Did the sexual revolution harm society?

NockerJoe · 2019-12-07T07:21:55+00:00

One thing TRP likes to downplay is a lot of marriages that failed shouldn't have happened. Back like 100 years ago there were a lot of child marriages, arranged marriages, and people who married just to have it happen and then hated each other. When Divorce was normalized those people GTFO and rightly so. A lot of people raised by people in those situations don't want to repeat them.

There was an implicit understanding some people had that those hateful relations would be replaced by loving ones. But that's not what panned out because the things that would make that happen are almost entirely unrelated and not actively promoted until perhaps very very recently. They were replaced with nothing. If that's better or worse is up to the individual person to decide.

Preaddly · 2019-12-07T14:08:46+00:00

Harm is a strong word. It changed society, which would seem like harm to anyone that liked the way it was.

The changes however, still haven't fully taken place. This generation is the first to have a completely different society to navigate. There's no other narrative to follow but the old one, no guidance, and little accommodation for singles without children. The newer generations will hopefully have more to work with in the future.

teepy · 2019-12-07T12:40:17+00:00

Not fully harmed it I would argue. I would say its one of the many causes.

Sexual revolution is good in the short term, but its not productive in the long term, which we are seeing today. Time and time again we see women getting used up and chewed down, and getting psychologically damaged by top % male population who are in excessively large demand from a majority of women.

And to make the matters worse, sexual revolution gave many women a false sense of security and the misplaced idea that "they can have it all". Which is not true. And to make matters even worse, they all set themselves to failure have sky high expectations that no reasonably able bodied man can ever qualify for, resulting in self blows to themselves.

Workaholiconew · 2019-12-08T03:17:21+00:00

Depends on what you consider harm, it certainly harmed the bottom 80% men, and made their life even more miserable, but many things got better.

Divorce would happen anyway, what is happening is the disappearance of marriage, not the increase of divorce.

didiflex · 2019-12-08T18:40:31+00:00

Sexual liberation turned women into a sluts for top 10-15% of man. These top tier men are real winners, women get recycled by the same pool of men and Im sure they must know this but they dont mind sharing quality men.

For society as whole its a bad thing, family unit has been destroyed, kids without fathers end up being raised by promiscuous mums, what in the world can go wrong?

wekacuck · 2019-12-07T12:18:23+00:00

I think society is far better for it.

Changes in divorce rates don't bother me. I don't think people get divorced frivolously so restricting divorce just means forcing people to stay together who don't want to and increasing society's misery. People will continue to marry and stay married because they choose to.

ThrowawayCactus6012 · 2019-12-07T11:59:47+00:00

Did the sexual revolution harm society?

If it harmed society, it may be because society wasn't really ready for it. While it may have been intended "for mature audiences only," our society is at the maturity level of middle school students giggling at sex ed videos.

analt223 · 2019-12-07T16:36:15+00:00

Its causing the decline yes. But things involving millions of people on a place as large as earth take time.

But yes the sexual revolution made too many men have nothing to care about and basically want to see everything burned to the ground.

Sexual revolution + high speed internet in our pockets = destruction of society

wtffellification · 2019-12-07T07:46:30+00:00

It's women who've had a sexual revolution. Men were left to either join along or... not

I'm sure there's some things it benefited society in and other ways in which it hadn't. We can't say if it was good or bad in general I think, yet at least

DubsPackage · 2019-12-07T14:20:17+00:00

The sexual revolution didn't harm society, the sexual revolution destroyed society, because society = women and whatever provision/protection they once enjoyed was stripped away and replaced by a promisary note from the department of women and children.

Seems that "men as a group" can't be arsed to care any more beyond getting their dicks wet and simply assign the traditional male gender role to government bureacracy.

It's like outsourcing fatherhood.

Instead of dad standing there polishing his shotgun, you have cops polishing their glocks, you've successfully outsourced "daddy" to the state.

In the old days, if you couldn't marry your daughter off to some guy, she became a weight around daddy's neck, somebody has to fucking support her.

And in modern times that "somebody" is the government and institutions, quotas, etc etc.

