The Proposal by Sir Alma Tadema, 1892
A few days ago I finished studying Sex and Culture for the second time. It is a remarkable book summarizing a lifetime of research by Oxford social anthropologist J.D. Unwin.[1] The 600+ page book is, in Unwin's words, only a "summary" of his research โ seven volumes would be required to lay it all out.[2] His writings suggest he was a rationalist, believing that science is our ultimate tool of inquiry (it appears he was not a religious man). As I went through what he found, I was repeatedly reminded of the thought I had as a philosophy student: some moral laws may be designed to minimize human suffering and maximize human flourishing long term.
Unwin examines the data from 86 societies and civilizations to see if there is a relationship between sexual freedom and the flourishing of cultures. What makes the book especially interesting is that we in the West underwent a sexual revolution in the late 1960's, 70's, and 80's and are now in a position to test the conclusions he arrived at more than 40 years earlier.
Unwin's cultural categories
Unwin described four "great patterns of human culture" and degrees of flourishing measured in terms of architecture, art, engineering, literature, agriculture, and so forth. The primary criterion for classification was how they related to the natural world and the forces it contains.[3]
- zoistic: Entirely self-focused on day-to day-life, wants, and needs, with no interest in understanding nature. Described as a "dead culture" or "inert".
- monistic: Acquire superstitious beliefs and/or special treatment of the dead to cope with the natural world.
- deistic: Attribute the powers of nature to a god or gods
- rationalistic: Use rational thinking to understand nature and to make day-to-day decisions.
Degrees of sexual restraint were divided into two major categories โ prenuptial and postnuptial. Prenuptial categories were:[4]
- Complete sexual freedom โ no prenuptial restraints at all
- Irregular or occasional restraint โ cultural regulations require an occasional period of abstinence
- Strict Chastity โ remain a virgin until married
- Modified monogamy: one spouse at a time, but association can be terminated by either party.
- Modified polygamy: men can have more than one wife, but a wife is free to leave her husband.
- Absolute monogamy: only one spouse permitted for life (or until death in some cultures)
- Absolute polygamy: men can have more than one wife, but wives must "confine their sexual qualities (i.e., activity) to their husband for the whole of their lives."
I have prepared a 26-page collection of quotes from his book that summarize his findings; but even that would leave you with a significant under-appreciation of the rigour and fascinating details revealed in data from 86 cultures. Here are a few of his most significant findings:
- Effect of sexual constraints: Increased sexual constraints, either pre or post-nuptial, always led to increased flourishing of a culture. Conversely, increased sexual freedom always led to the collapse of a culture three generations later.
- Single most influential factor: Surprisingly, the data revealed that the single most important correlation with the flourishing of a culture was whether pre-nuptial chastity was required or not. It had a very significant effect either way.
- Highest flourishing of culture: The most powerful combination was pre-nuptial chastity coupled with "absolute monogamy". Rationalist cultures that retained this combination for at least three generations exceeded all other cultures in every area, including literature, art, science, furniture, architecture, engineering, and agriculture. Only three out of the eighty-six cultures studied ever attained this level.
- Effect of abandoning prenuptial chastity: When strict prenuptial chastity was no longer the norm, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking also disappeared within three generations.
- Total sexual freedom: If total sexual freedom was embraced by a culture, that culture collapsed within three generations to the lowest state of flourishing โ which Unwin describes as "inert" and at a "dead level of conception" and is characterized by people who have little interest in much else other than their own wants and needs. At this level, the culture is usually conquered or taken over by another culture with greater social energy.
- Time lag: If there is a change in sexual constraints, either increased or decreased restraints, the full effect of that change is not realized until the third generation.(Note: I've added a clarifying footnote at the end of this article. See footnote #13)
Unwin published his findings in 1936, long before the sexual revolution that occurred in the West. We now have an opportunity to test his conclusions by observing if our own culture is following the predicted pattern. Unwin's "generation" appears to be approximately 33 years, so it should take about a century for us to see the cultural changes take full effect, but we are far enough along in the process that we should be able to observe certain predicted effects.
