"TradWives" Triggering Unhappy Feminists

denouncing casual sex
I have no idea why they promoted it in the first place. Asides from that usual tendency of left-wing movements to start destroying their own society just to spite their "oppressor class", of course.

Casual sex and hookup culture just incentivize men to think of women as nothing more than sex objects, and further creates subcultures that base their entire social status by how much sex they have or don't have. It's got its advantages, especially when compared to the insane cultures of the Islamic world where men rape boys and animals because all women are cloistered away and covered up to desexualize them, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Not that I see it changing anytime soon. Misaligned incentives. It can only change if settling down is easier and more profitable than not settling down.

Don't be silly. Humans are machines in the sense that they're is a physical system that uses power to apply forces and control movement to perform an action. In other words, the only implications you should get are that humans are physical beings.

And like all physical beings, they are subject to the environment.
 
I have no idea why they promoted it in the first place. Asides from that usual tendency of left-wing movements to start destroying their own society just to spite their "oppressor class", of course.

Casual sex and hookup culture just incentivize men to think of women as nothing more than sex objects, and further creates subcultures that base their entire social status by how much sex they have or don't have. It's got its advantages, especially when compared to the insane cultures of the Islamic world where men rape boys and animals because all women are cloistered away and covered up to desexualize them, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Not that I see it changing anytime soon. Misaligned incentives. It can only change if settling down is easier and more profitable than not settling down.


Don't be silly. Humans are machines in the sense that they're is a physical system that uses power to apply forces and control movement to perform an action. In other words, the only implications you should get are that humans are physical beings.

And like all physical beings, they are subject to the environment.
Because "feminism" something something "empowerment" something something.

Feminism sold a lie, and now women are slowly waking up to the cost of buying into that lie.
You ever notice that a majority of societies problems seem to come down to the fact that bad faith actors are not being punished?
Yep.
 
You ever notice that a majority of societies problems seem to come down to the fact that bad faith actors are not being punished?
It started when we got more civilized. Back in 'the day' when you could just shoot somebody who wronged you, or the local rapist/thief/criminal was mysteriously found dead in a ditch outside town, such activities were naturally limited in number.

But when crimes get a disproportionately low punishment for how much harm they do, why not do crime? Why not steal 900 bucks of crap from walmart to pawn off for crack? Worst case scenario you get a meal and a bed for some years.
 
I have no idea why they promoted it in the first place. Asides from that usual tendency of left-wing movements to start destroying their own society just to spite their "oppressor class", of course.

Short-term gratification without long-term responsibility has always been attractive to some people. What happened in the 1960's or so is not that new forms of sin appeared, but that old forms of sin, things people had been doing "out of the public eye" since time immemorial, suddenly got promoted as okay and praiseworthy.
It was a deliberate moral inversion.


Don't be silly. Humans are machines in the sense that they're is a physical system that uses power to apply forces and control movement to perform an action. In other words, the only implications you should get are that humans are physical beings.

Nah uh, dude, what you said was:

Humans are nothing more than machines made of meat,

Human bodies being made of matter is not the point in question. It's your "nothing more" there that's the problem, and you know it.
 
I have no idea why they promoted it in the first place. Asides from that usual tendency of left-wing movements to start destroying their own society just to spite their "oppressor class", of course.
It's really not that hard to fathom what was going on here, and it's a combination of misplaced idealism, actual bad faith actors who sought to normalize their own perversions, and a timely alignment of technology enabling behavior.

The rise of casual sex culture in the west can pretty easily be traced back to the late 1940s and 1950s. Prior to then, even in the "Swinging 1920s" most folks looked down on casual sex because the actual consequences for women were high risk and permanent (out of wedlock pregnancy) and men who DID get a woman pregnant out of wedlock up until the 1960s was typically forced by society to marry the girl (AKA Shotgun weddings) which meant that there was also some consequence for men.

The attitude towards sex began to change with the Kinsey Reports, published in 1948 and 1952, which took the sexual attitudes of prisoners, homosexuals, and rapists and pretended they were the normal sexual attitudes of everyday people. The entire thing was arguably a massive scam on Kinsey's part but much of that information didn't come out until the 1990s when people finally got access to his original data. As it was presented to the public at the time these reports were supposedly about "average Americans".

One of the big things the Kinsey Reports did is make it seem like people had more sexual partners than they actually did, which broke down social stigma around having multiple partners.

As an aside, I want you all to again note the years these reports came out: 1948 and 1952. We tend blame the Sexual Revolution on the Baby Boomers, but I would posit that the actual blame lays with the GI Generation that birthed them, you see, the Kinsey Reports greatly impacted HOW the Boomers were raised, and remember none of the Boomers would have been old enough to have read these reports when they came out, since the Baby Boomer generation STARTS in 1946... two-year olds can't read.

