PDA

View Full Version : With the rise of women's right civillizations may begin to fall - Sociological study



Seanp
09-01-17, 14:40
An interesting short analysis made based on book Sex and Culture by J. D. Unwin.

Should we reconsider the bases of morality of our society before it's too late?



"Sex and Culture" by J. D. Unwin published in 1934. The book analyzes 80 primitive cultures (anthropology) and a number of past empires (history) and finds that, without exception, the level of advancement or decline of all cultures is directly tied to the level of regulation of female sexuality. His historical examples include the Sumerians, Babylonians, Athenians, Romans, Teutons, and Anglo-Saxons (600s - 900s), and English (1500s - 1900s). In every example, these cultures began to rise when women were required to be virgins at marriage and to be monogamous for life. All of these cultures began to decline when women were given rights, were not required to be virgins at marriage, when divorce was common, and marriage was in decline.




This book makes me feel ridiculous for thinking that we are facing some new problem with feminism. We are just repeating history, that has been repeated over and over again. I knew that late Rome had some of these issues, but I didn't know how universal it was. For example, in late Babylonia, they had alimony, child support, no-fault divorce, marital rape laws, and economic equal rights for women. Soon after, this empire, that had lasted hundreds of years, collapsed. All of these successful cultures had begun at the opposite extreme, almost beyond modern imagination, with no rights for women. For example, the punishment for adultery among the early Anglo-Saxons was that adulterous wife was killed and the guilty man had to buy a new wife for the harmed husband. The European middle ages were a result of sexual decadence and the gradual rise of Europe starting in the 1600s was the result of gradually increasing regulation of women, largely caused by Christianity.

Since this book was published in England in 1934, Unwin describes the degree of sexual decay in his time as being substantially less advanced than it was by the end of other empires. Of course, what we see today in 2008 is quite different from 1934, and exactly matches the behavior of all empires just before their collapse.

The great strength of this book is in its method, to rationally analyze all anthropological and historical data to look for the relationship between sex and culture. The weakness of this book is when he tries to analyze and explain this relationship. Unwin is actually an academic liberal thinker, and largely a Freudian, which was common at this time. His explanation is that restricting female sexuality also restricts male sexuality, and that repressed sexuality expresses itself in other ways such as cultural advancement. All of us realize that this is nonsense. We realize this because we live in a culture that is fully decayed, and we know that restricting female sexuality actually benefits male sexuality by distributing women more equitably. So I cannot really hold Unwin's mistaken conclusion against him since he did not have enough understanding to realize the cause of the relationship between sex and culture that he found.

Seanp
09-01-17, 14:48
Men are said to consider sex as the most motivational part of life. Without sex we wouldn't be able to thrive as long as we don't have the privilege to establish the bases to attract the opposite gender we have an inner need to fight for a woman.

In our society as we get the access to liberalize our senses and sexual desire, we seem to lose the most motivational energy to test and question our limits. Sexual energy in fact plays the most significant part when it comes to inventions and leadership.

Where would be the great men of our society without their partner?

Being in a relationship or sexuality should be viewed as a privilege, not an option if sexual desire what brings this society further. In the past only 40% of men had even an access to have sex and polygamy was viewed normal as multiple women mated with a single "most dominant" man.
We need proof?
What's our Y-dna which proves that we're all originated from a single man who lived 60 thousand years ago in East Africa.

firetown
09-01-17, 14:48
Look at the strongest economies worldwide and the weakest and compare women's rights. Times have changed quite drastically. Back in the days Sumerians were easily taken over, but these days it is the war of the minds where advanced technology wins and not physical strength.

firetown
09-01-17, 14:54
You have stated yourself previously women making choices based on all types of characteristics which might or might not be beneficial in terms of working relationship wise. When it comes to decision making, it isn't about male or female but rather those advancing in their dating endeavors and those stuck on stupid.

LeBrok
09-01-17, 18:38
Another pile of manure by Seanp. Do you have recent studies confirming what this "scientist" from 19th century supposes? I don't think you would care if it true or not, because this already confirmed and justified your hatred to women and need to keep them under control. This is so sick that it makes me wonder what psychological disorder you might have. You can help us with this, be honest.