Prior to the sexual revolution which began in the late 1960's, prenuptial chastity was still held in strong regard by Western culture. But, starting in the 1970's, pre-marital sexual freedom became increasingly acceptable. By the early 2000's, the majority of teens were sexually active, to the extent that remaining a virgin until marriage was regarded with disbelief if not ridicule. At the same time, our culture moved from a social norm of absolute monogamy to "modified monogamy".
Unwin's predictions for our culture
Thanks to the rationalist generations that preceded them, the first generation of a society setting aside its sexual restraints can still enjoy its new-found sexual freedom before any significant decline in culture, but the data shows that this "having your cake and eating it too" phase lasts a maximum of one generation before the decline sets in. Unwin wrote:
The history of these societies consists of a series of monotonous repetitions; and it is difficult to decide which aspect of the story is the more significant: the lamentable lack of original thought which in each case the reformers displayed, or the amazing alacrity with which, after a period of intense compulsory continence (sexual restraint), the human organism seizes the earliest opportunity to satisfy its innate desires in a direct or perverted manner. Sometimes a man has been heard to declare that he wishes both to enjoy the advantages of high culture and to abolish compulsory continence. The inherent nature of the human organism, however, seems to be such that these desires are incompatible, even contradictory. The reformer may be likened to the foolish boy who desires both to keep his cake and to consume it. Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom; the evidence is that it cannot do both for more than one generation.[6]Looking at our own sexual revolution, the "having your cake and eating it too" phase would have lasted into the early 2000's. We are now at a stage where we should begin to observe the verification or falsification of Unwin's predictions.
Unwin found that when strict prenuptial chastity was abandoned, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking disappeared within three generations of the change in sexual freedom. So how are we doing as we enter the second generation since our own sexual revolution at the end of the 20th century?
- As predicted, absolute monogamy has already been replaced with modified monogamy. Common-law relationships are becoming the norm. Although divorce occurred prior to the 1970's, the mainstream of our culture still maintained the view that marriage should be for life, and common-law relationships were regarded with some distaste. That has clearly changed. Those who actually practice life-long commitments in marriage have become the minority, with couples born prior to the sexual revolution much more likely to maintain a life-long commitment in marriage.
- Deism is already rapidly declining, exactly as predicted. Prior to the 1960's, a combination of rationalism and a belief in God was the norm for mainstream culture. Not only has belief in God greatly decreased since the 1960's, but there has been a trend to remove the concept of God from government, the educational system, and the public forum. Those who still believe in God sense a strong societal pressure to keep deistic beliefs private. In its place, is a surprising rise in superstition,[7] classified by Unwin as a "monistic" culture, two levels down from the rationalist culture we had prior to the sexual revolution. There has also been a huge increase in the percentage of the population that classifies itself as non-religious, a symptom of the lowest, "zoistic" level of Unwin's categories.[8]
- The swiftness with which rational thinking declined after the 1970's is astounding. In its place arose post-modernism, characterized by "scepticism, subjectivism, or relativism" and "a general suspicion of reason".[9] But it gets worse ... post-modernism is giving way to "post truth". In direct contrast to rational thinking, a post-truth culture abandons "shared objective standards for truth" and instead, stands on appeals to feelings and emotions, and what one wants to believe.[10] People can now "identify" themselves as something which flat-out contradicts science and rational thinking and, in many cases, receive the full support and backing of governments and educational systems. Not only do people feel they have a right to believe what they want, but any challenge to that belief, even if supported by truth and logic, is unacceptable and offensive. Here is a quote from Unwin that has become particularly a propos in the last couple decades since our own sexual revolution ...
If I were asked to define a sophist, I should describe him as a man whose conclusion does not follow from his premise. Sophistry is appreciated only by those among whom human entropy is disappearing; they mistake it for sound reasoning. It flourishes among those people who have extended their sexual opportunity after a period of intense compulsory continence. [11]Summary of where our culture is going, given Unwin's findings
For the first part of the 1900's, mainstream Western culture was rationalist and experienced enormous technological advances โ from horse-and-buggy to cars; from hot air balloons to supersonic flight and spacecraft landing people on the moon; from slide rules to computers. Unwin's three main predictions โ the abandonment of rationalism, deism, and absolute monogamy โ are all well underway, which makes the ultimate prediction appear to be credible ... the collapse of Western civilization in the third generation, somewhere in the last third of this century.
