/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16503505]

Is there any correlation between economic systems and sexual norms? Or in other words, do economic systems entail ethical codes regarding sexuality? For example, under neoliberal capitalism of today, promiscuity is prominent. But does this have to do with neoliberal capitalism itself or is it because of other conditions? I'd appreciate if you could point me towards relevant books.

[Anonymous No.16503517]

https://voca.ro/18xTsXKNLDHK

[Anonymous No.16503526]

The sexual liberation of women led to the commodification of sexual desire. We can now sell toys and hardcore pornography at a massive scale, and the act itself can even be sold. Even better the advent of the internet now gives women the opportunity to be their own little entrepreneur in selling their bodies while they are young. But it took a while to get here. Femininity has slowly been decoupled from social obligation into commodification for a hundred years. Clothes. Dates. Makeup. Female hygiene. All is ready to be manufactured and sold to the public. Dating apps in an increasingly isolated and alienated world allows brief moments of connection in exchange for data and the devaluing of the sexual act. For now it costs three martinis and an uber to get laid now instead of two to twenty years of romancing. And all to feed our individualist lust. The pigs all think themselves unique as they all eat from the same trough.

[Anonymous No.16503532]

>>16503505
Sex and Culture
Here's an article on it.
https://www.kirkdurston.com/blog/unwin

tl;dr
It examines the data from 86 societies and civilizations to see if there is a relationship between sexual freedom and the flourishing of cultures.
Effect of sexual constraints: Increased sexual constraints, either pre or post-nuptial, always led to increased flourishing of a culture. Conversely, increased sexual freedom always led to the collapse of a culture three generations later.
Single most influential factor: Surprisingly, the data revealed that the single most important correlation with the flourishing of a culture was whether pre-nuptial chastity was required or not. It had a very significant effect either way.

Highest flourishing of culture: The most powerful combination was pre-nuptial chastity coupled with “absolute monogamy”. Rationalist cultures that retained this combination for at least three generations exceeded all other cultures in every area, including literature, art, science, furniture, architecture, engineering, and agriculture. Only three out of the eighty-six cultures studied ever attained this level.
Effect of abandoning prenuptial chastity: When strict prenuptial chastity was no longer the norm, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking also disappeared within three generations.
Total sexual freedom: If total sexual freedom was embraced by a culture, that culture collapsed within three generations to the lowest state of flourishing — which Unwin describes as “inert” and at a “dead level of conception” and is characterized by people who have little interest in much else other than their own wants and needs. At this level, the culture is usually conquered or taken over by another culture with greater social energy.
Time lag: If there is a change in sexual constraints, either increased or decreased restraints, the full effect of that change is not realized until the third generation.

[Anonymous No.16503536]

>>16503526
Yes, but all of this would not be possible if we were living in any other economic system other than neoliberal capitalism. So at the very list we could say the system allowed it. The next question is whether this is the necessary consequence of the system.

[Anonymous No.16503548]

>>16503532
This is very helpful. Thank you anon.

[Anonymous No.16503554]

>>16503532
>Conversely, increased sexual freedom always led to the collapse of a culture three generations later.
How stupid are you?

[Anonymous No.16503563]

>>16503554
>sages the thread
Seething, aren't we? If you have an argument you better write it out. This blatant sophistry is too low even for /lit/.

[Anonymous No.16503577]

>>16503563
A blog post is not an article
The rest of the post is blatant bullshit
No one with half a brain wastes their time arguing with disinfo trolls

Now my question was simple, just exactly how retarded are you?

[Anonymous No.16503587]

>>16503532
Sounds like propter hoc. I wonder how many cultures introduce sexual freedom as a result of jumping the shark

[Anonymous No.16503591]

>>16503577
I'm the OP and the article seems well-cited and relevant to my question (though of course I'd have it to examine more closely). What is evident is that you are seething. I ask why?

[Anonymous No.16503599]

>>16503532
>>16503587
Looking at the website now I think propter hoc was too much credit

[Anonymous No.16503600]

>>16503591
>Pointing out bs is seething
Whew lad

[Anonymous No.16503614]

>Relevant Books!
<3

[Anonymous No.16503614,1]

>>16503505
No, it's really about the people within a country, not its economic system. Economics and politics are downstream of culture, which is downstream of demographics. In America, as the peoples from Albion were replaced with Jews, Mediterraneans, and Hispanics, the "general public" was ipso facto less sexually moral, and cultural works reflected the values of these interlopers in a self-reinforcing cycle. Jews are what they are, and whites are what they are. Believe me, the whites here don't want Jewish cultural garbage and don't have any resonance with it.

