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
Adultery Is Not Okay
🔊 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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

It’s easy to feel like progressive morality is always advancing, sending the gods of the copybook headings heading for the hills and creating new gods in their stead. Writes dfordoom:

There was general agreement in American society about what was moral and what was immoral. Pretty much everybody agreed that adultery and homosexuality were morally wrong. There is no such general agreement today.

Homosexuality went from being disgusting to ignored to tolerated to accepted to celebrated in remarkably short order. In considerably less than a single lifespan it went from morally condemnable to morally laudable. Not so for adultery. It remains despicable:

Fifty years ago, three-in-four Americans thought both adultery and homosexuality were morally wrong. Three-in-four still view adultery that way, but the gay figure has inverted. Now three-in-four Americans view homosexuality as morally acceptable in at least some circumstances while only one-in-four view it as being inherently immoral.

After homosexuality and transgenderism gained widespread acceptance, I wondered if open relationships would come next. The institutions of power in the West have promoted it, but the push has so far been unsuccessful. That lack of success has been attributed to its association with Mormonism, but I suspect it has more to do with the inherently inegalitarian nature of polyamory. Same-sex marriage is ostensibly about equality. Polyamory is not.

Tangentially, the following table shows moral opposition to adultery by selected demographics:

Only among bisexuals does not viewing adultery as morally permissible but one in the (slight) minority, for obvious enough reason–bisexuals need either polyamory or adultery to do their thing with a clean conscience.

GSS variables used: HOMOSEX(1-4), XMARSEX, YEAR, SEX, RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), RELIG(1-2,4-13)(3), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), CLASS, PARTYID(0-1)(2-4)(5-6), SEXORNT

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology, Science • Tags: GSS, Morality, Sexuality 
Hide 178 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. We still have a fighting chance. But what happened in 1991?

    • Replies: @songbird
    Some people think it was sympathy generated by AIDS.

    I am not so sure. There were many other factors. Lots of Hollywood propaganda. And look at glam rock. There were bands that included women, where the men had longer hair and more make-up. Lots of gays close to the entertainment complex.
    , @Nodwink

    But what happened in 1991?
     
    Saddam flicked on the Gaydar.
    , @Mark G.

    We still have a fighting chance. But what happened in 1991?
     
    If you were around back then you can remember gays in the military became a big political issue after Dick Cheney suggested in 1991 the ban on them in the military be ended. This was followed by several Democrat candidates in the primaries throwing their support behind the idea. After the election the one who got elected, Clinton, instituted "don't ask, don't tell". This was probably the last major remaining legal restriction on them and the lifting of that probably helped to normalize homosexuality in the minds of many people.
  2. anon[251] • Disclaimer says:

    This demonstrates the “ignore what they say, watch what the do” principle.

    83.1% of black people polled assert that adultery is wrong.
    What percentage of black men and women actually engage in adultery?

    Perhaps a hint can be found in the black birth percentage to single women? It’s 75% last time I checked.

    Something similar applies to homosexuals, who are notorious for cheating.

    Actions speak louder than words.

    • Replies: @Wency
    First, you're confusing adultery and fornication. I'd be curious to see this graph with acceptance of fornication added -- I expect it would look somewhat like the homosexual graph, except the decline in disapproval started 10-20 years earlier.

    Second, hypocrisy in sexual ethics (or in behaviors relating to any particular form of temptation) is not an indication that someone is lying about their values, just that humans are fallible and that resisting temptation is hard.

    I could also ask, "Is it ever a good idea to eat an entire sleeve of Oreos at once?" and would probably get mostly negative responses, even though almost everyone has done this or something similarly foolish at least once in their lives, and will probably do so again.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    According to the GSS, nearly 1-in-3. Wow.
  3. I find blacks being the top group somewhat odd. Surely, they are the most polygamous, if you compare native cultures? Their rates of single motherhood are very high in the US. I don’t know what their actual marriages look like, but methinks those two things would be indicators.

    Some people think that polygamy was the real reason for the African slave trade. High status men in Africa had multiple wives. This left younger men without wives, so they went to war to get them. War provided them with unneeded male captives, which they were happy to offload for profit to Arabs or Europeans.

    • Replies: @Tusk
    Agree that seeing Blacks on top is a bit confusing. Maybe they're saying that if someone cheats on them it's bad, but at the same time, if they do it, it's not "adultery" so their behaviour is excusable. At least that's the rationale I could see them having.
    , @The Germ Theory of Disease
    This is the wrong topic for this thread, so here is just the short version.

    Unlike the Arab-African slave trade, which simply arose from Muslim raiders attacking African villagers and stealing the people because they believed they had an Allah-given right to do so, the African-Atlantic slave trade arose from more complex situations.

    Basically, European traders (meaning in reality mostly Portuguese Jews) showed up in West Africa with finished manufactured goods for trade: firearms, scissors, mirrors, complex tools, glassware, things that the pre-industrial Africans could not make. Africans highly desired the finished goods, but had only three things to offer in exchange: gold, ivory, and slaves. Since the slaves were drawn from African criminals, debtors, and war prisoners from conquered tribes, Africans had no qualms about selling other Africans -- slavery was already acceptable and commonplace among them, and the slaves for sale were enemies, so the slavers didn't care.

    Initially, the Westerners took these slaves in exchange and brought them back to Europe, but there was really no use for them there: European peasants did all the farm work, so the small supply of Africans were sold to rich people as curiosities and exotic household servants.

    At first when the New World opened up, the Europeans simply wanted to settle it as freeholders with large landholdings -- yeoman farmers in the North, hidalgos and rancheros in the South. The need for slaves in this circumstance was minimal -- maybe a few farm hands to help run the place, who would wind up as almost members of the family, not as dehumanized mass field hands worked to death on giant plantations.

    Things changed when Separdic Jews showed up in the Caribbean and Brazil: the Jews, from their trade in Arab lands, had knowledge of growing cash crops like sugar and rice on vast plantations, and they knew from the Arabs that African slaves were ideal for this process, and they had already started the African slave trade, so... Bingo.

    Jews transformed Haiti and Brazil into death camps for the production of sugar, the cash-crop/plantation model spread North using cotton and tobacco instead of sugar, and there you have it. The New World destroyed for Jewish profits.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Maybe that helps explain why their marriage rates are so low.
  4. @Daniel H
    We still have a fighting chance. But what happened in 1991?

    Some people think it was sympathy generated by AIDS.

    I am not so sure. There were many other factors. Lots of Hollywood propaganda. And look at glam rock. There were bands that included women, where the men had longer hair and more make-up. Lots of gays close to the entertainment complex.

    • Replies: @Daniel H
    Lots of Hollywood propaganda. And look at glam rock. There were bands that included women, where the men had longer hair and more make-up. Lots of gays close to the entertainment complex.

    I don't know what to make of it? (When did Will and Grace premiere? 1998). There always have been lots of gays in Hollywood, always, And as far as 80/90s metal hair bands, those dudes were/are assertively macho. Can't figure it out. The Clintons?

    , @Bard of Bumperstickers
    The American Psychiatric Association decided in 1973 to declassify homosexuality as a disorder.
  5. @songbird
    Some people think it was sympathy generated by AIDS.

    I am not so sure. There were many other factors. Lots of Hollywood propaganda. And look at glam rock. There were bands that included women, where the men had longer hair and more make-up. Lots of gays close to the entertainment complex.

    Lots of Hollywood propaganda. And look at glam rock. There were bands that included women, where the men had longer hair and more make-up. Lots of gays close to the entertainment complex.

    I don’t know what to make of it? (When did Will and Grace premiere? 1998). There always have been lots of gays in Hollywood, always, And as far as 80/90s metal hair bands, those dudes were/are assertively macho. Can’t figure it out. The Clintons?

    • Replies: @songbird
    I'd say that gender-bending showed up most powerfully in the genre of pop. There was Boy George, who very awkwardly appeared on an episode of the A-Team (with message included) once. There was Philip Oakey, the male singer of The Human League - he just walked around town like that.

    Metal and rock definitely tended to be more masculine, but it is really bizarre when you consider the context of pop. Like the metal band named Twisted Sister. Or I don't know if you ever heard the song "Rock me tonite" by Billy Squier, but it was a number one hit. Sounds okay on the radio, but if you see the video, it is unmistakably gay. Not gay himself, Squier was supposedly tricked into doing it. And not many people who enjoyed Freddy Mercury's band Queen, realized he was gay - you had to see his videos to understand that.

    I don't think that it is something that flipped in single a year. What you are looking at when it changed is the prep work of years, younger generations who had been targeted becoming older and more influential.

    I think music videos and MTV were a factor, but there was lots of push on regular network TV. Right from 1991, I remember an episode of Doogie Howser called "My Two Dads." It didn't even have a gay plot that I can recall, but you can see were their sympathies were from the title.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Don't ask, don't tell came up at the national level around that time.
  6. @songbird
    I find blacks being the top group somewhat odd. Surely, they are the most polygamous, if you compare native cultures? Their rates of single motherhood are very high in the US. I don't know what their actual marriages look like, but methinks those two things would be indicators.

    Some people think that polygamy was the real reason for the African slave trade. High status men in Africa had multiple wives. This left younger men without wives, so they went to war to get them. War provided them with unneeded male captives, which they were happy to offload for profit to Arabs or Europeans.

    Agree that seeing Blacks on top is a bit confusing. Maybe they’re saying that if someone cheats on them it’s bad, but at the same time, if they do it, it’s not “adultery” so their behaviour is excusable. At least that’s the rationale I could see them having.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    Well, as you seem to land on, they could simply be hypocrites. Or, since the term "adultery" doesn't cover premarital cheating, they draw a significant moral distinction between cheating on one's unmarried vs. one's married partner.
    , @Lars Porsena
    They haven't any rationale for it, it's just poor impulse control. Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.

    The same thing is true among lower class whites. Upper class whites, if they are going to cheat, are more likely to rationalize their cheating and do it in a premeditated fashion, having a secret apartment on the side.

    Lower class whites are much more likely to believe cheating is wrong, but also more likely to get knocked up at a party drunk because 'it just happened'. They consider it wrong but there is less consideration in their actions.

    Very few of the people who get into fist fights think fist fighting is fine and dandy. It just happened and they didn't think about it because they were triggered and pissed off.

    , @songbird
    I guess you can do a thing while knowing it is wrong too.
    , @lloyd
    It doesn't terribly surprise me. Blacks have their Churches and Mosques also that are socially normally very conservative. Even as most likely they never attend, their grandpop regularly attended. His viewpoint still influences them, even if they are complete hypocrites. Same in New Zealand with the brown population.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    I think white liberals have the toughest time of anyone defining a particular personal behavior as morally wrong, with the exception of perceived intolerance of people based on demographic characteristics.

    Blacks, in contrast, probably have the easiest time doing so, while white conservatives fall in between. It's Sowell's White Liberals, Black Rednecks phenomenon in practice.
  7. @Tusk
    Agree that seeing Blacks on top is a bit confusing. Maybe they're saying that if someone cheats on them it's bad, but at the same time, if they do it, it's not "adultery" so their behaviour is excusable. At least that's the rationale I could see them having.

    Well, as you seem to land on, they could simply be hypocrites. Or, since the term “adultery” doesn’t cover premarital cheating, they draw a significant moral distinction between cheating on one’s unmarried vs. one’s married partner.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Or, since the term “adultery” doesn’t cover premarital cheating, they draw a significant moral distinction between cheating on one’s unmarried vs. one’s married partner.
     
    Yeah.

    You have to remember that in the 50s people not only believed adultery was wrong, they believed in marriage. Today, with a society in which cohabitation without marriage is taken for granted, asking people if they disapprove of adultery is a bit meaningless. What exactly do people think of today when you say the word adultery? In the 50s people knew exactly what was meant.

    It would be more interesting to have stats on attitudes towards casual sex, premarital sex, etc.

    I suspect that in the 50s premarital sex was disapproved of but tolerated as long as the parties involved intended to marry. Interestingly enough in the Victorian era among the lower classes premarital sex was considered to be no big deal as long as the parties had "an understanding" - in other words at least some intention to get married even if they weren't formally engaged.

    Casual sex would probably have been more strongly disapproved of in the 50s but perhaps grudgingly tolerated to a certain extent, within certain limits.

    And what would 1950s attitudes towards cohabitation without marriage have been? I would imagine very strongly disapproving.

    So more stats on these subjects would be interesting.
  8. @snorlax
    Well, as you seem to land on, they could simply be hypocrites. Or, since the term "adultery" doesn't cover premarital cheating, they draw a significant moral distinction between cheating on one's unmarried vs. one's married partner.

    Or, since the term “adultery” doesn’t cover premarital cheating, they draw a significant moral distinction between cheating on one’s unmarried vs. one’s married partner.

    Yeah.

    You have to remember that in the 50s people not only believed adultery was wrong, they believed in marriage. Today, with a society in which cohabitation without marriage is taken for granted, asking people if they disapprove of adultery is a bit meaningless. What exactly do people think of today when you say the word adultery? In the 50s people knew exactly what was meant.

    It would be more interesting to have stats on attitudes towards casual sex, premarital sex, etc.

    I suspect that in the 50s premarital sex was disapproved of but tolerated as long as the parties involved intended to marry. Interestingly enough in the Victorian era among the lower classes premarital sex was considered to be no big deal as long as the parties had “an understanding” – in other words at least some intention to get married even if they weren’t formally engaged.

    Casual sex would probably have been more strongly disapproved of in the 50s but perhaps grudgingly tolerated to a certain extent, within certain limits.

    And what would 1950s attitudes towards cohabitation without marriage have been? I would imagine very strongly disapproving.

    So more stats on these subjects would be interesting.

    • Agree: Talha
  9. @Daniel H
    We still have a fighting chance. But what happened in 1991?

    But what happened in 1991?

    Saddam flicked on the Gaydar.

  10. Adultery isn’t “always wrong.” There are lots of situations where it is perfectly fine. I’m surprised that no demographic had even half who could recognise it, even while it is exceptionally common. I suspect if you asked if lying is “always wrong” you’d get similar meaningless results

  11. (((53.3)))

    Not enough Dissidents out there.

  12. 1. Who are the 1/4 of the people who think that adultery is ok?

    2. I’d like to see the numbers for fornication. I think that should shed a greater light on the changed social attitude to sexual relatonship than adultery.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    1. Who are the 1/4 of the people who think that adultery is ok?
     
    That's a good question. Maybe it's because the question specifies "always wrong" rather than just "wrong" - maybe they think there are circumstances when it can be justified. I can't think of circumstances when it can be justified but maybe some people can.

    What's really surprising is that 54.8% of homosexuals think adultery is always wrong. Does that category include lesbians? I suspect there's very little overlap between the social attitudes of male homosexuals and those of lesbians. Lesbians are kinda possessive.

    2. I’d like to see the numbers for fornication. I think that should shed a greater light on the changed social attitude to sexual relatonship than adultery.
     
    Yes, I agree.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    The question asks about "a married person having sexual relations with someone other than the marriage partner". That's a mouthful, so I subbed in "adultery" since the definitions are the same, almost verbatim. The American Heritage dictionary defines it as: "Consensual sexual intercourse between a married person and a person other than the spouse." Moral acceptance of open marriages would thus seem to put someone in among the 1-in-4.
  13. Looks like Hollywood still has some work left to do.

  14. Laughing.

    Always wrong

    Adultery — wrong . . . you don’t say.

  15. Homosexuality went from being disgusting to ignored to tolerated to accepted to celebrated in remarkably short order. In considerably less than a single lifespan it went from morally condemnable to morally laudable. Not so for adultery. It remains despicable:

    Perhaps that is because homosexuality is genetic and adultery is not…although promiscuity may have a genetic basis.

    One is not a life choice and the other may or may not be.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    You say that with a lot of assurance considering it is a theory with only shaky support.
  16. I guess Blacks solved their adultery problem by ceasing to marry.

  17. @Realist

    Homosexuality went from being disgusting to ignored to tolerated to accepted to celebrated in remarkably short order. In considerably less than a single lifespan it went from morally condemnable to morally laudable. Not so for adultery. It remains despicable:
     
    Perhaps that is because homosexuality is genetic and adultery is not...although promiscuity may have a genetic basis.

    One is not a life choice and the other may or may not be.

    You say that with a lot of assurance considering it is a theory with only shaky support.

    • Replies: @Realist

    You say that with a lot of assurance considering it is a theory with only shaky support.
     
    If you are referring to because homosexuality is genetic. Answer this when you reached puberty do you remember trying to decide where you wanted to stick your dick for sexual pleasure???

    No one decides to be a homosexual.
    , @dfordoom

    You say that with a lot of assurance considering it is a theory with only shaky support.
     
    I agree. The evidence that homosexuality is genetic is very very very shaky indeed.
  18. @Cloudbuster
    You say that with a lot of assurance considering it is a theory with only shaky support.

    You say that with a lot of assurance considering it is a theory with only shaky support.

    If you are referring to because homosexuality is genetic. Answer this when you reached puberty do you remember trying to decide where you wanted to stick your dick for sexual pleasure???

    No one decides to be a homosexual.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    If you are referring to because homosexuality is genetic. Answer this when you reached puberty do you remember trying to decide where you wanted to stick your dick for sexual pleasure???

    No one decides to be a homosexual.
     
    Twin studies suggest genetic predisposition but not predetermination. Monozygotic twin concordance for homosexuality is about 50%, whereas obesity concordance is 70-80%.
    , @UK
    Some people do decide that way. You simply can't imagine why. Many more people unconsciously "decide" that way. Your model of sexuality is ridiculously simplistic. It is strange to be so reductionist about one of the most complex, if not the most complex, phenomenons in our known universe.
    , @obwandiyag
    Yes they do.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    It could be involuntary without being genetic, in the same way polio prevents someone from walking normally. That's the germ theory of homosexuality. It's too politically incorrect to be seriously considered, though!
  19. @Realist

    You say that with a lot of assurance considering it is a theory with only shaky support.
     
    If you are referring to because homosexuality is genetic. Answer this when you reached puberty do you remember trying to decide where you wanted to stick your dick for sexual pleasure???

    No one decides to be a homosexual.

    If you are referring to because homosexuality is genetic. Answer this when you reached puberty do you remember trying to decide where you wanted to stick your dick for sexual pleasure???

    No one decides to be a homosexual.

    Twin studies suggest genetic predisposition but not predetermination. Monozygotic twin concordance for homosexuality is about 50%, whereas obesity concordance is 70-80%.

    • Replies: @Realist

    Twin studies suggest genetic predisposition but not predetermination. Monozygotic twin concordance for homosexuality is about 50%, whereas obesity concordance is 70-80%.
     
    One can decide to not act upon a homosexual predisposition, by not having sex at all...but no one decides to be homosexual. Also due to the stigma...one can lie about their homosexual proclivities. It is not always obvious if someone is homosexual...but it is obvious if they are fat.
    My question is still valid.
  20. @Tusk
    Agree that seeing Blacks on top is a bit confusing. Maybe they're saying that if someone cheats on them it's bad, but at the same time, if they do it, it's not "adultery" so their behaviour is excusable. At least that's the rationale I could see them having.

    They haven’t any rationale for it, it’s just poor impulse control. Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.

    The same thing is true among lower class whites. Upper class whites, if they are going to cheat, are more likely to rationalize their cheating and do it in a premeditated fashion, having a secret apartment on the side.

    Lower class whites are much more likely to believe cheating is wrong, but also more likely to get knocked up at a party drunk because ‘it just happened’. They consider it wrong but there is less consideration in their actions.

    Very few of the people who get into fist fights think fist fighting is fine and dandy. It just happened and they didn’t think about it because they were triggered and pissed off.

  21. @Rosie

    If you are referring to because homosexuality is genetic. Answer this when you reached puberty do you remember trying to decide where you wanted to stick your dick for sexual pleasure???

    No one decides to be a homosexual.
     
    Twin studies suggest genetic predisposition but not predetermination. Monozygotic twin concordance for homosexuality is about 50%, whereas obesity concordance is 70-80%.

    Twin studies suggest genetic predisposition but not predetermination. Monozygotic twin concordance for homosexuality is about 50%, whereas obesity concordance is 70-80%.

    One can decide to not act upon a homosexual predisposition, by not having sex at all…but no one decides to be homosexual. Also due to the stigma…one can lie about their homosexual proclivities. It is not always obvious if someone is homosexual…but it is obvious if they are fat.
    My question is still valid.

    • Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    Think about the theory of genetic selection and how genes even *predisposing* (nonetheless strongly *forcing*) someone toward being gay would affect fitness to see why the idea of a genetic basis for homosexuality is retarded. Or just look up Greg Cochran's explanation, it's about a paragraph long.

    And if you think the asinine "gay uncle" theory is enough to handwave away the obvious destruction of reproductive fitness, you are not a serious person (other than maybe seriously retarded).
  22. @Twinkie
    1. Who are the 1/4 of the people who think that adultery is ok?

    2. I'd like to see the numbers for fornication. I think that should shed a greater light on the changed social attitude to sexual relatonship than adultery.

    1. Who are the 1/4 of the people who think that adultery is ok?

    That’s a good question. Maybe it’s because the question specifies “always wrong” rather than just “wrong” – maybe they think there are circumstances when it can be justified. I can’t think of circumstances when it can be justified but maybe some people can.

    What’s really surprising is that 54.8% of homosexuals think adultery is always wrong. Does that category include lesbians? I suspect there’s very little overlap between the social attitudes of male homosexuals and those of lesbians. Lesbians are kinda possessive.

    2. I’d like to see the numbers for fornication. I think that should shed a greater light on the changed social attitude to sexual relatonship than adultery.

    Yes, I agree.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    It's 47% for gay men and 64% for lesbians.
  23. @Cloudbuster
    You say that with a lot of assurance considering it is a theory with only shaky support.

    You say that with a lot of assurance considering it is a theory with only shaky support.

    I agree. The evidence that homosexuality is genetic is very very very shaky indeed.

    • Replies: @Realist

    I agree. The evidence that homosexuality is genetic is very very very shaky indeed.
     
    Answer this when you reached puberty do you remember trying to decide where you wanted to stick your dick for sexual pleasure???
    , @nebulafox
    It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition between biology and choice: men who have an above average predisposition to homosexuality may marry and have a sexual life with a woman anyway, depending on the social conditions and how strong that predisposition is.

    >What’s really surprising is that 54.8% of homosexuals think adultery is always wrong. Does that category include lesbians? I suspect there’s very little overlap between the social attitudes of male homosexuals and those of lesbians. Lesbians are kinda possessive.

    Back when homosexuality between men was deeply stigmatized, it took both a strong inborn predeliction for it and a personality indifferent-or at least cynical-to social norms to pursue other men anyway. This caused a selection effect. Combine that with the nature of male sexuality with no female barriers, and a high degree of promiscuity was inevitable.

    Now that it is more mainstream, it doesn't take that you being that personality type anymore, so a higher rate of mainstream attitudes to relationships is to be expected. Male gay sexual life is still quite casual to outsiders, but from what I've heard, it's nowhere near as much so as it used to be, despite the proliferation of electronic ways of procuring sex.

  24. @Realist

    You say that with a lot of assurance considering it is a theory with only shaky support.
     
    If you are referring to because homosexuality is genetic. Answer this when you reached puberty do you remember trying to decide where you wanted to stick your dick for sexual pleasure???

    No one decides to be a homosexual.

    Some people do decide that way. You simply can’t imagine why. Many more people unconsciously “decide” that way. Your model of sexuality is ridiculously simplistic. It is strange to be so reductionist about one of the most complex, if not the most complex, phenomenons in our known universe.

  25. @anon
    This demonstrates the "ignore what they say, watch what the do" principle.

    83.1% of black people polled assert that adultery is wrong.
    What percentage of black men and women actually engage in adultery?

    Perhaps a hint can be found in the black birth percentage to single women? It's 75% last time I checked.

    Something similar applies to homosexuals, who are notorious for cheating.

    Actions speak louder than words.

    First, you’re confusing adultery and fornication. I’d be curious to see this graph with acceptance of fornication added — I expect it would look somewhat like the homosexual graph, except the decline in disapproval started 10-20 years earlier.

    Second, hypocrisy in sexual ethics (or in behaviors relating to any particular form of temptation) is not an indication that someone is lying about their values, just that humans are fallible and that resisting temptation is hard.

    I could also ask, “Is it ever a good idea to eat an entire sleeve of Oreos at once?” and would probably get mostly negative responses, even though almost everyone has done this or something similarly foolish at least once in their lives, and will probably do so again.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @anon
    First, you’re confusing adultery and fornication.

    No, I am not. I am citing a self-evident rate of fornication as evidence what the actual rate of adultery is. A mean IQ of 85 plus higher circulating Testosterone plus known poor impulse control in short.

    I’d be curious to see this graph with acceptance of fornication added — I expect it would look somewhat like the homosexual graph, except the decline in disapproval started 10-20 years earlier.

    Ok, but lol, because what people say and what they do is often two different things. Polls like this are not very meaningful for that reason. Self-reported polls, especially of college aged people, are nearly for entertainment purposes only.

    Second, hypocrisy in sexual ethics (or in behaviors relating to any particular form of temptation) is not an indication that someone is lying about their values, just that humans are fallible and that resisting temptation is hard.

    Shrug. I'm dealing in facts, not motives.
    People rationalize things all the time, and "It's different when I do it" is not uncommon. The facts don't change, though.

    I could also ask, “Is it ever a good idea to eat an entire sleeve of Oreos at once?” and would probably get mostly negative responses, even though almost everyone has done this or something similarly foolish at least once in their lives, and will probably do so again.

    Thus such polling is close to useless.

  26. @Daniel H
    Lots of Hollywood propaganda. And look at glam rock. There were bands that included women, where the men had longer hair and more make-up. Lots of gays close to the entertainment complex.

    I don't know what to make of it? (When did Will and Grace premiere? 1998). There always have been lots of gays in Hollywood, always, And as far as 80/90s metal hair bands, those dudes were/are assertively macho. Can't figure it out. The Clintons?

    I’d say that gender-bending showed up most powerfully in the genre of pop. There was Boy George, who very awkwardly appeared on an episode of the A-Team (with message included) once. There was Philip Oakey, the male singer of The Human League – he just walked around town like that.

    Metal and rock definitely tended to be more masculine, but it is really bizarre when you consider the context of pop. Like the metal band named Twisted Sister. Or I don’t know if you ever heard the song “Rock me tonite” by Billy Squier, but it was a number one hit. Sounds okay on the radio, but if you see the video, it is unmistakably gay. Not gay himself, Squier was supposedly tricked into doing it. And not many people who enjoyed Freddy Mercury’s band Queen, realized he was gay – you had to see his videos to understand that.

    I don’t think that it is something that flipped in single a year. What you are looking at when it changed is the prep work of years, younger generations who had been targeted becoming older and more influential.

    I think music videos and MTV were a factor, but there was lots of push on regular network TV. Right from 1991, I remember an episode of Doogie Howser called “My Two Dads.” It didn’t even have a gay plot that I can recall, but you can see were their sympathies were from the title.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I’d say that gender-bending showed up most powerfully in the genre of pop.
     

    I don’t think that it is something that flipped in single a year.
     
    It was happening in a major way in pop music from the beginning of the 70s. There were signs of it in the late 60s.

    Pro-homosexual propaganda in movies started in 1961, with the British movie Victim and the American lesbian movie The Children's Hour. Both mainstream movies with major stars (Dirk Bogarde in Victim and Audrey Hepburn and Shirley MacLaine in The Children's Hour.

    Casual sex and even adultery were being normalised in movies even in the 1950s. Hollywood had already decided that the Production Code was going to be abandoned by that time. When Stanley Kubrick made Lolita in 1962 the studio simply ignored the Production Code. Sue Lyon was fifteen when the movie was made and she was promoted aggressively as a sex symbol.

    The Sexual Revolution and the Cultural Revolution started in the 1950s. They were not created by the Boomers. Both the Sexual Revolution and the broader Cultural Revolution were products of the Silent Generation. You could argue (and I would argue) that both revolutions were already unstoppable well before the Boomers started to have any influence on pop culture.

    It's also worth remembering that the Baby Boom was a temporary blip from 1946 to around 1955. By the late 50s birth rates were plummeting.

    The idea that the 1950s was the wholesome Leave It To Beaver era is an illusion. The fact that social attitudes seemed to be conservative was a result of the lingering influence of earlier generations. There was nothing socially conservative about the Silent Generation.

  27. UK says:

    This reminds me of a couple of pet observations of mine.

    1. Conservatism is often very childish. “This thing is wrong. I have always thought it was wrong. My parents told me it was wrong. It is always wrong. You are a wrong one. Nah – nah nah – nah nah – nah!”

    2. Just as progressivism is often very adolescent. “I have questioned my parents words by reading and learning from other sources. These abstract arguments that only intelligent, educated, enlightened people understand say that Conservatives oppress people with their childish prejudices. They are dumb and I am smart!”

    Further evidence can be seen in the way that children love their parents and ancestry, while adolescents generally rebel against them. Conservatives versus Progressives.

    Both are better guidelines than no guidelines. Neither is necessarily superior to each other, but also neither are a fit substitute for mature judgement in a mature adult.

    Life is infinitely complicated and, as you mature, you should probably pass through both of those stages before becoming something more of a realist – someone who is perceptive, flexible, intellectually virtuous and hopefully wise.

    Unfortunately, this is hard as there are no simple rules for judgement, and instead the training wheels of childish conservatism and adolescent progressivism need to be removed slowly. Also, all three exist in any one person at the same time, though to a very varied degree.

    The old “neo-reactionary” stuff was supposed to be a route to this, but it got swamped out by Stormfront-esque infants making impossible idiots of themselves. Just as bad, the left had a route to this – like where Salvini came from, but it too is drowning in completely moronic characters who seem to be trying to take their politics back to the newborn stage of “tell me I’m beautiful, tell me I’m smart, tell me I’m great.”

    • LOL: UK
  28. @Tusk
    Agree that seeing Blacks on top is a bit confusing. Maybe they're saying that if someone cheats on them it's bad, but at the same time, if they do it, it's not "adultery" so their behaviour is excusable. At least that's the rationale I could see them having.

    I guess you can do a thing while knowing it is wrong too.

    • Agree: Tusk
  29. On blacks: just about every not-totally-corrupted black knows adultery’s a sin and just about every not-totally-corrupted black knows they’re a sinner.

  30. In times past, a married woman might turn a blind eye to her husband visiting prostitutes or even keeping a mistress because he wasn’t going to leave her for a floozy and she didn’t want to go through life perpetually pregnant. Marriage and family in general were first and foremost practical institutions. Now, with the emphasis on love, adultery is far less tolerated. Also, it’s easier to get a divorce and for a woman to earn an independent living, so she is quicker to deep six an unsatisfactory mate.

    • Replies: @Sgt. Joe Friday
    When the husband cheats, it isn't necessarily a sign that he wants out of the relationship. OTOH, when a woman cheats, it's almost certainly a sign that she's already mentally checked out of the relationship. You know the old saying: men just need a place, women need a reason.
    , @dfordoom

    In times past, a married woman might turn a blind eye to her husband visiting prostitutes or even keeping a mistress because he wasn’t going to leave her for a floozy and she didn’t want to go through life perpetually pregnant. Marriage and family in general were first and foremost practical institutions. Now, with the emphasis on love, adultery is far less tolerated.
     
    Yes.

    An enormous social change that happened in the first half of the 20th century and is usually ignored is the rise of the Cult of Romantic Love. The whole Love Conquers All thing. It was a radical change - marriage was no longer seen as being about raising children. Marriage came to be seen as being all about love and sex.

    There were various forces pushing this change but Hollywood was the biggest and most powerful of those forces. Hollywood was pushing this change aggressively back in the 1920s.
  31. @dfordoom

    You say that with a lot of assurance considering it is a theory with only shaky support.
     
    I agree. The evidence that homosexuality is genetic is very very very shaky indeed.

    I agree. The evidence that homosexuality is genetic is very very very shaky indeed.

    Answer this when you reached puberty do you remember trying to decide where you wanted to stick your dick for sexual pleasure???

    • Replies: @Rich
    Is sadomasochism genetic? How about necrophilia? Copreophelia? Or any other bizarre sexual activity? It could just be a psychological disorder.