Unwin's three main predictions โ the abandonment of rationalism, deism, and absolute monogamy โ are all well underway, which makes the ultimate prediction appear to be credible ... the collapse of Western civilization in the third generationWill our culture be the exception?
I suppose we can hope, but there is always a tendency to want to believe "it cannot happen to us." Unwin describes this attitude as a "pardonable egocentricity" and a "quaint and comfortable doctrine", that flies in the face of data, which indicate that the pattern of decline happens with "monotonous" regularity. That's another way of saying that "insanity is doing the same thing yet again but expecting different results." The primary predictions are already unfolding with alarming "alacrity".
Why is there such a "monotonous" perfect inverse correlation?
The old adage, "correlation does not entail causation", probably holds true here as well. Unwin makes it clear that he does not know why sexual freedom directly leads to the decline and collapse of cultures, although he suggests that when sexual energy is restrained through celibacy or monogamy, it is diverted into more productive social energy.
Perhaps, but I find it difficult to accept it as a primary cause. Mary Eberstadt's recent research into mass killings, the substantial rise in mental health issues including depression, and the explosion of identity politics is a "primal scream" due to the loss of identity that was once provided by growing up in a long-term, immediate family with siblings and a sizable group of cousins, aunts and uncles, all of which provided identity โ essential for well-being. Eberstadt shows and documents from various studies that this decimation of the family was a direct consequence of the sexual revolution at the end of the 20th century.[11]
Her research indicates that increased sexual freedom led to the decimation of the family, which resulted in the loss of family identity, which produces Eberstadt's 'primal screams' โ a massive increase in mental health issues, mass killings, and the rise of extreme identity groups at war with each other ... all symptoms of a society rapidly spiraling into collapse. This appears to have greater explanatory power than Unwin's psychological suggestion, although the two may actually be closely related, given what Eberstadt shows.
Both Unwin and Eberstadt provide substantial evidence that a sexual revolution has long-term, devastating consequences for culture and civilization. As Unwin states, "The history of these societies consists of a series of monotonous repetitions," and it appears that our civilization is following the same, well-travelled road to collapse.
Back to the philosophical thought
So back to that afternoon in the philosophy seminar when it occurred to me that some moral laws will seem to limit human pleasure in the short term, but will prevent great suffering or maximize happiness and fulfillment in the long term. For years, it has been my thinking that God's moral laws are not simply a bunch of arbitrary rules given to restrict mankind's freedom. Instead, they are like operating instructions designed to spare people from suffering while maximizing human flourishing. Unwin's and Eberstadt's research provides strong rational justification for the inference that God's moral laws pertaining to our sexuality, although they may restrain us from some immediate pleasure, protect us from enormous long-term suffering while maximizing our long term flourishing.
(If you would like to subscribe to Kirk's articles, podcasts (upcoming) and short videos, you can do so at the bottom of this page.)
References and Notes:
- A downloadable, pdf version of Unwin's Sex and Culture is available here.
- I have prepared a 26-page collection of quotes that can provide a more detailed understanding of Unwin's book, but it is highly recommended that the reader, at minimum, at least skim Unwin's book to get a better idea of the rigour and breadth of his research, as well as some of the many examples the data provides.
- See section 7, Unwin, page 13 for a fuller understanding of these terms.
- Unwin, page 341.
- Unwin, page 342
- Unwin, page 412
- See, for example, Stuart Vyse, 'Why are millennials turning to astrology?', Skeptical Inquirer, 2018. and Denyse O'Leary, 'As traditionalism declines, superstition โ not atheism โ is the big winner', Intellectual Takeout, 2018.
- Note: A non-religious culture is not necessarily an atheistic culture. They do not deny or accept the existence of God or gods. Rather, belief in a god or gods is simply not part of their lives; it is irrelevant.
- Britannica, 'Postmodernism'.
- Description of Post Truth
- Unwin, page 413
- Mary Eberstadt, Primal Screams: How the sexual revolution created identity politics.
