Why are we witnessing so much promiscuity in our day and age? Aren't we devaluing sex for what it is...

The sexualization of culture was happening way before the postmodern movement, not to mention the postmodern movement, as much as it waffled on about subjectivity and the power of the individual simply replaced the old morality with a new one, any attempt to liberate man of morality and values, simply results in a new order of those, under the guise of liberation.

This. Get the fuck out r9k

I was wondering if the great increase of atheism has anything to do with this, as we start throwing away our religious morals

Oh yeah dude prior to the Victorians sexuality was just like today! Britain also had many Sudanese and Somali immigrants. Just the damn racists of the 19th century who covered it all up!

Christianity disciplined people. When Christianity lost its strength, it was not replaced by Stoicism, Platonism, etc for people to follow as a way of life.
So, people ended up believing that "everyone has a different way to be happy", which ends up leading to unthinking hedonism.

>Britain also had many Sudanese and Somali immigrants
Oh, here we go... Can't help but bring the blacks into a discussion of modern promiscuity.

Attached: de15df26e9bf61c4f5672a08dc60a50b.jpg (499x481, 28K)

Actually we have less and less sex in general. Teens (at least in first world countries) stay home and play vidya instead of going out to get drunk and fuck.

I’m a kissless virgin.

It has to do with that, but it has to do with a whole array of things, capitalism, feminism, increase of wealth, advancements in contraceptives, secularization, liberalism, scientism, internet, mass media. These all contributed to it. This is not to say that any of these will always sexualize a society, but in the right conditions, they will and have.

You can support sexuality and health without supporting third-world immigration you fuckwit. In fact, the two contradict each other

Seriously though just because they weren't as prudish as the Victorians, doesn't mean it was anything like today. It was very common to marry a virgin through most of history.

I was mocking this typical progressive argument you see that claims racism, conservative sexuality etc didn't exist until modern times.

Yes, people in the Middle Ages would feel right at home in our hypersexualised degenerate society. In fact, they would think we were slightly prudish. Those damn Victorians covered up and shamed us into believing that sex should be between to married people who love each other.
>this is what reddit commies and discord trannies actually believe

Promiscuity is only a part of the problem, as far as this topic is concerned I think it's a problem of ignorance. Coming from the USSR the amount of ignorance in the common teen/youth of the 21st century is disgusting. When I was of a young age I would always listen to my parents and their friends talking about history, literature and philosophy(My father worked at a construction site and my mother is still a nail painter, so they weren't so teacher or stuff like that), all I want to say is, people, have become completely ignorant, as the TV and mobile phones have pretty much taken up all their time.

Ignorance is only part of "the problem" as well, we're just discussing one area of the the problem(s) of modern society. You're right though.

I really want to see where our society will be in 50 years time or so

That's very false. Did you learn history watching HBO shows?

neoliberal melting pot hellhole where there is nothing but the most base sexualized consumption

feels bad man

History didn't begin in 2000.

yeah compared to what? the 80s

not a good improvement, especially when they're just watching porn and sexting online

Wouldn't the ideology of our modern elites have something to do with that?
How many projects with promiscuous ethics are funded compared with those with more "conservative" sexual ethics?
Take a look at Netflix.

You can also look at pretty much any magazine.

be honest lads, is current year america really such an intensely individualistic, capitalistic hellhole?

doesn't sound like a good place to bring up your kids and teach them good values

nowhere in the west is, it makes me not want to have kids

I have no problem with promiscuity, but it seems super... perverse and corporate these days?

Just go to r/chavgirls and see just how many of these bitches look the same. It's endless. It's extremely boring.

I've only fucked two girls in my life and I'm 25, but I swear a prolonged period of NoFap just made me see how shallow this is. I think there's nothing wrong with promiscuity, but there doesn't seem to be soul in it these days. For that reason, it's cheapened, and fucking boring in my eyes.

Exactly this, I was always fond of the idea of having children, but I'm really afraid of what they'll become. I don't want to force them out of their interests but I'm afraid of the influences they'll get from the outside world.

