[Albert]

[noir]

The rude joke at the beginning ("something hard between my legs") and the sudden whipping show how much she's calculated. Her marketing strategy is hyper sexuality.

[Drlee]

So you dispute the rise of Christianity as a factor in the fall of Rome? Typical.

The fall of Rome? You have to go back 2000 years to find a problem. Bigot much?

Try to claim credit for everything that goes well in the world and blame was goes wrong to others!
I reject the reality and substitute my own.

You are the one with the obsession with which you should learn to deal. You are loosing grasp of the world around you. You have substituted reality with delusional bigotry which is pretty obvious to all of us.

If you have an actual argument to make I may engage it. I am weary of your simple insult and whining.

[Conscript]

One of the major problems of our modern age is that our societies are becoming hyper-sexual. Sexual advertisements are everywhere. It is completely impossible to escape them unless you choose to live in complete isolation. Unfortunately many do not realise that hyper-sexuality is destroying us.

The sexual impulse exists to allow men to have intercourse with women. It exists to allow this to be possible and desirable. In many ways it is no different to hunger in that it can be satisfied and then calmed. However we are reaching the point where it has become the be all and end all of human existence. We are fed non-stop and constant sexual images. The availability of pornist materials on the internet now means that extremist sex acts are available to a wide audience.

Sexual impulses cannot exist in the same place as true love. When sexuality is divorced from true love the result is a human being ruled by their lower nature. It would be no different to someone being ruled by a lust for food. Out of control sexuality will result in the triumph of ego and a loss of real and genuine love.

In my opinion romantic love is also very different from raw sexual impulse. Romantic love is emotional and is based on a sentimental attachment to a person. It exists beyond sexuality. This is why it is so beautiful when you fall in love with someone because it is almost mystical and an affirmation of one's person. When you look into the eyes of the one you love under the blue sky and in open green fields with the cool air blowing, it is something far more than raw sexuality.

Extreme sexuality will lead to nothing but perversion and depravity. Pornography destroys humanity and degrades us. It produces sadism and perversion.

We must destroy hyper-sexualism. Humanity and human relationships are not based on sexual impulse.

Out of control hyper-sexuality results in craziness like twerking, pornism, sadism and lunacy.

However true love produces beautiful things.

Oxford-educated anthropologist J.D. Unwin tangentially addressed this question in Sex and Culture, an evaluation of the sexual practices and morality of 86 different cultures. Unwin’s impetus for the project was to test the Freudian theory that civilizational progress was the product of repressed sexuality. This theory of “sublimated sexuality” states that natural impulses and desires require energy to fulfill, and that this energy—though finite—is fungible.

Unwin divided the collective energy of human beings into two categories, “expansive” and “productive.” Activities like exploring territory, conquest, colonization, and commerce were deemed expansive. Productive activities designated an advancement within society or a societal flourishing, such as the development of algebra or the power to harness electricity.  Thus, the sexual energy of human beings could be re-directed towards other aspects of civilizational advancement, such as technological progress, art, architecture, or conquering other peoples. (To anticipate an objection: it is worth noting that although Freudian theory has many shortcomings, one can’t blindly overlook the validity of certain aspects of his theories, sexual sublimation being one of them).

After a careful evaluation a variety of civilizations—including the Romans, Greeks, Sumerians, Moors, Babylonians, and Anglo-Saxons—a clear pattern emerged for Unwin: a perfect correlation between sexual fidelity and civilizational flourishing.* Unwin found that discipline in sexual matters appropriated social energy to more civilizational ends, validating Freudian sublimation on a societal level. Unwin remarks:

"The evidence is that in the past a class has risen to a position of political dominance because of its great energy and that at the period of its rising, its sexual regulations have always been strict. It has retained its energy and dominated the society so long as its sexual regulations have demanded both pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence. … I know of no exceptions to these rules."

But what exactly were those strict sexual attitudes and regulations that contributed to societal flourishing? The answer: heterosexual monogamy.

For Unwin, the fabric of society was primarily sexual, and heterosexual monogamy was the optimal arrangement for planning, building, protecting, and nurturing the family. If enough heterosexual partners made a monogamous commitment, civilizational energy was directed toward promoting the firmest societal foundation possible: the family.

