The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Gay Leads the Way
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A question about whether or not gay pride parades are sexualized? Could there really be uncertainty about that?

Way back in the dark ages of the late oughts, when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton expressed hidebound opposition to same-sex marriage and retrograde support for marriage traditionally defined, people who asserted that normalizing homosexuality would lead down a slippery slope to normalizing pedophilia were harshly censured for alleged hateful fear-mongering. They were way off base, of course, their concerns totally unfounded!

Relatedly, the percentages of married people who have cheated on their spouses, the percentages of people who think there is nothing inherently wrong with teenagers aged 14 to 16 having sex with one another, and the percentages of people who have no moral qualms about abortion, by sexual orientation:

Cisregression remains a stubborn problem in The Current Year. More parades are needed. And don’t forget to bring the children!

GSS variables used: EVSTRAY(1-2), TEENSEX(1)(2-4), ABMORAL(1-2), SEXORNT(1-2)(3)

 
• Category: Culture/Society, History, Ideology • Tags: GSS, Homosexuality 
Hide 163 CommentsLeave a Comment
163 Comments to "Gay Leads the Way"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. It IS ok for 14-16 year olds to have sex…I’m part of the 34.4% anyways….What are your arguments against it?

  2. Daniel H says:
    @BengaliCanadianDude

    It IS ok for 14-16 year olds to have sex…I’m part of the 34.4% anyways….What are your arguments against it?

    You’re a sick fuck.

  3. I don’t understand how anybody could think it is okay to hurt and kill babies.

  4. 216 says:
    @BengaliCanadianDude

    We don’t live in a preindustrial society.

    We live in a society.

  5. Renoman says:

    There’s a vast difference between a homosexual and rancid screaming fag. Parades are all about the fags and they should be outlawed and the flag with them.

    • Agree: Anonymoose
    • Replies: @Anonymoose
  6. megabar says:
    @BengaliCanadianDude

    Because sex is ideally an act between people who are committed to each other, and not simply a hedonistic pleasure. 14 year-olds can not realistically be committed to each other.

  7. SFG says:

    The phrase “children can handle the kink” should not exist. The author’s basically admitting this is sexualized and saying it’s OK to expose kids to it.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  8. lhtness says:

    Something almost no one wants to acknowledge is that the main purpose of marriage is to sufficiently decrease paternity uncertainty to procure high levels of paternal investment in offspring. It can develop secondary functions like companionship or political alliances. For same sex marriage, it seems a matter of taking a secondary function and treating it as primary.

    It’s not clear to me why fidelity should be important for same sex marriage, if having children isn’t part of it.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    , @YetAnotherAnon
  9. Twinkie says:
    @BengaliCanadianDude

    What are your arguments against it?

    Teenage brains are still forming and they can’t make informed consent.

    Furthermore, early sex is associated a whole host of life problems, higher rates of depression, suicide, medical issues (esp. uterine cancer), unplanned pregnancy, venereal disease, divorce, multiple partners, etc. Simply put, it is unhealthy.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  10. @BengaliCanadianDude

    Brains aren’t fully developed and it’s too early for family formation in industrial/post-industrial societies. It also causes bonding and other psychological issues, especially for girls.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  11. @Twinkie

    Is this cause or effect, though?

    My own observation from my peer group is that the median person began having sex at around 15-16 years old (which seems to correlate with polls). Moreover, the earliest ones tended to be the more r-selected ones (low grades, didn’t end up going to university, etc).

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  12. @BengaliCanadianDude

    Generational poverty, disruption of education, developmental issues …
    one look at Bengal.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  13. @nokangaroos

    Would sooner suggest the converse. (If there is any direct relationship whatsoever, which I very much doubt).

  14. @BengaliCanadianDude

    It IS ok for 14-16 year olds to have sex…

    If they’re legally married, like my grandmother and great-grandmother were.

    The real issue isn’t age, but marital status.

    • Replies: @Talha
  15. @Anatoly Karlin

    22 years AVERAGE for India I wouldn´t believe if self-reported with Papa and his double-barrel by the side 😛 Is that “no data” for Bengal?
    But I admit Scandinavia has issues – the forced sex ed sent their suicide rates soaring long before the Fugees piled (ahem) on.

  16. @SFG

    “can” and “should have to” are two very different questions.

  17. It was ok for ME to have sex at a way-too-young age, but not for my kid. It was ok for me to smoke dope, take LSD, ride motorcycles, drive drunk and too fast and a host of other shit I SHOULDN’T have done, but it was certainly OK for ME to do it. But not ok for my kid. My kid was raised in the discipline of a veal calf. I knew all the tricks, all the lies, all the stories kids tell to cover up what they were REALLY up to.

    I suspect all of us who ever did anything feel the same way.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
  18. The boys aged 14-16 who can’t attract girls in a culture with teenage sexual freedom will probably wind up as incels later in life. Their better-looking peers who can seduce girls show how “sexual relationships” really work, and why the advice given to the sexually uncompetitive nerds to “improve themselves” makes no sense: The teenage cool boys have practically blank life résumés, but girls find them good enough in their given state for sex any way.

    • Replies: @getaclue
  19. EldnahYm says:
    @BengaliCanadianDude

    I would agree with you. It used to not be unusual for people that young in the U.S. to get married at those ages. Most of them turned out alright.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    , @Twinkie
  20. drive-by says:

    There was a study done concluding that attending parades (of the old-fashioned kind) as a child increases Republican identification as an adult. It’s only a one percent swing, but it’s lifelong, so it’s the kind of thing that could add up. Standard disclaimers about reproducibility in social science studies apply, but it’s exactly the kind of thing liberals would be concerned about, and try to rectify.

    Pride parades are exactly what you think they are, and it’s deliberate.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
  21. getaclue says:

    Funny how the Media never bothered to report on the Gay Manifesto of 1987 hmmm? Wonder why? Seems it is a blueprint for all that has happened since and which is still happening…Enjoy (your children who are targeted likely won’t…)!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=17&v=65RGfRlSoH8

  22. getaclue says:
    @advancedatheist

    Yes–They get that early edge on Herpes forever and other treasures of promiscuous sex…oh the envy you should have of them all according to this clown?!

    • Replies: @advancedatheist
  23. It probably should come as no surprise that those engaged in same sex relational dynamics would also support other nontraditional and nnatural practices that further their agendas nd give them room to do as they will.

  24. @EldnahYm

    It used to not be unusual for people that young in the U.S. to get married at those ages.

    It used to be not unusual for people that young to be self-supporting.  If you could manage a draft horse and a plow, sow and reap grain and weed fields, you had most of the life skills you needed to feed a wife and kids.  But that was then; this is now.  Maybe the top 0.1% can get skilled enough by 14 to make it in today’s economy.

    Most of them turned out alright.

    Because they were actually ready to take up adult responsibilities.  We’ve raised the bar quite a ways since then.

    • Replies: @EldnahYm
    , @advancedatheist
  25. @BengaliCanadianDude

    As long as it is with fellow 14-16 year olds, I don’t see an issue. Dutch kids do and all of Europe ribs the Dutch parents for their tolerance.

    Commenters hostile to your response seem to assume that OK will lead to an avalanche of 35/14 year old encounters. Maybe laws against statutory rape should remain in place while tolerance for same-aged sex should be OKed.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    , @Feryl
  26. EldnahYm says:
    @Mr. Rational

    All of what you say suggests society today is decadent and headed towards a path of extinction(or very serious decline at least) via reduced fertility. What it does not suggest is that people having sex before they are 18 is wrong.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  27. @BengaliCanadianDude

    Yeah I think it should be discouraged… make-outs okay. But sex shouldn’t happen until age 17-18, imo.

    A woman should value herself more highly than to be allowed to get fucked by her 15 year old boyfriend. I think it’s usually the sluts and whores, low IQ, that do have sex early.

    Honestly I didn’t even know what sex was at 15. Just jerked off to pictures of hot girls. Once I turned 18 I had a better understanding and it was enjoyable. But I don’t think it’s necessarily good to spend the early teenage years running around obsessed about sex.

  28. @Jim Christian

    Nah. I didn’t have sex until I was 18 and fully ready to fuck. Not everybody is a degenerate Boomer growing up. The “party like an animal” B.S. started in the Boomer generation and has destroyed society.

    “I HAD SEX WITH 35 WOMEN, DRANK A TWO SIX EVERY WEEKEND, SMOKED A PACK A DAY, DID DRUGS. YOU KIDS NOWADAYS ARE JUST PUSSIES. MAN UP, LIKE US” – says Boomer Jim, who at age 62 is already winkled as fuck, breathes heavily, has been divorced 2 times and doesn’t talk to his kids anymore.

    No, it’s not okay for me to take drugs and it’s not okay for my kids either.

    However, I do agree that abortion should be legal and available at a low cost.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  29. @Mr. Rational

    John Quincy Adams started his own law practice around the time he turned 23. Young white men a few generations ago had to become self-reliant quickly in life because the society they lived in didn’t have all the surplus wealth we take for granted to subsidize what we call “kidults” in our time, namely, men in their 30’s and 40’s who still engage in adolescent behaviors like playing computer games and collecting comic books.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    , @Lo
    , @Feryl
  30. Twinkie says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Is this cause or effect, though?

    I suspect both as is the case with many things in life. In other words, they might be mutually reinforcing or even autocatalytic.

  31. Twinkie says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Would sooner suggest the converse. (If there is any direct relationship whatsoever, which I very much doubt).

    International comparisons are pretty meaningless since there are many other variables not being controlled.

  32. Twinkie says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    Also for boys, even among animals!

    https://www.news-medical.net/news/20111116/Sex-during-adolescence-can-have-negative-effects-on-body-and-mood-well-into-adulthood.aspx

    Researchers paired adult female hamsters with male hamsters when the males were 40 days old, the equivalent of a human’s mid-adolescence. They found that these male animals with an early-life sexual experience later showed more signs of depressive-like behaviors as well as lower body mass, smaller reproductive tissues and changes to cells in the brain than did hamsters that were first exposed to sex later in life or to no sex at all.

    Among the cell changes observed in the animals that had sex during adolescence were higher levels of expression of a gene associated with inflammation in their brain tissue and less complex cellular structures in key signaling areas of the brain.

    They also showed signs of a stronger immune response to a sensitivity test, suggesting their immune systems were in a heightened state of readiness even without the presence of infection – a potential sign of an autoimmune problem.

    The combination of physiologic responses in adulthood don’t necessarily cause harm, but do suggest that sexual activity during the nervous system’s development might be interpreted by the body as a stressor, researchers say.

    “Having a sexual experience during this time point, early in life, is not without consequence,” said John Morris, a co-author of the study and a doctoral student in psychology at Ohio State University. “It could be affecting males’ susceptibility to symptoms of depression, and could also expose males to some increase in inflammation in adulthood.”

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  33. Twinkie says:
    @EldnahYm

    Most of them turned out alright.

    You don’t know that they might have turned out better had they delayed sex. We know a lot more about adolescent and teenage neurological system formation today.

    • Replies: @EldnahYm
  34. Twinkie says:
    @advancedatheist

    he turned 23.

    23 is fully developed in men. 16 is not, for body and brain.

  35. EldnahYm says:
    @Twinkie

    And you don’t know that they wouldn’t have turned out better if they never had sex at all. By the same argument, since neurological formation is not complete in teenagers, we should also ban them from having jobs, money, or doing anything their parents don’t want them to do.

    Contrary to what you say, I would suggest we know very little about what it means for a system not to be “fully developed,” to quote Audacious Epigone and that we know next to nothing about what not being “fully developed” says about what people can and cannot do. The problem with this kind of analysis, is that we know perfectly well that hunter gatherers and many past societies had sex and marriage long before the age you think people should have it.

    We are supposed to assume these people had it all wrong for millennia because hamsters who had sex at earlier ages do not swim as well. That’s putting your argument in an absurdist way, but it’s worth doing so because it brings us back to the first sentence I wrote in this post. If you look at that junk science hamster study, what it actually shows is that hamsters who have never had sex perform “better” on mazes, sucrose consumption(a measure used to show well hamsters feel pleasure), and forced swimming tasks than hamsters exposed to sex after 80 days post-puberty, and that the 80s performed better on those tasks than hamsters exposed to sex after 40 days.

    From this data, if I was a person prone to think in absurd ways, I would conclude that hamsters should not have sex. Or even more absurdly, that because hamsters are that way, humans shouldn’t have sex. It may also be worth mentioning also that those male hamsters who were exposed to a stimulated female but didn’t copulate were disregarded from the study.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  36. EldnahYm says:

    ^Correction, it’s 40 and 80 days after birth, not after puberty. Hamsters reach sexual maturity between 4-6 weeks after birth.

