The woke so called "progress" did not depend on the consent of the people.
Why should a traditionalist counter-revolution?
Your sex life is everyone's business. Sex leads to offspring and diseases. Its abuse is not victimless. That is why every state, except for the failing modern states that are falling down like WTC-2, have regulated people's sexuality.
And no, I would not make banning extra-marital relations the first step (or perhaps even the last). Recognition of the social harms is the first step though.
Woke victories absolutely did come about through consent. Idiots voted for woke bullshit. While only a tiny fraction of society is woke activists, there is a huge percentage that went along with their shit and kept voting for Democrats knowing that the Democrats were pushing the woke agenda. A big part of why wokes kept winning was because the bulk of society hates social conservatives like you. That is why the new emergent Right in the United States is more libertarian-minded on sex issues.
Your logic here is identical to the authoritarians who wanted to force everyone to mask and vaxx, but even more tenuous. Why is THEIR authoritarianism bad, but YOUR authoritarianism good? The problem with authoritarians is that they never agree, and they never stop fighting until one side murders all its rivals, which is how communism happens. IMO authoritarians should form their own authoritarian communities based on consent where people who agree with those values can go live that way by choice, and leave if they change their minds.
While sex leads to offspring and diseases, that doesn't give anyone the right to regulate or control purely private sex. As far as I know, no society in human history has ever had a forced breeding program, so it is a universally recognized human right to decide for yourself whether to have children. This was even true with commies. So you can't use that as an excuse. And as for diseases, unlike with COVID, where I can infect you by mere proximity, you can't catch an STD from me unless you consent to unprotected sex with me, at which point you're fully consenting to the risk. If you don't want that risk, then don't have unprotected sex. Simple as. I was opposed to mask/vaxx mandates, and I thought you were as well.
Every argument the puritans have ever made has always been proven wrong. The simple and inescapable truth is that the sexual repressors do not base their policy preferences on logic or reason, but rather on an emotional sense that a "moral" society "ought" to ban people from having a good time, probably because the puritan is a jealous loser who can't compete in the sexual marketplace and doesn't get to enjoy its benefits. It's all about power, control, social conditioning, and repression to force people to live "your" lifestyle instead of the life they want to live.
Prohibition actually had very strong arguments in its favor. Alcohol indisputably does enormous harm and directly/indirectly kills a huge number of people every year. A sober society would clearly be "better" in a lot of metrics. Problem is, people simply liked alcohol too much to give it up, to the point where banning it became unsustainable. So if that act of authoritarianism failed, despite having compelling benefits and alcohol being admittedly a vice at the time, imagine how much more of a waste of time it would be trying to ban things like porn or premarital sex. This is done in communist countries sometimes, and it just results in a mess of a society with rampant prostitution. Just look at China and Vietnam.
The lion's share of sexual repression in the last 30 years or so (after the power of the religious right was essentially broken) have come from feminists. Feminists hate the fact that men get easy access to sexual satisfaction in the form of things like porn and prostitution. Feminists want vagina access to be as restricted as possible in order to maximize the leverage women have over men.
Woke victories absolutely did come about through consent. Idiots voted for woke bullshit. While only a tiny fraction of society is woke activists, there is a huge percentage that went along with their shit and kept voting for Democrats knowing that the Democrats were pushing the woke agenda.
They by no means 'knew' that. That is why the woke agenda is always advanced clandestinely. Furthermore, it continues on advancing even when Republicans are nominally in charge.
Your logic here is identical to the authoritarians who wanted to force everyone to mask and vaxx, but even more tenuous. Why is THEIR authoritarianism bad, but YOUR authoritarianism good?
What has existed for all of human history is presumably good, what was thought up 5 minutes ago and forced on the entire population is not.
The problem with authoritarians is that they never agree
So called 'authoritarians' have agreed for all of human history, that you cannot run a society with no sexual morals. It's only five minutes ago that some people disagreed, and you can see the results: total societal collapse.