- A loosening of sexual constraints probably does not occur in one year or even one decade. In our case, one could argue that the sexual revolution began in the late 1960's, lasted throughout the 70's and possibly into the early 1980's. According to Unwin, only small changes in a culture occur in the first generation, due to the cultural 'momentum' of the previous generation, which still continues to be a heavy influence in the generation after the loosening (or strengthening) of sexual restraints. The changes become more prevalent in the second generation, but it is not until the third generation, after the initial generation has completely died off, that the changes reach their full effect, occurring rapidly over the course of that third generation. By the end of the third generation, the changes have fully taken place and the culture stabilizes at its new level. However, if it has stabilized at the highest level, then the flourishing of that culture continues to increase in subsequent generations (though Unwin observes that no culture maintains that state very long). If it has stabilized at the lowest level (i.e., a "collapse"), then that culture is destroyed from within, or conquered or taken over by a more "energetic" culture.
Reader Comments
Patrick,with one swish of the pen,sez this work of 7 volumes worth of investigation is "rubbish"
I think he may be the proverbial 'Ho'..And this piece was somewhat uncomfortable to him
But it's damn fun if one happens to have one's youth perfectly timed with that, as my generation did.
R.C.
P.s., I presume this is the same Unwin who was the publisher of The Lord of the Rings, et al.
RC
I also think that the author is a tad optimistic regarding the timeline of collapse in western society. It seems to be snowballing.
But it's extremely helpful to provide what Unwin has. And for that matter, the article says:
"Unwin makes it clear that he does not know why sexual freedom directly leads to the decline and collapse of cultures"
which indicates he wasn't jumping to any simplistic conclusions. Just documenting what he could, hoping it might be useful.
Nobody has more disdain for authority figures than I do. But I didn't see anything in the article that said everything would be fine if we were like our conservative grandparents. With the caveat there may be some things they did that worked better - which seems possible, even probable.
Probably true. But seems to me that psychopaths always end up running the show. And societies always collapse. Unwin's work is still extremely interesting and possibly useful. And should not be ignored because some people don't like it. People never like being told not to do whatever they want.
Like Rowan, my life was perfectly timed to enjoy the benefits without paying the price. Our good fortune doesn't change anything though.
I know that during my wildest days, there was nothing that wouldn't get fixed with some antibiotics; and I only got exposed to ANY VD once in my life. (Thanks, college GF... though I wasn't the most monagamous of we two...) so I call it a roll of the dice.
Again, timing was phenomenal - and at least we felt like we were getting an easy pass through life, and realized iit - especially when and how Vietnam ended as it did. American guys born in the period of ~7/1/57 - 12/31/59? never even had to register for the draft!!
My father, who'd been in Korea, made certain we knew just how lucky we were to avoid a war. (He smuggled a dog on his troopship to Korea. See the AB, or my B of my father.)
R.C.
I don't like authorities, or authoritarianism. That does not change the fact that most people are lost without it. I never used to understand the appeal of organized religion, which seems such obvious BS, not to mention the abuses by religious authorities we are so well aware of. Over the years, I've changed my tune. I get it now. When people counted on the church and family, we had a much better society. With that gone, there are some people, like myself and many Sottites, who are fine - they never needed all that anyway. Trouble is, that's a small minority of people. And you can't change it with education - it's just the way most people are. They are like children and need authority figures and role models. With religion, family, and community destroyed, they get it from even worse sources like celebrity culture, political movements like social justice, and greed. They are not gonna use their heads and behave rationally and empathically. They just aren't. That's human nature. To think a vacuum of authority is an improvement over what we had a few generations ago, lacking as it was, is dead wrong. Those of us who have no use or need for authority are outliers, far from the norm.
You didn't think Isjarvi was disparaging of the article? Hmm. We can just disagree on that! I don't mean to disparage him in any way, he has good reasons for his opinion I'm sure.
