Why do you guys think homosexuals are readily accepted but sex and sexuality is rejected in Anglo-Socities?

[ArchibaultNew]

I had the opportunity to study Spanish, French, Portuguese and German, even Polish culture and other cultures.

My observation has been that only in the Anglo-Societies there's a clear misandry against straight men. Anything a man does can be interpreted as weird, creepy, "gross" or "try hard" as Italian thinker Evola said, it seems that in Anglo societies men and women have a very poor relationship. There's low tolerance for sex. Anyone wanting to have sex, especially men are seen as weirdos. It wrong to like sex or want it.

Meanwhile, homosexuals and homosexuality is readily accepted and even encouraged. To many people around the world this might seen bizarre. Why is it that former deeply religious people as soon as they stopped being religious turn to homosexuality as their way of "liberalism" ? I remember an interview with a ex-lesbian from the Midwest who said she was deeply religious, but hated men. As soon as she stopped being religious she then turned to homosexuality as her 'outlet." However, as soon as once she found "religion again" she left the homosexual community. In my opinion in the Anglo world people identify with others of their same sex much more than with those of the opposite sex.

Many Anglo's who I talked to always assume that "Sexual Liberalism=Homosexuality." For instance, a friend found it bizarre when I showed him a movie of a guy who hooks up with multiple women. Yet there's ZERO homosexual content nor homosexual acts. Hence, he was puzzled. In fact, there's some cultures where it means men having affairs with multiple women and being players and some visiting brothels. It doesn't carry the same "homosexual connotation" in the Anglo-Cultures.

As some thinker say it seems homosexuals, minorities are "voting blocks" and "political agents" for the left around the world and especially in America and the Anglosphere.

The desexualization of homosexuals and the creation of the 'homosexual identity' was the way that gay marriage was legalized. I remember, that left wing politicians sold it as "love" between two people of the same sex. They completely downplayed the sexual element. Similarly when an Anglo married Pocahotas he also did it with "Love" as the justification as opposed to sex. 'Lust" is always bad in the Anglo societies.

[Outcast9428]

I don't accept the premise that sexuality is rejected in Anglo societies. Whoever you showed that film to is just weird. Sexual liberals are the only people who seem to think that sexuality is demonized by our society. They don't seem to understand that negative attitudes towards sex arise from the behavior of sexual liberals because sexual liberals have no respect for anybody and think that people's anger towards their behavior is the angered person's fault. Because sexual liberals claim to have a monopoly on pro sex attitudes, people associate sex itself with sexual liberalism and thus come to dislike sex because sexual liberals are so determined to act like anybody who doesn't want society to look like a constant orgy is anti-sex.

Why do you assume love is antithetical to sex? Sex is inherently a part of love.

I'm a little bit concerned that you're quoting Evola. I don't know if you're aware of this but he advocated for the destruction of Christianity, said that rape and sadomasochism was okay, and that men should be bred solely for the purpose of warfare. I don't think anybody on the right or the left would enjoy living in the kind of society that Evola wished to create.

[ArchibaultNew]

I don't accept the premise that sexuality is rejected in Anglo societies. Whoever you showed that film to is just weird. Sexual liberals are the only people who seem to think that sexuality is demonized by our society. They don't seem to understand that negative attitudes towards sex arise from the behavior of sexual liberals because sexual liberals have no respect for anybody and think that people's anger towards their behavior is the angered person's fault. Because sexual liberals claim to have a monopoly on pro sex attitudes, people associate sex itself with sexual liberalism and thus come to dislike sex because sexual liberals are so determined to act like anybody who doesn't want society to look like a constant orgy is anti-sex.

Why do you assume love is antithetical to sex? Sex is inherently a part of love.

I'm a little bit concerned that you're quoting Evola. I don't know if you're aware of this but he advocated for the destruction of Christianity, said that rape and sadomasochism was okay, and that men should be bred solely for the purpose of warfare. I don't think anybody on the right or the left would enjoy living in the kind of society that Evola wished to create.

It is rejected. Because in other cultures sexuality is more normal in the Anglo cultures is a source of shame. It seems many societies like the French one or even Latin America sexuality is part of life but not public like in the Anglo one's. In the Anglo one's you have excessive sexualization and the "promise of sex" but no actual sex.

Sex is separate from Love, its mostly Puritans who think otherwise.

The Christianity that Anglo's follow is their own version Away from the Catholic church who had different ideas. Its an Puritain, aesthetic ideology. Evola on the other hand, has interesting ideas and catchy titles.

[Outcast9428]

I don't accept the premise that sexuality is rejected in Anglo societies. Whoever you showed that film to is just weird. Sexual liberals are the only people who seem to think that sexuality is demonized by our society. They don't seem to understand that negative attitudes towards sex arise from the behavior of sexual liberals because sexual liberals have no respect for anybody and think that people's anger towards their behavior is the angered person's fault. Because sexual liberals claim to have a monopoly on pro sex attitudes, people associate sex itself with sexual liberalism and thus come to dislike sex because sexual liberals are so determined to act like anybody who doesn't want society to look like a constant orgy is anti-sex.

Why do you assume love is antithetical to sex? Sex is inherently a part of love.

I'm a little bit concerned that you're quoting Evola. I don't know if you're aware of this but he advocated for the destruction of Christianity, said that rape and sadomasochism was okay, and that men should be bred solely for the purpose of warfare. I don't think anybody on the right or the left would enjoy living in the kind of society that Evola wished to create.

It is rejected. Because in other cultures sexuality is more normal in the Anglo cultures is a source of shame. It seems many societies like the French one or even Latin America sexuality is part of life but not public like in the Anglo one's. In the Anglo one's you have excessive sexualization and the "promise of sex" but no actual sex.

Sex is separate from Love, its mostly Puritans who think otherwise.

The Christianity that Anglo's follow is their own version Away from the Catholic church who had different ideas. Its an Puritain, aesthetic ideology. Evola on the other hand, has interesting ideas and catchy titles.