As far as I know, no society in human history has ever had a forced breeding program
I know of not one Roman who 'chose' not to have kids. And when social mores changed in such a way to make children less likely Augustus introduced the lex Iulia.
it is a universally recognized human right to decide for yourself whether to have children.
There are no human rights. It's unfortunate, but they do not exist. You have no right to anything, it's just where governments have not yet deemed it expedient to interfere. It's like a habitual bank robber saying that Bank X has a right to its monkey, or the farmer who tells the turkey that it has a right to live.
The simple and inescapable truth is that the sexual repressors do not base their policy preferences on logic or reason, but rather on an emotional sense that a "moral" society "ought" to ban people from having a good time
I don't care about you having a 'good time'. I do care about the negative social consequences that result from the sexual libertinism that you advocate. It's not an individual matter. For as long as no one else behaves properly, there is little cost to you not doing either.
imagine how much more of a waste of time it would be trying to ban things like porn or premarital sex. This is done in communist countries sometimes, and it just results in a mess of a society with rampant prostitution. Just look at China and Vietnam.
Noted that you did not mention the USSR, where it was the Yeltsin libertinism that resulted in rampant prostitution. Also, I thought you said that prostitution was perfectly fine? So why are you now citing it as an example for why banning porn is bad?
For all of human history, premarital sex was banned. 'Porn' is a bit more complicated. Like I said, I don't think it's practical to go around banning things immediately, or to even not engage in such things, but to simply recognize the negative effects when they are widely practiced and socially acceptable. That is all.
They hated social conservatives because they told the truth.
The lion's share of sexual repression in the last 30 years or so (after the power of the religious right was essentially broken) have come from feminists.
Now, has society improved or worsened with the power of the religious right broken?
And the vast majority of feminists are fanatically pro-porn and pro-prostitution.
Feminists want vagina access to be as restricted as possible in order to maximize the leverage women have over men.
And if we look at the example of the black community, where women have zero leverage over men and are pumped and dumped on the regular, I'd say that it's a pretty bad thing to destroy the leverage that women have. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free, as they said?
The woke did use lies to advance their agenda, just like social conservatives do the same thing, such as by claiming all prostitutes are human trafficking victims instead of just whores who want money, or saying that internet porn will cause sex crimes (when sex crimes actually fell). I could go on, but authoritarians constantly lie to push their agendas.
Premarital sex, whores, and porn have existed for all of human history. That doesn't stop puritans from trying to ban them. You can't really invoke sexual traditionalism when marrying 12 year olds was totally fine until the 1800s. While Christianity did reduce a lot of the default sexual degeneracy that dominated throughout human history, modern American society is still pretty puritanical in a lot of ways, with a special privileged carveout being made for the LGBTs.
Sexual morality largely did not exist, or the bar was so low that it might as well not have existed, all throughout classical times, ancient greece, rome, and thousands of years prior. The major shift came with the rise of Christianity in Europe. Muhammad married a 6 year old and fucked her when she was 9. Muslims could have 4 wives, and had stuff like sex slaves. Even the Catholic Spaniards in the New World routinely raped and sexually enslaved extremely young girls during the time of Columbus. Mormons practiced polygamy officially until pressured out of it. It's not like there was this former golden age of sexual morality in the past. I can't think of any society that would satisfy your standards for sexual morality other than the Puritan colonists, who were some crazy witch-burning motherfuckers. To a lesser extent the United States had a period of peak sexual authoritarianism in the earlier part of the 1900s. All this did was cause a massive backlash by the 1960s, which massively fueled the Left and RESULTED IN the wokeness you see today. It was the very force of the pendulum of repression before the 60s that gave the Left its sexual momentum in the last 50 years, resulting in that pendulum swinging into depravity now. Instead of perpetuating this cycle of oppression alternative between puritans and then depravity, society should break the cycle and shut down both sides by adopting a libertarian, freedom-based anti-authoritarian attitude towards sex.
I'm sure plenty of people in Roman times chose to not have kids and used the pull-out method to prevent pregnancy. Just because you can't name them doesn't mean they didn't exist. Obviously the social dynamics of those times were very different from now, such that there was far more of an incentive to have kids back then vs now. The reason fertility drops so much in modern times is that people see having kids as an expensive drag on their lives. Until modern times something like over 90% of people were farmers, so kids were free labor.