Seanp
09-01-17, 22:45
Another pile of manure by Seanp. Do you have recent studies confirming what this "scientist" from 19th century supposes? I don't think you would care if it true or not, because this already confirmed and justified your hatred to women and need to keep them under control. This is so sick that it makes me wonder what psychological disorder you might have. You can help us with this, be honest.

Don't you have any better to say than keep inventing things that isn't true. (please check that 1934 was not in the XIX century) i never claimed to be a pro patriarchal myself, but we need to see the other sides of the coin than keep chanting the typical "Nazi, women hater, alt right" to everyone who share a different opinion.

LeBrok
09-01-17, 23:03
Don't you have any better to say than keep inventing things that isn't true. (please check that 1934 was not in the XIX century) This guy was educated in 19th century and has mindset from this time.


i never claimed to be a pro patriarchal myself,Are you trying to pull a fake news on us, lol.



but we need to see the other sides of the coin than keep chanting the typical "Nazi, women hater, alt right" to everyone who share a different opinion.Oh, it hurts you? So stop being one.
I said many times, I'm intolerant only to intolerant people, and you are the best example of one.

Twilight
10-01-17, 01:43
Don't you have any better to say than keep inventing things that isn't true. (please check that 1934 was not in the XIX century) i never claimed to be a pro patriarchal myself, but we need to see the other sides of the coin than keep chanting the typical "Nazi, women hater, alt right" to everyone who share a different opinion.

Sean, I appreciate that you like Antique studies and they may be good for delving into the mindset of this case 83 years ago;1934. However here on Eupedia we strive to give our members the latest and greatest studies. Perhaps there are old reference books at your local library that you can look at. ^_^

MarkoZ
10-01-17, 08:31
From having read one of Unwin's books years ago, I remember that he was a staunch opponent of the virulent racism of his elder, more respected colleagues from the continent like Malinkowski & Levy-Strauss. An early egalitarian of sorts, who stressed that 'the natives' were equal in ability to whites provided they received the same education. Hardly your typical dusty, white bigot.

About his publications on this even touchier subject, I think he made it clear that he himself was surprised by what he found. He sort of predicted that even in his time his work wouldn't exactly receive a positive reception. Nonetheless, as a work of ethnography 'Sex & Culture' is quite sound. It's bound to be misread and misinterpreted by the all the wrong people, but that shouldn't deter you from keeping an open mind about this. You won't see even the faintest support of Unwin's thesis in the modern social sciences - no researcher would touch this unless he wants a career at Walmart.

bicicleur
10-01-17, 12:00
From having read one of Unwin's books years ago, I remember that he was a staunch opponent of the virulent racism of his elder, more respected colleagues from the continent like Malinkowski & Levy-Strauss. An early egalitarian of sorts, who stressed that 'the natives' were equal in ability to whites provided they received the same education. Hardly your typical dusty, white bigot.

About his publications on this even touchier subject, I think he made it clear that he himself was surprised by what he found. He sort of predicted that even in his time his work wouldn't exactly receive a positive reception. Nonetheless, as a work of ethnography 'Sex & Culture' is quite sound. It's bound to be misread and misinterpreted by the all the wrong people, but that shouldn't deter you from keeping an open mind about this. You won't see even the faintest support of Unwin's thesis in the modern social sciences - no researcher would touch this unless he wants a career at Walmart.

thanks
I didn't know Unwin
the topic seems interesting to me but I don't know whatever conclusion I could draw
I think indeed that sex is an important factor in the human mind and hence for the whole society
it is strange there has not been any follow-up on this work
is that due to some kind of political correctness as you seem to imply?

Angela
10-01-17, 17:25
Correlation is not causation.

I think an argument could be made that the decline of the family is tied to the decline of a civilization. Why does the family decline, however? Is it solely or even mainly because of the emancipation of women? Or is it because of the infantilization of men?

Let's just look at modern society. I know scores of young women. Virtually without exception they want to get married and they want to have children. What about the young men? It's exactly the opposite. They flee commitment like the plague. They much prefer spending their income on toys: computers, phones, cars, video games, etc. They have no desire to see the "fun" stop.

Now, why is the case? Perhaps it's the easy availability of consumer toys, perhaps it's what is held up as a model in the media. It's certainly possible as well that it's because when the milk is free, why buy the cow, to put it crudely. If that's partly the reason, then women are sabotaging themselves.

