Why does America export movies like "American Pie" if the country is prudish and it is hard to get laid?

[shawnberwick]

Have you guys ever thought that maybe its not the "remnants of puritanism" that is making it difficult for you to find a girl but rather the lack of said puritanism? Read into what the culture of the 1950s was like. There were no subcultures of men going like "hey y'all, this is how you get laid!" Men didn't need to scheme or come up with weird strategies and tactics in a desperate attempt to get laid that probably isn't gonna work anyway. The reason why the girls are not f***ing you isn't because we live in a prudish society, its not because girls are too sexually closed off. Its because sexual liberation has deliberately pushed women to behave like men

Interesting theory.

The best explanation IMO is the internet.

Dating Apps and social media have made dating national and international now, before the internet you only had access to people in your locality. People dated according to proximity.

Now even pretty woman living in a small town with a social media account is getting DM'd by guys who would drive miles to her, or pay for her travel costs to meet them. Pretty IG girls constantly talk about having celebs slide into their DMs. They aren't picking from just the guys in their locality, they are picking from guys nationally - and even internationally. Competition is extremely high now for men.

That's what a lot of us on this site are doing. Gaming the system, appealing to female hypergamy by travelling overseas and being a financial secure man looking for a partner. We are making dating harder for local men.

(I shit you not a girl I was dating who was below average in looks - but I liked her values - told me about a guy who she went on a date with who invited her on a holiday to Italy, expenses paid. She told me that her inbox was flooded with men, and I believed her - because she only admitted it after I asked for specifics a few times. Another overweight and below average faced woman who was a friend of mine - in casual conversation about dating and relationships - told me she was attracted to men's minds, and was annoyed when men on dates tried to impress her that they were driving sports cars. These men were simping for below average women, hard.)

[Lucas88]

I get so sick of people saying America is "puritanical." I swear, have you people been living under a rock these past 7 years?

The Anglosphere does have a puritanical undercurrent. It is a remnant from the strict Protestantism which once characterized the region and paradoxically coexists with the widespread debauchery of modern liberal society.

The Anglosphere really is a bizarre place. On TV and everywhere else you'll see the sexualization of everything (often to an extreme degree) but at the same time Anglophone society by and large still has many hang-ups with regard to sexuality which creates a certain awkwardness and makes it difficult for most ordinary guys to get laid. For example, flirting with women and expressing sexual desire for them is taboo. Ordinary guys who do this are routinely shamed as "creeps" and "pervs" whose needs are to be considered invalid and who are expected to remain unsexual beings. Even Anglophone men have bought into this same way of thinking. The bulk of them too have a problem with prostitution (because it's either "disgusting" or for "losers") and thereby don't even recognize the validity of the only channel of sexual release for many sexually challenged men. In the Anglosphere it is made clear that sex is only for the worthy, successful, desirable men while the needs of ordinary guys are negligible.

Latin cultures such as Southern Europe and Latin America are nowhere near as bad. In those countries sexuality is simply seen as another normal aspect of life and the many hang-ups observable in the Anglosphere are mostly absent. Flirtation and the expression of sexual interest towards women are commonplace and not taboo. With the exception of a small number of Catholic fanatics most people recognize that sexuality is a natural need for everybody and so there isn't any widespread cruel opposition to the sexuality of men of lower status or movement to create a sexually disenfranchised class of people. That is just a phenomenon of the sick, perverse, sadistic Anglosphere. With regard to prostitution, it is accessible almost everywhere, affordable, barely demonized at all and socially acceptable. Mediterranean and Latin American men have no problem with hiring a prostitute and routinely do so in order to fulfill their sexual needs. There's no shame associated with it. Latin people, untainted by Northern European/Anglo puritanism, have a more reasonable attitude towards sexuality.

How then do I reconcile my assertion that Anglophone society is puritanical with the evident widespread debauchery of modern liberal society? It's simple. Puritanism was always unnatural, a total dud. Even in the most outwardly puritanical societies with all of their prudishness many people still slept around, had illicit affairs and engaged in all kinds of sexual promiscuity. Even faggotry was practiced behind closed doors. The only difference was that all of this was done in secret and behind a mask of hypocrisy. So even in the Anglosphere's puritanical societies of today the same debauchery continues albeit with more visibility and all of the same sexual hang-ups continue to exist likewise. This is why puritanism is and always has been so laughable: it is wholly impractical since human beings are naturally sexual creatures with strong sexual needs which are impossible to repress yet people in puritanical societies on the surface give lip surface to a false ideal which only serves to poison and make awkward human sexual behavior.