"Human rights" are simply the norms of rights that all or nearly all people agree on. They exist because we collectively will them into existence. They are enforced through consensus. Good luck trying to impose laws that are antithetical to the human condition. Communists have partially managed it, but only through mass murder and prolonged terror. Even then, they fell far short of their goals.
I don't advocate sexual libertinism. I just don't think the government should be in the business of enforcing pure "morality" through the barrel of a gun.
I'm sure prostitutes existed in the USSR, if anything they just came out more into the open in the 90s. This whole idea that the USSR used to be a paragon of moral purity is a total crock of shit used as propaganda. It simply isn't true. My point re: prostitution is that your methods and goals are doomed to failure. Humans get horny and want to fuck. You can't just tell them "no" and expect them to listen. Trying to enforce puritanical sexual mores that are utterly incompatible with the vast majority of personalities and physiologies is just going to get you subversion and corruption. Prohibition was only allowed to exist as long as it was ineffective. As soon as it started to actually work and alcohol consumption started to drop, which most people don't even know about, people were so pissed off that they rebelled and overturned it.
Premarital sex was the norm for all of human history until very recently thanks to the rise of puritanical Christianity in the 1800s specifically. This was mostly driven by the Industrial Revolution and the rise in education of women. Parents suddenly wanted their daughters to avoid pregnancy in order to finish school. This led to the lie/contrivance of claiming that premarital sex is a sin, when there is absolutely no verse anywhere in the Bible that says premarital sex is a sin. It's a pure invention, a pure fabrication, designed to keep young women's legs closed so they stay in school.
No, the vast majority of feminists are very much against things like porn, prostitution, and even things like breast implants. I would know better than you since I grew up in Los Angeles and have had a lot more exposure to feminists than you have. The voices you see very recently advocating for "sex workers" are a small minority that only exist in extremely deep blue safe spaces dominated by LGBTs. Their advocacy mostly falls on deaf ears because mainstream feminism rejects it.
The black community is a perfect example of how socialism can destroy cultural values. The black community used to be a lot better before the 1960s. Then libtards opened up a massive welfare expansion to single mothers while at the same time pushing hard that blacks ought to reject "white" social norms because a lot of these libtards were cultural marxists who deeply wanted to overthrow white culture. So the result was that single mothers were subsidized and incentivized to the point where their numbers grew, and the natural protectant against this was torn away as black cultural values were torn down by marxists and their trained black mouthpieces. This all only could have happened thanks to socialist welfare expansion and "big government" policies which caused a feedback loop of government dependency, which is exactly what the marxists wanted. If you simply took away that socialism, the whole cycle is broken because single black mothers don't get rewarded for their bad choices, and so get looked down upon instead of emulated.
Government policy should encourage family values. Government policy should dis-incentivize, and never subsidize, behaviors which are deleterious to the values which strengthen a society. I think we agree on all that. The difference is that I do NOT agree on using heavy handed big government socialism like criminal laws to try to coerce society into obedience. Instead, I think we let free speech and free markets get as far as they can, and use the government in a limited way to ensure that the incentive structure favors making good decisions. For example, I would 100% support the government discriminating against single mothers and children born out of wedlock in terms of provisioning welfare. I would uphold the institution of marriage and LGBTs would get chinese-brand civil unions. Policy in this area is difficult, but you can get the result you want with intelligence and a light touch, instead of stupid, crude socialism that has been generally historically proven to fail. Freedom + a favorable incentive structure is the best way to guide and channel society in a positive direction.
No, I mean that woke has zero democratic legitimacy, and in fact, it proves that Western countries are not democracies. No one wanted this. But what's good for the goose...
Premarital sex, whores, and porn have existed for all of human history.
There's more of it now, because 'Puritans' stopped resisting it.
You can't really invoke sexual traditionalism when marrying 12 year olds was totally fine until the 1800s.