I honestly don't completely understand the dynamic.

Twilight
10-01-17, 17:29
thanks
I didn't know Unwin
the topic seems interesting to me but I don't know whatever conclusion I could draw
I think indeed that sex is an important factor in the human mind and hence for the whole society
it is strange there has not been any follow-up on this work
is that due to some kind of political correctness as you seem to imply?

Forgive me for being blunt or possibly ignorant but Im just confused but intrigued :). How did Political Correctness; stopping the n,fa and r word have to do with halting Unwin's work? Honestly thanks to MLK, Malcolm X and the integration of differenct cultures in our cities that there is a continuity in Unwin's work on the contrary but please feel free to educate me if this is misleading. ;)

Seanp
10-01-17, 18:00
Correlation is not causation.

I think an argument could be made that the decline of the family is tied to the decline of a civilization. Why does the family decline, however? Is it solely or even mainly because of the emancipation of women? Or is it because of the initialization of men?

Let's just look at modern society. I know scores of young women. Virtually without exception they want to get married and they want to have children. What about the young men? It's exactly the opposite. They flee commitment like the plague. They much prefer spending their income on toys: computers, phones, cars, video games, etc. They have no desire to see the "fun" stop.

Now, why is the case? Perhaps it's the easy availability of consumer toys, perhaps it's what is held up as a model in the media. It's certainly possible as well that it's because when the milk is free, why buy the cow, to put it crudely. If that's partly the reason, then women are sabotaging themselves.

I honestly don't completely understand the dynamic.

Since our modern world is oversexualized and one night stand relationship became normal in contrast being a virgin is considered as a shame even among 16 years old, what do we expect? Most of us even the so called Christian Europeans feel no guilty to engage in sex before marriage. What's the point for men to settle down in a relationship which has no other benefits than losing other possible partners for psychical pleasure.
I agree with you that most younger men as younger women see themselves as toys and it's a kind of pleasure to use each others body for a short period of time to handle our frustration.

Why does the Western family decline?

There may be many factors to consider other than sexuality, but the morality of each of these individuals who make the society. Since our early childhood we're believed to be social beings and we're educated in a way to be cooperative when it comes to working and partners, we see new people around us and we get used to lose and get new relationships.
Most younger in capitalist societies were being spent their childhood around other kids not with their parents so the basic learning-copy mechanism to follow the parents become little to non existent.

Money and personal succeed became the most important model in the Western/Capitalist system. People give up social life if it has no benefits other than profit and acquaintance. Being involved in a relationship takes a lot of time and considerations.
Financial success became the major part when people consider to have a child. In the past people had an own land and their work and production didn't base upon the society as they were able to live on their own. Most people today feel vulnerable about their jobs, economy and barely knows what would happen in the future.
People either think about the past or the future.
"We're planning a family together" instead "make a family"


The most concepts consider humans as social beings, but do most realize the fact most people were used to live in smaller societies around people with close relationship.
What's the situation now?
- Most people live in metropolitan areas around millions of people.
- Those who get used to know hundreds in their lives barely get really close to all, in fact a lot will feel segregated and powerless by the fact that even if they build a relationship with x people these sort of connections often break up by school changes, moving to other areas and other major factors.
- The lose of relationship with family seem to be the most significant problem because family is what keep somebody safe at young age and if someone doesn't get the basic time and values to build a close family the psychological mechanism or need to copy this mechanism will be missing in his adulthood.

We learn by copy others lifestyle and if we miss the first step (family) we're lost and lose the morality, knowledge to build and keep a family.
We have to consider the improvement of entertainment system. People spend hours with video games, movies. Women fall in love with role model characters from TV shows and a lot build the "perfect man" standard which doesn't even exist only in the show she watches or the singer she listens 2 hours a day.
The fetish of celebs and other cults had lead to millions of people living in a dream world including religion.
Men who feel powerless keep watching TV shows as well and they associate themselves with basketball players, movie actors and get their "role model" based on these shows.
Even adult men i talk to seem to lack "own personality" but seek a role model - it usually becomes politic, nation or an idea that take away his own individualistic thinking and make him incapable to form own toughs.