  37. @EldnahYm

    What it does not suggest is that people having sex before they are 18 is wrong.

    Making babies before being ready to take up adult responsibilities is wrong.  Sex… anything that disrupts the pair-bonding required for a good parental partnership is bad.  Maybe sex at 16 when you’re not ready to settle down until 24 does that.  If so, it should be discouraged.

  38. @Twinkie

    Topping out early (and often) leading to depression, or a lack of high highs, makes sense intuitively. Thanks for that.

  39. @EldnahYm

    Fair point regarding H&G societies–and settled societies, too–though it is worth pointing out that in those societies there tended to be the heavy hand of parental influence involved. I suspect most people answering this question are assuming it is about middle schoolers hooking up without their parents’ blessings.

  40. I’m going to take the opposite tack here. I think that in order to restore our society to some degree of health, we need to insist that marriages occur much sooner, and 16 isn’t too young.

    We need to get serious about tracking in the educational field. Most people do not even need (or benefit from) high school let alone college. They need a middle school level of general education and then vocational training via apprenticeship. They will supply the industrial workers and laborers America needs once we decouple from the globalist system. (And no, “automation” is not going to happen.)

    If a young man is going to be working in a factory all his life, and if a young woman is mainly going to be a homemaker and a mom, there is no reason not to start this process when they are 16-18. They can stay with their parents, who can help out watching the grandkids. Multi-generational families and inter-generational wealth transfer must form the backbone of our new socioeconomic reality. The paradigm that we are used to—viz. multiple years of unnecessary, expensive, and worthless credentialization—is basically an artifact of globalism in which the unremarkable scions of the middle class are groomed for sinecures masquerading as “careers” with the government-bureacratic-corporate-academic axis. Most of this work is not only unnecessary but burdensome and parasitical. It would be better for society if it were not done at all, but that means that the middle class needs to lose its unnatural and privileged position. It is not just the great elites, but the whole slew of overpaid functionaries—the “minor nobility”—who are the problem.

    This class is slowly dying out through ennui and suicide. It is they who are primarily responsible for the low TFR of developed nations. But as Nietzsche said, “that which is tottering should also be pushed.” We need to enact reforms that redistribute the income skew away from such people and back towards the actual working class.

    Just as all our problems are interrelated, all the solutions are synergistic. Getting back to hard money and a normal income distributions would be the keystone.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  41. Finally back in san diego — grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

    The discussion is loaded with assumptions. I will add my own. I think it is a safe bet bet that men and women in ages past matured faster because life demanded it. Frankly, as humans have developed technologically, the ability to protect and actually manage longer stages of development and expectation of responsibilities for self or others has increased. Before there was what I will refer to as general universal education, kids were working alongside their parents in their youth. The expectation to adopt the parent’s trade or seek one of their own was a given, aside from the wealthier classes. The expectation to family and society was just that simple. Each human counter was expected to be part of the whole as worker, security or both for most men, parent – to family longevity and all the codes that went with it and then to the community at large with all of the codes that went with it.

    Local community meant a good deal more than it does today — I would agree that varies from community to community.

    As far as relational behavior those practices also varied save in one respect. It seems fairly universal that a women’s purity and in many cases that of the man was a cherished and guarded expectation. I think that in our culture as noted by some of the language even regarding relations, that my side of the table is more of an oddity, something to be disabused, scorned, mocked, disbelieved, and trashed for the sake of modern acceptance to the norm. Though I suspect that there are far more inexperienced males about than would acknowledge as much.

  42. That anyone is taking their children to celebrate, participate or advance the behavior and dynamic in question is counter intuitive to fostering community in any manner. The value is simply one to the negative in almost every respect. They very nature of the same is actually anti-community development in the essentials.

    And nearly all of the arguments for the acceptance of the behavior have statistically demonstrated that in fact, they are not at all as heterosexual dynamics.

    ————————

    I recognize and accept that some of the arguments I make in this regard apply to single people such as myself . However, people such as myself will not be denigrated the single most powerful source of mankind’s/humankind’s existence — relations between men and women that leads or at the very least provides the model by which communities survive, grow and are sustained by having children.

    That we have men and women in leadership who promote the dynamic in question is definitely a concern.

  43. Hail says: • Website

    By Brianna Sharpe

    She (Brianna kindly explains that her preferred pronouns are “she/her”) is a resident of a place called Cochrane, Alberta, Canada — population 25,289. Twenty miles as-the-crow-flies NW of downtown Calgary (metro area pop.: 1.4 million).

    We have detailed figures for race, ancestry, and language in Cochrane (and other places in Canada) thanks to Canada’s meticulous record keeping. As of the 2016 census, gay-pusher Brianna Sharpe’s town of residence, Cochrane, has the following ethnocultural situation:

    White-European: 88.3%
    — ca. 83% claim English mother tongue. The aggregate ancestral stock of this group, acc. to self-reporting on the census, is roughly: 50-55% British Isles, 15-20% German and Dutch, 10-15% Slavic [primarily Polish and Ukrainian], 5-10% Scandinavian [primarily Norwegian], <5% Southern European, <5% French [n.o.c. as French-speaking White, or Metis, below])
    — ca. 2% claim French mother tongue
    — ca. 3.5% Other mother tongue (incl. German at 1.3%; Slavic languages at 1.0%)

    Have Amerindian Ancestry: 5.3%
    – 2.8% Metis (mixed Amerindian-White)
    – 2.5% Amerindian (“First Nations”), incl. those w/ major European ancestry
    — 0.4% claim unmixed Amerindian ancestry
    — 2.1% claim mixed Amerindian, usually this will be European (likely incl. some “Elizabeth Warrens” w/ trace Amerind ancestry, at most, but a political desire to assert it)

    Non-European immigrant ethnicities and mixed: 6.4%
    – 1.8% Filipino
    – 1.2% Chinese, Japanese, Korean
    – 0.9% South Asian
    – 0.7% Black
    – 0.2% Jewish
    – 1.6% All Others, incl. mixed race

    ___________________

    So it is that writer Brianna Sharpe inhabits a negligibly-diverse world (some marginal Asians that she probably still views as pets); very few Blacks and very few Muslims. With a ~90% White population, Brianna has the luxury to describe herself as follows (from her website):

    About Me

    Although I have an M.Ed., two other degrees, and am a certified yoga teacher, I am currently auditing courses in advanced sleep deprivation studies and the postmodern semiotics of preschooler communication. For extracurricular activities, I help run an LGBTQ2S+ community organization.

    I love the idea of bringing the margins into the centre — allowing the body’s peripheral stories into the heart, inviting folks on the outside into the hearth, and helping my kiddos feel that they have a strong centre to orbit.

  44. @getaclue

    Good-looking men enjoy better things in life overall than just more access to women, and access to hotter women at that. I’ve heard of one study which concluded that handsome men get about a quarter million dollar bonus in their lifetime earnings compared to less attractive men. Basically our society gives Chad the cash equivalent of a house just because he looks a certain way.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  45. @Renoman

    I never gave a crap about who’s fucking who and where until a few years ago. These faggots and their mafia like subversion of culture and everything good are the ones who turned me into a ‘homophobe’. I was all for letting these people be. Now our only goal should be to destroy them and their ideology.

  46. Not surprised adultery rates are much higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals. I wonder how much lesbians account for it. There is a shockingly high rate of divorce, cheating, domestic abuse and all sorts of assorted mental disorders in lesbian couples. I guess very few people know about it since there is now evil male patriarch to blame.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    , @dfordoom
  47. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    I’m a late late boomer. When I hit middle school I thought you had to be married to get laid. The girls make the rules after all and so I started early. If you were too lame and you waited (had no options) until 18, you’re a homo. Not my problem, the girls make the rules and obviously, with you, the rule was make him wait. I’m divorced once (she wasn’t haaaaapy, remember, the women make the rules) and my kid has given me grand kids. I told her she could hear my side of the story when she’s a hundred.

    You just got everything wrong about me. 35 women? That’s a laugh put a 2 or a 3 in front of that. And that’s most guys. Just not you, ya dummy. You sound repressed UFO. Grow the fuck up.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
  48. J1234 says:

    This brings up an unpleasant memory for me. Five years ago we were with our kids (aged 10) in Vancouver, and it turned out that we came to town when the big “pride” parade was happening. We encountered some of the attendees on the train up from Seattle; some were nice and others were into letting the whole world know they were gay…which isn’t nice.

    When we got to our hotel, the lady clerk – without checking with us (the parents) – started handing out pride rainbow bracelets to our kids. This wasn’t a person attending or organizing the event, this was an employee of the hotel. I got the impression she wasn’t a les…just really into moral posturing, which is a really fucked up Canadian thing to do.

    When I said, “no thanks,” she gave me what I suspect was the Canadian version of a glare, which was more of a stare. WTF? The bank tellers in my town don’t ever give kids a piece of candy (in the bowls at the counter) without asking the parents first…but a hotel clerk is giving my kids homosexual promotional items without asking?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  49. LondonBob says:
    @lhtness

    Aren’t most gay ‘marriages’ open anyway?

  50. Lo says:
    @advancedatheist

    Young men, a few generations ago didn’t face interference and regulations in every step of life. Good luck if you open your law office without years of forced education, professional exams, and internships. The same applies to a bunch of other professions. Pretty sure you cannot even cut people’s hair without a license. What subsidy are you talking about? It is more like the other way around.

  51. Hapax says:

    It is more than likely that we are dealing with a physical parasite infestation causing LGBTQ behaviour. Toxoplasma belongs to a large category of parasites that modify sexual and behavioural preferences in their hosts.

    LGBTQs in particular are almost all infected with toxoplasmosis. The parasite spreads easily through unsanitary sexual practices; again, the parasite controls the behaviour of the infected person refocusing his attention on non-reproductive sex (anal, rimming, scat, fisting etc. etc.) which ensure the on-going survival, transmission and success of the parasite while reducing the infected gay to a pathetic rectally-obsessed creature incapable of realising that he is infected, and that his unhygienic behaviour is the cause of his own predicament. Screeching about “LGBTQ Rights”, claiming that it’s “genetic” and spreading pro-homo propaganda can also be seen as part of the parasite’s survival strategy. Members of the Government, the Deep State, Banking and Finance Industries and related groups are also all heavily infected due to their unhygienic and abusive sexual practices, resulting in their promotion of this Agenda for the benefit of the parasite.

    None of this is unusual in Parasitology. Consider the example of the “crazy cat-lady” who gets the parasite from her cats – which in turn get the parasite from eating infected rodents. The parasite forces its host rodent to be attracted to cat urine instead of avoiding it thus making it more likely to be eaten by a cat. This is an effective survival strategy for the parasite – but a serious problem for the human host who is reduced to a quasi-automaton whose main role is increasing the number of infected cats and ensuring the survival of the parasite.

    It’s important to realise that we are basically dealing with a Public Health issue involving parasite infestation, rather than with a moral issue.

  52. @Jim Christian

    Right.

    So:

    – Boomer
    – Degenerate
    – Below replacement fertility
    – Divorced

    Wow, amazing role model. I wish I could be just like you when I’m 50. You are showing us the key to saving the white race. Heril Hortler goys!

  53. @lhtness

    “the main purpose of marriage is to sufficiently decrease paternity uncertainty to procure high levels of paternal investment in offspring”

    Whereas the Divorce-Industrial Complex just wants high levels of paternal monetary investment in offspring.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  54. @Anonymoose

    “shockingly high rate of divorce, cheating, domestic abuse and all sorts of assorted mental disorders in lesbian couples”

    In my degenerate days when I frequented gay/mixed bars I saw lesbians fighting on more than one occasion, don’t think I ever saw two gay guys scrap.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    , @Feryl
  55. Feryl says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    Gays are over-represented on measures of deviance, including violence.

    A psychiatrist studying prisoners in the 70’s was surprised to find that criminals tend to engage in same sex behavior before they ever went to jail or prison. Criminals were more likely than non-criminals to report gay behavior, and that doesn’t even include what the criminals do behind bars!

    Gay men are well-represented among serial killers.

    Small stature and low attractiveness have been linked to poor life out-comes; (including criminal behavior) gay men are smaller and uglier than straight men (a study also once revealed that gay men were found to be the worst smelling of all demographics). Gay men may actually be slightly more intelligent than straights, but this is negated by the immense psychological and behavioral pathologies seen in gay men.