Not sure wheree you're getting 12, but yes, people married younger because of low life expectancy - even for people who had reached their teenager years.
Sexual morality largely did not exist, or the bar was so low that it might as well not have existed, all throughout classical times, ancient greece, rome, and thousands of years prior.
Wut? What would happen if a Greek or Roman man found his wife with a stranger? That would be the end of that stranger.
I can't think of any society that would satisfy your standards for sexual morality other than the Puritan colonists
Victorian Enngland, where Charles Dickens had to secretly separate from his wife. And frankly, it worked rather well. That is my only criterion: whether it works well. It is a matter of indifference to me whether people have premarital sex, or if they divorce. But it's clear that it does not work well, and that a return to traditional norms is called for.
I'm sure plenty of people in Roman times chose to not have kids and used the pull-out method to prevent pregnancy. Just because you can't name them doesn't mean they didn't exist.
There would be no point in marrying at all, if you did not want kids. And "I'm sure" is not exactly the best argument. It would be rather curious and remarked on by people - which is exactly my point.
Of course, as you say, the poor could use them for farmhands, and the wealthy needed kids for alliances and to pass on property.
"Human rights" are simply the norms of rights that all or nearly all people agree on. They exist because we collectively will them into existence. They are enforced through consensus.
They're not enforced though. Whenever they are inconvenieint, the ruling class defines them out of existence. You really think people like Biden or Trudeau (or Romney) think that you have rights? Don't be silly. It's about what they can do, and what they can't do.
I don't advocate sexual libertinism. I just don't think the government should be in the business of enforcing pure "morality" through the barrel of a gun.
That's fine, yours is the more popular position at the moment. But this is what the state has done for literally all of history.
I'm sure prostitutes existed in the USSR,
There you go again with your "I'm sure". Yeah sure, I bet there was that one woman in Nizhni Novgorod. But was it common? No. When did it become common? With Western influences. Same for drug use. Just how much drug use was there in the USSR? Or homosexuality? Nixon himself remarked on that fact...
This led to the lie/contrivance of claiming that premarital sex is a sin, when there is absolutely no verse anywhere in the Bible that says premarital sex is a sin. It's a pure invention, a pure fabrication, designed to keep young women's legs closed so they stay in school.
Quite an absurd suggestion, as Deuteronomy prescribes stoning for women who are not virgins at marriage, but let us assume that you are correct. Does it have social utility to say that it is a sin, or does it not? Suppose that I accept that people having sex before marriage is good because they like it. How does that stack up against the myriad of social problems created in that manner?
No, the vast majority of feminists are very much against things like porn, prostitution, and even things like breast implants.
Evidently, you are not familiar with the new breed of feminist, which regards transgenders and 'sex workers' as two of the most holiest classes known to man.
And not sure why you think you have more exposure to feminists because you lived in LA. You do know Western Europe is more 'progressive' on sexual matters than LA, right?
The black community is a perfect example of how socialism can destroy cultural values.
Shocker, you see a social problem, and you blame it on 'libtards' and 'Democrats'.
If you simply took away that socialism, the whole cycle is broken because single black mothers don't get rewarded for their bad choices
How good do you think single mothers have it? You think they drive Cadillacs? I'm sure this is part of the problem, but not nearly the extent to which you want to conveniently blame it all on the 'libtards'. Part of the problem is that because so many black men are in prison (and because they have better options than black women, who are generally not regarded as the most attractive of women), women cannot enforce things like commitment, marriage and child support in relationshiips. Result is that they are pumped and dumped.
The difference is that I do NOT agree on using heavy handed big government socialism like criminal laws to try to coerce society into obedience.
I guess all of history was just 'socialism'.
Policy in this area is difficult, but you can get the result you want with intelligence and a light touch, instead of stupid, crude socialism that has been generally historically proven to fail.
I actually completely agree. Society has to be made ready for Victorianism first. It may never work. Previous attempts to put genies back into bottles never did. But it's without question superior than what we have now.
Young women absolutely knew that. It's just that they vote on autopilot for whoever promises to harm men more.