Unfortunately, each civilization allowed its success to alter its moral code and actions. Though each civilization’s success correlated with strict sexual ethics, attitudes toward sex became increasingly liberalized and loosened. The consequences of the myth that sexual activity and its impacts could be confined to the private sphere soon became apparent.  Premarital, extramarital and homosexual relationships proliferated and individuals began placing their individual desires over the common good. An increase in promiscuity corresponded to a subsequent decrease in the social energy required for civilizational maintenance and innovation. Ultimately, each civilization became less cohesive, less aggressive, and less resolute. Civilizations in this liminal phase then collapsed from either 1) an internal anarchic revolution, or 2) conquest by invaders with greater social energy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/ethikapoli ... id-verizon





The above probably explains in part the declining happiness of women. I guess that 'patriarchal' family model that arose with the agricultural revolution and civilization was for the best after all. Decadence and degeneracy is a real thing, and it's the epitome of idleness, lack of vigor, and stagnation by retreating to the most basic of dopamine releases and novelty seeking to find meaning and pleasure in life.

Women must be taught to be strong and taught skills to be financially independent, but a lifelong career focus or promiscuity is a social net negative: these women do not have children, they are liberal, and they are crappier spouses (less faithful and cannot even cook). Men must be taught brotherhood and group pride, to be athletic, to be productive, and to be politically aware.

Today's western society is in a postmodern decline. The collapse of social norms that were necessarily birthed as a social response to hardship and need to survive, our relative abundance compared to the past, as well as smaller things like everyone having an Instagram, rise of gym culture, proliferation of mass media and hollywood culture, and prolonged adolescence through college (and subsequently lowered birth rate caused by delaying child rearing for sake of 'finding yourself' through indulgence or focusing entirely on a career), these things have put us in a socio-economic hole that necessitates mass immigration from conservative third world countries in order to supplement the birthrate, cheapen labor, and thus otherwise sustain our welfare state and debt driven economy. Millenials have the least amount of sex compared to recent previous generations, have little home owning prospects, and dating culture let alone marriage is an outdated concept for the generation. Meanwhile, conquest in the form of demographic replacement and subsequent demands for institutional power and privileges is apologized for on the part of the postmodern, decadent left (as a ruling class ideology) and rootless capital on the basis of virtue signalling and economic necessity, respectively, culminating in the 'open society' mantra championed by both. The transformation of traditional left versus right issues to globalism versus nationalism, modernity versus postmodernity, materialism and excess versus idealism and organic social bonds, is a small window into what will distinguish the 20th century from the 21st. You were born just in time for this struggle.

[noemon]

@noir She flaunts her ass and boobs because she is proud of them and because these antics are what keep her on the front-pages of pop magazines. You would suprised on the amount of men jerking-off with her still, she is evidently hotter than 20 year olds.

[noir]

@noir She flaunts her ass and boobs because she is proud of them and because these antics are what keep her on the front-pages of pop magazines. You would suprised on the amount of men jerking-off with her still, she is evidently hotter than 20 year olds.

Doubt it. Her fan base is gays. They probably don't care about this queer caricature.

[The Immortal Goon]

Alexandra Kollentai was a Russian Revolutionary who observed (and shaped) Czarist Russia into Bolshevik Russia.

She observed:

In place of the old relationship between men and women, a new one is developing: a union of affection and comradeship, a union of two equal members of communist society, both of them free, both of them independent and both of them workers. No more domestic bondage for women. No more inequality within the family. No need for women to fear being left without support and with children to bring up. The woman in communist society no longer depends upon her husband but on her work. It is not in her husband but in her capacity for work that she will find support. She need have no anxiety about her children. The workers’ state will assume responsibility for them. Marriage will lose all the elements of material calculation which cripple family life. Marriage will be a union of two persons who love and trust each other. Such a union promises to the working men and women who understand themselves and the world around them the most complete happiness and the maximum satisfaction. Instead of the conjugal slavery of the past, communist society offers women and men a free union which is strong in the comradeship which inspired it. Once the conditions of labour have been transformed and the material security of the working women has increased, and once marriage such as the church used to perform it – this so-called indissoluble marriage which was at bottom merely a fraud – has given place to the free and honest union of men and women who are lovers and comrades, prostitution will disappear.

She was more or less correct, and we see this the way things in the West have gone since then. The Soviet Union a century ago was attempting to create what the West did sixty years later via the same means: that is to say, the old Victorian ethos of the head of household having a naive society wife that wasn't fun to fuck; and this head of family going to see prostitutes all the time came to an end when women began to become more independent.

But this didn't end the actual problems for either men or women. To do that, we have to see our way through. The Soviets a century ago couldn't do this for various reasons, and the West today will not do so because it is not part of the base that informs the superstructure.