    That psychiatrist also said that criminals and gay men tend to give similar accounts of their behavior, and their relationship to society: self-pitying, excuse making, and vindictiveness toward “mainstream” society.

    • Agree: LondonBob
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  56. Feryl says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    Gay male effeminacy is often mistaken for a seemingly “gentle” personality, when in reality gays can be explosively angry and violent, more so than straight men, in fact. Straight men are more taciturn, sure, but that doesn’t mean we are more threatening than gays.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    , @LondonBob
  57. Feryl says:
    @advancedatheist

    I have my own theory that tall guys get the benefit of the doubt because other people don’t want to get beaten up by them. They get their way more easily. There’s also the link between IQ and stature. Simply put, being a short guy is not easy. Short guys have to work really hard, and really pad their resumes, to be seen in a favorable light by others.

    As online dating profiles indicate, tall stature is perhaps the most important trait that women look for. Not just because tall guys are stronger and more well-built, on average, but also because tall stature is associated with higher IQ and a positive natal and childhood experience.

    + I’d have to think that nature wants women to have resilient off-spring; if too many women have kids with short guys, than over-time people would shrink and be less able to defend themselves and procure resources.

  58. “I was all for letting these people be. Now our only goal should be to destroy them and their ideology.”

    good grief. If you mean by destroy, some manner of harm . . .

    No. opposing the agenda does not require violating their choice to engage in this behavior or their person, in any manner. It simply means, that we stop outlawing the current wave that seeks to oppress any and disagreement on issues and the expression thereof. I don’t have to be supportive of this dynamic as equal to heterosexual marriages in order to recognize the humanity of others and their rights as citizens. I don’t have to approve of the behavior in order to acknowledge their rights. And one doesn’t have to bake cake cakes at such ceremonies in order to treat individuals in a civil manner. We are talking about a behavior, a choice and while I may reject their choice of behavior, that is not the same as rejecting them as people.

    We don’t need to engage in extreme nonsensical language about beating up people we disagree with to back step toward some manageable constitutional practices.

    It is in fact their use of emotions, incorrect logic, false history and an utterly bizarre reading of the Constitution’s purpose that has the US spinning top heavy upside down.

    The contention that what goes on between consenting citizens is not my affair, makes perfect sense to the Constitution provided all things are equal among them. The right of private self and expression is fundamental (appropriateness of when is certainly negotiable).

    But if they seek my acceptance or demand my approval to some larger community ethos — that is another question. And in that I must “respectfully” decline to be supportive of same sex relations as any manner of standard that profits community worthy of tax breaks or promotion.

    So, if those who choose same sex desire to have a parade, it’s a legitimate question to what does it provide to community and parade that supports celebrates behavior that values only the two people involved is hardly something worthy of community praise and support.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Feryl
  59. Feryl says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    The paradigm that we are used to—viz. multiple years of unnecessary, expensive, and worthless credentialization—is basically an artifact of globalism in which the unremarkable scions of the middle class are groomed for sinecures masquerading as “careers” with the government-bureacratic-corporate-academic axis. Most of this work is not only unnecessary but burdensome and parasitical. It would be better for society if it were not done at all, but that means that the middle class needs to lose its unnatural and privileged position. It is not just the great elites, but the whole slew of overpaid functionaries—the “minor nobility”—who are the problem.

    What’s really sinister is that in the 70’s and 80’s, one could “spin” the idea of women in the workforce/greater credentialism by saying that it led to a better life, as measured by material goodies stacking up and in theory making the Me Generation happy.

    Alas, by the 1990’s Gen X was feeling as if they had to go to college, and had to have dual earner households, to merely “run in place”. Basically, since the 90’s we’ve been asking people to work harder and harder (including achieving high ed) to merely be able to access that which could be easily accessed by most people in the 1940’s-1980’s. How did we reach this state of affairs? Well, a lot of Social Darwinist “winner takes most” policies. Stagnant wages, excessive supply of labor, union-busting, regressive taxes, the wealthy putting their money into the stock market and conspicuous consumption instead of investing into manufacturing and infrastructure which would create solid jobs for lower class people, etc.

    Peter Turchin has said that the shift toward law in the 70’s was evidence of growing corruption and status competition. Finance is another increasingly dubious field. Many the “wizards” of the legal and financial realm, would have spent their brain power on more socially beneficial things back in say, the 1940’s.

  60. @ThreeCranes

    “Dutch kids do and all of Europe ribs the Dutch parents for their tolerance.”

    The only Dutch family I am familiar enough with to comment upon has four daughters and a son, all attractive, intelligent and college educated. Two of the daughters married in their 20s to their first serious boyfriends, the youngest daughter is still a debt-free virgin without tattoos at age 22.

    The son’s been knocking poon since high school, however.

    Also, this family emigrated to the US, though I’m sure they would never say it was for the moral climate. So YMMV.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
  61. @Feryl

    I’m not saying that gay men can’t be violent, but they don’t have much taste for public brawling IMHO.

    UK serial killers like Dennis Neilsen and Stephen Port are a different kettle of fish, their modus operandi being facilitated by the high levels of drug consumption/S&M on the gay scene.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  62. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anonymoose

    There is a shockingly high rate of divorce, cheating, domestic abuse and all sorts of assorted mental disorders in lesbian couples.

    The incidence of domestic violence among lesbians is sky-high. And alcoholism.

    It’s almost as if following an unnatural lifestyle leads to severe psychological problems. No-one could ever have predicted that.

    • LOL: Talha
  63. dfordoom says: • Website
    @EliteCommInc.

    The contention that what goes on between consenting citizens is not my affair

    That’s the kind of liberal thinking that got us into our current mess. If you tolerate bad behaviour you’ll get a lot more bad behaviour. And the bad behaviour will gradually become more extreme.

    We tolerated adultery, the drug culture, children being born out of wedlock, homosexuality. And guess what? We got a lot more adultery, more drug problems, more illegitimacy, more homosexuality.

    But liberals will never ever learn.

    Toleration is surrender.

  64. Feryl says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    Mano a mano “contests” may be less common with gays, however, gays lack the behavioral inhibitions of women and straight men, and as such, violent sexual perversions and outbursts of rage are fairly common with gays.

    Straight guys usually are just “sending a message” (knock it off, asshole, before I hurt you even worse) with violence (e.g. it has at least some moral justification) , whereas f-d in the head gays are more likely to use violence for catharsis or sexual gratification.

  65. Talha says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Same with my grandma; bless her soul, she had 14 kids.

    Peace.

  66. Talha says:

    Sure would help if they could get this “gay” thing right in the first place…
    “Among the revelatory findings: Bisexual females were five times more likely to have been pregnant than straight females. And questioning and gay males were four times more likely than straight males to report getting someone pregnant.”

    http://m.startribune.com/gay-teens-have-higher-pregnancy-rates-than-their-straight-peers/320842991/

    Uh, what?!

    Peace.

  67. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Talha

    Bisexual females were five times more likely to have been pregnant than straight females.

    It’s almost as if bisexuals are just women who’ll have sex with anything that has a pulse.

    • Replies: @Talha
  68. As long as it is with fellow 14-16 year olds

    “They can’t legally drink, drive or vote, but they should be free to fuck!” Unassailable logic you’re sporting there, chief.

    All in on teen pregnancy as a solid start to family formation too, I’ll wager.

  69. LondonBob says:
    @Almost Missouri

    Interesting, maybe the Netherlands is like Sweden, aggressively signalling government but a fundamentally conservative society with strong family units residing in small towns and villages,

  70. LondonBob says:
    @Feryl

    When my father was a student he went in a gay pub for a joke, got beaten up.

    Gays are definitely more nihilist and cruel.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    , @Feryl
  71. As a conservative guy who happens to be gay (or a gay guy who happens to be conservative-dissident conservative), and having done gay pride (been there, done that), I’ve thought for several years that now gays have pretty much gotten everything they’ve demanded (respect, tolerance, acceptance, “marriage,” etc.), it’s time for the “community” to grow up, and dump gay pride parades. Boring, unnecessary in your face expressions of gay immaturity. And yes, most gay relationships are “open” or guys cheat on their partner. I’m perfectly fine with being gay, and live my life as such (but not on my sleeve), but I wish gays would tone it way way down and just blend into society. And btw, I don’t buy for one minute this transgender nonsense. One can not change their sex—one cannot change one’s DNA. Period!

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  72. Talha says:
    @dfordoom

    Sounds about right. I mean someone confused about sexuality or “experimenting” (whatever that means) seems like they would take a stab at anything.

    Peace.

  73. “That’s the kind of liberal thinking that got us into our current mess. If you tolerate bad behaviour you’ll get a lot more bad behaviour. And the bad behaviour will gradually become more extreme.

    We tolerated adultery, the drug culture, children being born out of wedlock, homosexuality. And guess what? We got a lot more adultery, more drug problems, more illegitimacy, more homosexuality.

    But liberals will never ever learn.

    Toleration is surrender.”

    Uhhh, not at all. It’s largely none of my business, especially that which occurs in private settings. Your suggestion is simply unworkable to the Constitution – privacy is the single right by which all other rights flow because it rests on establishing borders for self existence. It is not absolute. There are exceptions in which privacy to engage in unlawful behavior — especially against others. But what two people do in the bedroom while it may be peculiar and even bizarre, if consenting adults — none of my affair. Some things must be tolerated whether I like it or not and that goes for all citizens.

    But you have introduced a host of other issues as though they rest in the same category as same sex behavior. They exist in an entirely different frame and should be treated as such.
    I am not sure about you but I have never tolerated murdering children in the womb.

    The issue of children is the responsibility of their parents. The community can certainly makes some rules, can and should act as active guides in community that’s fine by me. I certainly would agree that adults advocating the choice to engage in same sex relations is well outside the scope of the educational system.

    What you are suggesting here is not a legal matter but one of social appropriation for establishing the norms. And again, I have no issues, but working out what constitutes the norm is a very tough call in the current environment. One could advocate relegating the behavior to the same condition as prostitution. But as a matter of private expression tolerance is the only recourse aside from social recrimination.

    And on this issue the reason we have more of it is because those who engage and protect this behavior have been permitted to advocate it as a dynamic that is the same as heterosexuals. Those with money, access and political influence – have been the major proponents. They have exist in positions of wealth, power and influence quite effectively. And now with the coming out and the arguments about its normalcy — that is why there is more of it. And the only of push back in my view is

    1. stop making disdain for the behavior criminal

    2. prevent those in official positions of authority to teach the behavior as a norm in any acedemic setting

    3. restore parental authority

    4. stop forcing anyone to attend said ceremonies for any reason if their conscience does not abide the behavior

    5. empower adoption agencies to say “no”.

    But even I am not going to support anything akin to violating the constitution to limit or erase the behavior. It is not as if the founders didn’t know that there were those in the community who so engaged.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  74. @Oleaginous Outrager

    Aisha was 9. He’s making a compromise to go with a 14 year old, as he integrates into Canadian society.

  75. @Anonymoose

    There are simply no longer any cultural forces in the West that will even suggest the most flamboyant wing of homosexuals tone it down a little. The id has been completely unchained.

  76. @J1234

    She was probably thinking of calling protective services.

    The neologism “globohomo”, while of course crass, is a good one. It’s most salient with homosexuality, but the homo- prefix, which has a double-meaning, is more important as “homogeneity” rather than “homosexual”. When SCOTUS made same-sex marriage the law of the land, every single major corporation in the country had a rainbow icon ready to go.

  77. @Hapax

    Why hasn’t homosexuality decreased drastically over the last several generations, then? Hygiene is better now than it was then, isn’t it?

    • Replies: @Hapax
  78. @Feryl

    The GSS shows gays as having about a 1 IQ point advantage and a half-inch disadvantage on heterosexuals. Modest differences, but they do mesh with what you said.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    , @Feryl
    , @Feryl
  79. @Anonymoose

    Not sure what you mean by “destroy” in this context, but calls for violence against groups of people is not permitted here. Thanks for the future compliance.

  80. @TheMostUnwokeGayGuyThereIs!

    Congratulations.  You’ve turned yourself into a tool of the Globohomo elite.  Your objections to their agenda will be ignored and suppressed, just as those of the heteronormies have been.

  81. @Talha

    If that’s legit, a 180 occurs by adulthood. Heterosexual TFRs are 5x that of gay TFRs among adults.

  82. @Oleaginous Outrager

    I think this constitutes “punching down” pretty hard and pretty far.