Many of us who have lived in non-Anglophone countries see the difference. That's why many say that the Anglosphere is puritanical despite its outward permissiveness.

If you would like to understand why many identify a puritanical strain within Anglophone society I recommend that you check out Rookh Kshatriya's Anglo-Bitch Thesis: http://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com/

[Outcast9428]

I get so sick of people saying America is "puritanical." I swear, have you people been living under a rock these past 7 years?

The Anglosphere does have a puritanical undercurrent. It is a remnant from the strict Protestantism which once characterized the region and paradoxically coexists with the widespread debauchery of modern liberal society.

The Anglosphere really is a bizarre place. On TV and everywhere else you'll see the sexualization of everything (often to an extreme degree) but at the same time Anglophone society by and large still has many hang-ups with regard to sexuality which creates a certain awkwardness and makes it difficult for most ordinary guys to get laid. For example, flirting with women and expressing sexual desire for them is taboo. Ordinary guys who do this are routinely shamed as "creeps" and "pervs" whose needs are to be considered invalid and who are expected to remain unsexual beings. Even Anglophone men have bought into this same way of thinking. The bulk of them too have a problem with prostitution (because it's either "disgusting" or for "losers") and thereby don't even recognize the validity of the only channel of sexual release for many sexually challenged men. In the Anglosphere it is made clear that sex is only for the worthy, successful, desirable men while the needs of ordinary guys are negligible.

Latin cultures such as Southern Europe and Latin America are nowhere near as bad. In those countries sexuality is simply seen as another normal aspect of life and the many hang-ups observable in the Anglosphere are mostly absent. Flirtation and the expression of sexual interest towards women are commonplace and not taboo. With the exception of a small number of Catholic fanatics most people recognize that sexuality is a natural need for everybody and so there isn't any widespread cruel opposition to the sexuality of men of lower status or movement to create a sexually disenfranchised class of people. That is just a phenomenon of the sick, perverse, sadistic Anglosphere. With regard to prostitution, it is accessible almost everywhere, affordable, barely demonized at all and socially acceptable. Mediterranean and Latin American men have no problem with hiring a prostitute and routinely do so in order to fulfill their sexual needs. There's no shame associated with it. Latin people, untainted by Northern European/Anglo puritanism, have a more reasonable attitude towards sexuality.

How then do I reconcile my assertion that Anglophone society is puritanical with the evident widespread debauchery of modern liberal society? It's simple. Puritanism was always unnatural, a total dud. Even in the most outwardly puritanical societies with all of their prudishness many people still slept around, had illicit affairs and engaged in all kinds of sexual promiscuity. Even faggotry was practiced behind closed doors. The only difference was that all of this was done in secret and behind a mask of hypocrisy. So even in the Anglosphere's puritanical societies of today the same debauchery continues albeit with more visibility and all of the same sexual hang-ups continue to exist likewise. This is why puritanism is and always has been so laughable: it is wholly impractical since human beings are naturally sexual creatures with strong sexual needs which are impossible to repress yet people in puritanical societies on the surface give lip surface to a false ideal which only serves to poison and make awkward human sexual behavior.

Many of us who have lived in non-Anglophone countries see the difference. That's why many say that the Anglosphere is puritanical despite its outward permissiveness.

If you would like to understand why many identify a puritanical strain within Anglophone society I recommend that you check out Rookh Kshatriya's Anglo-Bitch Thesis: http://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com/

You are resting your assumption on the premise that puritans inherently dislike sex which is a liberal myth. Puritans and most traditionalists love sex, within marriage that is. Sex was considered essential to Puritan marriages, to the point where refusing to have sex with your spouse was grounds for excommunication. Husbands and wives were seen as having a duty to sexually satisfy one another and fulfill all of their spouse's needs.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Ez ... ty&f=false

Traditionalists have never argued against sex being a strong, physical need. It is in-fact, the sexual liberals who you'll find denying that sex is a strong, physical need. Sexual liberals claim that sex is no big deal, that there is no harm caused by people pursuing promiscuous, casual sex outside of love based relationships. Sexual liberals will say it doesn't matter if sexual liberalism destroys some men's chances of finding a girl in their life because sex, to them, is essentially just another hobby that people engage in... No different from essentially playing sports. And according to them, of course there will always be winners and losers in such a sport. It doesn't matter to them if large numbers of men and women remain permanently unmarried in life as a result of liberalism destroying people's ability to form healthy relationships. It is only through traditional values that no man or woman really loses, unless he or she fails to conduct themselves in a virtuous manner.

