011

When I was a kid, I was baffled by the big colorful advertisements that told us about wonderful free things. Come on in and get a toaster, free — kids eat free — or even a free toy at the bottom of the box. Free TV shows, free contests, free prizes.

Through some prodding by a parent and a little independent thinking, it soon dawned on me that none of these things were free. They were inducements, and I had to make a purchase or spend a whole bunch of time doing dumb stuff to get them. And even then, there was no guarantee.

Since then, I’ve thought a lot about “free.” Nothing occurs without a primary cause except perhaps the universe itself; every thing that you might give away free had to be created. As a result, there must be some kind of trade.

Often however you have to wait decades to see what the price is:

Today I am 39, with too many ex-boyfriends to count and, I am told, two grim-seeming options to face down: either stay single or settle for a “good enough” mate. At this point, certainly, falling in love and getting married may be less a matter of choice than a stroke of wild great luck. A decade ago, luck didn’t even cross my mind. I’d been in love before, and I’d be in love again. This wasn’t hubris so much as naïveté; I’d had serious, long-term boyfriends since my freshman year of high school, and simply couldn’t envision my life any differently.

Well, there was a lot I didn’t know 10 years ago. The decision to end a stable relationship for abstract rather than concrete reasons (“something was missing”), I see now, is in keeping with a post-Boomer ideology that values emotional fulfillment above all else. And the elevation of independence over coupling (“I wasn’t ready to settle down”) is a second-wave feminist idea I’d acquired from my mother, who had embraced it, in part, I suspect, to correct for her own choices. – The Atlantic

Liberation is slavery if by being “free” you are being cut off from something you need, in exchange for something you do not. Sexual liberation benefited commerce, and the women and men who thought they got something “free” in fact simply switched obligations.

Instead of owing their time to family and a community, as “free” women they became products. Commerce thrived because suddenly the labor pool was twice as big, and lonely women spend long hours at the office. Because they are perpetually single, they also need grooming products and personal items for many more years than before.

In fact, everyone profits. The doctors get to capitalize on a new spate of sexual diseases. Psychologists get fat on the payments from lonely women. Twice as many apartments are rented, twice as many cars sold, twice as many tickets paid, more clothes and other items bought! It’s a free-for-all… for the sellers and employers.

For individuals, not so much. Instead of moving into comfortable families and having a sacred role, women view the family as slavery and so end up working office jobs their whole lives, never having a stable family, and if they do reproduce, creating alienated, distrustful and scornful children.

By abandoning our biological roles, which arose out of millions of years of evolution and are thus the products of more thought than all the people alive today can complete in a lifetime, we have “freed” ourselves from what we want, which is what is a sensible way to live.

Instead, we settle for the convenient and are worse off for it:

New research out of the U.K. says women who met their partners while on the pill are less sexually satisfied.

For the study – published in the Oct. 12 issue of Proceedings of the Royal Society B – researchers surveyed 2,500 heterosexual women with one child. The researchers asked the women about their relationship with their child’s biological father. About 1,000 of the women were taking the pill, while 1500 used no form of hormonal contraception.

The study found that women who took the pill were less sexually satisfied, found their partners less attractive, and were more likely to be the one to initiate an eventual separation. – CBS

Hormonally compromised women are “free” from biology, but they forget biology exists because it is logical, and that institutions like marriage have evolved over thousands of years to find the best possible way of dealing with the need to reproduce.

When we muck around with this, we produce people who are cut loose from purpose. That is the ultimate “free”dom; to have no purpose, and thus no “right” or “wrong.” Since there is no goal, you cannot fail to achieve the goal, and even more, you can get to a result and then claim that it was always the goal.

Freedom, or destruction of your purpose, resembles what a parasite does when it makes you ill or takes over your brain. It re-wires your purpose to its purpose, and then you do its bidding. You are now its slave, especially if it introduces slavery by calling it free, freedom or liberation.

People are easy to manipulate. First, you put an image into their heads and make it enticing. Start with: the struggles you engage in now and the losses you now take are not necessary. There is a way where you can have what you want without having to risk/work for it. Then tie your product to that.

In the case of sexual liberation, this required portraying marriage as miserable, men as awful, and child-rearing as a giant bother. Instead, be paranoid about death and in a panic, spend all of your life on yourself alone. But then the body and mind become a prison when you realize that without connection to something larger, such a life is meaningless.

Maybe marriage, fidelity, love, chastity and family-centric living had a purpose after all!

[It] seems like heterosexual monogamy really does form a much better basis for a functioning and equal society than soft polygamy or nullogamy, the system that ironically managed to stomp down the black America far worse than even the Klan ever could. This even for women, who the latter systems allow sexual access to alpha males, at least for a short time. However, these systems are simply not self-supporting, but require the generous welfare state that serves as a non-judgmental beta provider boyfriend for most women. And as everyone should know from the news, these days all welfare states are quickly running out of other people’s money. – The Fourth Checkraise

The end result of sexual liberation is that we turn marriage from being a safe harbor and comfort into an adversarial relationship. You know your spouse screwed around before you; you did the same. Why extend fidelity? It’s just a prison. That is, until it happens to you.

Yet if the French aren’t cheating more than others, they do seem more tolerant. 53 percent of those questioned by Gleeden said it was possible to cheat on your partner while still loving them, the highest rate for all countries.

{snip}

“With his wife he has projects of bringing up children, buying a house, creating a life. With an attraction to another young woman it’s not the same thing.” – The Local

So, researchers… is that why all those marriages are ending in divorce? Is that way people are still manic for love, and not finding it? By the way, commerce is doing just fine. And even in the progressive-enlightened-Utopia of sexual liberation, all is not well:

Still, in France’s macho society there remains a big difference between what men and women can get away with.

“French culture is hard on women who cheat,” says Vaillant. “The husband of a woman who cheats is ridiculed, even today.”

There’s a common sense underlying marriage and fidelity which we cannot quite dispense with. Instead we straddle the fence, and our balls hurt.

Recommended Reading