>nowhere in the west is
Yeah. And I have no idea how things are in the East.

Promiscuity is bad for yourself. It leads to an unhappier life.
It is bad for society, as well, not only because it makes people unhappier than they would be otherwise, but also harms the solidity of families.

Yeah, that's fair. I guess I have an age-old comfy ideal of how the Greeks used to walk around all day and fuck each other, but we're long past that now.

Actually most normies believe the same stupid shit that you do, except they think we're 'enlightened' rather than degenerate. You're both wrong - it's always been this way, and you're just mad you can't participate lmfao

remember lads, this isn't just something that's happening, it's being done to us by people with names and addresses. Lots of them wear funny hats

Attached: 1550469918050.jpg (222x225, 8K)

The Greeks were not really promiscuous.

In the three or four civilized European countries, one can in a few centuries educate women to be anything one wants, even men--not in the sexual sense, of course, but certainly in every other sense. At some point, under such an influence, they will have taken on all male virtues and strengths, and of course they will also have to take male weaknesses and vices into the bargain. This much, as I said, one can bring about by force. But how will we endure the intermediate stage it brings with it, which itself can last a few centuries, during which female follies and injustices, their ancient birthright, still claim predominance over everything they will have learned or achieved? This will be the time when anger will constitute the real male emotion, anger over the fact that all the arts and sciences will be overrun and clogged up by shocking dilettantism; bewildering chatter will talk philosophy to death; politics will be more fantastic and partisan than ever; society will be in complete dissolution because women, the preservers of the old custom, will have become ludicrous in their own eyes, and will be intent on standing outside custom in every way. For if women had their greatest power in custom, where will they not have to reach to achieve a similar abundance of power again, after they have given up custom?

Attached: Nietzsche-274x300.jpg (274x300, 26K)

Someone with this much ignorance of history can only come from /his/.

prove me wrong virgin

unrestricted sex is fun and all but like most things done for hedonistic pleasure become hollow after a while, real love is something truly fulfilling, its why womens suicide rates go through the roof when they hit 30, they ruined that potential for true love with hollow hedonism in their youth

>By such means is the virtue of their women protected, and they live uncorrupted by the temptations of public shows or the excitements of banquets. Clandestine loveletters are unknown to men and women alike. Adultery is extremely rare, considering the size of the population. A guilty wife is summarily punished by her husband. He cuts off her hair, strips her naked, and in the presence of kinsmen turns her out of his house and flogs her all through the village. They have in tact no mercy on a wife who prostitutes her chastity. Neither beauty, youth, nor wealth can find her another husband. No one in Germany finds vice amusing, or calls it 'up-to-date' to seduce and be seduced. Even better is the practice of those states in which only virgins may marry, so that a woman who has once been a bride has finished with all such hopes and aspirations. She takes one husband, just as she has one body and one life. Her thoughts must not stray beyond him or her desires survive him. And even that husband she must love not for himself, but as an embodiment of the married state. To restrict the number of children, or to kill any of those born after the heir, is considered wicked. Good morality is more effective in Germany than good laws are elsewhere.

This is Tacitus on how the Germans viewed promiscuity

>reddit spacing
>reddit version of normalfag
>it's always been this way
>ur a virgin XD
>lmfao
tourist

New contraceptive technology has allowed us to indulge in ancient desires that ran subterranean in the mind more safely. Past societies only repressed these desires because doing so lead to higher productivity. That's no longer the case.

Attached: weininger.jpg (2294x751, 791K)

>projecting

kys lol

all roman historians were actually retarded, read juvenal instead

>all roman historians were actually retarded

this sounds like cope because you're too lazy to get through Livy

Most arguments by the philosophers against promiscuity were not that "it led to pregnancies", but on the effect it had on the soul.
They didn't want to turn into some kind of Hugh Heffner.

Sadly this
People have always been degenerates, dirty and careless hedonistic machines hungry for the next quick high
Turning into salt really is our best future

Attached: 7636A5CD-51EB-4D4C-9157-A9B9C3142291.jpg (509x331, 44K)

Have you ever read any medieval literature? Infidelity and promiscuity is a common theme. Just look at The Miller’s Tale, for example.