LeBrok
10-01-17, 18:41
Let's just look at modern society. I know scores of young women. Virtually without exception they want to get married and they want to have children. What about the young men? It's exactly the opposite. They flee commitment like the plague. They much prefer spending their income on toys: computers, phones, cars, video games, etc. They have no desire to see the "fun" stop.

Definitely I can see this trend. Majority of guys would love to "Peter Pan" through life.

Sile
10-01-17, 19:25
Since our modern world is oversexualized and one night stand relationship became normal in contrast being a virgin is considered as a shame even among 16 years old, what do we expect? Most of us even the so called Christian Europeans feel no guilty to engage in sex before marriage. What's the point for men to settle down in a relationship which has no other benefits than losing other possible partners for psychical pleasure.
I agree with you that most younger men as younger women see themselves as toys and it's a kind of pleasure to use each others body for a short period of time to handle our frustration.

Why does the Western family decline?

There may be many factors to consider other than sexuality, but the morality of each of these individuals who make the society. Since our early childhood we're believed to be social beings and we're educated in a way to be cooperative when it comes to working and partners, we see new people around us and we get used to lose and get new relationships.
Most younger in capitalist societies were being spent their childhood around other kids not with their parents so the basic learning-copy mechanism to follow the parents become little to non existent.

Money and personal succeed became the most important model in the Western/Capitalist system. People give up social life if it has no benefits other than profit and acquaintance. Being involved in a relationship takes a lot of time and considerations.
Financial success became the major part when people consider to have a child. In the past people had an own land and their work and production didn't base upon the society as they were able to live on their own. Most people today feel vulnerable about their jobs, economy and barely knows what would happen in the future.
People either think about the past or the future.
"We're planning a family together" instead "make a family"


The most concepts consider humans as social beings, but do most realize the fact most people were used to live in smaller societies around people with close relationship.
What's the situation now?
- Most people live in metropolitan areas around millions of people.
- Those who get used to know hundreds in their lives barely get really close to all, in fact a lot will feel segregated and powerless by the fact that even if they build a relationship with x people these sort of connections often break up by school changes, moving to other areas and other major factors.
- The lose of relationship with family seem to be the most significant problem because family is what keep somebody safe at young age and if someone doesn't get the basic time and values to build a close family the psychological mechanism or need to copy this mechanism will be missing in his adulthood.

We learn by copy others lifestyle and if we miss the first step (family) we're lost and lose the morality, knowledge to build and keep a family.
We have to consider the improvement of entertainment system. People spend hours with video games, movies. Women fall in love with role model characters from TV shows and a lot build the "perfect man" standard which doesn't even exist only in the show she watches or the singer she listens 2 hours a day.
The fetish of celebs and other cults had lead to millions of people living in a dream world including religion.
Men who feel powerless keep watching TV shows as well and they associate themselves with basketball players, movie actors and get their "role model" based on these shows.
Even adult men i talk to seem to lack "own personality" but seek a role model - it usually becomes politic, nation or an idea that take away his own individualistic thinking and make him incapable to form own toughs.

It is very simple to understand

If you do not accept full gender equality, then you are also a racist in every other means.


A woman has always chosen her partner ...........unless the man has "bought" her via her family.
If you have not been chosen then you lack something the women see missing.

But women fail to understand how to keep a man ...............and it is not , a way to a man's heart is through his stomach

bicicleur
10-01-17, 19:34
Forgive me for being blunt or possibly ignorant but Im just confused but intrigued :). How did Political Correctness; stopping the n,fa and r word have to do with halting Unwin's work? Honestly thanks to MLK, Malcolm X and the integration of differenct cultures in our cities that there is a continuity in Unwin's work on the contrary but please feel free to educate me if this is misleading. ;)

it's a question of me to Markoz to whose post I replied
just read that post
and as I told, I'm not familiar with Unwin
what continuation to his work is there?

bicicleur
10-01-17, 19:44
Correlation is not causation.

I think an argument could be made that the decline of the family is tied to the decline of a civilization. Why does the family decline, however? Is it solely or even mainly because of the emancipation of women? Or is it because of the infantilization of men?