Have you guys ever considered that the reason you feel awkward about sex is not because “society is so puritanical” but rather that you instinctively know you are approaching it with bad intentions? Believe it or not I was a sexual liberal once and I hung out with sexually liberal people. The “Puritanism” you complain about doesn’t exist. It’s your own moral compass telling you that what you are doing is wrong.

We live in one of the least “Puritanical” societies on Earth. Our movies promote casual sex, pop, rap, rock, metal, country and EDM music all promote casual sex, porn promotes casual sex, youth/peer cultures promote casual sex, the government promotes casual sex by giving abortions and condoms to any woman who asks for free, even the education system itself promotes casual sex.

There are only two things in society that argue against casual sex, possibly your parents, and the church. Sexual liberals despite all the propaganda everywhere being on their side though insist that we live in some sexually conservative society and furthermore insist that people who are trying to promote love and marriage hate sex.

Once I became sexually conservative and understood that sex is inherently tied to love and that’s the way it should be, it’s a good thing that sex is tied to love, my awkwardness and discomfort went away. The truth is if you pursue sex without love, it doesn’t matter how many people tell you how cool it is, you will always feel wrong going after it. Once you start to appreciate how love and sex really are the same though you won’t feel one bit of guilt anymore. You will feel happy to take care of a girl, you will feel happy to be loyal and monogamous, you will feel happy to raise kids with her, you will want to meet her parents and you will feel confident that they’ll like you.

As weird as it sounds it’s probably because God has blessed you and has a better purpose for you. The truly hopeless are the people who don’t have that instinctive, internal feeling that this is wrong at all. You are a smart guy, with enough guidance I am sure you will figure it out some day.

[ArchibaultNew]

I don't accept the premise that sexuality is rejected in Anglo societies. Whoever you showed that film to is just weird. Sexual liberals are the only people who seem to think that sexuality is demonized by our society. They don't seem to understand that negative attitudes towards sex arise from the behavior of sexual liberals because sexual liberals have no respect for anybody and think that people's anger towards their behavior is the angered person's fault. Because sexual liberals claim to have a monopoly on pro sex attitudes, people associate sex itself with sexual liberalism and thus come to dislike sex because sexual liberals are so determined to act like anybody who doesn't want society to look like a constant orgy is anti-sex.

Why do you assume love is antithetical to sex? Sex is inherently a part of love.

I'm a little bit concerned that you're quoting Evola. I don't know if you're aware of this but he advocated for the destruction of Christianity, said that rape and sadomasochism was okay, and that men should be bred solely for the purpose of warfare. I don't think anybody on the right or the left would enjoy living in the kind of society that Evola wished to create.

It is rejected. Because in other cultures sexuality is more normal in the Anglo cultures is a source of shame. It seems many societies like the French one or even Latin America sexuality is part of life but not public like in the Anglo one's. In the Anglo one's you have excessive sexualization and the "promise of sex" but no actual sex.

Sex is separate from Love, its mostly Puritans who think otherwise.

The Christianity that Anglo's follow is their own version Away from the Catholic church who had different ideas. Its an Puritain, aesthetic ideology. Evola on the other hand, has interesting ideas and catchy titles.

Have you guys ever considered that the reason you feel awkward about sex is not because “society is so puritanical” but rather that you instinctively know you are approaching it with bad intentions? Believe it or not I was a sexual liberal once and I hung out with sexually liberal people. The “Puritanism” you complain about doesn’t exist. It’s your own moral compass telling you that what you are doing is wrong.

We live in one of the least “Puritanical” societies on Earth. Our movies promote casual sex, pop, rap, rock, metal, country and EDM music all promote casual sex, porn promotes casual sex, youth/peer cultures promote casual sex, the government promotes casual sex by giving abortions and condoms to any woman who asks for free, even the education system itself promotes casual sex.

There are only two things in society that argue against casual sex, possibly your parents, and the church. Sexual liberals despite all the propaganda everywhere being on their side though insist that we live in some sexually conservative society and furthermore insist that people who are trying to promote love and marriage hate sex.

Once I became sexually conservative and understood that sex is inherently tied to love and that’s the way it should be, it’s a good thing that sex is tied to love, my awkwardness and discomfort went away. The truth is if you pursue sex without love, it doesn’t matter how many people tell you how cool it is, you will always feel wrong going after it. Once you start to appreciate how love and sex really are the same though you won’t feel one bit of guilt anymore. You will feel happy to take care of a girl, you will feel happy to be loyal and monogamous, you will feel happy to raise kids with her, you will want to meet her parents and you will feel confident that they’ll like you.

As weird as it sounds it’s probably because God has blessed you and has a better purpose for you. The truly hopeless are the people who don’t have that instinctive, internal feeling that this is wrong at all. You are a smart guy, with enough guidance I am sure you will figure it out some day.

This is what Lucas brought out. Just because there's some liberalism despite having so much repression doesn't mean that its a liberal state. Many countries around the world like Colombia also do those things yet you don't see guys fearing for themselves there. Imagine someone goes to Colombia and have sex with a girl. They will probably be just fine. If you do that in America and the Anglosphere you always have the lingering thought that you can get accused of doing harm, of not having consent or of a multiple of other things. How can given that system you or anyone can say we live in a "liberal" or "libertine" society. Look at France you can say a girl is "pretty' and be fine. If you do that in America or Anglosphere you are a "creep". Many guys fear not because causal sex is shameful that's a puritan mindset, they fear because the "progressive" law against them and they can easily get in trouble, look at Johnny Depp.

Honestly, I feel you just accepted that unless you are married you won't get sex. I don't think that's uncommon. Its actually very common especially in America. Where many guys give up and say the only way for them to gain sex is to marry a woman. Yet many of these women have tons of sexual and relationship experience. Hence, these guys they are at disadvantage. I knew a guy he got married to have sex, his wife who had tons of sexual and relationship experience divorced him and now he has to pay alimony. It's not as uncommon as you think. The real solution is to move abroad, gain experience either through hookers or through casual sex and then find a more conservative woman to settle down if that's your or other's preference.