So while we have changed the Victorian ideal, we still can't help but to see the spouse, the woman, the man, the hook-up, the boo, the boyfriend, the girlfriend, even the sex worker, as a kind of bourgeois exchange. We are alienated from ourselves and think that we can purchase our freedom from alienation by an exchange in our relationships. But it will not work since it does not resolve the actual contradiction in which we live. We must, instead, change the base of society and develop a system in which we interpret our new reality differently:

If the sexual crisis is three quarters the result of external socioeconomic relationships, the other quarter hinges on our “refined individualistic psyche”, fostered by the ruling bourgeois ideology. The “potential for loving” of people today is, as the German writer Meisel-Hess puts it, at a low ebb. Men and women seek each other in the hope of finding for themselves, through another person, a means to a larger share of spiritual and physical pleasure. It makes no difference whether they are married to the partner or not they give little thought to what’s going on in the other person, to what’s happening to their emotions and psychological processes.

The “crude individualism” that adorns our era is perhaps nowhere as blatant as in the organisation of sexual relationships. A person wants to escape from his loneliness and naively imagines that being “in love” gives him the right to the soul of the other person – the right to warm himself in the rays of that rare blessing of emotional closeness and understanding. We individualists have had our emotions spoiled in the persistent cult of the “ego”. We imagine that we can reach the happiness of being in a state of “great love” with those near to us, without having to “give” up anything of ourselves.

The claims we make on our “contracted partner” are absolute and undivided. We are unable to follow the simplest rule of love – that another person should be treated with great consideration. New concepts of the relationships between the sexes are already being outlined. They will teach us to achieve relationships based on the unfamiliar ideas of complete freedom, equality and genuine friendship. But in the meantime mankind has to sit in the cold with its spiritual loneliness and can only dream about the “better age” when all relationships between people will be warmed by the rays of “the sun god”, will experience a sense of togetherness, and will be educated in the new conditions of living. The sexual crisis cannot be solved unless there is a radical reform of the human psyche, and unless man’s potential for loving is increased. And a basic transformation of the socio-economic relationships along communist lines is, essential if the psyche is to be re-formed. This is an “old truth” but there is no other way out. The sexual crisis will in no way be reduced, ‘whatever kind of marriage or personal relationships people care to try.

[One Degree]

The “crude individualism” that adorns our era is perhaps nowhere as blatant as in the organisation of sexual relationships

Once again the truth is shown of the ugly effects of a world based upon 'individualism'. I hope we learn to quit worshiping it soon. Community does not require a government based upon Communism however.

[The Immortal Goon]

Once again the truth is shown of the ugly effects of a world based upon 'individualism'.

Certainly. But that is what capitalism advocates, and it's how we orient ourselves with the world. The mug I just had my tea from, for instance, is mine. I could shatter it on the ground, I can go buy a new one, it is mine to do with as I please.

If I were in a feudal society, that would be a repellant view. The tea cup would have come from someone that made it by craft. More than likely, my grandfather would have been drinking from it, and I'd have ever expectation that my great-grandchildren would drink from the same cup. The individual orientation of the teacup does not exist, as the means of production is different. To smash it would be to disgrace the memory of my grandfather and to rob my children.

Marxists aren't so sentimental as to assume that every tea cup must be preserved, but we do strive to end the type of destructive individualism that would make someone smash something assembled by a child in a third world country and sold at Wal-Mart because of feelings of individual superiority.

I hope we learn to quit worshiping it soon. Community does not require a government based upon Communism however.

Oh, communism doesn't have a state:

Lastly, only communism makes the state absolutely unnecessary, for there is nobody to be suppressed--“nobody” in the sense of a class, of a systematic struggle against a definite section of the population. We are not utopians, and do not in the least deny the possibility and inevitability of excesses on the part of individual persons, or the need to stop such excesses. In the first place, however, no special machine, no special apparatus of suppression, is needed for this: this will be done by the armed people themselves, as simply and as readily as any crowd of civilized people, even in modern society, interferes to put a stop to a scuffle or to prevent a woman from being assaulted. And, secondly, we know that the fundamental social cause of excesses, which consist in the violation of the rules of social intercourse, is the exploitation of the people, their want and their poverty. With the removal of this chief cause, excesses will inevitably begin to "wither away". We do not know how quickly and in what succession, but we do know they will wither away. With their withering away the state will also wither away.

Without building utopias, Marx defined more fully what can be defined now regarding this future, namely, the differences between the lower and higher phases (levels, stages) of communist society.

Even in the Soviet Union it was contentious to call it socialist (Lenin only went so far as to call the USSR, "a worker's state with a bureaucratic twist," and out of his way to point out that it was not socialism). But any Marxist would laugh at the USSR being communist in form—even if that is what they were ultimately hoping for.