I don't like authorities, or authoritarianism. That does not change the fact that most people are lost without it. I never used to understand the appeal of organized religion, which seems such obvious BS, not to mention the abuses by religious authorities we are so well aware of. Organised religion was hi-jacked by psychopaths a long time ago. The mess we are in now has been in progress for a long long time. For example, lets say that the opening shot was the arising of agri- cultural societies, and the subsequent control of food production and distribution, and the raping of the soil, etc. Of course, I reckon this had profound theological implications! From there, we have the imposition of monotheism. The erasing of one, and ones group connection with Prime Creator, the erasing of the rich history, culture, and myths sustaining ancient societies, and the imposition of authoritarian control of various groups, and the subsequent cover up of same! For example, Jonathan Haidt writes in The Righteous Mind: So, one has to ask in the context of the monotheistic religions , what are they tuning in to? The results of history don't speak well of whatever it is/was. The point here is, the game was rigged a long time ago, and I think that the era of monotheistic religion was a part of that process. I don't think that psychopaths have the ability to plan to such a degree, far from it, but the overlords do. I don't agree with everything in Haidt's quote, eg, Darwinism.
stricken(with 'Line Disease.') A medical test.Your name typed: graeme15b
Your name copied and pasted from the grey highlight:
graeme15bRepeat but in blue highlight box. (About to find out if I'm right or a fool. (Ready for either result.)
RC
RC
Ah, a new life goal! (Joking.) NRN
RC
Also when I hit enter to get to the next line, when writing a comment, an empty line appears over the quote or name youre replying to. obvious viruses or whateverthefokkitis
Freedom to put love out of the picture is a fantasy framed in suffering.
But to keep the fantasy topped up, don't let anything disturb such a deadly reflection. We can empty ourself while using another forgetting. But then it will seem as if the world has been rendered hollow, and so the shift from desire to disillusion is diversioned.
I don't say this to 'morally judge' anyone's experience, or learning opportunity, but to say that when we use another to 'get from', we lose self-repect - that inevitably projects, leaks and extends to others, and then what is there except some form of masking and diversion that craves release of 'escape' into fantasy.
Finding and abiding balance within (ourselves in) relationship is not an externally applied ruleset but an innate recognition of ourself in another and another in our selves. And both in a greater Life that moves us both as one - as we allow.
Mistakes need to serve learning a better outcome, but to persist in futility is to think that 'this time it will be different' - well actually it is to re-enact the thought without any real process of thinking at all.
Integrity is not added or gotten or achieved - and then signalled as if to have it - but is aligned in and shared in.
If others choose against their integrity, I can choose to join with it on their behalf through aligning in my own.
If you be true unto yourself... you can be false to no one. But the test of truth is peace of relational being.
And so our dissonances and conflicts are part of an opportunity to tune in more clearly, once we pause from trying to get rid of them or escape them in fantasy solutions that protect the problem from finding an awareness in which to find better ways, together.
May I ask:
a) Your occupation?
b) Whether we might have heard of you?
(Of course you have no 'obligation' to answer any of these questions. Duh. )
If you've never written a book on your thoughts of the big picture, or any of the countless littler pictures, you should.
RC
RC
In terms of paid work, yours is its nature. An occasional appreciation. I am not currently having to seek paid work and so in a sense of aligning with life under my current situation, I write a lot, or rather I give willingness in time as energy and attention in writing. This can be timeless because anything we can give our whole attention to opens the timeless.
I have not marketed any writing - but occasionally some gets put on a blog site that is more of a parking place than an active portal of cultural activity. I prefer to write than organise a blog. I had thought that I might write a book - but my movement is always in response and not, so far, as an assertion - and whatever else the writing is, it is a movement that I align in rather than initiate.
Fantastic speaks of fantasy - but I basically take it that you find resonance of interest, meaning or insight when you read. I do not much use the world 'should' but I also receive a prompt. I have in a sense written books and books of content - but tend to draw from the living Wellspring rather than organising material into formats for market - and then... marketing.
On this page I have wrote on the big picture on this page ;-)
Thanks for joining with me.
Though I have grown an articulation and love of words for serving tangible but formless meanings, it remains true that 'It takes one to know one'.
Sharing in resonant qualities can be masked and distorted by personal seemings.
R.C.
You express your self as a wholehearted loving human being with computerized precision and accuracy and constantcy
Such gorgeous loving reading messieurs!!
L, RC
My professor had been a student of Norman Maclean (A River Runs Through It) at Chicago. Maclean's relentless exhortation was always, 'Boil it down.'
Don't know what anyone else does, but as per sex and love, I've never really seperated the two.