Let's just look at modern society. I know scores of young women. Virtually without exception they want to get married and they want to have children. What about the young men? It's exactly the opposite. They flee commitment like the plague. They much prefer spending their income on toys: computers, phones, cars, video games, etc. They have no desire to see the "fun" stop.

Now, why is the case? Perhaps it's the easy availability of consumer toys, perhaps it's what is held up as a model in the media. It's certainly possible as well that it's because when the milk is free, why buy the cow, to put it crudely. If that's partly the reason, then women are sabotaging themselves.

I honestly don't completely understand the dynamic.

I don't know how it is elsewhere, but look at school classes in Belgium.
Many or sometimes even most children don't come out of a regular family any more with their biological father and their biological mother still together.
Men swap wife, women swap husband. It's that simple.
There is more to it than just boys buying some toys.
And yes, the milk is free.
Maybe both men and women are happier like that, but it surely don't help for a stable society.

Angela
10-01-17, 20:22
I don't know how it is elsewhere, but look at school classes in Belgium.
Many or sometimes even most children don't come out of a regular family any more with their biological father and their biological mother still together.
Men swap wife, women swap husband. It's that simple.
There is more to it than just boys buying some toys.
And yes, the milk is free.
Maybe both men and women are happier like that, but it surely don't help for a stable society.

From my observations, women are not happier like that. That's not to say that it isn't good, imo, that women no longer have to stay married to a man who beats them, or is a drunk or drug addict, or is emotionally abusive. Women are also far less likely to tolerate male infidelity when they can support themselves. I can't be sorry about that.

The problem is that even the people who marry separate for far less than that, and even when they have small children, but in this case I think it varies a great deal by social class or region of the country. For the entire time that my children were at home, we belonged to a pool and tennis club where we did the majority of our socializing. My children grew up there practically. Out of the maybe 300 members, I only remember two or three divorces. It just didn't happen. Interestingly, once the children were out of the house and on their own quite a few couples split up, usually at the instigation of the wife. A good number had tolerated infidelity for the sake of the children, but once the kids were grown they just didn't have to put up with it anymore. Some were, however, men going through a second or third mid-life crisis and wanted a younger model, and didn't have to feel guilty about it anymore.

This is, however, a rather conservative, at least nominally religious north-east suburb, where social mores are more conservative. Other parts of the country, like the West Coast and Florida, and working class communities everywhere are different, I think. I guess there are a lot of factors involved, including economics, family background, presence of extended family in the area, religious background, impulse control, etc

I think certain parts of Europe are even further along this road. I was watching a Norwegian crime procedural last week and was amazed at the nature of the sexual relationships. A middle-aged man has an affair with a younger woman, has a child with her, divorces the first wife although he doesn't marry the second, then after two years has a sexual encounter with the wife, leaves the younger woman, the wife takes him back with no fuss, the younger woman also doesn't make much of a fuss, and most of the time the wife winds up taking care of the baby, because the younger woman takes up with a new man and has another baby within months. Meanwhile, he has no time for any of them, and his two oldest with his wife get totally screwed up.

I don't understand it. The sex seems to be disconnected from real emotion and commitment and concern for the consequences. I would have wanted to gut him like a fish. I certainly would never have taken him back. Of all the irresponsible, idiotic...

In another segment, there are two young mothers with illegitimate children. One was the product of a vacation fling and she had no idea where the father was, and didn't care. She was on welfare and doing part time cleaning. Another one had a child with some guy she knew in high school. She didn't "like" him enough to marry him. I really don't see this kind of behavior among the young people around me, not unless you're talking about minority communities. I'll tell you right now that if my daughter had done or did do that I would go to jail, because I'd snatch all the hair off her head. Did I sacrifice my life so she could act this way, with no concern even for the poor child, with no father and a mother who can't finish her education and thus can't support a child adequately?

I only hope that like most television shows it doesn't depict reality.

LeBrok
10-01-17, 20:37
Since our modern world is oversexualized and one night stand relationship became normal in contrast being a virgin is considered as a shame even among 16 years old, what do we expect? Most of us even the so called Christian Europeans feel no guilty to engage in sex before marriage. What's the point for men to settle down in a relationship which has no other benefits than losing other possible partners for psychical pleasure.
I agree with you that most younger men as younger women see themselves as toys and it's a kind of pleasure to use each others body for a short period of time to handle our frustration.

