[TSC2295]

This is a topic which I often contemplate: the benefits of having a society which is sexually liberal versus those of a society which is more traditional.

Up until the 1960s - so say the rose tinted glasses of conservatives - we lived in a golden age of human interaction wherein man and wife lived harmoniously, and did not fuck unless they were wearing their wedding rings. Logically, this was at least not completely the case as many people still had sex out of wedlock.

One of the criticisms I see levied at Communism is that it is impossible due to human nature being inherently selfish. If we except this is true, why do these same people suggest that we should live in a society where sex is restricted to marriage? Obviously, that is a denial of basic human nature - as seen by the amount of bastards had in the past. It seems folly, therefore, to continue the great charade with regards to fantasizing about a society in which people are "chaste" as they will not be so.

But if we completely surrender to our depraved, base selves we lose one of the most important aspects of humanity: civilization. In addition to this, it is obviously a bad idea to wife up a slut. My question therefore is "what is better for humanity: sexual openness, conservatism, or a mix of both?" If the latter, to what extent would you argue so?

[TooFineAPoint]

There is a further distinction of selfishness (or we could use a term I prefer, which is "enlightened self-interest"). It is time preference.

So if you act selfishly with a high time preference, bashing in another guy's brains might make a lot of sense. If you act selfishly with a low time preference, you find a way to make a win-win and you build on your (and your children's future).

Apply this thought to sexual dynamics. Sex is not a good that is isolated in a vacuum. One of the ways to enjoy sex and other benefits simultaneously is to get involved in an ongoing consensual monogamous partnership, which builds upon your future.

This is a lot of blah blah blah, even for a forum post. You can't persuade mass amounts of people like this. So maybe it's easier to say "chastity" or "no sex before marriage" and invoke deities. Maybe that method of persuasion is outdated now. But that doesn't mean the organization and its result were going against human nature. They were tweaking human nature for max benefits.

[Paracelsus]

(04-30-2016 02:40 PM)TSC2295 Wrote:  

But if we completely surrender to our depraved, base selves we lose one of the most important aspects of humanity: civilization. In addition to this, it is obviously a bad idea to wife up a slut. My question therefore is "what is better for humanity: sexual openness, conservatism, or a mix of both?" If the latter, to what extent would you argue so?

A mixture of both, but you might as well say the mixture needs to be at a "Goldilocks point" - not too little, not too much, but just right.

I view promiscuity as ultimately risk-taking behaviour in present culture. Some risk-taking behaviour is beneficial for the species, but I think we have hit or passed the point of utility and into degradation.

I came across a recent study published in Nature which has profound implications for this discussion. I discussed it in this thread -- thread-44992.html -- but in summary, it suggests that we are hardwired as a species to be risk-averse when the odds of not mating are high. That is, when your towns and villages are spaced out far apart, where infant/maternal mortality is high, and the number of individuals is less than 1,000 or so, there is a distinct tendency by women to pick the first moderately suitable partner - i.e. a provider beta, rather than wait around for the alpha player that gets their slit wet.

The converse being: as our societies grew ever-larger and women became spoiled for choice, these risk-taking adaptations atrophied or became unnecessary. There was less need to pick up the provider beta because women had contraception for when they didn't want to have kids and modern medical care for when they did.

But even that is oversimplifying it a bit. It's simple to say "the primary instinct is to reproduce and spread your seed around, go genetic diversity" and whatnot, but that's just an excuse to fuck. Human existence carries with it an imperative to seek happiness, or at least contentment, as a consequence of our sentience and sapience. Breeding at all costs is logically opposed to that pursuit because we don't live in a post-scarcity society; anyone who thinks it's a good idea should head back and consider the implications of the Mouse Utopia experiment.

There is also no answer in the suggestion that "If you fuck unchecked, you'll generate 10 Einsteins instead of one." The problem with that assertion is that an Einstein needs more than bare-bones resources in order to develop his potential and develop the sort of insights that will benefit humanity as a whole. Einstein was one of two siblings. Had he been one of ten I think it's highly unlikely he would have survived long enough or gained enough money and time to be able to pursue theoretical physics. Indeed he did his best work not in the night hours after busting his ass for 10 hours in a turnip field, but while working as a patent clerk.

Given resources are limited, unchecked breeding is only excusable where you cannot lower infant and/or adult mortality rate any other way. That's the principal reason Africa is still a shithole, beyond the culture of corruption and interference with its economy by the West: they don't have Western technology or Western medicine, and choose to live in surroundings where deadly diseases bloom like daisies on a lawn. As a species -- homo Westernus anyway -- we have comprehensively outrun those mortality factors. The main reason average lifespan has risen over the past hundred years or so is mainly because infant mortality is basically gone as a concept and vaccines have stopped mankind's most frequent predators -- smallpox, the plague, tuberculosis, polio -- from harvesting any crop at all. Whatever the reason for raw dogging, the individual's imperative for an assurance of genetic survival does not exist in the West anymore.

The principal difference between the 1950s and now was that sexual promiscuity resulting in the destruction of the family unit was shamed by Western society, powered largely by Christianity. It had social (if not legal in the case of buttfucking and carpetlicking) consequences. Even if fucking thy neighbour's wife did not have legal consequences, you were avoided and not infrequently your children ostracised when it occurred.

The shaming was driven, principally, by a lingering sense of duty: people did not just exist for themselves, they existed as a member of a family, a faith, a community, a country, and they regulated their behaviour at least somewhat in accordance with that identity. The Baby Boomers' narcissism has essentially crushed these imperatives under postmodernism's faux-philosophical outlook.

Asking what balance of sexual conservatism versus sexual openness is appropriate is, to my mind, the wrong question. The right question to ask is this: to what extent should an individual be indoctrinated or required to behave on the basis that they are part of something larger?

[Kid Twist]

Great post, Paracelsus.

[ScrapperTL]

As a father of a pre-teen daughter, I am desperately hoping and praying that humanity radically, drastically & rapidly shifts towards a more Christian, conservative culture/mindset.

All signs are pointing otherwise though.
This next election will be a huge turning point in America.
With Trump we are influencing the world that Accomplishment, Masculinity, Conviction and Effort is necessary to succeed in life.
With Hillary our influence to international society will be: Apathy, Lack of Ethics, Backstabbing and Feminism.

[Kid Twist]

Trump will win but even he can't turn back a country so lost in principle and so deluded by individualism and consumerism. I hope I'm wrong, but there's something I'm not wrong about: He's the last hope. Which is totally weird to think about. The elected president will also be staring down the barrel of a propped up stock market, a fundamentally broken economy, and unfunded debt the likes of which has disaster written all over it.