    My understanding is that many homosexuals have changed their ways and had normal sexual relations as well as children. This has often occurred after a religious conversion or psychological treatment.
    , @Partic
    I think you have it ass backwards as it were.
    It's not where you want to stick your dick, it's where you want Biff to stick his dick.
    The old saying is for every pitcher there's 80 catchers.
    A lot of men given the right environment would stick their dicks in any orifice that presents itself.
    A lot of those same men, on the other hand, would not easily submit to switching positions.
  32. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    In times past, a married woman might turn a blind eye to her husband visiting prostitutes or even keeping a mistress because he wasn't going to leave her for a floozy and she didn't want to go through life perpetually pregnant. Marriage and family in general were first and foremost practical institutions. Now, with the emphasis on love, adultery is far less tolerated. Also, it's easier to get a divorce and for a woman to earn an independent living, so she is quicker to deep six an unsatisfactory mate.

    When the husband cheats, it isn’t necessarily a sign that he wants out of the relationship. OTOH, when a woman cheats, it’s almost certainly a sign that she’s already mentally checked out of the relationship. You know the old saying: men just need a place, women need a reason.

    • Agree: Dutch Boy
  33. The big irony in these results is that acceptance of homosexuality increased to the point of institutionalizing homo marriage, which, at least in the case of males, is almost always a massively adulterous institution, or in other words, a thorough sham.

    If people were honest, these two diverging trendlines would be impossible.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Indeed, this was the crux of the argument that redefining marriage to allow same-sex arrangements would undermine the entire institution.
  34. Are open marriages and open relationship (by mutual consent in both cases, of course) counted under adultery? I mean, they’re clearly examples of polyamory but are they also examples of adultery? Serious question, BTW.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Yes, I think so.
  35. @Realist

    You say that with a lot of assurance considering it is a theory with only shaky support.
     
    If you are referring to because homosexuality is genetic. Answer this when you reached puberty do you remember trying to decide where you wanted to stick your dick for sexual pleasure???

    No one decides to be a homosexual.

    Yes they do.

    • Replies: @Realist

    Yes they do.
     
    Speaking from experience?
  36. @songbird
    I find blacks being the top group somewhat odd. Surely, they are the most polygamous, if you compare native cultures? Their rates of single motherhood are very high in the US. I don't know what their actual marriages look like, but methinks those two things would be indicators.

    Some people think that polygamy was the real reason for the African slave trade. High status men in Africa had multiple wives. This left younger men without wives, so they went to war to get them. War provided them with unneeded male captives, which they were happy to offload for profit to Arabs or Europeans.

    This is the wrong topic for this thread, so here is just the short version.

    Unlike the Arab-African slave trade, which simply arose from Muslim raiders attacking African villagers and stealing the people because they believed they had an Allah-given right to do so, the African-Atlantic slave trade arose from more complex situations.

    Basically, European traders (meaning in reality mostly Portuguese Jews) showed up in West Africa with finished manufactured goods for trade: firearms, scissors, mirrors, complex tools, glassware, things that the pre-industrial Africans could not make. Africans highly desired the finished goods, but had only three things to offer in exchange: gold, ivory, and slaves. Since the slaves were drawn from African criminals, debtors, and war prisoners from conquered tribes, Africans had no qualms about selling other Africans — slavery was already acceptable and commonplace among them, and the slaves for sale were enemies, so the slavers didn’t care.

    Initially, the Westerners took these slaves in exchange and brought them back to Europe, but there was really no use for them there: European peasants did all the farm work, so the small supply of Africans were sold to rich people as curiosities and exotic household servants.

    At first when the New World opened up, the Europeans simply wanted to settle it as freeholders with large landholdings — yeoman farmers in the North, hidalgos and rancheros in the South. The need for slaves in this circumstance was minimal — maybe a few farm hands to help run the place, who would wind up as almost members of the family, not as dehumanized mass field hands worked to death on giant plantations.

    Things changed when Separdic Jews showed up in the Caribbean and Brazil: the Jews, from their trade in Arab lands, had knowledge of growing cash crops like sugar and rice on vast plantations, and they knew from the Arabs that African slaves were ideal for this process, and they had already started the African slave trade, so… Bingo.

    Jews transformed Haiti and Brazil into death camps for the production of sugar, the cash-crop/plantation model spread North using cotton and tobacco instead of sugar, and there you have it. The New World destroyed for Jewish profits.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Talha

    Unlike the Arab-African slave trade, which simply arose from Muslim raiders attacking African villagers and stealing the people because they believed they had an Allah-given right to do so, the African-Atlantic slave trade arose from more complex situations.
     
    There is little reason this is credible. Many of the same reasons why the Atlantic slave trade arose are why the Arab slave trade arose.

    In fact, Africans were often far better in warding off Muslim attacks than even the Persians and the Byzantines. The Nubians stopped - completely - the attacks on Christian Nubia and entered into a long-standing "baqt" with the Muslim rulers of Egypt in which they would supply an X number of slaves.

    Also, slaves were a normal part of the economy in West Africa and many of the indigenous black- Muslim kingdoms that arose there had plenty of slaves. Not only that, they themselves (the rich ones) would purchase Arab and Turkish slaves (anything from soldiers to concubines) and bring them back to West Africa.

    The reason that slaves flowed in any particular direction in that part of the world was a reflection on which society/empire/people were the alpha. Slaves always flowed toward the alpha society; when it was Rome or Byzantium, that's where they went to fetch the most coin.

    You can read up on all of this stuff in one of the best (and probably defining) books on the matter:
    https://www.amazon.com/Islams-Black-Slaves-Other-Diaspora/dp/0374527970

    As far as European slave trade, it was also economic in nature and had religious overtones. We have papal bulls all the way back to the mid-15th century authorizing slave raids:
    “We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso—to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery.”
    http://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/african_laborers_for_a_new_emp/pope_nicolas_v_and_the_portugu

    Note that the coastal raids avoided the North African Muslim kingdoms who were far too powerful in naval terms to be able to pull anything off against them - more than likely, the raiders would have ended up in slave markets themselves. So they went all the way down the coast to sub-Saharan Africa hoping to have easy pickings, they were...disappointed (from the same source as above):
    “Early raids such as the one made by Gonçalvez and Tristão in 1441 were unusual, and may have only been possible because the Portuguese had never previously raided south of Cape Bojador. Portuguese mariners soon learned that inhabitants along the Upper Guinea coast were more than capable of defending themselves from such incursions. Not long after his 1441 voyage, Tristão and most of his crew were killed off the coast of present-day Senegal.”

    Europeans learned that it was much easier - and far less dangerous - to just let the Africans do the slave raiding among themselves (they were far more formidable than the natives in the New World) and exchange them on the market for the goods as you outlined.

    The New World destroyed for Jewish profits.
     
    (Sigh) Yes Jews were often outsized (for their numbers) as middlemen in the slave trade (in various regions and at various times and made plenty of money in it), but are you seriously trying to say that Europeans didn't profit massively from the slave plantation economy? And it was all the fault of Jews? Are you saying the Jews owned most of those plantations?

    Peace.
    , @jbwilson24
    "At first when the New World opened up, the Europeans simply wanted to settle it as freeholders with large landholdings.... Things changed when Separdic Jews showed up in the Caribbean and Brazil"

    That's completely wrong.

    Sephardic Jews were in the New World from the first expedition. Sephardics and Marranos quickly opened up sugar plantations (etc) from the very start. They utterly dominated the slave trade from the earliest times.

    You make it sound like the English settled the continent, fought with the French a bit, and later the Sephardics showed up. That is, it must be said, somewhat derogatory to the Jews, who were running international shipping lines for centuries.

    Otherwise I agree about the death toll in the plantations and the fact that the bulk of profits from the plantations went to Jewry. (The various governments levied taxes, undoubtedly).
    , @anon
    Unlike the Arab-African slave trade, which simply arose from Muslim raiders attacking African villagers and stealing the people because they believed they had an Allah-given right to do so, the African-Atlantic slave trade arose from more complex situations.

    What about the Arab - European slave trade? As late as 1865 there were European navy and US Navy ships on anti-slavery patrol in the Med.

    At first when the New World opened up, the Europeans simply wanted to settle it as freeholders with large landholdings — yeoman farmers in the North, hidalgos and rancheros in the South. The need for slaves in this circumstance was minimal — maybe a few farm hands to help run the place, who would wind up as almost members of the family, not as dehumanized mass field hands worked to death on giant plantations.

    Indentured servitude was a standard feature of English settlement in Virginia. A man or woman signed up for something like 7 years of service; the buyer was required to feed, clothe and teach a trade to the servant, so that at the end of the term the bondservant would be self supporting. The Angolans who came to Virginia in 1619 were not sold as chattels but as indentured. It took a black man suing another black man in a Virginia court to convert indentured servitude to chattel slavery.

    Involuntary indentured servitude was a feature of the settlement of Georgia: Englishmen in debtor's prison were set free on the condition that they would be transported for life across the Atlantic. Political prisoners were also transported, including religious dissenters, often to the Carolinas.

    The sugar islands, beginning with Nevis and St. Kitts initially attempted to use indentured servants to harvest sugar cane, however so many of them died of disease long before their term of service had expired that it became very difficult to recruit replacements. Sugar at this time was an expensive luxury item in England and on the continent. Their situation was like coca growers in South America having no one to harvest for them, so no cocaine to export, waaah! So the sugar islands turned to importing Africans due to greater disease resistance, and that model became standard in the Caribbean.
    , @anon
    This is the wrong topic for this thread,

    You know, you're right. It's threadjacking. I'm peeved that I fell into it.

    Why did you do this? What is your purpose?
    , @Truth
    This is am informational, yet superficial summary. Hint: did you know that when Colombus came to the New World? He had many Hebrew translators on his ship
  37. Vice is a monster of so frightful mien As to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
    Alexander Pope

  38. anon[532] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wency
    First, you're confusing adultery and fornication. I'd be curious to see this graph with acceptance of fornication added -- I expect it would look somewhat like the homosexual graph, except the decline in disapproval started 10-20 years earlier.

    Second, hypocrisy in sexual ethics (or in behaviors relating to any particular form of temptation) is not an indication that someone is lying about their values, just that humans are fallible and that resisting temptation is hard.

    I could also ask, "Is it ever a good idea to eat an entire sleeve of Oreos at once?" and would probably get mostly negative responses, even though almost everyone has done this or something similarly foolish at least once in their lives, and will probably do so again.

    First, you’re confusing adultery and fornication.

    No, I am not. I am citing a self-evident rate of fornication as evidence what the actual rate of adultery is. A mean IQ of 85 plus higher circulating Testosterone plus known poor impulse control in short.

    I’d be curious to see this graph with acceptance of fornication added — I expect it would look somewhat like the homosexual graph, except the decline in disapproval started 10-20 years earlier.

    Ok, but lol, because what people say and what they do is often two different things. Polls like this are not very meaningful for that reason. Self-reported polls, especially of college aged people, are nearly for entertainment purposes only.

    Second, hypocrisy in sexual ethics (or in behaviors relating to any particular form of temptation) is not an indication that someone is lying about their values, just that humans are fallible and that resisting temptation is hard.

    Shrug. I’m dealing in facts, not motives.
    People rationalize things all the time, and “It’s different when I do it” is not uncommon. The facts don’t change, though.

    I could also ask, “Is it ever a good idea to eat an entire sleeve of Oreos at once?” and would probably get mostly negative responses, even though almost everyone has done this or something similarly foolish at least once in their lives, and will probably do so again.

    Thus such polling is close to useless.

    • Replies: @Wency
    A society in which certain behavior receives widespread disapproval (while still happening quietly, possibly even among the loudest disapprovers) still looks rather different from one in which it's celebrated. That's the point. Everyone is influenced at least somewhat by social approval; some more so than others, but especially women and young people.

    Yes, people are hypocrites, but they at least care, both consciously and subconsciously, what the other hypocrites think or at least claim to think. And that's what the polling captures.
  39. “Not so for adultery.”

    they’re trying though, with the (usual suspects) leading the effort. it’s the most unnatural of all the social pathologies though, so biological resistance is highest to this. the negative biological penalty is huge.

    cheating directly affects you, so people are less likely to go for that than for celebrating homos or fat people, which mostly affects the homos and fat people, but directly affects you less.

    fat acceptance is almost as damaging as normalizing homos. making fun of fat people and being serious about it – it wasn’t good natured – was a useful social mechanism that never should have gone away. yes, fat teenagers should be harassed in high school and college. fat adults should know that they’re wrong, and that we don’t want to see them. lose weight, fat ass. the virus was more dangerous because it more easily kills fat people since they can barely breathe.

    knowing that you’re wrong when you’re a deviant, by relentless negative social pressure, is how societies stay healthy. reversing those pressures, so that they’re celebrated, is something you would do to wreck a society. today, we’re only still applying that relentless negative social pressure on pedophiles. but not sure how long that will last.

    east asians still apply relentless negative social pressure on all these pathologies, and have more healthy societes now than western europeans. of course they don’t have (those guys) constantly interfering with how they run their nations.

    • Disagree: Rosie
    • Replies: @UK
    East Asians apply relentless social pressure against marital affairs? Then why does every hotel in China have an unofficial escort service for (married) businessmen? One that, if they think the room is occupied by a Chinese, will harass you by phone at random times of night until they realise you just want to sleep/are foreign and not part of their world. China is likely the world centre for extramarital sex.

    Some people here are astonishingly ignorant and naïve.

    , @anon
    they’re trying though, with the (usual suspects) leading the effort.

    The "poly" people have been around for a while but for whatever reason, it isn't as easy to make "cute" as sweater gays. "Will & Grace" is probably still in syndication, "Modern Family" is still on the cable I think. "Sister wives" just isn't as popular. For which we should be grateful.

    it’s the most unnatural of all the social pathologies though,

    Strongly disagree. One word: NAMBLA. Three words: "Age Of Consent". Must I explicate?
    , @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    Obviously you haven't met a significant portion of young white (and actually any Westernized, of any race) women these days.

    It's not really adultery but they have the "thank u next" mindset, quite literally. Basically, sluts, but thinking they're empowered.

    Use the guy for his money and dick, then dump him and move onto the next one.

    Psychologically damaging for most men too. It's not natural and we have evolved to live in a patriarchal society.

    Anyways, white people are literally disappearing from most major cities in Canada, turns out that incels, sluts, and Chads doesn't keep the birth rate high enough to replenish the population of the next generation. Down with the matriarchy.
  40. @prime noticer
    "Not so for adultery."

    they're trying though, with the (usual suspects) leading the effort. it's the most unnatural of all the social pathologies though, so biological resistance is highest to this. the negative biological penalty is huge.

    cheating directly affects you, so people are less likely to go for that than for celebrating homos or fat people, which mostly affects the homos and fat people, but directly affects you less.

    fat acceptance is almost as damaging as normalizing homos. making fun of fat people and being serious about it - it wasn't good natured - was a useful social mechanism that never should have gone away. yes, fat teenagers should be harassed in high school and college. fat adults should know that they're wrong, and that we don't want to see them. lose weight, fat ass. the virus was more dangerous because it more easily kills fat people since they can barely breathe.

    knowing that you're wrong when you're a deviant, by relentless negative social pressure, is how societies stay healthy. reversing those pressures, so that they're celebrated, is something you would do to wreck a society. today, we're only still applying that relentless negative social pressure on pedophiles. but not sure how long that will last.

    east asians still apply relentless negative social pressure on all these pathologies, and have more healthy societes now than western europeans. of course they don't have (those guys) constantly interfering with how they run their nations.

    East Asians apply relentless social pressure against marital affairs? Then why does every hotel in China have an unofficial escort service for (married) businessmen? One that, if they think the room is occupied by a Chinese, will harass you by phone at random times of night until they realise you just want to sleep/are foreign and not part of their world. China is likely the world centre for extramarital sex.

    Some people here are astonishingly ignorant and naïve.

  41. @Realist

    I agree. The evidence that homosexuality is genetic is very very very shaky indeed.
     
    Answer this when you reached puberty do you remember trying to decide where you wanted to stick your dick for sexual pleasure???

    Is sadomasochism genetic? How about necrophilia? Copreophelia? Or any other bizarre sexual activity? It could just be a psychological disorder.

    My understanding is that many homosexuals have changed their ways and had normal sexual relations as well as children. This has often occurred after a religious conversion or psychological treatment.

    • Replies: @Realist

    Is sadomasochism genetic? How about necrophilia? Copreophelia? Or any other bizarre sexual activity?
     
    Most probably, why would anyone chose to do those things?

    It could just be a It could just be a psychological disorder..
     
    Why would you think a psychological disorder isn't genetic?

    My understanding is that many homosexuals have changed their ways and had normal sexual relations as well as children. This has often occurred after a religious conversion or psychological treatment.
     
    No one has answered my question why not?

    Answer this when you reached puberty do you remember trying to decide where you wanted to stick your dick for sexual pleasure???
    , @dfordoom

    Is sadomasochism genetic? How about necrophilia? Copreophelia? Or any other bizarre sexual activity? It could just be a psychological disorder.
     
    I suspect that sex is mostly cultural/psychological. The only things innate about sex are that all men want sexual gratification and all women want emotional gratification (with sex being one of the ways in which women get emotional gratification).

    But the ways in which people pursue those needs are determined by a whole host of psychological factors - the relationship with the person's father, the relationship with the person's mother, how many siblings they have, how they were brought up, the nature of their first experiences of sexual desire, the nature of their first experiences of actual sex, etc.

    And the ways in which people pursue those needs are determined by a whole host of cultural factors - the prevailing social norms, the popular culture they imbibe as a child, changing fashions in the ideas of what constitutes sexual attractiveness, the sexual stimuli they're exposed to when young.

    Don't underestimate sexual fashions. Take a look at the women who were considered sex symbols in 1900 (the exaggerated hour-glass figures) and then look at the women who were considered sex symbols in the 1920s (slim with small breasts). Then look at sex symbols of the 1950s (huge busts) and the sex symbols of more recent times (anorexic). If ideas of female sexual desirability can change so radically then sexual attraction is clearly largely culturally determined.
  42. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    This is the wrong topic for this thread, so here is just the short version.

    Unlike the Arab-African slave trade, which simply arose from Muslim raiders attacking African villagers and stealing the people because they believed they had an Allah-given right to do so, the African-Atlantic slave trade arose from more complex situations.

    Basically, European traders (meaning in reality mostly Portuguese Jews) showed up in West Africa with finished manufactured goods for trade: firearms, scissors, mirrors, complex tools, glassware, things that the pre-industrial Africans could not make. Africans highly desired the finished goods, but had only three things to offer in exchange: gold, ivory, and slaves. Since the slaves were drawn from African criminals, debtors, and war prisoners from conquered tribes, Africans had no qualms about selling other Africans -- slavery was already acceptable and commonplace among them, and the slaves for sale were enemies, so the slavers didn't care.

    Initially, the Westerners took these slaves in exchange and brought them back to Europe, but there was really no use for them there: European peasants did all the farm work, so the small supply of Africans were sold to rich people as curiosities and exotic household servants.

    At first when the New World opened up, the Europeans simply wanted to settle it as freeholders with large landholdings -- yeoman farmers in the North, hidalgos and rancheros in the South. The need for slaves in this circumstance was minimal -- maybe a few farm hands to help run the place, who would wind up as almost members of the family, not as dehumanized mass field hands worked to death on giant plantations.

    Things changed when Separdic Jews showed up in the Caribbean and Brazil: the Jews, from their trade in Arab lands, had knowledge of growing cash crops like sugar and rice on vast plantations, and they knew from the Arabs that African slaves were ideal for this process, and they had already started the African slave trade, so... Bingo.

    Jews transformed Haiti and Brazil into death camps for the production of sugar, the cash-crop/plantation model spread North using cotton and tobacco instead of sugar, and there you have it. The New World destroyed for Jewish profits.

    Unlike the Arab-African slave trade, which simply arose from Muslim raiders attacking African villagers and stealing the people because they believed they had an Allah-given right to do so, the African-Atlantic slave trade arose from more complex situations.

    There is little reason this is credible. Many of the same reasons why the Atlantic slave trade arose are why the Arab slave trade arose.

    In fact, Africans were often far better in warding off Muslim attacks than even the Persians and the Byzantines. The Nubians stopped – completely – the attacks on Christian Nubia and entered into a long-standing “baqt” with the Muslim rulers of Egypt in which they would supply an X number of slaves.

    Also, slaves were a normal part of the economy in West Africa and many of the indigenous black- Muslim kingdoms that arose there had plenty of slaves. Not only that, they themselves (the rich ones) would purchase Arab and Turkish slaves (anything from soldiers to concubines) and bring them back to West Africa.

    The reason that slaves flowed in any particular direction in that part of the world was a reflection on which society/empire/people were the alpha. Slaves always flowed toward the alpha society; when it was Rome or Byzantium, that’s where they went to fetch the most coin.

    You can read up on all of this stuff in one of the best (and probably defining) books on the matter:

    As far as European slave trade, it was also economic in nature and had religious overtones. We have papal bulls all the way back to the mid-15th century authorizing slave raids:
    “We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso—to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery.”
    http://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/african_laborers_for_a_new_emp/pope_nicolas_v_and_the_portugu

    Note that the coastal raids avoided the North African Muslim kingdoms who were far too powerful in naval terms to be able to pull anything off against them – more than likely, the raiders would have ended up in slave markets themselves. So they went all the way down the coast to sub-Saharan Africa hoping to have easy pickings, they were…disappointed (from the same source as above):
    “Early raids such as the one made by Gonçalvez and Tristão in 1441 were unusual, and may have only been possible because the Portuguese had never previously raided south of Cape Bojador. Portuguese mariners soon learned that inhabitants along the Upper Guinea coast were more than capable of defending themselves from such incursions. Not long after his 1441 voyage, Tristão and most of his crew were killed off the coast of present-day Senegal.”

    Europeans learned that it was much easier – and far less dangerous – to just let the Africans do the slave raiding among themselves (they were far more formidable than the natives in the New World) and exchange them on the market for the goods as you outlined.

    The New World destroyed for Jewish profits.

    (Sigh) Yes Jews were often outsized (for their numbers) as middlemen in the slave trade (in various regions and at various times and made plenty of money in it), but are you seriously trying to say that Europeans didn’t profit massively from the slave plantation economy? And it was all the fault of Jews? Are you saying the Jews owned most of those plantations?

    Peace.

    • Thanks: AnonStarter
    • Replies: @UK
    The rule seems to be that if the NYT makes someone here feel guilty about something then they just fantasise that the Jews actually did it.

    Of course, it would be much more accurate to point out that slavery was barely distinguishable from the way a lot of slaves lived and that anyway, on first contact, it would be a truly prescient man indeed who would discern that completely different looking natives were actually equals to themselves in dignity.

    If someone has no TV, no photos and no concept of what a person of another race actually is, then it can hardly be shocking when they don't assume they have an equal collection of human rights. Nevermind if those peoples already practice slavery on a mass scale. It'd be like blaming a 1900s doctor for reccomending their patients smoke...ok, they were wrong, but situations can make good people make bad decisions not just through only providing bad options but also through genuine 100% naïve ignorance.
    , @Talha
    Look, I totally get why people are frustrated with the nonsense narrative that whites or Europeans are "the most evilest people on the planet ever!!!", but responding to that with a narrative that "Europeans dindu nuffin' and it was always Da Joos'" is just not going to get anywhere unless you are dealing with people who don't really have a good grasp of history.
    , @The Germ Theory of Disease
    Well, you're wrong about so many things, and fibbing about so many other things, and conveniently omitting so many things, that this simply isn't a good faith effort on your part; one can't be bothered to respond. Cheerio!
    , @songbird

    Europeans learned that it was much easier – and far less dangerous – to just let the Africans do the slave raiding among themselves (they were far more formidable than the natives in the New World) and exchange them on the market for the goods as you outlined.
     
    I wouldn't have liked to come up against an Aztec or Inca Army that had received all its shots. Similarly, Europeans used to drop dead, once they got into the tropics - it's pretty unbelievable until you read accounts, where like 9 out of 10 guys died. I think Arabs were actually a bit different, somewhat adapted to tropical diseases. IMO, that is how a guy like Ibn Batutta (though he was a Berber) got around so widely, without dropping dead - good immune genes for traveling.
  43. anon[168] • Disclaimer says:
    @prime noticer
    "Not so for adultery."

    they're trying though, with the (usual suspects) leading the effort. it's the most unnatural of all the social pathologies though, so biological resistance is highest to this. the negative biological penalty is huge.

    cheating directly affects you, so people are less likely to go for that than for celebrating homos or fat people, which mostly affects the homos and fat people, but directly affects you less.

    fat acceptance is almost as damaging as normalizing homos. making fun of fat people and being serious about it - it wasn't good natured - was a useful social mechanism that never should have gone away. yes, fat teenagers should be harassed in high school and college. fat adults should know that they're wrong, and that we don't want to see them. lose weight, fat ass. the virus was more dangerous because it more easily kills fat people since they can barely breathe.

    knowing that you're wrong when you're a deviant, by relentless negative social pressure, is how societies stay healthy. reversing those pressures, so that they're celebrated, is something you would do to wreck a society. today, we're only still applying that relentless negative social pressure on pedophiles. but not sure how long that will last.

    east asians still apply relentless negative social pressure on all these pathologies, and have more healthy societes now than western europeans. of course they don't have (those guys) constantly interfering with how they run their nations.

    they’re trying though, with the (usual suspects) leading the effort.

    The “poly” people have been around for a while but for whatever reason, it isn’t as easy to make “cute” as sweater gays. “Will & Grace” is probably still in syndication, “Modern Family” is still on the cable I think. “Sister wives” just isn’t as popular. For which we should be grateful.

    it’s the most unnatural of all the social pathologies though,

    Strongly disagree. One word: NAMBLA. Three words: “Age Of Consent”. Must I explicate?

  44. UK says:
    @Talha

    Unlike the Arab-African slave trade, which simply arose from Muslim raiders attacking African villagers and stealing the people because they believed they had an Allah-given right to do so, the African-Atlantic slave trade arose from more complex situations.
     
    There is little reason this is credible. Many of the same reasons why the Atlantic slave trade arose are why the Arab slave trade arose.

    In fact, Africans were often far better in warding off Muslim attacks than even the Persians and the Byzantines. The Nubians stopped - completely - the attacks on Christian Nubia and entered into a long-standing "baqt" with the Muslim rulers of Egypt in which they would supply an X number of slaves.

    Also, slaves were a normal part of the economy in West Africa and many of the indigenous black- Muslim kingdoms that arose there had plenty of slaves. Not only that, they themselves (the rich ones) would purchase Arab and Turkish slaves (anything from soldiers to concubines) and bring them back to West Africa.

    The reason that slaves flowed in any particular direction in that part of the world was a reflection on which society/empire/people were the alpha. Slaves always flowed toward the alpha society; when it was Rome or Byzantium, that's where they went to fetch the most coin.

    You can read up on all of this stuff in one of the best (and probably defining) books on the matter:
    https://www.amazon.com/Islams-Black-Slaves-Other-Diaspora/dp/0374527970

    As far as European slave trade, it was also economic in nature and had religious overtones. We have papal bulls all the way back to the mid-15th century authorizing slave raids:
    “We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso—to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery.”
    http://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/african_laborers_for_a_new_emp/pope_nicolas_v_and_the_portugu

    Note that the coastal raids avoided the North African Muslim kingdoms who were far too powerful in naval terms to be able to pull anything off against them - more than likely, the raiders would have ended up in slave markets themselves. So they went all the way down the coast to sub-Saharan Africa hoping to have easy pickings, they were...disappointed (from the same source as above):
    “Early raids such as the one made by Gonçalvez and Tristão in 1441 were unusual, and may have only been possible because the Portuguese had never previously raided south of Cape Bojador. Portuguese mariners soon learned that inhabitants along the Upper Guinea coast were more than capable of defending themselves from such incursions. Not long after his 1441 voyage, Tristão and most of his crew were killed off the coast of present-day Senegal.”

    Europeans learned that it was much easier - and far less dangerous - to just let the Africans do the slave raiding among themselves (they were far more formidable than the natives in the New World) and exchange them on the market for the goods as you outlined.

    The New World destroyed for Jewish profits.
     
    (Sigh) Yes Jews were often outsized (for their numbers) as middlemen in the slave trade (in various regions and at various times and made plenty of money in it), but are you seriously trying to say that Europeans didn't profit massively from the slave plantation economy? And it was all the fault of Jews? Are you saying the Jews owned most of those plantations?

    Peace.

    The rule seems to be that if the NYT makes someone here feel guilty about something then they just fantasise that the Jews actually did it.

    Of course, it would be much more accurate to point out that slavery was barely distinguishable from the way a lot of slaves lived and that anyway, on first contact, it would be a truly prescient man indeed who would discern that completely different looking natives were actually equals to themselves in dignity.

    If someone has no TV, no photos and no concept of what a person of another race actually is, then it can hardly be shocking when they don’t assume they have an equal collection of human rights. Nevermind if those peoples already practice slavery on a mass scale. It’d be like blaming a 1900s doctor for reccomending their patients smoke…ok, they were wrong, but situations can make good people make bad decisions not just through only providing bad options but also through genuine 100% naïve ignorance.

    • Replies: @Talha

    slavery was barely distinguishable from the way a lot of slaves lived and that anyway
     
    Well it certainly depends. Some slaves sold to Westerners were also slaves in their native lands and they simply switched masters. Others could come from noble families who were educated and could read and write. If they were fortunate, their masters would recognize their capabilities:
    “In this remarkable work, Terry Alford tells the story of Abd al Rahman Ibrahima, a Muslim slave who, in 1807, was recognized by an Irish ship's surgeon as the son of an African king who had saved his life many years earlier. "The Prince," as he had become known to local Natchez, Mississippi residents, had been captured in war when he was 26 years old, sold to slave traders, and shipped to America. Slave though he was, Ibrahima was an educated, aristocratic man, and he was made overseer of the large cotton and tobacco plantation of his master, who refused to sell him to the doctor for any price.”
    https://global.oup.com/academic/product/prince-among-slaves-9780195320459?cc=us&lang=en&#

    “Ayuba Suleiman Diallo was an educated man from a family of Muslim clerics in West Africa. In 1731 he was taken into slavery and sent to work on a plantation in America. By his own enterprise, and assisted by a series of spectacular strokes of fortune, Diallo arrived in London in 1733. Recognised as a deeply pious and educated man, in England Diallo mixed with high and intellectual society, was introduced at Court and was bought out of slavery by public subscription.”
    https://www.npg.org.uk/whatson/display/2011/ayuba-suleiman-diallo.php

    Peace.
  45. @Rich
    Is sadomasochism genetic? How about necrophilia? Copreophelia? Or any other bizarre sexual activity? It could just be a psychological disorder.

    My understanding is that many homosexuals have changed their ways and had normal sexual relations as well as children. This has often occurred after a religious conversion or psychological treatment.

    Is sadomasochism genetic? How about necrophilia? Copreophelia? Or any other bizarre sexual activity?

    Most probably, why would anyone chose to do those things?

    It could just be a It could just be a psychological disorder..

    Why would you think a psychological disorder isn’t genetic?

    My understanding is that many homosexuals have changed their ways and had normal sexual relations as well as children. This has often occurred after a religious conversion or psychological treatment.

    No one has answered my question why not?

    Answer this when you reached puberty do you remember trying to decide where you wanted to stick your dick for sexual pleasure???

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Answer this when you reached puberty do you remember trying to decide where you wanted to stick your dick for sexual pleasure???
     
    When you're hitting puberty everything about sex is confusing and frightening. It is incredibly easy to influence adolescents. I think many many adolescents have had the thought of being homosexual or bisexual occur to them at least for a moment. Girls in particular form intense emotional friendships with other girls, which lesbians can easily manipulate.

    Adolescents desperately want to conform. If they live in a society like ours in which homosexuality is rewarded while heterosexuality is frowned upon they can be pressured into "experimenting" and can get sucked into the glamorous homosexual lifestyle.

    So yes, I can remember confronting the question. I very quickly decided that it was girls I was interested in but yes the question did briefly occur to me.