  83. @LondonBob

    Nothing wrong with people having their own places. One of the more loathsome trends of The Current Year is for heteros to go to gay bars.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  84. Feryl says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    Except insofar as the clientele obeys the rules of a sane society. In other words, “social clubs” for people living “alternative lifestyles” have to be occasionally raided/shut down by the vice patrol, to send a message that society does not accept drug use, drunken revelry, and promiscuity. All three of these things are known to be the most common in gay clubs, although in our current Social Darwinist de-regulated age, with under age girls carousing while blacked out w/ no steady male protector, it’s hard to remember just how verboten open hedonism was to most normal people during the New Deal era. Camile Paglia has talked about how early Boomer women remember fighting the notion of needing a male chaperone, in the 1960’s; Paglia, a Boomer to the core, doesn’t want vice control but rather wants young girls to not expect too much paternal protection. Funny though, a male protector himself is sort of a “vice control” (thus explaining why Silents who settled down so early avoided the pitfalls of spending one’s twenties single; on of those “pitfalls” is being harrased and molested by aggressive young men who target vulnerable women).

    In the New Deal era, authorities closely monitored areas known to harbor deviance. There remained some areas all but beyond hope, but on average the social environment of most areas was much healthier in the 1930’s-60’s than it’s been since.

    People like Corvinus complain that we had arranged marriages, infidelity etc. in the New Deal era. Sure, no era is perfect. But society’s leaders gave a determined effort to try and crack down on the worst kinds of deviancy (substance abuse and promiscuity) in the New Deal era.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    , @dfordoom
  85. I think I have stepped into the breach by joining the Palm Springs Chamber

    It will be interesting going. But despite being run over there, I really like the place.

  86. Feryl says:
    @Feryl

    Paglia also expresses another classic Boomerism: the key to fighting the worst predators is to lock them up. But that doesn’t eliminate one of the root causes of deviance: a failure to enforce vice control.

    To Boomers like Paglia, a baseline level of deviance is to be expected and a constant factor in life, we just need to attack the biggest transgressors (such as violent criminals). Of course, the creators of wholesome eras generally don’t think they can eliminate all deviance, however their overall tolerance of deviance is much lower than the hedonist enablers of toxic Darwinist eras.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @dfordoom
  87. Talha says:
    @Feryl

    Good stuff.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  88. Feryl says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    It makes a huge difference at the extremes, though. There aren’t many hetero guys who are tall and well-built, and there are fewer gay ones still (even when you account for their small % of the population). Well-spoken bright guys are more likely to be gay, and knuckle dragging sullen Neanderthals are more likely to be straight (once you adjust for each group’s % of the population).

    The fact that the elite has always trended toward greater social liberalism, and greater tolerance of infidelity and homosexuality, is also pretty strong evidence that some gays have always made it high up the status ladder. In wholesome eras, however, elites ignore their own desires and trend toward respecting the conservative mores of working class people.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Twinkie
  89. Feryl says:
    @Talha

    I was stunned by Paglia’s decadent views when she interviewed Jordan Peterson. Peterson, who was a child in the late 60’s, must’ve been pretty shocked too at how Paglia glibly accepted social mores that get young girls raped and even killed. She murmured that we have police and prisons to deal with violent deviants. I guess it’s too “oppressive” of women to encourage them to not drink, and find a male protector at a young age. Wow, I can’t imagine how the Boomers managed to push our society into decadence. Naive young girls getting wasted and then taken advantage of by male predators is apparently part of “freedom”.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @dfordoom
  90. Feryl says:
    @LondonBob

    Milo admits that a lot of gay culture is weird, perverted, and predatory because gay males don’t have to worry about ruining current or possible romantic relationships with women.

    • Replies: @Logan
  91. Feryl says:
    @Talha

    “Bi-sexual” girls tend to be really over-sexed. They are the exception to the female norm of choosiness.

  92. Feryl says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    The “consenting adults” meme is a decadent Boomerism.

    You can’t trust people to make good choices in the absence of supervision. Libertarianism/Boomerism is rooted in the notion that authority (typically it’s the government and/or church who are portrayed as the ultimate authority by these people) is inept and stupid at enforcing regulation, to the point that it creates more problems than it solves. Ergo, we should just let people to their own devices, and choose their destiny. What could go wrong?

    Gee, back in the Studio 54 era, coke fueled casual sex and all-night benders were just part and parcel of living in a “free” society. At least that’s what many Americans have delusionally thought since the 70’s.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @LondonBob
    , @Logan
  93. Feryl says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    If we took the gym equipment out of prisons, we’d be left with a lot of short and unremarkable looking people. “Super hero” builds and good looks are used in pop culture because physical robustness and attractiveness is something that people associate with wholesomeness. Well-built and good looking people are probably in good health, are well-fed, and probably came from a healthy natal and childhood environment.

    Some study indicated that attractive people commit the least amount of crime; average looking people commit average amounts of crime, and ugly people commit the most crime. The “pseudo-scientists” of the 19th century may not have been wrong about everything (although Sheldon was obviously wrong in his judgement that athletic men are more crime-prone, though his assessment of indulgent obese people and often neurotic thin people was pretty accurate)

  94. Feryl says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    In action movies, the hero is typically well-built and the villains tend to be uglier and/or more poorly built. Clint Eastwood is taller and better looking than all of the bad guys in the Dirty Harry movies. And the hero is usually more conventionally masculine (in the first three Dirty Harry movies, the main villain is nerdier and/or more effete than stoic Eastwood is).

  95. Talha says:
    @Feryl

    This leads me to believe the patriarchy died a lot longer than I had previously thought and that we’ve been dealing with just its zombie cadaver.

    The Boomers seem to be the first generation that went all in on the idea of hyper-individualism and it seems the only true litmus test for the ascendancy of hyper-individualism is the ever-increasing freedom to commit public degeneracy against the will of others. That and blasphemy – everything else seems blasé at some point.

    Even at great risk to yourself.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  96. dfordoom says: • Website
    @EliteCommInc.

    Uhhh, not at all. It’s largely none of my business, especially that which occurs in private settings. Your suggestion is simply unworkable to the Constitution – privacy is the single right by which all other rights flow because it rests on establishing borders for self existence.

    You’re starting from the assumption that liberalism is sacred, and that your Constitution is Holy Scripture. I’m arguing that liberalism is so deeply flawed that it must be rejected in its entirety if civilisation is to survive.

    But you have introduced a host of other issues as though they rest in the same category as same sex behavior.

    Of course they’re in the same category. Adultery, illegitimacy, drug use, homosexuality – all products of the selfish individualism and self-indulgence that liberals worship.

    Abortion is in a slightly different category. Abortion is murder, plain and simple.

    Society as it exists today is a product of liberalism. If you’re a liberal you should be happy. You’ve got what you wanted.

  97. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Feryl

    People like Corvinus complain that we had arranged marriages

    What exactly is wrong with arranged marriages? As long as they’re not forced marriages they’re a very sound idea.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Feryl
  98. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Feryl

    Paglia also expresses another classic Boomerism: the key to fighting the worst predators is to lock them up. But that doesn’t eliminate one of the root causes of deviance: a failure to enforce vice control.

    To Boomers like Paglia, a baseline level of deviance is to be expected and a constant factor in life, we just need to attack the biggest transgressors (such as violent criminals).

    Boomerism? Will this silly generational nonsense never end?

    The problem with Paglia is that although she’s a very intelligent woman she’s a liberal. She can’t let go of it.

    And that’s the problem with society. Liberalism. The liberalism of the GI Generation and the Silent Generation and the Greatest Generation and the Boomers and GenX and the Millennials. We can’t solve social problems until we finally let go of liberalism, until we finally admit that liberalism is evil all the way through, that it always has been, and that classical liberalism is as evil as any other kinds of liberalism.

    On the whole I agree with you that tolerating a certain degree of deviance, degeneracy and antisocial conduct is a fatal mistake. It’s a mistake that liberals and conservatives (who are just right-wing liberals) always make. Because they want to be nice. They want to virtue-signal. They want to preen themselves on their non-judgmentalism.

    Christians make the same mistake – they want to be warm and cuddly and nice. So they spout nonsense like “hate the sin but love the sinner.” They’re pathetic and useless.

  99. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Feryl

    In wholesome eras, however, elites ignore their own desires and trend toward respecting the conservative mores of working class people.

    Elites never ignore their own desires and never display any interest in respecting the conservative mores of working class people. At most the elites might display a grudging recognition that they need to do something f0r the non-elites.

    There was a time when elites in Anglophone countries subscribed to vaguely socialist (or Socialist Lite) economic ideas and social conservatism.

    In “wholesome eras” the elites themselves have conservative social values.

    The decline of the West coincides with a growing concentration of power in the elites. The elites no longer even have to pretend to care about non-elites.

  100. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Feryl

    I guess it’s too “oppressive” of women to encourage them to not drink, and find a male protector at a young age. Wow, I can’t imagine how the Boomers managed to push our society into decadence. Naive young girls getting wasted and then taken advantage of by male predators is apparently part of “freedom”.

    Again I mostly agree, except that this decadence is the inevitable result of feminism. It’s not the product of feminism pushed to excess. All feminism leads to this sort of decadence. There is no such thing as moderate feminism.

    Feminism wasn’t invented by Boomers. Feminism was already changing society in disastrous ways back in the 50s. By the time feminism became a media event in the late 60s the damage had already been done.

    • Replies: @Talha
  101. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Feryl

    The “consenting adults” meme is a decadent Boomerism.

    You can’t trust people to make good choices in the absence of supervision. Libertarianism/Boomerism is rooted in the notion that authority (typically it’s the government and/or church who are portrayed as the ultimate authority by these people) is inept and stupid at enforcing regulation, to the point that it creates more problems than it solves. Ergo, we should just let people to their own devices, and choose their destiny. What could go wrong?

    The “consenting adults” meme is certainly evil. It’s a recipe for decadence and social decay. Morality is not something that just magically happens, morality has to be enforced. If you don’t have morality you have chaos and misery.

    If religion is more or less non-existent, as it is in western society today, then some other institution will have to enforce morality. Unfortunately the only such institution available is the government.

    The problem we have today is that the government is enforcing an evil morality, an anti-morality, that is based on liberalism.

  102. Half-Jap says:
    @BengaliCanadianDude

    It is because people all over the ‘advanced’ societies infantalized their kids for such extended length of time that they’re barely competent adults even by mid 30s.
    We used to undergo initiation and be treated as adults for 12 to 16 year old samurai boys, ready to fight and die. Women, their initiation after they are capable of bearing children. Such initiations were common worldwide as well, but not sure any of when many of our irresponsible functional illiterates and idiots of similar age today would ever be ready for the responsibilities of life, including sex.
    I think it’s not bad to be liberated and have contraception, but one must accept the consequences and responsibilities; that said, young teens that are emancipated by virtue of their own capacities are tyrannically held down.

  103. LondonBob says:
    @Feryl

    Wasn’t Studio 54 effectively a gay club anyway?

    • Replies: @Feryl
  104. “You can’t trust people to make good choices in the absence of supervision. Libertarianism/Boomerism is rooted in the notion that authority (typically it’s the government and/or church who are portrayed as the ultimate authority by these people) is inept and stupid at enforcing regulation, to the point that it creates more problems than it solves. Ergo, we should just let people to their own devices, and choose their destiny. What could go wrong?

    Gee, back in the Studio 54 era, coke fueled casual sex and all-night benders were just part and parcel of living in a “free” society. At least that’s what many Americans have delusionally thought since the 70’s.”

    I take it someone is standing over your shoulder 24/7.

    First of all there needs to be distinctions made between secular authority and that which is derived from one’s faith and practice. To the first, government authority is why there was a revolution in this country. So I am going to challenge any notion that government authority is what is at play or at least should be at play. our theoretical standpoint is that US governmental authority is derived not from the government’s wisdom but from that of the population it represents. So I along with the founders despite their errors, stand suspect of government wielding authority.

    Second, There are several mechanisms at play in our society that represents authority, not the least of which are parents and the families they build. That ranks as the the most important tier of socialization regarding authority and training. There exists the ethos and practices of the community at large which may include those of faith and practice, but I hold out for the same as uniquely special.

    Third, the recognition of the divine, faith and practice, exceeds that of government for most people and when the two collide, the divine for many supercedes the secular. I hold in high regard the second and the third observations. The first in keeping with a conservative ethos – is suspect with its hits and misses as to accuracy, free of taint and application.