Why did the GI Generation believe the Kinsey reports? Why wouldn't they? This was the Generation more than any other that was raised to believe in Experts. They were the ones who grew up in the Great Depression and were bombarded with Experts from the Government "helping" them, and then of course they were the generation that fought WW2 and thus were one of the most militarized generations in American History, and modern warfare is all about control by Experts. Basically you had a generation raised to automatically defer to Expert Opinion on things. Along with the Kinsey report you ALSO had the rise of "new parenting" methods pushed by Experts like Dr Spock, and while there was arguably some merit to pushing back against the prior few decades of expert pushed child care advice, between the obvious leftist politics of those involved and human tendency to overcorrect, well, you had the Boomers being raised in a way that was so completely different than prior generations that it created the first major generation gap in American history.

But even with these things you needed a final piece to really overthrow traditional sexual norms. Consequences of casual sex were still sever for women even though society was losing the desire to force men into marriage in the same period due to both government welfare increasing for unwed mothers but also the lowering of social stigma to being a man whore.

That final piece came with the rise of hormonal birth control in 1960. Note this year, the earliest Boomers would have just been turning 12 years old... just entering puberty, and just as they enter it, they've got a culture that's raised them to be more "in touch" with their emotions, they've been taught that most men and women have more casual sex than they actually did, AND they've been handed a get out of jail free card in the form of birth control... just in time for them to get all hormonal in their teenage years.

Yeah, I know we like to blame the Boomers for everything, but the Boomers were effectively set up by their parents to fail. This is why I have begun to realize that the Generation That Failed was not the Boomers, it was the GI Generation. Yes they fought the Nazis, but it was THEY who put in place the institutions and experts that led to the Sexual Revolution, it was they who placed complete trust in the Experts to guide society and constructed the Institutions that have corrupted society. The Boomers were just the result of their actions, the first victims of our issues, not the progenitors.

Note, we haven't even gotten to the IDEOLOGICAL reasons for the rise of Casual Sex culture. This is also important because even if you had all these other factors in place the inertia of Christian sexual morality likely still would have kept Casual Sex down from cultural force alone. Why do I say this? Because even WITH the ideological rise Christian Sexual Morality was still a major social force into the 2000s impacting how people thought and felt about sex.

But the ideological component cannot be underestimated. The rise of 2nd Wave Feminism, who many like to pretend was about equal pay, but it's not, it was just as toxic as later 3rd wave feminism and one of the core ideas it pushed was that women should be just like men. Going back to the Kinsey reports even in those women tended to have fewer sexual partners then men did, and thus one of the things that 2nd Wave feminists thought was that by having men and women act in the same way sexually, they would create a more equal society. Bear in mind, the period of the 1940s to 1980s was the height of the "blank slate theory" of human development (arguably in part an understandable, if overreaching, reaction against the Nazis eugenics ideology), thus feminism sought to encourage sexual license in women. The negative effects of this eventually led to the split between sex-negative and sex-positive feminism in the 1980s, but in the critical formative years of Baby Boomer education... they were told women and men were fundamentally the same and could behave the same way with no consequences...

All this hit at a time when actual religious faith in the US was at it's weakest. The Mainline Churches had long ago been hollowed out of True Faith due to the Fundamentalist / Modernist conflict back in the early 20th century, with the Modernists driving the Fundamentalists out of the seminaries and universities, and even though most Modernist assumptions about the Bible and Christianity have since been disproven by archeology and good-faith application of historical standards they were still the academically accepted position in the mid-20th century, and that undercut many people's faith. The rise of the Evangelicals did not begin until the late 1970s in what many people don't realize was a hidden Great Awakening that began then and ran through the 1990s as actual Believers left the Mainstream "churches" and became "non-denominational Evangelicals" (and like all the other Great Awakenings before it had major effects on society and politics).

As to the underlying "why" though, most of the Boomers just honestly believed this was what was healthy and normal for human beings, that prior generations were repressed (and oppressed), and that going forward a "free love" utopia awaited people. Again, this is what they were taught. Meanwhile the feminists believed that making women equal to men would improve society, though some also sought to destroy society as it stood and knew such things would encourage that. And finally, Kinsey was a sexual pervert and monster who sought to normalize his own sexual perversions.
 
So experts said that having more sex is normal, if not encouraged, and that sex is a wholly positive experience when done without open coercion. Which they said because they were a bunch of perverts who wanted to normalize if not idealize their perversions and hedonism.

This just makes me wonder why those experts were a bunch of perverts in the first place. Must be the fall of Christianity and its more or less...I don't know the right adjective, but its perspective of sex as something purely functional that you do for the sake of children.