    Maybe you're one of the lucky ones who was always certain. But if just one in five adolescents goes through a period of uncertainty and there are massive pressures to adopt homosexuality then some proportion of that number will be manoeuvred into the homosexual lifestyle and we'll see exactly what we have seen in the past half century - a large increase in the number of people adopting homosexuality.
  46. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    This is the wrong topic for this thread, so here is just the short version.

    Unlike the Arab-African slave trade, which simply arose from Muslim raiders attacking African villagers and stealing the people because they believed they had an Allah-given right to do so, the African-Atlantic slave trade arose from more complex situations.

    Basically, European traders (meaning in reality mostly Portuguese Jews) showed up in West Africa with finished manufactured goods for trade: firearms, scissors, mirrors, complex tools, glassware, things that the pre-industrial Africans could not make. Africans highly desired the finished goods, but had only three things to offer in exchange: gold, ivory, and slaves. Since the slaves were drawn from African criminals, debtors, and war prisoners from conquered tribes, Africans had no qualms about selling other Africans -- slavery was already acceptable and commonplace among them, and the slaves for sale were enemies, so the slavers didn't care.

    Initially, the Westerners took these slaves in exchange and brought them back to Europe, but there was really no use for them there: European peasants did all the farm work, so the small supply of Africans were sold to rich people as curiosities and exotic household servants.

    At first when the New World opened up, the Europeans simply wanted to settle it as freeholders with large landholdings -- yeoman farmers in the North, hidalgos and rancheros in the South. The need for slaves in this circumstance was minimal -- maybe a few farm hands to help run the place, who would wind up as almost members of the family, not as dehumanized mass field hands worked to death on giant plantations.

    Things changed when Separdic Jews showed up in the Caribbean and Brazil: the Jews, from their trade in Arab lands, had knowledge of growing cash crops like sugar and rice on vast plantations, and they knew from the Arabs that African slaves were ideal for this process, and they had already started the African slave trade, so... Bingo.

    Jews transformed Haiti and Brazil into death camps for the production of sugar, the cash-crop/plantation model spread North using cotton and tobacco instead of sugar, and there you have it. The New World destroyed for Jewish profits.

    “At first when the New World opened up, the Europeans simply wanted to settle it as freeholders with large landholdings…. Things changed when Separdic Jews showed up in the Caribbean and Brazil”

    That’s completely wrong.

    Sephardic Jews were in the New World from the first expedition. Sephardics and Marranos quickly opened up sugar plantations (etc) from the very start. They utterly dominated the slave trade from the earliest times.

    You make it sound like the English settled the continent, fought with the French a bit, and later the Sephardics showed up. That is, it must be said, somewhat derogatory to the Jews, who were running international shipping lines for centuries.

    Otherwise I agree about the death toll in the plantations and the fact that the bulk of profits from the plantations went to Jewry. (The various governments levied taxes, undoubtedly).

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    Like I said, quick thumbnail version. This thread is about another topic, I was simply replying to that one conjecture.
  47. @Talha

    Unlike the Arab-African slave trade, which simply arose from Muslim raiders attacking African villagers and stealing the people because they believed they had an Allah-given right to do so, the African-Atlantic slave trade arose from more complex situations.
     
    There is little reason this is credible. Many of the same reasons why the Atlantic slave trade arose are why the Arab slave trade arose.

    In fact, Africans were often far better in warding off Muslim attacks than even the Persians and the Byzantines. The Nubians stopped - completely - the attacks on Christian Nubia and entered into a long-standing "baqt" with the Muslim rulers of Egypt in which they would supply an X number of slaves.

    Also, slaves were a normal part of the economy in West Africa and many of the indigenous black- Muslim kingdoms that arose there had plenty of slaves. Not only that, they themselves (the rich ones) would purchase Arab and Turkish slaves (anything from soldiers to concubines) and bring them back to West Africa.

    The reason that slaves flowed in any particular direction in that part of the world was a reflection on which society/empire/people were the alpha. Slaves always flowed toward the alpha society; when it was Rome or Byzantium, that's where they went to fetch the most coin.

    You can read up on all of this stuff in one of the best (and probably defining) books on the matter:
    https://www.amazon.com/Islams-Black-Slaves-Other-Diaspora/dp/0374527970

    As far as European slave trade, it was also economic in nature and had religious overtones. We have papal bulls all the way back to the mid-15th century authorizing slave raids:
    “We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso—to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery.”
    http://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/african_laborers_for_a_new_emp/pope_nicolas_v_and_the_portugu

    Note that the coastal raids avoided the North African Muslim kingdoms who were far too powerful in naval terms to be able to pull anything off against them - more than likely, the raiders would have ended up in slave markets themselves. So they went all the way down the coast to sub-Saharan Africa hoping to have easy pickings, they were...disappointed (from the same source as above):
    “Early raids such as the one made by Gonçalvez and Tristão in 1441 were unusual, and may have only been possible because the Portuguese had never previously raided south of Cape Bojador. Portuguese mariners soon learned that inhabitants along the Upper Guinea coast were more than capable of defending themselves from such incursions. Not long after his 1441 voyage, Tristão and most of his crew were killed off the coast of present-day Senegal.”

    Europeans learned that it was much easier - and far less dangerous - to just let the Africans do the slave raiding among themselves (they were far more formidable than the natives in the New World) and exchange them on the market for the goods as you outlined.

    The New World destroyed for Jewish profits.
     
    (Sigh) Yes Jews were often outsized (for their numbers) as middlemen in the slave trade (in various regions and at various times and made plenty of money in it), but are you seriously trying to say that Europeans didn't profit massively from the slave plantation economy? And it was all the fault of Jews? Are you saying the Jews owned most of those plantations?

    Peace.

    Look, I totally get why people are frustrated with the nonsense narrative that whites or Europeans are “the most evilest people on the planet ever!!!”, but responding to that with a narrative that “Europeans dindu nuffin’ and it was always Da Joos’” is just not going to get anywhere unless you are dealing with people who don’t really have a good grasp of history.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Nobody's innocent. Both Europe and the Islamic World were heavily engaged in the slave trade, and by and large, were sold those slaves by other Africans in the first place.

    Point of history is to learn lessons on what to do and not do. I think we (mostly) can all agree that slavery is deeply immoral today. That's a massive advance from the vast majority of human history. Nothing to sneeze at.

    , @AnonStarter

    Look, I totally get why people are frustrated with the nonsense narrative that whites or Europeans are “the most evilest people on the planet ever!!!”, but responding to that with a narrative that “Europeans dindu nuffin’ and it was always Da Joos’” is just not going to get anywhere unless you are dealing with people who don’t really have a good grasp of history.
     
    To imagine that the white southern gentry, who greatly outnumbered their Jewish counterparts, had the institutions of chattel slavery, sharecropping, and Jim Crow imposed upon them against their will is a dizzying spin, to say the least.
  48. anon[371] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Germ Theory of Disease
    This is the wrong topic for this thread, so here is just the short version.

    Unlike the Arab-African slave trade, which simply arose from Muslim raiders attacking African villagers and stealing the people because they believed they had an Allah-given right to do so, the African-Atlantic slave trade arose from more complex situations.

    Basically, European traders (meaning in reality mostly Portuguese Jews) showed up in West Africa with finished manufactured goods for trade: firearms, scissors, mirrors, complex tools, glassware, things that the pre-industrial Africans could not make. Africans highly desired the finished goods, but had only three things to offer in exchange: gold, ivory, and slaves. Since the slaves were drawn from African criminals, debtors, and war prisoners from conquered tribes, Africans had no qualms about selling other Africans -- slavery was already acceptable and commonplace among them, and the slaves for sale were enemies, so the slavers didn't care.

    Initially, the Westerners took these slaves in exchange and brought them back to Europe, but there was really no use for them there: European peasants did all the farm work, so the small supply of Africans were sold to rich people as curiosities and exotic household servants.

    At first when the New World opened up, the Europeans simply wanted to settle it as freeholders with large landholdings -- yeoman farmers in the North, hidalgos and rancheros in the South. The need for slaves in this circumstance was minimal -- maybe a few farm hands to help run the place, who would wind up as almost members of the family, not as dehumanized mass field hands worked to death on giant plantations.

    Things changed when Separdic Jews showed up in the Caribbean and Brazil: the Jews, from their trade in Arab lands, had knowledge of growing cash crops like sugar and rice on vast plantations, and they knew from the Arabs that African slaves were ideal for this process, and they had already started the African slave trade, so... Bingo.

    Jews transformed Haiti and Brazil into death camps for the production of sugar, the cash-crop/plantation model spread North using cotton and tobacco instead of sugar, and there you have it. The New World destroyed for Jewish profits.

    Unlike the Arab-African slave trade, which simply arose from Muslim raiders attacking African villagers and stealing the people because they believed they had an Allah-given right to do so, the African-Atlantic slave trade arose from more complex situations.

    What about the Arab – European slave trade? As late as 1865 there were European navy and US Navy ships on anti-slavery patrol in the Med.

    At first when the New World opened up, the Europeans simply wanted to settle it as freeholders with large landholdings — yeoman farmers in the North, hidalgos and rancheros in the South. The need for slaves in this circumstance was minimal — maybe a few farm hands to help run the place, who would wind up as almost members of the family, not as dehumanized mass field hands worked to death on giant plantations.

    Indentured servitude was a standard feature of English settlement in Virginia. A man or woman signed up for something like 7 years of service; the buyer was required to feed, clothe and teach a trade to the servant, so that at the end of the term the bondservant would be self supporting. The Angolans who came to Virginia in 1619 were not sold as chattels but as indentured. It took a black man suing another black man in a Virginia court to convert indentured servitude to chattel slavery.

    Involuntary indentured servitude was a feature of the settlement of Georgia: Englishmen in debtor’s prison were set free on the condition that they would be transported for life across the Atlantic. Political prisoners were also transported, including religious dissenters, often to the Carolinas.

    The sugar islands, beginning with Nevis and St. Kitts initially attempted to use indentured servants to harvest sugar cane, however so many of them died of disease long before their term of service had expired that it became very difficult to recruit replacements. Sugar at this time was an expensive luxury item in England and on the continent. Their situation was like coca growers in South America having no one to harvest for them, so no cocaine to export, waaah! So the sugar islands turned to importing Africans due to greater disease resistance, and that model became standard in the Caribbean.

    • Thanks: Mr. Rational
  49. Half of Jews and half of homosexuals seem to think adultery is A-OK.

    Anyway, of course people will say it is wrong in a poll, because it’s just an abstract question, but then, many of those people will also practice it in their lives.

    Also, I think this has more to do with the word chosen. “Adultery” is a loaded and negative word. Use “polyamory” or something else and maybe results will change.

    Besides, I think people are in favor of “homosexual relations” because they don’t really know or think much about what they really consist in, in particular women, who are the more ardent defenders of “gay marriage” (more than gays themselves). While everyone knows what being cheated on feels like.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Anyway, of course people will say it is wrong in a poll, because it’s just an abstract question, but then, many of those people will also practice it in their lives.
     
    People will say that something is wrong, but then fail to stick to their guns ina real-life situation. They'll say something like this:

    "Sometimes, you have to follow your heart."
    "You only live once."
    "I'm a sinner, too."

    Etc.

    That said, this is still a white-pilling chart. I would not have predicted such high numbers.
    , @anarchyst
    Woman Raised By Lesbians Has Some Shocking Things To Say About Needing A Dad


    Experience is supposed to be top card over any and all facts. But what happens when experience blows holes in the activist narrative?

    It doesn't matter who you click with. That was what the airline put in their ads.

    Homosexuals should be able to raise children. We've been told this for as long as same-sex relationships have been socially acceptable.

    But did anybody ask what the CHILDREN thought about it?

    One has finally spoken up. The keepers of the narrative will not like it.

    We can probably expect her to be given the same rough treatment that other heretics against the cause, like Milo, are given.

    So, while she still has a voice, let's let hers be heard:

    It's her own personal story, after all. By the rules of the game as the Left has been playing it, who can judge her for her own story?

    [Heather]Barwick, who is 31 now, married, and has four children, said that same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a child while telling him or her that it doesn't matter. That it's all the same. But it's not.

    "A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting," wrote Barwick in her essay for The Federalist website. "My father's absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad. I loved my mom's partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost."

    "I grew up surrounded by women who said they didn't need or want a man," said Barwick. "Yet, as a little girl, I so desperately wanted a daddy. It is a strange and confusing thing to walk around with this deep-down unquenchable ache for a father, for a man, in a community that says that men are unnecessary."

    She used to be an advocate of same-sex marriage. So she isn't motivated by disdain for same-sex relationships. She's backing a different cause now.

    "Gay marriage doesn't just redefine marriage, but also parenting," she says. "It promotes and normalizes a family structure that necessarily denies us something precious and foundational. It denies us something we need and long for, while at the same time tells us that we don't need what we naturally crave. That we will be okay. But we're not. We're hurting."

    "It's not just me," said Barwick. "There are so many of us. Many of us are too scared to speak up and tell you about our hurt and pain, because for whatever reason it feels like you're not listening. That you don't want to hear."

    "If we say we are hurting because we were raised by same-sex parents, we are either ignored or labeled a hater," she wrote.
    Source: Daily Mail

    Now she's an advocate of Children's rights. She's also married and a mother of four.

  50. @Dumbo
    Half of Jews and half of homosexuals seem to think adultery is A-OK.

    Anyway, of course people will say it is wrong in a poll, because it's just an abstract question, but then, many of those people will also practice it in their lives.

    Also, I think this has more to do with the word chosen. "Adultery" is a loaded and negative word. Use "polyamory" or something else and maybe results will change.

    Besides, I think people are in favor of "homosexual relations" because they don't really know or think much about what they really consist in, in particular women, who are the more ardent defenders of "gay marriage" (more than gays themselves). While everyone knows what being cheated on feels like.

    Anyway, of course people will say it is wrong in a poll, because it’s just an abstract question, but then, many of those people will also practice it in their lives.

    People will say that something is wrong, but then fail to stick to their guns ina real-life situation. They’ll say something like this:

    “Sometimes, you have to follow your heart.”
    “You only live once.”
    “I’m a sinner, too.”

    Etc.

    That said, this is still a white-pilling chart. I would not have predicted such high numbers.

  51. No surprise about the jews in that graph, yet people still defend this race as just another normal group of people.

  52. @songbird
    Some people think it was sympathy generated by AIDS.

    I am not so sure. There were many other factors. Lots of Hollywood propaganda. And look at glam rock. There were bands that included women, where the men had longer hair and more make-up. Lots of gays close to the entertainment complex.

    The American Psychiatric Association decided in 1973 to declassify homosexuality as a disorder.

    • Agree: songbird
  53. @Talha

    Unlike the Arab-African slave trade, which simply arose from Muslim raiders attacking African villagers and stealing the people because they believed they had an Allah-given right to do so, the African-Atlantic slave trade arose from more complex situations.
     
    There is little reason this is credible. Many of the same reasons why the Atlantic slave trade arose are why the Arab slave trade arose.

    In fact, Africans were often far better in warding off Muslim attacks than even the Persians and the Byzantines. The Nubians stopped - completely - the attacks on Christian Nubia and entered into a long-standing "baqt" with the Muslim rulers of Egypt in which they would supply an X number of slaves.

    Also, slaves were a normal part of the economy in West Africa and many of the indigenous black- Muslim kingdoms that arose there had plenty of slaves. Not only that, they themselves (the rich ones) would purchase Arab and Turkish slaves (anything from soldiers to concubines) and bring them back to West Africa.

    The reason that slaves flowed in any particular direction in that part of the world was a reflection on which society/empire/people were the alpha. Slaves always flowed toward the alpha society; when it was Rome or Byzantium, that's where they went to fetch the most coin.

    You can read up on all of this stuff in one of the best (and probably defining) books on the matter:
    https://www.amazon.com/Islams-Black-Slaves-Other-Diaspora/dp/0374527970

    As far as European slave trade, it was also economic in nature and had religious overtones. We have papal bulls all the way back to the mid-15th century authorizing slave raids:
    “We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso—to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery.”
    http://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/african_laborers_for_a_new_emp/pope_nicolas_v_and_the_portugu

    Note that the coastal raids avoided the North African Muslim kingdoms who were far too powerful in naval terms to be able to pull anything off against them - more than likely, the raiders would have ended up in slave markets themselves. So they went all the way down the coast to sub-Saharan Africa hoping to have easy pickings, they were...disappointed (from the same source as above):
    “Early raids such as the one made by Gonçalvez and Tristão in 1441 were unusual, and may have only been possible because the Portuguese had never previously raided south of Cape Bojador. Portuguese mariners soon learned that inhabitants along the Upper Guinea coast were more than capable of defending themselves from such incursions. Not long after his 1441 voyage, Tristão and most of his crew were killed off the coast of present-day Senegal.”

    Europeans learned that it was much easier - and far less dangerous - to just let the Africans do the slave raiding among themselves (they were far more formidable than the natives in the New World) and exchange them on the market for the goods as you outlined.

    The New World destroyed for Jewish profits.
     
    (Sigh) Yes Jews were often outsized (for their numbers) as middlemen in the slave trade (in various regions and at various times and made plenty of money in it), but are you seriously trying to say that Europeans didn't profit massively from the slave plantation economy? And it was all the fault of Jews? Are you saying the Jews owned most of those plantations?

    Peace.

    Well, you’re wrong about so many things, and fibbing about so many other things, and conveniently omitting so many things, that this simply isn’t a good faith effort on your part; one can’t be bothered to respond. Cheerio!

    • Disagree: Corvinus
  54. @jbwilson24
    "At first when the New World opened up, the Europeans simply wanted to settle it as freeholders with large landholdings.... Things changed when Separdic Jews showed up in the Caribbean and Brazil"

    That's completely wrong.

    Sephardic Jews were in the New World from the first expedition. Sephardics and Marranos quickly opened up sugar plantations (etc) from the very start. They utterly dominated the slave trade from the earliest times.

    You make it sound like the English settled the continent, fought with the French a bit, and later the Sephardics showed up. That is, it must be said, somewhat derogatory to the Jews, who were running international shipping lines for centuries.

    Otherwise I agree about the death toll in the plantations and the fact that the bulk of profits from the plantations went to Jewry. (The various governments levied taxes, undoubtedly).

    Like I said, quick thumbnail version. This thread is about another topic, I was simply replying to that one conjecture.

  55. @dfordoom

    You say that with a lot of assurance considering it is a theory with only shaky support.
     
    I agree. The evidence that homosexuality is genetic is very very very shaky indeed.

    It doesn’t have to be an either/or proposition between biology and choice: men who have an above average predisposition to homosexuality may marry and have a sexual life with a woman anyway, depending on the social conditions and how strong that predisposition is.

    >What’s really surprising is that 54.8% of homosexuals think adultery is always wrong. Does that category include lesbians? I suspect there’s very little overlap between the social attitudes of male homosexuals and those of lesbians. Lesbians are kinda possessive.

    Back when homosexuality between men was deeply stigmatized, it took both a strong inborn predeliction for it and a personality indifferent-or at least cynical-to social norms to pursue other men anyway. This caused a selection effect. Combine that with the nature of male sexuality with no female barriers, and a high degree of promiscuity was inevitable.

    Now that it is more mainstream, it doesn’t take that you being that personality type anymore, so a higher rate of mainstream attitudes to relationships is to be expected. Male gay sexual life is still quite casual to outsiders, but from what I’ve heard, it’s nowhere near as much so as it used to be, despite the proliferation of electronic ways of procuring sex.

  56. @Talha
    Look, I totally get why people are frustrated with the nonsense narrative that whites or Europeans are "the most evilest people on the planet ever!!!", but responding to that with a narrative that "Europeans dindu nuffin' and it was always Da Joos'" is just not going to get anywhere unless you are dealing with people who don't really have a good grasp of history.

    Nobody’s innocent. Both Europe and the Islamic World were heavily engaged in the slave trade, and by and large, were sold those slaves by other Africans in the first place.

    Point of history is to learn lessons on what to do and not do. I think we (mostly) can all agree that slavery is deeply immoral today. That’s a massive advance from the vast majority of human history. Nothing to sneeze at.

    • Replies: @Talha
    The Day of Judgment is going to be a very, very grim day. I just had a conversation with an Egyptian brother of how frustrated he was with the comic-book version of history he was taught all his life about a lot of Muslim history and when he finally got hit in the face with a massive dose of real history. He felt cheated and lied to.

    I remember that feeling myself when came across serious history and found that Muslims had done some pretty vile things in the past. It was a shock to the system. Which is why I don't plan on teaching my sons the airbrushed version of history.


    I think we (mostly) can all agree that slavery is deeply immoral today. That’s a massive advance from the vast majority of human history. Nothing to sneeze at.
     
    Agreed.

    Peace.

  57. @nebulafox
    Nobody's innocent. Both Europe and the Islamic World were heavily engaged in the slave trade, and by and large, were sold those slaves by other Africans in the first place.

    Point of history is to learn lessons on what to do and not do. I think we (mostly) can all agree that slavery is deeply immoral today. That's a massive advance from the vast majority of human history. Nothing to sneeze at.

    The Day of Judgment is going to be a very, very grim day. I just had a conversation with an Egyptian brother of how frustrated he was with the comic-book version of history he was taught all his life about a lot of Muslim history and when he finally got hit in the face with a massive dose of real history. He felt cheated and lied to.

    I remember that feeling myself when came across serious history and found that Muslims had done some pretty vile things in the past. It was a shock to the system. Which is why I don’t plan on teaching my sons the airbrushed version of history.

    I think we (mostly) can all agree that slavery is deeply immoral today. That’s a massive advance from the vast majority of human history. Nothing to sneeze at.

    Agreed.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    and found that Muslims had done some pretty vile things in the past.

    Don't say.
    , @Rosie

    Which is why I don’t plan on teaching my sons the airbrushed version of history.
     
    They're going to see the dirty laundry anyway. It might as well be while they're still under your tutelage. That's how I see it, anyway.
  58. @Daniel H
    We still have a fighting chance. But what happened in 1991?

    We still have a fighting chance. But what happened in 1991?

    If you were around back then you can remember gays in the military became a big political issue after Dick Cheney suggested in 1991 the ban on them in the military be ended. This was followed by several Democrat candidates in the primaries throwing their support behind the idea. After the election the one who got elected, Clinton, instituted “don’t ask, don’t tell”. This was probably the last major remaining legal restriction on them and the lifting of that probably helped to normalize homosexuality in the minds of many people.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @UK
    Team Democrat had a new stance on an issue of, to most people, small consequence, so many Team Democrat supporters changed their minds.
  59. @Talha
    The Day of Judgment is going to be a very, very grim day. I just had a conversation with an Egyptian brother of how frustrated he was with the comic-book version of history he was taught all his life about a lot of Muslim history and when he finally got hit in the face with a massive dose of real history. He felt cheated and lied to.

    I remember that feeling myself when came across serious history and found that Muslims had done some pretty vile things in the past. It was a shock to the system. Which is why I don't plan on teaching my sons the airbrushed version of history.


    I think we (mostly) can all agree that slavery is deeply immoral today. That’s a massive advance from the vast majority of human history. Nothing to sneeze at.
     
    Agreed.

    Peace.

    and found that Muslims had done some pretty vile things in the past.

    Don’t say.

    • LOL: Talha
  60. @Tusk
    Agree that seeing Blacks on top is a bit confusing. Maybe they're saying that if someone cheats on them it's bad, but at the same time, if they do it, it's not "adultery" so their behaviour is excusable. At least that's the rationale I could see them having.

    It doesn’t terribly surprise me. Blacks have their Churches and Mosques also that are socially normally very conservative. Even as most likely they never attend, their grandpop regularly attended. His viewpoint still influences them, even if they are complete hypocrites. Same in New Zealand with the brown population.

  61. I think some of you have missed what the chart is actually noting.

    It is not an assessment of whether or not one has strayed from marriage one’s vows (and in this case that is the general understanding.)

    It notes the ethical disposition of such behavior. Having crossed that line in y view — I can say with certainty, it is a line not to be crossed and is always wrong. The major difference between people pf faith and the run of the mill liberal is that people pf faith will note a wrong, even if they have done so and reject the liberal attempt to make them out as hypocrites by condoning, making exceptions, for the same.

    That’s a key difference and the liberals favorite trap —

    “see you did it too”

    Snore. When I was a kid I would on occasion steal one of those glow in the dark ghosts from the piggly wiggly — it was wrong then – it’s wrong wrong. The fact that one actually id a wrong does not male them a hypocrite per se — it’s the attempt to ameliorate excuse or condone the act.

    One of the destructive past times of people seeking to dampen the power of faith is to engage in libelous and slanderous communication thinking that some aspect of truth therefore makes the libel acceptable – it is not.

    So many word traps at play — like the gambit used by liberals to equate desire with lust — they are not the same thing — close but not even a whiff of smoke much less a cigar.

    ——————

    “Nobody’s innocent.”

    Akin to the all have sinned milk toast concept ——-

    Why slavery is more egregious for westerners rests on the foundations of established in scripture as well as the western ethos established on the dignity of of humans as something inherent in their being. By nature or by God — and the US those ethos are damning on the issue of slavery. No amount of but they it to will survive scrutiny nor justify what the country did to indentured servants and worse to blacks —

    I was reading an article in TAC about some fond memories of southern private schooling — back slapping as it did all it could to justify the matter of violating the law to benefit one set of citizens over another. Sad and saddening.

    Quite surprising too many that blacks routinely are at the top of the ladder on issues concerning the some basic principles of value. Slavery was wrong then when it was made legal as it was before it was legal and its wrong now based on its practices. And no one needs a modern lens to condemn the matter. The lens of the time condemns in plain language — of the ethic of the day.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I think some of you have missed what the chart is actually noting.

    It is not an assessment of whether or not one has strayed from marriage one’s vows (and in this case that is the general understanding.)

    It notes the ethical disposition of such behavior.
     
    Hypocrisy is much misunderstood. A hypocritical society is one in which people know the difference between right and wrong but often fall short of their own ideals. A non-hypocritical society is one in which people do not know the difference between right and wrong and have no ideals at all.

    It's like the difference between "I screwed my wife's best friend but I'm sorry I did it and I'll try not to do it again" and "So I screwed my wife's best friend. Big deal." Which is more morally reprehensible?
  62. It’s only hypocrisy if the *group* is capable of self examination and abstractions, and understands that Adultery is wherf someone cheats on his wife, which means that if I cheat on my wife, that is also adultery.

    My experience with the *group* is that they are not capable of applying an abstract standard to themselves, but are only capable of relating to specific behaviors. And yet, they preach at us and they vote.

  63. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    This is the wrong topic for this thread, so here is just the short version.

    Unlike the Arab-African slave trade, which simply arose from Muslim raiders attacking African villagers and stealing the people because they believed they had an Allah-given right to do so, the African-Atlantic slave trade arose from more complex situations.

    Basically, European traders (meaning in reality mostly Portuguese Jews) showed up in West Africa with finished manufactured goods for trade: firearms, scissors, mirrors, complex tools, glassware, things that the pre-industrial Africans could not make. Africans highly desired the finished goods, but had only three things to offer in exchange: gold, ivory, and slaves. Since the slaves were drawn from African criminals, debtors, and war prisoners from conquered tribes, Africans had no qualms about selling other Africans -- slavery was already acceptable and commonplace among them, and the slaves for sale were enemies, so the slavers didn't care.

    Initially, the Westerners took these slaves in exchange and brought them back to Europe, but there was really no use for them there: European peasants did all the farm work, so the small supply of Africans were sold to rich people as curiosities and exotic household servants.

    At first when the New World opened up, the Europeans simply wanted to settle it as freeholders with large landholdings -- yeoman farmers in the North, hidalgos and rancheros in the South. The need for slaves in this circumstance was minimal -- maybe a few farm hands to help run the place, who would wind up as almost members of the family, not as dehumanized mass field hands worked to death on giant plantations.

    Things changed when Separdic Jews showed up in the Caribbean and Brazil: the Jews, from their trade in Arab lands, had knowledge of growing cash crops like sugar and rice on vast plantations, and they knew from the Arabs that African slaves were ideal for this process, and they had already started the African slave trade, so... Bingo.

    Jews transformed Haiti and Brazil into death camps for the production of sugar, the cash-crop/plantation model spread North using cotton and tobacco instead of sugar, and there you have it. The New World destroyed for Jewish profits.

    This is the wrong topic for this thread,

    You know, you’re right. It’s threadjacking. I’m peeved that I fell into it.

    Why did you do this? What is your purpose?

  64. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    This is the wrong topic for this thread, so here is just the short version.

    Unlike the Arab-African slave trade, which simply arose from Muslim raiders attacking African villagers and stealing the people because they believed they had an Allah-given right to do so, the African-Atlantic slave trade arose from more complex situations.

    Basically, European traders (meaning in reality mostly Portuguese Jews) showed up in West Africa with finished manufactured goods for trade: firearms, scissors, mirrors, complex tools, glassware, things that the pre-industrial Africans could not make. Africans highly desired the finished goods, but had only three things to offer in exchange: gold, ivory, and slaves. Since the slaves were drawn from African criminals, debtors, and war prisoners from conquered tribes, Africans had no qualms about selling other Africans -- slavery was already acceptable and commonplace among them, and the slaves for sale were enemies, so the slavers didn't care.

    Initially, the Westerners took these slaves in exchange and brought them back to Europe, but there was really no use for them there: European peasants did all the farm work, so the small supply of Africans were sold to rich people as curiosities and exotic household servants.

    At first when the New World opened up, the Europeans simply wanted to settle it as freeholders with large landholdings -- yeoman farmers in the North, hidalgos and rancheros in the South. The need for slaves in this circumstance was minimal -- maybe a few farm hands to help run the place, who would wind up as almost members of the family, not as dehumanized mass field hands worked to death on giant plantations.

    Things changed when Separdic Jews showed up in the Caribbean and Brazil: the Jews, from their trade in Arab lands, had knowledge of growing cash crops like sugar and rice on vast plantations, and they knew from the Arabs that African slaves were ideal for this process, and they had already started the African slave trade, so... Bingo.

    Jews transformed Haiti and Brazil into death camps for the production of sugar, the cash-crop/plantation model spread North using cotton and tobacco instead of sugar, and there you have it. The New World destroyed for Jewish profits.

    This is am informational, yet superficial summary. Hint: did you know that when Colombus came to the New World? He had many Hebrew translators on his ship

  65. @songbird
    I'd say that gender-bending showed up most powerfully in the genre of pop. There was Boy George, who very awkwardly appeared on an episode of the A-Team (with message included) once. There was Philip Oakey, the male singer of The Human League - he just walked around town like that.

    Metal and rock definitely tended to be more masculine, but it is really bizarre when you consider the context of pop. Like the metal band named Twisted Sister. Or I don't know if you ever heard the song "Rock me tonite" by Billy Squier, but it was a number one hit. Sounds okay on the radio, but if you see the video, it is unmistakably gay. Not gay himself, Squier was supposedly tricked into doing it. And not many people who enjoyed Freddy Mercury's band Queen, realized he was gay - you had to see his videos to understand that.

    I don't think that it is something that flipped in single a year. What you are looking at when it changed is the prep work of years, younger generations who had been targeted becoming older and more influential.

    I think music videos and MTV were a factor, but there was lots of push on regular network TV. Right from 1991, I remember an episode of Doogie Howser called "My Two Dads." It didn't even have a gay plot that I can recall, but you can see were their sympathies were from the title.

    I’d say that gender-bending showed up most powerfully in the genre of pop.

    I don’t think that it is something that flipped in single a year.

    It was happening in a major way in pop music from the beginning of the 70s. There were signs of it in the late 60s.

    Pro-homosexual propaganda in movies started in 1961, with the British movie Victim and the American lesbian movie The Children’s Hour. Both mainstream movies with major stars (Dirk Bogarde in Victim and Audrey Hepburn and Shirley MacLaine in The Children’s Hour.

    Casual sex and even adultery were being normalised in movies even in the 1950s. Hollywood had already decided that the Production Code was going to be abandoned by that time. When Stanley Kubrick made Lolita in 1962 the studio simply ignored the Production Code. Sue Lyon was fifteen when the movie was made and she was promoted aggressively as a sex symbol.