Men should not be seducing random women they meet on the streets such as they do in Latin America, their parents or other matchmakers should be arranging marriages for them. A family should pick certain men as potential suitors for their daughter to meet and get to know them. If there is a connection between the two and they are compatible on a long term basis, the two families should arrange a marriage for them. I also do not oppose prostitution. Prostitution was legal and a normal part of life during the peak of Christian civilization. Legal prostitution is what makes all the other regulations on sexuality work. When prostitution is legal, sexually frustrated young men are not as tempted to seduce normal women into premarital sex, nor are they as tempted to try and seduce other men's wives. The Medieval church also believed that relieving the sexual frustration of young, unmarried men prevented violent crime and rape. I strongly disapprove of any kind of adultery but if its going to happen, pretty much all parties agree that it is less harmful if the adulterous man is paying a prostitute then if he ends up seducing a married or unmarried woman. Like I said, I am not justifying it is at all okay, only acting in the interests of harm reduction knowing that it will inevitably happen in some cases.

Did you know that across Europe during the 15th century, there were actually public bathhouses? Paris alone had 32 of them. People would go there and submerge themselves in wooden tubs with their spouse. These were not reserved for the nobility either but were frequented by the common peasantry. Public bathhouses even served as essentially restaurants and a small wooden table would be placed between the man and his wife. And yes, it was extremely common for people to have sex in these places. The unmarried would often go to bathhouses with a prostitute. These are what they would've looked like...

[Lucas88]

You are resting your assumption on the premise that puritans inherently dislike sex which is a liberal myth. Puritans and most traditionalists love sex, within marriage that is. Sex was considered essential to Puritan marriages, to the point where refusing to have sex with your spouse was grounds for excommunication. Husbands and wives were seen as having a duty to sexually satisfy one another and fulfill all of their spouse's needs.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Ez ... ty&f=false

Traditionalists have never argued against sex being a strong, physical need. It is in-fact, the sexual liberals who you'll find denying that sex is a strong, physical need. Sexual liberals claim that sex is no big deal, that there is no harm caused by people pursuing promiscuous, casual sex outside of love based relationships. Sexual liberals will say it doesn't matter if sexual liberalism destroys some men's chances of finding a girl in their life because sex, to them, is essentially just another hobby that people engage in... No different from essentially playing sports. And according to them, of course there will always be winners and losers in such a sport. It doesn't matter to them if large numbers of men and women remain permanently unmarried in life as a result of liberalism destroying people's ability to form healthy relationships. It is only through traditional values that no man or woman really loses, unless he or she fails to conduct themselves in a virtuous manner.

Men should not be seducing random women they meet on the streets such as they do in Latin America, their parents or other matchmakers should be arranging marriages for them. A family should pick certain men as potential suitors for their daughter to meet and get to know them. If there is a connection between the two and they are compatible on a long term basis, the two families should arrange a marriage for them. I also do not oppose prostitution. Prostitution was legal and a normal part of life during the peak of Christian civilization. Legal prostitution is what makes all the other regulations on sexuality work. When prostitution is legal, sexually frustrated young men are not as tempted to seduce normal women into premarital sex, nor are they as tempted to try and seduce other men's wives. The Medieval church also believed that relieving the sexual frustration of young, unmarried men prevented violent crime and rape. I strongly disapprove of any kind of adultery but if its going to happen, pretty much all parties agree that it is less harmful if the adulterous man is paying a prostitute then if he ends up seducing a married or unmarried woman. Like I said, I am not justifying it is at all okay, only acting in the interests of harm reduction knowing that it will inevitably happen in some cases.

Did you know that across Europe during the 15th century, there were actually public bathhouses? Paris alone had 32 of them. People would go there and submerge themselves in wooden tubs with their spouse. These were not reserved for the nobility either but were frequented by the common peasantry. Public bathhouses even served as essentially restaurants and a small wooden table would be placed between the man and his wife. And yes, it was extremely common for people to have sex in these places. The unmarried would often go to bathhouses with a prostitute. These are what they would've looked like...