[MrMan]

Once I became sexually conservative and understood that sex is inherently tied to love and that’s the way it should be, it’s a good thing that sex is tied to love, my awkwardness and discomfort went away. The truth is if you pursue sex without love, it doesn’t matter how many people tell you how cool it is, you will always feel wrong going after it. Once you start to appreciate how love and sex really are the same though you won’t feel one bit of guilt anymore. You will feel happy to take care of a girl, you will feel happy to be loyal and monogamous, you will feel happy to raise kids with her, you will want to meet her parents and you will feel confident that they’ll like you.

As weird as it sounds it’s probably because God has blessed you and has a better purpose for you. The truly hopeless are the people who don’t have that instinctive, internal feeling that this is wrong at all. You are a smart guy, with enough guidance I am sure you will figure it out some day.

I'd say 'sex tied to love' can still be liberal. Sex is to be had in marriage. One could develop strong feelings for a married woman, but if he commits adultery, that's still grossly immoral. There have been cases where a brother and sister, separated at birth, or even mother and son, met, fell in love, and had sex. The feelings didn't make it right.

Homosexuals might have strong feelings for each other. That doesn't make the sex moral, either.

[Outcast9428]

I don't accept the premise that sexuality is rejected in Anglo societies. Whoever you showed that film to is just weird. Sexual liberals are the only people who seem to think that sexuality is demonized by our society. They don't seem to understand that negative attitudes towards sex arise from the behavior of sexual liberals because sexual liberals have no respect for anybody and think that people's anger towards their behavior is the angered person's fault. Because sexual liberals claim to have a monopoly on pro sex attitudes, people associate sex itself with sexual liberalism and thus come to dislike sex because sexual liberals are so determined to act like anybody who doesn't want society to look like a constant orgy is anti-sex.

Why do you assume love is antithetical to sex? Sex is inherently a part of love.

I'm a little bit concerned that you're quoting Evola. I don't know if you're aware of this but he advocated for the destruction of Christianity, said that rape and sadomasochism was okay, and that men should be bred solely for the purpose of warfare. I don't think anybody on the right or the left would enjoy living in the kind of society that Evola wished to create.

It is rejected. Because in other cultures sexuality is more normal in the Anglo cultures is a source of shame. It seems many societies like the French one or even Latin America sexuality is part of life but not public like in the Anglo one's. In the Anglo one's you have excessive sexualization and the "promise of sex" but no actual sex.

Sex is separate from Love, its mostly Puritans who think otherwise.

The Christianity that Anglo's follow is their own version Away from the Catholic church who had different ideas. Its an Puritain, aesthetic ideology. Evola on the other hand, has interesting ideas and catchy titles.

Have you guys ever considered that the reason you feel awkward about sex is not because “society is so puritanical” but rather that you instinctively know you are approaching it with bad intentions? Believe it or not I was a sexual liberal once and I hung out with sexually liberal people. The “Puritanism” you complain about doesn’t exist. It’s your own moral compass telling you that what you are doing is wrong.

We live in one of the least “Puritanical” societies on Earth. Our movies promote casual sex, pop, rap, rock, metal, country and EDM music all promote casual sex, porn promotes casual sex, youth/peer cultures promote casual sex, the government promotes casual sex by giving abortions and condoms to any woman who asks for free, even the education system itself promotes casual sex.

There are only two things in society that argue against casual sex, possibly your parents, and the church. Sexual liberals despite all the propaganda everywhere being on their side though insist that we live in some sexually conservative society and furthermore insist that people who are trying to promote love and marriage hate sex.

Once I became sexually conservative and understood that sex is inherently tied to love and that’s the way it should be, it’s a good thing that sex is tied to love, my awkwardness and discomfort went away. The truth is if you pursue sex without love, it doesn’t matter how many people tell you how cool it is, you will always feel wrong going after it. Once you start to appreciate how love and sex really are the same though you won’t feel one bit of guilt anymore. You will feel happy to take care of a girl, you will feel happy to be loyal and monogamous, you will feel happy to raise kids with her, you will want to meet her parents and you will feel confident that they’ll like you.

As weird as it sounds it’s probably because God has blessed you and has a better purpose for you. The truly hopeless are the people who don’t have that instinctive, internal feeling that this is wrong at all. You are a smart guy, with enough guidance I am sure you will figure it out some day.

This is what Lucas brought out. Just because there's some liberalism despite having so much repression doesn't mean that its a liberal state. Many countries around the world like Colombia also do those things yet you don't see guys fearing for themselves there. Imagine someone goes to Colombia and have sex with a girl. They will probably be just fine. If you do that in America and the Anglosphere you always have the lingering thought that you can get accused of doing harm, of not having consent or of a multiple of other things. How can given that system you or anyone can say we live in a "liberal" or "libertine" society. Look at France you can say a girl is "pretty' and be fine. If you do that in America or Anglosphere you are a "creep". Many guys fear not because causal sex is shameful that's a puritan mindset, they fear because the "progressive" law against them and they can easily get in trouble, look at Johnny Depp.

Honestly, I feel you just accepted that unless you are married you won't get sex. I don't think that's uncommon. Its actually very common especially in America. Where many guys give up and say the only way for them to gain sex is to marry a woman. Yet many of these women have tons of sexual and relationship experience. Hence, these guys they are at disadvantage. I knew a guy he got married to have sex, his wife who had tons of sexual and relationship experience divorced him and now he has to pay alimony. It's not as uncommon as you think. The real solution is to move abroad, gain experience either through hookers or through casual sex and then find a more conservative woman to settle down if that's your or other's preference.