    The Sexual Revolution and the Cultural Revolution started in the 1950s. They were not created by the Boomers. Both the Sexual Revolution and the broader Cultural Revolution were products of the Silent Generation. You could argue (and I would argue) that both revolutions were already unstoppable well before the Boomers started to have any influence on pop culture.

    It’s also worth remembering that the Baby Boom was a temporary blip from 1946 to around 1955. By the late 50s birth rates were plummeting.

    The idea that the 1950s was the wholesome Leave It To Beaver era is an illusion. The fact that social attitudes seemed to be conservative was a result of the lingering influence of earlier generations. There was nothing socially conservative about the Silent Generation.

    • Replies: @songbird

    It was happening in a major way in pop music from the beginning of the 70s. There were signs of it in the late 60s.

     

    Yes, I agree, it was earlier than the '80s - they are just the most egregious example.

    When Stanley Kubrick made Lolita in 1962 the studio simply ignored the Production Code.
     
    It's a pretty interesting phenomenon how censorship law was skirted and flouted, for years, before it was finally dropped.

    I think censorship may just be a necessary part of civilization. When you have creative types ideating in such and such a volume with so many platforms, they will naturally outcompete each other when it comes to smut and other anti-civilizational ideas. I've said it before, but I think that it's in their nature, when it comes to personality factors. Mozart's music was sublime, but he wrote dirty ditties too.

    Perhaps, it is odd to deal in Indian analogies, but I think we may need a censorship caste, to deal with our artistic caste. In theory, you could find people who had a strong disgust reflex and a strong sense of morality - test and screen them scientifically. Of course, good censorship is a fine line to walk. I don't believe the Chinese system is a perfect one.
  66. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    In times past, a married woman might turn a blind eye to her husband visiting prostitutes or even keeping a mistress because he wasn't going to leave her for a floozy and she didn't want to go through life perpetually pregnant. Marriage and family in general were first and foremost practical institutions. Now, with the emphasis on love, adultery is far less tolerated. Also, it's easier to get a divorce and for a woman to earn an independent living, so she is quicker to deep six an unsatisfactory mate.

    In times past, a married woman might turn a blind eye to her husband visiting prostitutes or even keeping a mistress because he wasn’t going to leave her for a floozy and she didn’t want to go through life perpetually pregnant. Marriage and family in general were first and foremost practical institutions. Now, with the emphasis on love, adultery is far less tolerated.

    Yes.

    An enormous social change that happened in the first half of the 20th century and is usually ignored is the rise of the Cult of Romantic Love. The whole Love Conquers All thing. It was a radical change – marriage was no longer seen as being about raising children. Marriage came to be seen as being all about love and sex.

    There were various forces pushing this change but Hollywood was the biggest and most powerful of those forces. Hollywood was pushing this change aggressively back in the 1920s.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    It was a radical change – marriage was no longer seen as being about raising children. Marriage came to be seen as being all about love and sex.
     
    I see the unitive and procreative purposes of marriage as inseparable from each other, don't you?
    , @anon
    An enormous social change that happened in the first half of the 20th century and is usually ignored is the rise of the Cult of Romantic Love.

    That cult goes back to the 14th century. It's deeply embedded in western civ.

    It was a radical change – marriage was no longer seen as being about raising children. Marriage came to be seen as being all about love and sex.

    That and child support. The child-support model of "family" makes single mommyhood very viable.
  67. @Talha
    The Day of Judgment is going to be a very, very grim day. I just had a conversation with an Egyptian brother of how frustrated he was with the comic-book version of history he was taught all his life about a lot of Muslim history and when he finally got hit in the face with a massive dose of real history. He felt cheated and lied to.

    I remember that feeling myself when came across serious history and found that Muslims had done some pretty vile things in the past. It was a shock to the system. Which is why I don't plan on teaching my sons the airbrushed version of history.


    I think we (mostly) can all agree that slavery is deeply immoral today. That’s a massive advance from the vast majority of human history. Nothing to sneeze at.
     
    Agreed.

    Peace.

    Which is why I don’t plan on teaching my sons the airbrushed version of history.

    They’re going to see the dirty laundry anyway. It might as well be while they’re still under your tutelage. That’s how I see it, anyway.

    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @Talha
    And it’s an issue of trust; they are either going to believe you lied to them or that you were too ignorant to know any better - not a good place to be unless you want to lose your place of authority.
    Peace.
  68. @dfordoom

    In times past, a married woman might turn a blind eye to her husband visiting prostitutes or even keeping a mistress because he wasn’t going to leave her for a floozy and she didn’t want to go through life perpetually pregnant. Marriage and family in general were first and foremost practical institutions. Now, with the emphasis on love, adultery is far less tolerated.
     
    Yes.

    An enormous social change that happened in the first half of the 20th century and is usually ignored is the rise of the Cult of Romantic Love. The whole Love Conquers All thing. It was a radical change - marriage was no longer seen as being about raising children. Marriage came to be seen as being all about love and sex.

    There were various forces pushing this change but Hollywood was the biggest and most powerful of those forces. Hollywood was pushing this change aggressively back in the 1920s.

    It was a radical change – marriage was no longer seen as being about raising children. Marriage came to be seen as being all about love and sex.

    I see the unitive and procreative purposes of marriage as inseparable from each other, don’t you?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I see the unitive and procreative purposes of marriage as inseparable from each other, don’t you?
     
    Very Catholic of you.
    , @dfordoom

    I see the unitive and procreative purposes of marriage as inseparable from each other, don’t you?
     
    What we might think isn't the point. Until the early 20th century marriage was about child-raising, and if you were lucky you got emotional bonding as well. Some married couples ended up deeply in love but that was something that generally developed after marriage, not before.

    But marriage was not primarily about sex, or about some idealised notion of Romantic Love. And if a husband strayed it was not necessarily seen as the end of the world, if he only strayed in search of sex.

    There were important class differences as well. For the upper classes marriage was a financial arrangement with the emphasis being on family interests rather than personal interests. For the lower classes marriage was an economic necessity.

    From the early 20th century onwards marriage has been seen as being about some awesome mystical union of souls and about overwhelming romantic love which is generally seen as being primarily about sexual bliss.

    I'm not suggesting one of these models is better or worse than the other but they are very different. It was a very big change.
    , @BB753
    Confusing love and marriage is a relatively new thing. Surely, you read about it in 18th , 19th and early 20th century novels, but it was just literature. You know what they say, romance is porn for women.
    Of course, over the years, married couples were expected to develop affection for each other, and for their offspring. That was the whole point of marriage: family. And wives were encouraged to respect and obey their husbands: no pegging, no bossing around, no sleeping around. The husband was to be the boss of the family unit, not the wife or the mother-in-law.
    In the early 21st century, people expecting romance, happiness and lots of sex in marriage are in for a big disappointment.
    Nowadays, with easy divorces, woman's rights and the removal of social shame from fornication and adultery, you might as well say that marriage no longer exists.
    Which is why gays are allowed to marry now: because the institution of marriage is a joke.
    , @anon
    I see the unitive and procreative purposes of marriage as inseparable from each other

    Plus the manipulative and punitive aspects, of course. Going by your online performances, I'm sure you are intimately familiar with those.

  69. Four out of four Americans think that queers suck. Prove me wrong over here.

  70. @Rich
    Is sadomasochism genetic? How about necrophilia? Copreophelia? Or any other bizarre sexual activity? It could just be a psychological disorder.

    My understanding is that many homosexuals have changed their ways and had normal sexual relations as well as children. This has often occurred after a religious conversion or psychological treatment.

    Is sadomasochism genetic? How about necrophilia? Copreophelia? Or any other bizarre sexual activity? It could just be a psychological disorder.

    I suspect that sex is mostly cultural/psychological. The only things innate about sex are that all men want sexual gratification and all women want emotional gratification (with sex being one of the ways in which women get emotional gratification).

    But the ways in which people pursue those needs are determined by a whole host of psychological factors – the relationship with the person’s father, the relationship with the person’s mother, how many siblings they have, how they were brought up, the nature of their first experiences of sexual desire, the nature of their first experiences of actual sex, etc.

    And the ways in which people pursue those needs are determined by a whole host of cultural factors – the prevailing social norms, the popular culture they imbibe as a child, changing fashions in the ideas of what constitutes sexual attractiveness, the sexual stimuli they’re exposed to when young.

    Don’t underestimate sexual fashions. Take a look at the women who were considered sex symbols in 1900 (the exaggerated hour-glass figures) and then look at the women who were considered sex symbols in the 1920s (slim with small breasts). Then look at sex symbols of the 1950s (huge busts) and the sex symbols of more recent times (anorexic). If ideas of female sexual desirability can change so radically then sexual attraction is clearly largely culturally determined.

  71. @prime noticer
    "Not so for adultery."

    they're trying though, with the (usual suspects) leading the effort. it's the most unnatural of all the social pathologies though, so biological resistance is highest to this. the negative biological penalty is huge.

    cheating directly affects you, so people are less likely to go for that than for celebrating homos or fat people, which mostly affects the homos and fat people, but directly affects you less.

    fat acceptance is almost as damaging as normalizing homos. making fun of fat people and being serious about it - it wasn't good natured - was a useful social mechanism that never should have gone away. yes, fat teenagers should be harassed in high school and college. fat adults should know that they're wrong, and that we don't want to see them. lose weight, fat ass. the virus was more dangerous because it more easily kills fat people since they can barely breathe.

    knowing that you're wrong when you're a deviant, by relentless negative social pressure, is how societies stay healthy. reversing those pressures, so that they're celebrated, is something you would do to wreck a society. today, we're only still applying that relentless negative social pressure on pedophiles. but not sure how long that will last.

    east asians still apply relentless negative social pressure on all these pathologies, and have more healthy societes now than western europeans. of course they don't have (those guys) constantly interfering with how they run their nations.

    Obviously you haven’t met a significant portion of young white (and actually any Westernized, of any race) women these days.

    It’s not really adultery but they have the “thank u next” mindset, quite literally. Basically, sluts, but thinking they’re empowered.

    Use the guy for his money and dick, then dump him and move onto the next one.

    Psychologically damaging for most men too. It’s not natural and we have evolved to live in a patriarchal society.

    Anyways, white people are literally disappearing from most major cities in Canada, turns out that incels, sluts, and Chads doesn’t keep the birth rate high enough to replenish the population of the next generation. Down with the matriarchy.

    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Use the guy for his money and dick, then dump him and move onto the next one.
     
    Does this person live in a parallel universe?
  72. @Realist

    Is sadomasochism genetic? How about necrophilia? Copreophelia? Or any other bizarre sexual activity?
     
    Most probably, why would anyone chose to do those things?

    It could just be a It could just be a psychological disorder..
     
    Why would you think a psychological disorder isn't genetic?

    My understanding is that many homosexuals have changed their ways and had normal sexual relations as well as children. This has often occurred after a religious conversion or psychological treatment.
     
    No one has answered my question why not?

    Answer this when you reached puberty do you remember trying to decide where you wanted to stick your dick for sexual pleasure???

    Answer this when you reached puberty do you remember trying to decide where you wanted to stick your dick for sexual pleasure???

    When you’re hitting puberty everything about sex is confusing and frightening. It is incredibly easy to influence adolescents. I think many many adolescents have had the thought of being homosexual or bisexual occur to them at least for a moment. Girls in particular form intense emotional friendships with other girls, which lesbians can easily manipulate.

    Adolescents desperately want to conform. If they live in a society like ours in which homosexuality is rewarded while heterosexuality is frowned upon they can be pressured into “experimenting” and can get sucked into the glamorous homosexual lifestyle.

    So yes, I can remember confronting the question. I very quickly decided that it was girls I was interested in but yes the question did briefly occur to me.

    Maybe you’re one of the lucky ones who was always certain. But if just one in five adolescents goes through a period of uncertainty and there are massive pressures to adopt homosexuality then some proportion of that number will be manoeuvred into the homosexual lifestyle and we’ll see exactly what we have seen in the past half century – a large increase in the number of people adopting homosexuality.

    • Replies: @Realist

    I think many many adolescents have had the thought of being homosexual or bisexual occur to them at least for a moment.
     
    Never happened to me...I never had any interest in boys or men as sex partners.

    So yes, I can remember confronting the question. I very quickly decided that it was girls I was interested in but yes the question did briefly occur to me.
     
    Perhaps you're bisexual...you should give it a try...from your past posts I think it would suit you.
  73. @Realist

    Twin studies suggest genetic predisposition but not predetermination. Monozygotic twin concordance for homosexuality is about 50%, whereas obesity concordance is 70-80%.
     
    One can decide to not act upon a homosexual predisposition, by not having sex at all...but no one decides to be homosexual. Also due to the stigma...one can lie about their homosexual proclivities. It is not always obvious if someone is homosexual...but it is obvious if they are fat.
    My question is still valid.

    Think about the theory of genetic selection and how genes even *predisposing* (nonetheless strongly *forcing*) someone toward being gay would affect fitness to see why the idea of a genetic basis for homosexuality is retarded. Or just look up Greg Cochran’s explanation, it’s about a paragraph long.

    And if you think the asinine “gay uncle” theory is enough to handwave away the obvious destruction of reproductive fitness, you are not a serious person (other than maybe seriously retarded).

    • Replies: @Realist

    Think about the theory of genetic selection and how genes even *predisposing* (nonetheless strongly *forcing*) someone toward being gay would affect fitness to see why the idea of a genetic basis for homosexuality is retarded. Or just look up Greg Cochran’s explanation, it’s about a paragraph long.
     
    The dumbass statement above tells me you know nothing of genetics.

    I notice you have ignored my question, like all the others who have commented on my replies.

    Answer this when you reached puberty do you remember trying to decide where you wanted to stick your dick for sexual pleasure???
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Think about the theory of genetic selection and how genes even *predisposing* (nonetheless strongly *forcing*) someone toward being gay would affect fitness to see why the idea of a genetic basis for homosexuality is retarded.
     
    Not necessarily. The disgust at normal sex could be dealt with by frequent pregnancies, thus leading this minority to breed at a faster rate than the norm. I know one family where this happened; mamma came out after five children, more than all but one of her siblings. Nothing discourages frequent sexual activity like frequent pregnancy.


    Remember, in normal societies (i.e., not ours), everyone is expected to marry and produce children. Religious life, which is difficult, is the one exception. And it's not available to Protestants, Jews, or Moslems.
  74. @dfordoom

    I’d say that gender-bending showed up most powerfully in the genre of pop.
     

    I don’t think that it is something that flipped in single a year.
     
    It was happening in a major way in pop music from the beginning of the 70s. There were signs of it in the late 60s.

    Pro-homosexual propaganda in movies started in 1961, with the British movie Victim and the American lesbian movie The Children's Hour. Both mainstream movies with major stars (Dirk Bogarde in Victim and Audrey Hepburn and Shirley MacLaine in The Children's Hour.

    Casual sex and even adultery were being normalised in movies even in the 1950s. Hollywood had already decided that the Production Code was going to be abandoned by that time. When Stanley Kubrick made Lolita in 1962 the studio simply ignored the Production Code. Sue Lyon was fifteen when the movie was made and she was promoted aggressively as a sex symbol.

    The Sexual Revolution and the Cultural Revolution started in the 1950s. They were not created by the Boomers. Both the Sexual Revolution and the broader Cultural Revolution were products of the Silent Generation. You could argue (and I would argue) that both revolutions were already unstoppable well before the Boomers started to have any influence on pop culture.

    It's also worth remembering that the Baby Boom was a temporary blip from 1946 to around 1955. By the late 50s birth rates were plummeting.

    The idea that the 1950s was the wholesome Leave It To Beaver era is an illusion. The fact that social attitudes seemed to be conservative was a result of the lingering influence of earlier generations. There was nothing socially conservative about the Silent Generation.

    It was happening in a major way in pop music from the beginning of the 70s. There were signs of it in the late 60s.

    Yes, I agree, it was earlier than the ’80s – they are just the most egregious example.

    When Stanley Kubrick made Lolita in 1962 the studio simply ignored the Production Code.

    It’s a pretty interesting phenomenon how censorship law was skirted and flouted, for years, before it was finally dropped.

    I think censorship may just be a necessary part of civilization. When you have creative types ideating in such and such a volume with so many platforms, they will naturally outcompete each other when it comes to smut and other anti-civilizational ideas. I’ve said it before, but I think that it’s in their nature, when it comes to personality factors. Mozart’s music was sublime, but he wrote dirty ditties too.

    Perhaps, it is odd to deal in Indian analogies, but I think we may need a censorship caste, to deal with our artistic caste. In theory, you could find people who had a strong disgust reflex and a strong sense of morality – test and screen them scientifically. Of course, good censorship is a fine line to walk. I don’t believe the Chinese system is a perfect one.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I think censorship may just be a necessary part of civilization.
     
    Probably. I'm starting to think that the mistake that has usually been made with censorship is that it has focused too much on pornography. Porn is not the main threat and may not even be a threat at all. The real problem is the content of mainstream popular culture (and to a lesser extent high culture). It's mainstream popular culture that attracts people with an agenda and that has the potential to do real harm.

    Will and Grace was more socially destructive than Debbie Does Dallas. Magazines like Cosmopolitan and Teen Vogue have probably done more harm than Penthouse. Teen Vogue promotes destructive behaviour in young women (such as their promotion of anal sex). Penthouse just offers pictures of naked women. I'd be more worried about youngsters reading Teen Vogue than Penthouse.

    Mainstream popular culture is the battlefield that matters in the Culture War.
  75. @Rosie

    Which is why I don’t plan on teaching my sons the airbrushed version of history.
     
    They're going to see the dirty laundry anyway. It might as well be while they're still under your tutelage. That's how I see it, anyway.

    And it’s an issue of trust; they are either going to believe you lied to them or that you were too ignorant to know any better – not a good place to be unless you want to lose your place of authority.
    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    And it’s an issue of trust; they are either going to believe you lied to them or that you were too ignorant to know any better – not a good place to be unless you want to lose your place of authority.
    Peace.
     
    So true. I always wonder what other homeschool moms are thinking when they don't teach their kids about evolution. They're going to hear about it, anyway and now they're more likely to agree with their professors about how dumb and anti-science Christian's are.

    Even worse, you have now given the idea more power than it deserves, because you're saying that if it's true, theism and/or the Bible is probably false a la Richard Dawkins. In reality, it is the materialist worldview that lives or dies hy Darwinism, not theism.
  76. @Talha
    Look, I totally get why people are frustrated with the nonsense narrative that whites or Europeans are "the most evilest people on the planet ever!!!", but responding to that with a narrative that "Europeans dindu nuffin' and it was always Da Joos'" is just not going to get anywhere unless you are dealing with people who don't really have a good grasp of history.

    Look, I totally get why people are frustrated with the nonsense narrative that whites or Europeans are “the most evilest people on the planet ever!!!”, but responding to that with a narrative that “Europeans dindu nuffin’ and it was always Da Joos’” is just not going to get anywhere unless you are dealing with people who don’t really have a good grasp of history.

    To imagine that the white southern gentry, who greatly outnumbered their Jewish counterparts, had the institutions of chattel slavery, sharecropping, and Jim Crow imposed upon them against their will is a dizzying spin, to say the least.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  77. Anonymous[271] • Disclaimer says:

    One of the landmark achievements of _Hells Angels_ by H. S. Thompson, 1967, was his chronicle of how the American option of Hells Angels went from an entirely realistic “dangerous biker outlaws” to a romantic view of a “fascinating subculture” in a very few years during the mid 1960s (see laughing audience in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccyu44rsaZo). Same phenomenon as the homosexuals, only sooner.
    Murray Leinster, of all authors, probably described it best and first in “Pirates of Zan”, 159: the society of a particular isolated planet was so advanced that its inhabitant’s main problem was finding better tranquilizers so they could tolerate the boredom. Pirates were seen as a diversion.
    Most people aren’t homosexuals, and couldn’t be. Most people can be adulterers. I think that’s the difference — homosexuals are seen as arms length entertainment, like a TV actor, but adulterers are seen as an internal threat, something bad that the perceiver could actually become.

  78. @Talha

    Unlike the Arab-African slave trade, which simply arose from Muslim raiders attacking African villagers and stealing the people because they believed they had an Allah-given right to do so, the African-Atlantic slave trade arose from more complex situations.
     
    There is little reason this is credible. Many of the same reasons why the Atlantic slave trade arose are why the Arab slave trade arose.

    In fact, Africans were often far better in warding off Muslim attacks than even the Persians and the Byzantines. The Nubians stopped - completely - the attacks on Christian Nubia and entered into a long-standing "baqt" with the Muslim rulers of Egypt in which they would supply an X number of slaves.

    Also, slaves were a normal part of the economy in West Africa and many of the indigenous black- Muslim kingdoms that arose there had plenty of slaves. Not only that, they themselves (the rich ones) would purchase Arab and Turkish slaves (anything from soldiers to concubines) and bring them back to West Africa.

    The reason that slaves flowed in any particular direction in that part of the world was a reflection on which society/empire/people were the alpha. Slaves always flowed toward the alpha society; when it was Rome or Byzantium, that's where they went to fetch the most coin.

    You can read up on all of this stuff in one of the best (and probably defining) books on the matter:
    https://www.amazon.com/Islams-Black-Slaves-Other-Diaspora/dp/0374527970

    As far as European slave trade, it was also economic in nature and had religious overtones. We have papal bulls all the way back to the mid-15th century authorizing slave raids:
    “We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso—to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery.”
    http://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/african_laborers_for_a_new_emp/pope_nicolas_v_and_the_portugu

    Note that the coastal raids avoided the North African Muslim kingdoms who were far too powerful in naval terms to be able to pull anything off against them - more than likely, the raiders would have ended up in slave markets themselves. So they went all the way down the coast to sub-Saharan Africa hoping to have easy pickings, they were...disappointed (from the same source as above):
    “Early raids such as the one made by Gonçalvez and Tristão in 1441 were unusual, and may have only been possible because the Portuguese had never previously raided south of Cape Bojador. Portuguese mariners soon learned that inhabitants along the Upper Guinea coast were more than capable of defending themselves from such incursions. Not long after his 1441 voyage, Tristão and most of his crew were killed off the coast of present-day Senegal.”

    Europeans learned that it was much easier - and far less dangerous - to just let the Africans do the slave raiding among themselves (they were far more formidable than the natives in the New World) and exchange them on the market for the goods as you outlined.

    The New World destroyed for Jewish profits.
     
    (Sigh) Yes Jews were often outsized (for their numbers) as middlemen in the slave trade (in various regions and at various times and made plenty of money in it), but are you seriously trying to say that Europeans didn't profit massively from the slave plantation economy? And it was all the fault of Jews? Are you saying the Jews owned most of those plantations?

    Peace.

    Europeans learned that it was much easier – and far less dangerous – to just let the Africans do the slave raiding among themselves (they were far more formidable than the natives in the New World) and exchange them on the market for the goods as you outlined.

    I wouldn’t have liked to come up against an Aztec or Inca Army that had received all its shots. Similarly, Europeans used to drop dead, once they got into the tropics – it’s pretty unbelievable until you read accounts, where like 9 out of 10 guys died. I think Arabs were actually a bit different, somewhat adapted to tropical diseases. IMO, that is how a guy like Ibn Batutta (though he was a Berber) got around so widely, without dropping dead – good immune genes for traveling.

    • Replies: @Talha

    I wouldn’t have liked to come up against an Aztec or Inca Army that had received all its shots.
     
    Sure. The thing about the Africans in the West coast of Africa, especially the Sene-Gambia area was that they had exposure to other militaries. Most of the major empires there were run by Muslims. They were purchasing Turkish and Mamluk slave soldiers by the 14th century (Mansa Musa’s own personal guard was said to have been comprised of Turks he bought on his trip to Hajj) and past that time you could even find European sailors enslaved in the Mediterranean and sold all the way down even south of Timbuktu. Aztecs and Incas were certainly formidable on their isolated continents. When you are capturing other people and sacrificing them at will as slaves...well, there’s little doubt you’re the alpha society in your neck of the woods.

    a guy like Ibn Batutta (though he was a Berber) got around so widely, without dropping dead – good immune genes for traveling.
     
    Never thought of that; yeah, it’s pretty amazing how far he traveled with dying of local diseases. I think highway robbers almost did him in a couple of times, if I recall correctly.

    Peace.

    , @anon
    I wouldn’t have liked to come up against an Aztec or Inca Army that had received all its shots.

    Sigh.

    I guess that proves you aren't Cortes or Pizarro?

    In the classic book Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Diaz Castillo there are first person accounts of fighting between the Spanish and the Aztecs, in particular the battle of the causeways. The Spanish got in a big street fight in Tenochticlan and were very outnumbered, so they had to fight their way out of the city, across bridges, in the dark. The Aztecs at that point were very much not at all ill. Just because the were fighting with stone weapons it doesn't follow they weren't tough; Bernal Diaz personally saw a horse decapitated by an Aztec with one swipe of his weapon. Spaniards in armor who fell or were pushed off of the causeway had zero chance [1].

    Only later did smallpox take a terrible toll on the Aztecs as well as those Indians who had allied with the Spanish. Mass death in Tenochticlan made it uninhabitable and the Spanish were able to capture the royals as they attempted to escape across the lake in small boats.

    Pizarro's expedition arrived in the land of the Inca right after a civil war had been fought to decide who was in charge. The Inca empire army was very much good to go. But by taking the Inca hostage, right after their war of succession, Pizarro paralyzed that empire long enough to buy time. Again disease played a role, but only later.



    [1] Some years ago excavations in Mexico City for construction turned up a rusted piece of metal that turned out to be historically significant. It was shaped kind of like a shell. Long story short, some greedy Conquistador had poured molten gold into one shoulder piece of his armor and possibly other parts as well. The gold was intact, of course, with the remains of rusty armor around it. Maybe he got smart and shucked his armor in the dark, but probably not. Greed had its price.
  79. anon[124] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    In times past, a married woman might turn a blind eye to her husband visiting prostitutes or even keeping a mistress because he wasn’t going to leave her for a floozy and she didn’t want to go through life perpetually pregnant. Marriage and family in general were first and foremost practical institutions. Now, with the emphasis on love, adultery is far less tolerated.
     
    Yes.

    An enormous social change that happened in the first half of the 20th century and is usually ignored is the rise of the Cult of Romantic Love. The whole Love Conquers All thing. It was a radical change - marriage was no longer seen as being about raising children. Marriage came to be seen as being all about love and sex.

    There were various forces pushing this change but Hollywood was the biggest and most powerful of those forces. Hollywood was pushing this change aggressively back in the 1920s.

    An enormous social change that happened in the first half of the 20th century and is usually ignored is the rise of the Cult of Romantic Love.

    That cult goes back to the 14th century. It’s deeply embedded in western civ.

    It was a radical change – marriage was no longer seen as being about raising children. Marriage came to be seen as being all about love and sex.

    That and child support. The child-support model of “family” makes single mommyhood very viable.

    • Replies: @dfordoom


    An enormous social change that happened in the first half of the 20th century and is usually ignored is the rise of the Cult of Romantic Love.
     
    That cult goes back to the 14th century. It’s deeply embedded in western civ.
     
    I assume you're referring to the concept of Courtly Love which was more of an aristocratic ideal than a reality. The notion of romantic love has certainly been around for a long time but in practice, until the early 20th century, it was something most people read about in books and poetry or saw on the stage. It certainly existed as an ideal though. The change was that in the 20th century it was suddenly something that everyone was entitled to.
  80. @songbird

    Europeans learned that it was much easier – and far less dangerous – to just let the Africans do the slave raiding among themselves (they were far more formidable than the natives in the New World) and exchange them on the market for the goods as you outlined.
     
    I wouldn't have liked to come up against an Aztec or Inca Army that had received all its shots. Similarly, Europeans used to drop dead, once they got into the tropics - it's pretty unbelievable until you read accounts, where like 9 out of 10 guys died. I think Arabs were actually a bit different, somewhat adapted to tropical diseases. IMO, that is how a guy like Ibn Batutta (though he was a Berber) got around so widely, without dropping dead - good immune genes for traveling.

    I wouldn’t have liked to come up against an Aztec or Inca Army that had received all its shots.

    Sure. The thing about the Africans in the West coast of Africa, especially the Sene-Gambia area was that they had exposure to other militaries. Most of the major empires there were run by Muslims. They were purchasing Turkish and Mamluk slave soldiers by the 14th century (Mansa Musa’s own personal guard was said to have been comprised of Turks he bought on his trip to Hajj) and past that time you could even find European sailors enslaved in the Mediterranean and sold all the way down even south of Timbuktu. Aztecs and Incas were certainly formidable on their isolated continents. When you are capturing other people and sacrificing them at will as slaves…well, there’s little doubt you’re the alpha society in your neck of the woods.

    a guy like Ibn Batutta (though he was a Berber) got around so widely, without dropping dead – good immune genes for traveling.

    Never thought of that; yeah, it’s pretty amazing how far he traveled with dying of local diseases. I think highway robbers almost did him in a couple of times, if I recall correctly.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Talha
    **without dying**
    , @songbird

    I think highway robbers almost did him in a couple of times, if I recall correctly.
     
    Sometimes, I like to fantasize about where I would go, if I had a time-machine - just to explore, and maybe record things that weren't recorded. Probably, the reality is that a person with a time-machine would be killed by robbers at the first fork in the rode or caught in some war and killed for not speaking the language, or die of plague, smallpox, or flux.
  81. @Rosie

    It was a radical change – marriage was no longer seen as being about raising children. Marriage came to be seen as being all about love and sex.
     
    I see the unitive and procreative purposes of marriage as inseparable from each other, don't you?

    I see the unitive and procreative purposes of marriage as inseparable from each other, don’t you?

    Very Catholic of you.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Very Catholic of you.
     
    I take wisdom from wherever I can find it. I'm not particular as to where it comes from.
  82. anon[124] • Disclaimer says:
    @songbird

    Europeans learned that it was much easier – and far less dangerous – to just let the Africans do the slave raiding among themselves (they were far more formidable than the natives in the New World) and exchange them on the market for the goods as you outlined.
     
    I wouldn't have liked to come up against an Aztec or Inca Army that had received all its shots. Similarly, Europeans used to drop dead, once they got into the tropics - it's pretty unbelievable until you read accounts, where like 9 out of 10 guys died. I think Arabs were actually a bit different, somewhat adapted to tropical diseases. IMO, that is how a guy like Ibn Batutta (though he was a Berber) got around so widely, without dropping dead - good immune genes for traveling.

    I wouldn’t have liked to come up against an Aztec or Inca Army that had received all its shots.

    Sigh.

    I guess that proves you aren’t Cortes or Pizarro?

    In the classic book Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Diaz Castillo there are first person accounts of fighting between the Spanish and the Aztecs, in particular the battle of the causeways. The Spanish got in a big street fight in Tenochticlan and were very outnumbered, so they had to fight their way out of the city, across bridges, in the dark. The Aztecs at that point were very much not at all ill. Just because the were fighting with stone weapons it doesn’t follow they weren’t tough; Bernal Diaz personally saw a horse decapitated by an Aztec with one swipe of his weapon. Spaniards in armor who fell or were pushed off of the causeway had zero chance [1].

    Only later did smallpox take a terrible toll on the Aztecs as well as those Indians who had allied with the Spanish. Mass death in Tenochticlan made it uninhabitable and the Spanish were able to capture the royals as they attempted to escape across the lake in small boats.

    Pizarro’s expedition arrived in the land of the Inca right after a civil war had been fought to decide who was in charge. The Inca empire army was very much good to go. But by taking the Inca hostage, right after their war of succession, Pizarro paralyzed that empire long enough to buy time. Again disease played a role, but only later.

    [1] Some years ago excavations in Mexico City for construction turned up a rusted piece of metal that turned out to be historically significant. It was shaped kind of like a shell. Long story short, some greedy Conquistador had poured molten gold into one shoulder piece of his armor and possibly other parts as well. The gold was intact, of course, with the remains of rusty armor around it. Maybe he got smart and shucked his armor in the dark, but probably not. Greed had its price.

    • Replies: @songbird

    I guess that proves you aren’t Cortes or Pizarro?
     