I'm not basing my assertion that the Anglosphere has a puritanical undercurrent on intellectual assumptions but rather on direct experience of two distinct cultures. I've lived in the Anglo-Saxon North (UK) and the Latin South (Spain, Mexico, Peru) and I've found the Anglo-Saxon North to be a lot more puritanical and hung-up with regard to sexuality and the Latin South to have a much more relaxed and natural approach. Many other people have noted this too. A common explanation for this difference of cultural attitudes is that the Protestant ethos of the North (and not just simply traditionalism) was more prudish with regard to sexual issues than the considerably laxer Catholic cultures of the South.

You seem to wish to attribute the sexual hang-ups of the Anglosphere exclusively to sexual liberalism and not to Protestant-style puritanism but the truth is that the many regions of the Latin South and especially Spain have been exposed to the same liberal ideologies as the Anglosphere yet at the same time none of the sexual hang-ups of the Anglo-Saxon North exist to a significant degree in those countries and the sexual climate is much more natural. That suggests that there's something else at play other than simply sexual liberalism. In my experience Spain as a society is extremely liberal and progressive with gay pride all the rage, feminist campaigns promoted on national TV, public support for transgender rights, and everything else associated with modern liberal ideology. It's all been pushed really hard there. But sexuality (including that of men) is still barely demonized at all and there isn't even half of the awkwardness surrounding it as there is in the Anglo-Saxon North.

All forms of puritanism are just not practical. Most human beings have extremely strong sexual urges and cannot wait for an arranged marriage or behave in accordance with some unrealistic system of morality. That's why even the most puritanical societies in history were full of premarital sex, promiscuity, adultery and even faggotry with the only difference that it was all done in secret. Some traditional societies were at least honest enough to tolerate prostitution as you alluded to in your post. But the example you gave was 15th century France, not a Protestant country and prior to the historical rise of puritanism. I'm interested in history and I've read about periods in which the English puritans fiercely condemned prostitution (and other expressions of sexuality) and shut down venues associated with it. This would happen both in England and the New World colonies.

I think that you're missing something when it comes to Anglo puritanism and how it has shaped the modern Anglo approach to sexuality. Once again I would like to recommend that you read Rookh Kshatriya's work on the issue. He's a traditionalist albeit non-puritanical scholar and I feel that his interpretation of Anglo feminism and its hidden puritanism is spot on.

[Outcast9428]

@Lucas88

I'm actually arguing that people don't really have sexual hang ups. Regardless of culture, people seem to like sex. Its hard for me to even think of a culture that I'd regard as legitimately anti sexuality. Everybody from the traditionalists, to the liberals, to the feminists claim to be pro-sex. Being anti sex is practically saying you are anti life itself. While there are certainly some individuals who seem legitimately anti sex I can't think of any culture that really strikes me as genuinely anti sex. I don't regard the traditionalist rules around sex as evidence of them disliking sex, I rather see it as treating it with the respect it deserves which is that it shouldn't be handled recklessly. As far as the "awkwardness" thing you mention goes. Sex is inherently kind of an awkward subject. That's not really due to puritanism or something along those lines. Its just the nature of sex that people, especially young or inexperienced people, will be a little awkward about it. I'd also argue its not that people have sexual hang ups so much as people in some cultures are just more awkward about socializing in general and awkwardness with regards to sex is naturally gonna flow from general awkwardness.

There were times when Medieval Europe was less accepting of prostitution. In the book I read about it, it did point out that people's opinion towards it was significantly more negative during the 14th century then it was during the 15th century. This could've been because Europe in the 15th century was a lot more prosperous then before and the more prosperous people become and the more general free time or leisure time they have, the less tolerant they are of people and ideas they think are wrecking their good times.

You do have to tolerate prostitution or regulations of sexual behavior will not work. But if you have legal prostitution, I don't see what's so unrealistic about all the other rules. Humans do not need to sleep around. And if you go to prostitutes yourself you will quickly realize that, while it certainly makes waiting more bearable, it is no substitute for a wife. Part of the reason why I support legal prostitution actually is specifically because I want it to teach young men why sleeping around is useless. Sexual promiscuity for most men is not the result of natural sexual urges but rather the result of competitive behavior between males. Men who attach sex to their own self worth end up being promiscuous to prove to other people that they are popular with girls.