    Your comments are loaded with assumptions about what I believe and on review they are not only incorrect, they are premised on a two tiered system that ought to have multiple tiers that vary in influence, via time, space, circumstance and those involved. furthermore, you seem to think that think that the revolution that eventually bore the US was predicated on two authorities when in fact it was predicated a challenge to governmental exercise of power and central in that challenge was the right to faith and practice liberty (freedom of religion). And that issue was made plain via the consenting adults. And after the revolution, the founders pressed that consenting adults should stand opposed to government that limited their freedoms. Hence the Bill of rights . . .

    Now the consenting adults made a fuss about this business of “religion”. They even contended that one ought to have the right to call the entire notion of the divine guidance, providence a load of bunk. Essential in this notion is the ability of consenting adults to be left alone, to have free associations and that said associations should not be criminalized.

    Note: this was a discussion among the adults and it excluded adults that were female or non-citizens.

    Their goal was to place strict limits on governmental power to intrude on the property both intellectual and physical of the consenting adults. That meant staying out of people’s homes and their minds minus their consent or via a due process exception — Those protections were not only on government but on each citizen. In other words, my right to tell frank and francine what to do, how to think and behave has boundaries. Hence the expression and value of consenting adults. That includes the right to visit the local pub, even if that pub is called studio 54. The challenge in all of this is determining standards to law and standards that cannot be law but are in fact appropriate social means of guidance to the health and well being of community.

    I do not smoke marijuana, muchless even considered cocaine and I am not supportive of legalizing any substances that impair brain function. So any trips I might make to studio 54 would exclude alcohol. I am a practicing celibate and promote the same, so casual relations is not something that i would support in or out of Studio 54.

    You do realize that most of the nation’s laws are predicated in barring others from interfering in the lives of others. Where we can enjoin others is generally acknowledged concerning behavior that impacts community. When one leaves Studio 54 there is a general expectation that said departure is conducted in a manner that does not pose a hazard to others in the community.

    Now I think you will find that most consenting adults admit and practice an understanding that “freedom” among the consenting is not absolute because we operate in community and yet authority is something they prefer be limited even more.

    Apparently even Christ acknowledged that humans can choose. I would advance that the reason we generally have order is because that is how most people behave. And not because of the government but by the due diligence of parents most of whom teach their children appropriate conduct.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  105. subtle amendment:

    ” So I along with the founders despite their errors, stand suspect of government wielding authority on its own behalf.”

    Now I am not much of fan of the masses (the public) but that is our system, at least in theory.

  106. Logan says:
    @Feryl

    I contend it is even weirder than that.

    The desperate desire for “freedom” seldom applies in any area other than sexuality. IOW, it is insisted that sexuality must be uniquely free from regulation or even societal disapproval.

    I’ve often asked leftists why they’re so anxious to impose restrictions on people in every area of life, but insist that sexuality must be left to each individual. Never have gotten a particularly coherent reply.

    It is notable that after 50 years of “the sexual revolution,” it appears that they are now reacting to (some of) the problems it has created via the MeToo and related movements. Neo-Puritanism rides again!

    • Replies: @Feryl
  107. Logan says:
    @Feryl

    Yup. Male sexuality allowed to run free without women gets pretty weird.

  108. Talha says:

    The Crusade to make the world safe for butt-sex enthusiasts rolls on:
    “According to mass media reports, Georgian Orthodox church official archpriest David Isakadze accused acting US ambassador to Georgia Elizabeth Rood of attempts to aggravate the situation in Georgia in connection with LGBT activists action….’Unfortunately several LGBT groups and their allies say to their foreign partners that they are oppressed and persecuted in Georgia and for this reason they want to receive serious financing. They want to represent their actions as struggle against discrimination, but in fact they just popularize and promote their lifestyle and strive to achieve its legalization,’ the patriarchate said in its statement.”
    http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=15163

    Mind you, Georgia is one of the countries in recent history to use religion to attempt to turn birth-rates around:
    “Georgia also has implemented a series of financial initiatives for bearing children since 2013. Paid parental leave was extended from 126 to 183 days and unpaid leave from 477 to 730 days. Likewise, the government increased the ‘baby bonus,’ a one-time payout for having a child, from about $250 to about $400, and increased the bonus for a fourth child to nearly $800. In 2014, they launched another expansion, offering parents of three or more children in low-population regions an $850 annual payment.

    But Stone found that the Patriarch’s baptism was far more influential, at least according to the statistical data. ‘The effect [of the subsidies] is substantially smaller than the effect observed from Ilia’s baptism offer, and, of course, the price tag far, far higher, with these programs costing Georgia an appreciable share of its budget,’ he wrote. ‘Giving money for kids does have some effect, just not as much as encouragement from beloved religious leaders.
    https://eurasianet.org/georgias-baby-boom-and-the-union-of-church-and-birthrate

    This obviously cannot be tolerated, how dare Georgians try to get their birth rates back to replacement levels – send in the trannies!!!

    Peace.

  109. Laughing . . . really pressed to note some detail.

    I do not approve of same relational behavior. There is no evidence that it is biological rooted in any kind of steady state. What happened at the APA conference in 1970 and 1973 is tragic and has undermined the veracity of the academic community in spades.

    I think faith and practice communities who accept the biblical view have every right to express the same and furthermore to practice what they preach according to scripture. That includes barring members who engage or advocate the conduct as becoming of Christ as opposed to the error it is.

    As to public debate I think there is plenty of room to doubt the viability of the behavior as some kind of norm equal to heterosexual unions, all of the evidence suggests otherwise. As a single male, I have spent no small time defending myself against the accusation, or suggestion that I lean toward this expression —- I like women and I want as many options as possible —

    poor and ugly is hardly a viable calling card to the opposite sex

    well, one can hope. Laugh.

  110. The problem inherent to any kind of authoritarianism is who will watch the watchmen.

    Authority corrupts and absolute authority corrupts absolutely.

    Anyways, this is just so gay.

  111. Feryl says:
    @Logan

    I’ve often asked leftists why they’re so anxious to impose restrictions on people in every area of life, but insist that sexuality must be left to each individual. Never have gotten a particularly coherent reply.

    Beginning in the mid-1970’s more and more “conservatives” bought the libertarian mantra that what I do is my own business, dammit, and like Hell the government should tell me what to do. Conservatives of the last 45 years have completely forgotten what made the New Deal era wholesome, which was communal consensus to rein in decadent behavior for the greater good of everyone. Boomers hated to have their individual desires reined in, and started making non-sense up that the government was, is, and always will be a party pooper that wastes everyones taxes.

    To be fair, it was the Left-wing that got the ball rolling on behavioral de-regulation in the 60’s, but most normal people weren’t having any of it. Not until the Right wing started conflating decadence with freedom from government “interference” in the 70’s did more people have the intellectual ammo to really start fighting for de-regulation.

    • Replies: @Logan
  112. Feryl says:
    @LondonBob

    Studio 54 was an elite club; it was a shiny mini-Sodom, where people who were “cool”/really famous were granted entry. Everyone knew that admittance meant that they’d have the “best” party of their life. There are stories of people winning Oscars, and still being denied entry. Part of the club’s mystique was that the harder it was to get into, the more proud you could be of getting into it.

    Although Studio 54 had a gay co-owner, it didn’t serve a primarily gay clientele. And by the late 70’s, decadence had gone mainstream, anyway. High schools were full of kids smoking pot and drinking during and before school, to say nothing of what they were doing in the evening. Divorce, infidelity, and casual sex were rampant.

  113. Feryl says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    To the first, government authority is why there was a revolution in this country.

    The colonists were growing hostile towards a foreign empire bossing the US around. As for the issue of the newfound US government, the fathers were split on the degree of power given to federal and state authority.

    Their goal was to place strict limits on governmental power to intrude on the property both intellectual and physical of the consenting adults. That meant staying out of people’s homes and their minds minus their consent or via a due process exception — Those protections were not only on government but on each citizen. In other words, my right to tell frank and francine what to do, how to think and behave has boundaries. Hence the expression and value of consenting adults. That includes the right to visit the local pub, even if that pub is called studio 54. The challenge in all of this is determining standards to law and standards that cannot be law but are in fact appropriate social means of guidance to the health and well being of community.

    I don’t like tyranny any more than you do, but I do want vice control. Where one ends and the other begins is open to personal opinion, but as for me I’d rather the government arrest drug dealers and shut down clubs that tolerate vice. But I don’t want the government censoring speech, or telling me what color to paint my house. In a decadent era, however, “consenting adults” becomes a means through which to de-stigmatize destructive behavior.

    I do not smoke marijuana, muchless even considered cocaine and I am not supportive of legalizing any substances that impair brain function. So any trips I might make to studio 54 would exclude alcohol. I am a practicing celibate and promote the same, so casual relations is not something that i would support in or out of Studio 54.

    Good for you, I would suppose that you don’t find it “funny” that teen girls get wasted in college towns without a reliable male protector, and you don’t find it “funny” that a lot of Americans are wasting away on opioids. And you don’t think that America would be a better place if everyone lit up a joint every day.

  114. Feryl says:
    @Talha

    The Boomers seem to be the first generation that went all in on the idea of hyper-individualism and it seems the only true litmus test for the ascendancy of hyper-individualism is the ever-increasing freedom to commit public degeneracy against the will of others. That and blasphemy – everything else seems blasé at some point.

    They weren’t the first generation to do this, but the advent of mass media, and economic security of the mid-late 20th century, gave them copious opportunities to glorify and celebrate their decision to re-direct society toward narcissism and poor behavior.

    What we’re seeing with people born since the mid-70’s is fatigue with the worship of “freedom”, which younger generations correctly see for what it really is:chaos and dysfunction. No Millennial really buys that the 1950’s were so “awful” because mom had to stay at home and cook.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  115. Hapax says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    Many parasites don’t survive for long outside their hosts, so a general lack of hygiene isn’t always sufficient to ensure transmission. Transmission through direct contact (ass-to-mouth, sucking dick straight from someone’s ass and so on) is much more effective, ensuring a safe, moist and warm route for the parasite to enter the other person.

    True, hygiene issues were greater in the past (as they still are in the Third World), and people suffered from a great many diseases as a result – but they had numerous taboos and regulations, religious, social and legal, against anal sex and similar activities which limited their vulnerability to toxoplasmosis in particular.

    Now that all these former taboos, laws and religious sanctions have been done away with by the Homosexual/LGBTQ Lobby, humanity is left with a serious problem – how to remove people infected with the parasite from positions of power and authority over us and our as-yet uninfected children. The vicious, human-hating animus permeating the LGBTQ crowd and the “elite” – their contempt for normal uninfected people – shows that the parasite and its hosts aren’t going to give up without a major fight. It’s a very sick situation.

  116. Talha says:

    Oh and…
    “Psychologists Can’t Figure Out Why Hardly Anyone Wants To Date A Trans Person”
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/24/psychologists-cant-figure-out-hardly-anyone-wants-to-date-a-trans-person/

    Really? I can think of like 5 off the top of my head.

    I wonder if people will now be shamed into accepting dating proposals from trannies. I guess this is likely not to be seen in a movie again:

    Peace.

  117. @Hapax

    Can you post links to research papers that support this theory? I’d like to follow up on this idea.

  118. “I don’t like tyranny any more than you do, but I do want vice control. Where one ends and the other begins is open to personal opinion, but as for me I’d rather the government arrest drug dealers and shut down clubs that tolerate vice. ”

    I am afraid you are tad late

    1. the society does arrest drug dealers

    2. the society has continued to outlaw relational behavior for hire

    3. the society has laws that even prohibit consenting adults (even married adults) and others from engaging relations in public spaces

    part of that limited “freedom” understanding I noted previously.

    ——————–

    “Good for you, I would suppose that you don’t find it “funny” that teen girls get wasted in college towns without a reliable male protector, and you don’t find it “funny” . . .”

    I think my position on these issues is spelled out quite clearly,

    1. parents should teach their children to refrain from alcohol – period and children should do — hence the term adult as it is generally understood that children are developmental stages and as such should be curtailed from certain activities. It is a prudent practice that teens go on outings accompanied by an adult or in groups — as deterrent.

    2. it’s probably a bad idea to exceed the use of recommended dosages of any prescription drug of any kind and one should be cautious about even what is prescribed. I do think the opioid matter is an issue. But it is not a national crisis affecting the nation as a whole.

    I think you have barked up the wrong tree concerning the issue of what it means to be a consenting adult. A discussion that would not include the introduction of children.