Why does the Western family decline? According to you, sex should be the reason a man marries a woman. You managed to miss all these "less" important stuff like raising kids together, helping each other in all life circumstances, getting financially more ahead, companionship, having the best friend forever, growing old together, feel free to add few.
You sound like an old christian devotee fixed only on sin of sex, and evil coming from women. I picture you as an older guy who doesn't get sex, and hates women. For that reason nobody can get sex either, and women should learn their place.


There may be many factors to consider other than sexuality, but the morality of each of these individuals who make the society. Since our early childhood we're believed to be social beings and we're educated in a way to be cooperative when it comes to working and partners, we see new people around us and we get used to lose and get new relationships.
Most younger in capitalist societies were being spent their childhood around other kids not with their parents so the basic learning-copy mechanism to follow the parents become little to non existent. Unlike in eastern block communist countries, where every kid went to kindergarten from age of 3. Perhaps you compared "capitalism" to 19th century feudalism instead, like in your country you grew up in?


Money and personal succeed became the most important model in the Western/Capitalist system. People give up social life if it has no benefits other than profit and acquaintance. Being involved in a relationship takes a lot of time and considerations.
Financial success became the major part when people consider to have a child. In the past people had an own land and their work and production didn't base upon the society as they were able to live on their own. Most people today feel vulnerable about their jobs, economy and barely knows what would happen in the future. Yes, 19th century, when half kids died before age of 18th, people were infested with fleas, lice and hookworms, and a husband with old world morals could whip his wife at will. Oh, yeah, so much better!


We learn by copy others lifestyle and if we miss the first step (family) we're lost and lose the morality, knowledge to build and keep a family.I agree with this. We can see examples of tight old fashioned control in Amish, Hutterites and others alike. I think you should consider moving to their villages. I'm sure, you'll be much happier in this 19th century setup. One condition though, no using immoral Internet, capitalist health care and medications, or anything decadent and rotten Western society invented.


We have to consider the improvement of entertainment system. People spend hours with video games, movies. Women fall in love with role model characters from TV shows and a lot build the "perfect man" standard which doesn't even exist only in the show she watches or the singer she listens 2 hours a day.
The fetish of celebs and other cults had lead to millions of people living in a dream world including religion.
Men who feel powerless keep watching TV shows as well and they associate themselves with basketball players, movie actors and get their "role model" based on these shows.
Even adult men i talk to seem to lack "own personality" but seek a role model - it usually becomes politic, nation or an idea that take away his own individualistic thinking and make him incapable to form own toughs.Right, and no music or dances in your village. Total Taliban and IS style oppression of "immoral" society, sinful women in burka.

Seanp
10-01-17, 21:14
Back to topic..



In Sex and Culture (1934), Unwin studied 80 primitive tribes and 6 known civilizations through 5,000 years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Unwin#cite_note-1) "Sex and Culture is a work of the highest importance," Aldous Huxley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldous_Huxley) wrote:
Unwin's conclusions, which are based upon an enormous wealth of carefully sifted evidence, may be summed up as follows. All human societies are in one or another of six cultural conditions: zoistic, manistic, deistic, rationalistic, expansive, productive. Of these societies the zoistic displays the least amount of mental and social energy, the productive the most. Investigation shows that the societies exhibiting the least amount of energy are those where pre-nuptial continence is not imposed and where the opportunities for sexual indulgence after marriage are greatest. The cultural condition of a society rises in exact proportion as it imposes pre-nuptial and post-nuptial restraints upon sexual opportunity.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Unwin#cite_note-2)

According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The effect, says the author, is irrevocable:

The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Unwin#cite_note-3)





It is very simple to understand

If you do not accept full gender equality, then you are also a racist in every other means.




That's a good observation Sir. Yes there's some correlation between racism and sexism.

Angela
10-01-17, 21:44
Nonsense. Sexual "morality" defined as the sexual enslavement of women is certainly no guarantor of a thriving civilization. Just look at the Near East: it's a hell hole. The more repressive their culture becomes, the worse it gets. Their role models are brainwashed, sex starved teen-agers who blow themselves up. Who would want to live even in the non-Muslim areas?