I actually have been to prostitutes quite a bit and I do not oppose prostitution being legal. Even a lot of the most hardcore, socially conservative societies in history like Medieval Europe, Japan during its entire history, and India have had legal prostitution. I don't really consider prostitution to be casual sex or a hookup unless somebody is using it for the specific purpose of avoiding love and marriage. I just view it as fulfilling a need. The only traditional civilizations that have consistently banned prostitution were the Middle Eastern ones. For most of Europe's history, however, it was legal, and in East Asia it has always been and still is legal or widely tolerated. Trying to get East Asians not to go to prostitutes would be like trying to get Europeans not to drink alcohol . Prostitution is particularly baked into Asian culture compared to other regions of the world.

The sexual need aspect is one reason why prostitution is not criminalized, but the other reason why is because prostitution, unlike hookup culture, does not threaten monogamous, traditional relationships. Most women will never be prostitutes. Even in Thailand, only about 20% or 25% of the women there have ever been paid for sex. 50% of the women in Thailand actually marry as virgins. Hookup culture on the other hand, encourages everybody to be promiscuous. It even encourages people to put off marriage until they're like 30 years old just for the sake of sleeping around. In practice, this results in 20% of men having constant access to promiscuous sex, another 20% of men having occasional access, and 60% of men having no access whereas with women, all of them have access to promiscuous sex. Not all of them choose to, but all of them can. And this means your traditional wife can always choose to hookup with someone. The only thing protecting you from getting cheated on is her choice not to. If she's a traditional woman, usually her choice not to is enough. But the fact that hookup culture is so widespread, normalized, and available means that society will always be trying to tempt her into it.

This is a horrible climate for love and relationships. Even normies I've talked to agree that hookup culture has made finding love a lot more difficult. For some reason they never make the connection that perhaps hookup culture should be eliminated because of this, but its undeniable that hookup culture has made creating a stable marriage a lot more difficult and risky. Prostitution on the other hand, actually strengthens the environment for marriages because young horny men aren't encouraged to try and seduce your wife/girlfriend. If they're horny they'll just go to a prostitute.

But I have also been in love and experienced sex that way and can testify that it is 10x superior to the experience of going to a prostitute. In societies like Medieval Europe, Japan, and India, prostitution is there if you don't have a wife or can't take care of a woman yet. However, Anglo men seem to view it as a paid form of hooking up. Its not supposed to be there to discourage you from finding love and a wife. That's the ultimate goal. Its there to keep you sane until you can find a wife.

[Lucas88]

I don't accept the premise that sexuality is rejected in Anglo societies. Whoever you showed that film to is just weird. Sexual liberals are the only people who seem to think that sexuality is demonized by our society. They don't seem to understand that negative attitudes towards sex arise from the behavior of sexual liberals because sexual liberals have no respect for anybody and think that people's anger towards their behavior is the angered person's fault. Because sexual liberals claim to have a monopoly on pro sex attitudes, people associate sex itself with sexual liberalism and thus come to dislike sex because sexual liberals are so determined to act like anybody who doesn't want society to look like a constant orgy is anti-sex.

Why do you assume love is antithetical to sex? Sex is inherently a part of love.

I'm a little bit concerned that you're quoting Evola. I don't know if you're aware of this but he advocated for the destruction of Christianity, said that rape and sadomasochism was okay, and that men should be bred solely for the purpose of warfare. I don't think anybody on the right or the left would enjoy living in the kind of society that Evola wished to create.

It is rejected. Because in other cultures sexuality is more normal in the Anglo cultures is a source of shame. It seems many societies like the French one or even Latin America sexuality is part of life but not public like in the Anglo one's. In the Anglo one's you have excessive sexualization and the "promise of sex" but no actual sex.

Sex is separate from Love, its mostly Puritans who think otherwise.

The Christianity that Anglo's follow is their own version Away from the Catholic church who had different ideas. Its an Puritain, aesthetic ideology. Evola on the other hand, has interesting ideas and catchy titles.

Have you guys ever considered that the reason you feel awkward about sex is not because “society is so puritanical” but rather that you instinctively know you are approaching it with bad intentions? Believe it or not I was a sexual liberal once and I hung out with sexually liberal people. The “Puritanism” you complain about doesn’t exist. It’s your own moral compass telling you that what you are doing is wrong.

We live in one of the least “Puritanical” societies on Earth. Our movies promote casual sex, pop, rap, rock, metal, country and EDM music all promote casual sex, porn promotes casual sex, youth/peer cultures promote casual sex, the government promotes casual sex by giving abortions and condoms to any woman who asks for free, even the education system itself promotes casual sex.

There are only two things in society that argue against casual sex, possibly your parents, and the church. Sexual liberals despite all the propaganda everywhere being on their side though insist that we live in some sexually conservative society and furthermore insist that people who are trying to promote love and marriage hate sex.

Once I became sexually conservative and understood that sex is inherently tied to love and that’s the way it should be, it’s a good thing that sex is tied to love, my awkwardness and discomfort went away. The truth is if you pursue sex without love, it doesn’t matter how many people tell you how cool it is, you will always feel wrong going after it. Once you start to appreciate how love and sex really are the same though you won’t feel one bit of guilt anymore. You will feel happy to take care of a girl, you will feel happy to be loyal and monogamous, you will feel happy to raise kids with her, you will want to meet her parents and you will feel confident that they’ll like you.

As weird as it sounds it’s probably because God has blessed you and has a better purpose for you. The truly hopeless are the people who don’t have that instinctive, internal feeling that this is wrong at all. You are a smart guy, with enough guidance I am sure you will figure it out some day.

This is what Lucas brought out. Just because there's some liberalism despite having so much repression doesn't mean that its a liberal state. Many countries around the world like Colombia also do those things yet you don't see guys fearing for themselves there. Imagine someone goes to Colombia and have sex with a girl. They will probably be just fine. If you do that in America and the Anglosphere you always have the lingering thought that you can get accused of doing harm, of not having consent or of a multiple of other things. How can given that system you or anyone can say we live in a "liberal" or "libertine" society. Look at France you can say a girl is "pretty' and be fine. If you do that in America or Anglosphere you are a "creep". Many guys fear not because causal sex is shameful that's a puritan mindset, they fear because the "progressive" law against them and they can easily get in trouble, look at Johnny Depp.