Nowadays if you have a daughter you don't have to worry, some corporation will give her a good job, the cops will be there for her, the entire government bureacracy is structured to support women and children.

Women are like flowers in a greenhouse in Iceland.

They can be "independent" within that bubble, that cloistered environment.

And we men, we're like bees, buzzing around pollenating the flowers.

On one level it's an ingenious idea.

But on another level, you have to realize that "women's lib" is the same garbage that "traditionalism" was.

In other words, you went from one system of coverture, to a slightly different system of coverture.

In all cases, women are a protected class.

They're not independent and never will be, biologically, independent.

They can be mentally independent and think of themselves as independent, but they'll always require /some/ men to produce the environment on which they depend for their existance.

Kinda like men are dependent on women.

You needed a vagina and uterus to be born, you needed a mother to care for you.

Likewise women are dependent on men to push back the jungle, to produce civilization and order.

Now maybe, in some scifi future, that won't be the case.

Maybe someday there will be robots to do all that.

Maybe someday there will be artificial wombs so we won't even need mothers.

As the tools improve, the people become expendable.

I think eventually the concept of "gender" is going the way of the dodo.

It's less about "women and men" and more about "people."

Essentially a pansexual, de-gendered society where some people are innies and other people are outties, beyond that they're just people.

G77R23D · 2019-12-07T14:26:14+00:00

It helped corporations reduce their labor cost that's for sure. It hurt families.

SpaceS4t4n · 2019-12-07T07:27:36+00:00

STD's... so many STD's...

k995 · 2019-12-07T08:59:21+00:00

Society is defined by it's people and when half of these are oppressed or cultural enforced that's not a good situation.

AutoModerator · 2019-12-07T07:09:48+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

BloofGoober · 2019-12-07T15:10:38+00:00

My suspicion is that is has, more-or-less, explicitly harmed society, and could continue to get worse.

I think it all hinges on the value of sex. I'll explain, but please bear with me as this is probably going to be really long.

As far as I understand, one of the driving forces separating us from chimpanzees, in terms of evolution, is the development of human females' sexual selectivity.

The development of sexual selectivity, it seems to me, caused an interesting dilemma; theoretically women would only be having children with the best of men.

I'd like to preface this next thought with the idea that there is an inherent value in women, as far as I understand. It stems not only from the sexual selectivity attribute on its face, but also in that women incubate children.

Men, on the other hand, are comparatively not-so-valuable. One man can impregnate multiple women, and that's the only other piece of the puzzle. Men, therefore, are rather expendable. We really only need one for procreation to take place.

So then begs the question: if women will only have children with the best of men, how do we determine who exactly that is? In other words, where is the value in a man, considering men aren't inherently valuable, at least not quite in the same way as women?

We've determined, it seems to me, that for various reasons we should value a man by his competence. We can measure this, as it manifests itself as contribution to society. In other words, men who could find solutions to the problems that plague society have historically been deemed valuable.

When we were living in hunter-gatherer societies, it so happened that occasionally the people in our little villages would get hungry. So, considering women are precious (see the paragraphs on inherent value), and hunting could be dangerous, we would send the men to hunt.

Well, over the course of time, we'd end up being able to tell roughly who was the best hunter, considering usually it'd be the case that a few men would bring home the overwhelming majority of food, and most men would bring home little-to-nothing, as per the Pareto Distribution.

The men who would bring home more food were seen as more valuable than the other men, and usually the behaviors that would cause them to be adept at hunting would cause them to be more valuable in other areas as well. These men got to have children.

Not only did they get children, but society would find a way to provide resources to these men to attempt to keep them solving problems. Once you have children, with no other motivation, you can just stop. Society would like for that not to be the case, and I don't think it's unwarranted.

As time would carry on, this idea would become more and more complex, especially with the creation of currency and whatnot, but the themes remained roughly the same.

There was one problem though: as per the Pareto Distribution, only few men would get the overwhelming majority of female attention, and most men would get little-to-none.

The issues with this are as follows: 1) Society has many, many, many problems, and 2) We value human life and the quality of human life.