Marriage hasn't existed for all of human history, it's a religious thing that's existed for about as long as Christianity.
You can run a society without forcing marriage, but the state doesn't want the burden of millions of whiny genocide fantasists, so into the meat grinder you go. Of course, ruining lives for them is a preferable choice to...gasp making them act like human beings instead of being ruled by their biological impulses.
Can you imagine if every decision based on risk management couldn't be made, because "it's better for society"? The likes of JPM buying massive portfolios of Bitcoin because taking dumb risks is the "right thing to do"?
What happened after the bachelor tax? The young men of Rome let the empire fall for its treachery towards them and taking women's side.
feminists are pro-porn
Only when they control every part of the industry to move it in lockstep with their dehumanization campaign. When they don't control something, lawsuits, market manipulation and false rape claims abound.
It's a pretty bad thing to destroy the leverage women have
No it isn't. It's a good thing. What it shows is that their leverage on society needs to be destroyed, they need to be allowed to fall on their lack of merit.
The woke so called "progress" did not depend on the consent of the people.
Why should a traditionalist counter-revolution?
Your sex life is everyone's business. Sex leads to offspring and diseases. Its abuse is not victimless. That is why every state, except for the failing modern states that are falling down like WTC-2, have regulated people's sexuality.
And no, I would not make banning extra-marital relations the first step (or perhaps even the last). Recognition of the social harms is the first step though.
Based, and tradpilled
Try and chain us to them, I fucking dare you.
I'll be the best man at your marriage. This will happen.
It will not.
First, I'll never reveal my true identity here because I'm not retarded.
Second, if I wanted to be slowly pushed towards dying by uncaring women, I'd get vaccinated.
Imp, don’t worry we won’t for you.
Also what’s this “us” business? You have a turd in your pocket?
I'm pretty sure I could fold you in half
Woke victories absolutely did come about through consent. Idiots voted for woke bullshit. While only a tiny fraction of society is woke activists, there is a huge percentage that went along with their shit and kept voting for Democrats knowing that the Democrats were pushing the woke agenda. A big part of why wokes kept winning was because the bulk of society hates social conservatives like you. That is why the new emergent Right in the United States is more libertarian-minded on sex issues.
Your logic here is identical to the authoritarians who wanted to force everyone to mask and vaxx, but even more tenuous. Why is THEIR authoritarianism bad, but YOUR authoritarianism good? The problem with authoritarians is that they never agree, and they never stop fighting until one side murders all its rivals, which is how communism happens. IMO authoritarians should form their own authoritarian communities based on consent where people who agree with those values can go live that way by choice, and leave if they change their minds.
While sex leads to offspring and diseases, that doesn't give anyone the right to regulate or control purely private sex. As far as I know, no society in human history has ever had a forced breeding program, so it is a universally recognized human right to decide for yourself whether to have children. This was even true with commies. So you can't use that as an excuse. And as for diseases, unlike with COVID, where I can infect you by mere proximity, you can't catch an STD from me unless you consent to unprotected sex with me, at which point you're fully consenting to the risk. If you don't want that risk, then don't have unprotected sex. Simple as. I was opposed to mask/vaxx mandates, and I thought you were as well.
Every argument the puritans have ever made has always been proven wrong. The simple and inescapable truth is that the sexual repressors do not base their policy preferences on logic or reason, but rather on an emotional sense that a "moral" society "ought" to ban people from having a good time, probably because the puritan is a jealous loser who can't compete in the sexual marketplace and doesn't get to enjoy its benefits. It's all about power, control, social conditioning, and repression to force people to live "your" lifestyle instead of the life they want to live.
Prohibition actually had very strong arguments in its favor. Alcohol indisputably does enormous harm and directly/indirectly kills a huge number of people every year. A sober society would clearly be "better" in a lot of metrics. Problem is, people simply liked alcohol too much to give it up, to the point where banning it became unsustainable. So if that act of authoritarianism failed, despite having compelling benefits and alcohol being admittedly a vice at the time, imagine how much more of a waste of time it would be trying to ban things like porn or premarital sex. This is done in communist countries sometimes, and it just results in a mess of a society with rampant prostitution. Just look at China and Vietnam.