    The Conquistadors were very remarkable men in some ways. They're not to be imitated today - nobody is that tough or daring. Might have been easier to find similar people back then - but they where still rare men.

    I think without disease the Aztecs would have regrouped. Or it's possible the Spanish would have been defeated by their allies. There's a limit to what a small group of men can do, even with relatively more advanced arms and armor.

    Pizarro paralyzed that empire long enough to buy time. Again disease played a role, but only later.
     
    Pretty sure you are wrong here. The action in Peru happened later. Disease was a part of their civil war, by most accounts I've read.
  83. @UK
    The rule seems to be that if the NYT makes someone here feel guilty about something then they just fantasise that the Jews actually did it.

    Of course, it would be much more accurate to point out that slavery was barely distinguishable from the way a lot of slaves lived and that anyway, on first contact, it would be a truly prescient man indeed who would discern that completely different looking natives were actually equals to themselves in dignity.

    If someone has no TV, no photos and no concept of what a person of another race actually is, then it can hardly be shocking when they don't assume they have an equal collection of human rights. Nevermind if those peoples already practice slavery on a mass scale. It'd be like blaming a 1900s doctor for reccomending their patients smoke...ok, they were wrong, but situations can make good people make bad decisions not just through only providing bad options but also through genuine 100% naïve ignorance.

    slavery was barely distinguishable from the way a lot of slaves lived and that anyway

    Well it certainly depends. Some slaves sold to Westerners were also slaves in their native lands and they simply switched masters. Others could come from noble families who were educated and could read and write. If they were fortunate, their masters would recognize their capabilities:
    “In this remarkable work, Terry Alford tells the story of Abd al Rahman Ibrahima, a Muslim slave who, in 1807, was recognized by an Irish ship’s surgeon as the son of an African king who had saved his life many years earlier. “The Prince,” as he had become known to local Natchez, Mississippi residents, had been captured in war when he was 26 years old, sold to slave traders, and shipped to America. Slave though he was, Ibrahima was an educated, aristocratic man, and he was made overseer of the large cotton and tobacco plantation of his master, who refused to sell him to the doctor for any price.”
    https://global.oup.com/academic/product/prince-among-slaves-9780195320459?cc=us&lang=en&#

    “Ayuba Suleiman Diallo was an educated man from a family of Muslim clerics in West Africa. In 1731 he was taken into slavery and sent to work on a plantation in America. By his own enterprise, and assisted by a series of spectacular strokes of fortune, Diallo arrived in London in 1733. Recognised as a deeply pious and educated man, in England Diallo mixed with high and intellectual society, was introduced at Court and was bought out of slavery by public subscription.”
    https://www.npg.org.uk/whatson/display/2011/ayuba-suleiman-diallo.php

    Peace.

  84. @Talha

    I wouldn’t have liked to come up against an Aztec or Inca Army that had received all its shots.
     
    Sure. The thing about the Africans in the West coast of Africa, especially the Sene-Gambia area was that they had exposure to other militaries. Most of the major empires there were run by Muslims. They were purchasing Turkish and Mamluk slave soldiers by the 14th century (Mansa Musa’s own personal guard was said to have been comprised of Turks he bought on his trip to Hajj) and past that time you could even find European sailors enslaved in the Mediterranean and sold all the way down even south of Timbuktu. Aztecs and Incas were certainly formidable on their isolated continents. When you are capturing other people and sacrificing them at will as slaves...well, there’s little doubt you’re the alpha society in your neck of the woods.

    a guy like Ibn Batutta (though he was a Berber) got around so widely, without dropping dead – good immune genes for traveling.
     
    Never thought of that; yeah, it’s pretty amazing how far he traveled with dying of local diseases. I think highway robbers almost did him in a couple of times, if I recall correctly.

    Peace.

    **without dying**

  85. @Realist

    I agree. The evidence that homosexuality is genetic is very very very shaky indeed.
     
    Answer this when you reached puberty do you remember trying to decide where you wanted to stick your dick for sexual pleasure???

    I think you have it ass backwards as it were.
    It’s not where you want to stick your dick, it’s where you want Biff to stick his dick.
    The old saying is for every pitcher there’s 80 catchers.
    A lot of men given the right environment would stick their dicks in any orifice that presents itself.
    A lot of those same men, on the other hand, would not easily submit to switching positions.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    The old saying is for every pitcher there’s 80 catchers.
     
    It's no wonder that AIDS went through San Francisco like wildfire.
    , @Realist

    A lot of men given the right environment would stick their dicks in any orifice that presents itself.
     
    Your supposition is groundless...a citation would be nice.
  86. @EliteCommInc.
    I think some of you have missed what the chart is actually noting.


    It is not an assessment of whether or not one has strayed from marriage one's vows (and in this case that is the general understanding.)


    It notes the ethical disposition of such behavior. Having crossed that line in y view --- I can say with certainty, it is a line not to be crossed and is always wrong. The major difference between people pf faith and the run of the mill liberal is that people pf faith will note a wrong, even if they have done so and reject the liberal attempt to make them out as hypocrites by condoning, making exceptions, for the same.

    That's a key difference and the liberals favorite trap --

    "see you did it too"


    Snore. When I was a kid I would on occasion steal one of those glow in the dark ghosts from the piggly wiggly --- it was wrong then - it's wrong wrong. The fact that one actually id a wrong does not male them a hypocrite per se -- it's the attempt to ameliorate excuse or condone the act.

    One of the destructive past times of people seeking to dampen the power of faith is to engage in libelous and slanderous communication thinking that some aspect of truth therefore makes the libel acceptable - it is not.


    So many word traps at play -- like the gambit used by liberals to equate desire with lust -- they are not the same thing -- close but not even a whiff of smoke much less a cigar.


    ------------------

    "Nobody’s innocent."


    Akin to the all have sinned milk toast concept -------

    Why slavery is more egregious for westerners rests on the foundations of established in scripture as well as the western ethos established on the dignity of of humans as something inherent in their being. By nature or by God --- and the US those ethos are damning on the issue of slavery. No amount of but they it to will survive scrutiny nor justify what the country did to indentured servants and worse to blacks ---


    I was reading an article in TAC about some fond memories of southern private schooling --- back slapping as it did all it could to justify the matter of violating the law to benefit one set of citizens over another. Sad and saddening.

    Quite surprising too many that blacks routinely are at the top of the ladder on issues concerning the some basic principles of value. Slavery was wrong then when it was made legal as it was before it was legal and its wrong now based on its practices. And no one needs a modern lens to condemn the matter. The lens of the time condemns in plain language -- of the ethic of the day.

    I think some of you have missed what the chart is actually noting.

    It is not an assessment of whether or not one has strayed from marriage one’s vows (and in this case that is the general understanding.)

    It notes the ethical disposition of such behavior.

    Hypocrisy is much misunderstood. A hypocritical society is one in which people know the difference between right and wrong but often fall short of their own ideals. A non-hypocritical society is one in which people do not know the difference between right and wrong and have no ideals at all.

    It’s like the difference between “I screwed my wife’s best friend but I’m sorry I did it and I’ll try not to do it again” and “So I screwed my wife’s best friend. Big deal.” Which is more morally reprehensible?

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    A hypocritical society is one in which people know the difference between right and wrong but often fall short of their own ideals.
     
    No, this is not quite correct. What you are describing is simply sin and weakness. It is incumbent upon everyone to know the moral law, and since much of it is accessible through the use of natural reason, there is not any excuse for not knowing it. However, we are also fallen creatures and often sin through weakness. To know what is morally right and, in our moment of temptation, to chose what is wrong, is very common and is not in and of itself hypocrisy.

    Hypocrisy properly so called is the specific act of condemning another according to a standard that one does not apply to oneself. If I commit adultery, I have sinned. If a woman commits adultery, she has sinned. If I, knowing myself guilty of the same sin, pick up a stone to throw at her and make a pretense of righteous indignation without first condemning my own self, then I add hypocrisy on top of adultery.
  87. @Rosie

    It was a radical change – marriage was no longer seen as being about raising children. Marriage came to be seen as being all about love and sex.
     
    I see the unitive and procreative purposes of marriage as inseparable from each other, don't you?

    I see the unitive and procreative purposes of marriage as inseparable from each other, don’t you?

    What we might think isn’t the point. Until the early 20th century marriage was about child-raising, and if you were lucky you got emotional bonding as well. Some married couples ended up deeply in love but that was something that generally developed after marriage, not before.

    But marriage was not primarily about sex, or about some idealised notion of Romantic Love. And if a husband strayed it was not necessarily seen as the end of the world, if he only strayed in search of sex.

    There were important class differences as well. For the upper classes marriage was a financial arrangement with the emphasis being on family interests rather than personal interests. For the lower classes marriage was an economic necessity.

    From the early 20th century onwards marriage has been seen as being about some awesome mystical union of souls and about overwhelming romantic love which is generally seen as being primarily about sexual bliss.

    I’m not suggesting one of these models is better or worse than the other but they are very different. It was a very big change.

  88. Homosexuality went from being disgusting to ignored to tolerated to accepted to celebrated in remarkably short order. In considerably less than a single lifespan it went from morally condemnable to morally laudable Three-in-four still view adultery that way, but the gay figure has inverted. Now three-in-four Americans view homosexuality as morally acceptable in at least some circumstances while only one-in-four view it as being inherently immoral”…but not among Blacks. A Pew poll last year showed 62% support for same-sex marriage among whites, 58% of Hispanics and only 51% of Blacks. Another Pew poll a couple of years before showed 73% of Hispanics felt homosexuality should be accepted in society & 70% of whites -but 63% of blacks agreed. And a prior 2014 Pew survey showed 47% of Whites believed homosexuality is a sin but 70% of Blacks thought so. Homosexuality has not been nearly as popular among Blacks as it has with other ethnic groups. Just ask ‘Mayor Pete’ Butthurt. So it’s probably not so surprising that Blacks should also be more opposed to other kinds of sin too, like adultery. There is a current of cultural conservatism in Black society that is often overlooked because the Jewish-dominated media chooses to focus on woke Blacks that fit their agenda. In Black Africa, almost every country has strict prohibitions against homosexuality; up to & including capital punishment. If only the “inverted” societies of the decadent West would learn from them.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    In the push for “rights”, we were told that all homosexuals wanted was “to be tolerated” and shown “respect”. Almost every decent person has no problem with that, as we are all human beings, given our individual wants, needs and proclivities.

    That is what we were told...

    The abolition of laws criminalizing homosexuality was a first step in eliminating the persecution that homosexuals endured. However, that was a BIG mistake, seeing the “liberties” that homosexuals are taking with children…and THEIR intolerance towards others who do not share their “in your face” demands to accept their “lifestyle”.

    Just recently, a 10-year-old boy was lauded by the "mainstream media" for dancing and stripping in a homosexual "strip club". Where were the boy's parents. Where was "child protective services"?

    Sad to say, “tolerance” has morphed into demands for not only “acceptance”, but deference, to the whims of homosexuals, without regards for the rights of heterosexuals with differing beliefs.

    When homosexuals purposely target a Christian-run bakery or other business, making demands for not only “acceptance”, but using the “civil-rights” laws, forcing the owner to go against his principles, THAT, my friends is tyranny, under guise of “civil-rights”.

    Using the “civil-rights” laws to force business owners into actions that go against their basic beliefs is tyranny of the highest order, and has no place in American society. It is interesting to note that, in these cases where homosexuals wanted to “prove a point”, they bypassed many bakeries who would accede to their wishes and give them what they desire.

    As an aside, muslim bakers who refused to bake homosexual-themed cakes were NOT targeted for “civil-rights” violations—double standard, indeed.

    This kind of behavior garners no favors with most decent people and furthers resolve against militant homosexuals who want not only toleration, but total “in your face” acceptance of their “lifestyle”–something that some people find that does not “square” with their beliefs.

    It appears that the success of “equal rights” for homosexuals has renewed a push to “normalize” other behaviors, such as “transsexuality”, “cross-dressing”, and other “gender fluidity” behaviors. There is even a push by pedophiles and their advocates to redefine (decriminalize and normalize) their behavior, renaming it “minor-attracted adults” rather than the perversion that it is presently defined as. The “slippery slope” started with the normalization of homosexuality, and has degenerated into the demands for acceptance of every form of human dysfunction.

    “Live and let live” used to be a staple of American society, but was eviscerated with every “protected group” using the misguided, illegal and unconstitutional "civil-rights (for some)" laws to force others to not only tolerate them, but accept them. Not good…

    “Slippery slope”, indeed…
  89. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

    Of course adultery is not OK.
    It’s the commandment between those referring to Murder and Sealing (Thou Shalt Not..).
    It’s original meaning, however, refers to race – mixing:

    Adulterate: to corrupt, debase, or make impure by the addition of a foreign or inferior substance or element

    Adultery goes completely against the natural order of things, where each is after it’s own kind.

  90. @songbird

    It was happening in a major way in pop music from the beginning of the 70s. There were signs of it in the late 60s.

     

    Yes, I agree, it was earlier than the '80s - they are just the most egregious example.

    When Stanley Kubrick made Lolita in 1962 the studio simply ignored the Production Code.
     
    It's a pretty interesting phenomenon how censorship law was skirted and flouted, for years, before it was finally dropped.

    I think censorship may just be a necessary part of civilization. When you have creative types ideating in such and such a volume with so many platforms, they will naturally outcompete each other when it comes to smut and other anti-civilizational ideas. I've said it before, but I think that it's in their nature, when it comes to personality factors. Mozart's music was sublime, but he wrote dirty ditties too.

    Perhaps, it is odd to deal in Indian analogies, but I think we may need a censorship caste, to deal with our artistic caste. In theory, you could find people who had a strong disgust reflex and a strong sense of morality - test and screen them scientifically. Of course, good censorship is a fine line to walk. I don't believe the Chinese system is a perfect one.

    I think censorship may just be a necessary part of civilization.

    Probably. I’m starting to think that the mistake that has usually been made with censorship is that it has focused too much on pornography. Porn is not the main threat and may not even be a threat at all. The real problem is the content of mainstream popular culture (and to a lesser extent high culture). It’s mainstream popular culture that attracts people with an agenda and that has the potential to do real harm.

    Will and Grace was more socially destructive than Debbie Does Dallas. Magazines like Cosmopolitan and Teen Vogue have probably done more harm than Penthouse. Teen Vogue promotes destructive behaviour in young women (such as their promotion of anal sex). Penthouse just offers pictures of naked women. I’d be more worried about youngsters reading Teen Vogue than Penthouse.

    Mainstream popular culture is the battlefield that matters in the Culture War.

    • Replies: @songbird

    Porn is not the main threat and may not even be a threat at all. The real problem is the content of mainstream popular culture
     
    I agree. It's more the trivialization than the images. To my mind, a topless beach isn't something inherently evil. The bigger danger is the proliferation of R-rated and PG-13 movies that trivialize sex, as well as TV shows.
  91. @Twinkie

    I see the unitive and procreative purposes of marriage as inseparable from each other, don’t you?
     
    Very Catholic of you.

    Very Catholic of you.

    I take wisdom from wherever I can find it. I’m not particular as to where it comes from.

  92. @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    Obviously you haven't met a significant portion of young white (and actually any Westernized, of any race) women these days.

    It's not really adultery but they have the "thank u next" mindset, quite literally. Basically, sluts, but thinking they're empowered.

    Use the guy for his money and dick, then dump him and move onto the next one.

    Psychologically damaging for most men too. It's not natural and we have evolved to live in a patriarchal society.

    Anyways, white people are literally disappearing from most major cities in Canada, turns out that incels, sluts, and Chads doesn't keep the birth rate high enough to replenish the population of the next generation. Down with the matriarchy.

    Use the guy for his money and dick, then dump him and move onto the next one.

    Does this person live in a parallel universe?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    He lives in mom’s French-Canadian basement, from which America is seen to be inundated by sexually aggressive, noncommittal women and overrun with Burmese immigrants.
    , @Truth
    Lol. I wondered if you or Aldey was going to tackle this one first..
  93. @Rosie

    Use the guy for his money and dick, then dump him and move onto the next one.
     
    Does this person live in a parallel universe?

    He lives in mom’s French-Canadian basement, from which America is seen to be inundated by sexually aggressive, noncommittal women and overrun with Burmese immigrants.

    • Replies: @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    Lol, no, you're just bluepilled and delusional about the nature of women and modern dating.
  94. @anon
    An enormous social change that happened in the first half of the 20th century and is usually ignored is the rise of the Cult of Romantic Love.

    That cult goes back to the 14th century. It's deeply embedded in western civ.

    It was a radical change – marriage was no longer seen as being about raising children. Marriage came to be seen as being all about love and sex.

    That and child support. The child-support model of "family" makes single mommyhood very viable.

    An enormous social change that happened in the first half of the 20th century and is usually ignored is the rise of the Cult of Romantic Love.

    That cult goes back to the 14th century. It’s deeply embedded in western civ.

    I assume you’re referring to the concept of Courtly Love which was more of an aristocratic ideal than a reality. The notion of romantic love has certainly been around for a long time but in practice, until the early 20th century, it was something most people read about in books and poetry or saw on the stage. It certainly existed as an ideal though. The change was that in the 20th century it was suddenly something that everyone was entitled to.

    • Replies: @iffen
    It certainly existed as an ideal though. The change was that in the 20th century it was suddenly something that everyone was entitled to.

    For some reason, when nobility and the upper classes do it, it's not that big of a deal. Have an advanced industrial economy when almost everyone can do it--suddenly it's the end of time.
    , @anon
    I assume you’re referring to the concept of Courtly Love which was more of an aristocratic ideal than a reality.

    The cult of Courtly Love is all about adultery, in a genteel fashion, and it is the antecedent of the modern concept that love essentially sacralizes sex. Not marriage, love, as in "true love of soulmates". The various stories of Arthurian legend eventually wind up at the same place: the love of a knight and his married to someone else lady is a kind of sacred bond.

    In modern terms, to quote Emily Dickenson:
    'The Heart wants what it wants - or else it does not care' .

    The notion of romantic love has certainly been around for a long time but in practice, until the early 20th century, it was something most people read about in books and poetry or saw on the stage. It certainly existed as an ideal though. The change was that in the 20th century it was suddenly something that everyone was entitled to.

    Not entitled to per se, but when / if it happens it must be followed.

    20th century marriage is all about the love, in fact the love must precede the marriage - and thus make the fornication before marriage sort of sacralized. Plus if the love goes and the woman becomes unhaaaaapy then the marriage can be discarded, along with the husband. The children are valuable for cash and prizes, so she gets those. Plus if she's still in her 30's to lower 40's she can search for another True Love Soul Mate.

    The Cult of Courtly love is alive and well not only in modern entertainments but in most churches.

  95. @dfordoom


    An enormous social change that happened in the first half of the 20th century and is usually ignored is the rise of the Cult of Romantic Love.
     
    That cult goes back to the 14th century. It’s deeply embedded in western civ.
     
    I assume you're referring to the concept of Courtly Love which was more of an aristocratic ideal than a reality. The notion of romantic love has certainly been around for a long time but in practice, until the early 20th century, it was something most people read about in books and poetry or saw on the stage. It certainly existed as an ideal though. The change was that in the 20th century it was suddenly something that everyone was entitled to.

    It certainly existed as an ideal though. The change was that in the 20th century it was suddenly something that everyone was entitled to.

    For some reason, when nobility and the upper classes do it, it’s not that big of a deal. Have an advanced industrial economy when almost everyone can do it–suddenly it’s the end of time.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    For some reason, when nobility and the upper classes do it, it’s not that big of a deal. Have an advanced industrial economy when almost everyone can do it–suddenly it’s the end of time.
     
    In the past when the nobility and the upper classes did things it had little effect on the rest of society. Each class had its own attitudes, social mores and even sexual vices of which the other classes knew nothing. The upper class had no idea how the lower classes lived or thought; the lower class had no idea how the upper class lived or thought.

    Mass literacy and mass entertainment changed all that. Everybody got to share the same attitudes, social mores and sexual vices.
  96. @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    Think about the theory of genetic selection and how genes even *predisposing* (nonetheless strongly *forcing*) someone toward being gay would affect fitness to see why the idea of a genetic basis for homosexuality is retarded. Or just look up Greg Cochran's explanation, it's about a paragraph long.

    And if you think the asinine "gay uncle" theory is enough to handwave away the obvious destruction of reproductive fitness, you are not a serious person (other than maybe seriously retarded).

    Think about the theory of genetic selection and how genes even *predisposing* (nonetheless strongly *forcing*) someone toward being gay would affect fitness to see why the idea of a genetic basis for homosexuality is retarded. Or just look up Greg Cochran’s explanation, it’s about a paragraph long.

    The dumbass statement above tells me you know nothing of genetics.

    I notice you have ignored my question, like all the others who have commented on my replies.

    Answer this when you reached puberty do you remember trying to decide where you wanted to stick your dick for sexual pleasure???

  97. @Twinkie
    He lives in mom’s French-Canadian basement, from which America is seen to be inundated by sexually aggressive, noncommittal women and overrun with Burmese immigrants.

    Lol, no, you’re just bluepilled and delusional about the nature of women and modern dating.

    • Replies: @Toronto Russian
    I guess only the girls you think are hot exist in your world, and you're into the flashiest ones.

    This is normal when you're very young, or foreign. Like when tourists believe East Slavic countries are populated with supermodels and gold-diggers. They see what they're interested in, and the body of the iceberg (not even the ugly, but the girl-next-door types without "beauty enhancements") goes completely unnoticed.

    If there's a characteristic I'd give to average Canadian women I meet, it's simplicity and softness, not bitchy manipulativeness.
  98. @iffen
    It certainly existed as an ideal though. The change was that in the 20th century it was suddenly something that everyone was entitled to.

    For some reason, when nobility and the upper classes do it, it's not that big of a deal. Have an advanced industrial economy when almost everyone can do it--suddenly it's the end of time.

    For some reason, when nobility and the upper classes do it, it’s not that big of a deal. Have an advanced industrial economy when almost everyone can do it–suddenly it’s the end of time.

    In the past when the nobility and the upper classes did things it had little effect on the rest of society. Each class had its own attitudes, social mores and even sexual vices of which the other classes knew nothing. The upper class had no idea how the lower classes lived or thought; the lower class had no idea how the upper class lived or thought.

    Mass literacy and mass entertainment changed all that. Everybody got to share the same attitudes, social mores and sexual vices.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    In the past when the nobility and the upper classes did things it had little effect on the rest of society. Each class had its own attitudes, social mores and even sexual vices of which the other classes knew nothing. The upper class had no idea how the lower classes lived or thought; the lower class had no idea how the upper class lived or thought.
     
    There is certainly some truth in this, and I'm still trying to sort out whether it's good or bad. Champagne socialism, frankly going all the way back to Marx himself, used to be a real thing. The upper classes romanticized the working class as much the working class romanticized the upper classes. That seems to be over now. Of course, Jewish influence is the elephant in the room, but increased familiarity and associated contempt may also be a major factor.
  99. @Rosie

    Use the guy for his money and dick, then dump him and move onto the next one.
     
    Does this person live in a parallel universe?

    Lol. I wondered if you or Aldey was going to tackle this one first..

  100. @Talha
    And it’s an issue of trust; they are either going to believe you lied to them or that you were too ignorant to know any better - not a good place to be unless you want to lose your place of authority.
    Peace.

    And it’s an issue of trust; they are either going to believe you lied to them or that you were too ignorant to know any better – not a good place to be unless you want to lose your place of authority.
    Peace.

    So true. I always wonder what other homeschool moms are thinking when they don’t teach their kids about evolution. They’re going to hear about it, anyway and now they’re more likely to agree with their professors about how dumb and anti-science Christian’s are.

    Even worse, you have now given the idea more power than it deserves, because you’re saying that if it’s true, theism and/or the Bible is probably false a la Richard Dawkins. In reality, it is the materialist worldview that lives or dies hy Darwinism, not theism.

  101. @dfordoom

    I think some of you have missed what the chart is actually noting.

    It is not an assessment of whether or not one has strayed from marriage one’s vows (and in this case that is the general understanding.)

    It notes the ethical disposition of such behavior.
     
    Hypocrisy is much misunderstood. A hypocritical society is one in which people know the difference between right and wrong but often fall short of their own ideals. A non-hypocritical society is one in which people do not know the difference between right and wrong and have no ideals at all.

    It's like the difference between "I screwed my wife's best friend but I'm sorry I did it and I'll try not to do it again" and "So I screwed my wife's best friend. Big deal." Which is more morally reprehensible?

    A hypocritical society is one in which people know the difference between right and wrong but often fall short of their own ideals.

    No, this is not quite correct. What you are describing is simply sin and weakness. It is incumbent upon everyone to know the moral law, and since much of it is accessible through the use of natural reason, there is not any excuse for not knowing it. However, we are also fallen creatures and often sin through weakness. To know what is morally right and, in our moment of temptation, to chose what is wrong, is very common and is not in and of itself hypocrisy.

    Hypocrisy properly so called is the specific act of condemning another according to a standard that one does not apply to oneself. If I commit adultery, I have sinned. If a woman commits adultery, she has sinned. If I, knowing myself guilty of the same sin, pick up a stone to throw at her and make a pretense of righteous indignation without first condemning my own self, then I add hypocrisy on top of adultery.

    • Agree: res
    • Replies: @res
    Well said.
  102. @dfordoom

    For some reason, when nobility and the upper classes do it, it’s not that big of a deal. Have an advanced industrial economy when almost everyone can do it–suddenly it’s the end of time.
     
    In the past when the nobility and the upper classes did things it had little effect on the rest of society. Each class had its own attitudes, social mores and even sexual vices of which the other classes knew nothing. The upper class had no idea how the lower classes lived or thought; the lower class had no idea how the upper class lived or thought.

    Mass literacy and mass entertainment changed all that. Everybody got to share the same attitudes, social mores and sexual vices.

    In the past when the nobility and the upper classes did things it had little effect on the rest of society. Each class had its own attitudes, social mores and even sexual vices of which the other classes knew nothing. The upper class had no idea how the lower classes lived or thought; the lower class had no idea how the upper class lived or thought.

    There is certainly some truth in this, and I’m still trying to sort out whether it’s good or bad. Champagne socialism, frankly going all the way back to Marx himself, used to be a real thing. The upper classes romanticized the working class as much the working class romanticized the upper classes. That seems to be over now. Of course, Jewish influence is the elephant in the room, but increased familiarity and associated contempt may also be a major factor.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Champagne socialism, frankly going all the way back to Marx himself, used to be a real thing. The upper classes romanticized the working class as much the working class romanticized the upper classes.
     
    Some elements within the upper classes may have romanticised the working class but they knew nothing whatever about them.
  103. @swamped
    Homosexuality went from being disgusting to ignored to tolerated to accepted to celebrated in remarkably short order. In considerably less than a single lifespan it went from morally condemnable to morally laudable Three-in-four still view adultery that way, but the gay figure has inverted. Now three-in-four Americans view homosexuality as morally acceptable in at least some circumstances while only one-in-four view it as being inherently immoral"...but not among Blacks. A Pew poll last year showed 62% support for same-sex marriage among whites, 58% of Hispanics and only 51% of Blacks. Another Pew poll a couple of years before showed 73% of Hispanics felt homosexuality should be accepted in society & 70% of whites -but 63% of blacks agreed. And a prior 2014 Pew survey showed 47% of Whites believed homosexuality is a sin but 70% of Blacks thought so. Homosexuality has not been nearly as popular among Blacks as it has with other ethnic groups. Just ask 'Mayor Pete' Butthurt. So it's probably not so surprising that Blacks should also be more opposed to other kinds of sin too, like adultery. There is a current of cultural conservatism in Black society that is often overlooked because the Jewish-dominated media chooses to focus on woke Blacks that fit their agenda. In Black Africa, almost every country has strict prohibitions against homosexuality; up to & including capital punishment. If only the "inverted" societies of the decadent West would learn from them.

    In the push for “rights”, we were told that all homosexuals wanted was “to be tolerated” and shown “respect”. Almost every decent person has no problem with that, as we are all human beings, given our individual wants, needs and proclivities.

    That is what we were told…

    The abolition of laws criminalizing homosexuality was a first step in eliminating the persecution that homosexuals endured. However, that was a BIG mistake, seeing the “liberties” that homosexuals are taking with children…and THEIR intolerance towards others who do not share their “in your face” demands to accept their “lifestyle”.

    Just recently, a 10-year-old boy was lauded by the “mainstream media” for dancing and stripping in a homosexual “strip club”. Where were the boy’s parents. Where was “child protective services”?

    Sad to say, “tolerance” has morphed into demands for not only “acceptance”, but deference, to the whims of homosexuals, without regards for the rights of heterosexuals with differing beliefs.

    When homosexuals purposely target a Christian-run bakery or other business, making demands for not only “acceptance”, but using the “civil-rights” laws, forcing the owner to go against his principles, THAT, my friends is tyranny, under guise of “civil-rights”.

    Using the “civil-rights” laws to force business owners into actions that go against their basic beliefs is tyranny of the highest order, and has no place in American society. It is interesting to note that, in these cases where homosexuals wanted to “prove a point”, they bypassed many bakeries who would accede to their wishes and give them what they desire.

    As an aside, muslim bakers who refused to bake homosexual-themed cakes were NOT targeted for “civil-rights” violations—double standard, indeed.

    This kind of behavior garners no favors with most decent people and furthers resolve against militant homosexuals who want not only toleration, but total “in your face” acceptance of their “lifestyle”–something that some people find that does not “square” with their beliefs.

    It appears that the success of “equal rights” for homosexuals has renewed a push to “normalize” other behaviors, such as “transsexuality”, “cross-dressing”, and other “gender fluidity” behaviors. There is even a push by pedophiles and their advocates to redefine (decriminalize and normalize) their behavior, renaming it “minor-attracted adults” rather than the perversion that it is presently defined as. The “slippery slope” started with the normalization of homosexuality, and has degenerated into the demands for acceptance of every form of human dysfunction.

    “Live and let live” used to be a staple of American society, but was eviscerated with every “protected group” using the misguided, illegal and unconstitutional “civil-rights (for some)” laws to force others to not only tolerate them, but accept them. Not good…

    “Slippery slope”, indeed…

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  104. @Rosie

    In the past when the nobility and the upper classes did things it had little effect on the rest of society. Each class had its own attitudes, social mores and even sexual vices of which the other classes knew nothing. The upper class had no idea how the lower classes lived or thought; the lower class had no idea how the upper class lived or thought.
     
    There is certainly some truth in this, and I'm still trying to sort out whether it's good or bad. Champagne socialism, frankly going all the way back to Marx himself, used to be a real thing. The upper classes romanticized the working class as much the working class romanticized the upper classes. That seems to be over now. Of course, Jewish influence is the elephant in the room, but increased familiarity and associated contempt may also be a major factor.

    Champagne socialism, frankly going all the way back to Marx himself, used to be a real thing. The upper classes romanticized the working class as much the working class romanticized the upper classes.

    Some elements within the upper classes may have romanticised the working class but they knew nothing whatever about them.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Some elements within the upper classes may have romanticised the working class but they knew nothing whatever about them.

    They knew enough about them to keep them divided and eating dirt-- still do.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Generally speaking, the less you know about group, the easier it is to romanticize them.
  105. @Dumbo
    Half of Jews and half of homosexuals seem to think adultery is A-OK.

    Anyway, of course people will say it is wrong in a poll, because it's just an abstract question, but then, many of those people will also practice it in their lives.

    Also, I think this has more to do with the word chosen. "Adultery" is a loaded and negative word. Use "polyamory" or something else and maybe results will change.

    Besides, I think people are in favor of "homosexual relations" because they don't really know or think much about what they really consist in, in particular women, who are the more ardent defenders of "gay marriage" (more than gays themselves). While everyone knows what being cheated on feels like.

    Woman Raised By Lesbians Has Some Shocking Things To Say About Needing A Dad

    Experience is supposed to be top card over any and all facts. But what happens when experience blows holes in the activist narrative?

    It doesn’t matter who you click with. That was what the airline put in their ads.

    Homosexuals should be able to raise children. We’ve been told this for as long as same-sex relationships have been socially acceptable.