    Though I have entertained your wandering. When someone uses the term “consenting adult” they are usually referring to behaviors of a private nature. They are not by definition contending for any of the issues you raised. The discussion regarding federal and state authority was to individual liberty. The desire of those founding the US was limit government control whether state or federally exercised.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  119. @Talha

    Sounds like they need some *good ole’ economic growth!*.

    In the Bush years, it was “they need some Murrican Freedom!”

    Now it’s “they need some economic growth (and the Globohomo that goes along with it)”.

    I don’t understand this mad push for growth. Sure, Georgia isn’t the richest country in the world. It’s certainly not the most developed. But, it’s a functional, decent country. Leave them alone.

    Anywhere that is (((growing))) in GDP is also growing in Globohomo.

    • Replies: @Talha
  120. Talha says:
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    Good points – is the trade off in increase of GDP per capita worth handing over your culture to globohomo if that’s the option on the table or the most likely pattern?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
  121. Talha says:
    @dfordoom

    All feminism leads to this sort of decadence. There is no such thing as moderate feminism.

    Sounds about right. Once you start down that conceptual road, it is very difficult to figure out where it stops and it takes on a mind of its own.

    Br. Daniel did a great analysis on how feminism is basically a gateway to apostasy. Which would help explain the flagging religious demographics in the West. Once “men can’t tell me what to do” happens – well, you might as well throw all religions out the window because they were initiated by certain men giving guidance to society on how to live – bar none:
    https://muslimskeptic.com/2019/01/09/is-feminism-the-cause-of-women-leaving-islam/

    Peace.

  122. Talha says:
    @dfordoom

    Beautifully stated. People don’t realize the amount of investment that two entire families have in the success of a couple that is properly vetted and arranged.

    And you are right, forcing marriages should be prohibited – that’s just oppressive.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @RSDB
  123. @Talha

    I believe this is a rhetorical question, but I’ll answer anyways.

    NO.

    We’ll see in 100 years if there even is an exchange taking place… or if we’re just pissing everything down the drain for nothing. I have a feeling the future “economic growth” will not be very ‘good’.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Feryl
  124. @Talha

    He needs to get a better comment section going. 5 comments per article is boring.

    I don’t mind reading what he has to say; it’s nice to see some Muslims who aren’t whining and playing the SJW victim card non-stop. It’s really pathetic that 99% of non-whites in Canada are dying to be victimized. Ultra sensitive too. Stand up and be a man.

    Even the Italians are being brought into the victimhood action, though most think this is bullshit and nobody asked for this.

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-trudeau-to-apologize-to-italian-canadians-mistreated-during-second/

    C.C. Steve Sailer, Audacious Epigone

    • Replies: @Talha
  125. @Talha

    Also: It seems like the patriarch blessing is a one trick pony

    2013: 49k births, 1.73 TFR
    2014: 60k births, 2.31 TFR
    2015: 59k births, 2.30 TFR
    2016: 56k births, 2.24 TFR
    2017: 53k births, 2.14 TFR
    2018: 51k births, ??? TFR

    They will need mass immigration to replace their “aging population” and “shrinking labour force” in no time.

    • Replies: @Talha
  126. Talha says:
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    Nooooooo!!!! The Poz must be stopped!

    Peace.

  127. Talha says:
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    Yeah his comments section needs an overhaul. I’ll talk to him about finding a better tool to hook up to his site to make it more useful and drive traffic.

    it’s nice to see some Muslims who aren’t whining and playing the SJW victim card non-stop.

    No one likes whiners:
    https://mobile.twitter.com/DrShadeeElmasry/status/661627972290396160

    “And We will surely test you with something of fear and hunger and a loss of wealth and lives and fruits, but give good tidings to the patient.” (2:155)

    The patient, not the whining losers.

    Peace.

  128. Twinkie says:
    @Feryl

    In wholesome eras, however, elites ignore their own desires and trend toward respecting the conservative mores of working class people.

    Historically, conservative mores resided in the middle class, not the menial labor class.

  129. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Feryl

    No Millennial really buys that the 1950’s were so “awful” because mom had to stay at home and cook.

    You really believe that Millennials have rejected the feminist brainwashing? Do you have some evidence? Because I’m really really really sceptical.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    , @Feryl
  130. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Talha

    Br. Daniel did a great analysis on how feminism is basically a gateway to apostasy.

    Yes. Any religion, any church or sect, that has compromised even slightly with feminism is now pretty much on life support. Feminism is absolutely fatal to religion. More fatal than anything else.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Talha
    , @Talha
  131. dfordoom says: • Website
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    We’ll see in 100 years if there even is an exchange taking place… or if we’re just pissing everything down the drain for nothing. I have a feeling the future “economic growth” will not be very ‘good’.

    Agreed. I think that a very large part of the GDP growth is actually illusory. What we’ve seen over the past half century is lots of GDP growth, and even GDP per capita growth, but somehow we don’t seem to be better off. If ordinary people with only the husband’s income could afford to buy a house 50 years ago but today an equivalent couple can’t buy a house with both partners working then how exactly are we better off?

    And maybe today people can afford more consumer goods but the consumer goods are either junk or they’re unnecessary, or they’re both junk and unnecessary.

    So yes, we are sacrificing things that really matter in order to get things that don’t really matter, and even the things we do get turn out to be junk.

    But people are fooled by it because anybody under the age of 50 doesn’t realise just how much better life was half a century ago. They don’t know what it is that they’ve lost.

  132. RSDB says:
    @Talha

    Um.

    I know of a fair number of arranged marriages that have failed*– and quite a few, especially back in the old days, of marriages where squabbles among the “entire families” would have ruined a marriage if the spouses hadn’t taken seriously the stuff about being of one flesh and cleaving to one another. Arranged marriage is not some sort of poison in society but neither is it a panacea. In societies where marriage is taken seriously, I’m not sure it makes much difference exactly how a marriage is contracted, as long as due regard is exercised for the sanctity of the institution.**
    Though it does seem that, at least at present and at least to me, those societies with a significant proportion of arranged marriage are also those where marriage is taken most seriously.

    *Some of these would make good movie scripts and I beg your indulgence in giving one: Boy meets girl — Boy and girl fall in love (or at least he does) — Girl’s family tells boy to go hang, they’ve got someone picked out for her, whom she then marries — Boy joins a revolutionary organization, is sent to prison, escapes barely ahead of a murderous mob out to kill prisoners of his race, after many vicissitudes ends up an alcoholic refugee in a European capital — Meanwhile, girl’s husband is an abusive brute (to be fair, I don’t have his side of the story) — They divorce (I think, I’m not really too sure actually), after many vicissitudes she ends up in the same European capital — Boy meets girl again, picks himself up, they marry, he now operates a successful (and legitimate) business in the European capital and is thinking of retiring, they have several children. Not an argument against arranged marriage but a bizarre story.

    **A recent study of relationship outcomes among Indian-American couples married either through free-choice or arranged marriages for about a decade found absolutely no differences. Author of the article complains about the small sample size, and he’s probably right, but it agrees with my prejudices on the subject.

    • Replies: @Talha
  133. Talha says:
    @RSDB

    Arranged marriage is not some sort of poison in society but neither is it a panacea.

    Agreed, for sure. To be honest, your experience is very different from mine – I have not heard of many arranged marriages fall apart. Maybe this is just a difference between the way certain Muslim cultures approach it versus others.

    those societies with a significant proportion of arranged marriage are also those where marriage is taken most seriously.

    Agreed. For me arranged marriage is simply the families facilitating finding the spouse between various contacts (for instance, I have a couple of young women in mind for my two sons when they get older) and then facilitating the courtship stage. I’m not into; “Yo, you’re gonna marry your idiot cousin from my old village or else!”

    Not an argument against arranged marriage but a bizarre story.

    Not a bad one – Bollywood hasn’t done this plot yet?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @RSDB
  134. Talha says:
    @dfordoom

    This account has some of the best comics about the idiocy of mixing feminism and Islam:

    Peace.

  135. Talha says:
    @dfordoom

    This account has some of the best comics about the idiocy of mixing feminism and Islam:

    Peace.

  136. Talha says:
    @dfordoom

    (Sigh) Another move by feminists to fight the Muslims that are fighting back to keep filth out of their communities:

    From the description:
    “While some Muslim parents have joined the protest, the protest leaders appear to be part of a Fundamentalist Muslim movement, with the clear intention of seeking to impose their ultra conservative political agenda on the curriculum within Muslim communities, and within schools in Muslim majority areas.”

    How dare Muslim parents and activists decide what gets taught to Muslim children in Muslim communities??!! Who do they think they are??!!

    Peace.

  137. Feryl says:
    @dfordoom

    Millennials aren’t head strong and arrogant like baby Boomers. The Boomers have consistently beamed with pride that “they” (with the assistance of libertarians and cultural Marxists from older generations) over-threw the “square” culture of the New Deal era. Some of them feign anger and sadness about the social decline of the last 50 years, but if they really cared about putting forth effort to restore society, they would’ve produced more responsible leaders by now.

  138. Feryl says:
    @dfordoom

    Sorry, I meant to say sham marriages, e.g homosexuals marrying women for social respectability and/or financial gain. I used “arranged” to mean cynical and dishonest. Corvinus likes to complain that the New Deal era was a stupid fraud, because TV shows and movies didn’t depict the flawed lives that some people led at the time. Yeah, there were homosexuals, infidelity, etc. at the time. But mainstream culture strongly disavowed sinful and selfish behavior at the time. That doesn’t mean that sin doesn’t exist in good times, but it does mean that our leaders were earnestly trying to help people from making big mistakes.

    Beginning in the 70’s, movies, TV shows, public conversations (e.g. ones that occurred on TV and radio), etc. start to acknowledge, and not strongly disapprove of, excessive drunken revelry, casual sex, etc. There was a short-lived backlash to glorifying hedonism and destructive behavior that lasted from about 1985-1992, but that probably was motivated by the record high crime rates of the time. Once crime began declining in 1993, society started to think that drug use, excessive drinking, juvenile delinquency, and casual sex were things to laugh about. Gen X and Millennials have largely had to decide for themselves not to go down the wrong path, whereas people who grew up in the 1920’s-1960’s had older generations who were avowedly against substance abuse, violence, and promiscuity. It’s that era that the Boomers have always been obsessed with destroying. They won’t grow up and acknowledge how much damage they inflicted on society by saying that a clean cut/well regulated life is “boring” and not worth living.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  139. Feryl says:
    @Talha

    Men, the ones who aren’t brigands, at any rate, really do care about their nation/tribe. Women don’t. Women care about their children and husbands*, and not much else**.

    So in decadent times men who are nationalistic are shamed as hard-hearted barbarians who need to lighten up, and give up their power to women and cynical/cowardly men.

    *If women are too selfish, brainwashed, or disturbed to have a family, then what does that leave for them to care about? Note the research indicating that childless men appear to be happier than childless women.

    **We are talking about the norm for each gender, of course there are going to be exceptions.

    EvoPsych wise, it seems that men evolved to feel shame about not fighting back against invaders, as failure to so wouldn’t just jeapordize their family, it would also render them dishonorable in the eyes of their male peers. Whereas women generally feel arrogantly superior toward other women, thereby making them disinterested in the judgements given by women. Not wanting to let your fellow warriors down is a powerful motivation that most women don’t seem to have***.

    *** See also Sailer’s durable insight that brothers often work together for decades, as seen in Hollywood (like the Cohen bros), whereas the female equivalent is much more unusual.

    • Replies: @Talha
  140. Feryl says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    1. parents should teach their children to refrain from alcohol – period and children should do — hence the term adult as it is generally understood that children are developmental stages and as such should be curtailed from certain activities. It is a prudent practice that teens go on outings accompanied by an adult or in groups — as deterrent.

    We aren’t going to stop all bad behavior from happening. However, our current society is set up in such a way that it is far too easy for youngsters to make big mistakes and be taken advantage of. For example, parents need to be aware of how responsible their kids are. Unless you know that your kid is really smart and responsible, I would advise that parents need to discourage their kids from going to college immediately after high school. Why? The post-1970 college environment is a socially toxic and dangerous environment, where drunken revelry is inevitable given the lack of vice control* and the social encouragement to youth that they not settle down with a reliable partner.

    *Pre-1970, institutions like law enforcement and campus authorities would exert considerable control of youth culture and behavior, in order to prevent excessive substance abuse, violence, and sexual escapades. Since the 80’s, society imprisons lots of criminals, however, little else is done to make sure that society is safer and more orderly.

  141. Feryl says:
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    “Economic growth” and “GDP” are euphemisms for the vultures that feed during a corrupt era. People like Peter Turchin have laundry lists of well-being measures, which show how many things decline in a corrupt era regardless of ostensible growth.