There's plenty of philosophers who never made comments like that. Also, philosophers aren't exactly always the most conscious human beings out there. In fact they're some of the most oblivious at times.

>They didn't want to turn into some kind of Hugh Heffner.

Hugh Heffner is a very good outcome for a manwhore.

There is literally no logical argument against promiscuity. The only people who dislike it are virgins (like the ones posting ITT), and the only reason they dislike it is because they can’t get it. It’s absolutely pathetic and akin to the ‘if I can’t play then nobody can play!’ mindset. Grow up, faggots.

read Casanova and see how promiscuous the past already was

only a virgin would think this desu

>There is literally no logical argument against promiscuity.

I've got news for you bud:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexually_transmitted_infection

now work those braincells reeeeeeaaal hard and think about how much of a problem this would have been before modern medicine and contraceptives

I’m not a virgin so evidently not

>There's plenty of philosophers who never made comments like that.
The Ancient Philosophers who focused on Ethics did. Hedonism was considered bad due to its effects on the soul, not due to DSTs or pregnancies.

>Also, philosophers aren't exactly always the most conscious human beings out there.
The Ancient ones were.

You don't exactly need a very high EQ to see that Hugh Heffner was a miserable man.

t. virgin

>diseases are bad
Lmao, you’ve really submitted fully to the virgin mindset

I’m NOT a virgin I have slept with over 20 SEPERATE women!!!

Attached: 4AA5D0E1-BD3A-4831-9841-2B5C00DB0B57.jpg (700x700, 66K)

>The Ancient Philosophers who focused on Ethics did.
Yeah, and? Ethics came about as a focus because of what I said: it was an effort of past societies to lead to higher productivity. And it's still just that. It's unethical to command people to not enjoy sex when we have advanced contraceptive technology on the shelves today.

By your own admission, modern promiscuity is now therefore permissible

>ethics was an effort towards higher productivity
Is this your brain on radiation sickness?

Do you think that means it was normal in medieval society?

What else would it have been for?

Certainly normal enough to be written down and laughed about.

It was not.
They didn't have your "utilitarian economist" view of what the good is. They didn't consider material goods or pleasure to be goods like you do.
If you have read the Republic, you would see that Plato didn't hold a particularly good view of materialistic people. The Stoics admired Diogenes, who didn't exactly work. The Epicureans would preferably spent their time discussing philosophy in a garden.

Ancient philosophers were concerned with the happy life. And a life of sexual hedonism won't lead to that.

ethics took shape as a means of guiding the moral spirit of society and ensuring people don’t fall into degeneration, not so people could be more ‘productive’

In your view, it was common for men to marry women who have slept with dozens of men, like it is nowadays?

>sex is materalism
>just ignore all that sex Socrates had with young boys too by the way!
You’ve not actually given any proof as to why sexual hedonism won’t lead to a happy life, you’re just namedropping philosophers like some retarded undergrad.

Attached: 7126F6E7-ED99-4629-A41D-C903B8B48911.png (1000x1000, 18K)

>Ancient philosophers were concerned with the happy life.
Thales, Heraclitus, Anaximander, etc. were not very concerned with this, because the Greek poets who were they inspired by were not very concerned with this. You're talking about late stage Greeks who had almost nothing to do with the early stage.

That’s not really that common today, either, you’ve just got a skewed vision of the world. On average, most women sleep with 3-4 men before marriage. Outliers have, and always will exist. Of course I don’t doubt that with the advent of modern prophylactics and abortions, the promiscuity and sexual liberation of women has increased, but honestly I think you’ll find that ancient societies took a very similar view to sex as we do today.

>guiding the moral spirit of society and ensuring people don’t fall into degeneration
Which in the past was the equivalent of wanting to increase productivity since the products of the past were mainly the people themselves.

men can usually deal with sexual hedonism fine, its the women, and the men who have women like this that usually cause emotional problems

Your view that Ethics was concerned with productivity is a materialistic one.
Socrates didn't have sex with any person other than his wife. Platonic love is a chaste love. Having sex would get in the way of the most perfect kind of love.