That's neither here nor there though. The institutions of marriage customs (not necessarily marriage itself), of female suppression, of sexual regulation, needs to wither away itself. And I don't see this happening under an individualistic society as outlined above.

[Tewodros III]

@Conscript It was all capitalism: fascism, liberalism and it's sub sects SJW/Altrags, are all symptoms.

[Drlee]

TIG. That was a fascinating post. I have no comment about it at this point. It was particularly thought provoking though.

[Albert]

@The Immortal Goon

Why don't you date new age spiritualist there are plenty of them at the west coast especially. That should be like dating Kollentai and what she envisioned. See how well you last there.

For me, old traditional ways are closer to human nature. This new age social construct is a failure.

[The Immortal Goon]

Why don't you date new age spiritualist there are plenty of them at the west coast especially.

I have. Though they can be fun and adventurous, it's not a world view that I share and so it's ultimately about sex with them if I date them. And they're usually fine with that, and they always know that's why I come knocking and are fine with that. Which is to their advantage.

There are far worse relationships to be in.

That should be like dating Kollentai and what she envisioned.

She was a hard nosed and militant materialist. It is difficult to imagine that she'd have anything in common with a New Age spiritualist.

For me, old traditional ways are closer to human nature.

This is your feeling, as you express when you point to when you qualify your statement with, "For me..." But your feelings are not historical reality.

If you wanted to live like your grandparents (or great great-grandparents, I have no idea how old you are), you'd have no problem getting a prostitute. The idea of a wife would be different for you than it is. She would be someone to keep a home and mother your children, but she wouldn't necessarily be an erotic creature to you; if it was travelling and having a piece abroad, or if it was out with the boys and getting into trouble. There used to be a firm difference in girls that gave it up and girls that you married. You married the Madonna and fucked whores throughout your life.

But that's not how we think any more. We want to have love marriages, which had once been rare enough to write ballads and stanzas about. We no longer marry for land, or for children, or simply because it's what pressure tells us we're supposed to do. It's an individual exchange now.

This new age social construct is a failure.

It's too early to say, but it probably will dissipate and be seen as the same kind of failure as marrying someone you never met because your dad wanted an extra cow is now.

But at the moment it is reality.

MRAs and other reactionaries are mad about this, and seem to be frustrated that I keep pointing out that they're having emotional outbursts about things they can't control and expect everyone to coddle them.

Getting mad about how people interact without even understanding it (i.e., contextualizing it as a grand global conspiracy orchestrated by first year college students) are throwing tempertantrums.

Accept reality and adjust your precious snowflake feels accordingly, because nobody else cares. And you know this to be true.

[Rancid]

I think the message that more non-marital sex leads to depression and unhappiness is likely backwards. Odds are, it's women who are unhappy in their lives, or suffer from depression, are then more likely to have more non-marital sex. Basically, it's an attempt to try and find some happiness (that likely won't work).

[MistyTiger]

If I want to I can ignore the hyper-sexuality.

On youtube, you can choose what you want to see and you do not want to see. If you do Google or Bing searches, you just search for what you want.

TV...I only watch the weather for half an hour. I can leave the room during any offensive commercials.

I feel like we can avoid offensive material if we want to. We have always had that choice. Or we can just change the subject in our minds.

[Albert]

@The Immortal Goon
Your rejection of my views based on your imaginary assumption that somehow Im guided by emotions rather then understanding as well is getting old. I suggest you stop doing that unless you want to keep an open minded and not be later surprised by a shock because you were stuck in your self induced bubble, and the world had moved on.

Kollentai is no different then a new age spiritualist who imagines herself breaking off the construction of the past, so therefore she is somehow unique. In the end, as you have experience these type of women became wanton, only good for "fun" as they are unable to have any meaningful and serious relationship.

In the end because of that, even that fun with her becomes meaningless and vulgar, as there is nothing of substance behind it.

Im in my late 20s and I know how men are in regards to their traditional views. Men in Russian society still have old fashioned views and what you described is mostly correct. Naturally western men have same type of views if they let go of their progressive indoctrination that has been forced on them since birth in modern society.

The myth that you keep perpetuating along side with progressives is that somehow in traditional society ones wife is not seen as erotic or source of beauty in men's life. That is bullshit. Husbands do and have healthy romantic relationships with their wives in traditional society. It is favourite scare-mongering progressives like to troll that if we return to traditional way of life, somehow sex and romance is going to lost.

Also what is being lost in your modern society is that romance is not primary about erotica. There is way more to relationship between women and men. That can only be fully realized in marriage.