    I mean, imagine the average person in 1955 thinking that 1915 was an awesome time because of supposed “growth”. News flash: Most middle-lower class people don’t want society being drained by vulture capital, don’t want massive trade deficits because we don’ make stuff anymore, don’t want massive corporate monopolies, don’t want massive immigration levels, and don’t want political elites who are arrogantly contemptuous of ordinary people.

  142. Feryl says:
    @dfordoom

    Millennials don’t have any experience whatsoever of pre-1980 America. So Millennials either don’t have much of an opinion of the era, or are academically interested in the era. It’s a far different attitude with Boomers, who grew up in the 50’s and 60’s watching older adults diligently making the political and cultural sausage of the time, which Boomers arrogantly judged to be lacking in appealing taste. The Boomers have spent their entire lives trying to wreck the social values created by their parents and grandparents, not bothering to consider if they could replace it with something better (hint: anyone with a brain knows that society is in a much worse place now than it was in 1970).

    It’s been observed throughout history, the “fathers and sons” cycle. Parents tend to raise children unlike themselves, in terms of cultural and political orientation, though not necessarily in overall temperament. So think of it this way: Society moved rather slowly in the 1930’s-50’s (after the Great Depression spoiled the party), then the Boomers wanted to speed things up. Well, the relentless and quickening pace of social experimentation given to us by the Boomers has basically de-railed society. So it’s now up to Millennials to fight for changes that will slow things down, and let us put things back on course. Eventually the Millennials own children will be bored with their parent’s culture, and things will speed back up.

    How do Silents, Gen X, etc. fit into this? Not very neatly. Some Silents sided with GIs, others with the Boomers. Still others coulndn’t figure out which side to join. Nowadays Gen X is in a similar position; some are allied with the Boomers, some with Millennials, and some either can’t figure out which side to join or are just not interested in aligning with either generation.

    Nobody really talks about Silents or Gen X precisely because they are difficult generations to generalize about; nobody is really sure who they are exactly, and what they exactly stand for. Whereas when you say “Boomer” or “Millennial”, people instantly know what each generation represents, though they may not like it or understand it.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  143. BB753 says:
    @BengaliCanadianDude

    The legal argument is the following : if neither party can legally consent to having sex, then it’s illegal for teens to engage in such acts. And it also follows that their legal guardians are legally responsible for the felony.

  144. Talha says:
    @Feryl

    Mannerbund.

    Men and women have different roles; there are some good qualities in a woman that are bad in a man and vice versa.

    If women are too selfish, brainwashed, or disturbed to have a family, then what does that leave for them to care about?

    Not much actually – they can be quite vile:

    Decadent times certainly do not appreciate the guardianship role of men and one of the first signs of a decadent society is the collapse of patriarchy.

    Peace.

    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @Feryl
  145. Feryl says:
    @Talha

    There is seriously an epidemic of mental illness right now among teens and people in their early 20’s. Not that the clowns running our institutions are showing much sign of sanity, but we really have to pity the generation who went to high school after Obama was elected.

    Back in 1990, a lot of teenagers felt motivated to attack drug use; what’s happened to teenagers recently? My own reading on the situation is that the 2008 financial melt-down didn’t lead to responsible solutions, and further psychologically de-stabilized people. But people born before the late 90’s had time to mature in a non-insane era, whereas people born after 1995 had the misfoturne to be an impressionable age when society totally lost it’s marbles in the Obama era

  146. “There is seriously an epidemic of mental illness right now among teens and people in their early 20’s. Not that the clowns running our institutions are showing much sign of sanity, but we really have to pity the generation who went to high school after Obama was elected.”

    I think i have been patient here.

    There is nothing from stopping your generation from cleaning up whatever complaints you have. But I am tad leery of anyone who claims the positions you have and fails to accept that in all but two areas your generation has fully embraced and worse argued to expand the issues further out of bounds.

    1. same sex relations lgb has now gone to lbgtq + something or other.

    2. it doesn’t matter how many times one pressures for the data to back up their continuum of choice mantra they just repeat the same nonsensical arguments and rest n name calling.

    3. uhhh, excuse me — global warming now climate change is a near religious crusade for your generation — again, pressure the matter to predict a climate and all’s the rage about old age and out of touch . . .

    4. socialism is the answer — that’s hardly my generation

    5. national healthcare

    6. immigration — one worldliness —- that is the we are the world clamor of millenials

    7. legalization of drugs —- marijuana . . . get a grip — pointing fingers as millenials race to figure out which venture capitalist will reap the most cash —

    There are two areas that seem hopeful

    a. relations out wedlock
    b. and your generation challenges the notion that children in the womb are not children — that is a hopeful indicator
    c. and maybe some sign that perhaps, it’s not entirely the fault of blacks and native americans

    But beyond that . . . your complaints run a tad shallow.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  147. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Feryl

    Beginning in the 70’s, movies, TV shows, public conversations (e.g. ones that occurred on TV and radio), etc. start to acknowledge, and not strongly disapprove of, excessive drunken revelry, casual sex, etc.

    Movies were glorifying drinking and promiscuity and ridiculing marriage back in the 1930s. Take a look at a few movies from the early 30s.

    The liberal push to undermine the family, religion and traditional morality started in a big way in the 1920s. The 1920s was also when the drug culture emerged.

    You want cultural degeneracy? Try jazz. It was cultural degeneracy through and through right from the start.

    American cultural depravity was being spread globally long before WW2. What you’re mistakenly identifying as a Boomer thing is actually the gradual spread of American trash culture, firstly throughout America and then throughout the world.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  148. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Feryl

    It’s a far different attitude with Boomers, who grew up in the 50’s and 60’s watching older adults diligently making the political and cultural sausage of the time, which Boomers arrogantly judged to be lacking in appealing taste. The Boomers have spent their entire lives trying to wreck the social values created by their parents and grandparents, not bothering to consider if they could replace it with something better

    That was happening with the Jazz Age generation. It’s part of the whole modernism/liberalism thing which has been with us since the 19th century. It’s the cult of progress, the cult of the new, the cult of youth. All of which goes way back into the 19th century. The attitudes you’re talking about were invented in the early 19th century. Shelley, with his militant atheism, his worship of technology, his selfishness and hedonism. These attitudes have been with us since the beginnings of modernism.

    Every single generation since the French Revolution has believed itself to be cooler and more exciting than the preceding one. Cultural and social fashions have succeeded each other in a bewildering kaleidoscope of stupidity and naïvete.

    Society moved rather slowly in the 1930’s-50’s (after the Great Depression spoiled the party), then the Boomers wanted to speed things up.

    You really really need to do some reading about the 1920s, the 1930s, the 1940s and the 1950s. These were periods of incredibly rapid social change.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  149. Logan says:
    @Feryl

    To my mind this has been particularly apparent in the churches. Even most conservative churches have pretty much accepted the idea of premarital “dating” as the norm, with not much at all in the way of pushback or even preaching against premarital sex. While continuing to rail, some of them at least, against the horrors of homosexual immorality.

    This is despite there being not a great deal of distinction being drawn in the New Testament between the various types of sexual immorality.

    Many churches have even, in practice, accepted adultery and divorce/remarriage as perfectly okay, with possibly a very brief period of “repentance” and then proceeding on without further ado.

    Now you can draw some distinctions, I think, between the three categories of heterosexual fornication, homosexual fornication and adultery.

    Heterosexual fornication, while still being sex outside proper marriage, it at least “normal” sexuality and therefore might be considered somewhat less egregious than the other two.

    Homosexual fornication is both outside marriage and unnatural, therefore somewhat worse.

    Adultery adds to extramarital sex the betrayal of another human being, often more then one if children are involved, and the violation of a solemn vow. The worst sin of the three, to my mind.

  150. “To my mind this has been particularly apparent in the churches. Even most conservative churches have pretty much accepted the idea of premarital “dating” as the norm, with not much at all in the way of pushback or even preaching against premarital sex. While continuing to rail, some of them at least, against the horrors of homosexual immorality.”

    That may be the case in mainstream congregations. But I have never attended any congregation, even as a Catholic that did not tow a very solid line against relations out of wedlock — not one. Now I have not attended many Methodist. Episcpal or Anglican congregations, but no I have never met anyone, not a deacon, an usher, a choir member, a bishop, a pastor or memeber associated with any scripturally founded congregation to have any other position than celibacy until marriage.

    And I have associated with the same since the late 1970’s. If anything the give has been to same gender relations. There the pressure has caused some rift, among some evangelicals, but that rift is slight.

    “Many churches have even, in practice, accepted adultery and divorce/remarriage as perfectly okay, with possibly a very brief period of “repentance” and then proceeding on without further ado.”

    Again this sounds like the large mainline congregations mentioned above. Aside from the Catholic Church which still holds a hard line to marriage, and is in agreement still with most evangelicals.

    ————————————————-

    The issues that are odds with conservative and even scripture understanding in my view

    1. the concept of “soul mates” a purely buhdist, hindu and other existentialist thought

    2. immigration where christians mistake the concept of universal church for violating the laws of state — a thought and practice for which there is no scriptural foundation — save that said law actually forbids christ — the support for illegals in this country is not a scriptural position , even in the guise of sermon on the mount catch phrases.

  151. “The Boomers have spent their entire lives trying to wreck the social values created by their parents and grandparents, not bothering to consider if they could replace it with something better”

    They do think they have something better — we are living it. And it’s not even close to improvement — laugh.

    However, you are over generalizing the generation you question and ignoring what was clearly not route by liberals but a slow churn forward. And the reason they made progress is not because of the general public but because power brokers such as the APA involved in the lives of millions crossed the line and did so by force in 1973. That in conjunction with a growing divide between intellectuals and the general public which helps to explain both Supreme Court descions legalizing the murder of children in the womb. I think the lawyers against as with the general public probably though the idea a “bridge to far” miscalculating what has been going among among the educated jet set as indicated by the Supreme Court discussion — way out of bounds of any constitutional authority. And the defense gave little or no push back to the ridiculous claims about the nature of conceived children as skin tissue (Australians) – good greif.

    At any rate, what Mr. Buchanan much to his credit noted as “Culture Wars” — suggests that there was a clear divide among boomers and post boomers as opposed to the onslaught by boomers in general.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  152. I will be very frank.

    Unless there is a return to the academic classroom of people such as myself — there will be no recapture of the american mind to any real conservative ethos.

    education is the field from which we cultivate our next generations — and we don’t get back into those fields to challenge the current ethos

    “fo’ ged a’boud it.”

  153. RSDB says:
    @Talha

    To clarify, I haven’t heard of many arranged marriages falling apart, just not fewer than other kinds of marriage in the same society; what I would call “a fair number”. Compared, on the other hand, to the number of marriages here in the US I know of having been disastrous– well, there is no comparison.

    But I know of more cases (really for quite a few couples I’ve heard of several generations back– maybe it’s just that my relatives are particularly pugnacious, honestly– something to do with seafaring in the blood?) where squabbling between the families severely inconvenienced the couple. It almost seems to me that the couples kept the peace between their families far more than vice versa.

    The Muslim marriages I’ve heard of breaking up (not very many of those either) weren’t family drama, just the husband or wife getting bored. Speaking of Muslim marriages, I mentioned in the other thread that while Indian/”desi” parents were generally not thrilled to have white in-laws, this was not true to the same extent of Christians or Muslims; you would seem positioned to have an opinion here.

    Bollywood hasn’t done this plot yet?

    It would be a good one for Kollywood.

    • Replies: @Talha
  154. Talha says:
    @RSDB

    Indian/”desi” parents were generally not thrilled to have white in-laws, this was not true to the same extent of Christians or Muslims; you would seem positioned to have an opinion here.

    I can’t speak for all Muslims, but in my general family and my group of friends, religion is more important. I’ve had a couple of female cousins married to White guys, I married a White lady, another cousin married a Jewish/White lady (who didn’t convert incidentally). Certain Muslims are very, very strict about these things and will not marry out to even their ethnic group unless it is within their clan or from their village, etc.

    But, in the US, I’ve seen a move away from the whole “only-Desis” idea of who to marry with, though most Indo-Pak folks (even next generation) stick with Indo-Pak folks (and Bengladeshis – in fact, i have a wedding tonight for the daughter of one of my spiritual teachers [Pakistani] who is marrying a Bengali brother). Really hoping some Syrians will be attending and take over and do one of their ‘aradas:

    At my wedding, they did this and bounced me around over their heads all over the banquet hall. Good times…

    Peace.

