The Sexual Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

[BadBoy89]

Here is an article about the Sexual Revolution. Its a long but quick read.

Thoughts?

———


While it gave (young) women and a small percentage of men the ability to sleep around willy nilly without commitment I firmly believe that the overall result of the sexual revolution has been so negative its long term badness lies somewhere between the Taiping rebellion and the burning of the Library of Alexandria.

Previously society was at an equilibrium that as an average man you would find yourself an average wife who was (ideally) dedicated to you and you would support each other in your journey through this mortal coil. That we were in this situation was not an accident but the result of thousands of years of cultural evolution. It wasn't because some council of patriarchal elders decided to enforce traditional norms but because societies with traditional norms were better fits for human civilization so they outcompeted other ones until the alternatives were wiped out and trad norms became dominant (and no your two examples of current matriarchal societies are not a counterexample, look at their size and influence versus ours, if we wanted to we could remove any traces of their existence in less than a few months).

However with the sexual revolution this contract has been destroyed and we are in a state of free for all. The consequences have been dire, from Japan's unproductive herbivore men to the pandemic of single mothers in the west, especially among lower class people.

While loose sexual norms might work well for the sort of upper class elites who have safety nets to fall back on (and are the main people pushing this stuff) they wreak absolute havoc on the working class who don't have this support. Yes the Yale graduate who slept around will still be able to find a high quality husband to stick with her due to her class and connections but the community college woman risks being pumped and dumped into a single mom despite the fact that there are an order of magnitude more of the latter than the former. What's worse is that the Yale graduate will continue to support sleeping around saying that it did her no harm and ignore the destruction of the social contract and damage it does to people less fortunate than her (ironically she probably identifies as an intersectional feminist...).

Indeed there was research recently showing that while back in the day both rich and poor kids were roughly 95% likely to live in a two parent family at the moment although the rich still have a 85% two family rate the amount of poor kids in the same situation has dropped to 30%.

The sexual revolution has given men the freedom to not commit, while 100 years ago if you got a woman pregnant both social norms and her family would oblige you (forcefully if needed) to marry her and provide. Now as a man you are free to abscond your duty to your own child. Once again it is not the UMC doing this because they are better able to plan pregnancy and better abilities to handle unexpected ones but poorer people who don't enjoy any of this luxury. This is so extreme that among older working class women "Where are all the good men?" is now becoming "Where are all the men?"

This is before we have even gotten to the point of the damage the sexual revolution and our sex obsessed media which exaggerates everything further to maximize clicks has done on average and below average males. Your average man sees Chad on the TV screen effortlessly getting women to spread their legs (sometimes with a scene in which Chad meets a new woman which immediately cuts to one in which she is in his bed) and starts to believe that this is what life is like for the top 20% even though this is total media fiction (compare to how people overestimate the percentage of minorities in the country; minorities are overrepresented in the media, again due to our Yale Graduate believing this helps corrects for some past discrimination, then normal people see this increased amount and believe this reflects the real world).

Thus these average men get disillusioned with women and society (some even turning to in*cl movements), believing that all women get into bed with Chad two seconds after meeting him - because it is what they see on TV, and TV has become the main way most of us get information about the state of the world. Due to this these men are much less invested in their community - having a family meant that you wanted society in general to thrive because it meant your family would also be better off and it discouraged you from acting like a loose cannon because then your family would suffer e.g. the dad of two kids is much less likely to go on a shooting spree. Your slightly below average modern man does not have this moderating influence upon him anymore.

Thus in exchange for about half the population being able to sleep around no strings attached for a few years we have irreparably damaged the bonds holding society together. This damage to the social contract is likely irreparable. In the best case we may be able to adapt to this being the new normal while spending more and more resources on ersatz remedies to mitigate the negative effects. In the worst case western culture may just be in for a real time demonstration of why cultures with loose sexual norms did not survive long.

TLDR: Title

 

[andreihaha]

Here is an article about the Sexual Revolution. Its a long but quick read.

Thoughts?

———


While it gave (young) women and a small percentage of men the ability to sleep around willy nilly without commitment I firmly believe that the overall result of the sexual revolution has been so negative its long term badness lies somewhere between the Taiping rebellion and the burning of the Library of Alexandria.

