“Obviously, the leveling process applies to the sexes as well...

>“Obviously, the leveling process applies to the sexes as well. The Soviet emancipation of the woman parallels the emancipation that in America the feminist idiocy, deriving from 'democracy' all its logical conclusions, had achieved a long time ago in conjunction with the materialistic and practical degradation of man. Through countless and repeated divorces the disintegration of the family in America is characterized by the same pace that we could expect in a society that knows only 'comrades.' The women, having given up their true nature, believe they can elevate themselves by taking on and practicing all kinds of traditionally masculine activities. These women are chaste in their immorality and banal even in their lowest perversions; quite often they find in alcohol the way to rid themselves of the repressed or deviated energies of their nature. Moreover, young women seem to know very little of the polarity and the elemental magnetism of sex as they indulge in a comradely and sportive promiscuity. These phenomena are typically American, even though their contagious diffusion all over the world makes it difficult for people to trace their origin to America. Actually, if there is a difference between this promiscuity and that envisioned by communism, it is resolved in a pejorative sense by a gynaecocratic factor, since every woman and young girl in America and other Anglo-Saxon countries considers it only natural that some kind of pre-eminence and existential respectability be bestowed upon her as if it were her inalienable right.”
― Julius Evola

For those that didn't bother to read or didn't understand what he meant, Evola is here criticizing the advent of feminism and change in female behaviour. What was once considered feminine is now shunned upon and forgotten. One example he brings up is that women have become more promiscuous unlike past ages. This was written more than 50 years ago and a lot of development has happened since then. Is he still right?

Attached: evola.jpg (750x1036, 209K)

Most of these are very common talking points that every other social commentator has been repeating for the past 150 years. I would tend to agree that what he describes as an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon (the sporty promuiscuity) probably originated in the US.
In a sense it is obvious, compared to pre-industrial society, though we should not fall into the trap of assuming pre-industrial societies were all and always the same.

However, if you could compare the current state of affairs to what it was in the past decades (say in 1980 or 1960), I'm not sure that the trend would appear to be ceaselessly growing. How are divorces rates for instance? From what I gather the generations of people currently under 40 seem poised to have them much lower than their parents did, but I might be wrong.
Maybe people our age are getting married less, but also divorcing less, which could show that they value marriage and won't consider it lightly.
My personal experience is that people born in the 1990s and after tend to be more religious and, when they are not religious, more respectful of religion, than people born in the years 1950-1980. Sex is not viewed as a great liberating act as it was in the 1960s, it is not as moralized as it was in the 1950s, it has lost its religious implications, instead it's come to be seen as a normal but mundane part of life you should attend to, like hygiene.

There's also our relation to promiscuity and sex: by all accounts we fuck less (in the West that is) than previous generations, but we are also more aware of fetishes, most likely to tolerate and accept them (I'm not sure about engaging with them because people used to not talk about it, so it's hard to compare, but the internet does foster fetishistic communities), and we're bigger consumers of porn.
This I guess would apply both to males and females, though not to the same extent for both genders.
Our relationship to sex is more informed by ethical and legal notions like consent, compassion, intimacy, and understanding. You have to read accounts of divorces and sexual troubles in the early 20th century (for instance) to understand how common marital misery and mutual inimity and misunderstanding were. We also have our unhappy marriage now of course, but I'd wager they take a rather different shape and are not distributed as they used to be.

You could read all this as proof that the changes Evole writes about are entering their late stage. Or you could see it as an early sign of reversal. Or you could take it as a proof that the situation is more muddied and harder to grasp than most ideological commentators would claim.
What's clear imho is that we're not on some rollicking course of increasing sexual liberation/degeneracy (depending on where you stand). Like everything else our image of sex is more fragmented and commodified than before, but also perhaps understood more realistically. The sexual liberation had a very political and ideological streak.

>shortly cont'd
The sexual liberation had a very political and ideological streak, and it had a communal aspect. Nowadays we're more individualistic but also more self-aware, less idealistic but perhaps more compassionate. Who can tell where this will lead? Not me that's for sure.