Honestly, I feel you just accepted that unless you are married you won't get sex. I don't think that's uncommon. Its actually very common especially in America. Where many guys give up and say the only way for them to gain sex is to marry a woman. Yet many of these women have tons of sexual and relationship experience. Hence, these guys they are at disadvantage. I knew a guy he got married to have sex, his wife who had tons of sexual and relationship experience divorced him and now he has to pay alimony. It's not as uncommon as you think. The real solution is to move abroad, gain experience either through hookers or through casual sex and then find a more conservative woman to settle down if that's your or other's preference.

I get the feeling that @Outcast9428 doesn't understand the nuances pertaining to our observation of the Anglosphere and its puritanism. I think Outcast just sees loads of sexual promiscuity around him and therefore concludes that the Anglo mindset cannot be puritanical but in doing he completely misses the point.

You see, @Outcast9428, Archibault and I don't argue that Anglo people necessarily have a problem with sex. Sex is part of human nature and many people in Anglo societies are evidently promiscuous and even like to show it off for the world to see. That is undeniable.

What Archibault and I are really saying is that historically the form of Protestantism which Anglo societies adopted was characterized by much puritanism and that the mindset which it promoted included a strong division between "winners" and "losers" with economic success as its defining factor (see "puritan work ethic" and Calvinist predestination) and sought to limit sex and female companionship to exclusively the economically productive with puritan morality as merely the excuse. This cultural ideal served to delegitimize free sex, raise the price of sex for men and then demand greater levels of self-sacrifice and industriousness from the male population. It was all part of a program of social engineering on the part of the industrial elite (i.e., religion was exploited to serve economic ends).

Obviously today society has become much more secular and sexual liberalism is now promoted on the surface but what has really happened is that those same puritan-inspired ideas concerning winners and losers and sexual access being reserved only for the worthiest and most economically productive men continue to be practiced in a secularized form. Because of this vestige of the old Anglo puritan mindset Anglo women still hold onto the same notion of most men not being worthy enough for them, that men have to work hard for their approval and to get the "prize", that ordinary men who don't fulfill society's high standards of what it means to be a winner are "creeps" (very puritan indeed) and should remain sexless, etc. This is all the same shit.

I perceive "sexual liberation" in the Anglosphere more as a feminist talking point. What is usually meant by sexual liberation is that women should be allowed to slut around as much as they like with high-tier males without judgment or social consequences. But what about ordinary guys? There's no inclusion of them in this concept; rather the same old puritan-inspired mindset of ordinary guys as creeps and servants who must make a great deal of sacrifice in order to be considered worthy of sex with the liberated and independent modern woman still applies. Indeed, Anglo feminism itself has always been extremely puritanical with regard to male sexuality. It has always promoted sluttiness and unbridled sexuality for women and sexlessness and sexual shaming for men. Feminism is just another layer on top of the original anti-male puritanism of yesteryear.

Outcast, it is nothing like this in non-Protestant societies such as Southern Europe and Latin America. In those regions, which have incidentally received the same sexual liberalism that we have, there is no desire to create a male underclass considered unworthy of sexual access nor is there any widespread movement to demonize male sexuality or disenfranchise men from dating. Men are rarely shamed for our sexual interest in women. Flirting is considered normal. You can tell a girl that you think that she's hot without being shamed or called a creep. Moreover, prostitution is socially acceptable. Paying for sex is seen as men taking care of our natural needs and not as something dirty or for losers. It is much easier for men to get sex in these cultures. Not even feminists are hellbent on opposing male sexuality.

The Anglosphere is totally rotten for men precisely because of this vestigial puritan-inspired mindset which today has become mixed with feminism and ideas of (female) sexual liberation. The situation is very nuanced but becomes easy to understand once it is studied from a historical perspective.

[Outcast9428]

I don't accept the premise that sexuality is rejected in Anglo societies. Whoever you showed that film to is just weird. Sexual liberals are the only people who seem to think that sexuality is demonized by our society. They don't seem to understand that negative attitudes towards sex arise from the behavior of sexual liberals because sexual liberals have no respect for anybody and think that people's anger towards their behavior is the angered person's fault. Because sexual liberals claim to have a monopoly on pro sex attitudes, people associate sex itself with sexual liberalism and thus come to dislike sex because sexual liberals are so determined to act like anybody who doesn't want society to look like a constant orgy is anti-sex.

Why do you assume love is antithetical to sex? Sex is inherently a part of love.

I'm a little bit concerned that you're quoting Evola. I don't know if you're aware of this but he advocated for the destruction of Christianity, said that rape and sadomasochism was okay, and that men should be bred solely for the purpose of warfare. I don't think anybody on the right or the left would enjoy living in the kind of society that Evola wished to create.

It is rejected. Because in other cultures sexuality is more normal in the Anglo cultures is a source of shame. It seems many societies like the French one or even Latin America sexuality is part of life but not public like in the Anglo one's. In the Anglo one's you have excessive sexualization and the "promise of sex" but no actual sex.

Sex is separate from Love, its mostly Puritans who think otherwise.

The Christianity that Anglo's follow is their own version Away from the Catholic church who had different ideas. Its an Puritain, aesthetic ideology. Evola on the other hand, has interesting ideas and catchy titles.

Have you guys ever considered that the reason you feel awkward about sex is not because “society is so puritanical” but rather that you instinctively know you are approaching it with bad intentions? Believe it or not I was a sexual liberal once and I hung out with sexually liberal people. The “Puritanism” you complain about doesn’t exist. It’s your own moral compass telling you that what you are doing is wrong.