The lion's share of sexual repression in the last 30 years or so (after the power of the religious right was essentially broken) have come from feminists. Feminists hate the fact that men get easy access to sexual satisfaction in the form of things like porn and prostitution. Feminists want vagina access to be as restricted as possible in order to maximize the leverage women have over men.
They by no means 'knew' that. That is why the woke agenda is always advanced clandestinely. Furthermore, it continues on advancing even when Republicans are nominally in charge.
What has existed for all of human history is presumably good, what was thought up 5 minutes ago and forced on the entire population is not.
So called 'authoritarians' have agreed for all of human history, that you cannot run a society with no sexual morals. It's only five minutes ago that some people disagreed, and you can see the results: total societal collapse.
I know of not one Roman who 'chose' not to have kids. And when social mores changed in such a way to make children less likely Augustus introduced the lex Iulia.
There are no human rights. It's unfortunate, but they do not exist. You have no right to anything, it's just where governments have not yet deemed it expedient to interfere. It's like a habitual bank robber saying that Bank X has a right to its monkey, or the farmer who tells the turkey that it has a right to live.
I don't care about you having a 'good time'. I do care about the negative social consequences that result from the sexual libertinism that you advocate. It's not an individual matter. For as long as no one else behaves properly, there is little cost to you not doing either.
Noted that you did not mention the USSR, where it was the Yeltsin libertinism that resulted in rampant prostitution. Also, I thought you said that prostitution was perfectly fine? So why are you now citing it as an example for why banning porn is bad?
For all of human history, premarital sex was banned. 'Porn' is a bit more complicated. Like I said, I don't think it's practical to go around banning things immediately, or to even not engage in such things, but to simply recognize the negative effects when they are widely practiced and socially acceptable. That is all.
They hated social conservatives because they told the truth.
Now, has society improved or worsened with the power of the religious right broken?
And the vast majority of feminists are fanatically pro-porn and pro-prostitution.
And if we look at the example of the black community, where women have zero leverage over men and are pumped and dumped on the regular, I'd say that it's a pretty bad thing to destroy the leverage that women have. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free, as they said?
The woke did use lies to advance their agenda, just like social conservatives do the same thing, such as by claiming all prostitutes are human trafficking victims instead of just whores who want money, or saying that internet porn will cause sex crimes (when sex crimes actually fell). I could go on, but authoritarians constantly lie to push their agendas.
Premarital sex, whores, and porn have existed for all of human history. That doesn't stop puritans from trying to ban them. You can't really invoke sexual traditionalism when marrying 12 year olds was totally fine until the 1800s. While Christianity did reduce a lot of the default sexual degeneracy that dominated throughout human history, modern American society is still pretty puritanical in a lot of ways, with a special privileged carveout being made for the LGBTs.
Sexual morality largely did not exist, or the bar was so low that it might as well not have existed, all throughout classical times, ancient greece, rome, and thousands of years prior. The major shift came with the rise of Christianity in Europe. Muhammad married a 6 year old and fucked her when she was 9. Muslims could have 4 wives, and had stuff like sex slaves. Even the Catholic Spaniards in the New World routinely raped and sexually enslaved extremely young girls during the time of Columbus. Mormons practiced polygamy officially until pressured out of it. It's not like there was this former golden age of sexual morality in the past. I can't think of any society that would satisfy your standards for sexual morality other than the Puritan colonists, who were some crazy witch-burning motherfuckers. To a lesser extent the United States had a period of peak sexual authoritarianism in the earlier part of the 1900s. All this did was cause a massive backlash by the 1960s, which massively fueled the Left and RESULTED IN the wokeness you see today. It was the very force of the pendulum of repression before the 60s that gave the Left its sexual momentum in the last 50 years, resulting in that pendulum swinging into depravity now. Instead of perpetuating this cycle of oppression alternative between puritans and then depravity, society should break the cycle and shut down both sides by adopting a libertarian, freedom-based anti-authoritarian attitude towards sex.