It would behoove us, especially as society gets more and more complex, to have as many people as we can tackling the problems that plague us. If the only reason problems get solved anyway is because of the idea that there will be sex on the other end of it, what is the point for most men to bother getting involved considering they'll be overshadowed by the few men who excel? That also just strictly leads to a sort of nihilism where the question becomes "Why do anything?" considering it's a fundamental objective of animals to reproduce.

Now, this is where the idea of marriage becomes rather useful. A man and a woman get paired together, and they can't break the bond. The man can't leave the woman and vice versa, and other women have to respect the relationship and find other men (the woman in the marriage theoretically shouldn't be looking to other men because she has the best man).

This motivates men to stay in the game, ergo creating more great men who solve society's problems, and keeping women happy because not only do they theoretically get good men, their resources, and security (considering they have to commit, and it can't be broken), but they also get a CHOICE of good men, considering there are more good men now and the women still have the power to dictate who gets children, so they're in control.

With the creation of the concept of divorce, things get rough. That one king dude that broke away from the church way-back-when kinda ruined things. It eliminates women's security. I suppose it's not all bad though, some relationships are rough and sometimes breaking it up can be a good thing. I'd argue the overwhelming majority can be salvaged, but I suppose it is what it is.

Forgive me as I kinda just jump to the period of the last sixty years or so to now.

With the onset of the civil-rights movements, post-modern philosophy, and birth control, lots of things changed. Most notably, I believe, society as a whole became more progressively oriented, and less traditionally oriented. People gained a newfound aversion to religion, marriage as an institution began to fall under skepticism, and people were fuckin' like crazy.

This wouldn't be too bad if not for the fact that it isn't just simply that all of these things were happening at face value. In regards to the whole "people were fuckin' like crazy" thing, this came with a huge issue.

It seems to me that women forgot that they have value. More specifically, it seems to me that the idea that sex has value at all completely faded away.

Particularly with the invention of birth control, women didn't see a risk in casual sex anymore. It's fun and relatively risk-free, so fuck it, why not?

Well, because when you give sex away for free, it goes completely against your base instincts. Maybe that's why not.

You're supposed to be sexually selective, remember? This is why we aren't chimps anymore! Maybe that's why not!

The entire idea is actually exactly the opposite of progressive. It's precisely REGRESSIVE.

When men don't have to work for sex, they don't work. When men don't work, roughly half of the population isn't working to solve society's problems. When women only give the free sex to the prettiest men (considering no one has any motivation to work to attain any value for themselves, and there is no other way to measure the value of a man), you dispossess the majority of men, 'cause the majority of men aren't pretty.

You create a glut of "economically unattractive" men. When you marry these men, because divorce is a thing, you inevitably will find that they offer nothing except perhaps very few resources, and you will divorce them. If you don't have a career for yourself, and you end up being kicked to the curb, the old ways of being financially reliant on your man won't work, 'cause there is no security in marriage anymore. Now women need to make good money where they didn't before because nothing is guaranteed.

Now, I'm not saying that things are universally like this. There are obviously men that try. There are obviously women and men who value commitment and sex and whatnot. Society isn't falling apart at the seams. There's even reason to suspect that the pendulum might even be swinging back. It's important, however, to consider that if the pendulum doesn't swing back EVER, things might not turn out so swell in the end.

I apologize for the Great Wall of China. I'd love to have a discussion about this, if anyone manages to read it.

If anyone does manage to, I appreciate you takin' the time.

dylang92 · 2019-12-07T15:37:32+00:00

Harmed society? No, but depend who you ask it may have harmed specific people greatly

angels-fan · 2019-12-07T17:37:13+00:00

Way, way, way better for women and the top 20% of men.

Way, way, way worse for everyone else.

Title	Did the sexual revolution harm society?
Author	knowledgeseeker999
Upvotes	6
Comments	65
Date	December 7, 2019 7:09 AM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/e7bavp/did_the_sexual_revolution_harm_society/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/did-the-sexual-revolution-harm-society.298157 https://theredarchive.com/post/298157

Comments