I've always been a bit kind of....[Link]
But prepared to take things in my stride a bit, IYKWIM.
The boy's regard is loving. The girl is giving attention elsewhere or feigning not to notice as part of a ritual of being 'won'. Perhaps the painter wants her attention - who stands aside from the picture.
The painter frames his subjects and themes but then what others see is their own take.
Self-damning is very painful, but the mind is not the final judge of reality.
I sense that the fear of being damned seeks others to take it so as to seem to somewhat escape or mitigate.
To give love where it is not received is part of learning both the nature of love and its direction and guidance.
Perhaps he breaks his heart on the world of appearances and damns the world and therefore himself.
Perhaps he expands the world from its appearances to recognise the Beloved in Life Itself as a result of a broken heart?
Are we not all living out whatever meanings we are putting in.
I met such girls, and luckily - or not, you might say - got away ...
Ain't that just like a woman.
Nice jacket....[Link]
Trรจs bohรจme. Hmmm. Strawberry blonde. Careful. Might have a temper.
LOL.
Heres a good example of how we project and how ones perspective is always subjective. Some see this setting as a positive and some as a negative experience. And its very much connected to the title. Imagine it was called something else. Like "The Conquest of heart" ... or "Mischief by the sea"
So if hes proposing and she really loves him she doesnt look away but jump in his arms looking straight at his eyes. This is not the case, hence the conclusion. Hes in for it and shes really calculating for how much ;-)
Just some thoughts.
Most of it is in the eye of the beholder.
Since living in the city leaves you in a position of being constantly attacked by PARASITIC marketing (fucktard Bernays and his legacy) and we know sex sells best than its all obvious. High morals would protect you to an extent.
Industrial revolution went on unchecked and is now biting us in our collective asses. Do you see how the nature of this reality is pushing us into these dead-end scenarios? Remember that you can always make a choice of opting out of that mode of existence and if you do it properly you will stop feeding your energy into this delusion.
The kids are fucked up. We have all imbibed psychopathic values which is part and parcel of the sexual revolution; the drugs revolution which are taken without value of their purpose, it's just "fun, fun, fun". No long term resolutions, everything must be done yesterday. And so tomorrow suffers. That tomorrow is today, and we're seeing the fruits of our 'labours' now. Enjoy.
Just added, Take away any other non human or male parts, too.
RC
Comment: "At the entrance to a Yaletown apartment building, this spry sexpot is a symbol of wanton (yet unquestionably divine) sluttery. Definitely a head turner for those of us preoccupied with the sexually charged mythology of antiquity."
RC
Remember the Seinfeld episode about the hot babe with the Man Hands??? That applies to this 'creature' also.
RC
The forms of life can be idolised and demonised both. The sculpture puts both in one.
Insofar as the ego of self-imaged, interprets all things in terms of either reinforcement or threat to itself, it can and does confuse feared love with feared hate - for both are suppressed in fear of loss of 'control'.
Then as you indicate, the ego seeks to take only the bits that its filters accepts and weave them into a narrative.
I also notice that when framed in 'moral justification' the erotic can be not only openly displayed without censor but strongly so. Long ago I say some Biblical film in which at the time at least the dance of Salome was embodied very erotically but under plausible deniability. One can also make films or narratives by which to 'legitimately' explore or indulge what otherwise is taboo.
But the primary dissonance is in lovelessness raised to idol - or worshipped image. Not in the forms themselves but in the meanings given - and taken upon the body of Life.
' When enough people get stuck in the same place they call it reality'.
Back to gargoyles - to give a cultural warning against a destructive, addictive and deceitful loss of life to loveless illusion is not wrong. Taking anything out of its living context is a potential to remake it in your own image and then give worth their instead of to the Life we share in.
The book (above title) has gotten longer and more tedious than I thought it would be when I first started writing it--when I first got here from wherever it was that I was at before.
I was thinking recently that perhaps I should drop the first 4 or 5 chapters.
But those were the best!
So maybe it should be the other way around.
signed,
a former sweet child of innocence...
ned,
out
R.C.