Europe suffered a similar phenomenon. After the so-called Jewish Enlightenment, Jews got ambitious, took over every Western country from the inside or outside in the 20th century, and injected poison into the culture. Not to mention Jews opened everyone's borders, and consequently Jews and other Meds moved into Northern and Central Europe, debasing those countries' genetic and cultural currencies.

[Anonymous No.16503627]

>>16503505
There is a causal relationship

[Anonymous No.16503630]

>>16503614
Yes? A book was already recommended (Sex and Culture by Unwin). I didn't want to make a /pol/tier bait thread. I'm looking for actual recommendations and discussions

[Anonymous No.16503654]

>>16503505
>>16503536
>>16503532
women=left wing for anything but sex
women= capitalist for sex [making men compete for a reward and the reward is providing for a woman at least sexually]


men = right wing for anything but sex = autism = clinging to pathetic power fantasies of leading other people and killing people who do not think like them, craving to be alphas when all they do is supporting women at best
men like to be told what to do
and it is distraction from orbiting roasties.
So that men feel like strong and powerful about something not related to women. However, the only thing that men do when they create a society is in fact to give an easy life to women, because
-men never ever stop competing for women
-society according to men is jsut to get comfortable, which women benefit a lot from , and create rules and being upset when they think that other tribes do things differently

this is why women always push for more society and men gladly work for them free of charge.
men = left wing for sex [utopia]

[Anonymous No.16503659]

>>16503654
Please stop posting this retarded pasta.

[Anonymous No.16503659,1]

>>16503630
Culture of Critique by Kevin McDonald

Culture is the product of the people in a country, not the "system." Systems don't create themselves, they are created by people, and people are guided by motives. To blame sexual immorality on abstract economic organization concepts is evasive bullshit.

[Anonymous No.16503688]

What defines an "economic system?" I assure you that economists don't discuss economics in terms of "capitalism" or "communism" or anything like this. They discuss things like monetary policy, government regulation, who bears the burden of negative externalities, GDP per capita, etc... so what you asking isn't as straight forward or easy to prove as one might think.

I would say that there is likely a correlation between GDP per capita and promiscuity. Or at least a strong correlation between these things and publicized/socially acceptable promiscuity.

I'm on mobile so i cant read the OP as I write so if my response is a little off from what you're asking, that's why.

[Anonymous No.16503722]

>>16503688
>What defines an "economic system?" I assure you that economists don't discuss economics in terms of "capitalism" or "communism" or anything like this.
I made sure to use the correct term before posting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system
>The analysis of economic systems traditionally focused on the dichotomies and comparisons between market economies and planned economies and on the distinctions between capitalism and socialism.
Your assurance is unfortunately not well founded.
>I would say that there is likely a correlation between GDP per capita and promiscuity.
I'd agree, but this presupposes the neoliberal capitalist systems. I'm interested to know how differently sexual behavior would manifest under other systems (not necessarily communism though, I'm thinking more generally).

[Anonymous No.16503688,1]

>>16503688
Yeah, the correlation is Jews colonize countries that have a lot of wealth, then they take over the media, academia, law, and entertainment and pozz the country culturally.

[Anonymous No.16503722,1]

>>16503722
How do you plan to control for the prevalence and relative influence of Jews in each country in your analysis?

[Anonymous No.16503773]

>>16503505
>Is there any correlation between economic systems and sexual norms?
Yes, basic Base Superstructure stuff.

[Anonymous No.16503792]

>The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women. He has not even a suspicion that the real point is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production. For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce the community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial. Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives. Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

[Anonymous No.16503890]

>>16503722
My claim was that the clear distinction you are trying to make between systems does not exist. Like if you look at the economic models of California vs Texas you will see many many differences, all of which could have causal effects on sexuality. Even two "capitalist" systems may be organized very differently. Like how many firms are in each market, what degree of market power do they have, how does strategic interaction between firms look. It would also be hard to assert any claim that any certain "economic system" causes sexual behaviour because there are other factors that need to be accounted for like technological advancement, race, religion, degree of spontaneous sociability, etc...You pointing out that a wiki exists doesnt counter my claim and I suggest you watch your tone. You're the one seeking information here. Funny that a guy asking a question that signals his lack of understanding of econ is telling me about the nuances of econ from a wiki article. Faggot.

T. Econfag