[noir]

Thinking more about Madonna. What if she's asexual? Her hyper sexuality is only facade for commercial proporse. It's just a show. It must be facade after all she doesn't have sex with her fans, many of them gays. Few years ago, she played a kooger woman for the tabloids, but most of the twinks, who played her "boyfriend", were gays. Does she have a real sex life? This woman is either pathetic weirdo or marketing genius.


Why bother with Madonna? Because she says something real about our world. This hyper sexuality is either cover or substitute for growing asexuality.

[Lexington]

Im in my late 20s and I know how men are in regards to their traditional views. Men in Russian society still have old fashioned views and what you described is mostly correct.

Where are you from again?

[The Immortal Goon]

Your rejection of my views based on your imaginary assumption that somehow Im guided by emotions rather then understanding as well is getting old. I suggest you stop doing that unless you want to keep an open minded and not be later surprised by a shock because you were stuck in your self induced bubble, and the world had moved on.

I'm getting tired of saying it. I wish rightwingers would stop basing everything on their precious feels instead of actual reality. There was a time when a conservative on the forum could discuss finances and energy, and economics, and other things to underline their views. Now it's mostly about how they feel about the government, what the world looks like from their sad-little-victims-eyes, how much they need protection, how sad they are that people don't like what they say all the time; all these things that really just come down to dumb feelings. Until the right can get back some kind of solid ground, I'm just going to keep pointing out that they're using their feelings to try and persuade me.

Kollentai is no different then a new age spiritualist who imagines herself breaking off the construction of the past, so therefore she is somehow unique.

If you mean, "breaking off the construction of the past," to mean something like "Leaving the past behind," than sure. That's a weird definition for, "new age," but I guess if technically fits.

In the end, as you have experience these type of women became wanton, only good for "fun" as they are unable to have any meaningful and serious relationship.

Anybody of any quality follows the campfire rule: leave everything better than you found it. I haven't dated that many beatniks or whatever, but I've dated a lot of fast girls, and some of them for years at a time. The breakup was never about sexual partners about us being young and moving around and doing stuff with our lives. Same as when I've dated conservative Europeans and successful law types in the US.

The thing reactionaries often fail to understand is that women are not equations. You don't punch in numbers and get the same results each time--everyone is different.

Finally, honestly asking and you don't have to answer, do you think that you are unable to have any meaningful and serious relationship?

In the end because of that, even that fun with her becomes meaningless and vulgar, as there is nothing of substance behind it.

Some of the best and most meaningful times in my life were vulgar and with nothing of real substance. But that's like going into the woods with a buddy and backpack full of beer.

I've done vulgar things with women, but it always has some kind of substance behind it. People deny that because they want to seem like tough guys, but so much of what we do and look at, and think about, has to do with sex because we're biological organisms. To share that with someone is always great to me.

Im in my late 20s and I know how men are in regards to their traditional views. Men in Russian society still have old fashioned views and what you described is mostly correct. Naturally western men have same type of views if they let go of their progressive indoctrination that has been forced on them since birth in modern society.

See, I don't think it's some kind of "indoctrination." I think this is a result of how the world works and how we interact with it.

I know there's no evidence of conspiracy. I know that there's no analysis on which to build this argument. What am I supposed to conclude aside from this is more how you feel instead of anything about the world?

The myth that you keep perpetuating along side with progressives is that somehow in traditional society ones wife is not seen as erotic or source of beauty in men's life. That is bullshit. Husbands do and have healthy romantic relationships with their wives in traditional society. It is favourite scare-mongering progressives like to troll that if we return to traditional way of life, somehow sex and romance is going to lost.

If you were exchanged for a plot of barley, how sexy do you think your spouse was? Maybe some people hit the lottery, but this wasn't a system in feudalism that really took romance like that very seriously.

In a slave structure it's even worse as even the masters are just there as breeding machines.

Also what is being lost in your modern society is that romance is not primary about erotica. There is way more to relationship between women and men. That can only be fully realized in marriage.

Was this disputed? Maybe by clumsy wording, but arranged marriages have a lot of advantages. Even today they last far longer and are more stable than "love marriage."

Does that mean everyone should become Hindu? Or that Hindu culture has no degeneracy?

Obviously not.

[Ter]

Maybe by clumsy wording, but arranged marriages have a lot of advantages. Even today they last far longer and are more stable than "love marriage."

QFT
It is of course partly due to the fact that the societies where arranged marriages are prevalent consider divorce as a very big disaster with consequences for all family members and children. It is a real stigma for the whole extended family.
I personally think that there is another reason for the success of arranged marriages : one starts without any illusions. It can only get better, or better than expected.