This is why I think legal prostitution would ironically destroy hookup culture. Once any guy can walk into a brothel and buy sex there's no competition for it anymore. And once there's no competitive aspect to sex anymore, men realize that casual sex and sleeping around is not even pleasurable. Prostitution eliminates the mystery, the competition, and forbidden fruit temptation that casual sex has often held over people. Once those aspects are destroyed, men realize that sex is much better when you have it with a woman you love and share a connection with. Sexual liberalism thrives by making casual sex into a competition but prostitution destroys the competitive nature of casual sex and instead reduces it down to its basic unit. Once this happens, people quickly grow bored of casual sex, and there is no longer any temptation to even engage in it because you know its completely inferior to love based sex.

[ArchibaultNew]

Hey guys,

I have noticed talking with many different people around the world that they assume America is one "big orgy." Especially, college in America. This thought is due to movies like American Pie where it all revolves around young people and sex.

Yet there are many colleges in America where all people do is drink in their rooms, drink with their friends and depending on the school they are might not be much sex. Even if you are in frat.

Many of you guys might say, "Yes, but the point is to make money with those movies. It doesn't need to reflect reality." This might be a fair point. Yet, other countries tend to export what they are good at. For instance, you see a lot of French exporting their cuisine or German their watches.

What do you guys think?

American Pie is a movie which I actually like even though I typically don't watch movies of that sort (I tend to prefer movies with deeper and more serious themes). I watched it fairly recently and not only does the cast of colorful characters have a certain charm and are very relatable but also the movie itself tells some accurate truths.

First of all, at least for me, American Pie doesn't portray America as one big orgy. Rather this movie mocks the pervasive sexual awkwardness and the resulting male sexlessness of an outwardly sexually liberated yet essentially puritanical American society.

The main plot of the movie revolves around a group of male friends who are all virgins despite being in high school and therefore desperate to lose their virginity. Some of these friends like Jim and Finch are nerdy misfits who cannot even get a girlfriend because they don't fit the mold of popularity. Others like Oz and Kevin are more normal and do have girlfriends but still haven't slept with them due to all of American society's hang-ups surrounding sex. All of these characters appear like bumbling idiots when it comes to relationships and sexuality. But this is America after all.

The only friend in the group who gets laid with ease and regularity is Stifler, the obnoxious and inconsiderate yet somewhat charismatic bad boy who acts like a complete hooligan and treats girls like sex objects. In this regard the movie accurately depicts reality once again.

Interestingly the only foreign girl at the high school Nadia has no sexual hang-ups and is happy to have sex with Jim despite his nerdiness and lack of popularity by American standards. She is also depicted as hot and possessing a natural kind of charm. This is another truth that the movie is telling us. Foreign women are better and are not affected by the typical American sexual awkwardness.

Another person without sexual hang-ups is Jim's dad Noah Levenstein, incidentally a Jew. American Pie was made by Jews. I think with this movie the Jewish writers are making fun of American society's awkward attitudes pertaining to sexuality.

American Pie is mostly accurate. Sexual relationships are nowhere near as awkward or complicated in any other part of the world.

Hey man, I think that you have a spot on analysis. If we take a closer look the film serves more as a "mockery" of American sexual prudeness as opposed to a film that promotes "sexual liberalism."

[ArchibaultNew]

@Lucas88

Why do you think Nadia is down to hook up with Jim but American women are not?

[Lucas88]

@Lucas88

Why do you think Nadia is down to hook up with Jim but American women are not?

In other countries women admire a variety of different traits and virtues such as intelligence and creativity, not just superficial popularity and jock status. So Nadia is attracted to Jim and is either oblivious to or doesn't care about American society's expectations.

[jamesbond]

The Anglosphere does have a puritanical undercurrent. It is a remnant from the strict Protestantism which once characterized the region and paradoxically coexists with the widespread debauchery of modern liberal society.