Rates of sex have changed in a downward trend, which I would attribute to the increasing demands of societal life on a person (work time, trvael, daily routines). People don’t have the inherent time availability that they would spend on things sexual related. Or, they do spend time or would if sexual activity
was guaranteed to be more rarer and less easily obtained. You could imagine uber, Tinder, and tech in general has provided much less scarcity on the sex resource.

What is a current problem with sec in our society is that the number of partners has increased dramatically. This of course is attributed not to social norms, these norms have never been concrete. Social norms only operate in a way that such behavior can be reinforced. Advent of tech and tech subsidiaries has removed much of the negative reinforcement needed to discourage sexual promiscuity with multiple or large amounts of partners. This in turn will breed new contingencies which will discourage promiscuity (i.e. STD rates, single parenthood, less value with less scarcity).

Over all, the sex scene is in good shape if you are someone who is inclined to
>take care of themselves
>want to have sex

Sex itself may no longer be seen as the liberating act that it used to be but the same philosophies which informed such behavior have taken on a more degenerative form, which is LGBT acceptance. Young people are wildly accepting of gays or at least libertarian to the question and it has done more to destroy the institution of family than any petty promiscuity of the 1960's could.

He´s onto something, but it´s just "oh tempora oh mores" he doesn´t bother to investigate "why?".
>Did reproductive patterns in society changed?
>Was effective contraception developed?
>Did people became more urbanized?
>Do women need husband to sustain and defend themselves?
>Was this puritan notion of sexuality even traditional or was it just a fashion of the last few centuries?

>There's also our relation to promiscuity and sex: by all accounts we fuck less (in the West that is) than previous generations
Depending on how you look at it, this may or may not be true. Yes, the fraction of people (and men in particular) who don't have sex has increased a lot. I won't speculate on the reasons as to why this is the case, just observing. However, I don't think the "sex-havers" have less sex than before and actually I'd guess that they have more sex than previous generations. They have more sex not only with the same person, but with multiple people, via Tinder.

I do agree with you otherwise though that the situation seems to be quite complex and not as black and white as ideologists and political commentators would have you believe. There is something innately boomer about complaining people are having "less sex", like the headlines complaining millenials do things very differently from their parents (millenials get drivers licenses later and less, millenials drink less and so on). You could attribute this to millenials are more responsible but I think it has more do with what said, namely that there are a lot more external pressures such as school, work etc than ever before. And information overload is a real factor here. This more than anything else in my mind would cause people to be less interested in sacrificing time and effort in finding relationships (and not just with the other sex)

Attached: D205FUnU8AI6FyY.jpg (1152x860, 73K)

The traditionalists are so fucking cringe. Read real philosophy incel.

Thoroughly leveled.
Nice job, retard.

>There is something innately boomer about complaining people are having "less sex", like the headlines complaining millenials do things very differently from their parents
It’s all relative to what is necessary in order to achieve more comfort than one had before. For many people, sex is no longer something they derive more comfort in. This could be due to the time input required in order to gain sex. This applies especially to men at the bottom of the pool. Hence declining make sex rates lower as they’d prefer easier methods of comfort over those that require what they view as a non-efficient timewise. Men at the top of the pool experience less change depending how much they desire sex for comfort. They no longer have the relative caps of their physical environments thanks to tech like Tinder and Uber, and can thereby vastly increase their potentials. This increase in men continuously searching provides for more women to join the chase, as they can potentially find higher quality men if they just swing from partner to parent long enough. Either that, or women engage in the same behavior as men who desire sexual comfort. Both play a part.

Whether this is good or bad all depends on what kind of society do you envision for the future, and is it even possible. Back to boomers complaining about sex nowadays, it’s because they were reinforced with the belief that behavior which engages in multiple sexual partners is bad. For whatever reasons it’s irrelevant, but with the disintegration of contingencies which were used to reinforce the beahvior, we must now adjust to how we can either reinforce that behavior with new contingencies, or if we need to work around the behavior as a new means to reaching comfort.