We live in one of the least “Puritanical” societies on Earth. Our movies promote casual sex, pop, rap, rock, metal, country and EDM music all promote casual sex, porn promotes casual sex, youth/peer cultures promote casual sex, the government promotes casual sex by giving abortions and condoms to any woman who asks for free, even the education system itself promotes casual sex.

There are only two things in society that argue against casual sex, possibly your parents, and the church. Sexual liberals despite all the propaganda everywhere being on their side though insist that we live in some sexually conservative society and furthermore insist that people who are trying to promote love and marriage hate sex.

Once I became sexually conservative and understood that sex is inherently tied to love and that’s the way it should be, it’s a good thing that sex is tied to love, my awkwardness and discomfort went away. The truth is if you pursue sex without love, it doesn’t matter how many people tell you how cool it is, you will always feel wrong going after it. Once you start to appreciate how love and sex really are the same though you won’t feel one bit of guilt anymore. You will feel happy to take care of a girl, you will feel happy to be loyal and monogamous, you will feel happy to raise kids with her, you will want to meet her parents and you will feel confident that they’ll like you.

As weird as it sounds it’s probably because God has blessed you and has a better purpose for you. The truly hopeless are the people who don’t have that instinctive, internal feeling that this is wrong at all. You are a smart guy, with enough guidance I am sure you will figure it out some day.

This is what Lucas brought out. Just because there's some liberalism despite having so much repression doesn't mean that its a liberal state. Many countries around the world like Colombia also do those things yet you don't see guys fearing for themselves there. Imagine someone goes to Colombia and have sex with a girl. They will probably be just fine. If you do that in America and the Anglosphere you always have the lingering thought that you can get accused of doing harm, of not having consent or of a multiple of other things. How can given that system you or anyone can say we live in a "liberal" or "libertine" society. Look at France you can say a girl is "pretty' and be fine. If you do that in America or Anglosphere you are a "creep". Many guys fear not because causal sex is shameful that's a puritan mindset, they fear because the "progressive" law against them and they can easily get in trouble, look at Johnny Depp.

Honestly, I feel you just accepted that unless you are married you won't get sex. I don't think that's uncommon. Its actually very common especially in America. Where many guys give up and say the only way for them to gain sex is to marry a woman. Yet many of these women have tons of sexual and relationship experience. Hence, these guys they are at disadvantage. I knew a guy he got married to have sex, his wife who had tons of sexual and relationship experience divorced him and now he has to pay alimony. It's not as uncommon as you think. The real solution is to move abroad, gain experience either through hookers or through casual sex and then find a more conservative woman to settle down if that's your or other's preference.

I get the feeling that @Outcast9428 doesn't understand the nuances pertaining to our observation of the Anglosphere and its puritanism. I think Outcast just sees loads of sexual promiscuity around him and therefore concludes that the Anglo mindset cannot be puritanical but in doing he completely misses the point.

You see, @Outcast9428, Archibault and I don't argue that Anglo people necessarily have a problem with sex. Sex is part of human nature and many people in Anglo societies are evidently promiscuous and even like to show it off for the world to see. That is undeniable.

What Archibault and I are really saying is that historically the form of Protestantism which Anglo societies adopted was characterized by much puritanism and that the mindset which it promoted included a strong division between "winners" and "losers" with economic success as its defining factor (see "puritan work ethic" and Calvinist predestination) and sought to limit sex and female companionship to exclusively the economically productive with puritan morality as merely the excuse. This cultural ideal served to delegitimize free sex, raise the price of sex for men and then demand greater levels of self-sacrifice and industriousness from the male population. It was all part of a program of social engineering on the part of the industrial elite (i.e., religion was exploited to serve economic ends).

Obviously today society has become much more secular and sexual liberalism is now promoted on the surface but what has really happened is that those same puritan-inspired ideas concerning winners and losers and sexual access being reserved only for the worthiest and most economically productive men continue to be practiced in a secularized form. Because of this vestige of the old Anglo puritan mindset Anglo women still hold onto the same notion of most men not being worthy enough for them, that men have to work hard for their approval and to get the "prize", that ordinary men who don't fulfill society's high standards of what it means to be a winner are "creeps" (very puritan indeed) and should remain sexless, etc. This is all the same shit.

I perceive "sexual liberation" in the Anglosphere more as a feminist talking point. What is usually meant by sexual liberation is that women should be allowed to slut around as much as they like with high-tier males without judgment or social consequences. But what about ordinary guys? There's no inclusion of them in this concept; rather the same old puritan-inspired mindset of ordinary guys as creeps and servants who must make a great deal of sacrifice in order to be considered worthy of sex with the liberated and independent modern woman still applies. Indeed, Anglo feminism itself has always been extremely puritanical with regard to male sexuality. It has always promoted sluttiness and unbridled sexuality for women and sexlessness and sexual shaming for men. Feminism is just another layer on top of the original anti-male puritanism of yesteryear.

Outcast, it is nothing like this in non-Protestant societies such as Southern Europe and Latin America. In those regions, which have incidentally received the same sexual liberalism that we have, there is no desire to create a male underclass considered unworthy of sexual access nor is there any widespread movement to demonize male sexuality or disenfranchise men from dating. Men are rarely shamed for our sexual interest in women. Flirting is considered normal. You can tell a girl that you think that she's hot without being shamed or called a creep. Moreover, prostitution is socially acceptable. Paying for sex is seen as men taking care of our natural needs and not as something dirty or for losers. It is much easier for men to get sex in these cultures. Not even feminists are hellbent on opposing male sexuality.

The Anglosphere is totally rotten for men precisely because of this vestigial puritan-inspired mindset which today has become mixed with feminism and ideas of (female) sexual liberation. The situation is very nuanced but becomes easy to understand once it is studied from a historical perspective.