The Anglosphere really is a bizarre place. On TV and everywhere else you'll see the sexualization of everything (often to an extreme degree) but at the same time Anglophone society by and large still has many hang-ups with regard to sexuality which creates a certain awkwardness and makes it difficult for most ordinary guys to get laid. For example, flirting with women and expressing sexual desire for them is taboo. Ordinary guys who do this are routinely shamed as "creeps" and "pervs" whose needs are to be considered invalid and who are expected to remain unsexual beings. Even Anglophone men have bought into this same way of thinking. The bulk of them too have a problem with prostitution (because it's either "disgusting" or for "losers") and thereby don't even recognize the validity of the only channel of sexual release for many sexually challenged men. In the Anglosphere it is made clear that sex is only for the worthy, successful, desirable men while the needs of ordinary guys are negligible.

Latin cultures such as Southern Europe and Latin America are nowhere near as bad. In those countries sexuality is simply seen as another normal aspect of life and the many hang-ups observable in the Anglosphere are mostly absent. Flirtation and the expression of sexual interest towards women are commonplace and not taboo. With the exception of a small number of Catholic fanatics most people recognize that sexuality is a natural need for everybody and so there isn't any widespread cruel opposition to the sexuality of men of lower status or movement to create a sexually disenfranchised class of people. That is just a phenomenon of the sick, perverse, sadistic Anglosphere. With regard to prostitution, it is accessible almost everywhere, affordable, barely demonized at all and socially acceptable. Mediterranean and Latin American men have no problem with hiring a prostitute and routinely do so in order to fulfill their sexual needs. There's no shame associated with it. Latin people, untainted by Northern European/Anglo puritanism, have a more reasonable attitude towards sexuality.

How then do I reconcile my assertion that Anglophone society is puritanical with the evident widespread debauchery of modern liberal society? It's simple.Puritanism was always unnatural, a total dud. Even in the most outwardly puritanical societies with all of their prudishness many people still slept around, had illicit affairs and engaged in all kinds of sexual promiscuity. Even faggotry was practiced behind closed doors. The only difference was that all of this was done in secret and behind a mask of hypocrisy. So even in the Anglosphere's puritanical societies of today the same debauchery continues albeit with more visibility and all of the same sexual hang-ups continue to exist likewise. This is why puritanism is and always has been so laughable: it is wholly impractical since human beings are naturally sexual creatures with strong sexual needs which are impossible to repress yet people in puritanical societies on the surface give lip surface to a false ideal which only serves to poison and make awkward human sexual behavior.

Many of us who have lived in non-Anglophone countries see the difference. That's why many say that the Anglosphere is puritanical despite its outward permissiveness.

If you would like to understand why many identify a puritanical strain within Anglophone society I recommend that you check out Rookh Kshatriya's Anglo-Bitch Thesis: http://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com/

Wow, this is excellent! I love Rookh Kshatriya and have been reading his blog now for years. I bought his book "Havok" where he discusses in great length how Anglo countries are puritanical and sexually repressive. I love that guy, he hit's the nail on the head regarding Anglo countries and puritanism.

I highlighted parts of your post that really nails how Anglo countries feel about male sexuality and just how puritanism is disgusting and destructive towards men.

You stated that, in the Anglosphere it is made clear that sex is only for the worthy, successful, desirable men while the needs of ordinary guys are negligible. Wow how true this is. The assumption in Anglo countries is that only men of high social status (weathly, successful men) are deserving of sex. Men who are of lower social economic status are not worthy of sex or female companionship.

In some German brothels, they allow men who are disabled and are in wheel chairs to visit. So they believe that even men who are disabled are worthy of sex. In no way is this true Anglo countries like the USA.

The United States is one of the few countries in the world where prostitution is illegal. This is because of puritanism, which thinks the legalization of prostitution is immoral and ordinary men should not have access to sex. No wonder why more and more men are leaving puritanical Anglo countries and moving to more 'man friendly' countries like the Philippines, Thailand, Brazil, Columbia, Mexico, Spain, Greece, Ukraine, Russia and Poland, just to name a few of the man friendly countries around the world.

[Lucas88]

You stated that, in the Anglosphere it is made clear that sex is only for the worthy, successful, desirable men while the needs of ordinary guys are negligible. Wow how true this is. The assumption in Anglo countries is that only men of high social status (weathly, successful men) are deserving of sex. Men who are of lower social economic status are not worthy of sex or female companionship.

In these threads about the Anglosphere and its puritanism we have discussed Anglo-Saxon society's:

-Prudish attitudes
-Awkward rift between the sexes
-Pedestalization of women as the prize
-Concept of winners and losers reminiscent of Calvinist predestination
-Sexually disenfranchised male underclass

These seem to be the key characteristics.