    But did anybody ask what the CHILDREN thought about it?

    One has finally spoken up. The keepers of the narrative will not like it.

    We can probably expect her to be given the same rough treatment that other heretics against the cause, like Milo, are given.

    So, while she still has a voice, let’s let hers be heard:

    It’s her own personal story, after all. By the rules of the game as the Left has been playing it, who can judge her for her own story?

    [Heather]Barwick, who is 31 now, married, and has four children, said that same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a child while telling him or her that it doesn’t matter. That it’s all the same. But it’s not.

    “A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting,” wrote Barwick in her essay for The Federalist website. “My father’s absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad. I loved my mom’s partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost.”

    “I grew up surrounded by women who said they didn’t need or want a man,” said Barwick. “Yet, as a little girl, I so desperately wanted a daddy. It is a strange and confusing thing to walk around with this deep-down unquenchable ache for a father, for a man, in a community that says that men are unnecessary.”

    She used to be an advocate of same-sex marriage. So she isn’t motivated by disdain for same-sex relationships. She’s backing a different cause now.

    “Gay marriage doesn’t just redefine marriage, but also parenting,” she says. “It promotes and normalizes a family structure that necessarily denies us something precious and foundational. It denies us something we need and long for, while at the same time tells us that we don’t need what we naturally crave. That we will be okay. But we’re not. We’re hurting.”

    “It’s not just me,” said Barwick. “There are so many of us. Many of us are too scared to speak up and tell you about our hurt and pain, because for whatever reason it feels like you’re not listening. That you don’t want to hear.”

    “If we say we are hurting because we were raised by same-sex parents, we are either ignored or labeled a hater,” she wrote.
    Source: Daily Mail

    Now she’s an advocate of Children’s rights. She’s also married and a mother of four.

  106. @dfordoom

    Champagne socialism, frankly going all the way back to Marx himself, used to be a real thing. The upper classes romanticized the working class as much the working class romanticized the upper classes.
     
    Some elements within the upper classes may have romanticised the working class but they knew nothing whatever about them.

    Some elements within the upper classes may have romanticised the working class but they knew nothing whatever about them.

    They knew enough about them to keep them divided and eating dirt– still do.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    They knew enough about them to keep them divided and eating dirt– still do.
     
    Nature keeps them divided. The élite doesn't have to do anything.

    Though yes, they often do. It's enhancement, not innovation.
  107. @dfordoom

    I think censorship may just be a necessary part of civilization.
     
    Probably. I'm starting to think that the mistake that has usually been made with censorship is that it has focused too much on pornography. Porn is not the main threat and may not even be a threat at all. The real problem is the content of mainstream popular culture (and to a lesser extent high culture). It's mainstream popular culture that attracts people with an agenda and that has the potential to do real harm.

    Will and Grace was more socially destructive than Debbie Does Dallas. Magazines like Cosmopolitan and Teen Vogue have probably done more harm than Penthouse. Teen Vogue promotes destructive behaviour in young women (such as their promotion of anal sex). Penthouse just offers pictures of naked women. I'd be more worried about youngsters reading Teen Vogue than Penthouse.

    Mainstream popular culture is the battlefield that matters in the Culture War.

    Porn is not the main threat and may not even be a threat at all. The real problem is the content of mainstream popular culture

    I agree. It’s more the trivialization than the images. To my mind, a topless beach isn’t something inherently evil. The bigger danger is the proliferation of R-rated and PG-13 movies that trivialize sex, as well as TV shows.

  108. @Talha

    I wouldn’t have liked to come up against an Aztec or Inca Army that had received all its shots.
     
    Sure. The thing about the Africans in the West coast of Africa, especially the Sene-Gambia area was that they had exposure to other militaries. Most of the major empires there were run by Muslims. They were purchasing Turkish and Mamluk slave soldiers by the 14th century (Mansa Musa’s own personal guard was said to have been comprised of Turks he bought on his trip to Hajj) and past that time you could even find European sailors enslaved in the Mediterranean and sold all the way down even south of Timbuktu. Aztecs and Incas were certainly formidable on their isolated continents. When you are capturing other people and sacrificing them at will as slaves...well, there’s little doubt you’re the alpha society in your neck of the woods.

    a guy like Ibn Batutta (though he was a Berber) got around so widely, without dropping dead – good immune genes for traveling.
     
    Never thought of that; yeah, it’s pretty amazing how far he traveled with dying of local diseases. I think highway robbers almost did him in a couple of times, if I recall correctly.

    Peace.

    I think highway robbers almost did him in a couple of times, if I recall correctly.

    Sometimes, I like to fantasize about where I would go, if I had a time-machine – just to explore, and maybe record things that weren’t recorded. Probably, the reality is that a person with a time-machine would be killed by robbers at the first fork in the rode or caught in some war and killed for not speaking the language, or die of plague, smallpox, or flux.

  109. @Intelligent Dasein

    A hypocritical society is one in which people know the difference between right and wrong but often fall short of their own ideals.
     
    No, this is not quite correct. What you are describing is simply sin and weakness. It is incumbent upon everyone to know the moral law, and since much of it is accessible through the use of natural reason, there is not any excuse for not knowing it. However, we are also fallen creatures and often sin through weakness. To know what is morally right and, in our moment of temptation, to chose what is wrong, is very common and is not in and of itself hypocrisy.

    Hypocrisy properly so called is the specific act of condemning another according to a standard that one does not apply to oneself. If I commit adultery, I have sinned. If a woman commits adultery, she has sinned. If I, knowing myself guilty of the same sin, pick up a stone to throw at her and make a pretense of righteous indignation without first condemning my own self, then I add hypocrisy on top of adultery.

    Well said.

  110. @Partic
    I think you have it ass backwards as it were.
    It's not where you want to stick your dick, it's where you want Biff to stick his dick.
    The old saying is for every pitcher there's 80 catchers.
    A lot of men given the right environment would stick their dicks in any orifice that presents itself.
    A lot of those same men, on the other hand, would not easily submit to switching positions.

    The old saying is for every pitcher there’s 80 catchers.

    It’s no wonder that AIDS went through San Francisco like wildfire.

    • Replies: @songbird
    Tolerance created AIDS, but no progressives will admit it. Instead, they blame it on Reagan.
  111. “Hypocrisy is much misunderstood. A hypocritical society is one in which people know the difference between right and wrong but often fall short of their own ideals. A non-hypocritical society is one in which people do not know the difference between right and wrong and have no ideals at all.’

    Excuse the delay. I am going to lean in the direction of other comments — hypocrisy is a person condemning a thing and knowingly practicing or supporting the opposite – engaging reasons to justify my conduct.

    While I agree, it is best known as condemning in others what I myself practice. But it can also be justifying or supporting one’s errant behavior.

    In this instance for the believer, there is only one response whether jew or christian —

    violating the vows of marriage is always wrong – period. One of the reasons for a public ceremony is to enlist the aid of the public in supporting a marriage. Hence the question,

    “anyone know any reason to object” we treat that as formality, but it has very real world implications and practice. As does

    “what God has joined . . . let no man (person) put asunder; — the expectation that each of of the invited support the marriage and all that comes with it s community. And why we have wedding receptions to celebrate the union as a community.

    And in some states they have continue to enforce laws that address, “the stealing of affection . . .”

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    hypocrisy is a person condemning a thing and knowingly practicing or supporting the opposite – engaging reasons to justify my conduct.
     
    OK, our disagreement here is more apparent than real. We're defining hypocrisy differently. And it is a word that can be used in subtly different ways. It can be used to describe someone who publicly holds a particular belief but deliberately and consciously does the opposite without feeling any remorse or sense of wrong-doing. So under this definition a married man who claims to take marriage vows very seriously who deliberately sets out to have sex wth lots of other women without actually thinking he's doing anything wrong would be a hypocrite.

    I think of hypocrisy as describing someone who publicly holds a particular belief but fails to live up to his beliefs, but his failure can be due to psychological weakness. So under this definition a married man who claims to take marriage vows very seriously who occasionally succumbs to temptation but knows it's wrong would be a hypocrite. He loudly proclaims his belief in the sanctity of marriage but has sex with other women but he does so out of human frailty.

    I guess when I brought up the subject I was thinking of Victorian England, a society widely accused of hypocrisy. Virtually everyone publicly believed in a strict code of sexual morality but prostitution and pornography flourished. They still sincerely believed in their moral code but there were many (both men and women) who often failed to live up to it. I still think they should be given credit for the fact that at least they did believe sexual morality was important.

    Today people are less hypocritical because by and large they have no moral code to live up to, or to fail to live up to. Is a man who believes in the sanctity of marriage but visits whores because he's unable to control his desires less admirable than a man who has no moral beliefs?
  112. @Mr. Rational

    The old saying is for every pitcher there’s 80 catchers.
     
    It's no wonder that AIDS went through San Francisco like wildfire.

    Tolerance created AIDS, but no progressives will admit it. Instead, they blame it on Reagan.

  113. One of the great things about being single is that one is not as constrained as those that are married — there is great liberalty in that.

    laugh . . . one of the worst aspects about being single is that one is not as constrained as those who are married.

  114. @anon
    I wouldn’t have liked to come up against an Aztec or Inca Army that had received all its shots.

    Sigh.

    I guess that proves you aren't Cortes or Pizarro?

    In the classic book Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Diaz Castillo there are first person accounts of fighting between the Spanish and the Aztecs, in particular the battle of the causeways. The Spanish got in a big street fight in Tenochticlan and were very outnumbered, so they had to fight their way out of the city, across bridges, in the dark. The Aztecs at that point were very much not at all ill. Just because the were fighting with stone weapons it doesn't follow they weren't tough; Bernal Diaz personally saw a horse decapitated by an Aztec with one swipe of his weapon. Spaniards in armor who fell or were pushed off of the causeway had zero chance [1].

    Only later did smallpox take a terrible toll on the Aztecs as well as those Indians who had allied with the Spanish. Mass death in Tenochticlan made it uninhabitable and the Spanish were able to capture the royals as they attempted to escape across the lake in small boats.

    Pizarro's expedition arrived in the land of the Inca right after a civil war had been fought to decide who was in charge. The Inca empire army was very much good to go. But by taking the Inca hostage, right after their war of succession, Pizarro paralyzed that empire long enough to buy time. Again disease played a role, but only later.



    [1] Some years ago excavations in Mexico City for construction turned up a rusted piece of metal that turned out to be historically significant. It was shaped kind of like a shell. Long story short, some greedy Conquistador had poured molten gold into one shoulder piece of his armor and possibly other parts as well. The gold was intact, of course, with the remains of rusty armor around it. Maybe he got smart and shucked his armor in the dark, but probably not. Greed had its price.

    I guess that proves you aren’t Cortes or Pizarro?

    The Conquistadors were very remarkable men in some ways. They’re not to be imitated today – nobody is that tough or daring. Might have been easier to find similar people back then – but they where still rare men.

    I think without disease the Aztecs would have regrouped. Or it’s possible the Spanish would have been defeated by their allies. There’s a limit to what a small group of men can do, even with relatively more advanced arms and armor.

    Pizarro paralyzed that empire long enough to buy time. Again disease played a role, but only later.

    Pretty sure you are wrong here. The action in Peru happened later. Disease was a part of their civil war, by most accounts I’ve read.

  115. @dfordoom

    Answer this when you reached puberty do you remember trying to decide where you wanted to stick your dick for sexual pleasure???
     
    When you're hitting puberty everything about sex is confusing and frightening. It is incredibly easy to influence adolescents. I think many many adolescents have had the thought of being homosexual or bisexual occur to them at least for a moment. Girls in particular form intense emotional friendships with other girls, which lesbians can easily manipulate.

    Adolescents desperately want to conform. If they live in a society like ours in which homosexuality is rewarded while heterosexuality is frowned upon they can be pressured into "experimenting" and can get sucked into the glamorous homosexual lifestyle.

    So yes, I can remember confronting the question. I very quickly decided that it was girls I was interested in but yes the question did briefly occur to me.

    Maybe you're one of the lucky ones who was always certain. But if just one in five adolescents goes through a period of uncertainty and there are massive pressures to adopt homosexuality then some proportion of that number will be manoeuvred into the homosexual lifestyle and we'll see exactly what we have seen in the past half century - a large increase in the number of people adopting homosexuality.

    I think many many adolescents have had the thought of being homosexual or bisexual occur to them at least for a moment.

    Never happened to me…I never had any interest in boys or men as sex partners.

    So yes, I can remember confronting the question. I very quickly decided that it was girls I was interested in but yes the question did briefly occur to me.

    Perhaps you’re bisexual…you should give it a try…from your past posts I think it would suit you.

    • Replies: @dfordoom


    So yes, I can remember confronting the question. I very quickly decided that it was girls I was interested in but yes the question did briefly occur to me.
     
    Perhaps you’re bisexual…you should give it a try…from your past posts I think it would suit you.
     
    No, I'm exclusively heterosexual. Sorry to disappoint you.

    Never happened to me…I never had any interest in boys or men as sex partners.
     
    Good for you, but have you ever considered the possibility that not everyone is exactly the same as you? Maybe some people (maybe most people) never have the slightest doubt about their sexuality. Maybe some people very briefly consider the theoretical possibility that they're not heterosexual but realise very quickly that they are heterosexual, without ever actually having to try the experiment.

    Maybe sexuality isn't as simple as you think, based purely on your own experience?

    I abhor homosexuality. I consider it to be unhealthy and unnatural and both personally and socially destructive. I'm merely speculating that there are some people who are heterosexual but in the right circumstances (or rather the wrong circumstances) could be pressured or manipulated into the homosexual lifestyle. Particularly women.
  116. @Partic
    I think you have it ass backwards as it were.
    It's not where you want to stick your dick, it's where you want Biff to stick his dick.
    The old saying is for every pitcher there's 80 catchers.
    A lot of men given the right environment would stick their dicks in any orifice that presents itself.
    A lot of those same men, on the other hand, would not easily submit to switching positions.

    A lot of men given the right environment would stick their dicks in any orifice that presents itself.

    Your supposition is groundless…a citation would be nice.

  117. @obwandiyag
    Yes they do.

    Yes they do.

    Speaking from experience?

  118. @anon
    This demonstrates the "ignore what they say, watch what the do" principle.

    83.1% of black people polled assert that adultery is wrong.
    What percentage of black men and women actually engage in adultery?

    Perhaps a hint can be found in the black birth percentage to single women? It's 75% last time I checked.

    Something similar applies to homosexuals, who are notorious for cheating.

    Actions speak louder than words.

    According to the GSS, nearly 1-in-3. Wow.

  119. @songbird
    I find blacks being the top group somewhat odd. Surely, they are the most polygamous, if you compare native cultures? Their rates of single motherhood are very high in the US. I don't know what their actual marriages look like, but methinks those two things would be indicators.

    Some people think that polygamy was the real reason for the African slave trade. High status men in Africa had multiple wives. This left younger men without wives, so they went to war to get them. War provided them with unneeded male captives, which they were happy to offload for profit to Arabs or Europeans.

    Maybe that helps explain why their marriage rates are so low.

  120. @Daniel H
    Lots of Hollywood propaganda. And look at glam rock. There were bands that included women, where the men had longer hair and more make-up. Lots of gays close to the entertainment complex.

    I don't know what to make of it? (When did Will and Grace premiere? 1998). There always have been lots of gays in Hollywood, always, And as far as 80/90s metal hair bands, those dudes were/are assertively macho. Can't figure it out. The Clintons?

    Don’t ask, don’t tell came up at the national level around that time.

  121. @Tusk
    Agree that seeing Blacks on top is a bit confusing. Maybe they're saying that if someone cheats on them it's bad, but at the same time, if they do it, it's not "adultery" so their behaviour is excusable. At least that's the rationale I could see them having.

    I think white liberals have the toughest time of anyone defining a particular personal behavior as morally wrong, with the exception of perceived intolerance of people based on demographic characteristics.

    Blacks, in contrast, probably have the easiest time doing so, while white conservatives fall in between. It’s Sowell’s White Liberals, Black Rednecks phenomenon in practice.

  122. @Twinkie
    1. Who are the 1/4 of the people who think that adultery is ok?

    2. I'd like to see the numbers for fornication. I think that should shed a greater light on the changed social attitude to sexual relatonship than adultery.

    The question asks about “a married person having sexual relations with someone other than the marriage partner”. That’s a mouthful, so I subbed in “adultery” since the definitions are the same, almost verbatim. The American Heritage dictionary defines it as: “Consensual sexual intercourse between a married person and a person other than the spouse.” Moral acceptance of open marriages would thus seem to put someone in among the 1-in-4.

  123. @Realist

    You say that with a lot of assurance considering it is a theory with only shaky support.
     
    If you are referring to because homosexuality is genetic. Answer this when you reached puberty do you remember trying to decide where you wanted to stick your dick for sexual pleasure???

    No one decides to be a homosexual.

    It could be involuntary without being genetic, in the same way polio prevents someone from walking normally. That’s the germ theory of homosexuality. It’s too politically incorrect to be seriously considered, though!

  124. @dfordoom

    1. Who are the 1/4 of the people who think that adultery is ok?
     
    That's a good question. Maybe it's because the question specifies "always wrong" rather than just "wrong" - maybe they think there are circumstances when it can be justified. I can't think of circumstances when it can be justified but maybe some people can.

    What's really surprising is that 54.8% of homosexuals think adultery is always wrong. Does that category include lesbians? I suspect there's very little overlap between the social attitudes of male homosexuals and those of lesbians. Lesbians are kinda possessive.

    2. I’d like to see the numbers for fornication. I think that should shed a greater light on the changed social attitude to sexual relatonship than adultery.
     
    Yes, I agree.

    It’s 47% for gay men and 64% for lesbians.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    It’s 47% for gay men and 64% for lesbians.
     
    I'm surprised it's so high for homosexual men, and so low for lesbians.

    The figures for homosexual men cast doubt on the usefulness of the survey. I suspect that it means that they think that as long as you're not technically married it's OK to have sex with as many people as you like even if you're in a long-term relationship.

    I fear that some heterosexuals probably interpret it that way as well.
  125. @Almost Missouri
    The big irony in these results is that acceptance of homosexuality increased to the point of institutionalizing homo marriage, which, at least in the case of males, is almost always a massively adulterous institution, or in other words, a thorough sham.

    If people were honest, these two diverging trendlines would be impossible.

    Indeed, this was the crux of the argument that redefining marriage to allow same-sex arrangements would undermine the entire institution.

  126. @Mr. XYZ
    Are open marriages and open relationship (by mutual consent in both cases, of course) counted under adultery? I mean, they're clearly examples of polyamory but are they also examples of adultery? Serious question, BTW.

    Yes, I think so.

  127. @dfordoom

    Champagne socialism, frankly going all the way back to Marx himself, used to be a real thing. The upper classes romanticized the working class as much the working class romanticized the upper classes.
     
    Some elements within the upper classes may have romanticised the working class but they knew nothing whatever about them.

    Generally speaking, the less you know about group, the easier it is to romanticize them.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    "Where there are no facts, sentiment rules."

    ---Oswald Spengler
     
    A remarkably insightful line in a 1,200 page book that has many more of them.
  128. @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    Think about the theory of genetic selection and how genes even *predisposing* (nonetheless strongly *forcing*) someone toward being gay would affect fitness to see why the idea of a genetic basis for homosexuality is retarded. Or just look up Greg Cochran's explanation, it's about a paragraph long.

    And if you think the asinine "gay uncle" theory is enough to handwave away the obvious destruction of reproductive fitness, you are not a serious person (other than maybe seriously retarded).

    Think about the theory of genetic selection and how genes even *predisposing* (nonetheless strongly *forcing*) someone toward being gay would affect fitness to see why the idea of a genetic basis for homosexuality is retarded.

    Not necessarily. The disgust at normal sex could be dealt with by frequent pregnancies, thus leading this minority to breed at a faster rate than the norm. I know one family where this happened; mamma came out after five children, more than all but one of her siblings. Nothing discourages frequent sexual activity like frequent pregnancy.

    Remember, in normal societies (i.e., not ours), everyone is expected to marry and produce children. Religious life, which is difficult, is the one exception. And it’s not available to Protestants, Jews, or Moslems.

  129. @iffen
    Some elements within the upper classes may have romanticised the working class but they knew nothing whatever about them.

    They knew enough about them to keep them divided and eating dirt-- still do.

    They knew enough about them to keep them divided and eating dirt– still do.

    Nature keeps them divided. The élite doesn’t have to do anything.

    Though yes, they often do. It’s enhancement, not innovation.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Nature keeps them divided. The élite doesn’t have to do anything.

    Please sir, more soup.

    I think I know where you are going, but could you just spell it out?

    We don't have to send all of them to the guillotine, do we?

  130. @Reg Cæsar

    They knew enough about them to keep them divided and eating dirt– still do.
     
    Nature keeps them divided. The élite doesn't have to do anything.

    Though yes, they often do. It's enhancement, not innovation.

    Nature keeps them divided. The élite doesn’t have to do anything.

    Please sir, more soup.

    I think I know where you are going, but could you just spell it out?

    We don’t have to send all of them to the guillotine, do we?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    There is no "working class". There are working classes. Even in homogeneous lands there are city mice and country mice. Leaders didn't invent these divisions, they merely take advantage of them.

    The first minimum wages applied only to women. Unions supported them. The League of Women Voters was opposed.

  131. That lack of success has been attributed to its association with Mormonism, but I suspect it has more to do with the inherently inegalitarian nature of polyamory. Same-sex marriage is ostensibly about equality. Polyamory is not.

    It is when it only involves one sex.

    Anyone who endured the recent Tiger King series would have been introduced to two polygamists: Doc Antle, who has several wives, and Joe Exotic, who had two husbands. Of course, not in any legal sense.

    But the rationale for banning polygamy– and consanguine marriages– disappears when there is only one sex.

    Why can’t identical triplets marry? The only reasonable reason is that they are of the same sex. No children, the whole point of marriage, are involved.

    Now that reason has been removed. So let’s recognize Joe’s “marriages”, but not Doc’s.

    Polyamory is not.

  132. @iffen
    Nature keeps them divided. The élite doesn’t have to do anything.

    Please sir, more soup.

    I think I know where you are going, but could you just spell it out?

    We don't have to send all of them to the guillotine, do we?

    There is no “working class”. There are working classes. Even in homogeneous lands there are city mice and country mice. Leaders didn’t invent these divisions, they merely take advantage of them.

    The first minimum wages applied only to women. Unions supported them. The League of Women Voters was opposed.

    • Replies: @iffen
    There are working classes.

    I agree, but if you are given two choices, and only two, which side do you chose?

  133. @Mark G.

    We still have a fighting chance. But what happened in 1991?
     
    If you were around back then you can remember gays in the military became a big political issue after Dick Cheney suggested in 1991 the ban on them in the military be ended. This was followed by several Democrat candidates in the primaries throwing their support behind the idea. After the election the one who got elected, Clinton, instituted "don't ask, don't tell". This was probably the last major remaining legal restriction on them and the lifting of that probably helped to normalize homosexuality in the minds of many people.

    Team Democrat had a new stance on an issue of, to most people, small consequence, so many Team Democrat supporters changed their minds.

  134. @EliteCommInc.
    "Hypocrisy is much misunderstood. A hypocritical society is one in which people know the difference between right and wrong but often fall short of their own ideals. A non-hypocritical society is one in which people do not know the difference between right and wrong and have no ideals at all.'

    Excuse the delay. I am going to lean in the direction of other comments -- hypocrisy is a person condemning a thing and knowingly practicing or supporting the opposite - engaging reasons to justify my conduct.

    While I agree, it is best known as condemning in others what I myself practice. But it can also be justifying or supporting one's errant behavior.


    In this instance for the believer, there is only one response whether jew or christian --

    violating the vows of marriage is always wrong - period. One of the reasons for a public ceremony is to enlist the aid of the public in supporting a marriage. Hence the question,

    "anyone know any reason to object" we treat that as formality, but it has very real world implications and practice. As does

    "what God has joined . . . let no man (person) put asunder; --- the expectation that each of of the invited support the marriage and all that comes with it s community. And why we have wedding receptions to celebrate the union as a community.


    And in some states they have continue to enforce laws that address, "the stealing of affection . . ."

    hypocrisy is a person condemning a thing and knowingly practicing or supporting the opposite – engaging reasons to justify my conduct.

    OK, our disagreement here is more apparent than real. We’re defining hypocrisy differently. And it is a word that can be used in subtly different ways. It can be used to describe someone who publicly holds a particular belief but deliberately and consciously does the opposite without feeling any remorse or sense of wrong-doing. So under this definition a married man who claims to take marriage vows very seriously who deliberately sets out to have sex wth lots of other women without actually thinking he’s doing anything wrong would be a hypocrite.

    I think of hypocrisy as describing someone who publicly holds a particular belief but fails to live up to his beliefs, but his failure can be due to psychological weakness. So under this definition a married man who claims to take marriage vows very seriously who occasionally succumbs to temptation but knows it’s wrong would be a hypocrite. He loudly proclaims his belief in the sanctity of marriage but has sex with other women but he does so out of human frailty.

    I guess when I brought up the subject I was thinking of Victorian England, a society widely accused of hypocrisy. Virtually everyone publicly believed in a strict code of sexual morality but prostitution and pornography flourished. They still sincerely believed in their moral code but there were many (both men and women) who often failed to live up to it. I still think they should be given credit for the fact that at least they did believe sexual morality was important.

    Today people are less hypocritical because by and large they have no moral code to live up to, or to fail to live up to. Is a man who believes in the sanctity of marriage but visits whores because he’s unable to control his desires less admirable than a man who has no moral beliefs?

  135. @Realist

    I think many many adolescents have had the thought of being homosexual or bisexual occur to them at least for a moment.
     
    Never happened to me...I never had any interest in boys or men as sex partners.

    So yes, I can remember confronting the question. I very quickly decided that it was girls I was interested in but yes the question did briefly occur to me.
     
    Perhaps you're bisexual...you should give it a try...from your past posts I think it would suit you.

    So yes, I can remember confronting the question. I very quickly decided that it was girls I was interested in but yes the question did briefly occur to me.

    Perhaps you’re bisexual…you should give it a try…from your past posts I think it would suit you.

    No, I’m exclusively heterosexual. Sorry to disappoint you.

    Never happened to me…I never had any interest in boys or men as sex partners.

    Good for you, but have you ever considered the possibility that not everyone is exactly the same as you? Maybe some people (maybe most people) never have the slightest doubt about their sexuality. Maybe some people very briefly consider the theoretical possibility that they’re not heterosexual but realise very quickly that they are heterosexual, without ever actually having to try the experiment.

    Maybe sexuality isn’t as simple as you think, based purely on your own experience?

    I abhor homosexuality. I consider it to be unhealthy and unnatural and both personally and socially destructive. I’m merely speculating that there are some people who are heterosexual but in the right circumstances (or rather the wrong circumstances) could be pressured or manipulated into the homosexual lifestyle. Particularly women.

  136. @Audacious Epigone
    It's 47% for gay men and 64% for lesbians.

    It’s 47% for gay men and 64% for lesbians.

    I’m surprised it’s so high for homosexual men, and so low for lesbians.

    The figures for homosexual men cast doubt on the usefulness of the survey. I suspect that it means that they think that as long as you’re not technically married it’s OK to have sex with as many people as you like even if you’re in a long-term relationship.

    I fear that some heterosexuals probably interpret it that way as well.

  137. @Reg Cæsar
    There is no "working class". There are working classes. Even in homogeneous lands there are city mice and country mice. Leaders didn't invent these divisions, they merely take advantage of them.

    The first minimum wages applied only to women. Unions supported them. The League of Women Voters was opposed.

    There are working classes.

    I agree, but if you are given two choices, and only two, which side do you chose?

  138. @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    Lol, no, you're just bluepilled and delusional about the nature of women and modern dating.

    I guess only the girls you think are hot exist in your world, and you’re into the flashiest ones.

    This is normal when you’re very young, or foreign. Like when tourists believe East Slavic countries are populated with supermodels and gold-diggers. They see what they’re interested in, and the body of the iceberg (not even the ugly, but the girl-next-door types without “beauty enhancements”) goes completely unnoticed.

    If there’s a characteristic I’d give to average Canadian women I meet, it’s simplicity and softness, not bitchy manipulativeness.

  139. @Audacious Epigone
    Generally speaking, the less you know about group, the easier it is to romanticize them.

    “Where there are no facts, sentiment rules.”

    —Oswald Spengler

    A remarkably insightful line in a 1,200 page book that has many more of them.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  140. @Rosie

    It was a radical change – marriage was no longer seen as being about raising children. Marriage came to be seen as being all about love and sex.
     
    I see the unitive and procreative purposes of marriage as inseparable from each other, don't you?

    Confusing love and marriage is a relatively new thing. Surely, you read about it in 18th , 19th and early 20th century novels, but it was just literature. You know what they say, romance is porn for women.
    Of course, over the years, married couples were expected to develop affection for each other, and for their offspring. That was the whole point of marriage: family. And wives were encouraged to respect and obey their husbands: no pegging, no bossing around, no sleeping around. The husband was to be the boss of the family unit, not the wife or the mother-in-law.
    In the early 21st century, people expecting romance, happiness and lots of sex in marriage are in for a big disappointment.
    Nowadays, with easy divorces, woman’s rights and the removal of social shame from fornication and adultery, you might as well say that marriage no longer exists.
    Which is why gays are allowed to marry now: because the institution of marriage is a joke.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Confusing love and marriage is a relatively new thing. Surely, you read about it in 18th , 19th and early 20th century novels, but it was just literature.
     
    And the number of people who read novels was minuscule. In the early 19th century a bestseller was a book that sold 5,000 copies. The idea of marriage being all about Romantic Love and Sexual Bliss and personal fulfilment was confined to a very very small segment of the population. It was Hollywood that introduced the idea to the masses.

    You know what they say, romance is porn for women.
     
    Yep. And the romance novel as a mass-market thing didn't exist until the 1930s.

    There was a cultural revolution between the two world wars. An explosion in mass entertainment in the '20s and '30s that changed society radically. That explosion in mass entertainment had a greater effect on society than second wave feminism and the Sexual Revolution in the 60s. Second wave feminism and the Sexual Revolution were arguably simply the long-term results of the boom in mass entertainment.
    , @Rosie

    And wives were encouraged to respect and obey their husbands: no pegging, no bossing around,
     
    Whatever. Show me a house without a bossy wife and I'll show you a messy house, or else an overworked wife who rightly hates her lazy boor of a husband.
  141. @BB753
    Confusing love and marriage is a relatively new thing. Surely, you read about it in 18th , 19th and early 20th century novels, but it was just literature. You know what they say, romance is porn for women.
    Of course, over the years, married couples were expected to develop affection for each other, and for their offspring. That was the whole point of marriage: family. And wives were encouraged to respect and obey their husbands: no pegging, no bossing around, no sleeping around. The husband was to be the boss of the family unit, not the wife or the mother-in-law.
    In the early 21st century, people expecting romance, happiness and lots of sex in marriage are in for a big disappointment.
    Nowadays, with easy divorces, woman's rights and the removal of social shame from fornication and adultery, you might as well say that marriage no longer exists.
    Which is why gays are allowed to marry now: because the institution of marriage is a joke.

    Confusing love and marriage is a relatively new thing. Surely, you read about it in 18th , 19th and early 20th century novels, but it was just literature.

    And the number of people who read novels was minuscule. In the early 19th century a bestseller was a book that sold 5,000 copies. The idea of marriage being all about Romantic Love and Sexual Bliss and personal fulfilment was confined to a very very small segment of the population. It was Hollywood that introduced the idea to the masses.

    You know what they say, romance is porn for women.

    Yep. And the romance novel as a mass-market thing didn’t exist until the 1930s.

    There was a cultural revolution between the two world wars. An explosion in mass entertainment in the ’20s and ’30s that changed society radically. That explosion in mass entertainment had a greater effect on society than second wave feminism and the Sexual Revolution in the 60s. Second wave feminism and the Sexual Revolution were arguably simply the long-term results of the boom in mass entertainment.

    • Replies: @iffen
    simply the long-term results of the boom in mass entertainment.

    Why don't you just go ahead and say it?