Puritanical societies don’t have winners and losers when it comes to sex though because monogamy was enforced so you have one woman for every man. Your economic productivity would have determined the quality of the wife you got but nobody was excluded entirely. I guarantee you there are more people getting excluded in South America then there were in legitimate puritanical societies because if you have enforced monogamy + arranged marriage practices… Then marriage is universal and nobody is left out. At that point what kind of wife you can get depends on how virtuous your personal conduct is, how smart you are and how successful you are.

If you really are concerned about the male underclass and eliminating the whole winners and losers dynamic with regards to sex I don’t see how you could be opposed to this and continue advocating for hookup/seduction culture. Hookup culture will always have losers because it inherently turns sex into a game and competition whereas marriage in a puritanical society is literally considered to be a right which you are entitled to have an opportunity for. And once you are married she can’t divorce you and steal half your stuff and while we can’t stop all adultery, at least it is criminalized and harshly stigmatized.

[Lucas88]

Puritanical societies don’t have winners and losers when it comes to sex though because monogamy was enforced so you have one woman for every man. Your economic productivity would have determined the quality of the wife you got but nobody was excluded entirely. I guarantee you there are more people getting excluded in South America then there were in legitimate puritanical societies because if you have enforced monogamy + arranged marriage practices… Then marriage is universal and nobody is left out. At that point what kind of wife you can get depends on how virtuous your personal conduct is, how smart you are and how successful you are.

If you really are concerned about the male underclass and eliminating the whole winners and losers dynamic with regards to sex I don’t see how you could be opposed to this and continue advocating for hookup/seduction culture. Hookup culture will always have losers because it inherently turns sex into a game and competition whereas marriage in a puritanical society is literally considered to be a right which you are entitled to have an opportunity for. And once you are married she can’t divorce you and steal half your stuff and while we can’t stop all adultery, at least it is criminalized and harshly stigmatized.

It seems like you are advocating an idealized form of "puritan" society based on how you would like society to be. This is the source of the misunderstanding between yourself on one side and Archibault and myself on the other.

My intention on the other hand is not to envision an ideal society. I simply seek to find explanations for how Anglo societies have become as unfavorable as they are for the average male who seeks sex and female companionship, and my research has led me to the conclusion that the breed of puritanism which the Anglosphere adopted (the actual historical puritan ethos which really existed in England and elsewhere, and not just some idealized notion of what puritanism is supposed to be) contributed greatly to the scarcification of sexual access for ordinary men and was therefore a major problem even before the arrival of feminism and the "sexual revolution".

I don't advocate hookup or seduction culture. I'm not a MGTOW either. I am simply indifferent to Anglo society and wish to leave for Spain or Latin America and find a Latina.

[Outcast9428]

Puritanical societies don’t have winners and losers when it comes to sex though because monogamy was enforced so you have one woman for every man. Your economic productivity would have determined the quality of the wife you got but nobody was excluded entirely. I guarantee you there are more people getting excluded in South America then there were in legitimate puritanical societies because if you have enforced monogamy + arranged marriage practices… Then marriage is universal and nobody is left out. At that point what kind of wife you can get depends on how virtuous your personal conduct is, how smart you are and how successful you are.

If you really are concerned about the male underclass and eliminating the whole winners and losers dynamic with regards to sex I don’t see how you could be opposed to this and continue advocating for hookup/seduction culture. Hookup culture will always have losers because it inherently turns sex into a game and competition whereas marriage in a puritanical society is literally considered to be a right which you are entitled to have an opportunity for. And once you are married she can’t divorce you and steal half your stuff and while we can’t stop all adultery, at least it is criminalized and harshly stigmatized.

It seems like you are advocating an idealized form of "puritan" society based on how you would like society to be. This is the source of the misunderstanding between yourself on one side and Archibault and myself on the other.

My intention on the other hand is not to envision an ideal society. I simply seek to find explanations for how Anglo societies have become as unfavorable as they are for the average male who seeks sex and female companionship, and my research has led me to the conclusion that the breed of puritanism which the Anglosphere adopted (the actual historical puritan ethos which really existed in England and elsewhere, and not just some idealized notion of what puritanism is supposed to be) contributed greatly to the scarcification of sexual access for ordinary men and was therefore a major problem even before the arrival of feminism and the "sexual revolution".

I don't advocate hookup or seduction culture. I'm not a MGTOW either. I am simply indifferent to Anglo society and wish to leave for Spain or Latin America and find a Latina.

It’s not just idealized… Think about it. How can you have winners and losers when it comes to relationships and having girls if monogamy is enforced and nearly the entire population gets married? That’s how it was for the last 1,000 years up until the sexual revolution.

The phenomenon you complain about is a product of sexual liberalism. Sexual liberalism makes sex into a competition instead of something you simply do with the woman you love.

[Jonny Law]

I had the opportunity to study Spanish, French, Portuguese and German, even Polish culture and other cultures.

My observation has been that only in the Anglo-Societies there's a clear misandry against straight men. Anything a man does can be interpreted as weird, creepy, "gross" or "try hard" as Italian thinker Evola said, it seems that in Anglo societies men and women have a very poor relationship. There's low tolerance for sex. Anyone wanting to have sex, especially men are seen as weirdos. It wrong to like sex or want it.

Meanwhile, homosexuals and homosexuality is readily accepted and even encouraged. To many people around the world this might seen bizarre. Why is it that former deeply religious people as soon as they stopped being religious turn to homosexuality as their way of "liberalism" ? I remember an interview with a ex-lesbian from the Midwest who said she was deeply religious, but hated men. As soon as she stopped being religious she then turned to homosexuality as her 'outlet." However, as soon as once she found "religion again" she left the homosexual community. In my opinion in the Anglo world people identify with others of their same sex much more than with those of the opposite sex.

Many Anglo's who I talked to always assume that "Sexual Liberalism=Homosexuality." For instance, a friend found it bizarre when I showed him a movie of a guy who hooks up with multiple women. Yet there's ZERO homosexual content nor homosexual acts. Hence, he was puzzled. In fact, there's some cultures where it means men having affairs with multiple women and being players and some visiting brothels. It doesn't carry the same "homosexual connotation" in the Anglo-Cultures.