However, I would even go as far as to say that there is an even deeper overarching concept behind all of these things and that is Anglo-Saxon society's social doctrine of economic productivism.

It is no secret that Anglo-Saxon societies like the UK and the US are beehives of capitalism and industry. They have consecrated economic growth and wealth creation (primarily for the rich) as their most sacrosanct ideals. Almost every aspect of life must be directed at these materialistic utilitarian goals. In light of this social doctrine of economic productivism the greedy and acquisitive industrial elite seeks to exploit its mostly male workforce's creative energy to the highest possible degree and therefore needs to present it with a strong source of motivation. The same industrial elite decides to implement a system of brutal competition for sex and female companionship in which only the most hardworking and economically successful men are rewarded with these while work-adverse and economically mediocre men are looked down upon or even excluded. The Protestantism of Continental Europe with its puritanism and its notion of a Protestant work ethic proves to be the perfect tool of social engineering since it serves to scarcify and further commodify sexuality through its prudish and anti-sexual attitudes and also to introduce into industrial society's collective consciousness the idea of economic winners opposite an underclass of poor and sexually ineligible losers.

Moreover, it is also quite possible in my opinion that this same Anglo-Saxon social doctrine of economic productivism is also accompanied by a covert form of productivist eugenics.

The industrial elite may wish to create a sexual dystopia which favors reproductive success only on the part of the most economically productive men and serves to render less productive males reproductively unviable. This would be a scenario of manufactured inceldom for all those men who refuse to sacrifice our own lives on the altar of corporate wage slavery.

[jamesbond]

In these threads about the Anglosphere and its puritanism we have discussed Anglo-Saxon society's:

-Prudish attitudes
-Awkward rift between the sexes
-Pedestalization of women as the prize
-Concept of winners and losers reminiscent of Calvinist predestination
-Sexually disenfranchised male underclass

These seem to be the key characteristics.

However, I would even go as far as to say that there is an even deeper overarching concept behind all of these things and that is Anglo-Saxon society's social doctrine of economic productivism.

It is no secret that Anglo-Saxon societies like the UK and the US are beehives of capitalism and industry. They have consecrated economic growth and wealth creation (primarily for the rich) as their most sacrosanct ideals. Almost every aspect of life must be directed at these materialistic utilitarian goals. In light of this social doctrine of economic productivism the greedy and acquisitive industrial elite seeks to exploit its mostly male workforce's creative energy to the highest possible degree and therefore needs to present it with a strong source of motivation. The same industrial elite decides to implement a system of brutal competition for sex and female companionship in which only the most hardworking and economically successful men are rewarded with these while work-adverse and economically mediocre men are looked down upon or even excluded. The Protestantism of Continental Europe with its puritanism and its notion of a Protestant work ethic proves to be the perfect tool of social engineering since it serves to scarcify and further commodify sexuality through its prudish and anti-sexual attitudes and also to introduce into industrial society's collective consciousness the idea of economic winners opposite an underclass of poor and sexually ineligible losers.

Moreover, it is also quite possible in my opinion that this same Anglo-Saxon social doctrine of economic productivism is also accompanied by a covert form of productivist eugenics.

The industrial elite may wish to create a sexual dystopia which favors reproductive success only on the part of the most economically productive men and serves to render less productive males reproductively unviable. This would be a scenario of manufactured inceldom for all those men who refuse to sacrifice our own lives on the altar of corporate wage slavery.

Wow, you nailed it on the head, excellent observations regarding Anglo countries concept of work and sex. In Anglo countries we are conditioned from our childhood to become worker bees working for a corporation until we retire.

Workaholism is alive and well in Anglo countries and this is seen as a virtue. Taking time off from work and having fun (like traveling) is seen as a negative thing. You are only supposed to stop working when you retire.

In Anglo countries, the only men who are allowed to be with women are the ones who are economically viable (making good money). These men are seen as worthy of love and sex. Men who are on the lower end of the economic spectrum, have to fight tooth and nail with other men for the few remaining women who are available.

No wonder why puritanism is a disgusting form of social order. You don't find this in non Anglo countries. Now I see why so many men are leaving Anglo countries like the plague and moving to non Anglo countries like countries in eastern Europe, South America and Asian countries.