The Ancient philosophers who didn't concern themselves with the happy life are irrelevant to this discussion.
And the most important philosophers were the ones who cared about this. Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Diogenes, the Epicureans, the Stoics.

>most important philosophers
Completely pointless statement. If you can't have a discussion without pointless moralistic conjecture like this, don't bother.

In your view, in medieval times people thought there was nothing wrong with promiscuity and that it was healthy to have many sexual partners before marrying?
Or in Roman times?

Did the intellectual elite of the Greeks and Romans push promiscuity like our dear media overlords do today? My impression is that the likes of Cato, Scipio, Aurelius didn't.

The development of female reproductive rights, alongside the invention of the pill and new feminist attitudes catalysed the sexual revolution of the 60s. Unfortunately women trusted men a little too much with their bodies, so now we have a situation where women feel 'empowered' by sleeping around through their 20s and 30s, only for men to exploit this newfound openness of femininity without any responsibility towards actually marrying or taking care of them. The result is a hell of a lot of disaffected menopausal women who end up marrying out of convenience and the desire for a child instead of love. So what you have as a result of a promiscuous culture is a paradoxical return to traditional matrimonial values (marrying for money/convenience/status) because of a failure to ground love on its own terms, the failure of the sexual revolution to actively encourage a love that isn't fleeting or purely libidinal.

Nobody likes sluts or fuccbois, get outta here

Oh, please, you are just trying to deflect this discussion because it is not going the way you like it.

The thing is, the Ancient Philosophers who cared about the happy life, with the exception of Aristippus were not favorable to promiscuity. Not for reasons of diseases or pregnancies, but for reasons of the effect it had on your soul.

Ancient philosophers weren't fucking utilitarians, they thought about ethics out of a genuine concern for the human soul, not to maximize productivity

Are you seriously denying that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are the most important philosophers?

nice literature thread you stupid incels

I’m not the same guy. It’s objectively wrong to say the Ancients were opposed to hedonism and promiscuity. Their gods had multiple affairs, pedastry was widely accepted (and even promoted by the likes of Aristotle as population control), and you only need to look at story’s like Messalina’s Orgy to see that sex was viewed with much the same eyes as it is today. You can make the argument that some Ancient philosophers found the whole thing distasteful, but you can’t deny (as OP is doing) that promiscuity is a new thing.

have sex

You may be right, but there are cases where the opposite is true: Aristotle, for example, promoted promiscuity with young boys a lot actually, as a means of outlet for lust and desire which wouldn’t result in unwanted pregnancies.

>Aren't we devaluing sex for what it is?
dont think this makes sense grammatically

>Not for reasons of diseases or pregnancies, but for reasons of the effect it had on your soul.
You're really missing the point of what I said, here:

>Past societies only repressed these desires because doing so lead to higher productivity.
The "effect it had on your soul" was that it caused a degeneration in people and made them impotent, stupid, and above all, ugly. "higher productivity" = better humans, who are also products of civilizations. If you think the "Ancient ones" were really concerned about kindness and the like, you're wrong. They worshiped power and wished to nourish the powerful.

But it's no longer empowering for people to be told they can't have sex when they'd like to because we have contraceptive technology now, so the ethics changed. It became unethical to demand such of people, the ones who could have sex freely and not become addicted to it (i.e. millions of people, none of which are obsessed with porn). This point you don't seem to want to respond to at all.

Are you quoting the wrong post?
My post was about the Ancient philosophers. They opposed sexual hedonism.

The worst of it is many people try and jump into relationships to think they will be fulfilled but ended up jumping the gun and cheat or constantly think about doing so. I had to end two relationships because of the latter because once you get a taste of how fucking easy girls actually are these days its addictive. Then you want them all fat ass girls, skinny girls, ethnic girls, skinny etc.

He didn't.
Aristotle was against homosexual sex acts.