    Letting them off the farm and allowing them to get a glimpse of gay paree is the worst thing to befall mankind since Eve munched on the apple.

    , @BB753
    "And the number of people who read novels was minuscule. In the early 19th century a bestseller was a book that sold 5,000 copies."

    There were also considerably less people at all. Do you know that back then, literate people would read aloud to the masses? That's how Dickens became popular: mass readings of his books which were published as chapters. I can see the past is a mystery to you.

    Mind you, 5,000 copies is a best - seller these days too. People just don't read books anymore.
  142. @dfordoom

    Confusing love and marriage is a relatively new thing. Surely, you read about it in 18th , 19th and early 20th century novels, but it was just literature.
     
    And the number of people who read novels was minuscule. In the early 19th century a bestseller was a book that sold 5,000 copies. The idea of marriage being all about Romantic Love and Sexual Bliss and personal fulfilment was confined to a very very small segment of the population. It was Hollywood that introduced the idea to the masses.

    You know what they say, romance is porn for women.
     
    Yep. And the romance novel as a mass-market thing didn't exist until the 1930s.

    There was a cultural revolution between the two world wars. An explosion in mass entertainment in the '20s and '30s that changed society radically. That explosion in mass entertainment had a greater effect on society than second wave feminism and the Sexual Revolution in the 60s. Second wave feminism and the Sexual Revolution were arguably simply the long-term results of the boom in mass entertainment.

    simply the long-term results of the boom in mass entertainment.

    Why don’t you just go ahead and say it?

    Letting them off the farm and allowing them to get a glimpse of gay paree is the worst thing to befall mankind since Eve munched on the apple.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Why don’t you just go ahead and say it?
     
    I'm beginning to wonder the same thing, myself. What exactly is the point of banging on about how previous generations didn't care about romance?

    First of all, I'm not convinced it's true. Second, even if it is, what's to be done?

    There is a certain radicalism about the dissident right that annoys the hell out of me, a compulsion to overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    I suppose the thinking goes something like this:

    Divorce is bad.
    Romantic expectations cause some divorces.
    Therefore, romantic expectations are bad.

    This is an oversimplification, at best. Romantic love serves a very useful function of creating a bond between a couple to prepare them for the challenges of parenting. It is selfishness, not romance, that ruins marriages.

    I'm tempted to think that anyone who bellyaches about romance just really doesn't want to put any work into their relationship. They want to pull the old bait and switch, where they're nice to a woman until she's stuck with them, then they start with the constant demands and putdowns.

    Moreover, they don't want a woman to feel justified in seeking elsewhere what her husband will not provide, hence the preoccupation with adultery.

    But at least in Doom's case, I don't think that's true.

  143. @Rosie

    It was a radical change – marriage was no longer seen as being about raising children. Marriage came to be seen as being all about love and sex.
     
    I see the unitive and procreative purposes of marriage as inseparable from each other, don't you?

    I see the unitive and procreative purposes of marriage as inseparable from each other

    Plus the manipulative and punitive aspects, of course. Going by your online performances, I’m sure you are intimately familiar with those.

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Plus the manipulative and punitive aspects, of course. Going by your online performances, I’m sure you are intimately familiar with those.
     
    If you hate marriage, by all means, stay single. You'd make a sh!tty husband.
  144. @dfordoom

    Confusing love and marriage is a relatively new thing. Surely, you read about it in 18th , 19th and early 20th century novels, but it was just literature.
     
    And the number of people who read novels was minuscule. In the early 19th century a bestseller was a book that sold 5,000 copies. The idea of marriage being all about Romantic Love and Sexual Bliss and personal fulfilment was confined to a very very small segment of the population. It was Hollywood that introduced the idea to the masses.

    You know what they say, romance is porn for women.
     
    Yep. And the romance novel as a mass-market thing didn't exist until the 1930s.

    There was a cultural revolution between the two world wars. An explosion in mass entertainment in the '20s and '30s that changed society radically. That explosion in mass entertainment had a greater effect on society than second wave feminism and the Sexual Revolution in the 60s. Second wave feminism and the Sexual Revolution were arguably simply the long-term results of the boom in mass entertainment.

    “And the number of people who read novels was minuscule. In the early 19th century a bestseller was a book that sold 5,000 copies.”

    There were also considerably less people at all. Do you know that back then, literate people would read aloud to the masses? That’s how Dickens became popular: mass readings of his books which were published as chapters. I can see the past is a mystery to you.

    Mind you, 5,000 copies is a best – seller these days too. People just don’t read books anymore.

    • Replies: @dfordoom


    “And the number of people who read novels was minuscule. In the early 19th century a bestseller was a book that sold 5,000 copies.”
     
    There were also considerably less people at all.
     
    The population of the UK today is about six times the 1800 figure. So the equivalent of a book selling 5,000 copies would be one that sells 30,000 copies today. Each of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter books sold more than 50 million copies. Even if only 1% of her sales were in the UK (and I imagine that's a ludicrously low estimate) that would still amount to sales at least one order of magnitude greater than 30,000.

    The gradual growth of mass literacy over the course of the 19th century and the paperback revolution in the 20th century increased the readership of books to an immense degree.

    If you're trying to deny that then your grasp of both history and numbers is rather shaky.

    Mind you, 5,000 copies is a best – seller these days too. People just don’t read books anymore.
     
    That's why authors like J.K. Rowling and E.L. James are reduced to begging on the streets, because they couldn't sell enough books to keep body and soul together.

    People might not read as many books as they did thirty years ago but the size of the reading public, even adjusted for population growth, is still vastly greater than it was in 1800.

    And I was talking about the effects of mass entertainment from the 1930s until the present day. You're simply making a wild unsupported claim about what is happening right now. I was talking about a process that occurred over the course of about ninety years.
  145. @BB753
    Confusing love and marriage is a relatively new thing. Surely, you read about it in 18th , 19th and early 20th century novels, but it was just literature. You know what they say, romance is porn for women.
    Of course, over the years, married couples were expected to develop affection for each other, and for their offspring. That was the whole point of marriage: family. And wives were encouraged to respect and obey their husbands: no pegging, no bossing around, no sleeping around. The husband was to be the boss of the family unit, not the wife or the mother-in-law.
    In the early 21st century, people expecting romance, happiness and lots of sex in marriage are in for a big disappointment.
    Nowadays, with easy divorces, woman's rights and the removal of social shame from fornication and adultery, you might as well say that marriage no longer exists.
    Which is why gays are allowed to marry now: because the institution of marriage is a joke.

    And wives were encouraged to respect and obey their husbands: no pegging, no bossing around,

    Whatever. Show me a house without a bossy wife and I’ll show you a messy house, or else an overworked wife who rightly hates her lazy boor of a husband.

    • Replies: @BB753
    Thank God we're not married, Rosie!
  146. @anon
    I see the unitive and procreative purposes of marriage as inseparable from each other

    Plus the manipulative and punitive aspects, of course. Going by your online performances, I'm sure you are intimately familiar with those.

    Plus the manipulative and punitive aspects, of course. Going by your online performances, I’m sure you are intimately familiar with those.

    If you hate marriage, by all means, stay single. You’d make a sh!tty husband.

    • Replies: @anon
    If you hate marriage, by all means, stay single. You’d make a sh!tty husband.

    Lol. Thanks for the confirmation. How long have you been abusing your husband? Maybe since the last child was born? Or did it start earlier?
  147. @iffen
    simply the long-term results of the boom in mass entertainment.

    Why don't you just go ahead and say it?

    Letting them off the farm and allowing them to get a glimpse of gay paree is the worst thing to befall mankind since Eve munched on the apple.

    Why don’t you just go ahead and say it?

    I’m beginning to wonder the same thing, myself. What exactly is the point of banging on about how previous generations didn’t care about romance?

    First of all, I’m not convinced it’s true. Second, even if it is, what’s to be done?

    There is a certain radicalism about the dissident right that annoys the hell out of me, a compulsion to overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    I suppose the thinking goes something like this:

    Divorce is bad.
    Romantic expectations cause some divorces.
    Therefore, romantic expectations are bad.

    This is an oversimplification, at best. Romantic love serves a very useful function of creating a bond between a couple to prepare them for the challenges of parenting. It is selfishness, not romance, that ruins marriages.

    I’m tempted to think that anyone who bellyaches about romance just really doesn’t want to put any work into their relationship. They want to pull the old bait and switch, where they’re nice to a woman until she’s stuck with them, then they start with the constant demands and putdowns.

    Moreover, they don’t want a woman to feel justified in seeking elsewhere what her husband will not provide, hence the preoccupation with adultery.

    But at least in Doom’s case, I don’t think that’s true.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    What exactly is the point of banging on about how previous generations didn’t care about romance?

    First of all, I’m not convinced it’s true.
     
    I think we may be getting tangled up with definitions. I'd argue that there's a difference between love and Romance. Of course love between men and women has always existed but the cult of all-consuming romantic love used to be something that only a minority of the population actually believed in.

    I'm also arguing that there's a difference between love as it develops naturally over the course of a marriage (if you're lucky) on the one hand and the cult of Romantic Love as the be-all and end-all of marriage and a necessary precondition for marriage. I'm using the term Romantic Love the way it's depicted in romance novels, Hollywood movies, etc, as a magical thing that will somehow guarantee a happy marriage. I'm also talking about the cult of Romantic Love as something so all-important that it's even more important than the responsibilities of marriage.

    Second, even if it is, what’s to be done?
     
    When I figure that out I'll be running for public office!

    I’m tempted to think that anyone who bellyaches about romance just really doesn’t want to put any work into their relationship.
     
    No, not really. But I do agree that too many people these days (both men and women) are not prepared to put some effort into their relationships. They just expect it will be wonderful and if it isn't wonderful they want to just walk away from it. It's not just that people have become selfish - they've also become childish.

    Moreover, they don’t want a woman to feel justified in seeking elsewhere what her husband will not provide, hence the preoccupation with adultery.
     
    The problem is that adultery is not the same for both sexes. If a married woman has sex with another man it's usually going to lead to massive emotional complications that will wreck the marriage. Maybe some women can do it and it's just sex but I don't think most can.

    But yes it is obvious that some people here take a view of sex and marriage that would have been more at home in the Puritan society of 17th century New England. Puritanism is a monstrous evil that just refuses to die.

    I think you have to be pragmatic and a bit flexible and take human frailty into account. Personally I think that if a man or a woman wants to have an extra-marital affair it's no big deal as long as they can keep it on the level of sex and as long as they're open about it (it's the secrecy that leads to the sense of extreme betrayal and humiliates the other person). But in practice not everyone can keep such affairs on the level of sex and not everyone can deal with it even if it's done openly.

    Since I'm no Christian my approach to morality is pragmatic and utilitarian.
  148. @Rosie

    Plus the manipulative and punitive aspects, of course. Going by your online performances, I’m sure you are intimately familiar with those.
     
    If you hate marriage, by all means, stay single. You'd make a sh!tty husband.

    If you hate marriage, by all means, stay single. You’d make a sh!tty husband.

    Lol. Thanks for the confirmation. How long have you been abusing your husband? Maybe since the last child was born? Or did it start earlier?

  149. @BB753
    "And the number of people who read novels was minuscule. In the early 19th century a bestseller was a book that sold 5,000 copies."

    There were also considerably less people at all. Do you know that back then, literate people would read aloud to the masses? That's how Dickens became popular: mass readings of his books which were published as chapters. I can see the past is a mystery to you.

    Mind you, 5,000 copies is a best - seller these days too. People just don't read books anymore.

    “And the number of people who read novels was minuscule. In the early 19th century a bestseller was a book that sold 5,000 copies.”

    There were also considerably less people at all.

    The population of the UK today is about six times the 1800 figure. So the equivalent of a book selling 5,000 copies would be one that sells 30,000 copies today. Each of J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter books sold more than 50 million copies. Even if only 1% of her sales were in the UK (and I imagine that’s a ludicrously low estimate) that would still amount to sales at least one order of magnitude greater than 30,000.

    The gradual growth of mass literacy over the course of the 19th century and the paperback revolution in the 20th century increased the readership of books to an immense degree.

    If you’re trying to deny that then your grasp of both history and numbers is rather shaky.

    Mind you, 5,000 copies is a best – seller these days too. People just don’t read books anymore.

    That’s why authors like J.K. Rowling and E.L. James are reduced to begging on the streets, because they couldn’t sell enough books to keep body and soul together.

    People might not read as many books as they did thirty years ago but the size of the reading public, even adjusted for population growth, is still vastly greater than it was in 1800.

    And I was talking about the effects of mass entertainment from the 1930s until the present day. You’re simply making a wild unsupported claim about what is happening right now. I was talking about a process that occurred over the course of about ninety years.

    • Replies: @BB753
    Your ignorance of the past is astounding. Did you know how expensive books were 200 years ago? You might want to factor that in.
    If you believe in the figures given by the NY Times best-sellers lists, you are being naive. Those numbers are bogus.

    Also, please don't compare crap from J. K. Rowling an E. l. James to Dickens.
  150. @Rosie

    Why don’t you just go ahead and say it?
     
    I'm beginning to wonder the same thing, myself. What exactly is the point of banging on about how previous generations didn't care about romance?

    First of all, I'm not convinced it's true. Second, even if it is, what's to be done?

    There is a certain radicalism about the dissident right that annoys the hell out of me, a compulsion to overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    I suppose the thinking goes something like this:

    Divorce is bad.
    Romantic expectations cause some divorces.
    Therefore, romantic expectations are bad.

    This is an oversimplification, at best. Romantic love serves a very useful function of creating a bond between a couple to prepare them for the challenges of parenting. It is selfishness, not romance, that ruins marriages.

    I'm tempted to think that anyone who bellyaches about romance just really doesn't want to put any work into their relationship. They want to pull the old bait and switch, where they're nice to a woman until she's stuck with them, then they start with the constant demands and putdowns.

    Moreover, they don't want a woman to feel justified in seeking elsewhere what her husband will not provide, hence the preoccupation with adultery.

    But at least in Doom's case, I don't think that's true.

    What exactly is the point of banging on about how previous generations didn’t care about romance?

    First of all, I’m not convinced it’s true.

    I think we may be getting tangled up with definitions. I’d argue that there’s a difference between love and Romance. Of course love between men and women has always existed but the cult of all-consuming romantic love used to be something that only a minority of the population actually believed in.

    I’m also arguing that there’s a difference between love as it develops naturally over the course of a marriage (if you’re lucky) on the one hand and the cult of Romantic Love as the be-all and end-all of marriage and a necessary precondition for marriage. I’m using the term Romantic Love the way it’s depicted in romance novels, Hollywood movies, etc, as a magical thing that will somehow guarantee a happy marriage. I’m also talking about the cult of Romantic Love as something so all-important that it’s even more important than the responsibilities of marriage.

    Second, even if it is, what’s to be done?

    When I figure that out I’ll be running for public office!

    I’m tempted to think that anyone who bellyaches about romance just really doesn’t want to put any work into their relationship.

    No, not really. But I do agree that too many people these days (both men and women) are not prepared to put some effort into their relationships. They just expect it will be wonderful and if it isn’t wonderful they want to just walk away from it. It’s not just that people have become selfish – they’ve also become childish.

    Moreover, they don’t want a woman to feel justified in seeking elsewhere what her husband will not provide, hence the preoccupation with adultery.

    The problem is that adultery is not the same for both sexes. If a married woman has sex with another man it’s usually going to lead to massive emotional complications that will wreck the marriage. Maybe some women can do it and it’s just sex but I don’t think most can.

    But yes it is obvious that some people here take a view of sex and marriage that would have been more at home in the Puritan society of 17th century New England. Puritanism is a monstrous evil that just refuses to die.

    I think you have to be pragmatic and a bit flexible and take human frailty into account. Personally I think that if a man or a woman wants to have an extra-marital affair it’s no big deal as long as they can keep it on the level of sex and as long as they’re open about it (it’s the secrecy that leads to the sense of extreme betrayal and humiliates the other person). But in practice not everyone can keep such affairs on the level of sex and not everyone can deal with it even if it’s done openly.

    Since I’m no Christian my approach to morality is pragmatic and utilitarian.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I’m using the term Romantic Love the way it’s depicted in romance novels, Hollywood movies, etc, as a magical thing that will somehow guarantee a happy marriage.
     
    What your talking about here I consider a kind of idolatry. It is the expectation that a romantic partner will provide ultimate meaning and perpetual bliss, and yes, it is definitely a problem.
    , @BB753
    Since your morality is utilitarian and pragmatic, on what basis do you condemn young people wanting to get rid of older people?
    From your blog post about covid-19 :

    "This is particularly so on the dissident right with many younger people openly celebrating the idea of a disease that they think and hope will kill off the hated Boomers. We’re seeing a very ugly side of human nature coming to the fore."

    From a pragmatic and utilitarian point of view, young people are exactly right. So why is the defense of their interests" ugly "?
  151. @dfordoom

    What exactly is the point of banging on about how previous generations didn’t care about romance?

    First of all, I’m not convinced it’s true.
     
    I think we may be getting tangled up with definitions. I'd argue that there's a difference between love and Romance. Of course love between men and women has always existed but the cult of all-consuming romantic love used to be something that only a minority of the population actually believed in.

    I'm also arguing that there's a difference between love as it develops naturally over the course of a marriage (if you're lucky) on the one hand and the cult of Romantic Love as the be-all and end-all of marriage and a necessary precondition for marriage. I'm using the term Romantic Love the way it's depicted in romance novels, Hollywood movies, etc, as a magical thing that will somehow guarantee a happy marriage. I'm also talking about the cult of Romantic Love as something so all-important that it's even more important than the responsibilities of marriage.

    Second, even if it is, what’s to be done?
     
    When I figure that out I'll be running for public office!

    I’m tempted to think that anyone who bellyaches about romance just really doesn’t want to put any work into their relationship.
     
    No, not really. But I do agree that too many people these days (both men and women) are not prepared to put some effort into their relationships. They just expect it will be wonderful and if it isn't wonderful they want to just walk away from it. It's not just that people have become selfish - they've also become childish.

    Moreover, they don’t want a woman to feel justified in seeking elsewhere what her husband will not provide, hence the preoccupation with adultery.
     
    The problem is that adultery is not the same for both sexes. If a married woman has sex with another man it's usually going to lead to massive emotional complications that will wreck the marriage. Maybe some women can do it and it's just sex but I don't think most can.

    But yes it is obvious that some people here take a view of sex and marriage that would have been more at home in the Puritan society of 17th century New England. Puritanism is a monstrous evil that just refuses to die.

    I think you have to be pragmatic and a bit flexible and take human frailty into account. Personally I think that if a man or a woman wants to have an extra-marital affair it's no big deal as long as they can keep it on the level of sex and as long as they're open about it (it's the secrecy that leads to the sense of extreme betrayal and humiliates the other person). But in practice not everyone can keep such affairs on the level of sex and not everyone can deal with it even if it's done openly.

    Since I'm no Christian my approach to morality is pragmatic and utilitarian.

    I’m using the term Romantic Love the way it’s depicted in romance novels, Hollywood movies, etc, as a magical thing that will somehow guarantee a happy marriage.

    What your talking about here I consider a kind of idolatry. It is the expectation that a romantic partner will provide ultimate meaning and perpetual bliss, and yes, it is definitely a problem.

  152. “Rhodopis” (Greek: Ῥοδῶπις) is an ancient tale about a Greek slave girl who marries the king of Egypt. The story was first recorded by the Greek historian Strabo in the late first century BC or early first century AD and is considered the earliest known variant of the “Cinderella” story.[1] The origins of the fairy-tale figure may be traced back to the 6th-century BC hetaera Rhodopis.[2]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodopis

    ‘Nuff said.

  153. @anon
    First, you’re confusing adultery and fornication.

    No, I am not. I am citing a self-evident rate of fornication as evidence what the actual rate of adultery is. A mean IQ of 85 plus higher circulating Testosterone plus known poor impulse control in short.

    I’d be curious to see this graph with acceptance of fornication added — I expect it would look somewhat like the homosexual graph, except the decline in disapproval started 10-20 years earlier.

    Ok, but lol, because what people say and what they do is often two different things. Polls like this are not very meaningful for that reason. Self-reported polls, especially of college aged people, are nearly for entertainment purposes only.

    Second, hypocrisy in sexual ethics (or in behaviors relating to any particular form of temptation) is not an indication that someone is lying about their values, just that humans are fallible and that resisting temptation is hard.

    Shrug. I'm dealing in facts, not motives.
    People rationalize things all the time, and "It's different when I do it" is not uncommon. The facts don't change, though.

    I could also ask, “Is it ever a good idea to eat an entire sleeve of Oreos at once?” and would probably get mostly negative responses, even though almost everyone has done this or something similarly foolish at least once in their lives, and will probably do so again.

    Thus such polling is close to useless.

    A society in which certain behavior receives widespread disapproval (while still happening quietly, possibly even among the loudest disapprovers) still looks rather different from one in which it’s celebrated. That’s the point. Everyone is influenced at least somewhat by social approval; some more so than others, but especially women and young people.

    Yes, people are hypocrites, but they at least care, both consciously and subconsciously, what the other hypocrites think or at least claim to think. And that’s what the polling captures.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @anon
    A society in which certain behavior receives widespread disapproval (while still happening quietly, possibly even among the loudest disapprovers) still looks rather different from one in which it’s celebrated. That’s the point. Everyone is influenced at least somewhat by social approval; some more so than others, but especially women and young people.

    I repeat: I did not confuse fornication with adultery, I estimated the rate of adultery by the rate of fornication, because screwing around is screwing around is screwing around.

    Yes, people are hypocrites, but they at least care, both consciously and subconsciously, what the other hypocrites think or at least claim to think. And that’s what the polling captures.

    The polling captures the fact that what people say and what they do can be very, very different. This is a very important concept that for some reason most people don't want to even think about. Perhaps because the bare truth damages various pretty lies?

    Make all the excuses you want, the facts are not changed.

  154. @dfordoom


    “And the number of people who read novels was minuscule. In the early 19th century a bestseller was a book that sold 5,000 copies.”
     
    There were also considerably less people at all.
     
    The population of the UK today is about six times the 1800 figure. So the equivalent of a book selling 5,000 copies would be one that sells 30,000 copies today. Each of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter books sold more than 50 million copies. Even if only 1% of her sales were in the UK (and I imagine that's a ludicrously low estimate) that would still amount to sales at least one order of magnitude greater than 30,000.

    The gradual growth of mass literacy over the course of the 19th century and the paperback revolution in the 20th century increased the readership of books to an immense degree.

    If you're trying to deny that then your grasp of both history and numbers is rather shaky.

    Mind you, 5,000 copies is a best – seller these days too. People just don’t read books anymore.
     
    That's why authors like J.K. Rowling and E.L. James are reduced to begging on the streets, because they couldn't sell enough books to keep body and soul together.

    People might not read as many books as they did thirty years ago but the size of the reading public, even adjusted for population growth, is still vastly greater than it was in 1800.

    And I was talking about the effects of mass entertainment from the 1930s until the present day. You're simply making a wild unsupported claim about what is happening right now. I was talking about a process that occurred over the course of about ninety years.

    Your ignorance of the past is astounding. Did you know how expensive books were 200 years ago? You might want to factor that in.
    If you believe in the figures given by the NY Times best-sellers lists, you are being naive. Those numbers are bogus.

    Also, please don’t compare crap from J. K. Rowling an E. l. James to Dickens.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Your ignorance of the past is astounding. Did you know how expensive books were 200 years ago? You might want to factor that in.
     
    Of course I know that. It's obviously, along with lower literacy rates, the reason the reading public was so small. My point was that, even taking population differences into account, fewer people read books. I was simply stating a fact. You seem to be getting distracted by irrelevancies. I wasn't interested in analysing the reasons that fewer people read books (which is an interesting but unrelated subject), I was merely stating that fewer people read books. I don't know how I can my point any more clearly.

    If you believe in the figures given by the NY Times best-sellers lists, you are being naive. Those numbers are bogus.
     
    And that's why writers like Stephen King end up living on the streets.

    Also, please don’t compare crap from J. K. Rowling an E. l. James to Dickens.
     
    You have an astonishing ability to miss the point of what someone is saying, and to miss it every single time. I was very obviously not making judgments on literary quality. I was talking about numbers of books sold. I was also talking in terms of the effects of popular fiction on public attitudes and clearly the numbers of books sold is a pretty significant factor in this. It doesn't matter whether the books are good, bad or indifferent. If they sell millions of copies they're having an effect. But you immediately wander off on some irrelevant tangent.
  155. @Rosie

    And wives were encouraged to respect and obey their husbands: no pegging, no bossing around,
     
    Whatever. Show me a house without a bossy wife and I'll show you a messy house, or else an overworked wife who rightly hates her lazy boor of a husband.

    Thank God we’re not married, Rosie!

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Thank God we’re not married, Rosie!
     
    Well, there's one thing we can agree on.
  156. @dfordoom

    What exactly is the point of banging on about how previous generations didn’t care about romance?

    First of all, I’m not convinced it’s true.
     
    I think we may be getting tangled up with definitions. I'd argue that there's a difference between love and Romance. Of course love between men and women has always existed but the cult of all-consuming romantic love used to be something that only a minority of the population actually believed in.

    I'm also arguing that there's a difference between love as it develops naturally over the course of a marriage (if you're lucky) on the one hand and the cult of Romantic Love as the be-all and end-all of marriage and a necessary precondition for marriage. I'm using the term Romantic Love the way it's depicted in romance novels, Hollywood movies, etc, as a magical thing that will somehow guarantee a happy marriage. I'm also talking about the cult of Romantic Love as something so all-important that it's even more important than the responsibilities of marriage.

    Second, even if it is, what’s to be done?
     
    When I figure that out I'll be running for public office!

    I’m tempted to think that anyone who bellyaches about romance just really doesn’t want to put any work into their relationship.
     
    No, not really. But I do agree that too many people these days (both men and women) are not prepared to put some effort into their relationships. They just expect it will be wonderful and if it isn't wonderful they want to just walk away from it. It's not just that people have become selfish - they've also become childish.

    Moreover, they don’t want a woman to feel justified in seeking elsewhere what her husband will not provide, hence the preoccupation with adultery.
     
    The problem is that adultery is not the same for both sexes. If a married woman has sex with another man it's usually going to lead to massive emotional complications that will wreck the marriage. Maybe some women can do it and it's just sex but I don't think most can.

    But yes it is obvious that some people here take a view of sex and marriage that would have been more at home in the Puritan society of 17th century New England. Puritanism is a monstrous evil that just refuses to die.

    I think you have to be pragmatic and a bit flexible and take human frailty into account. Personally I think that if a man or a woman wants to have an extra-marital affair it's no big deal as long as they can keep it on the level of sex and as long as they're open about it (it's the secrecy that leads to the sense of extreme betrayal and humiliates the other person). But in practice not everyone can keep such affairs on the level of sex and not everyone can deal with it even if it's done openly.

    Since I'm no Christian my approach to morality is pragmatic and utilitarian.

    Since your morality is utilitarian and pragmatic, on what basis do you condemn young people wanting to get rid of older people?
    From your blog post about covid-19 :

    “This is particularly so on the dissident right with many younger people openly celebrating the idea of a disease that they think and hope will kill off the hated Boomers. We’re seeing a very ugly side of human nature coming to the fore.”

    From a pragmatic and utilitarian point of view, young people are exactly right. So why is the defense of their interests” ugly “?

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Since your morality is utilitarian and pragmatic, on what basis do you condemn young people wanting to get rid of older people?
     
    There is a very slight difference between adultery and genocide. A society that accepts the killing off of "useless eaters" is going to quickly turn into a barbarous failed society. So such a practice can certainly be opposed on pragmatic and utilitarian grounds.

    I think you'll find that the societal damage caused by killing off useless eaters is several orders of magnitude greater.
  157. @BB753
    Thank God we're not married, Rosie!

    Thank God we’re not married, Rosie!

    Well, there’s one thing we can agree on.

    • LOL: BB753
  158. @BB753
    Your ignorance of the past is astounding. Did you know how expensive books were 200 years ago? You might want to factor that in.
    If you believe in the figures given by the NY Times best-sellers lists, you are being naive. Those numbers are bogus.

    Also, please don't compare crap from J. K. Rowling an E. l. James to Dickens.

    Your ignorance of the past is astounding. Did you know how expensive books were 200 years ago? You might want to factor that in.

    Of course I know that. It’s obviously, along with lower literacy rates, the reason the reading public was so small. My point was that, even taking population differences into account, fewer people read books. I was simply stating a fact. You seem to be getting distracted by irrelevancies. I wasn’t interested in analysing the reasons that fewer people read books (which is an interesting but unrelated subject), I was merely stating that fewer people read books. I don’t know how I can my point any more clearly.

    If you believe in the figures given by the NY Times best-sellers lists, you are being naive. Those numbers are bogus.

    And that’s why writers like Stephen King end up living on the streets.

    Also, please don’t compare crap from J. K. Rowling an E. l. James to Dickens.

    You have an astonishing ability to miss the point of what someone is saying, and to miss it every single time. I was very obviously not making judgments on literary quality. I was talking about numbers of books sold. I was also talking in terms of the effects of popular fiction on public attitudes and clearly the numbers of books sold is a pretty significant factor in this. It doesn’t matter whether the books are good, bad or indifferent. If they sell millions of copies they’re having an effect. But you immediately wander off on some irrelevant tangent.

  159. @BB753
    Since your morality is utilitarian and pragmatic, on what basis do you condemn young people wanting to get rid of older people?
    From your blog post about covid-19 :

    "This is particularly so on the dissident right with many younger people openly celebrating the idea of a disease that they think and hope will kill off the hated Boomers. We’re seeing a very ugly side of human nature coming to the fore."

    From a pragmatic and utilitarian point of view, young people are exactly right. So why is the defense of their interests" ugly "?

    Since your morality is utilitarian and pragmatic, on what basis do you condemn young people wanting to get rid of older people?

    There is a very slight difference between adultery and genocide. A society that accepts the killing off of “useless eaters” is going to quickly turn into a barbarous failed society. So such a practice can certainly be opposed on pragmatic and utilitarian grounds.

    I think you’ll find that the societal damage caused by killing off useless eaters is several orders of magnitude greater.

    • Replies: @BB753
    "I think you’ll find that the societal damage caused by killing off useless eaters is several orders of magnitude greater."

    You're not being pragmatic in denying the population to try those practices. How do you know that the damage would be greater? Let's put it to the test, in a utilitarian, pragmatic and empirical way!

    Without a moral code, anything goes, right? Anything that works or might work goes, that is. Please, don't be such a bigot!
  160. @dfordoom

    Since your morality is utilitarian and pragmatic, on what basis do you condemn young people wanting to get rid of older people?
     
    There is a very slight difference between adultery and genocide. A society that accepts the killing off of "useless eaters" is going to quickly turn into a barbarous failed society. So such a practice can certainly be opposed on pragmatic and utilitarian grounds.

    I think you'll find that the societal damage caused by killing off useless eaters is several orders of magnitude greater.

    “I think you’ll find that the societal damage caused by killing off useless eaters is several orders of magnitude greater.”

    You’re not being pragmatic in denying the population to try those practices. How do you know that the damage would be greater? Let’s put it to the test, in a utilitarian, pragmatic and empirical way!

    Without a moral code, anything goes, right? Anything that works or might work goes, that is. Please, don’t be such a bigot!

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    You’re not being pragmatic in denying the population to try those practices. How do you know that the damage would be greater?
     
    I would have thought that killing a bunch of people for the crime of belonging to the wrong generation was pretty self-evidently extremely major, in fact catastrophic, social damage.
  161. @BB753
    "I think you’ll find that the societal damage caused by killing off useless eaters is several orders of magnitude greater."

    You're not being pragmatic in denying the population to try those practices. How do you know that the damage would be greater? Let's put it to the test, in a utilitarian, pragmatic and empirical way!

    Without a moral code, anything goes, right? Anything that works or might work goes, that is. Please, don't be such a bigot!

    You’re not being pragmatic in denying the population to try those practices. How do you know that the damage would be greater?

    I would have thought that killing a bunch of people for the crime of belonging to the wrong generation was pretty self-evidently extremely major, in fact catastrophic, social damage.

