Loose Sexual Morals are Dyscivic

I have a new blog on my blog roll – the site is run by an Orthodox priest and the latest entry (by an associate) is worth a read.

The article is based on the research done by a social anthropologist J.D. Unwin in 1936. He posited that cultural sexual mores correlate with cultural flourishing.

He looked at categories of culture: art, architecture, literature, engineering, etc. He then gave labels on cultural levels:

  1. zoistic: Entirely self-focussed on day-to day-life, wants, and needs, with no interest in understanding nature. Described as a “dead culture” or “inert”.

  2. monistic: Acquire superstitious beliefs and/or special treatment of the dead to cope with the natural world.

  3. deistic: Attribute the powers of nature to a god or gods

  4. rationalistic: Use rational thinking to understand nature and to make day-to-day decisions.

He also supplied categories for sexual mores:

  1. Complete sexual freedom—no prenuptial restraints at all

  2. Irregular or occasional restraint— cultural regulations require an occasional period of abstinence

  3. Strict Chastity —remain a virgin until married

Postnuptial categories were:[5]

  1. Modified monogamy: one spouse at a time, but association can be terminated by either party.

  2. Modified polygamy: men can have more than one wife, but a wife is free to leave her husband.

  3. Absolute monogamy: only one spouse permitted for life (or until death in some cultures)

  4. 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.”

After studying 86 cultures, the result was that strong sexual mores strongly correlate with cultural flourishing.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. Total sexual freedom: If total sexual freedom was embraced by a culture, that culture collapsed within three generations to the lowest state of flourishing — 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.

  6. 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)

Basically, in a society where nearly all men can’t get sex without marriage, they tend to invest themselves in achieving great things.

This also matches the testimony of the men who participate in the November No Coomer abstinence/fast. It also matches the testimony of food fasters, who, in their fasting journey, begin with inward obsession but end the fast with external focus.

The author goes on to demonstrate how Unwin’s findings are predictive of the current culture death we are now experiencing (Rationalist to currently monistic).

The whole thing is worth a read.

8+
avataravataravataravataravataravataravataravatar

56 thoughts on “Loose Sexual Morals are Dyscivic”

  1. EThompson:
    This is the most insane post/thread I’ve yet to read.

    That was an unnecessarily hostile opening.

    I don’t have a clue about this sexual phobia all of you seem to have but it doesn’t have a thing to do with anything but irresponsibly that results in illegitimacy.

    Alleging sexual phobia is not a great way to start your interaction with a serious post.

    The Original Post has quite a lot to do with serious sociological matters that include, but are not limited to, the irresponsibilities that result in illegitimacy.

    That is the subject that should be under discussion but somehow, once again, MEN think having babies out of wedlock doesn’t incur the social disasters that it has. They’re more worried about the how and not the consequences?

    You will have to explain how you jump to these conclusions.   Male Ratburghers have quite consistently remarked on social disasters that result from a lack of family formation.   Male Ratburghers have not expressed any desire to avoid consequences.

    BTW, the whole post by MEN about the pill was another stupid thing; there are plenty of women who use (to quote Hyp) mechanical BC …

    That post was about The Pill.   The fact that other birth control options are available came in as a comment about choices that are available so that The Pill does not need to be considered the only birth control strategy for any woman.

    But the main point of the Original Post was that The Pill is a strong mix of neuroaffective chemicals that is poorly understood, and the lack of adequate research is due to the libertine Left championing The Pill, so not actually very much about sex, and more about the politics of science, which are affected by the politics of sex.

    and I really enjoyed the fact that all of you male experts assumed I used the pill.

    That was a natural inference from the way you crashed into that post with an equal measure of hostility.

    It’s a personal subject to be sure but because I was a smoker for a few years, that wasn’t even an option but for many women it is. I won’t criticize their choices.

    Nobody’s choices were being criticized.   What was criticized was the fact that women are making inadequately-informed choices because the Left has inhibited research.

    7+
    avataravataravataravataravataravataravatar
  2. Off topic for sure (!) but surely wish you’d been as vocal in defending me against the unbelievably rude, hostile and even misogynistic comments made to me by Robert and DrL and the ever fun Phil T. I suppose it’s only classless to make aggressive remarks if you’re a woman.

    Congrats to all of you! You’ve turned a “guy’s girl” into a first class femi-nazi.

    0

  3. Judy Campbell:
    Ok, but Michaelangelo was gay; Leonardo da Vinci was gay. According to the movie about his life, Mozart was not exactly chaste in his dealings with women; Beethoven wasn’t either, and if I knew more about great artists, I could probably go on and on. Too many of the greatest artists have been sexual libertines. Most bullshit artists are also sexual libertines. I have personally known both real artists and bullshit artists: in my experience, they are all libertines, but some of them have real talent and most of them don’t.

    Then what are you trying to say here?

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  4. Stina, I said what I said: lots of incredibly talented people and incredibly talented civilizations, like, say, our own, are libertine when it comes to sex. This doesn’t mean that it’s ok to be libertine when it comes to sex, but you and the sociologist you refer to are stating that there is a direct link between the success of a society and sexual mores. I am questioning that idea: I am not trying to destroy morality.

    This is probably a bad analogy and I will probably regret using it, but for the sake of argument, think of sexual morality like eating vegetables. In general, people who eat lots of vegetables will be healthier than those who don’t. This doesn’t mean that people who never eat vegetables always die at younger ages than people who do: life is more complicated than that.

    In general, societies where most people practice restraint when it comes to sex will be better off than societies where most people don’t, but there are many other factors that factor into whether a society will be successful or not, and when it comes to artists and artwork, all bets are off 🙂

    2+
    avataravatar
  5. EThompson:
    My last comment on this thread is that Protestant sexual ethics exist primarily to avoid what I abhor most- illegitimacy. It never was about the sexual activity itself– it was always about the repercussions.

    Now, if you are a devout Catholic and believe sex should be a solely procreative act, that’s another conversation altogether and one I wouldn’t care to engage in.

    That’s not what Catholics believe regarding sex. Catholics are just as much against illegitimacy as Protestants. In fact, I would say the Protestants took their views on sex from Catholics.

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  6. Illegitimacy is caused by recreational sex. That is just a fact. If you are in a relationship with a guy or gal and you are willing to have sex with them but not raise a child with them, something has gone wrong in your judgment. Also all sexual deviancy is expensive, VERY expensive to society. Whatever your personal choices are your own, however how those things effect society as a whole is something to consider.

    6+
    avataravataravataravataravataravatar
  7. I would say sexual mores are a factor to consider when measuring the vitality of a culture. Maybe I would weigh sexual mores heavier than others but I could agree it’s not the only factor.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  8. This is the thesis for Camille Paglia’s book Sexual Persone.That in the late phases of culture there tends to be a fluorescence of homosexuality and gender confusion. She said it was a sign of civilizational collapse.

    9+
    avataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravatar
  9. Judy Campbell:
    In general, societies where most people practice restraint when it comes to sex will be better off than societies where most people don’t, but there are many other factors that factor into whether a society will be successful or not, and when it comes to artists and artwork, all bets are off

    OK; artists are not good indicators of societal health.

    Otherwise, there is a very strong correlation between general sexual moral behavior and societal health.

    The quality of art produced by a society may be an indicator of health.   That is an indication of the attributes of art that are appreciated by the elites of society who patronize the arts, and not attributable to the moral standards of the artists themselves.

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  10. Judy Campbell:
    This is probably a bad analogy and I will probably regret using it, but for the sake of argument, think of sexual morality like eating vegetables. In general, people who eat lots of vegetables will be healthier than those who don’t. This doesn’t mean that people who never eat vegetables always die at younger ages than people who do: life is more complicated than that.

    So I don’t think this is a horrible analogy. And I agree with you in the detail, individual level. But my argument is about society as a whole, not just the individuals that are small parts of it. I think that’s where we are falling off…

    So I’m going to extend the dietary analogy.

    A government (as proxy to a society) promoting an unhealthy diet leads to a greater percentage of their population being unhealthy. That doesn’t mean that healthy people can’t exist or that there are worse illnesses present. (Our government food recommendations vs obesity epidemic).

    This has some interesting effects where patients seeking help from their doctors are guided away from solutions that would help and directed to the government recommendations as default. The truly desperate only find difference of opinion by stubborn persistence and seeking out specialists.

    Another analogy… a collection of 1000×900 pixels is going to appear yellow if the majority of pixels are yellow while a handful scattered throughout are green or brown. The green and brown are the defectors… they don’t affect the bigger picture all that much.

    I’m sorry if I’m misunderstanding what you are saying, but I’m not sure you are understanding me, either. I am trying, though.

    1+
    avatar
  11. Bryan G. Stephens:
    I think that a society can only withstand so much social deviance.  Our industrial society is more resilient than in the past, but it is not immune.

    I think might be correct only because of the great wealth the US has enjoyed. You tend not to notice the bad when you are lavishly supplied.

    6+
    avataravataravataravataravataravatar
  12. Robert A. McReynolds:

    Bryan G. Stephens:
    I think that a society can only withstand so much social deviance.  Our industrial society is more resilient than in the past, but it is not immune.

    I think might be correct only because of the great wealth the US has enjoyed. You tend not to notice the bad when you are lavishly supplied.

    Hunter gathers have no tolerance, becausw things are so fragile.

    2+
    avataravatar
  13. Bryan G. Stephens:
    Hunter gathers have no tolerance, becausw things are so fragile.

    It’s a bit chicken and egg… we have wealth because we found more efficient ways to supply ourselves with food. Gardening and Farming is more efficient because nature does most of the work… so it freed up more population to pursue other venues of work, building industry and creating wealth.

    It is ultimately comfortable living that makes deviancy tolerable, but easy living is a consequence of industry… but not just steel mill and factory industry. Rome didn’t have those things, neither did Greece, yet both civilizations experienced immense wealth and a tolerance for deviancy.

    I’d like to get the book and see which civilizations maintained their high culture for several generations. The article said only 2 or 3. I’m curious if China is one of them.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  14. Bryan G. Stephens:

    Robert A. McReynolds:

    Bryan G. Stephens:
    I think that a society can only withstand so much social deviance.  Our industrial society is more resilient than in the past, but it is not immune.

    I think might be correct only because of the great wealth the US has enjoyed. You tend not to notice the bad when you are lavishly supplied.

    Hunter gathers have no tolerance, becausw things are so fragile.

    A rich society struggles with happiness. If you are poor you are glad to have the thing but if you are rich you can’t be happy unless you get the pink thing with a ribbon.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  15. “Also all sexual deviancy is expensive, VERY expensive to society. Whatever your personal choices are your own, however how those things effect society as a whole is something to consider.”

    What about lesbianism? They don’t make parasitic children and they don’t spread diseases.

    0

  16. Henry Castaigne:
    “Also all sexual deviancy is expensive, VERY expensive to society. Whatever your personal choices are your own, however how those things effect society as a whole is something to consider.”

    What about lesbianism? They don’t make parasitic children and they don’t spread diseases.

    What are “parasitic children”? Is that like “marriage slavery”?

    2+
    avataravatar
  17. Henry Castaigne:
    “Also all sexual deviancy is expensive, VERY expensive to society. Whatever your personal choices are your own, however how those things effect society as a whole is something to consider.”

    What about lesbianism? They don’t make parasitic children and they don’t spread diseases.

    Believe it or not as a social conservative, I’m ok with lesbians; they aren’t nearly as promiscuous as their male counterparts, don’t pass on the AIDS virus and pretty much keep to themselves. (Don’t think you can judge them in the least by what the media likes to portray.)

    Who changed my mind here? Fox commentator Tammy Bruce who resigned as the president of NOW LA ( a very powerful job) because of the support of her “sisters” for OJ Simpson during that dreadful trial. I read her original book on this subject and  I became a fan after noting her commentary “Race always trumps gender around here and I didn’t sign up for that.”

    She was already on notice though because she was a longtime card-carrying member of the NRA. She obviously doesn’t have any gender issues (very pretty) and I like her enough to have bought two of her books.

    1+
    avatar
  18. Why are people who see no problem with loose sexual morals such hot messes? Especially as they get older it really shows. This has been my experience.

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  19. Henry Castaigne:
    “Also all sexual deviancy is expensive, VERY expensive to society. Whatever your personal choices are your own, however how those things effect society as a whole is something to consider.”

    What about lesbianism? They don’t make parasitic children and they don’t spread diseases.

    Lesbianism has it’s own social problems. Milo was writing a book on the issues with lesbians but seemed to have been sidetracked. Granted Milo isn’t a fan of lesbians but he has pointed out that most of the LGBT activists groups are run by lesbians. It was lesbians who really headed up the push for gay marriage. Women are the ones who run the social realm of society and a lot of left wing activism is run by lesbians.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  20. EThompson:
    they aren’t nearly as promiscuous as their male counterparts, don’t pass on the AIDS virus and pretty much keep to themselves.

    A genetic study that Cochran at West Hunter discusses https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2019/09/23/gay-genes/ does indicate there is a statistically valid correlation with the number of sexual partners for both gay men and women.  I guess it doesn’t prove that gay women have the same or more sexual partners, but argues that the genetic link to this risky behavior exists.  Risky behavior being multiple sex partners.

    It’s not ridiculous to at least consider the results of loose morals on a society or culture.  For simplicity, if one limits the definition of loose morals to that of having multiple sex partners, then the follow results described by Stefan make it pretty clear to me that having multiple sex partners isn’t good for society.  I think the data sources are linked below the video.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  21. EThompson:
    Off topic for sure (!) but surely wish you’d been as vocal in defending me against the unbelievably rude, hostile and even misogynistic comments made to me by Robert and DrL and the ever fun Phil T. I suppose it’s only classless to make aggressive remarks if you’re a woman.

    Congrats to all of you! You’ve turned a “guy’s girl” into a first class femi-nazi.

    Liz, I don’t and probably others don’t step in because you dish out a lot. What is hard to understand is why are you so sensitive when people do similar things to you?

    In this comment, you were hard on Robert, DrL, and Phil. They will all take calling them “rude, hostile, and even misogynist” in stride. Some will laugh it off even. Why can’t you?

    2+
    avataravatar
  22. 10 Cents:

    EThompson:
    Off topic for sure (!) but surely wish you’d been as vocal in defending me against the unbelievably rude, hostile and even misogynistic comments made to me by Robert and DrL and the ever fun Phil T. I suppose it’s only classless to make aggressive remarks if you’re a woman.

    Congrats to all of you! You’ve turned a “guy’s girl” into a first class femi-nazi.

    Liz, I don’t and probably others don’t step in because you dish out a lot. What is hard to understand is why are you so sensitive when people do similar things to you?

    In this comment, you were hard on Robert, DrL, and Phil. They will all take calling them “rude, hostile, and even misogynist” in stride. Some will laugh it off even. Why can’t you?

    Good question Dime. The commentary of members you mentioned was vitriolic, not joshing around and unprovoked in their particular cases.  Example: HD’s latest gem. What was I “dishing out” there except for an opinion?

    Here’s an opinion we can all agree upon; let’s stop talking about this. I’ll try to chime in on the topics of which the rest of the members approve.

    0

Leave a Reply