Also, Aristotelian Ethics was about creating good habits. You achieve temperance by not having more sex than it is "correct", not by "having sex when you are horny". Having sex for pleasure would actually make you less temperate, since you are creating this habit.

Did you read my post? Most of them didn’t oppose hedonism. Can you actually cite any points in the dialogues where they do, explicitly?

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
nah

It doesn't matter if they are or not. That's basically appeal to authority to even mention that, and isn't arguing the point.

You really dumb man, do some reading:

“and the lawgiver has devised many wise measures to secure the benefit of moderation at table, and the segregation of the women in order that they may not bear many children, for which purpose he instituted association with the male sex.”

How do you get that from anything Plato or Aristotle ever wrote?

Don't take this as an insult, but you clearly don't know anything about Ancient Philosophy.
I think it is counter productive for you to write about something you clearly have never read.

>major influencer

Attached: Who could it be.jpg (480x360, 7K)

Gorgias or the Republic

Yeah, great, now give me some actual explicit lines instead of just the title lmao

You're not actually making any arguments, you're just stating your opinion

The sexual repression necessary for arresting the decay of historic institutions wreaks havoc on the human animal’s libidinal metabolism. Our general intolerance of living spontaneity is manifested as a socio-familial hostility towards the infant body which is, as of yet, relatively undifferentiated. All of the infant’s demands are expressions of unadulterated libido, and their rejection by caregivers and society is recorded as a homeostatic adaptation: the general curtailment of vitality. All the emotions, actions, expressions and ideas that result in harm, rejection or disappointment become recorded in the pscyho-somatic armoring as their opposites: internalized cultural corrections. And so we have the thetical infant body, allegedly governed by the monstrous id, which suffers a primordial division. The universality of this phenomenon in history indicates a mass neurosis that is generationally transmitted. Therefore, we must further explore the neurotic character and see how his or her behavior arises from the admixture of sex-economic processes and socially endowed constraints, such that the emotional plague is perpetuated. We shall also endeavor to understand anti-social behavior in a sex-economic light, rather than attribute it to heredity or “human nature.”

Reich estimated the rate of orgastic impotence in interbellum Central Europe to be upwards of eighty percent. Today, I believe it is even higher, at least here in America and despite the cheap frivolities sold as sexual liberation. Yes, there is more fucking, but the amount of sex may have even declined. What we have is a situation characterized by vain, self-pornographizing pseudo-sexuality. I say this not from a puritanical perspective, but from one that understands the antithesis between the ego’s function and sexuality. The ego is all too capable of appropriating things that have to do with sexuality, such as relationship, into its defenses. Sexuality is a function of parasympatheticonia, meaning it entails the dissolution of subjective boundaries, not their fortification. It seems that people, despite their obvious reservations about relaxation and interpersonal connection, are, by unnatural force, overcoming these reservations and fucking for not only the age-old neurotic reasons of conquest, transference &c, but even for ideological reasons!

What do you think Plato was doing? His whole work is quite fascistic in style (not talking that down either). Glaucon rightly calls Socrates' ideal the "city of pigs" for this reason.

This includes the idea many young women have, that if they have sex with many partners, they will somehow become “empowered.” What they are not told is that healthy sexual desire has a visceral origin and proceeds according to sex-economic laws, as in the remnant of the animal kingdom. The dis-empowerment of enforced monogamy arises not from the quantity of partners, but obviously from enforcing. Today, as it has been since the local advent of the historic period, there is a pandemic neurosis characterized by the fear and hatred of libidinal energy itself. Therefore, the unnaturally forced overcoming of this apprehension required for fucking constitutes even more forcing: the forcing of the body by the foremost layer of the ego while the deep layers paradoxically resist physiological arousal by the aforedescribed mechanisms. What results is armored, contactless sex, the two partners not trusting each other enough to let down their guards, occupied by vain concerns, and perhaps even calling each other by the wrong name! However, the orgastically potent woman (or man) is attracted to the least neurotic partner such that surplus libido can be completely discharged in sex and – and this goes without saying – chooses independently of cultural morality. Also, any empowerment from sex arises from the resolution of libidinal stases and subsequently, the prevention of mass neurosis which leaves its afflicted vulnerable to tyrannical influence, not from mimicking a caricature born of ressentiment for the prevailing morality.
Moreover, the process by which lovers meet has been infiltrated by machines and communication technologies which promote ever-increasing vanity. The presence of these factors indicates the hyperactivity of the ego and the sympathetic nervous system throughout relationship and diminishes the formerly central role of non-verbal communication. This is accomplished through the technologies’ auto-suggestive reinforcement of one’s superficial identification with one’s person. All these things detract from the visceral nature of healthy sexuality, which is to say, sexuality that prevents neurosis through the adequate discharge of libidinal stases. The effects of technology on sex-economy will be discussed in chapter two.