Or look at Muslim Spain. Under tolerant regimes, they expanded. As soon as more fundamentalist, extreme sects took hold they entered a period of steady decline, ultimately getting kicked out of Spain.

Neolithic Europe may not have been a matriarchy, but it wasn't the patriarchy introduced by the Indo-Europeans, and they created an advanced civilization in the Balkans. What did them in was not more respect for a woman's role, but climate change and plague most likely.

It's all just confirmation bias. He found, like a lot of people, what he wanted to find.

Twilight
10-01-17, 23:13
it's a question of me to Markoz to whose post I replied
just read that post
and as I told, I'm not familiar with Unwin
what continuation to his work is there?

I'll have to check the actual article tonight; since it's lunch break over here. I admit that I'm just getting to know Urwin myself but if he is anti-fascist as reputed, it's the values of the Liberals however it seems to be the view of the Alt-right also; it seems like both sides are going via the same goal equality but have different views of how to go about it. I'm a little dumb-struck and it seems like I'm looking further into a blind eye everyday but I'll see if I can do some reasearch and get back to you; maybe looking via pdfs. ^_^

Update: Found the book in question, It's in the internet archives currently.

https://archive.org/details/b20442580

firetown
11-01-17, 09:12
Since our modern world is oversexualized and one night stand relationship became normal in contrast being a virgin is considered as a shame even among 16 years old, what do we expect? Most of us even the so called Christian Europeans feel no guilty to engage in sex before marriage. What's the point for men to settle down in a relationship which has no other benefits than losing other possible partners for psychical pleasure.
I agree with you that most younger men as younger women see themselves as toys and it's a kind of pleasure to use each others body for a short period of time to handle our frustration.

Why does the Western family decline?

There may be many factors to consider other than sexuality, but the morality of each of these individuals who make the society. Since our early childhood we're believed to be social beings and we're educated in a way to be cooperative when it comes to working and partners, we see new people around us and we get used to lose and get new relationships.
Most younger in capitalist societies were being spent their childhood around other kids not with their parents so the basic learning-copy mechanism to follow the parents become little to non existent.

Money and personal succeed became the most important model in the Western/Capitalist system. People give up social life if it has no benefits other than profit and acquaintance. Being involved in a relationship takes a lot of time and considerations.
Financial success became the major part when people consider to have a child. In the past people had an own land and their work and production didn't base upon the society as they were able to live on their own. Most people today feel vulnerable about their jobs, economy and barely knows what would happen in the future.
People either think about the past or the future.
"We're planning a family together" instead "make a family"


The most concepts consider humans as social beings, but do most realize the fact most people were used to live in smaller societies around people with close relationship.
What's the situation now?
- Most people live in metropolitan areas around millions of people.
- Those who get used to know hundreds in their lives barely get really close to all, in fact a lot will feel segregated and powerless by the fact that even if they build a relationship with x people these sort of connections often break up by school changes, moving to other areas and other major factors.
- The lose of relationship with family seem to be the most significant problem because family is what keep somebody safe at young age and if someone doesn't get the basic time and values to build a close family the psychological mechanism or need to copy this mechanism will be missing in his adulthood.

We learn by copy others lifestyle and if we miss the first step (family) we're lost and lose the morality, knowledge to build and keep a family.
We have to consider the improvement of entertainment system. People spend hours with video games, movies. Women fall in love with role model characters from TV shows and a lot build the "perfect man" standard which doesn't even exist only in the show she watches or the singer she listens 2 hours a day.
The fetish of celebs and other cults had lead to millions of people living in a dream world including religion.
Men who feel powerless keep watching TV shows as well and they associate themselves with basketball players, movie actors and get their "role model" based on these shows.
Even adult men i talk to seem to lack "own personality" but seek a role model - it usually becomes politic, nation or an idea that take away his own individualistic thinking and make him incapable to form own toughs.

And men lose themselves into a dream world not realizing how much their female partner could be if the men made an active decision to "make her the one" rather than practicing escapism and losing himself in pornography or whatever else. I think both women and men are equally guilty in this war of the sexes every society seems to battle.
Worst to me is blaming either gender. Only way is to bridge the communication gaps. And btw. I always believe the recessive is the true strength. Brute force never wins in the long run. Women do have the real power to make changes, but too many give that power away and live in misery never really understanding their own ability to choose and change "the right one".