As some thinker say it seems homosexuals, minorities are "voting blocks" and "political agents" for the left around the world and especially in America and the Anglosphere.

The desexualization of homosexuals and the creation of the 'homosexual identity' was the way that gay marriage was legalized. I remember, that left wing politicians sold it as "love" between two people of the same sex. They completely downplayed the sexual element. Similarly when an Anglo married Pocahotas he also did it with "Love" as the justification as opposed to sex. 'Lust" is always bad in the Anglo societies.

Question: Why are homosexuals accepted?

Answer: More p***y (aka vagina) for the hetros.

[Lucas88]

It’s not just idealized… Think about it. How can you have winners and losers when it comes to relationships and having girls if monogamy is enforced and nearly the entire population gets married? That’s how it was for the last 1,000 years up until the sexual revolution.

The phenomenon you complain about is a product of sexual liberalism. Sexual liberalism makes sex into a competition instead of something you simply do with the woman you love.

The same sexual liberalism exists in many non-Anglophone regions such as Southern Europe and Latin America too but in those places relations between men and women are nowhere near as strained, male sexuality isn't demonized and it is much easier for an ordinary guy to get sex and female companionship. Why is this, Outcast?

You need to come up with an explanation for this cultural difference if you want your theory to make sense.

There is definitely some other peculiarity of the Anglosphere rather then simply sexual liberalism which, as I've already mentioned, is prevalent almost everywhere else. I've proposed as an explanation vestiges of the puritan ethos of centuries past. Others have come to the same conclusion that Anglo societies have a vestigial puritan streak which is hostile to male sexuality (but not necessarily to female sexuality since the effeminate Anglosphere has always been characterized by woman worship). Hell, even foreigners from places like France make fun of Anglos for their societies' strange attitudes towards sexuality and the awkward relations between men and women.

But it seems like you could never accept the possibility that maybe the historical puritan ethos could be part of the problem since that would go against your own ideological commitments, right?

[ArchibaultNew]

I had the opportunity to study Spanish, French, Portuguese and German, even Polish culture and other cultures.

My observation has been that only in the Anglo-Societies there's a clear misandry against straight men. Anything a man does can be interpreted as weird, creepy, "gross" or "try hard" as Italian thinker Evola said, it seems that in Anglo societies men and women have a very poor relationship. There's low tolerance for sex. Anyone wanting to have sex, especially men are seen as weirdos. It wrong to like sex or want it.

Meanwhile, homosexuals and homosexuality is readily accepted and even encouraged. To many people around the world this might seen bizarre. Why is it that former deeply religious people as soon as they stopped being religious turn to homosexuality as their way of "liberalism" ? I remember an interview with a ex-lesbian from the Midwest who said she was deeply religious, but hated men. As soon as she stopped being religious she then turned to homosexuality as her 'outlet." However, as soon as once she found "religion again" she left the homosexual community. In my opinion in the Anglo world people identify with others of their same sex much more than with those of the opposite sex.

Many Anglo's who I talked to always assume that "Sexual Liberalism=Homosexuality." For instance, a friend found it bizarre when I showed him a movie of a guy who hooks up with multiple women. Yet there's ZERO homosexual content nor homosexual acts. Hence, he was puzzled. In fact, there's some cultures where it means men having affairs with multiple women and being players and some visiting brothels. It doesn't carry the same "homosexual connotation" in the Anglo-Cultures.

As some thinker say it seems homosexuals, minorities are "voting blocks" and "political agents" for the left around the world and especially in America and the Anglosphere.

The desexualization of homosexuals and the creation of the 'homosexual identity' was the way that gay marriage was legalized. I remember, that left wing politicians sold it as "love" between two people of the same sex. They completely downplayed the sexual element. Similarly when an Anglo married Pocahotas he also did it with "Love" as the justification as opposed to sex. 'Lust" is always bad in the Anglo societies.

Question: Why are homosexuals accepted?

Answer: More p***y (aka vagina) for the hetros.

The would be in an ideal society. However, in the actual society what happens is the the women turn lesbians and don't want anything to do with the men.

[ArchibaultNew]

@Lucas88 @Outcast9428

Both of you guys are right. Mixing both of your theories actually tells the whole story.

Anglo society has always been female worship, low key anti-male and winners/losers.

However, it seems that in a "Traditional" Anglo Society there were winners and losers. The guys compete for the hottest girl. Despite this, if you are a "loser' they would give you a "Consolidation prize" In that you get to get married and have a wife despite this. Its for the whole life since divorce was way harder. She might not be the most attractive but at least you get a wife. Hence, you see many Anglos put a lot of effort and hardwork. Since they know they have their wife, house and dog. Other societies though don't idealize sex to that great extend and you don't have to get married to have sex, you can visit a prostitute..etc. While, many Anglo guys would get married to have sex.

This "agreement" all came to an end with the "Sexual Liberalism" I actually would call it "Female Hypergamy" as opposed to "liberalism" in which priority is given to women's choices and decisions. The whole 'no fault divorce" and "alimony" come to mind. So in Anglo "Hypergamy" society if you are a "loser" you get nothing. Because since women are given the choice many of them choose to be single over marrying a "loser" or they marry him and quickly divorce him. Hence, you see the whole, 'Cat lady" phenomenon. Instead of siding with its own men Anglo Society will tell you, "Well, you are not good enough" that's it.

This actually is a problem hence the whole "Manosphere" groups and movement. If the problem didn't exist them most of us would not be here having this discussion. Alexander Grace, the Australian, thinker actually thought that in the long run this will have a negative effect on Anglo societies. You just can't have a society where a lot of men are "unattached" Moreover, its not that they are "unattached" and have an outlet like Japan where they can simply walk to their nearest massage parlor.