I'm sure plenty of people in Roman times chose to not have kids and used the pull-out method to prevent pregnancy. Just because you can't name them doesn't mean they didn't exist. Obviously the social dynamics of those times were very different from now, such that there was far more of an incentive to have kids back then vs now. The reason fertility drops so much in modern times is that people see having kids as an expensive drag on their lives. Until modern times something like over 90% of people were farmers, so kids were free labor.
"Human rights" are simply the norms of rights that all or nearly all people agree on. They exist because we collectively will them into existence. They are enforced through consensus. Good luck trying to impose laws that are antithetical to the human condition. Communists have partially managed it, but only through mass murder and prolonged terror. Even then, they fell far short of their goals.
I don't advocate sexual libertinism. I just don't think the government should be in the business of enforcing pure "morality" through the barrel of a gun.
I'm sure prostitutes existed in the USSR, if anything they just came out more into the open in the 90s. This whole idea that the USSR used to be a paragon of moral purity is a total crock of shit used as propaganda. It simply isn't true. My point re: prostitution is that your methods and goals are doomed to failure. Humans get horny and want to fuck. You can't just tell them "no" and expect them to listen. Trying to enforce puritanical sexual mores that are utterly incompatible with the vast majority of personalities and physiologies is just going to get you subversion and corruption. Prohibition was only allowed to exist as long as it was ineffective. As soon as it started to actually work and alcohol consumption started to drop, which most people don't even know about, people were so pissed off that they rebelled and overturned it.
Premarital sex was the norm for all of human history until very recently thanks to the rise of puritanical Christianity in the 1800s specifically. This was mostly driven by the Industrial Revolution and the rise in education of women. Parents suddenly wanted their daughters to avoid pregnancy in order to finish school. This led to the lie/contrivance of claiming that premarital sex is a sin, when there is absolutely no verse anywhere in the Bible that says premarital sex is a sin. It's a pure invention, a pure fabrication, designed to keep young women's legs closed so they stay in school.
No, the vast majority of feminists are very much against things like porn, prostitution, and even things like breast implants. I would know better than you since I grew up in Los Angeles and have had a lot more exposure to feminists than you have. The voices you see very recently advocating for "sex workers" are a small minority that only exist in extremely deep blue safe spaces dominated by LGBTs. Their advocacy mostly falls on deaf ears because mainstream feminism rejects it.
The black community is a perfect example of how socialism can destroy cultural values. The black community used to be a lot better before the 1960s. Then libtards opened up a massive welfare expansion to single mothers while at the same time pushing hard that blacks ought to reject "white" social norms because a lot of these libtards were cultural marxists who deeply wanted to overthrow white culture. So the result was that single mothers were subsidized and incentivized to the point where their numbers grew, and the natural protectant against this was torn away as black cultural values were torn down by marxists and their trained black mouthpieces. This all only could have happened thanks to socialist welfare expansion and "big government" policies which caused a feedback loop of government dependency, which is exactly what the marxists wanted. If you simply took away that socialism, the whole cycle is broken because single black mothers don't get rewarded for their bad choices, and so get looked down upon instead of emulated.
Government policy should encourage family values. Government policy should dis-incentivize, and never subsidize, behaviors which are deleterious to the values which strengthen a society. I think we agree on all that. The difference is that I do NOT agree on using heavy handed big government socialism like criminal laws to try to coerce society into obedience. Instead, I think we let free speech and free markets get as far as they can, and use the government in a limited way to ensure that the incentive structure favors making good decisions. For example, I would 100% support the government discriminating against single mothers and children born out of wedlock in terms of provisioning welfare. I would uphold the institution of marriage and LGBTs would get chinese-brand civil unions. Policy in this area is difficult, but you can get the result you want with intelligence and a light touch, instead of stupid, crude socialism that has been generally historically proven to fail. Freedom + a favorable incentive structure is the best way to guide and channel society in a positive direction.