Hmm, I guess there's a pattern there. Both conservatives and the revolutionaries agreed that you must have lots of sex - but the first said it must be for the sake of children only and the second said it was for pleasure only. And both hate the other, because Narcissism of small differences.
 
This just makes me wonder why those experts were a bunch of perverts in the first place. Must be the fall of Christianity and its more or less...I don't know the right adjective, but its perspective of sex as something purely functional that you do for the sake of children.
. . . That you think this is the position of Christianity means you've once again swallowed anti-Christian propaganda. While it could be argued that specifically the Catholic Church saw Sex in this manner, this has never really been the case outside of the most extreme esoteric sects of Protestant Christianity (which could go so far as to deny ALL sex like the Quakers and Shakers).

But the normal Christian position on Sex is that it's an activity reserved for marriage and that while yes it's PRIMARY purpose is procreation (which, yanno, is ALSO what it is scientifically speaking too), it also serves as a way to bring husband and wife closer together.
 
While it could be argued that specifically the Catholic Church saw Sex in this manner
The Catholic Church is the dominant Christian Church when it comes to doctrine, because its rivals are too small to matter.

With that said, this is a debate on why mainstream feminists support (or at least not oppose) casual sex, not Christians.
 
So experts said that having more sex is normal, if not encouraged, and that sex is a wholly positive experience when done without open coercion. Which they said because they were a bunch of perverts who wanted to normalize if not idealize their perversions and hedonism.

This just makes me wonder why those experts were a bunch of perverts in the first place. Must be the fall of Christianity and its more or less...I don't know the right adjective, but its perspective of sex as something purely functional that you do for the sake of children.

Hmm, I guess there's a pattern there. Both conservatives and the revolutionaries agreed that you must have lots of sex - but the first said it must be for the sake of children only and the second said it was for pleasure only. And both hate the other, because Narcissism of small differences.
Christianity hasn't pushed sex as something purely functional for the sake of Children. What it is pushed as, is an intimate act that should only be done between two married individuals. Yes, it's for procreation purposes, but it's more than just that. Sex, and traditional marriage work for a multitude of reasons, and part of that is because of scientific reasons that we only understand now. But also because in a proper Christian marriage, "The Marriage Bed is not defiled". Basically translates to "Be as kinky or freaky as you want within the bounds of marriage. As long as you're not going out and sleeping with someone not your husband or wife, go have fun with it. As the oldest of fourteen children, I can tell you that sex is something that when taught properly, is one of the healthiest things in the world.

Edit:
The Catholic Church is the dominant Christian Church when it comes to doctrine, because its rivals are too small to matter.

With that said, this is a debate on why mainstream feminists support (or at least not oppose) casual sex, not Christians.

Actually, you brought the Christian byline into this with this specific mention.


"This just makes me wonder why those experts were a bunch of perverts in the first place. Must be the fall of Christianity and its more or less...I don't know the right adjective, but its perspective of sex as something purely functional that you do for the sake of children.
Hmm, I guess there's a pattern there. Both conservatives and the revolutionaries agreed that you must have lots of sex - but the first said it must be for the sake of children only and the second said it was for pleasure only. And both hate the other, because Narcissism of small differences."

So, this isn't just about mainstream feminists. It's about how things shifted and how modern interpretations are becoming more and more flagrant and go against what works for a healthy society.
 
Last edited:
The Catholic Church is the dominant Christian Church when it comes to doctrine, because its rivals are too small to matter.

With that said, this is a debate on why mainstream feminists support (or at least not oppose) casual sex, not Christians.
. . .

No it's not. It may be the largest in membership, but Orthodox + Protestant is more Christians who ignore Rome when it comes to doctrine than follow it. Further we're talking about the United States IN SPECIFIC and in the US the Catholic Church has had non to NEGATIVE influence on the various PROTESTANT sects doctrines throughout it's history. You're having a modernity bias in that in the last decades of the 20th century as well as the early 21st century Catholics and orthodox Protestants in the US have been allied on many social and political issues due to political necessity, but even then US Protestants have maintained strict doctrinal differences between themselves and the Catholics on all major issues, including sex.
 
The attitude towards sex began to change with the Kinsey Reports, published in 1948 and 1952, which took the sexual attitudes of prisoners, homosexuals, and rapists and pretended they were the normal sexual attitudes of everyday people. The entire thing was arguably a massive scam on Kinsey's part but much of that information didn't come out until the 1990s when people finally got access to his original data. As it was presented to the public at the time these reports were supposedly about "average Americans".
They were also used to support a myth that teaching abstinence in schools does not work as a sex ed policy.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top