With regard to Unwin's book, it does seem like there is a correlation between moderation of sexual practices and the ability of a culture to flower, if today's society is anything to go by. When people are spending all their energy thinking about sex, seeking partners, preparing for encounters and thinking about how to increase the frequency of encounters, there is little energy left over for doing much else. It is almost like a drug that takes over people's lives and leaves them unable to care about designing beautiful or innovative things - or anything else for that matter.
Like Eberstadt, I have also thought that a certain unmooring takes place when the family disintegrates and people are left without a clear circle of relationships with which to define themselves.
However, I think these two phenomena go hand in hand, to the point where it's hard to say which came first or has the most influence. Do people loosen their morals because they have nowhere they feel they belong? Looking for love anywhere they can find it could be a collective, desperate, last-ditch effort. Or, do they loosen their morals when they feel so comfortable that laissez-faire sets in, they let go, and the family is destroyed as an unintended and unforeseen consequence?
Two world wars took place right before the sexual revolution in the 1960s. Enormous numbers of people died or were displaced, and families were torn apart and separated by long distances. It's no wonder a sexual revolution took place soon afterwards, by Eberstadt's reasoning. There does seem to be a correlation. Yet the post-war period also saw enormous economic gains for large numbers of people, who were suddenly more comfortably off than their parents and grandparents had been.
Perhaps both factors were strongly in play...along with a third: The sexual revolution seems to have been largely begun or at least fomented by the CIA and other pips. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but it is definitely easier to control a large group of people who have lost their moorings and are moving rudderless through the world, doing themselves and others harm. People have an innate need to know which way to go and often can't figure it out for themselves if they have never had much of a foundation. The pips step in and give them a place to belong, however stupid that place may seem to those on the outside.
God, we could use him now - though he was always helpful.
RC
All this is evidence of a LACK OF LOVE. But we can change this by choosing to become more loving. We can do this as a personal choice, one decision at a time. This can only happen from the ground up. It is up to us. Change cannot happen any other way. It is our personal responsibility if we want to see a different world. Ask the question: what would love do? About the environment, about war, about social support, about relationships, about parenting, about the distribution of wealth.
Marriage - arranged marriage in particular - is in this way a kind of social program. A "socialist" control of sexuality that made sure that those who would otherwise be left out, were given a wife or husband. Love would come later, if you were lucky.
What we're seeing now is a capitalist "meat market" (online, this is even in the literal sense), and society is on the verge of collapse as a result. I'm as capitalist and liberal as anyone else, and I am in no way advocating for the return of arranged marriage, but maybe it would be wise to make people aware that "love at first sight" are very rare occurences... and that sometimes, it really does take months and years before the "soulmate connection" emerges. The standards set by society for what a happy marriage is supposed to be are unrealistic and ultimately damaging.
Did he, for example, examine the pre-colonial cultures of the Pacific or Arctic where morality did not concern itself particularly with sexual matters and rational thought persisted sufficiently to permit the survival of those cultures for a great deal more than three generations?
Probably not - for a culture free from such emotions as jealousy, sexually transmitted disease and in which children were regarded as a collective responsibility I suggest was beyond either his experience or imagination. Yet they existed and thrived.
Empires breed arrogance. Each believes it has demonstrated the successful ethos. All forget the passing of Empire.
Imagine a massive weight of untruth heaped on a bicycle constructed of good will, hope, and built-in instability. The lies slow the momentum until it slows down enough that the whole thing topples over. And then people start building another bicycle with different kinds of instability. There's always a shinier, faster bicycle somewhere - and always people, carrying their self-serving lies, who will figure out how to ride it.
R.C.
RC
The best sex, is after you have road tested for 5 years the next girl you fall in love with, and you have been through heaven and hell together, and you are so much love in love with each other, that you decide to get married, because you want to make babies together.
There is nothing like it, especially when it works almost instantly.
We are still together and in love, now with grandchildren nearly 40 years later.
Tony
I've never been the envious sort - as if it was lacking in me - and 'anchored' friends used to envy my 'latest hottie,' as did I.
But, primarily due to a (reasonable) fear of the fact that having a child lets government into one's life, I never had kids.