No, I mean that woke has zero democratic legitimacy, and in fact, it proves that Western countries are not democracies. No one wanted this. But what's good for the goose...
There's more of it now, because 'Puritans' stopped resisting it.
Not sure wheree you're getting 12, but yes, people married younger because of low life expectancy - even for people who had reached their teenager years.
Wut? What would happen if a Greek or Roman man found his wife with a stranger? That would be the end of that stranger.
Victorian Enngland, where Charles Dickens had to secretly separate from his wife. And frankly, it worked rather well. That is my only criterion: whether it works well. It is a matter of indifference to me whether people have premarital sex, or if they divorce. But it's clear that it does not work well, and that a return to traditional norms is called for.
There would be no point in marrying at all, if you did not want kids. And "I'm sure" is not exactly the best argument. It would be rather curious and remarked on by people - which is exactly my point.
Of course, as you say, the poor could use them for farmhands, and the wealthy needed kids for alliances and to pass on property.
They're not enforced though. Whenever they are inconvenieint, the ruling class defines them out of existence. You really think people like Biden or Trudeau (or Romney) think that you have rights? Don't be silly. It's about what they can do, and what they can't do.
That's fine, yours is the more popular position at the moment. But this is what the state has done for literally all of history.
There you go again with your "I'm sure". Yeah sure, I bet there was that one woman in Nizhni Novgorod. But was it common? No. When did it become common? With Western influences. Same for drug use. Just how much drug use was there in the USSR? Or homosexuality? Nixon himself remarked on that fact...
Quite an absurd suggestion, as Deuteronomy prescribes stoning for women who are not virgins at marriage, but let us assume that you are correct. Does it have social utility to say that it is a sin, or does it not? Suppose that I accept that people having sex before marriage is good because they like it. How does that stack up against the myriad of social problems created in that manner?
Evidently, you are not familiar with the new breed of feminist, which regards transgenders and 'sex workers' as two of the most holiest classes known to man.
And not sure why you think you have more exposure to feminists because you lived in LA. You do know Western Europe is more 'progressive' on sexual matters than LA, right?
Shocker, you see a social problem, and you blame it on 'libtards' and 'Democrats'.
How good do you think single mothers have it? You think they drive Cadillacs? I'm sure this is part of the problem, but not nearly the extent to which you want to conveniently blame it all on the 'libtards'. Part of the problem is that because so many black men are in prison (and because they have better options than black women, who are generally not regarded as the most attractive of women), women cannot enforce things like commitment, marriage and child support in relationshiips. Result is that they are pumped and dumped.
I guess all of history was just 'socialism'.
I actually completely agree. Society has to be made ready for Victorianism first. It may never work. Previous attempts to put genies back into bottles never did. But it's without question superior than what we have now.
Young women absolutely knew that. It's just that they vote on autopilot for whoever promises to harm men more.
Marriage hasn't existed for all of human history, it's a religious thing that's existed for about as long as Christianity.
You can run a society without forcing marriage, but the state doesn't want the burden of millions of whiny genocide fantasists, so into the meat grinder you go. Of course, ruining lives for them is a preferable choice to...gasp making them act like human beings instead of being ruled by their biological impulses.
Can you imagine if every decision based on risk management couldn't be made, because "it's better for society"? The likes of JPM buying massive portfolios of Bitcoin because taking dumb risks is the "right thing to do"?
What happened after the bachelor tax? The young men of Rome let the empire fall for its treachery towards them and taking women's side.
Only when they control every part of the industry to move it in lockstep with their dehumanization campaign. When they don't control something, lawsuits, market manipulation and false rape claims abound.
No it isn't. It's a good thing. What it shows is that their leverage on society needs to be destroyed, they need to be allowed to fall on their lack of merit.
LOL
LOL x 2.
You cannot not be a parody. This is impossible.
I've long given up on expecting you to get anything right about the future. But can you at least get the past right?
Libertarianism is a dead end fantasy delusion. It is incompatible with our Darwinian reality.
Damn son. I'm impressed by the amount of wrong you managed to cram into a single comment.