    • Replies: @Talha
    One could simply ask, to see if someone is sincere about this proposal, for them to be the first ones in line to tip their grandparents or parents into the wood chipper.

    Just sayin’...

    Peace.

    , @BB753
    Pragmatism does not teach you that. Moral values do.
  162. @dfordoom

    You’re not being pragmatic in denying the population to try those practices. How do you know that the damage would be greater?
     
    I would have thought that killing a bunch of people for the crime of belonging to the wrong generation was pretty self-evidently extremely major, in fact catastrophic, social damage.

    One could simply ask, to see if someone is sincere about this proposal, for them to be the first ones in line to tip their grandparents or parents into the wood chipper.

    Just sayin’…

    Peace.

  163. @dfordoom

    You’re not being pragmatic in denying the population to try those practices. How do you know that the damage would be greater?
     
    I would have thought that killing a bunch of people for the crime of belonging to the wrong generation was pretty self-evidently extremely major, in fact catastrophic, social damage.

    Pragmatism does not teach you that. Moral values do.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Pragmatism does not teach you that. Moral values do.
     
    Define moral values. Without resorting to religious arguments (which are inappropriate and unworkable in a secular society).
  164. @BB753
    Pragmatism does not teach you that. Moral values do.

    Pragmatism does not teach you that. Moral values do.

    Define moral values. Without resorting to religious arguments (which are inappropriate and unworkable in a secular society).

    • Replies: @BB753
    There are no possible moral values in a secular, relativistic society. That is my point.
  165. @dfordoom

    Pragmatism does not teach you that. Moral values do.
     
    Define moral values. Without resorting to religious arguments (which are inappropriate and unworkable in a secular society).

    There are no possible moral values in a secular, relativistic society. That is my point.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    There are no possible moral values in a secular, relativistic society. That is my point.
     
    If there are no possible moral values then surely the only guide we have is pragmatism. We have to go with what works. We have to go with whatever seems in practice to do the least overall harm to individuals and to society.

    There's no point in bewailing the fact that we live in a secular, relativistic society. The reality is that that's the society we have. We need to make such a society work.

    Despite the wishful thinking of some people here we're not going to go back to being a religious society.

    And religious moral values are just as relativistic as secular values. Christian moral values are just as relativistic as secular values. There's no such thing as Christian morality. There are (or were) Christian moralities. The moral rules for Catholics are not the same as those for the Amish. The moral rules for Baptists are not identical to those of Episcopalians. That's been the case since the Reformation. 17th century Puritan moral values were not the moral values of the Church of England. One of the reasons so many Puritans ended up in the US is that their moral values were not compatible with those of the Church of England.

    The Bible means whatever people want it to mean. People have used the Bible to justify slavery. Some Christians think contraception is morally wrong. Some don't. The Bible says Thou Shalt Not Kill, but lots of Christians have interpreted that in a way that they've used to justify lots of killing.
  166. @BB753
    There are no possible moral values in a secular, relativistic society. That is my point.

    There are no possible moral values in a secular, relativistic society. That is my point.

    If there are no possible moral values then surely the only guide we have is pragmatism. We have to go with what works. We have to go with whatever seems in practice to do the least overall harm to individuals and to society.

    There’s no point in bewailing the fact that we live in a secular, relativistic society. The reality is that that’s the society we have. We need to make such a society work.

    Despite the wishful thinking of some people here we’re not going to go back to being a religious society.

    And religious moral values are just as relativistic as secular values. Christian moral values are just as relativistic as secular values. There’s no such thing as Christian morality. There are (or were) Christian moralities. The moral rules for Catholics are not the same as those for the Amish. The moral rules for Baptists are not identical to those of Episcopalians. That’s been the case since the Reformation. 17th century Puritan moral values were not the moral values of the Church of England. One of the reasons so many Puritans ended up in the US is that their moral values were not compatible with those of the Church of England.

    The Bible means whatever people want it to mean. People have used the Bible to justify slavery. Some Christians think contraception is morally wrong. Some don’t. The Bible says Thou Shalt Not Kill, but lots of Christians have interpreted that in a way that they’ve used to justify lots of killing.

    • Replies: @BB753
    How can you look around and watch modern society and still say that pragmatism works?
    Mind you, there is such a thing as Christian values, pick a Roman Catholic or Orthodox catechism book up.
    As for protestant sects, they aren't even Christian, no more Christian than Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. They were man-made ad hoc religions invented by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, Wellesley, etc, just as Joseph Smith invented Mormonism to suit his worldly purposes.
    You see, Jesus didn't write the New Testament : His teachings were passed on both orally and in written form over the centuries by His apostles and disciples. There was a Christian faith before there was even a bible. And that faith was transmitted to us by apostolic succession, by the teachings of the Church fathers, and by liturgical worship.
    By the time of the first Council of Nicaea, in 325, there wasn't even an accepted canon for the Bible, but yet the Nicene Creed was established.
    Because there would be no bible without a Christian Church, and protestants chose to split from the Church and rely on their personal interpretation of the Bible ("sola scriptura", the basis of all reform), do away with apostolic succession and most forms of sacraments and liturgies, and embrace heresies such as "sola gratia" (works don't count, scoundrels go to heaven if God chooses them. They don't even have to repent. That's Calvin) and "sola fide" (as long as you believe in Jesus you will be saved, no matter what. That's Luther), they can't be considered Christians in any way, shape or form. But you're free to call them Lutherans, Baptists, Calvinists, Evangelicals, etc. I believe there are over 30,000 Reformed denominations. As we speak, some redneck called Billy Bob is probably setting up yet another protestant denomination in a strip mall after his own whim to make some bucks and preach nonsense.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
  167. @dfordoom

    There are no possible moral values in a secular, relativistic society. That is my point.
     
    If there are no possible moral values then surely the only guide we have is pragmatism. We have to go with what works. We have to go with whatever seems in practice to do the least overall harm to individuals and to society.

    There's no point in bewailing the fact that we live in a secular, relativistic society. The reality is that that's the society we have. We need to make such a society work.

    Despite the wishful thinking of some people here we're not going to go back to being a religious society.

    And religious moral values are just as relativistic as secular values. Christian moral values are just as relativistic as secular values. There's no such thing as Christian morality. There are (or were) Christian moralities. The moral rules for Catholics are not the same as those for the Amish. The moral rules for Baptists are not identical to those of Episcopalians. That's been the case since the Reformation. 17th century Puritan moral values were not the moral values of the Church of England. One of the reasons so many Puritans ended up in the US is that their moral values were not compatible with those of the Church of England.

    The Bible means whatever people want it to mean. People have used the Bible to justify slavery. Some Christians think contraception is morally wrong. Some don't. The Bible says Thou Shalt Not Kill, but lots of Christians have interpreted that in a way that they've used to justify lots of killing.

    How can you look around and watch modern society and still say that pragmatism works?
    Mind you, there is such a thing as Christian values, pick a Roman Catholic or Orthodox catechism book up.
    As for protestant sects, they aren’t even Christian, no more Christian than Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses. They were man-made ad hoc religions invented by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, Wellesley, etc, just as Joseph Smith invented Mormonism to suit his worldly purposes.
    You see, Jesus didn’t write the New Testament : His teachings were passed on both orally and in written form over the centuries by His apostles and disciples. There was a Christian faith before there was even a bible. And that faith was transmitted to us by apostolic succession, by the teachings of the Church fathers, and by liturgical worship.
    By the time of the first Council of Nicaea, in 325, there wasn’t even an accepted canon for the Bible, but yet the Nicene Creed was established.
    Because there would be no bible without a Christian Church, and protestants chose to split from the Church and rely on their personal interpretation of the Bible (“sola scriptura”, the basis of all reform), do away with apostolic succession and most forms of sacraments and liturgies, and embrace heresies such as “sola gratia” (works don’t count, scoundrels go to heaven if God chooses them. They don’t even have to repent. That’s Calvin) and “sola fide” (as long as you believe in Jesus you will be saved, no matter what. That’s Luther), they can’t be considered Christians in any way, shape or form. But you’re free to call them Lutherans, Baptists, Calvinists, Evangelicals, etc. I believe there are over 30,000 Reformed denominations. As we speak, some redneck called Billy Bob is probably setting up yet another protestant denomination in a strip mall after his own whim to make some bucks and preach nonsense.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    How can you look around and watch modern society and still say that pragmatism works?
     
    I don't see any evidence that modern society is based on pragmatism. Modern society is based on emotion, ideology and superstition. Mostly emotion.

    As for protestant sects, they aren’t even Christian
     
    Thanks for confirming the point I made. There are countless groups of people claiming to be Christian. They all have different beliefs, they all have different moral values, they all interpret the Bible differently, they all think they're the only True Christians. You cannot base a society on such an incoherent mess of differing beliefs and values.

    The days when society could be successfully based on Christian moral values ended with the Reformation. Not that I'm a Catholic and not that I share their moral values but when virtually the entire population was Catholic it was possible to impose Catholic moral values on society. I'm not saying it was right or wrong or wise or foolish to do so, but it was possible to do so.

    It seems to me that your alternative to my belief that pragmatism is all we've got is to think that the clock can be magically turned back 500 years.

    I get it that you're a Catholic and I respect that. I really do. I respect your right to do your best to live according to Catholic moral values. But you can't impose your Catholic moral values on the rest of society. It would be wrong to do so and it is something that just is not going to work.
  168. anon[226] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom


    An enormous social change that happened in the first half of the 20th century and is usually ignored is the rise of the Cult of Romantic Love.
     
    That cult goes back to the 14th century. It’s deeply embedded in western civ.
     
    I assume you're referring to the concept of Courtly Love which was more of an aristocratic ideal than a reality. The notion of romantic love has certainly been around for a long time but in practice, until the early 20th century, it was something most people read about in books and poetry or saw on the stage. It certainly existed as an ideal though. The change was that in the 20th century it was suddenly something that everyone was entitled to.

    I assume you’re referring to the concept of Courtly Love which was more of an aristocratic ideal than a reality.

    The cult of Courtly Love is all about adultery, in a genteel fashion, and it is the antecedent of the modern concept that love essentially sacralizes sex. Not marriage, love, as in “true love of soulmates”. The various stories of Arthurian legend eventually wind up at the same place: the love of a knight and his married to someone else lady is a kind of sacred bond.

    In modern terms, to quote Emily Dickenson:
    ‘The Heart wants what it wants – or else it does not care’ .

    The notion of romantic love has certainly been around for a long time but in practice, until the early 20th century, it was something most people read about in books and poetry or saw on the stage. It certainly existed as an ideal though. The change was that in the 20th century it was suddenly something that everyone was entitled to.

    Not entitled to per se, but when / if it happens it must be followed.

    20th century marriage is all about the love, in fact the love must precede the marriage – and thus make the fornication before marriage sort of sacralized. Plus if the love goes and the woman becomes unhaaaaapy then the marriage can be discarded, along with the husband. The children are valuable for cash and prizes, so she gets those. Plus if she’s still in her 30’s to lower 40’s she can search for another True Love Soul Mate.

    The Cult of Courtly love is alive and well not only in modern entertainments but in most churches.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The cult of Courtly Love is all about adultery, in a genteel fashion, and it is the antecedent of the modern concept that love essentially sacralizes sex.
     
    Yes, it is pretty much a cult of adultery. Even more crucially, it encapsulates the idea that adultery is superior to marriage because adultery is based on sacralised love (which in practice is sacralised sex). Courtly Love established the idea that marriage is a kind of bondage and that marriage is dull. It established the idea that it is not only much more exciting and glamorous to pursue Romantic Love outside of marriage, it is a fine and noble thing to do so.

    For women it introduced the idea that a woman can only find true happiness in Romantic Love (based on hot sex) and that marriage is therefore an obstacle to women's happiness and fulfilment. And it introduced this idea many centuries before feminism as such was even dreamt of.

    Plus if the love goes and the woman becomes unhaaaaapy then the marriage can be discarded, along with the husband.
     
    Yes. In fact it leads to the idea that the woman has a duty to herself to abandon the marriage.

    The Cult of Courtly love is alive and well not only in modern entertainments but in most churches.
     
    Yep. Courtly Love bubbled along under the surface of western culture for more than half a millennium, not doing very much real harm since only a small minority of the population was aware of it and only an even smaller minority put it into practice. It then exploded in the early to mid 20th century and came to entirely dominate western culture, due to the ability of Hollywood movies and inexpensive romance novels to reach a mass audience.

    What's interesting is that while the explosion of Romantic Love was something that was being actively pushed it was largely the result of economic, social and technological changes which suddenly allowed fringe ideas to take over the mainstream.

    Of course you could say the same about the Cult of the Awesomeness of Homosexuality, another fringe idea that did little harm until the rise of mass entertainment allowed it to take over the mainstream.
  169. anon[226] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wency
    A society in which certain behavior receives widespread disapproval (while still happening quietly, possibly even among the loudest disapprovers) still looks rather different from one in which it's celebrated. That's the point. Everyone is influenced at least somewhat by social approval; some more so than others, but especially women and young people.

    Yes, people are hypocrites, but they at least care, both consciously and subconsciously, what the other hypocrites think or at least claim to think. And that's what the polling captures.

    A society in which certain behavior receives widespread disapproval (while still happening quietly, possibly even among the loudest disapprovers) still looks rather different from one in which it’s celebrated. That’s the point. Everyone is influenced at least somewhat by social approval; some more so than others, but especially women and young people.

    I repeat: I did not confuse fornication with adultery, I estimated the rate of adultery by the rate of fornication, because screwing around is screwing around is screwing around.

    Yes, people are hypocrites, but they at least care, both consciously and subconsciously, what the other hypocrites think or at least claim to think. And that’s what the polling captures.

    The polling captures the fact that what people say and what they do can be very, very different. This is a very important concept that for some reason most people don’t want to even think about. Perhaps because the bare truth damages various pretty lies?

    Make all the excuses you want, the facts are not changed.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The polling captures the fact that what people say and what they do can be very, very different. This is a very important concept that for some reason most people don’t want to even think about.
     
    Yep. That's the case with polling on any social issue. Surveys on social issues are pretty much pure fantasy.

    If the issue is related to sex then survey results are even more meaningless. People never have and never will tell the truth about their sexual behaviour. Even in anonymous surveys. Much of the time people don't even tell themselves the truth about their own sexual behaviour.

    And since there has never been a time when people answered such surveys truthfully we don't even know how untruthful they are, we don't know how this untruthfulness has changed over time, we don't know the various ways in which they are untruthful in such surveys and we don't know how much this untruthfulness varies between the sexes and between different social classes.

    Surveys on people's attitudes towards such subjects may or may not be marginally more reliable. We have absolutely no way of knowing.
  170. @BB753
    How can you look around and watch modern society and still say that pragmatism works?
    Mind you, there is such a thing as Christian values, pick a Roman Catholic or Orthodox catechism book up.
    As for protestant sects, they aren't even Christian, no more Christian than Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. They were man-made ad hoc religions invented by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, Wellesley, etc, just as Joseph Smith invented Mormonism to suit his worldly purposes.
    You see, Jesus didn't write the New Testament : His teachings were passed on both orally and in written form over the centuries by His apostles and disciples. There was a Christian faith before there was even a bible. And that faith was transmitted to us by apostolic succession, by the teachings of the Church fathers, and by liturgical worship.
    By the time of the first Council of Nicaea, in 325, there wasn't even an accepted canon for the Bible, but yet the Nicene Creed was established.
    Because there would be no bible without a Christian Church, and protestants chose to split from the Church and rely on their personal interpretation of the Bible ("sola scriptura", the basis of all reform), do away with apostolic succession and most forms of sacraments and liturgies, and embrace heresies such as "sola gratia" (works don't count, scoundrels go to heaven if God chooses them. They don't even have to repent. That's Calvin) and "sola fide" (as long as you believe in Jesus you will be saved, no matter what. That's Luther), they can't be considered Christians in any way, shape or form. But you're free to call them Lutherans, Baptists, Calvinists, Evangelicals, etc. I believe there are over 30,000 Reformed denominations. As we speak, some redneck called Billy Bob is probably setting up yet another protestant denomination in a strip mall after his own whim to make some bucks and preach nonsense.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

    How can you look around and watch modern society and still say that pragmatism works?

    I don’t see any evidence that modern society is based on pragmatism. Modern society is based on emotion, ideology and superstition. Mostly emotion.

    As for protestant sects, they aren’t even Christian

    Thanks for confirming the point I made. There are countless groups of people claiming to be Christian. They all have different beliefs, they all have different moral values, they all interpret the Bible differently, they all think they’re the only True Christians. You cannot base a society on such an incoherent mess of differing beliefs and values.

    The days when society could be successfully based on Christian moral values ended with the Reformation. Not that I’m a Catholic and not that I share their moral values but when virtually the entire population was Catholic it was possible to impose Catholic moral values on society. I’m not saying it was right or wrong or wise or foolish to do so, but it was possible to do so.

    It seems to me that your alternative to my belief that pragmatism is all we’ve got is to think that the clock can be magically turned back 500 years.

    I get it that you’re a Catholic and I respect that. I really do. I respect your right to do your best to live according to Catholic moral values. But you can’t impose your Catholic moral values on the rest of society. It would be wrong to do so and it is something that just is not going to work.

    • Replies: @BB753
    Modern society is mostly based on propaganda and manipulation through the mass media, social media, etc. We have some kind of values, failed of course, but imprinted on us through mass indoctrination and social engineering.

    You say I can't impose on you Catholic values, yet you insist upon imposing on me pragmatic values. Why are you right and why am I wrong?
    That's turning back the clock 50,000 years, not 500 years. You think barbarity is the pinnacle of human civilization, just as you discard casually 2,000 years of our civilization.

  171. @dfordoom

    How can you look around and watch modern society and still say that pragmatism works?
     
    I don't see any evidence that modern society is based on pragmatism. Modern society is based on emotion, ideology and superstition. Mostly emotion.

    As for protestant sects, they aren’t even Christian
     
    Thanks for confirming the point I made. There are countless groups of people claiming to be Christian. They all have different beliefs, they all have different moral values, they all interpret the Bible differently, they all think they're the only True Christians. You cannot base a society on such an incoherent mess of differing beliefs and values.

    The days when society could be successfully based on Christian moral values ended with the Reformation. Not that I'm a Catholic and not that I share their moral values but when virtually the entire population was Catholic it was possible to impose Catholic moral values on society. I'm not saying it was right or wrong or wise or foolish to do so, but it was possible to do so.

    It seems to me that your alternative to my belief that pragmatism is all we've got is to think that the clock can be magically turned back 500 years.

    I get it that you're a Catholic and I respect that. I really do. I respect your right to do your best to live according to Catholic moral values. But you can't impose your Catholic moral values on the rest of society. It would be wrong to do so and it is something that just is not going to work.

    Modern society is mostly based on propaganda and manipulation through the mass media, social media, etc. We have some kind of values, failed of course, but imprinted on us through mass indoctrination and social engineering.

    You say I can’t impose on you Catholic values, yet you insist upon imposing on me pragmatic values. Why are you right and why am I wrong?
    That’s turning back the clock 50,000 years, not 500 years. You think barbarity is the pinnacle of human civilization, just as you discard casually 2,000 years of our civilization.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    You say I can’t impose on you Catholic values, yet you insist upon imposing on me pragmatic values. Why are you right and why am I wrong?
     
    Because you represent a very small minority and it is unjust and impractical to think you can impose your values on everybody else.

    And I'm not imposing my values on you. I am absolutely happy for you to use Catholic moral values as a basis for your own life.

    That’s turning back the clock 50,000 years, not 500 years. You think barbarity is the pinnacle of human civilization, just as you discard casually 2,000 years of our civilization.
     
    Nonsense. It was the vast majority of the population of the West that casually discarded Christianity and Christian values. Whether they were right or wrong, wise or foolish, to do so is irrelevant. The reality is that it happened. It can't be undone.

    I have no opinion on whether the West should or should not have turned its back on Christianity. I simply don't see any alternative other than to accept that that is what happened. I am not arguing that a secular society is better or worse than a religious society. I simply accept the reality that we have a secular society.

    I'm describing reality. You're making the mistake of thinking that I approve of modern society. I don't like modern society very much at all but we're stuck with it. We have to find a way to make it work as successfully as possible, or at least to make it work a bit better. I think pragmatism is the answer simply because I can't see any workable alternative to it.

    You have not explained to me how you propose to re-impose Catholicism on the entire population of the West.
  172. @anon
    I assume you’re referring to the concept of Courtly Love which was more of an aristocratic ideal than a reality.

    The cult of Courtly Love is all about adultery, in a genteel fashion, and it is the antecedent of the modern concept that love essentially sacralizes sex. Not marriage, love, as in "true love of soulmates". The various stories of Arthurian legend eventually wind up at the same place: the love of a knight and his married to someone else lady is a kind of sacred bond.

    In modern terms, to quote Emily Dickenson:
    'The Heart wants what it wants - or else it does not care' .

    The notion of romantic love has certainly been around for a long time but in practice, until the early 20th century, it was something most people read about in books and poetry or saw on the stage. It certainly existed as an ideal though. The change was that in the 20th century it was suddenly something that everyone was entitled to.

    Not entitled to per se, but when / if it happens it must be followed.

    20th century marriage is all about the love, in fact the love must precede the marriage - and thus make the fornication before marriage sort of sacralized. Plus if the love goes and the woman becomes unhaaaaapy then the marriage can be discarded, along with the husband. The children are valuable for cash and prizes, so she gets those. Plus if she's still in her 30's to lower 40's she can search for another True Love Soul Mate.

    The Cult of Courtly love is alive and well not only in modern entertainments but in most churches.

    The cult of Courtly Love is all about adultery, in a genteel fashion, and it is the antecedent of the modern concept that love essentially sacralizes sex.

    Yes, it is pretty much a cult of adultery. Even more crucially, it encapsulates the idea that adultery is superior to marriage because adultery is based on sacralised love (which in practice is sacralised sex). Courtly Love established the idea that marriage is a kind of bondage and that marriage is dull. It established the idea that it is not only much more exciting and glamorous to pursue Romantic Love outside of marriage, it is a fine and noble thing to do so.

    For women it introduced the idea that a woman can only find true happiness in Romantic Love (based on hot sex) and that marriage is therefore an obstacle to women’s happiness and fulfilment. And it introduced this idea many centuries before feminism as such was even dreamt of.

    Plus if the love goes and the woman becomes unhaaaaapy then the marriage can be discarded, along with the husband.

    Yes. In fact it leads to the idea that the woman has a duty to herself to abandon the marriage.

    The Cult of Courtly love is alive and well not only in modern entertainments but in most churches.

    Yep. Courtly Love bubbled along under the surface of western culture for more than half a millennium, not doing very much real harm since only a small minority of the population was aware of it and only an even smaller minority put it into practice. It then exploded in the early to mid 20th century and came to entirely dominate western culture, due to the ability of Hollywood movies and inexpensive romance novels to reach a mass audience.

    What’s interesting is that while the explosion of Romantic Love was something that was being actively pushed it was largely the result of economic, social and technological changes which suddenly allowed fringe ideas to take over the mainstream.

    Of course you could say the same about the Cult of the Awesomeness of Homosexuality, another fringe idea that did little harm until the rise of mass entertainment allowed it to take over the mainstream.

  173. @anon
    A society in which certain behavior receives widespread disapproval (while still happening quietly, possibly even among the loudest disapprovers) still looks rather different from one in which it’s celebrated. That’s the point. Everyone is influenced at least somewhat by social approval; some more so than others, but especially women and young people.

    I repeat: I did not confuse fornication with adultery, I estimated the rate of adultery by the rate of fornication, because screwing around is screwing around is screwing around.

    Yes, people are hypocrites, but they at least care, both consciously and subconsciously, what the other hypocrites think or at least claim to think. And that’s what the polling captures.

    The polling captures the fact that what people say and what they do can be very, very different. This is a very important concept that for some reason most people don't want to even think about. Perhaps because the bare truth damages various pretty lies?

    Make all the excuses you want, the facts are not changed.

    The polling captures the fact that what people say and what they do can be very, very different. This is a very important concept that for some reason most people don’t want to even think about.

    Yep. That’s the case with polling on any social issue. Surveys on social issues are pretty much pure fantasy.

    If the issue is related to sex then survey results are even more meaningless. People never have and never will tell the truth about their sexual behaviour. Even in anonymous surveys. Much of the time people don’t even tell themselves the truth about their own sexual behaviour.

    And since there has never been a time when people answered such surveys truthfully we don’t even know how untruthful they are, we don’t know how this untruthfulness has changed over time, we don’t know the various ways in which they are untruthful in such surveys and we don’t know how much this untruthfulness varies between the sexes and between different social classes.

    Surveys on people’s attitudes towards such subjects may or may not be marginally more reliable. We have absolutely no way of knowing.

  174. @BB753
    Modern society is mostly based on propaganda and manipulation through the mass media, social media, etc. We have some kind of values, failed of course, but imprinted on us through mass indoctrination and social engineering.

    You say I can't impose on you Catholic values, yet you insist upon imposing on me pragmatic values. Why are you right and why am I wrong?
    That's turning back the clock 50,000 years, not 500 years. You think barbarity is the pinnacle of human civilization, just as you discard casually 2,000 years of our civilization.

    You say I can’t impose on you Catholic values, yet you insist upon imposing on me pragmatic values. Why are you right and why am I wrong?

    Because you represent a very small minority and it is unjust and impractical to think you can impose your values on everybody else.

    And I’m not imposing my values on you. I am absolutely happy for you to use Catholic moral values as a basis for your own life.

    That’s turning back the clock 50,000 years, not 500 years. You think barbarity is the pinnacle of human civilization, just as you discard casually 2,000 years of our civilization.

    Nonsense. It was the vast majority of the population of the West that casually discarded Christianity and Christian values. Whether they were right or wrong, wise or foolish, to do so is irrelevant. The reality is that it happened. It can’t be undone.

    I have no opinion on whether the West should or should not have turned its back on Christianity. I simply don’t see any alternative other than to accept that that is what happened. I am not arguing that a secular society is better or worse than a religious society. I simply accept the reality that we have a secular society.

    I’m describing reality. You’re making the mistake of thinking that I approve of modern society. I don’t like modern society very much at all but we’re stuck with it. We have to find a way to make it work as successfully as possible, or at least to make it work a bit better. I think pragmatism is the answer simply because I can’t see any workable alternative to it.

    You have not explained to me how you propose to re-impose Catholicism on the entire population of the West.

    • Replies: @BB753
    Well, Europeans, Middle - Eaterners, and North-Africans converted to Christianity in less than a 1,000 years. Being pragmatic, it can be done again.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    I suspect you're correct regarding Christianity in the West, at least over the next couple of generations. But there is modern precedence for a resurgence of religion in places that appeared to have left it behind--Iran, Turkey, and to a lesser extent Russia.
  175. @dfordoom

    You say I can’t impose on you Catholic values, yet you insist upon imposing on me pragmatic values. Why are you right and why am I wrong?
     
    Because you represent a very small minority and it is unjust and impractical to think you can impose your values on everybody else.

    And I'm not imposing my values on you. I am absolutely happy for you to use Catholic moral values as a basis for your own life.

    That’s turning back the clock 50,000 years, not 500 years. You think barbarity is the pinnacle of human civilization, just as you discard casually 2,000 years of our civilization.
     
    Nonsense. It was the vast majority of the population of the West that casually discarded Christianity and Christian values. Whether they were right or wrong, wise or foolish, to do so is irrelevant. The reality is that it happened. It can't be undone.

    I have no opinion on whether the West should or should not have turned its back on Christianity. I simply don't see any alternative other than to accept that that is what happened. I am not arguing that a secular society is better or worse than a religious society. I simply accept the reality that we have a secular society.

    I'm describing reality. You're making the mistake of thinking that I approve of modern society. I don't like modern society very much at all but we're stuck with it. We have to find a way to make it work as successfully as possible, or at least to make it work a bit better. I think pragmatism is the answer simply because I can't see any workable alternative to it.

    You have not explained to me how you propose to re-impose Catholicism on the entire population of the West.

    Well, Europeans, Middle – Eaterners, and North-Africans converted to Christianity in less than a 1,000 years. Being pragmatic, it can be done again.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Well, Europeans, Middle – Eaterners, and North-Africans converted to Christianity in less than a 1,000 years. Being pragmatic, it can be done again.
     
    Tell you what. If you can successfully convert the entire population of a western country to Catholicism, you can impose Catholic moral values on that country. By converting the entire population I mean converting them to actual practising Catholics, not nominal Catholics.
  176. @BB753
    Well, Europeans, Middle - Eaterners, and North-Africans converted to Christianity in less than a 1,000 years. Being pragmatic, it can be done again.

    Well, Europeans, Middle – Eaterners, and North-Africans converted to Christianity in less than a 1,000 years. Being pragmatic, it can be done again.

    Tell you what. If you can successfully convert the entire population of a western country to Catholicism, you can impose Catholic moral values on that country. By converting the entire population I mean converting them to actual practising Catholics, not nominal Catholics.

  177. @dfordoom

    You say I can’t impose on you Catholic values, yet you insist upon imposing on me pragmatic values. Why are you right and why am I wrong?
     
    Because you represent a very small minority and it is unjust and impractical to think you can impose your values on everybody else.

    And I'm not imposing my values on you. I am absolutely happy for you to use Catholic moral values as a basis for your own life.

    That’s turning back the clock 50,000 years, not 500 years. You think barbarity is the pinnacle of human civilization, just as you discard casually 2,000 years of our civilization.
     
    Nonsense. It was the vast majority of the population of the West that casually discarded Christianity and Christian values. Whether they were right or wrong, wise or foolish, to do so is irrelevant. The reality is that it happened. It can't be undone.

    I have no opinion on whether the West should or should not have turned its back on Christianity. I simply don't see any alternative other than to accept that that is what happened. I am not arguing that a secular society is better or worse than a religious society. I simply accept the reality that we have a secular society.

    I'm describing reality. You're making the mistake of thinking that I approve of modern society. I don't like modern society very much at all but we're stuck with it. We have to find a way to make it work as successfully as possible, or at least to make it work a bit better. I think pragmatism is the answer simply because I can't see any workable alternative to it.

    You have not explained to me how you propose to re-impose Catholicism on the entire population of the West.

    I suspect you’re correct regarding Christianity in the West, at least over the next couple of generations. But there is modern precedence for a resurgence of religion in places that appeared to have left it behind–Iran, Turkey, and to a lesser extent Russia.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    But there is modern precedence for a resurgence of religion in places that appeared to have left it behind–Iran, Turkey, and to a lesser extent Russia.
     
    I doubt that Islam was ever anywhere near as thoroughly dead in Iran and Turkey as Christianity is in the West.

    Anatoly Karlin has discussed the religious revival in Russia several times. It sounds like it's mostly illusory and superficial.

    But yes, it is just possible that Christianity might revive.

    Would it be a good thing? Would we again get to enjoy the benefits of living in a Christian society? You know, stuff like the Inquisition, witch-burnings, laws against Sabbath-breakers.

    I remember reading Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale years ago and thinking it was ludicrous feminist hysteria. But when I see some of the comments by Christians on UR I start to think maybe Atwood had a point!
  178. @Audacious Epigone
    I suspect you're correct regarding Christianity in the West, at least over the next couple of generations. But there is modern precedence for a resurgence of religion in places that appeared to have left it behind--Iran, Turkey, and to a lesser extent Russia.

    But there is modern precedence for a resurgence of religion in places that appeared to have left it behind–Iran, Turkey, and to a lesser extent Russia.

    I doubt that Islam was ever anywhere near as thoroughly dead in Iran and Turkey as Christianity is in the West.

    Anatoly Karlin has discussed the religious revival in Russia several times. It sounds like it’s mostly illusory and superficial.

    But yes, it is just possible that Christianity might revive.

    Would it be a good thing? Would we again get to enjoy the benefits of living in a Christian society? You know, stuff like the Inquisition, witch-burnings, laws against Sabbath-breakers.

    I remember reading Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale years ago and thinking it was ludicrous feminist hysteria. But when I see some of the comments by Christians on UR I start to think maybe Atwood had a point!

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS