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. Mate De:
    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.

    I don’t disagree but I always insist on referring back to the original source. Betty Friedan was not promoting sexual identification issues. I’m afraid it was the next generation- Steinem (definitely a hetero with quite an enviable dating life) and then Ireland who came out as a bi-sexual although she’d been married twice. That’s when I lost interest in NOW. It had wandered far outside the realms of its original mission.

    0

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

    Idle hands are the devil’s playthings?

    Some of the worst stuff coming out of the Episcopal church has been promoted by childless women. Throw in hatred of men (which is common among lesbians) and giving them social purchase to influence society can be deadly.

    Bisexual women might be less caustic and harmful than lesbians.

    1+
    avatar
  3. EThompson:

    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.

    Liz, I don’t think you understand how you provoke people. You do and people respond to that. Your style is not joshing and their style is not joshing but most people you attack laugh it off as you being you.

    1+
    avatar
  4. 10 Cents:

    EThompson:

    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.

    Liz, I don’t think you understand how you provoke people. You do and people respond to that. Your style is not joshing and their style is not joshing but most people you attack laugh it off as you being you.

    I do understand how I provoke people; I have different opinions and I’m aggressive about presenting them because I often get impatient with “armchair intellectuals” who don’t really get out in the world that much and refuse to accept religious interpretations they’re not used to.

    Ever notice the three particular members I get along with? They’re worldly, well-traveled and read a lot of books- not “links.”

    In any case, I wish to create no more discord on this site (life is challenging enough) so rest assured you will have no more problems managing to ‘tame’ me.

    1+
    avatar
  5. EThompson:

    10 Cents:

    EThompson:

    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.

    Liz, I don’t think you understand how you provoke people. You do and people respond to that. Your style is not joshing and their style is not joshing but most people you attack laugh it off as you being you.

    I do understand how I provoke people; I have different opinions and I’m aggressive about presenting them because I often get impatient with “armchair intellectuals” who don’t really get out in the world that much and refuse to accept religious interpretations they’re not used to.

    Ever notice the three particular members I get along with? They’re worldly, well-traveled and read a lot of books- not “links.”

    In any case, I wish to create no more discord on this site (life is challenging enough) so rest assured you will have no more problems managing to ‘tame’ me.

    Liz, be realistic. You won’t change.

    The main problem as I see it is you think your opinions are so much better than everyone else. Do you actually believe this?

    0

  6. I do wish you wouldn’t distract from the point of my commentary. It appears to be a tactic employed by several of your members who disagree with me.

    I tell it like I see it. If you choose to disregard that and chalk it up merely to some sense of self-imposed superiority there is nothing more I can say.

    1+
    avatar

Leave a Reply