The Republic is a metaphor for ordering the soul to live a good life

You think associating with someone means fucking them?

Love, both physical and platonic, was commonly found outside the marriage.

The background of sexually repressive culture has also allowed for the existence of pornography, as culture abhors a vacuum. Communication technologies have augmented its reach and its use has become almost universal among young men with internet access. Considering the mass fear of biological excitation, pornography use has some similarities to the aforementioned, ideologically motivated fucking in that it entails the more superficial layers of the ego forcing the body to exhibit a pseudo-sexual response. The compulsion to use this vice arises not from the body. I accuse these more superficial layers because the act is an attempt to discharge surplus, intolerable libidinal energy. Therefore, it is a defense mechanism that represses authentic, somatic sexuality. Moreover, if it is a chronic behavior, it is not so repressed and therefore not found in the deeper layers of the character structure. However, peoples’ preference for content may be linked to repressed complexes.
The sensory apparatus is overwhelmed by artificial stimulation sought to evoke the activation of the genitals when they would otherwise be dormant. Since the stimulation is voyeuristic and sensory but lacks the motor aspects of actual sex, not to mention the partner and the dissolution of the subjective boundaries, there is no satisfactory discharge. In the same way an infant armors against the hostile environment through homeostatic adaptation, the pornography voyeur becomes adjusted to this over-stimulation via the Coolidge effect and develops what is called a tolerance. There is also a sex-economic adaptation dovetailing here. Against the backdrop of orgastic impotence and socially bestowed intolerance of libido, pornography becomes indispensable for the voyeur’s sex-economic equilibration. Should he cease his voyeurism, he must either resolve his neurosis to attain natural self-regulation (orgastic potency) or he must find another way to exhaust the libido, such as sublimation or an increase in the degree of muscle armoring.
Whoever engages in this solitary abomination finds that they are subsequently overcome with a feeling of malaise. The things that make life rich are drowned out by artificially exaggerated elements of nature, i.e. seeing a naked body. It is interesting to note that many vices possess natural qualities that are augmented and distilled.

It's a fascistic ideal written by a mortal man, not a divine power.

Furthermore, we have a hitherto unheard of epidemic of erectile impotence coinciding with the desensitization of the male sensory faculties. This has motivated a self-pornographization effect in women, the gender already being guilty of deceptively exaggerating markers of fertility through various devices. This effect is especially obvious with social media, but is also illustrated by trends in cosmetics entailing the grotesque hyperbole of the hair, eyebrows, lips, skin, breasts and buttocks, such that any natural beauty is sacrificed for the sake of attracting attention from severely desensitized men. Beauty is supposed to indicate health and vitality, which is inversely correlated to armoring. For instance, the diaphragmatic segment’s inhibition of respiration may cause an unattractive pallor of the skin. Now it is increasingly difficult to tell who is ugly. The lack of male reluctance when it comes to sex has previously been a limiting factor for this arms race, but now a man’s complete withdrawal from interpersonal sex has become possible with the assistance of pornography, artificial vaginas and sex-robots. I predict that the pornographization of women, by their selves and by media, will be increased thereby. Parenthetically, more and more women are beginning to use pornography.

How would just ‘associating’ with young boys be a good form of population control lol? Obviously it means fucking