But now I finally have some envy/
RC
I can appreciate the depth of research carried on here, the conclusions of which have been well enunciated. However, I see them as pertains to "this life" of mortality only. From an eternal perspective, it is my belief and knowledge that I have of the Lord's commandments for strict chastity before marriage and absolute chastity after marriage, that our Heavenly Father desires for us the sealing of families together for eternity with the promise of an eternal increase, becoming like our Heavenly Parents. Mortality is a testing period to see if we will keep Father's commandments. If we abuse the sexual powers that we have through unchaste behavior, then those very powers will be taken from us in the resurrection and there will be no marriage or giving in marriage in the resurrection for such individuals. Sincere repentance can change that outcome. By keeping His commandments in regards to sexual purity, a man and woman can be sealed for all eternity, not just "til death do we part". With this promise comes the sealing of families together for all eternity and the continuation of the seeds throughout all eternity. The blessings of chastity stretch way beyond this flicker of mortality and its societal integrity to encompass all eternity.
If you want to know more about this great blessing, just contact the local missionaries of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Lord's restored Church again upon the Earth in preparation for His second coming.
OMG. Imagine having ten wives that all look like Marie Osmond.
As women's menstrual cycles tend to sync when they're in the same proximity for extended amounts of time, I imagine you'd want to be 'away on business' for at least a week out of every month for that gig. LOL.
I personally screwed up my chances at long term relationships - I recall about three that likely would've worked; and, (like BBub, I dare say) about 20 that would've been nightmares.
R.C.
Honey Bunch....!!!1
Where are you from? You've got a legitimate Southern Accent. (I've been playing acoustic lead for yah.)
R.C.
It looks like you're playing a Gibson. I grew up playing a '48 dreadnought Epiphone my father won in poker in Korea. (Has great sound - big ol' rounded back like a bass fiddle.)
RC
It all sounded a bit hard on the kolobs.
Did I tell ya I was at Segovia's last concert?
I initially (as a kid) was - like most we SOTTites - WAY ahead of "'M; m' m' m' my Generation, Baby" E.g., In that I well remember, whenever I hear 'Baby You're a Rich Man', I recall our firstAirline flight - Natiional Airways?line? Orlando to San Fran. All of those songs, stayed in Berkely the entire Ssummer of 69 - I was 10.
But I've come to love almost all music except rap. (I was forced to listen to Motown as one of the two / three white boys on the track team, via transistor radio - just like the first time I ever heard Starman...waiting in the sky' (at home, not on a bus.)
Classic timing!
RC
Third wife: "I met my husband when my mother married him...I was his stepdaughter..."
Fifth wife: "He kissed me 2 or 3 weeks after my sister had married him..."
And they all lived incestuously ever after in a junkyard in the desert.
Rowan Cocoan said... Maybe you should get some of those magic Mormon underpants, Ro....[Link]
RC
P.s., I don't know who the author is/was, but t'is witty. (I could see it being Oscar Wilde.)*
*Except ya might have he & he;
RC
Profit is the same as virtue. Discipline and competition are the road to success! Really??? Sounds rather like 1930s Germany and USSR?
Attacking sex? Just another way of dividing the non rich and allowing the owners and slavers prosper.
Such a load of drivel, backed up by an "academic". Unis are now run for profit, idiots! Wake up!
Trolls use anonymous monickers?
R.C.
It is a known fact that many employers include "social media" and fora for background checks on job candidates. And many continue even after hiring. So, just a precaution for many.
Then I might address all comments, and not dismiss them as CONtrolled?
RC
- "facebook-com/eworp is me." &
- "with everything public,"
As re: "but last few years it's just been sott sharing." (Note, I grant that I have never been a person who is, when it comes to online stuff, "high tech". I've never lived off of my mobile phones - I still don't believe I have ever done an email from one; so I am not well versed in all of the forums/'chat boards', et al., that the net has to offer,
However, in my life, I do not believe I have 'met' a larger group with a higher percentage of smart & wise, good/better/best souls than I have so 'met' here
A question, my friend. These SOTTites, (SOTT writers, commenters and their efforts) have been, to me, I'd guess, the most truth oriented, 'eye' & 'third eye' opening words I've ever had the pleasure to exchange with a fairly good sized group of people. Am I alone in feeling that way about this place? I doubt it.
Your thoughts?
R.C.