FBS
12-01-17, 14:45
All I see through Seanp is that he is insecure, for him women should all be virgins in order for him to impress them sexually! Well boo-hoo, it's gone baby gone, irreversibly. We are witnessing the last attempts through ISIS, white supremacists, Christian bigots, far lefts and the likes who only feel secure when enslaving some members of the society in order for them not to feel challenged and insecure, but it is just the end of a long era. Things are changing, women are never going back to being slaves again, get used to it!

bicicleur
12-01-17, 18:14
how about this :

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2017/01/12/vikings-the-top-reason-for-their-brutal-savage-invasions/

lack of access to women as a motivator to migrate

Judith
12-01-17, 20:55
When will people (men?) stop equating power as power over others. Civilisation will not fall apart because women have rights in society and their own sexuality.
It is too simplistic and possibly only promoted by men, who are threatened by women who wish to make their own choice.

MarkoZ
12-01-17, 21:22
thanks
I didn't know Unwin
the topic seems interesting to me but I don't know whatever conclusion I could draw
I think indeed that sex is an important factor in the human mind and hence for the whole society
it is strange there has not been any follow-up on this work
is that due to some kind of political correctness as you seem to imply?

Perhaps political correctness would be the wrong term to use. I think Unwin's findings go against the European conception of individual freedom, a belief which really transcends the political spectrum. I haven't read his later works, but 'Sex & Culture' is a really dry ethnographic study and doesn't really contain an indictment against feminism or anyhing of the sort. Female chastity is only an issue because sexual behaviour is traditionally regulated by restricting the rights of women in most societies. Unwin seems to indicate that the key aspect of sexual repression is the containment of unbridled male sexuality. (He chalks the effects of sexual restraint up to the Freudian sublimation of sexual energy, but I think it could have more to do with increased communal and familial investment from men). And indeed, if men by their nature are less inclined to monogamy, the obligation to lifelong sexual exclusivity would be worse for them.

Also note that Unwin did not claim that sexual repression would necessarily lead to material prosperity or impressive advances in techno-science. His studies merely shows that the tribes/societies that practiced sexual restraint were capable of independent cultural development. To be clear, I think there are many ways in which a culturally indistinct society could be a better place to live than a culturally developed society. Looking at modern and historic states that should be quite obvious.

firetown
12-01-17, 21:47
I think that the only men who enjoy power over women are the ones who are being overpowered by other men in life and powerless over it.
Successful men value the partnership of a woman. And by success I do not just mean money, but having inner balance, being yourself and "making it" without having to be a fake or crawling up your bosses xxx in order to be rewarded what you're truly worth.

When will people (men?) stop equating power as power over others. Civilisation will not fall apart because women have rights in society and their own sexuality.
It is too simplistic and possibly only promoted by men, who are threatened by women who wish to make their own choice.

Tomenable
16-01-17, 17:04
You won't see even the faintest support of Unwin's thesis in the modern social sciences - no researcher would touch this unless he wants a career at Walmart.

https://i.imgflip.com/h3l1l.jpg

halfalp
18-01-17, 19:53
Man... Some of you are very virulent in their reply, it seems that every topic, is an ultimate necessity of survive. We can ear a lot of things about men and women, frustration is one of the most destructive emotion, and sexual life does not escape the rule. I personnaly think that men and women are not make to live together for ever, but, it doesnt change the fact, that love, sexual attirance... Are very multiple and individual ( in a two person reciprocity ). And everybody with voluntee, can being happy, it just demand time, patience and relativism. About the subject itselves, civilization is a very ambiguous term, especially if we put politic in. My good ol friend Europe, is a great civilization only if i look in the past. And north-america... well everybody has his esthetic value.

PeruvianJuggernaut
06-02-17, 05:23
Feel free to refute me (as I am young and inexperienced in such matters of love) but I believe modern society is far too focused on sex. It's as if everything is sexualized, to a degree where the activities themselves become devalued. I don't want Western society to revert back to total prudence, as is found in the Middle East, but it should definitely tone the promiscuity down to negligible and more manageable levels. But then again, I'm just a kid who hardly knows what he's getting into. As I mentioned, feel free to prove me wrong; in fact, I implore you.