Previously society was at an equilibrium that as an average man you would find yourself an average wife who was (ideally) dedicated to you and you would support each other in your journey through this mortal coil. That we were in this situation was not an accident but the result of thousands of years of cultural evolution. It wasn't because some council of patriarchal elders decided to enforce traditional norms but because societies with traditional norms were better fits for human civilization so they outcompeted other ones until the alternatives were wiped out and trad norms became dominant (and no your two examples of current matriarchal societies are not a counterexample, look at their size and influence versus ours, if we wanted to we could remove any traces of their existence in less than a few months).

However with the sexual revolution this contract has been destroyed and we are in a state of free for all. The consequences have been dire, from Japan's unproductive herbivore men to the pandemic of single mothers in the west, especially among lower class people.

While loose sexual norms might work well for the sort of upper class elites who have safety nets to fall back on (and are the main people pushing this stuff) they wreak absolute havoc on the working class who don't have this support. Yes the Yale graduate who slept around will still be able to find a high quality husband to stick with her due to her class and connections but the community college woman risks being pumped and dumped into a single mom despite the fact that there are an order of magnitude more of the latter than the former. What's worse is that the Yale graduate will continue to support sleeping around saying that it did her no harm and ignore the destruction of the social contract and damage it does to people less fortunate than her (ironically she probably identifies as an intersectional feminist...).

Indeed there was research recently showing that while back in the day both rich and poor kids were roughly 95% likely to live in a two parent family at the moment although the rich still have a 85% two family rate the amount of poor kids in the same situation has dropped to 30%.

The sexual revolution has given men the freedom to not commit, while 100 years ago if you got a woman pregnant both social norms and her family would oblige you (forcefully if needed) to marry her and provide. Now as a man you are free to abscond your duty to your own child. Once again it is not the UMC doing this because they are better able to plan pregnancy and better abilities to handle unexpected ones but poorer people who don't enjoy any of this luxury. This is so extreme that among older working class women "Where are all the good men?" is now becoming "Where are all the men?"

This is before we have even gotten to the point of the damage the sexual revolution and our sex obsessed media which exaggerates everything further to maximize clicks has done on average and below average males. Your average man sees Chad on the TV screen effortlessly getting women to spread their legs (sometimes with a scene in which Chad meets a new woman which immediately cuts to one in which she is in his bed) and starts to believe that this is what life is like for the top 20% even though this is total media fiction (compare to how people overestimate the percentage of minorities in the country; minorities are overrepresented in the media, again due to our Yale Graduate believing this helps corrects for some past discrimination, then normal people see this increased amount and believe this reflects the real world).

Thus these average men get disillusioned with women and society (some even turning to in*cl movements), believing that all women get into bed with Chad two seconds after meeting him - because it is what they see on TV, and TV has become the main way most of us get information about the state of the world. Due to this these men are much less invested in their community - having a family meant that you wanted society in general to thrive because it meant your family would also be better off and it discouraged you from acting like a loose cannon because then your family would suffer e.g. the dad of two kids is much less likely to go on a shooting spree. Your slightly below average modern man does not have this moderating influence upon him anymore.

Thus in exchange for about half the population being able to sleep around no strings attached for a few years we have irreparably damaged the bonds holding society together. This damage to the social contract is likely irreparable. In the best case we may be able to adapt to this being the new normal while spending more and more resources on ersatz remedies to mitigate the negative effects. In the worst case western culture may just be in for a real time demonstration of why cultures with loose sexual norms did not survive long.

TLDR: Title

1. The article feels incomplete as it is only seen from a woman's point of view.
2. The sexual revolution did make it harder for a majority of people to find a wife/husband and also easier to wh0re around for a majority of people. Could be a pro or a con depending on what you want in life.
3. The media over sexualizes everything which I feel is unnecessary. Sex is good, yeah, but let's face it, it's not the most important thing in the world. This is something I really loathe, as I see it as both immoral and helping spread STDs.
4. Nothing is irreparably damaged yet. Yes, it is harder for someone to find a LTR partner in this environment, but not at all impossible.
We are still people and there are things written into our genetic code that no amount of brainwashing can change.
There is always hope.

 

[derby1]

Im sure i read somewhere about natures intervention, she wont allow humans to behave how they want.

theres an STD currently one strand away from mutating and once it does, heart failure will be the outcome.

point being it will be a common STD in 30-100 years

 

[bat soup]

Here is an article about the Sexual Revolution. Its a long but quick read.

Thoughts?

———


While it gave (young) women and a small percentage of men the ability to sleep around willy nilly without commitment I firmly believe that the overall result of the sexual revolution has been so negative its long term badness lies somewhere between the Taiping rebellion and the burning of the Library of Alexandria.

Previously society was at an equilibrium that as an average man you would find yourself an average wife who was (ideally) dedicated to you and you would support each other in your journey through this mortal coil. That we were in this situation was not an accident but the result of thousands of years of cultural evolution. It wasn't because some council of patriarchal elders decided to enforce traditional norms but because societies with traditional norms were better fits for human civilization so they outcompeted other ones until the alternatives were wiped out and trad norms became dominant (and no your two examples of current matriarchal societies are not a counterexample, look at their size and influence versus ours, if we wanted to we could remove any traces of their existence in less than a few months).

However with the sexual revolution this contract has been destroyed and we are in a state of free for all. The consequences have been dire, from Japan's unproductive herbivore men to the pandemic of single mothers in the west, especially among lower class people.

While loose sexual norms might work well for the sort of upper class elites who have safety nets to fall back on (and are the main people pushing this stuff) they wreak absolute havoc on the working class who don't have this support. Yes the Yale graduate who slept around will still be able to find a high quality husband to stick with her due to her class and connections but the community college woman risks being pumped and dumped into a single mom despite the fact that there are an order of magnitude more of the latter than the former. What's worse is that the Yale graduate will continue to support sleeping around saying that it did her no harm and ignore the destruction of the social contract and damage it does to people less fortunate than her (ironically she probably identifies as an intersectional feminist...).

Indeed there was research recently showing that while back in the day both rich and poor kids were roughly 95% likely to live in a two parent family at the moment although the rich still have a 85% two family rate the amount of poor kids in the same situation has dropped to 30%.

The sexual revolution has given men the freedom to not commit, while 100 years ago if you got a woman pregnant both social norms and her family would oblige you (forcefully if needed) to marry her and provide. Now as a man you are free to abscond your duty to your own child. Once again it is not the UMC doing this because they are better able to plan pregnancy and better abilities to handle unexpected ones but poorer people who don't enjoy any of this luxury. This is so extreme that among older working class women "Where are all the good men?" is now becoming "Where are all the men?"

This is before we have even gotten to the point of the damage the sexual revolution and our sex obsessed media which exaggerates everything further to maximize clicks has done on average and below average males. Your average man sees Chad on the TV screen effortlessly getting women to spread their legs (sometimes with a scene in which Chad meets a new woman which immediately cuts to one in which she is in his bed) and starts to believe that this is what life is like for the top 20% even though this is total media fiction (compare to how people overestimate the percentage of minorities in the country; minorities are overrepresented in the media, again due to our Yale Graduate believing this helps corrects for some past discrimination, then normal people see this increased amount and believe this reflects the real world).

Thus these average men get disillusioned with women and society (some even turning to in*cl movements), believing that all women get into bed with Chad two seconds after meeting him - because it is what they see on TV, and TV has become the main way most of us get information about the state of the world. Due to this these men are much less invested in their community - having a family meant that you wanted society in general to thrive because it meant your family would also be better off and it discouraged you from acting like a loose cannon because then your family would suffer e.g. the dad of two kids is much less likely to go on a shooting spree. Your slightly below average modern man does not have this moderating influence upon him anymore.

Thus in exchange for about half the population being able to sleep around no strings attached for a few years we have irreparably damaged the bonds holding society together. This damage to the social contract is likely irreparable. In the best case we may be able to adapt to this being the new normal while spending more and more resources on ersatz remedies to mitigate the negative effects. In the worst case western culture may just be in for a real time demonstration of why cultures with loose sexual norms did not survive long.

TLDR: Title

I think where it went wrong was when people started to believe that men and women are equal.

Ok, then, if women are equal why doesn't an army of them go liberate Afghanistan?

 

[andreihaha]

I think where it went wrong was when people started to believe that men and women are equal.

Ok, then, if women are equal why doesn't an army of them go liberate Afghanistan?

Ask them this question if you want them to switch to preaching gender inequality.

 

[SW15]

There were some good points in the article. I'll start with the economic ones.

The woman with a bachelor's degree from Yale can ride the cocck carousel and not have too many problems in life.

A common outcome for carousel rider types with BA/BS degrees from elite schools or master's/PhD degrees is that no man is good enough for them and they end up as 45 year old women, never married, and childless. I expect this problem to get worse with the 1980s born Millennials turning 40 in the 2020s. The 1980s born Millennials are the original snowflake children raised in the self esteem boosting, participation trophy era of schooling of the 1990s and early 2000s. The women of this generation are entitled beyond belief and believe in Never Settling, even if it means that they will be cat ladies with commitment. Nevertheless, these educated cat ladies will have white collar jobs to support themselves and be able to get sex from thirsty men until their early 50s without problems.

The Yale BA/BS degree carousel rider that does eventually marry and have kids will only become a single mom around age 40 after a divorce. She will get a nice divorce settlement from her beta male ex husband.

Meanwhile, the lower middle class or lower class woman will be lucky to get an associate degree from a community college. That degree in a lot of cases doesn't get a person far in life. There are some useful trade degrees like dental hygienist for women (median salary $72,000 as of 2015), but not too many. Lower middle class and lower class women tend to become mothers earlier in life and often in unstable situations without a ring. While the Yalie woman gets divorced from a lame, white collar beta male without a backbone, the lower class woman gets knocked up by some deadbeat who isn't involved in the kid's life and provides little financial support because he doesn't have any money. The Yalie, 40 year old single mom can support herself using her Yale degree while the lower middle class woman generally has some dead end McJob or is on welfare.

 

[bat soup]

When work meant getting your hands dirty, lifting heavy stones or risking injury women were perfectly happy to stay at home.

Now women want to "work" if it means getting paid top dollar to sit in a comfortable leather chair and boss people around. But when it's time to pay for anything or take responsibility for mistakes they want the equality to end.

Now it seems women want to treat average guys like trash but still expect those guys to play the role of protector and provider because the reality is they can't look after themselves and they resent even having to try.

I don't have anything against sexual freedom. I like it. But if you're not loyal to a guy, don't expect him to provide for you.

 

[Barrister]

This is human nature. People, men and women, like fu*king. So they do it. And to be honest, it has been much more rampant than society would have us believe long before the 1970s when we are told the wheels got set in motion. It just may not have been put out in the open and considered acceptable like it is today.

Is it "destructive" to have it considered to be so acceptable? Maybe in some ways. But to compare it to the burning of the Library at Alexandria is sensational and overly dramatic. I find it interesting that the people who seem to constantly complain about it are either incels, men and women, who can't get sex or married people that have been out of the "game" for a good 10+ years at least.

 

[RickTheToad]

While females should have the right to chose what and how they want to live their lives, the sexual revolution had given them a false promise of their future. I have found even the average female also having higher standards than she should due to the fact that she's a female, and that Disney told and showed her how her life should be.

The sad fact is that females run off of emotions and not always reality; and that's the problem at hand. The more females that run big corporations and governments, the more problems we will have. Aside from Angela Merkel, there are not many masculine based females. Just look what Hochul is doing to N Y State. She's actually worse than Cuomo.

Females should be left to raising a family, supporting their husband and taking care of the home. It worked for thousands of years, all of a sudden, it's not longer a good idea? Gotcha.

Can anyone here imagine Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a housewife or taking care of her husband? No chance. The dude she is with is a white dude; who's the exact type of person she and the other two female representatives are fighting with (a white male).

A females have come up in terms of being equal, which they should always be treated as, dudes have gone down and are slowly checking out of society. They, in stead, take low paying jobs, play video games, jerk off and voice their frustration on forums or shoot places up.

Something has to change.

 

[HaleyBaron]

The Sexual Revolution was as organic as the Bolshevik Revolution, which means, not at all. Sexual Revolution was a paid campaign by both the government and Hollywood to attack the morals of Christianity. This is why the following ended up happening:

• Roaring twenties headlined by the porn industry and writers
• Women's suffrage to allow them to vote
• Movies can now show nudity, ruled by the supreme court itself (wtf)
• Playboy becomes huge
• Birth control hits the market

And it kept going. It was never something that was created naturally. We had saboteurs of tradition in the US, and they used that to destabilize the firm culture of strong families and strong men. Why? The reasons are countless.

 

[KirthWGersen]

The real lie women were told is "You can have it all."

But you can't. No-one can. You can't have an amazing career, a wonderful family life, deep friendships, enjoyable hobbies, travel the world, be well-read and meditate your way to nirvana.

Something has to give. Even the loftiest apex male has never been able to have all these things, because there simply are not enough hours in the day and the concepts conflict with one another.

However, what we do have today is choice: become a career women and you have to employ someone else to raise your kids. Or you can find a less time-consuming job and share the workload with your man. Or you can become a housewife. You can choose whatever you want, but you can't have it all.

Women who say they want to advance their careers, sleep around and then, one day, settle down, get married and have a family are lying to themselves in the same way as the stock market broker who says he will make his millions by his early thirties and give it all up for the simple life.

 

[KirthWGersen]

The Sexual Revolution was as organic as the Bolshevik Revolution, which means, not at all. Sexual Revolution was a paid campaign by both the government and Hollywood to attack the morals of Christianity. This is why the following ended up happening:

• Roaring twenties headlined by the porn industry and writers
• Women's suffrage to allow them to vote
• Movies can now show nudity, ruled by the supreme court itself (wtf)
• Playboy becomes huge
• Birth control hits the market

And it kept going. It was never something that was created naturally. We had saboteurs of tradition in the US, and they used that to destabilize the firm culture of strong families and strong men. Why? The reasons are countless.

Well, the morals of Christianity certainly needed attacking. In the last 2000 years we have had the Catholic Church torturing suspected sinners before handing them over to the secular authorities for execution. Massacring entire cities ("let God sort them out"). Promotion of serfdom and slavery. A long history of slaps on the wrist for child sex abuse, documented since medieval times. Scriptural justifications for racial subjugation. On the Protestant side (I kid you not) the death penalty for masturbation in Calvin's Geneva. The bloody, immoral list stretches on and on.

If the consequence of ending all that is a few insecure men who worry how they can get sex and have a family without being the kind of men women actually like and want to be loyal to, I'd take it in every one of a thousand lifetimes.

 

[HaleyBaron]

Well, the morals of Christianity certainly needed attacking. In the last 2000 years we have had the Catholic Church torturing suspected sinners before handing them over to the secular authorities for execution. Massacring entire cities ("let God sort them out"). Promotion of serfdom and slavery. A long history of slaps on the wrist for child sex abuse, documented since medieval times. Scriptural justifications for racial subjugation. On the Protestant side (I kid you not) the death penalty for masturbation in Calvin's Geneva. The bloody, immoral list stretches on and on.

If the consequence of ending all that is a few insecure men who worry how they can get sex and have a family without being the kind of men women actually like and want to be loyal to, I'd take it in every one of a thousand lifetimes.

Neither of that has happened in America. All of that took place in Europe. The most we got here from religious sectors was the branches of said catholic church who still performed child sexual abuse, and who knows else. Majority of christians in the US were peaceful and harmless. You may have gotten a sexual abuse or marriage affair here and there, but the scandal was not comparable to what happened long ago. What we do know is that there was a set standard and tradition of morals and family stability created by said religion. And that did not need to be removed.

 

[KirthWGersen]

Neither of that has happened in America. All of that took place in Europe. The most we got here from religious sectors was the branches of said catholic church who still performed child sexual abuse, and who knows else. Majority of christians in the US were peaceful and harmless. You may have gotten a sexual abuse or marriage affair here and there, but the scandal was not comparable to what happened long ago. What we do know is that there was a set standard and tradition of morals and family stability created by said religion. And that did not need to be removed.

No, absolutely no child sex abuse in America. No slavery. No racial hierarchy. No mass suicides. No defrauding poor congregations of their wealth. America is a beacon on a hill and Christianity is the foundation of it all.

FFS, public denunciations of organised religion go back even further than Thomas Paine.

You can have family stability without marriage, if that is what you are worried about. And you can have families without Christianity, as the overwhelming majority of humans who have ever lived would testify.

 

[HaleyBaron]

No, absolutely no child sex abuse in America. No slavery. No racial hierarchy. No mass suicides. No defrauding poor congregations of their wealth. America is a beacon on a hill and Christianity is the foundation of it all.

All of those was caused by non-christians. Non-christians that were also responsible for having a black market of child prostitutes, were the main traders and possesses of african slaves, and created the class systems regarding race. There is a reason I mentioned the Bolshevik Revolution. I'm giving you lots of tools and only ask you go look them up. You'll find your answer.

 

[KirthWGersen]

All of those was caused by non-christians. Non-christians that were also responsible for having a black market of child prostitutes, were the main traders and possesses of african slaves, and created the class systems regarding race. There is a reason I mentioned the Bolshevik Revolution. I'm giving you lots of tools and only ask you go look them up. You'll find your answer.

I get it now. Christians are only Christians when they do nice things. When they don't do nice things, they are not Christians.
No true Scotsman?

But anyway, coming back to the point of all this, in what way can belief in a particular religion (or your particular quirky take on it) improve the dynamics between the sexes in the modern world without imposing its values on those who do not hold them?

 

[HaleyBaron]

I get it now. Christians are only Christians when they do nice things. When they don't do nice things, they are not Christians.
No true Scotsman?

But anyway, coming back to the point of all this, in what way can belief in a particular religion (or your particular quirky take on it) improve the dynamics between the sexes in the modern world without imposing its values on those who do not hold them?

I never said that. There are bad christians. But the ones who did the majority of what you mentioned were literally not christians. They were of a totally different religious sect.

Christianity held together the family and tradition far more than any other has. Christianity is what led to the prosperity of our nation and those who followed it even before it reached these shores. It gives stability, a moral compass, and keeps out degeneracy that corrodes all aspects of life. Every problem you see regarding the sexual revolution is entirely cause of the destruction of those boundaries. Realize that before any of this, there were stronger and larger families, and wealthier non-whites. Women were happier as well. Most people owned their land and if they did not, they leased it from locals, not people who live on the other side of the world who can give less of a **** about you. There's so many reasons christianity was good. Even if another religion came about that had a different name but similar morals, I still would say it's better than this atheist shift to government as God.

 

[andreihaha]

When work meant getting your hands dirty, lifting heavy stones or risking injury women were perfectly happy to stay at home.

Now women want to "work" if it means getting paid top dollar to sit in a comfortable leather chair and boss people around. But when it's time to pay for anything or take responsibility for mistakes they want the equality to end.

Now it seems women want to treat average guys like trash but still expect those guys to play the role of protector and provider because the reality is they can't look after themselves and they resent even having to try.

I don't have anything against sexual freedom. I like it. But if you're not loyal to a guy, don't expect him to provide for you.

That's a really good way of looking at things. It's not true about all women, but about this type of woman that seems to gather more media attention. And what will probably become a majority of women, unfortunately.
Yeah, good comment, dude.

 

[Modern Man Advice]

Here is an article about the Sexual Revolution. Its a long but quick read.

Thoughts?

———


While it gave (young) women and a small percentage of men the ability to sleep around willy nilly without commitment I firmly believe that the overall result of the sexual revolution has been so negative its long term badness lies somewhere between the Taiping rebellion and the burning of the Library of Alexandria.

Previously society was at an equilibrium that as an average man you would find yourself an average wife who was (ideally) dedicated to you and you would support each other in your journey through this mortal coil. That we were in this situation was not an accident but the result of thousands of years of cultural evolution. It wasn't because some council of patriarchal elders decided to enforce traditional norms but because societies with traditional norms were better fits for human civilization so they outcompeted other ones until the alternatives were wiped out and trad norms became dominant (and no your two examples of current matriarchal societies are not a counterexample, look at their size and influence versus ours, if we wanted to we could remove any traces of their existence in less than a few months).

However with the sexual revolution this contract has been destroyed and we are in a state of free for all. The consequences have been dire, from Japan's unproductive herbivore men to the pandemic of single mothers in the west, especially among lower class people.

While loose sexual norms might work well for the sort of upper class elites who have safety nets to fall back on (and are the main people pushing this stuff) they wreak absolute havoc on the working class who don't have this support. Yes the Yale graduate who slept around will still be able to find a high quality husband to stick with her due to her class and connections but the community college woman risks being pumped and dumped into a single mom despite the fact that there are an order of magnitude more of the latter than the former. What's worse is that the Yale graduate will continue to support sleeping around saying that it did her no harm and ignore the destruction of the social contract and damage it does to people less fortunate than her (ironically she probably identifies as an intersectional feminist...).

Indeed there was research recently showing that while back in the day both rich and poor kids were roughly 95% likely to live in a two parent family at the moment although the rich still have a 85% two family rate the amount of poor kids in the same situation has dropped to 30%.

The sexual revolution has given men the freedom to not commit, while 100 years ago if you got a woman pregnant both social norms and her family would oblige you (forcefully if needed) to marry her and provide. Now as a man you are free to abscond your duty to your own child. Once again it is not the UMC doing this because they are better able to plan pregnancy and better abilities to handle unexpected ones but poorer people who don't enjoy any of this luxury. This is so extreme that among older working class women "Where are all the good men?" is now becoming "Where are all the men?"

This is before we have even gotten to the point of the damage the sexual revolution and our sex obsessed media which exaggerates everything further to maximize clicks has done on average and below average males. Your average man sees Chad on the TV screen effortlessly getting women to spread their legs (sometimes with a scene in which Chad meets a new woman which immediately cuts to one in which she is in his bed) and starts to believe that this is what life is like for the top 20% even though this is total media fiction (compare to how people overestimate the percentage of minorities in the country; minorities are overrepresented in the media, again due to our Yale Graduate believing this helps corrects for some past discrimination, then normal people see this increased amount and believe this reflects the real world).

Thus these average men get disillusioned with women and society (some even turning to in*cl movements), believing that all women get into bed with Chad two seconds after meeting him - because it is what they see on TV, and TV has become the main way most of us get information about the state of the world. Due to this these men are much less invested in their community - having a family meant that you wanted society in general to thrive because it meant your family would also be better off and it discouraged you from acting like a loose cannon because then your family would suffer e.g. the dad of two kids is much less likely to go on a shooting spree. Your slightly below average modern man does not have this moderating influence upon him anymore.

Thus in exchange for about half the population being able to sleep around no strings attached for a few years we have irreparably damaged the bonds holding society together. This damage to the social contract is likely irreparable. In the best case we may be able to adapt to this being the new normal while spending more and more resources on ersatz remedies to mitigate the negative effects. In the worst case western culture may just be in for a real time demonstration of why cultures with loose sexual norms did not survive long.

TLDR: Title

This reminds me of a read, can't remember where it was, about sexual behaviors and patterns of apes in the wild. Specifically, Bonobos vs Chimps. One, if not the only common denominator between Homo Sapiens and Bonobos is the separation of sex and reproduction.

Anyway, I don't think sex for the sake of pleasure will ruin society. It is not that simple, sex is primal, and it should not be labeled toxic. It is deeper than that and for me, the biggest risk in society is the continuing blurring of female and male energies and roles. Effectively each gender overstepping and watering down of the two genders. More and more we see men with feminine energy and females with masculine energy and further expanding the gap between the two genders. To the point where we are losing interest in forming genuine intergender relationships and therefore engaging in a tug of war.

That's my two cents on a much, much, much deeper conversation.


Modern Man Advice

 

[andreihaha]

I never said that. There are bad christians. But the ones who did the majority of what you mentioned were literally not christians. They were of a totally different religious sect.

Christianity held together the family and tradition far more than any other has. Christianity is what led to the prosperity of our nation and those who followed it even before it reached these shores. It gives stability, a moral compass, and keeps out degeneracy that corrodes all aspects of life. Every problem you see regarding the sexual revolution is entirely cause of the destruction of those boundaries. Realize that before any of this, there were stronger and larger families, and wealthier non-whites. Women were happier as well. Most people owned their land and if they did not, they leased it from locals, not people who live on the other side of the world who can give less of a **** about you. There's so many reasons christianity was good. Even if another religion came about that had a different name but similar morals, I still would say it's better than this atheist shift to government as God.

At the core, Christianity is about morality. And it didn't keep only America together, but most of our world.
It's true that no one is without sin, but comparing a few mistakes that Christians did with sh1t people with no moral code did is ridiculous.
Atheism and communist/Marxist ideas are the reason society got where we are today, and to me that's not a pretty sight at all.