  155. Feryl says:
    @dfordoom

    Movies were glorifying drinking and promiscuity and ridiculing marriage back in the 1930s. Take a look at a few movies from the early 30s.

    Have you heard of stuff like the Legion of Decency? Pre-code movies did push some boundaries, but it’s nowhere near the degeneracy that’s been pushed since the 1970’s*. And at any rate, we had Prohibition, the shutting of the borders, and so forth. The trend from 1900-1960’s was more regulation of our affairs. People were increasingly sick of the corruption and hedonism (popularly blamed on the Lost Generation), by the 1920’s, and were actually doing something about it. Not making excuses, or succumbing to despair. This is also evidenced by the fact that from 1900-1960, facial hair became less and less acceptable; by 1930, most men were clean shaven or had small moustaches. This is a big contrast from 1970-present, where beards and goatees by 2010 were seen on 40-50% of men**.

    *70’s movies were often pretty rough (though the language was less obscene than it would be in the 80’s and subsequent decades), but TV shows and broadcast radio were still pretty gentle)

    **Doctors, lawyers, accountants, and other professionals, into the 1970’s, were clean shaven or had moustaches, maybe with longer sideburns. By 1980, it’s no longer seen as unprofessional to go a day or two without shaving.

    The liberal push to undermine the family, religion and traditional morality started in a big way in the 1920s. The 1920s was also when the drug culture emerged.

    Institutions looking out for wholesome ordinary people recognized this, and took it seriously. And again, there was a (fairly accurate) notion that the Missionary (born in the mid-19th century) and GI Gen (born in the early 20th century) were teaming up to stop the degenerate Lost Generation, before more young adults wasted their lives like the Lost Gen did in the 1920’s. Society hated the young adult culture of the 1920’s, and attacked it with passionate fervor; compare that to how society indulges and excuses the excesses of Boomers; how many biopics, and loving tributes, are the Boomers going to get after they’ve drank, drugged, and slept their way to an early grave?

    Also, blaming “liberals”. Since the 80’s it’s been abundantly clear that the Right has no intention of shoring up families or stabilizing communities. They’ve wrecked wages and the middle class via high immigration levels and union-busting. They refuse to stop criminals and drugs from flowing thru our wide-open border (in contrast to minimal movement across the border that we had into the early 70’s). The Right, time and time again, since the 80’s, would rather that decadent elites and greedy companies be permitted to pollute the social atmosphere instead of calling them out and punishing them. Reagan took away the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-80’s, which paved the way for one sided loud-mouthed idiots polluting the talk radio air-waves. “Oh, but who needs regulation of something like that”? Well, who needs partisan morons brain-washing people? And last I checked, society got by just fine when we asked people to follow rules, instead of ignoring all propriety and modesty and giving in to base impulses.

    You want cultural degeneracy? Try jazz. It was cultural degeneracy through and through right from the start.

    At least it’s better than rap music.

  156. Feryl says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    There is nothing from stopping your generation from cleaning up whatever complaints you have. But I am tad leery of anyone who claims the positions you have and fails to accept that in all but two areas your generation has fully embraced and worse argued to expand the issues further out of bounds.

    The oldest Boomers are now 75 years old, and many Boomers still deny accountability for what’s happened in their life-times. And you think Millennials need to take responsibility? Cut us some slack.

    1. same sex relations lgb has now gone to lbgtq + something or other.

    Thanks to today’s older generations, since about 1990 publicly voicing un-PC (rebellious) opinions can literally ruin your life. Millennials didn’t mainstream sexual minority culture, that was Boomers and Gen X (remember how back in the 90’s, a lot of X-ers bought into sob stories about homos with AIDs?). The General Social Survey says that all generations have been getting softer on gays since 1993 (when the oldest Millennials were about 10). The Boomers largely were against saying “negative” things about nonwhites, starting in the late 60’s, and becoming increasingly zealous about saying unflattering things ever since (by 1990, Boomer shareholders didn’t want corporate profits jeopardized by association w/”racism”). The “Willie Horton” ad, back in 1988, caused a big controversy; Millennials were barely alive at that point. As Gen X rose thru the ranks, in the 90’s and 2000’s, saying “unflattering” (if at times true) things about gays has also taken on similar levels of taboo.

    The point is that we reached an advanced level of degeneracy on ID politics by the early 90’s, before Millennials even hit puberty. Boomers can say that Civil Rights, bussing, affirmative action were not their doing. Fine, that’s true. But it’s also true that preventing intelligent discussion of these issues is primarily the doing of Boomers, who believe in the politics (and unseemly motivations) of personal destruction. Boomers sitting in corporate board rooms would rather that someone’s reputation and living be snuffed out than have that individual threaten corporate profits, or a particular Boomer’s agenda. X-ers and Millennials grew up with PC, and felt as if it was dangerous to go outside the rhetorical boundaries on a lot of issues.

    2. it doesn’t matter how many times one pressures for the data to back up their continuum of choice mantra they just repeat the same nonsensical arguments and rest n name calling.

    Well, I do have data from the GSS, the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, and so forth. The peak of illegal drug use was the 1970’s, back when older generations knew the dangers but Boomers ignored them. Boomers wracked up laundry lists of STDs and early life health problems, from all the indulgence they were involved in. Other than pot, youth drug use has declined a great deal since the early 2000’s. Except for the late 90’s, drug use in general has been declining since 1981. It isn’t “non-sensical” to say that we have tons of evidence that the Boomers viciously fought against regulation in most forms, as is evidenced by their defiance of rules and sound advice. Bill Clinton and Larry Summers though it would be just swell if we totally de-regulated the markets in 1996.

    3. uhhh, excuse me — global warming now climate change is a near religious crusade for your generation — again, pressure the matter to predict a climate and all’s the rage about old age and out of touch . . .

    There are worse things to believe in than climate change, but personally I’m just bored with the whole topic. Things aren’t as bad as the believers say, things aren’t as good as the skeptics think they are. Not everything is that clear cut.

    4. socialism is the answer — that’s hardly my generation

    What’s your generation, if you are referring to yourself? Today’s younger generations are willing to try anything besides neo-liberal capitalism, which has decimated the camaraderie and fairness that Western countries once enjoyed. Older generations of today grew up resenting the gentleness and idealism of the New Deal era, so they’ve totally junked it since the 90’s and replaced it with yuppie cut-throat individualism; no loyalty to one’s nation, no integrity, no heart, no soul, no nothing; just dirty, stinking, rotten, money. Money Money Money.

    6. immigration — one worldliness —- that is the we are the world clamor of millenials

    That’s what we’ve had, in effect, since the early 90’s. Again, today’s older generations haven’t lifted a damn finger to close the border since then. Boomer-led congress and Senate can’t even pass legislation on this topic to begin with, so dysfunctional they’ve become over the last 20 years under the power of Boomers. Obama and Trump have to pass one executive order after another, because our government is now so dysfunctional. Let’s see how wide open the border is in 30 years, when Millennials run the government.

    7. legalization of drugs —- marijuana . . . get a grip — pointing fingers as millenials race to figure out which venture capitalist will reap the most cash —

    See above; besides, I’ll go by actions, rather than words or beliefs on this one. And on that count, Millennials and Gen Z don’t do a whole of drugs, in comparison to Boomer and Gen X untermensch who thought it would be “cool” to ruin their lives. .

  157. Feryl says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    However, you are over generalizing the generation you question and ignoring what was clearly not route by liberals but a slow churn forward. And the reason they made progress is not because of the general public but because power brokers such as the APA involved in the lives of millions crossed the line and did so by force in 1973. That in conjunction with a growing divide between intellectuals and the general public which helps to explain both Supreme Court descions legalizing the murder of children in the womb

    Sure, there’s always a vanguard of elites who advance a position long before the general public is comfortable with it. Many people in the 60’s and early 70’s were horrified by radical changes that someone seemed to want. But you also have to understand that teenagers at that time mostly bought into the idea that we were going on a journey worth taking. If they felt otherwise, they would’ve reversed these things once they got power. But that has barely happened. As the evidence of decay has mounted, they can’t get their shit together and finally say “stop, the party is over”. Need I remind you that most Boomers either embraced or fully rejected Vietnam; extremes, no shades of gray, no compromise. Historian David Kaiser often says that the worst trait of Boomers is fully investing in something (however misguided), and then conflating stubbornness and intellectual dishonesty with “principle”. In other words, you may think you are right (or “good”, as Boomers often put it), but that doesn’t entitle you to boss other people around and refuse to accept the integrity and motivations of anyone who questions you. He brings up examples of how frequently (high-level) Boomers explain their behavior and values by glibly saying that it “feels” right or “feels” good. They’d rather “feel good” and stroke their ego than do any serious research into the complexities of things, or examine their own failings and mistakes.

    Kaiser (himself a Boomers) has summarized his generation as one that often put “feelings” (involving the self) and “principles” ahead of serious intellectual depth, compromise, and empathy. They latch onto something without thinking it through, and then lock into it no matter how much damage it causes.

  158. Feryl says:
    @dfordoom

    Every single generation since the French Revolution has believed itself to be cooler and more exciting than the preceding one. Cultural and social fashions have succeeded each other in a bewildering kaleidoscope of stupidity and naïvete.

    That would come as news to the Silent Generation, who got that nick name in the late 50’s for obvious reasons (they studied hard, stayed out of trouble, and got married at a young age). It would also come as news to Gen X, who were told that their brains were junk from too much video games and MTV, and this generation seldom bothered to challenge the Boomers who were, as usual, way up high on their perch, judging everyone and everything to be sub-par.

    You really really need to do some reading about the 1920s, the 1930s, the 1940s and the 1950s. These were periods of incredibly rapid social change.

    Houses got much smaller during this period (in spite of increasing affluence by the 1950’s). That tells me people were downsizing their ambitions, their egos, etc. Houses stayed small in the 60’s, and got slightly bigger in the 70’s. They then began getting much bigger in the 80’s and 90’s. That tracks generational influence; the GI Generation built all those modest mid-century suburbs with wholesome populism in mind, and then increasingly dominant Boomers roared “FUCK YOU” to the New Deal era and started building grotesque McMansions.

    I suppose you have a point that some things did change in the mid-century, but they key I think is the motivation behind them. The GI Gen typically meant well, and believed something more noble than the ego and the bank account. The Boomers detested the Eagle Scout mentality, and wanted to blatantly do things for their own personal self-interest. I have to stress, again, that Americans were much happier when the GI Gen was in middle age than they’ve been during the middle age of the Boomers. I wonder why?

  159. Feryl says:
    @ThreeCranes

    The “hysteria” regarding teen sex started in the 80’s, I think for several reasons:

    1)Uppity Boomer parents didn’t want their “precious” daughters fooling around with “losers” (whereas back in the lower-key 50’s or 60’s, people weren’t so snobbish about finding the “perfect” partner).

    2) Teen pregnancy became a serious issue in the 80’s; there was a lot of angst in the 80’s and 90’s about struggling teen mothers and broken homes.

    Nowadays teens don’t have much sex, though the social pressure to not a let slimy loser touch you is probably much worse now than it was in the 80’s (probably contributing to the lack of sex, no doubt). Recall that status consciousness was at an all time low in 1960, and has been rising in earnest since 1980. If you look at Silent and Boomer youth culture, people had quite low standards about what they were looking for in a romance. That began to change, big time, in the 80’s.

  160. Feryl says:
    @advancedatheist

    I would assume that people who come of age during an egalitarian time period are accustomed to being compensated pretty well for their work, which incentivizes the idea of hard work and being an entrepreneur. But by the 1990’s, Gen X was (somewhat facetiously, given the long hours they worked as youngsters in the 80’s) playing up the whole “slacker” thing, mainly because they weren’t being rewarded like Silents and Boomer were.

    The further you were born after 1960, the less you’ve been paid for your work (unless you happen to be a higher level professional, or other such elite). Why would you expect Millennials or Gen Z to romanticize “hard work”, when they live in a corrupt and unfair society and have seen most of their peers get ripped off? And post-Boomers aren’t stupid; they’ve seen all the aging Boomers infesting corporate board rooms and shareholder rolls. We know what’s going on: higher level Boomers ruthlessly “cut costs” so they can have more money to spend on cars, boats, cabins, 2nd and 3rd homes, etc. What’s there to love about this? Younger and lowish class people are getting raped, and nobody comes to the rescue.

    “Surplus wealth”? Since the 80’s more and more wealth has gone to old people and rich people. This isn’t the 50’s and 60’s, when 1 young man on an average salary could afford a decent life.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS